Clothing and Class War

[jbeegoode]

So, I read this book, "White Trash: The 400 Year old History of Class in America" by Nancy Isenberg. Being me, I had to dig into clothing and lack of it relating to the class thing and history. Here is the article, now open for discussion:

https://thefreerangenaturist.org/2024/10/25/clothing-and-class-war/#more-16499

Jbee



 

[nuduke]

Phew!  What a heavy topic.  I started to read this blog post word for word but by the end I was skimming because of the sheer scope of what I was reading.  Well done in your attempt to encapsulate a HUGE topic and range of knotty sociological stuff in one article.  I'll have to return and read it properly when I have a bit more time.
One observation, though:  You talk about social stratification arising from principally European imperialism.  Whilst the effects of European imperialism on styles of dress and the use of clothing for social messaging is undeniable, is it not the case that this has been a factor through the ages not just the relatively short era of a few centuries European colonisation of large swathes of the world.  I'm thinking of the Ancient Egyptians with their royal regalias, the robes of the wealthy and the plain kilts of the workers all depicted in the huge archive of their preserved legacy of paintings and hieroglyphics.  The other example that comes to mind is the ancient romans with their togas and royal purple robes for the emperor and senate vs the lowly tunic of slaves and farmers.  The silks and brocades and armour f the gentry in the middle ages versus the rough clothing of the serfs that worked the land and hewed the woodland. And this article on the impressive styles of African royal attire indicated the African influences of the same. [size=78%]Understanding the Regal Attire of Ancient African Dynasties[/size]
So I am tempted to conclude that, despite your erudite protestations, Jbee, try as we might to justify our preference for nakedness as the highest common factor and an objective to be attained by all, that in fact the use of clothing whether practical, ceremonial or to emphasise social divisions, is so deeply engrained in the human psyche worldwide that in fact it is as equally natural as nakedness.  And if human society were suddenly erased and everyone was back in the garden of Eden, as innocent as the day we were born, that the innate tendency to clothe ourselves and eventually use different styles as a sign of social stratification would naturally arise and proliferate.
I'm really sorry to have to introduce a reply which is effectively validating the thing we hate most - clothing and indeed clothing for more than just the basic protection from cold and injury.  But your article does prompt the thinking about why the very universality exists of the thing you are reacting against. 
Whilst the above is based on an incomplete reading of your article, is it a fair critique?   
John

[jbeegoode]

I addressed and surrendered in my own perspectives somewhat as you are mentioning, but toward the end of the writing. I recognized that there is that human tendency. It wraps up in keeping a state of mind which diminishes the influence of clothing and being aware of it for what it essentially is, and so not fooling oneself that the clothes make the man. Just being in this personal and social awareness of the games, will expose the games, as well as the body and these two go hand in hand and may be reversed hand in hand. Be naked, and this washes off the habits of domination to a great extent.

The Egyptians were pretty nude, but for accessories and headgear. They may be the least culpable, but I can't think of an example of larger civilization that didn't use clothing and uniformity and conformity...agreed there, I think.

The book was Ameri-centric where the Empires of Europe influenced this continent, but I'm figuring that it was this colonization period that messed up things for naked peoples all over the world during that time. Yup others, infected with the same influences, but in the smaller realm of the known world.

I'm hoping that the article gets readers to think and consider history and see themselves as potentially different than status quo teaches. I think that nudity is a good key to unlock awareness and unlearn the subtle and not so subtle shackles that bind us all to our social games. To not believe that we are those abstractions from our actual essence.

Humanity has at times accepted slavery, war, excuses for murder, abuse and control as religion, various oppression, etc. and has opted out merely because of awareness to the immorality, unfairness and lack of compassion of it. We can always do better than status quo and it is helpful to eliminate the supports of those behaviors that could use some changing. I am not the costume worn to play my game, my game is exposed when the drapes are drawn back and I see it better for what it is. We don't have to be top dog/under dog. Not dressing the part and identifying with it, to reinforce that game, helps to eliminate the games. In the nude encounter group therapy the same sort of principle works in much the same way.

Clothing is a binder in the socio-cultural sludge that we live in. Take away that binder and we can grow more freely.
Jbee

[nuduke]

I certainly can't argue with your final sentence.  I agree - Would that it were.
John

[jbeegoode]

Hmmm...Yea, that last sentence did kinda encapsulate, generally, what I was attempting to be getting at.

I've gone back and reread much of this thread. It is difficult to make a quick case, when drawing from so much, so it is difficult to read. It might better be a book form. Just alone, the second to the last paragraph is discussing, or applying, in a sentence volumes of encounter group therapies, from Goodsen in the 1990's and back to Eselan of the late 1960's. Who's up on that, but a psychology guy like me? Then the reference of games. not everyone has read "Games People Play" by Berne, or "Man the Manipulator" from the mid-late 1960's, foundational to much psychotherapy today. I have too much to say and it is mush for someone not into these things enough to have a background. Language/writing is ultimately communication and I'm not so sure I'm doing such a good job.

How's the following as a synopsis?

People play games like top dog/underdog and clothing strips away crutches that we believe we are, but are inauthentic concepts of ourselves. Life is a process of unlearning what which we were poisoned with, mostly at the outset. Unlearning is done by just being and becoming aware of that programing. Time and again, stripping clothing has laid more than skin bare, a good thing. There is more human potential without the clothing and identification with roles that most people believe is their truer selves. The article points this stuff out from a sociological sense and a more personal psychological sense.

The article is, I think, more clear and wraps up in a conclusion.
Jbee

[nuduke]

Nicely encapsulated!
John

[jbeegoode]

A randoms thought popped into my head as follows. The Native Americans are always depicted in loincloths, or something, even in hot regions and hot times of year. Even here in Tucson where clothing six months out of the year is silly, I have only seen actual daily nude depictions at the U of A History Museum and that was years ago.

Just the idea of wearing clothing is impractical, but my thought adding to my questioning of history is laundry. Have you ever washed clothing on a rock by a river, or even watched someone doing this labor? Even participated in boiling clothing for cleaning? It is destructive to the material, my clothing took a toll when they were cleaned on rocks by the river this way even once, when I sent my laundry out in Mexico and South American places. It is lots of labor and time, wasted for no reason. This argument alone questions any accuracy in westerner's historical speculation. Going to all of that trouble would be nuts! Why?

I remember 1960's Spain seeing this done and these were old traditions. People have made a living as laundry doers. This doesn't fit into a smaller population, or tribal model. There were religious and social reasons to wear clothing in Europe, so I can see that being done to an extent there in Medieval times.

I believe that there was no strong clothing imposition in pre-Christain America. I also contend that there is plenty of evidence, over and over, that water was a precious commodity, for growing food and not enough to pollute and use up sources with cloth cleaning. It just doesn't make sense.
 
Also, the later bruhos around here who do sweats, many have roots in Lakota Great Plains ritual, contend that it is disrespectful to not cover genitals in traditional sweats. Why would a naked society cover to sweat? It makes no sense. I can't believe that this is tradition, but a practical adaptation to white Christian influences and the "tradition" is but a relatively recent form of BS.

If all North American Native people wore clothing, then what about the documentation of first discoveries of the natives? What about the more recent discoveries for people in rain-forests and deserts all over the world who never wore clothing, until somebody messed that up and depicted them covered?
Jbee

[Greenbare Woods]

I believe that there was no strong clothing imposition in pre-Christain America. I also contend that there is plenty of evidence, over and over, that water was a precious commodity, for growing food and not enough to pollute and use up sources with cloth cleaning. It just doesn't make sense.
Jbee 

Yes.  Clothing wasn't a thing in pre-christian cultures of Africa or Europe either.  When Spanish arrived in the Americas they described tribes of naked people.  But they brought their misanthropic Priests with them and began forcing indigenous peoples to act like body shamed Christians.   They had done the same in Europe where native Europeans went naked all summer.  Before the invention of powered looms the creation of cloth it was a long and laborious process.  Cloth was way to expensive to waste while working.  In the Roman Empire even the rich didn't have tailored clothing.  Rich Romans draped a cloth (toga) over their shoulders for formal occasions, but only a fool would have tried to wear that full time.  Pagan Europeans were still going naked in summer until the 17th or 18th century depending on location.   

You are right that depicting ancient people of Egypt, Persia, Rome, Europe, Africa, or America with loincloths is a stupid projection of modern misanthropy. 

[jbeegoode]

Work to clean and work to create clothing! That is expensive costing time, or money, or labor, or water, or resources that could be used elsewhere more efficiently, better.

Tribal people, I've read, had more spare time than us...but....

"Pagan Europeans were still going naked in summer until the 17th or 18th century depending on location." Bob, can you direct me to info resources that you might have on this topic in history?  I've been assuming that Pagan Europeans were wiped out by that time. 
Jbee