Hats of the Depression

[Flat Foot Floey]

People just wore what was available to them. Styles change. There were no lofty intentions involved.

:arated:

 

[facade]

facade--the very Golden Era many here pine for was one of the biggest eras of government in our modern history. FDR, Truman, the New Deal, Fair Deal, ring a bell? Somehow with all of that big government in the 1930s and 1940s, people acted orderly and dressed classy.
Actually, the jeans & t-shirt uniform only became truly mainstream in the late 70s-early 80s...Hmm..when the era of small government first began.

The Federal govenrment has been expanding since it was established. Such is the nature of the beast. In the 30's and 40's local and state governments still had much more power then they do today. Communities could still live by their own rules for good and bad. The civil rights legislation of the 60's stripped away all power from the states and local communities and set the groundwork for what we have today.

 

[Pompidou]

Apparently I misunderstood what you meant by calling us whiners longing for the days when we could oppress women and people of color.

Everything is linked to the Federal government as they have taken control one way or another pretty much every aspect of our lives.

For a system of manners to function there has to be some form of punishment for those who choose not to follow the rules. Individual people and local communities have no way to enforce any code of conduct. Want to ban people wearing the pants around their knees? Sorry the ACLU will sue you using the Federal laws to stop you. Want to try and stop people from swearing and talking about sex in front of your children? Too bad they have "freedom of speech" as invented by the Supreme Court.

People dressed better in the past because their neighbors expected it of them and had the power to enforce local mores. Today local communities have no such power. This is both good and bad. It does help prevent the local oppression of those without power. But it also deines communities the ability to ensure civility.

No control was taken. You're free to practice manners as you see fit. You're free to wear pretty much whatever you like. If others like the way you do things, they'll follow suit. If not, well, your values aren't the majority that you'd like to enforce. If you'd like to be the arbiter of what others are allowed to do, then be careful going that route. It's great having enforced codes of dress and behavior when the codes are your own. It wouldn't be so great if, one day, somebody banned your values. You have the freedom to do as you like. You don't, and shouldn't, have the power to tell others to be just like you.

EDIT: Actually, this could probably be taken one step further. People have the freedom to behave and dress as they please. Every single person has the option to behave and dress in the old fashioned ways. The government makes no laws against such. Thus, what you see in the community around you is the community's local mores. A community's local mores are the collective values of the majority. What you're after isn't a community enforcing its local mores. If so, it'd be you with your pants around your knees so to speak. What you want is a community enforcing your personal mores - mores which very few share, which is self evident because they have absolute freedom to follow you but don't.

 

[jlee562]

Most people dress in a slovenly fashion in America today, not just the unemployed. And it was not pride that drove the better dress in days past. People haven't changed. Rather it was the social mores of the times which exist no longer. Ettiquette, manners, proper dress etc. all stem from rules established and maintained by the people of the local community. People dressed better because that was what was expected of them and there were consequences for not playing by the rules. Today the Federal govenrment is the arbiter of everything and as long as you obey their laws no one is allowed to say boo to you about how you dress and act (with few exceptions such as employers) without violating your civil 'rights'. So everyone is free to dress and act as poorly as they care too and those who may long for a more genteel society are powerless to bring such about.

Sorry, I disagree.

Social mores change. Whether or not an individual finds it for the better or worse is up to the individual. But it's not that etiquette, manners, etc, don't exist anymore. Simply, what society views as proper has changed. This is a continual product of human social evolution. I don't want to get into prohibited topics on this board, but broadly speaking, today's society rejects some of the conventions of yesterday's society, just as yesterday's society rejected some of the conventions of what came before it.

EDIT (after reading Pompidou's edit above): Facade, your comments are based on a dubious premise that such mores that existed in the "golden era" (how "golden" it was is another topic altogether) would have survived without the "interference" of the Federal Gov't, but this is clearly a false premise.

 

[jlee562]

Thus we have an example of societal pressure. I said something that is percieved to question the "American way" someone immediately pops up to brand me a whining racist. The difference being in the past what people were pressured to do was determined locally. Today its determined on a national level by the wealthy and powerful and their tool, the media.

tin foil fedora wearer?

 

[tonyb]

People just wore what was available to them. Styles change. There were no lofty intentions involved.

Yup.

 

[facade]

Sorry, I disagree.

Social mores change. Whether or not an individual finds it for the better or worse is up to the individual. But it's not that etiquette, manners, etc, don't exist anymore. Simply, what society views as proper has changed. This is a continual product of human social evolution. I don't want to get into prohibited topics on this board, but broadly speaking, today's society rejects some of the conventions of yesterday's society, just as yesterday's society rejected some of the conventions of what came before it.

EDIT (after reading Pompidou's edit above): Facade, your comments are based on a dubious premise that such mores that existed in the "golden era" (how "golden" it was is another topic altogether) would have survived without the "interference" of the Federal Gov't, but this is clearly a false premise.

I have not stated that they would exist today, nor have I stated that they should exist today, I have simply stated that it is impossible for them to exist today. The society that existed in the "golden era" no longer exists, there is no going back.

 

[tonyb]

I think they were probably gathering all the dignity they could, given the disastrous economic circumstances. Men caught up without jobs would probably want to be seen to be as normal as possible, and as little like bums as possible, to save self-respect.

I've had similar thoughts myself. It's akin to that (perhaps mythical?) Japanese fellow who puts on his suit and tie every weekday and takes the subway to a job that doesn't exist.

I quite consciously present myself as a person to be taken seriously when I visit my physicians, for instance. It's not that I believe they would consciously provide me lesser treatment if I showed up in a more slovenly state, but they're only human themselves, and they have their own prejudices.

 

[fmw]

I think fashions and mores simply change. When I was a teenager, I wanted my hair done in a ducktail. My father wouldn't allow it. Now that I can have a ducktail if I want it, I don't want it. There was good and bad about the good old days just as there is today.

 

[AtomicEraTom]

Well, I am going to steer away from the political edge of this...

I used to have a ducktail, from the time I was about 10, until I was 16, and when I got a wild hair to style it that way from 16 to 18. Now I go 'what was I thinking?'

I think fashions and mores simply change. When I was a teenager, I wanted my hair done in a ducktail. My father wouldn't allow it. Now that I can have a ducktail if I want it, I don't want it. There was good and bad about the good old days just as there is today.

 

[1961MJS]

People just wore what was available to them. Styles change. There were no lofty intentions involved.

Hi Feraud, I had to backtrack a LONG darn way in this thread to find the "cause" of all of the consternation.

I think that you're 50/50 on this. Everyone including the homeless had a fedora and a suit. Suits were almost all wool back then and wool pants and a jacket were nice and warm at night. I hat kept the sun off you're head, or kept it warm.

On the other hand, people were more respectful in those times. Yes we weren't the best at race relations, a woman's place was in the home etc, but going back to the respect would be a good thing, as would the self respect in at least a clean appearance.

When I left Decatur AL in 1994, people still dressed up to go out shopping on Saturday, and wore work clothes on week nights. Only "damnyankees" and other "foreigners" wore sweats and t-shirts out shopping.

We can still get it back, but I have no idea where to start.

Later

 

[Feraud]

Hi Feraud, I had to backtrack a LONG darn way in this thread to find the "cause" of all of the consternation.

Interesting to read the debate caused by my short comment.

The heated reactions reflect more how we view the past and our need to defend such perceptions than the reality.

Edited to add- I don't debate there were things in the past we've now lost and could use a return to. My gripe is with the simplistic A+B=C.

 

[FedoraFan112390]

The problem is that in the 1960s as we tossed away the negative aspects of our society, we also tossed away a lot of the good with it.

 

[Tiller]

I've had similar thoughts myself. It's akin to that (perhaps mythical?) Japanese fellow who puts on his suit and tie every weekday and takes the subway to a job that doesn't exist.

I quite consciously present myself as a person to be taken seriously when I visit my physicians, for instance. It's not that I believe they would consciously provide me lesser treatment if I showed up in a more slovenly state, but they're only human themselves, and they have their own prejudices.

I'll avoid what politics I can, since everyone seems to want to drag every thread into the political realm today for some strange reason.:eusa_doh:

But this is pretty much how I understand the Golden Age, because it's the way my Grandfather was who lived threw it. You wore a suit when you went out not only to be fashionable, but to be taken seriously and not seen as some kid. You wore a suit at a wedding to celebrate the new couple by wearing the best clothing you had. You wore a suit to a funeral to honor the memory of the dead, and give them respect. You wore a suit at a job interview to show that you were a man who was to be taken seriously. It's the same reason you looked into a man's eyes when you shock his hand, you were attempting to prove to others that you were to be taken seriously.

Today that's been spun on it's head, know anyone who judges somebody because of how they dress for certain occasions, or how they act in certain social interactions is seen with suspicion, and is somehow against "individuality". They're the same kind of people who don't understand that wearing a pair of jeans two sizes to big, and a dirty shirt is it's own kind of uniform.

 

[John in Covina]

Lots of hats in those pictures! Proof positive of the repressive attitudes of the day...

 

[randooch]

Fedorafan, thanks for posting those pictures. More stoicism than hats and suits.

 

[scottyrocks]

The way I see it is that pretty much everything and everyone, over a period of years, and the events, and non-events, that occurred during those times, contrubute o the continual evolution of societal mores, good or bad, like it or not.

What are 'non-events?' Just the stuff that happens everyday in society that eats away at how we see and perceive things. Most of them are so small and insignificant by themselves that they are pretty much meaningless out of context. But lump enough of them together, and they cause changes in tide that you can feel.

 

[Kirk H.]

I realize that it is, perhaps, comparing apples to oranges, but I find it fascinating that, even in the bread line or unemployment line, gentlemen of the day still dressed like gentlemen. These days, folks who seek social services dress as if they've just rolled out of bed. I think perhaps those of yesteryear had a sense of pride, even in tough times, that people today just don't have.

I couldn't agree with you more. It seems as a society as a whole we have become slobs. People used to dress up to go out for dinner, a movie, and even travel. It is very sad. But on the bright side maybe people will be inspired by the way we dress and start doing it. One can always hope.

Regards

Kirk H

 

[John in Covina]

Men wore suits as daily wear for work and for non work times.
People tended to not have a ton of clothes back then.
So if you were out of work -you wore what you already had.
Therefor a lot of the men are in suits.

 

[Marshall]

Dressing nice was something that seemed pretty ingrained in that generation. One of my great grandfathers would get up early every morning, dress up in a suit, and go sit on the porch (this was when he was retired). He didn't seem to know how to transition from work to leisure (a good work ethic is something that seemed pretty ingrained back then too).