I'm writing a book with far-reaching implications.
Three world views repeat in the same order in a cycle that currently takes about 97 years to fully complete. In pre-modern times --- before industrialism and democracy --- the cycle took a third again as long.
This is a taste.
This taste is about how people in eras when civil rights dominate tend to adopt the clothing of the oppressed.
The mind eras are 1483-1527, 1617-1661, 1750-1794 (transitional to modern times), 1848-1880, and 1945-1977.
For how the clothing of the oppressed becomes "chic" so predictably that you can bet on your grandchildren's apparel in the 2060s, follow beyond the fold
When you admire the downtrodden, aside from outright revolution, are there more personal ways in which you express your esteem? Or in which you reject those who oppress you?
One of the civil rights movements of the 16th century era was called the Bundschuh. Bundschuh, in German, means "peasant’s shoe." This symbol was adopted deliberately to contrast with the boot of the horseman, considered the symbol of the knight. Rebels in 1512 insisted on having banners made showing the peasant’s shoe, despite the fact that finding an artisan to construct the banner proved very difficult and involved considerable personal risk. When the movement was betrayed, its leader escaped with the banner wrapped around his body. The movement made what a peasant wore, essentially, a political statement.
Not all civil rights struggles involve wearing your politics on your sleeve. But many do involve people rejecting the dress of the rich and powerful. This was true of the revolutionary groups of the English Civil War begun in 1642, who made choices meant to express their disapproval of the aristocracy. There’s a reason Cromwell’s New Model Army got the nickname "Roundheads." They generally wore their hair close-cropped to their head as a contrast to the King’s supporters who wore their hair in long ringlets. Revolutionaries of both sexes in that war rejected the frills and feathers favored by the ruling class.
In the French Revolution begun in 1789, the urban workers of Paris – laborers, shopkeepers, craftsmen – were known as sans culottes, because they wore coarse long pants that were very different from the silken knee breeches worn by the upper classes. In the 1790s, revolutionaries adopted this style of dress — the coarse long pants of the working poor. As in the English Civil War, hairstyles took on meaning. Men again wore their hair short, straight and natural because of its contrast to the long and artificially curly hair of the aristocrats.
Some of the people in the 50 revolutions that took Europe by storm in 1848 also adopted clothing that rejected their rulers. In what is currently the Czech Republic, Czech men in mid-19th century began to wear a jacket called a camara, an article of traditional Czech clothing, to show that their loyalties did not lie with their Austrian rulers.
If we jump ahead to the 20th century, we see a similar phenomenon. Denim, the clothing of manual laborers — previously scorned by white collar workers — became the new uniform in the 1960s. T-shirts replaced the neat, tailored, conservative shirts worn by "The Man." Revolutionaries rejected clean shaven faces and buzz cuts, for long hair, often with side burns, moustaches or beards. Many black men and women stopped using styling products — which made their hair look like the hair of their oppressors — and celebrated their difference with afros.
When we scorn the powerful and admire the oppressed, the ramifications to society are wider than one might think.
The styles don't necessarily change back. We still wear jeans, after all.