Quote Originally Posted by thescot View Post
I couldn't agree more.

Pointing out that in the past people weren't perfect does nothing to negate the argument--which had nothing to do with the objections--that people today are basically slobs with poor manners and habits. Wearing clothing which is condusive to only to mud wrestling and jogging does not make one more advanced than his forebears; it only makes him appear sloppy.

Surely one can see that a youthful pride in a slovenly appearance is not in any way socially or morally superior to all other choices of dress. I could point out that the crime rates, murder rates, and general civility were much better than today, but those facts have nothing to do with dress.

And I can assure you that dressing well was not restricted to the white collar classes or people of means in decades past. Even in the late 1800s, my grandfather's uncle, who was a carpenter, would don a suit to go to work. There, he would change into his work clothes, build whatever it was he was working on (and this without power tools, it was draw knives and hand saws), then he would change back into his suit before returning home. My grandfather the railroad engineer, never went to town with a coat and tie.

And the stated life expectancy of 1906 takes in to account the high rate of infant mortality of the day, so it gives a false impression that most folks died in their 40s. Fact is, if you made it past early childhood, you were likely to live well in to your 60s or 70s.

Kind of like today!
My grandfather was the same way, Jim -- an Iowa farmer who owned more than one suit for church, lodge meetings, etc.

I always think of Robert Burns in discussions like this; while Burns was most certainly a puir Ayrshire ploughboy with dung on his boots, he was also able to dress to the nines when needed when visiting Edinburgh, attending lodge, etc.

T.