Get Smart
Don't Crink
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,102
- Reaction score
- 271
From somewhere else on the internerd....
Welp, jeans are associated with minorities, drug addicts, slobs, every alternative movement since the 70s, and cowboys, and I feel that, for a person of refinement (and here I am speaking of refinement of more than clothing,) jeans are not even considered. I feel that, for the thinking man, who looks back in history and understands the origin of blue jeans, there will be no other conclusion but to forgo them. I just thank God that dress pants are not nearly as stigmatized as dress jackets are in today's world; wearing a pair of dress pants now draws on average no more attention than, I suspect, wearing a pair of jeans does. And there are other options, too, like chinos, corduroy, etc. I just do not understand how someone who on any level resents what jeans symbolize can at the same time mindlessly slip on a pair, knowing at the same time that they can be completely displaced by other types of pants, which do not have the tainted antecedents of cowboys and frontiersmen (who were usually lower-class, poor, and possibly in exile,) that blue jeans do.
My grandfather did not own any jeans, and he did more than garden, being more or less the man of his sizeable, partially wooded lot. He wore loafers, a golf shirt, and khakis. My great grandfather wore suits when he gardened. Why do you wear jeans when you garden, but not when you go out? Can you not afford nice clothes to appear in at all times? When I spoke of refinement, I was speaking of education among other things. Someone well educated in history would know that appearance was always cared for, regardless of the occasion. It is only a modern phenomenon that a wealthy person would wear jeans anywhere, even when working in the yard. I realize that this is widespread; however, my original post did say 'I do not understand why...'
Again, there is, for those who care, no stigma regarding the wearing of pants other than jeans, of which there are many types. That means, to realize this and still wear jeans, there is one of three things at work: 1) The person is not educated, 2) the person recently realized their error and cannot afford to replace their jeans, or 3) the person willfully buys into the hard-working, egalitarian image of jeans. But there is a sense in which a person loses a part of his identity if he completely ignores his past; and the past of the anglo-saxon is, though we did things that were wrong, one of wealth and superiority. A black man does not ignore his cultural history (and some wonder why black males are seen as more confident and sure of themselves than white males,) but the timid, modern white man walks around in jeans, oblivious of his cultural history and entitlement. That is what I do not understand.
Welp, jeans are associated with minorities, drug addicts, slobs, every alternative movement since the 70s, and cowboys, and I feel that, for a person of refinement (and here I am speaking of refinement of more than clothing,) jeans are not even considered. I feel that, for the thinking man, who looks back in history and understands the origin of blue jeans, there will be no other conclusion but to forgo them. I just thank God that dress pants are not nearly as stigmatized as dress jackets are in today's world; wearing a pair of dress pants now draws on average no more attention than, I suspect, wearing a pair of jeans does. And there are other options, too, like chinos, corduroy, etc. I just do not understand how someone who on any level resents what jeans symbolize can at the same time mindlessly slip on a pair, knowing at the same time that they can be completely displaced by other types of pants, which do not have the tainted antecedents of cowboys and frontiersmen (who were usually lower-class, poor, and possibly in exile,) that blue jeans do.
My grandfather did not own any jeans, and he did more than garden, being more or less the man of his sizeable, partially wooded lot. He wore loafers, a golf shirt, and khakis. My great grandfather wore suits when he gardened. Why do you wear jeans when you garden, but not when you go out? Can you not afford nice clothes to appear in at all times? When I spoke of refinement, I was speaking of education among other things. Someone well educated in history would know that appearance was always cared for, regardless of the occasion. It is only a modern phenomenon that a wealthy person would wear jeans anywhere, even when working in the yard. I realize that this is widespread; however, my original post did say 'I do not understand why...'
Again, there is, for those who care, no stigma regarding the wearing of pants other than jeans, of which there are many types. That means, to realize this and still wear jeans, there is one of three things at work: 1) The person is not educated, 2) the person recently realized their error and cannot afford to replace their jeans, or 3) the person willfully buys into the hard-working, egalitarian image of jeans. But there is a sense in which a person loses a part of his identity if he completely ignores his past; and the past of the anglo-saxon is, though we did things that were wrong, one of wealth and superiority. A black man does not ignore his cultural history (and some wonder why black males are seen as more confident and sure of themselves than white males,) but the timid, modern white man walks around in jeans, oblivious of his cultural history and entitlement. That is what I do not understand.
![crackup[1].gif](https://www.styleforum.net/images/smilies/crackup[1].gif)
