5 ms·
What driveling times are these! Georgian grumblings on an age of decline
- gerdesj 5y agoWhat a lovely read.
- JasonFruit 5y agoWhat a tiresome read.
- matt_j 5y agoWhat drivelling times are these!
- smackeyacky 5y ago> That complaint came from a tract against The Reigning Vanities of the Age in > 1754. A letter in The Gazetteer in the same year concurred that luxury in > clothing was blurring social distinctions, so that “by their dress, the > clerk, apprentice, or shopman are not distinguishable from their master; > nor the servant-maid, even the cook-wench, from her mistress.” This is interesting - complaining about the breakdown of easily identifiable social class because the lower classes dressed too well. This seems to have gone the other way in modern times - it's hard to tell rich from poor because everyone aspires, via the explosion of tattoos, to look like they just got released from prison.
- w-j-w 5y ago
- AndrewDucker 5y agoTattoos have been the province of, well, everyone, for hundreds of years https://twitter.com/mattlodder/status/1491019172175761409?t=VTPkGZJQdc4qvF0x6KI2Cg&s=19 https://twitter.com/mattlodder/status/1491019172175761409?t=...
- danielscrubs 5y agoWanted to look at some statistics and it seems according to Google Trends the search term for "Tattoo Parlour" seems to have peaked at around 2005 (as far back as I could go).
- smackeyacky 5y agoThat probably corresponds with the trend of getting a little moustache tattoed on your finger, I don't think most tattoo places build their business through online search. More by word of mouth.
- smackeyacky 5y agoSure, but a couple of tattoos vs the trend for looking like something that would qualify you to be exhibited by Barnum is very different in my lifetime.
- mstipetic 5y agoPeople should look tattooed and pierced and weird, not like meek little drones in cheap suits
- tattoohealth 5y ago
- jimmyed 5y agoOh well, the British felt 18th/19th century was an age of decline? It surely was, for India, where there was anarchy after the fall of the Mughal empire and millions of kingdoms were infighting for power.
- mrjangles 5y agoIndeed the Indian's thought so. Many were very angry about the destruction of the caste system. Also, the British had began banning the extremely common rituals of burning widows alive, burying alive of lepers, and honor killing of family members, which made many angry. However, they mostly were happy about the British pumping huge sums of money into modernizing the country and offering a western education to Indian children for the first time.
- jimmyed 5y ago> the British had began banning the extremely common rituals of burning widows alive, burying alive of lepers, and honor killing of family members +1, you are right about this. Banning these was an undeniably good thing for the Indian society. > British pumping huge sums of money into modernizing the country and offering a western education to Indian children for the first time this is a load of BS though. You make it sound like they were there out of their infinite benevolence to do good for the Indians, when in fact they looted the country indiscriminately...
- savanaly 5y agoIt was mutually beneficial to provide a better standard of education for millions of Indians. That doesn't mean the British didn't do other horrible things of course, but the idea they did some good is hardly "a load of BS".
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jsnodlin 5y agoThe British didn’t destroy the caste system. They rigidly enforced it since it fit cleanly into their “divide and conquer” strategy.