←back to thread

The past was not that cute

(juliawise.net)
430 points mhb | 4 comments | 06 Dec 25 21:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.658s | source
Show context
constantcrying ◴[06 Dec 25 23:52 UTC] No.46177759[source]▶
Yes, the past definitely wasn't that cute, but outright denying that it was not very different is just as absurd.

The definition of "normal" has drastically changed, even over the last few decades. A hundred years ago much of the societal structures still revolved around farming (which it had for thousands of years before that), something which now only involves a small minority of people.

People love to look at the past, not as it existed, but superpositioned over reality as it exists now.

replies(1): >>46177884 #
themafia ◴[07 Dec 25 00:06 UTC] No.46177884[source]▶
Farming has always been seasonal and before gasoline engines drastically changed their efficiency they often involved horses and oxen. There was a larger number of people living rurally but most of them weren't spending the majority of their year actually working on any farm.

The other nitpick of the post is, yes, of course, people in work clothes of any generation do not look particularly elegant. People didn't wear their work clothes all day and would have had nicer sets for special functions like church or weddings.

replies(1): >>46178100 #
1. pixl97 ◴[07 Dec 25 00:36 UTC] No.46178100[source]▶
>would have had nicer sets for special functions like church or weddings.

It's likely they would have one set of church clothes at least, but if you ever look at 'old' houses, closets are tiny because even modestly wealthy people didn't have that many clothes.

In 1900 you've have spend something like 15% of your yearly income on clothes, now it's around 3%.

replies(2): >>46178939 #>>46191021 #
2. themafia ◴[07 Dec 25 03:37 UTC] No.46178939[source]▶
Did the clothes in 1900 last longer than they do today? Did they even have polyester?
replies(1): >>46179263 #
3. AlotOfReading ◴[07 Dec 25 04:55 UTC] No.46179263[source]▶
Clothes lasted longer, yes. The fabric was almost always thicker and less finely woven due to the limitations of historical textile manufacturing. The garments themselves were properly stitched instead of overlocked, with patterns sensibly designed for the usage and size of the garments. People also repaired their clothes and would keep them long past the point most modern consumers would buy new.

Plus, clothes were a considerable portion of the household budget. People couldn't afford them if they didn't last.

4. 1718627440 ◴[08 Dec 25 11:20 UTC] No.46191021[source]▶
Try wearing a dress shirt and a suit. It's incredible and I totally see how people used to wear that for work. You can sweat for hours in it, it just doesn't smell. It also (mostly) doesn't become dirty beyond something you can wipe away. It's really comfy and you stand straight. I am kind of sad it is now weird to wear that. But it is cool to have something real comfy to wear for festive days.