28-07-2022, 02:52 PM
(28-07-2022, 08:24 AM)Oh_hunnihunni Wrote: Uniforms are a strategy for control. The marketing blurb about creating a sense of identity and togetherness may be based on that very same level of comfort you mention but imposed rules about what can be worn is very different to people choosing to wear something that signals their affiliations. Regulation around dress is not the same as picking up the local team colours in your scarf, or choosing to wear a moko, or a Star of David, or a kilt, or even a different hairstyle.Our generation came up against this, probably for the first time back in the 60s/70s when our parents & those in authority of their generation objected to our hair length, style of clothing & choice of music - remember the uproar in America when John Lennon said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus!
If it was, then there wouldn't be such a fuss when a rebellious soul tries to do just that while wearing regulation dress. Remember the performance around facial tattoos on Navy officers? And how the upper echelons patted themselves on the back for 'allowing' it? Or the Police for permitting hijab? Certain schools furores over hair length? Concessions disguised as something they really are not...
Records, books, clothing featuring The Beatles were burnt across the country under the 'guidance' of church authorities. That probably gave most of us a little bit of insight into things such as the hysteria of the witch burnings & the anti Semitism of the Nazis a few centuries later.
And that was reinforced by the killings a few years later at Kent state university.   
Which were in response to student protests ( though not all those killed were protesters) against  war - which has its own form of control in the armed forces & at that time, the draft.
in order to be old & wise, you must first be young & stupid. (I'm still working on that.)