Bachelor 25 - Matt James - F1 - F4 - *Sleuthing Spoilers*

Doats wrote:I hope my continuing wearing of ante and post bellum gowns at interpretive and living history events is not considered racist. I wear these garments to demonstrate what women of all social classes were wearing at the times. They are a means of allowing visitors to the sites to, in effect, "touch the past," one of the key elements of historical Interpretation.

Doats wrote:Ok, Let me first say that I'm truly not trying to be argumentative with this post. However, I am an amateur historian who currently volunteers for a museum and have, in the past, worked for a Parks department, both of which have a focus on the 1850s-1860s timeframe. Because of this I have for years worked to accurately reproduce and sew women's 19th century clothing: underpinnings, corsets, chamises, petticoats, gowns, etc. (Dresses were referred to as gowns then and the term did not imply evening dress.) And in full disclosure, I have very limited experience of men's clothing during this time period, mostly just shirts as tailoring is beyond me.

Hoops were resurrected with a vengeance in the later 1850s, mostly to relieve the heavy weight of up to the 10 petticoats that women wore to give volume to their skirts. These hooped skirts were worn by women across the U.S.; even Queen Victoria wore huge hooped skirts on her tiny stature and it was said that her skirts were the widest at the English Court. Women did not wear the hooped skirts while working (fire danger!) but donned them for other events as that was the fashion.

So having said all this, I never, in all my extensive research, ran across a reference to hooped gowns as being racist or only worn by the "upper classes." I have no opinion as to the degree of Rachael's racism as I am not on any social media; however, I did want to say that my studies and research never suggested that hooped skirts in and of themselves were an outward statement of racism.

Please forgive me if I have offended anyone...

LoveDovez wrote:snipped


@Doats If you figure this out let me know because I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what the tie in is all about. Seems like people are trying to stretch things. IMHO

LoveDovez wrote:

Doats wrote:Ok, Let me first say that I'm truly not trying to be argumentative with this post. However, I am an amateur historian who currently volunteers for a museum and have, in the past, worked for a Parks department, both of which have a focus on the 1850s-1860s timeframe. Because of this I have for years worked to accurately reproduce and sew women's 19th century clothing: underpinnings, corsets, chamises, petticoats, gowns, etc. (Dresses were referred to as gowns then and the term did not imply evening dress.) And in full disclosure, I have very limited experience of men's clothing during this time period, mostly just shirts as tailoring is beyond me.

Hoops were resurrected with a vengeance in the later 1850s, mostly to relieve the heavy weight of up to the 10 petticoats that women wore to give volume to their skirts. These hooped skirts were worn by women across the U.S.; even Queen Victoria wore huge hooped skirts on her tiny stature and it was said that her skirts were the widest at the English Court. Women did not wear the hooped skirts while working (fire danger!) but donned them for other events as that was the fashion.

So having said all this, I never, in all my extensive research, ran across a reference to hooped gowns as being racist or only worn by the "upper classes." I have no opinion as to the degree of Rachael's racism as I am not on any social media; however, I did want to say that my studies and research never suggested that hooped skirts in and of themselves were an outward statement of racism.

Please forgive me if I have offended anyone...

@Doats If you figure this out let me know because I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what the tie in is all about. Seems like people are trying to stretch things. IMHO

Diana wrote:just when I think it gets worse, it does. Holy sh*t Rachael is a vile human being and I am not sure how ANYONE could justify this. I preparing myself for bible quotes and forgiveness though.

All IMO

gabriele wrote:

LoveDovez wrote:

Doats wrote:Ok, Let me first say that I'm truly not trying to be argumentative with this post. However, I am an amateur historian who currently volunteers for a museum and have, in the past, worked for a Parks department, both of which have a focus on the 1850s-1860s timeframe. Because of this I have for years worked to accurately reproduce and sew women's 19th century clothing: underpinnings, corsets, chamises, petticoats, gowns, etc. (Dresses were referred to as gowns then and the term did not imply evening dress.) And in full disclosure, I have very limited experience of men's clothing during this time period, mostly just shirts as tailoring is beyond me.

Hoops were resurrected with a vengeance in the later 1850s, mostly to relieve the heavy weight of up to the 10 petticoats that women wore to give volume to their skirts. These hooped skirts were worn by women across the U.S.; even Queen Victoria wore huge hooped skirts on her tiny stature and it was said that her skirts were the widest at the English Court. Women did not wear the hooped skirts while working (fire danger!) but donned them for other events as that was the fashion.

So having said all this, I never, in all my extensive research, ran across a reference to hooped gowns as being racist or only worn by the "upper classes." I have no opinion as to the degree of Rachael's racism as I am not on any social media; however, I did want to say that my studies and research never suggested that hooped skirts in and of themselves were an outward statement of racism.

Please forgive me if I have offended anyone...

@Doats If you figure this out let me know because I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out what the tie in is all about. Seems like people are trying to stretch things. IMHO

This article explains why hoop skirts are seen by some as racist:

'No such thing as just a dress:' Historians respond to Azalea Belles cancellation

luvnunity wrote:Y’all really think this is about Dresses?  Not really looking for an answer.  I’m just in disbelief...

luvnunity wrote:Y’all really think this is about Dresses?  Not really looking for an answer.  I’m just in disbelief...

Doats wrote:

luvnunity wrote:Y’all really think this is about Dresses?  Not really looking for an answer.  I’m just in disbelief...

OK, I am going against a previous statement but my post was about 19th century GOWNS. I was NOT talking about balls. I was NOT talking about Rachael. I was NOT talking about anything other than 19th century dress as it appeared in the timeframe.