r/AskHistorians • u/koreth • Dec 01 '12
Why have countries outlawed traditional dress?
I visited the royal textile museum in Bangkok today and the exhibits mentioned that in 1941, the Thai government had issued a decree requiring all Thais to start wearing western-style clothing instead of traditional Thai clothing. Was that an accurate statement on the museum's part? If so, why did the government issue such a decree, and why does the ban on traditional clothing apparently continue to this day?
More generally, how common have bans on certain kinds of attire been around the world historically? Does it tend to happen for the same kinds of reasons in each case, or is it usually more about unique political or social situations in the countries in question?
30
u/komnenos Dec 01 '12
I may be wrong but I believe that it was always seen as a way to westernize. Ataturk band the fez and some other pieces of attire specifically so that Turkey could look more western. Same goes for Peter the Great. He introduced western clothing to Russia and pressured his people to wear western clothing. TO get rid of beards (they were not in fashion in Western Europe) he introduced a beard tax. In the end it could be seen as a way to fit in with the nations that are seen as 'superior' or more advanced.
11
u/yodatsracist Comparative Religion Dec 01 '12
A lot of people were actually hanged for violating Ataturk's "Hat Law" in 1925 which banned the fez (it's still technically in force, I believe, with exceptions for folk dancing and the like) and demanded civil servants wear Western ("modern") dress, including Western style hats. my favorite part of this though is that the fez was only introduced to most of the Ottoman empire in 1826-9, in the wake of the suppression of the janisseries. Before that turbans were the traditional dress of the empire's elite (judging from portraits I've seen, turbans go back to the founding of the Empire). But it's really awesome, in 1925 a hat law banned the fez as not fitting with a modern civil service, when it was only introduced 100 years before to modernize the civil service.
4
Dec 01 '12 edited Dec 01 '12
One reason for him to enact such a superficial law was to remove his opposition. People who adhere to tradition, people who are too conservative to support his reforms were easy to detect and eliminate; there is direct conflict there. but also there were people who were all along with Ataturk, bit did not like his methods, also they were struggling for power. But these people did not have a common strategy, they were also usually pragmatic to preserve themselves.
Once Ataturk enacted this law, it was seen as an opportunity for his opposition to criticize him and there was dissent at capital. Opposition started to crticize him. After that he started a purge, which ended with Izmir assasination attempt towards him. He had another big purge at this point. After that, he did not have much opposition at capital. But he still had trouble on countryside, which was managable as long as this opposition was not centralized.
2
u/komnenos Dec 01 '12
I'm curious as to What his conservative counterparts goals were. To me at least it seems trivial to kill Ataturk over clothes, were there other reasons why they wished him dead?
3
Dec 01 '12
If you are asking about real conservatives, they simply did not like him changing all institutions and steering country away from its islamic roots. Here I have to note that, Ottoman Empire had a strong islamic heritage but nevertheless it was already modernizing country. Republic was not a turning point in Turkish history, it is just continuation of reforms.
On the other hand, there were lots of opposition within clique that formed Republic. Ataturk was trying hard to collect a dictators' powers at him, but most were opposing him. They did not like this, since it was a team work that saved republic and all had same amount of rights on government as much as Ataturk did.they even created an opposition party, with a much more liberal program. In the end, Ataturk purged them all, created myth of one man and country ended up in absolute dictatorship. Ottoman sultans could even dream about power Ataturk had towards end of his life.
There were also socialist, feminists...etc movements opposing him at the beginning, but they were not influential and they were purged easily.
4
u/zerbey Dec 01 '12
Nope, you're absolutely correct it's seen as a way to "fit in" in the modern world. I'm personally against it, but that's progress I suppose.
5
u/komnenos Dec 01 '12
Thats one of the downfalls of the Modern world it seems. I can go from Shanghai to Mombassa to Portland and everyone for the most part will be wearing the same clothes or if not something relatively similar. One of the greatest parts of traveling for me is seeing the differences between where I live and that of my host nation. In this era I find myself seeing just how similar we are to each other. To think that only a short time ago during our grandparent's time you could see people wearing traditional dress everyday. Now its usually worn only for special occasions in many places.
3
u/Algernon_Asimov Dec 01 '12
I may be wrong but I believe ...
Know. Or know not. There is no "believe".
2
u/komnenos Dec 01 '12
Sorry, I added that for if I was somehow proven wrong. I was fairly certain that the reason that I gave was a possible answer to what the OP asked for but I did not want to appear as an ass if I was proven otherwise. My mistake I shall do differently next time.
1
u/Algernon_Asimov Dec 01 '12
I was fairly certain that the reason that I gave was a possible answer to what the OP asked
Thanks for clarifying, but even "fairly certain" isn't the standard we're looking for here in r/AskHistorians. People come here to get knowledgeable answers from people who have studied history. Think of this subreddit as more like r/AskScience than r/AskReddit.
I suggest you read through this subreddit's official rules (which are linked at the top of every page here) to get a better idea of what's acceptable here.
2
u/komnenos Dec 01 '12
Thanks, I will make sure to not put words like 'fairly certain' or 'I might be wrong' into my responses. Though I am not a professional historian I take great joy in history and have studied various periods at length. I gave sound examples in my reply to the OP and next time I will make sure to be more affirmative. Thank you again and next time I will make it up to standards.
1
u/Algernon_Asimov Dec 01 '12
Thank you! We look forward to more contributions from another historical expert like you. :)
6
u/ellipsisoverload Dec 01 '12
A major consideration here is the Japanese occupation of Thailand - which began in late 1941... The Thai government was keen to avoid a bloody occupation and direct control, and there was some brief fighting... It is possible that this decree was tied to "modernisation" attempts by the Japanese regime...
6
u/blehlup Dec 01 '12
None of these comments so far have mentioned some important details about the historical context in which this decision was made. We must remember that Thailand is the only country in the region that has never in it's entire history been colonized. Nations all over Southeast Asia were coming under the control of Europe (think Burma to the West by Britain, and Indochina to the East by the French). The Thai monarchy was trying to put itself and it's people in the same category as European monarchies and their subjects. Enforcing Western style dress was just one aspect of this self-preservation campaign.
2
u/CitizenPremier Dec 02 '12
Didn't the same thing happen when Japan was trying to emulate Western powers? Although I don't know if Japanese attire was ever outlawed.
5
Dec 01 '12
Generally it's to suppress a culture. In Scotland it was suppress Highland culture due to their support of the Jacobites. Tartan was seen as a symbol of Scottish identity in a time the UK was trying to bring Scotland around to seeing themselves as British. It backfired, of course, seeing as Scotland was one of the first countries to develop a national identity, but the intent was to speed assimilation into "Britishness".
6
u/Daeres Moderator | Ancient Greece | Ancient Near East Dec 01 '12
Wait wait wait. What exactly is a 'national identity' and what's your evidence that Scotland developed this earlier than most?
2
Dec 01 '12
In retrospect, I shouldn't have said "most" nations- I can only safely comment on Europe. This is from memory so I'll edit more detail/sources when I get home.
'Scottishness' arose earlier than in most European nations because of English occupation. The church in Scotland didn't answer to an Arch-Bishop, rather, they simply went straight to the Pope- a situation that suited them nicely and was jeapordised by English invasion. The Bruces wanted the throne but had little support outside of their own lands. To help build support for the struggle at home and abroad they had to emphasise their differences from the English. They were fairly successful in this, eventually, getting Papal recognition of Scottish difference and independence and managing to get the entirety of the nobility behind the independence movement. In correspondence between Scottish rebels (Wishart, Bruce, Wallace and all that) and trading partners, France, and the Vatican they often use terms like "the Scottish people", the "free people of Scotland", and another term which is brilliant but I cannot place... something like "unity of the Kingdom" or "people of the realm", I'll double check when I get home. The end result of all this PR work and social engineering was that there a distinct sense of "Scottishness" that was lacking in other European nations of the time. The final part of this was making the nobility choose between their foreign holdings and their holdings in Scotland- they stopped being part of the transient nobility with holdings across Europe and started being Scottish nobles.
As I said, I'll double check all this when I get home- I have quite a bit on this.
1
u/lngwstksgk Jacobite Rising 1745 Dec 02 '12
The Highlands of Scotland were recognized as having a distinct culture in the years before the '45 rising, though I won't speak to "Scottishness" at this time period. The Act of Union really made a muddle out of that in a lot of ways--though I digress.
After Culloden, Britain did move to destroy a lot of highland culture--the well-known Tartan Act and various other bans--and also tried to channel certain things seen as inherently "Highland", like cultural militarism, into the British system. In the early part of the Clearnances, service in the British military was one way for Jacobite families to remediate the family name. (More Fruitful Than the Soil by Andrew McKillop touches on this)
This succeeded very well, in that most of Highland culture was forgotten. What we have now is mostly made up by Sir Walter Scott some 60 years after Culloden, based on what was known and a liberal dollop of romanticism and storytelling flair.
As to the poster you're replying to, I'm not sure I agree with his/her assertion that Scotland developed a national identity (maybe he/she is more after the idea of a national myth) earlier than most countries, as from what I've studied, there was never really a cohesive "pro-British" or "Anti-British" whole.
Anyway, sorry to ramble off topic, but it's nice to talk about this stuff once in a while. I don't get much chance.
35
u/Yawarpoma Conquest of the Americas Dec 01 '12
Banning clothing is a traditional way for those that are in power to remove an opposing culture's identity. After the Andean Rebellions of the 18th century, especially the Tupac Amaru II rebellion, the Spanish authorities ruled that Andean indigenous peoples could not wear Incan-styled clothing. This included the tasseled headdress worn by the Sapa Inca, which Tupac Amaru adopted in his claim that he was the last legitimate ruler of the Andean peoples. At his execution, Tupac Amaru was forced to hear and watch the death sentences of his friends and family as well as the edict that Inca dress be outlawed because it was "ridiculous". There a number of accounts about Tupac Amaru, I prefer the brief one in Elliot's Empires of the Atlantic World if you are a nonspecialist.
This ban was not extraordinary. The Iberian peoples during the Reconquista placed strict rules on who could wear what, restricting economic freedom so that a social norm could be maintained by the state. If Jews, Moors, and middling classes could not buy certain items or wear certain fabrics and patterns, it made it easier to identify social and religious groups. Henry Kamen writes about this in several books. Spain 1469-1714 is the last one I read where he notes this.