Fashions of the 1800's

Status
Not open for further replies.

in cahoots

Well-known member
Messages
100
Reactions
457
A lot of overenthused speculation here, imo. Interesting photographs, I wish you went more into detail about documenting the inconsistencies among contemporaneous fashions of this time. I do not understand the notion that they wod use corpses (???) as convincing mannequins as part of the great coverup, though.

People had to sit or stand quite awhile for portrait photography in those days, yes? This distorts light exposure and is probably exhausting and not fun, deadening posture and expression. Mocking the size of their breasts and unfeminine squareness of jaw is... pretty much sexist, and totally unfitting of Stolen History. This long discussion on " large and tapered hands" is grasping at straws, reminds me of the very worst of the flat earther community. Like we might as well be freaking out over a circular chicken egg from the 1800s.

Again, just imo.
 

anotherlayer

Well-known member
Messages
629
Reactions
2,088
A lot of overenthused speculation here, imo. Interesting photographs, I wish you went more into detail about documenting the inconsistencies among contemporaneous fashions of this time. I do not understand the notion that they wod use corpses (???) as convincing mannequins as part of the great coverup, though.
i think we might be going out of context. i think the banter you are seeing is because we're all kinda stolenhistory goofs, we've all read the same threads and we've all contributed to them at one time or another. So... when we talk about "dead people", it's because we've already hashed over that topic and now it has become a bit of a nervous laugh.

People had to sit or stand quite awhile for portrait photography in those days, yes?
Nah, we've long proven (on this site, let alone the rest of the internet) that you didn't need to stand still for minutes on end. Yes, it surely was a big day to have the photographer take family photos, but sitting in front of the lens was just the same as it was today. It was on the photographer. If the photographer was shite, you stood a little longer.

Mocking the size of their breasts and unfeminine squareness of jaw is... pretty much sexist, and totally unfitting of Stolen History.
Mocking? Are you sure you aren't looking for an argument? These photo shenanigans are serious business!

This long discussion on " large and tapered hands" is grasping at straws, reminds me of the very worst of the flat earther community. Like we might as well be freaking out over a circular chicken egg from the 1800s.
If you think that one person's hand is normal, then you aren't really interested in the level that I am and that's ok. But, that hand is fucked. It makes no sense. Yes, you got me going on again about it, but that's how the internet works. You give me a room to talk in, I'm gonna talk.

And who is "freaking out"? Seriously, you're talking shit for no reason. Great way to compare me to "the worst of the flat earther community". Great contribution to a site you seem be annoyed with anyway.

Again, just imo.
Mine too, though. There is no need to give us a feeling that you are "over it" and we're wasting your time going on about it.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,737
Reactions
14,054
It appears the original intent of the thread got derailed in a major way. My understanding of its purpose was to assign specific time frames to specific outfits, or vise versa.

As far as lack of breasts and hand-claws goes... I do not see any mocking involved. Especially taking into consideration the Civil War thread we had a chance to participate in. Females trying to pass for males is bizarre at the very least. I think the insides of the discussion in this thread can only be understood after a thorough review of the above linked Civil War thread.

If those are females (this thread), the reasons for biological abnormalities could be multiple. Those 5 look similar enough to be a family. At the same time they look close enough to be a part of some scientific experiment, which does sound pretty crazy. If those are males, I would like to find out the reasons for them trying to pass for females.

One thing when we are talking about our regular cross-dressing. But if it is not cross-dressing as we know it, why do we have what we have?

The general vibe I'm getting from all of these unusual photographs is that there could have been something our traditional history chose to omit from its narrative.
 

lostwithtime

Active member
Messages
43
Reactions
178
A little follow up history of regarding the photo of this female in natural attire during the 1870's who has intrigued me since my discovery of her a few years back: I re-discovered her lately on The Old Philippines.

The Old Philippines
Remembering The Beautiful Glory Days Of The Philippines When It Was Known As The Pearl Of The Orient...

The vintage photos listed on the blog are once again of universal architecture styles, burned and rebuilt churches and facilities in the 1870s or so, and mingling of native farmers and well dressed new comers.

A 1925 Tourist In Manila
A CERTAIN Juan Potous came by a little over a quarter of a century since his country had ceded the Philippines to the United States in the Treaty of Versailles.

Potous found the Luneta Nueva or New Luneta one of the most "delicious" natural places in Manila because the hand of man had done little to embellish it, i.e. the lily wasn't gilded. Oddly enough the custom of taking the air at the Luneta from the Spanish times was continued but this time instead of carriages there was an interminable line of cars at the border of the "paseo" with distinguished ladies, respectable gentlemen and beautiful girls inside them. Nobody though got down to walk around or greet each other.

Potous was struck by the Filipinas' habit of wearing their hair long and hanging down their backs without any hairpins. He was also impressed by the elegance of the inhabitants of Manila. Everyone appeared to be in white or ecru perhaps since he describes their shirts as a species of transparent gauze (piña?), richly decorated.

Women wore long skirts with a train pinned to one side prompting him to wonder of what use it had since it was never let loose. The materials favored were brightly colored, the women's arms and shoulders for the most part bare. To cover the low neck line, especially in the street, a large shoulder piece "de quita y pon" (literally, take out and put), usually white and decorated with large flowers was draped on. Their feet and legs were bare of stockings and as a rule no one went unshod but wore slippers of red velvet.

Sangley (Sangleye, Sangley Mestizo, Mestisong Sangley, Mestizo de Sangley or Chinese mestizo), is an archaic term used in the Philippines to describe and classify a person of pure Chinese ancestry, while mestizo de sangley was used to refer to a person of mixed Chinese and Malayo-Polynesian ancestry. (The latter were referred to as Indio during the Spanish Colonial Period.) Sangley mestizo was a term widely used in the 16th to 19th-century Spanish Philippines to differentiate ethnic Chinese from other types of island mestizos (such as those of mixed Indio and Spanish ancestry.) The Chinese mestizos were granted the legal status of colonial subjects of Spain, with certain rights and privileges denied both the pure-blooded Chinese immigrants (sangleys) and indigenous persons (indios).
Today, Tsinito (literally, "little Chinese man", in Spanish, Chinito) is widely used to describe a Sangley, but it is also commonly applied to Filipinos of other East Asian ancestries (Japanese, Korean, etc.) who possess similar physical features. Tsinoy or Chinese Filipino, on the other hand, is used to refer to Filipinos specifically of Chinese descent, regardless of cultural orientation or racial pedigree. Among Chinese-Filipino mestizos, many use and prefer the generic term mestizo to describe themselves.

Sangley comes from the Hokkien Chinese word seng-di(traditional Chinese:生意; POJ: seng-lí), meaning "business". Although mestizo de sangley literally means "mixed-race (person) of business", its implicit meaning is "mixed-race (person) of Chinese descent". The closest etymological relation is the Spanish term: "mestizo de sangre", which literally means "of mixed blood". By default, mestizo without the qualifying de sangley means a "mixed-race (person) of Spanish/European and indio ancestry". But, due to the relatively few español mestizos in the Philippines, as commonly used, mestizo refers to mestizo de sangley. This was explained by W. E. Retana in testimony before the United States Philippine Commission (1899-1900) and in his Diccionario de filipinismos (1921). The term chino mestizo was also used interchangeably with mestizo de sangley.


From Mr. John Silva:

"People have been commenting on the profile photo of the woman with a fan. I first found this photo at the Musee De L'Homme in Paris in 1985. The picture is only identified as Sangley Filipina meaning Chinese Filipina. As a photo historian and... collector I have dated this photograph around 1870's and the photographer is Francisco Van Kamp. He was a European that had a photo studio in Manila.

The photograph is unusual because the woman exhibits a subtle and alluring look in stark contrast to photos of women, mostly modest looking of that period. Her hair glistens with coconut oil and her fan, half open means she is single.

I have shared that photograph since to others and there have been findings of the same photo in other repositories. But I am pleased to have found it myself since the photo was actually misplaced in the French museum. They had put this picture under Tahiti! I made sure it was back in the Philippine folder!"
 

Sohio

New member
Messages
6
Reactions
13
It appears the original intent of the thread got derailed in a major way. My understanding of its purpose was to assign specific time frames to specific outfits, or vise versa.

As far as lack of breasts and hand-claws goes... I do not see any mocking involved. Especially taking into consideration the Civil War thread we had a chance to participate in. Females trying to pass for males is bizarre at the very least. I think the insides of the discussion in this thread can only be understood after a thorough review of the above linked Civil War thread.

If those are females (this thread), the reasons for biological abnormalities could be multiple. Those 5 look similar enough to be a family. At the same time they look close enough to be a part of some scientific experiment, which does sound pretty crazy. If those are males, I would like to find out the reasons for them trying to pass for females.

One thing when we are talking about our regular cross-dressing. But if it is not cross-dressing as we know it, why do we have what we have?

The general vibe I'm getting from all of these unusual photographs is that there could have been something our traditional history chose to omit from its narrative.
It could be to avoid war or even function as a hidden militia among the women for protection during war times. Perhaps even spies? The one people must have got caught b/c they got some hammered fingers. Just spitballing here.
 

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
1,409
Reactions
4,441
Handsome and haunting are their faces to me. Yet, the mystery is the hands hidden and / or enclosed in those black delicate lace gloves. Looks unnatural. I could not determine if they were large. Just an observation.
When I was growing up (back when dinosaurs roamed the earth- :) ) no self-respecting lady would be seen in public without gloves (and preferably a hat). Ladies never looked you directly in your eyes but kept the eyes demurely lowered. Taking pictures was serious business so smiling was a no-no. You didn't want to be seen as a frivolous buffoon so smiling for pictures was not encouraged.
What intrigued me about the picture of the ladies was the hair style. Reminded me of those ancient "headphones" that we can't figure out. (Can't remember which thread it's on). The style seems to be imitative of those "headphones", Princess Leia style.
 

Tonep

Active member
Messages
84
Reactions
238
Is it me or is there something wrong with the civil war battlefield pic?

fashion_1.jpg
 

asatiger1966

Well-known member
Messages
205
Reactions
920
No it's not a unit of guys wearing Santa Hats.

Zouave regiments, uniforms and tactics of the American Civil War, 1861–1862

5th New York Veteran Volunteers - Duryee's Zouaves 1864 Canvas Print
View attachment 12538View attachment 12539
The first regiment was recruited from the New York City and other local volunteer fire departments.

The 11th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment was an infantry regiment of the Union Army in the early years of the American Civil War. The regiment was organized in New York City in May 1861 as a Zouave regiment, known for its unusual dress and drill style, by Colonel Elmer E. Ellsworth, a personal friend of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. Drawn from the ranks of the city's many volunteer fire companies, the unit was known alternately as the Ellsworth Zouaves, First Fire Zouaves, First Regiment New York Zouaves,
these hands!


those aren't hands, those are claws.
On males the ring finger is generally longer than the index finger, while on females, the index finger is generally longer than or equal to the ring finger.

Maybe a dedicated post to fashion photographed as early as possible? I like to see a line drawn through history, to make sense of it all. Although it may never make sense. I'm trying to make out the timeline of photography, as it was invented from earliest to latest. Starting with fashion, and of course architecture. I think looking at early photos helps draw distinctions of what really existed, possibly in what time frames.



Stonewall Jackson's grave in Lexington, Virginia, in the 1860s


Skirts are slightly narrower so this photo
was taken a little later, but it still looks like the 1860s.
(this caption is not me but from Civil War Quilts: Fredericksburg's Confederate Cemetery)

And below is certainly not how I pictured the Confederates at the Battle of Fredericksburg. (Hats??, I know hats have been brought up a lot, but really??)


I simply did an image search of "photo fashion 1800" and this is the variety I got:








Charles Dickens?



None of the photos were dated. Most of them were labeled "Victorian". And I tried to avoid photos that were labeled or more obviously "Edwardian" (later period). But I still see a massive amount of inconsistency, and wish there were more photos of that actual period. I find it interesting, and think there is a "there" there. Just can't put my finger on it. Will look more into it.


This has nothing to do with fashion, but interesting:

I think your line of inquiry is a great idea, everything is connected.
 
Last edited:

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
133
Reactions
476
It appears the original intent of the thread got derailed in a major way. My understanding of its purpose was to assign specific time frames to specific outfits, or vise versa.

As far as lack of breasts and hand-claws goes... I do not see any mocking involved. Especially taking into consideration the Civil War thread we had a chance to participate in. Females trying to pass for males is bizarre at the very least. I think the insides of the discussion in this thread can only be understood after a thorough review of the above linked Civil War thread.

If those are females (this thread), the reasons for biological abnormalities could be multiple. Those 5 look similar enough to be a family. At the same time they look close enough to be a part of some scientific experiment, which does sound pretty crazy. If those are males, I would like to find out the reasons for them trying to pass for females.

One thing when we are talking about our regular cross-dressing. But if it is not cross-dressing as we know it, why do we have what we have?

The general vibe I'm getting from all of these unusual photographs is that there could have been something our traditional history chose to omit from its narrative.
What traditional history chose to omit from the narrative is the elite are trans-gendered Baphomet followers and expensive photography of them will reveal that to those who "see". I was contemplating posting an article about this phenomenon but frankly did not want to deal with the Victorian political correctness brigade. The modern elite are trans-gendered and photographs of the old elite will show the same thing. Now there is Brazilian doctors who are master plastic surgeons and Hellywood make up artists who camouflage this fact. You know who the elite are when you are able discern this fact.

cover protocols.png
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
581
Reactions
2,645
the unit was known alternately as the Ellsworth Zouaves, First Fire Zouaves, First Regiment New York Zouaves,
The Zouaves definitely need further analysis. They are more than just a fashion trend in the civil war.
There are examples of them where they are culturally different from the other troops.

3598637182_480bf06b9f_o.jpg

They did influence the later fashion trends of the wild wild west.
This is some kind of French Berber/Ottoman Turkish involvement in the civil war.

What traditional history chose to omit from the narrative is the elite are trans-gendered Baphomet followers and expensive photography of them will reveal that to those who "see". I was contemplating posting an article about this phenomenon but frankly did not want to deal with the Victorian political correctness brigade. The modern elite are trans-gendered and photographs of the old elite will show the same thing.
Of course you are going to take flack. It is one of the most Ego shattering things you can do to a person's belief structure.
Expect a Rowdy Roddy Piper fight

Baby steps.

If you do something, I would suggest you you take the historical approach like Phony Persephone
Her Dress to Suppress: TransAgenda in Retrospect series explains the fashion trends from the Edwardian era through the present.
Highly relatable to a woman with body image issues.
 
Last edited:

Sohio

New member
Messages
6
Reactions
13
I see the baphomet like a previous science memorial on what they could do, or that we looked like some hybrids before we got skin faces and we are just cockroach type hybrids.
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,737
Reactions
14,054
I'm going to lock this thread, for it got derailed in a major way. The original intent was to match closing styles with specific time frames. This way when we see a photograph dated with 1885, but people are wearing 1830s clothing we would know that something is up. Instead we ended up with Baphomet and other not directly related issues.

I will ask everyone to stay on topic of any thread you choose to participate in. If you wish to post something which would lead the thread in a totally different direction, please start a thread of your own.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top