"Alright, so to my knowledge we all come from middle class families and did not grow up rich. And we are all black males growing up in America, attempting to be successful. So, I studied and went to college. I worked hard to find a good job so that I could buy the things I like. Now a lot of my clothes come from Brooks Brothers, JCrew, Johnston and Murphy etc., things I couldn't afford in college. I dress different now than I did in college; some would classify me as preppy. Yesterday, I went to a polo match in Greenwich, CT. I mainly went for the tailgating and company of my friends, but I was criticized by another friend. I was told that I am being a poser, dressing a certain way and going to certain events to indicate that I come from money. I really didn't see it that way. I saw it as doing something different and being with my friends. I guess my point is that none of us dress how we used to dress, and we buy things that come with certain labels or indications of wealth, but does that make us posers? Does that mean we have forgotten where we came from originally? Because I am from Queens, NY should I be anti experiencing a polo match? If I wear a seersucker jacket am I trying to be something I'm not?"
To me, his various friends' criticisms reek of "hater," but the issue goes much deeper than that. To me, it speaks to an extremely myopic vision/definition of what it means to be Black -- both within the black community and society at large. We are not (nor is any other race/ethnicity) one monolithic culture represented by one form of dress, one style of music, or a central brain directing our collective thoughts. Which authority said that buying JCrew, wearing a seersucker suit, or attending a polo match definitively falls outside the "Black experience," and makes my friend or anyone "less Black" or less whatever identity they are?
As a young, black, male, A-i-T, I am extremely aware of the fact that how I and my fellow men of color (MOC) dress, seems to define us more so than many other groups.Why should being Black (or any race) place boundaries on one's experience -- isn't it each individual's job to define his/her own experience as s/he sees fit? Why should it be that clothes define it for us?
Society would have you believe that the official young black male (YBM) uniform is Timberlands/Nikes, baggy/saggy jeans, a tilted baseball cap and a shirt from hip-hop fashion label X. I had my days wearing nothing but Ecko, but now I'm a little older, a little married, and a little working, and my tastes have changed. There is no judgment being passed on my part on anyone who still wears hip-hop fashions -- but herein lies the issue -- The clothing an MOC chooses to outfit himself with seems to speak volumes louder than for your average White (and maybe Asian) guy, and comes pre-loaded with a set of value judgments that he must disrobe himself of in order to be seen for who he truly is.
Think about it, is there any such thing as a typical young White male uniform (YWM)? Does one, or several possibilities come to mind? In contrast to the YBM uniform, which the average person can conjure up in seconds, the YWM uniform is very eclectic, hard to pigeon-hole, and does not necessarily define the wearer's entire identity. How a YBM dresses seems to sharply define his character and separate his identities. There is the presumed, "hood brotha," identifiable at 500 yards by the "YBM uniform" and living a struggling/hustling existence. There is also the "wall street brotha," who "made it" out the hood, as distinguished by his suit. For some strange reason, society says that these two individuals cannot occupy the same body - yet ignorance would dictate that my friend should show up to his finance job wearing Timbs and a do-rag because he's Black...how ridiculous is that?
Buried within this maze also lies class issues, which could fill an entire post. At the end of the day, however, my friend wears Brooks Brothers because that is the uniform at his job, which gives him the means to afford the label. His style of dress may have changed but it has not intrinsically changed his character, in the same way your fashion journey has not altered who you fundamentally are. I will freely admit to having issues with hipsters (the whole trend seems kinda forced), but in general, the notion that upgrading/changing one's wardrobe and having a few experiences outside their norm should make someone a poser, is dubious on its best day...
Adults-in-Training, have you ever received criticism because your style or extracurricular activities have changed and/or differ from an old set of friends?
Peace,
A-i-T
As a young, black, male, A-i-T, I am extremely aware of the fact that how I and my fellow men of color (MOC) dress, seems to define us more so than many other groups.Why should being Black (or any race) place boundaries on one's experience -- isn't it each individual's job to define his/her own experience as s/he sees fit? Why should it be that clothes define it for us?
Society would have you believe that the official young black male (YBM) uniform is Timberlands/Nikes, baggy/saggy jeans, a tilted baseball cap and a shirt from hip-hop fashion label X. I had my days wearing nothing but Ecko, but now I'm a little older, a little married, and a little working, and my tastes have changed. There is no judgment being passed on my part on anyone who still wears hip-hop fashions -- but herein lies the issue -- The clothing an MOC chooses to outfit himself with seems to speak volumes louder than for your average White (and maybe Asian) guy, and comes pre-loaded with a set of value judgments that he must disrobe himself of in order to be seen for who he truly is.
(Please feel free to comment/debate with me on these opinions/observations, because A-i-T is not a dictatorship -- it is OUR forum)
Think about it, is there any such thing as a typical young White male uniform (YWM)? Does one, or several possibilities come to mind? In contrast to the YBM uniform, which the average person can conjure up in seconds, the YWM uniform is very eclectic, hard to pigeon-hole, and does not necessarily define the wearer's entire identity. How a YBM dresses seems to sharply define his character and separate his identities. There is the presumed, "hood brotha," identifiable at 500 yards by the "YBM uniform" and living a struggling/hustling existence. There is also the "wall street brotha," who "made it" out the hood, as distinguished by his suit. For some strange reason, society says that these two individuals cannot occupy the same body - yet ignorance would dictate that my friend should show up to his finance job wearing Timbs and a do-rag because he's Black...how ridiculous is that?
Buried within this maze also lies class issues, which could fill an entire post. At the end of the day, however, my friend wears Brooks Brothers because that is the uniform at his job, which gives him the means to afford the label. His style of dress may have changed but it has not intrinsically changed his character, in the same way your fashion journey has not altered who you fundamentally are. I will freely admit to having issues with hipsters (the whole trend seems kinda forced), but in general, the notion that upgrading/changing one's wardrobe and having a few experiences outside their norm should make someone a poser, is dubious on its best day...
Adults-in-Training, have you ever received criticism because your style or extracurricular activities have changed and/or differ from an old set of friends?
Peace,
A-i-T
Posts
2 comments:
The moral of the story ... 'Do you!'
Amen to that...
Post a Comment