Dictating what people can and can’t wear is a tricky business. Moves by the Taliban or Chairman Mao to impose a dress code on their people is largely considered draconian. Whereas banning face coverings in France was done in the name of freedom — well, at least until it became necessary to make face coverings a legal requirement. Do the French do irony?
Then there’s the Nazi uniform. Is it just a bored princeling acting an arse, or is it just an arse being an arse? As much as it might disgust wider society, it’s also a helpful signalling device that tells us that the wearer is indeed likely to be an arse and therefore not bothering with. Unless that is, it’s some poor historical reenactment chap on his way home from playing soldiers for the day.
As for the headdress, some might question at what point does fashion become cultural appropriation, or even a lack of fashion (I’m looking at you, the Hawaiian shirts, here). How about the suit and (somewhat formerly) the tie? Widely adopted around the world, is it a form of cultural appropriation?
And, where does the headdress sit in all this?
On the Hawaiian shirt, it’s probably a no (although there are probably a few virtue-signalling wokies that’ll argue otherwise). On the suit, I’d be surprised if anyone thinks it’s anything other than a no. But on the Headdress, it’s a yes, given the views of those from cultures where headdresses originate.
So please Chiefs, leave them at home — at the very least you’ll give someone a better view of the game and to top it off you’ll be doing your bit not to cause offence to another culture.
Always a Wasp
