Why Not Braces, Colored Panties, or Hankies Instead of “shirts”?

Taking his cue from a recent editorial in the Sunday. Jewish Daily Bulletin, Mark M. Litchman, prominent Seattle attorney, B’nai B’rith leader and active in liberal circles there, discusses the White Shirt movement, now under way in seattle, and other “shirt” modes in the following article.—Editor.

It is extremely unfortunate that the “white shirt” has been a symbol of Americanism, of patriotism, by a few people in Seattle styling themselves the White Shirts after the European fashion of Black Shirts, Red Shirts, Brown Shirts and what have you.

I believe it would have been more appropriate as Americans if the White Shirts, parading in Seattle July 4, had called themselves the “Sockless and Shoeless Men,” and had walked barefooted with dabs of rouge or red paint on their toes and soles to resemble the bleeding feet of Washington’s soldiers at Valley Forge.

If a shirt must be the symbol of Americanism I ask “Why not a tattered shirt?” For was it not the American soldier with the tattered shirt who wrested this country from the English? But perhaps, the tattered shirt may be objectionable because so many Americans today have only tattered shirts and the organization would be too democratic and too realistic—contrary to the purpose of the White Shirts, who believe in an aristocratic organization with lots of meaningless symbols.

But why use a shirt to hocus-pocus patriotism when there are other garments more symbolic of Americanism? Shortly after the parade I went into a haberdashery shop to look for a real American symbol. The first thing I saw was a job lot of suspenders.

There’s the real article, I said to myself. For many years the suspender has held up the manhood, the pants of the nation. Noble garment, the suspender!

What could be more dignified and more American than the sight of a group of marchers stretching the web of their suspenders with their thumbs, as was our custom before the days of the vest. With the pants as a symbol for the nation, the organization could well say: “The suspender supports or upholds the nation!”

Near the suspenders in the store was an assortment of garters. The garter has many admirable qualities to offer as an American symbol. This is especially true today when so many wear cheap shapeless socks and many men have fallen into the habit of allowing socks to hang down over shoetops.

So why not the “American Garter?” I say American garter, because there is an “English Garter”, emblematic of English royalty. Who has not heard of the Knights of the Garter? Just visualize the members of an American organization, marching down the street, with pants rolled up to the knees, displaying a beautiful garter, and also the calves of the leg?

A sight of the gods, indeed! Besides it would make excellent drill practice before asking for an audience with the King of England.

Thinking of legs and short pants impelled me to search for shorts or panties — to see if they could perform symbolic service. I found the counter in the store with panties in all colors — pink, red, white, blue, orange, and green.

Immediately there flashed through my mind the wonderful symbolic possibilities that panties have for paying patriotism. The members of the organization could be divided into three divisions — red panties, white panties, and blue panties.

To achieve a star up to 13, the cost should be nominal—say $5. But from 13 to 48 stars, the charge should be from $10 to $1,000. Operated on this basis, the organization would be a profitable one, and certainly it would be exclusive.

A man’s patriotism could be measured by the number of his stars. Moreover, a forty-eight star pantie could be given a more awesome title than that which was given by the Ku Kluxers—for example, The Most Almightiest of the Almightiest.

Certainly, a member should pay big money for a high sounding title like that. Furthermore, the pantie type of organization has it over the White Shirt, for it permits the legs or limbs to be shown. And that would certainly attract the ladies—more so than even the Scotch kilties.

From the point of view of hygienic evolution, the “hanky” has been of greater value than the white shirt. Who does not remember just a generation or so ago when it was the custom to wipe noses on coatsleeves until it became necessary to sew two and sometimes three buttons on the sleeve to stop that practice?

The “hanky” saved the nation. Red or blue bandanna “hankies” wouldn’t do. They are too reminis### of the ###mecha###### but for the fact that they ### duced in the Orient.

However, the White Shirt is an improvement over the night shirt of the Ku Klux Klan. It is more abbreviated and less cumbersome to walk around in. There is danger in the White Shirt. For, being symbolic of “living without working” (when one wears a white shirt he refrains from soiling it) it is liable to inspire the many perspiring millions to organize into Work Shirts and Dirty Shirts.

Surely the Work Shirt—particularly, the Dirty Shirt—is a true symbol of Americanism. For without the men, women, and children within the shirt— and offtimes, shirtless—who did the farming, mining, manufacturing, railroading, canning, lumbering, and milling, America as a nation would still be a virgin land.

So let us put aside symbolism as an antiquated practice and wear shirts, pants, socks, suspenders, garters, and other garments as clothing—not as symbols.