***Disclaimer***

Disclaimer: The Wizard of 'OZ' makes no money from 'OZ' - The 'Other' Side of the Rainbow. 'OZ' is 100 % paid ad-free

Sunday, January 05, 2025

What was trashy 100 years ago...

The concept of what was considered "trashy" or of low value 100 years ago varied based on societal norms, cultural perspectives, and economic circumstances of that time. However, some items or behaviours that were often looked down upon or considered less desirable included:

  1. Certain Foods: Foods like offal (organ meats), scraps, or leftovers were often considered less desirable or "peasant" food, especially in more affluent households.

  2. Rags and Tattered Clothing: Wearing heavily worn, torn, or tattered clothing was seen as a sign of poverty and lower social standing.

  3. Public Smoking and Chewing Tobacco: The habit of public smoking or chewing tobacco was seen as unsophisticated or inappropriate in certain social circles.

  4. Lack of Proper Hygiene: Poor personal hygiene and a lack of cleanliness were looked down upon and associated with lower socioeconomic status.

  5. Living in Overcrowded, Unsanitary Conditions: Living in crowded, unsanitary tenements or slum areas was associated with poverty and lower living standards.

  6. Unrefined Language and Manners: Using crude or unrefined language, as well as displaying improper manners or etiquette, was viewed negatively and considered a sign of lower education or upbringing.

  7. Uneducated or Illiterate Individuals: Lack of formal education and the inability to read or write were often associated with limited opportunities and lower social status.

It's important to recognize that societal attitudes and values have evolved significantly over the past century, and what was considered "trashy" or undesirable in the past may not hold the same connotations today. Additionally, judgments based on appearances, class, or background are not conducive to a more inclusive and empathetic society.

Source: Some or all of the content was generated using an AI language model

No comments: