Unlike fertilizer (interesting choice, so much of it is bullshit), military
uniforms do not exist outside the context of armed aggression.  Their style
deconstructs into quite blatant political statement - some governments
historically have preferred uniforms that look magnificent and identify your
side from the enemy, but provide little or no protection  - like the red
coats worn in the Sudan campaign which actually turned soldiers into very
visible targets - others prefer uniforms designed to actively promote
efficient carnage, like the best camouflage battle-dress.  Parade uniforms
celebrate victories.  And as for armour, and all those endless Renaissance
portraits of nobles wearing their grotesque fantasies of violence, it
reflects whole congeries of male dominance games.  How can you separate
military uniform out from its purpose?  Would you consider an SS officer's
outfit 'a-political' just because it was a nice design?  Few if any
artifacts of any kind exist outside a social context, and that includes a
web-work of politics.

Heleanor Feltham
[log in to unmask]