Ummm.....let's see.  "Military" refers to militia, an armed force used in
combat.  Ergo, "military uniforms" are the result of a political or cultural
decision to be prepared to kill.  Masonic or Knights of Columbus uniforms
are used for ceremonial reasons, as an expression of tradition or belief
akin to the Swiss guards, etc.

Diesel fuel and fertilizer are produced for particular commercial uses to
benefit commerce, also a political or cultural decision I suppose.   Masons,
Knights of Columbus, Shriners, the Swiss guards, etc. include men who as a
unit are not established for combat.  Diesel fuel and fertilizer are not
manufactured for explosive uses.

I remember something in logic about a syllogism......Ollie North is among
those who may never have learned it.


>To answer Doug Lantry's questions:
>
>        "So is it too big a stretch to say that artifacts *are* politics?
That
>uniforms *are* politics? Or should we back off semantically and
> just say they *have* politics?"


<snip>
>
>If we want to go into this kind of gross association, I would put
>fertilizer on the list of materials that kill, explosives, since when
>combined with diesel fuel (another agent involved in killing, and very
>definite political overtones) equals an explosive (remember the Oklahoma
>Federal building?).
>
>Dave Wells
>Olympia WA
>[log in to unmask]
>
>Doug Lantry wrote:
>>
>> One listmember posted on the notion of artifacts being separate
>> from policy and actions (see re-post underneath riposte below).
>>
>> Alternative view on the absolute separation of
>> artifacts from politics:
>>
>> Some (me included) feel artifacts *do* have politics. For a convincing
>> explanation, see Langdon Winner's essay "Do Artifacts have Politics?"
>> I don't have the bib ref right now, but if anyone wants it I can find
>> it.
>>
>> The argument is simple: Made things turn out the way they do because
>> people who made them have attitudes, priorities, agendas, cultural
>> outlooks, etc. In this way, the politics of homo faber are embedded in
>> artifice. How could this kind of thing apply to military uniforms?
>> Here's a shot in the dark: I'll bet regalia of different nations and
>> military services look very different (and similar too) for reasons
>> related to the wishes of their designers and users, and are not entirely
>> dependent on the "form-function" question.
>>
>> So is it too big a stretch to say that artifacts *are* politics? That
>> uniforms *are* politics? Or should we back off semantically and just
>> say they *have* politics? I think that's an interesting question. Sorry
if
>> I've misconstrued or oversimplified, but it simply occurred to me that
>> separating artifacts from politics might lead to missing chances for
>> interpretive insight.
>>
>> best regards to all,
>> Doug
>>
>> ........................................
>> Doug Lantry
>> The Ohio Historical Society
>> Statehouse Education and Visitors Center
>> Columbus, Ohio
>> [log in to unmask]
>>
>> On Thu, 7 May 1998, Dave wrote:
>>
>> > Military uniforms are only a part of the presentation of history, and
>> > are not of themselves more than historic documents. Do not confuse
>> > policy and actions with material culture objects/artefacts as they are
>> > VERY different. (One never sees that automobile museums present the
>> > on-road deaths or destruction of the landscape as that is neither their
>> > mission nor their intent.)
>> >
>> > On this original topic of uniforms in exhibtion, please check the New
>> > York Public Library's Resources on Military Uniforms:
>> >
http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/subguides/milhist/costnypl.html
>> >