In Chicago, Illinois, a woman is being arrested for defying a Chicago edict banning "abbreviated bathing suits" on beaches.
Image: Bettmann/CORBIS
In
1919, 20 special deputies called "Sheriffettes" were sworn in to
monitor the swimwear of the bathers at Rockaway Beach, Queens, New York.
This was the latest salvo in an ongoing battle between women and beach
authorities — and not just there.
That same year, a policeman was reprimanded by a judge for arresting a
woman who wore a swimsuit under a skirt and sweater. She was walking
along Ocean Parkway with her husband and was told to go home and change
into complete street attire. The policeman allegedly looked under her
skirt to check what she was wearing. The judge told him he had no
business to do so and dismissed the charge.
In 1921, a bather in Atlantic City, New Jersey was arrested for
wearing her stockings rolled below her knees and refusing to pull them
up. She retaliated during her arrest by punching the officer in the eye.
A 1921 Hawaiian law was enacted that no one over 14 years of age
could appear in a swimsuit unless "covered suitably by an outer garment
reaching at least to the knees." Women began to wear towels around their
waists or wrap raincoats around themselves.
1921
Chicago policewomen checking for violations of the bathing suit-length laws
Image: Bettmann/CORBIS
It was the climax to a long debate about clothing modesty, which mostly targeted women.
In the late 19th century, swimming became less about health and more
about pleasure. At that point, the genders divided; men swam with men,
women with women, but rarely together.
Into the early 1900s, women's swimming costumes were cumbersome, with
high necks, long sleeves, skirts and pants. Often they were made of
wool.
But as the century hit its stride, necklines lowered and arms were
uncovered. In response, seaside resorts published codes regulating the
appearance of swimming costumes, especially the length of the skirts, in
the interest of preserving modesty.
The one-piece swimming suit, brought to the public attention by
swimmer, vaudeville and film star Annette Kellerman, was legally banned
in parts of the U.S. In 1908 Kellerman was arrested for indecent
exposure at Revere Beach, Boston, Massachusetts.
These apologies for skirts endanger the morals of the children. The police must interfere and stop the outrageous proceedings.
The Washington Post, 1907
April 1922
Chicago, Illinois - Two bathers being escorted off the beach by a police woman.
Image: Bettmann/CORBIS
The city has no right to tell me how I shall wear my clothes. It is none of their darn business. I will go to jail first.
Louise Rosine, 1921
1925
"Smokey" Buchanan from the West Palm Beach police
force, measuring the bathing suit of Betty Fringle on Palm Beach, to
ensure that it conforms with regulations introduced by the beach
censors.
Image: General Photographic Agency/Getty Images
It was the long civil war of swimwear.
"SPLASH! A HISTORY OF SWIMWEAR" - RICHARD MARTIN AND HAROLD KODA
But
by the early 1930s, the swimwear storm seemed to have blown itself out.
That decade saw a rise in the emphasis on the practical value of
personal health and exercise, and women could finally shake off the
clumsy swimwear of the past for something more practical.
Yet, as Alfred Eisenstadt's 1941 image of a boardwalk sign suggests
(below), the scourge of "improper attire" had not entirely gone away.
dna takes a look 1900s Bombay Vintage Photographs, an exhibit of 75 pictures at Dinodia Photo Gallery, which portray the city before it became Mumbai
Apollo Bunder dna
Walk into the 6th floor of Bajaj Bhawan, Nariman Point, and you'll be amazed at how spaces in Mumbai are used for the growth of culture and art. The Dinodia Art Gallery, a tiny corner in a 1,000 sq ft photo studio space, is proof that if you're a lover of art and have an eye for the same, you'll find avenues to allow its propagation.
Launched in February this year, Dinodia has a new exhibition every month. Walk into the gallery before July 17, and you’ll see a partially sepia-hued space, allowing you to tour around 'Bombay'. 1900s Bombay Vintage Photographs is an exhibition showcasing 75 pictures, which belong to collectors Ajay Goyal, Anil Dave and Dr. Jehangir Sorabjee. The photographs are of buildings and monuments across Bombay during the 1900s, in its full grandeur.
We ask Jagdish Agarwal, creator of India’s first stock photography agency Dinodia (1987) who also owns Dinodia Photo Gallery, how he came up with the idea of showcasing the ‘Bombay’ that was once buzzing. He responds, “I met Ajay Goyal, and he told me that he has collected a number of images of Bombay. So I decided to take a look at the same. When I went to his house, I realised he has more than 1,000 pictures; ones he collected while on his trips abroad. It was mind-blowing. Later, I got in touch with Anil Dave and Dr. Jehangir Sorabjee, and they owned a collection as well. That’s when I decided that these pictures have to be showcased.”
Take a look at the images at this exhibition, and compare it to the monuments of today (most of which are now declared heritage) and you'll realise how badly maintained they are. Agarwal says, “We, as a city, have never given much thought about maintaining these structures. Today, these buildings only serve a utilitarian purpose. This is exactly the reason why it has lost the grandeur it once had. What the city requires is a think tank, one which will help maintain it, so we don't lose these structures with time.”
HT This Day: Feb 15, 1929 -- Princes Oppose Independence
BySpecial Correspondent, New Delhi
Feb 14, 2022 07:47 PM IST
When the Chamber of Princes met to-day under the presidency of the
Viceroy, the Maharaja of Patiala moved the following resolution: “While
adhering to their policy of non-intervention in the affaire of British
India and repeating their assurance of sympathy with its continued
political progress, the Princes and Chiefs composing this Chamber, in
view of the recent pronouncements of a section of British Indian
politicians indicative of a drift towards complete independence, desire
to place on record that in light of the mutual obligations arising from
their Treaties and Engagements with the British Crown they cannot assent
to any proposals having for their object the adjustment of equitable
relations between the Indian States and British India less each
proposals proceed upon the initial basis of the British connection
When the Chamber of Princes met to-day under the presidency of the
Viceroy, the Maharaja of Patiala moved the following resolution:
HT This Day: Feb 15, 1929 -- Princes Oppose Independence
“While
adhering to their policy of non-intervention in the affaire of British
India and repeating their assurance of sympathy with its continued
political progress, the Princes and Chiefs composing this Chamber, in
view of the recent pronouncements of a section of British Indian
politicians indicative of a drift towards complete independence, desire
to place on record that in light of the mutual obligations arising from
their Treaties and Engagements with the British Crown they cannot assent
to any proposals having for their object the adjustment of equitable
relations between the Indian States and British India less each
proposals proceed upon the initial basis of the British connection.
In urging to one Chamber the careful consideration of the resolution, the Maharaja of Patiala said:
“Your
Excellency we have always refrained from any interference with British
Indian politics, and we have not the least intention of departing from
this salutary role Bur the complete severance of British connection
which has been advocated by a section of British Indian political
thought, is not a matter which affects British India alone. It would be a
matter of indifference to us if we had no desire of ultimate federal
relations with British India, with proper safeguards, or if we had no
treaty obligations with British Crown to discharge. But that is not so.
Our ties with British India are close. We are linked to British India
politically, historically, economically. These ties will, we hope,
become even more close in the future. W e, therefore, regard it as our
duty, to give suitable and timely expression of our deep concern, that
the developments in the Indian polities should not be such as would
create an unsurmountable obstacle in the way of closer relations between
British India and Indian India, or inconsistence with the due discharge
of our mutual treaty obligations with the British Crown.
Place of State
The
reasons why such suggestions necessarily evoke our lively concern are
not far to seek In India, taken as a whole, our interests are of a
magnitude only second to those of British India. Territorially, the
Indian State, if Burma be excluded, constitutes nearly one half of the
total peninsula, while their population numbers upwards of 76 millions.
We feel we are entitled to an adequate voice in shaping the ultimate
policy of the whole country.
Your Excellency, it is our profound
conviction that in the best interests of India herself, the British
connection should be maintained. Provision must of course be made for
changing times and for progressive developments, but granted these, we
believe that India will be a greater and a more prosperous land as a
federation of autonomous States and provinces with the Empire, than she
will be outside the Empire. This being our conviction, we can only
regard any movement in British India in the direction of complete
independence, as likely to injure the best interests of the country, and
also to postpone the establishment of an equitable and friendly
adjustment of interests between the States and British India for the
good of India as a whole.
Obligation, to Crown
“So
far, Your Excellency, I have been looking at the matter from the
common-sense material point of view. But there are other factors to be
considered. We ourselves have entered into solemn reciprocal obligations
with the British Crown, which we must discharge, in the future as we
have done in the past. These obligations entail the maintenance of an
honourable connection, importing respect by either party for its own
duties and for rights of the other between India and Britain. Without
such a connection, we feel that these mutual rights and duties cannot on
discharged. Hence, quite apart from our conviction that the inclusion
of India within the British Commonwealth is vitally necessary to the
wellbeing of the country, we feel, the suggestion of independence
conveys a menace to the due discharge of these reciprocal rights and
obligations.
Sympathy with Br. India
“Your
Excellency, we desire to make it clear that we imply no hostility to
British India. On the contrary, we have expressed our sympathy with the
aspirations of British India which we regard as legitimate. We
unhesitatingly reaffirm this sympathy, and not merely in a conventional
sense. We have always contributed to the extent of our power, towards
the educational, humanitarian, and progressive activities in British
India, we have always refrained from doing anything which might thwart
or retard the political progress in British India towards dominion
status. We have no intention of ever doing that. We recognize that
British India has as much right, within its exclusive sphere, to aspire
to rise to its full stature, as the *4tates have to e joy fully the
rights they are entitled to exercise. But just as we cannot, fairly take
any step in matters involving the common interest of British India and
Indian India, without paying due regard to the legitimate rights of the
former, so we on our part o aim the same consideration from British
India in matters which involve us along with them. Differences with our
friends in British India will only arise, when their conceptions of
their rights extend to a degree which causes them to claim an exclusive
control over interests, which owing to considerations alike of history
and politics, are not theirs and theirs alone. This resolution is
intended, as stated above, to express, in time our apprehensions lest
developments should occur in British India, which may hinder the
cultivation of those closer ties designed to lead up to the equitable
adjustment of the interests of British India and Indian States, on
federal basis. Our one desire is to cement our relations with British
India consistently with the due discharge, of our duty to our States,
and our treaty obligations with Britain.
The Three Parties,
“Finally,
Your Excellency, we wish to emphasize our belief that any constructive
settlement of the Indies situation must take due notice. of the
legitimate interest of all the three parties concerned, I mean, Great
Britain, British India and the Indian States. Only by taking due account
of at three, can statesmanship ultimately pres are the way for any
permanent constructive work. We ourselves believe that there lies before
India a great and worthy future, in keeping with the traditions of her
glorious past. Let us, whether we be the representatives of the British
Crown, British Indian leaders or Indian Princes, see to it that our
activities and our energies move harmoniously to the task of building up
an Indian federation founded upon a mutual respect for each others
rights, which shall remain a constituent and autonomous part of the
British Commonwealth of Nations.
Catch
every big hit, every wicket with Crickit, a one stop destination for
Live Scores, Match Stats, Infographics & much more. Explore now!
See more .........................................................................................
An
old 1929 postcard showing the DeHavilland Hercules Biplane carrying
airmail from England to India. This passenger airline was operated by Imperial Airways at the time, now known as British Airways. Another of the Imperial Airways biplane the Argosy operated the first airmail service between India to England in April 1929.
Imperial Airways also operated flying boats from England to India in the 1930s and 1940s. After the merger of Imperial Airways and British Airways Ltd forming BOAC which also operated flying boat
services to India. There were scores of British airway companies
operating from 1919 to 1974 until all merged into a single entity named British Airways in 1974.
To know more go to History of British Airways.The
DeHavilland Hercules Biplane had limited capabilities it had a number
of fatal crashes on various occasions. The Hercules in 1929 crashed in
Iran carrying mail from England to India. Perhaps it is the same
aircraft that is shown here.
Did you know – the first flight from England to India was on a
Apollo Bunder dna
