Which leads me onto my final, and largest issue I had with your statement. Even ignoring its inaccuracy, I’m not keen on how you’re using corsets to contrast with how saris were worn historically — it reads as “corsets are bad, and saris, which are the polar opposite of corsets, are good”. It’s not actually the “corsets bad” part of that that I have beef with (the rest of my comment already thoroughly addresses that point), but rather the juxtaposition of corsets and saris. Rhetorically, it feels like the bit about the freedom of unstitched saris is implicitly reliant on the notion that corsets are restrictive and bad. This means that, if you were to read my thoughts on corsets and say “okay, I see now that I unintentionally misrepresented corsets as being more restrictive than they are”, that would implicitly diminish the weight of your point about unstitched saris.

Which is to say that unstitched saris and the recent nipple reclamation movement is a beautiful piece of history and culture that does not need to compare itself to European culture in order to be valuable. Defining oneself in opposition to an oppressive force is just another way of being subordinate to that force and is an obstacle to genuine liberation (this thought brought to you by someone who had a “not like other girls” phase as a teenager, where I looked down on all things feminine as a reaction to my growing understanding of patriarchal bullshit).

Corsets, are, of course, relevant to the discussion, in that they’re a part of the British culture that was forced on so many people across the world. However, I think it’s important to avoid putting too much emphasis on directly comparing the features and benefits of historical sari wearing to British fashion. The beauty in material history, for me, is in understanding how things like clothing developed over time as a result of a particular cultural context. I have no doubt that if I could delve into the history of saris, I would find a history just as rich and nuanced as I have found for corsetry. I’d see how things changed as a result of new technologies, silly fashion trends, economic circumstances, cultural exchange with neighbouring countries and religions and more. Or to put it a different way, the beauty is in how a piece of clothing can be an anchor for a particular situated perspective.

One of the many tragedies of colonialism is that it acts outside the natural and beautiful mechanisms of cultural development, and tries to overpower the existing culture and history of a place with its oppressive stench. Writing this comment had got me grieving for an alternate timeline in which the British had come to India and, although initially shocked by clothing they considered to be indecent, came to understand this was just because their sensibilities and preferences had been calibrated in a completely different cultural context. Then that might’ve been the foundation for realising that India having such a drastically different culture and history to Britain was precisely why there was so much that we could have learned from India, if we had been open to engaging in genuine cultural exchange, as equals. Maybe in that world, we’d see fashion trends in Britain be influenced by how unstitched saris were worn (as opposed to appropriating materials and methods divorced from their contexts). Maybe that would lead to a world where British ideas of decency developed to the extent that we might be seeing fashion become more open to the idea of bare breasts. Maybe in India, we could be seeing Indian fashion designers borrowing Inspirations from the more structured British fashion, incorporating them into the rich history of saris and other traditional clothing. You know, the kind of genuine cultural exchange that we can see happening if we study the developmental history of British fashion alongside French fashion. But alas, that kind of dialogue is only possible between equals, and the British came to colonise, not to have conversations.

I have gotten a little off track there with that wistful tangent, but it’s because I’m having difficulty articulating the point that compelled me to write these comments — I wouldn’t have written nearly this much if not for this larger point that I’m struggling with.

I think that I’m trying to say that in British history, corsets were not a garment of oppression. In my hypothetical, alternate timeline, corsets would not have been a garment of oppression in India either, and could have coexisted with bare-breasted, unstitched saris in continual conversation with each other; in that world, directly contrasting the features of corsets and saris would have made more sense. However, due to colonialism, they very much are a garment of oppression for India and many many other countries. That sucks, and I wish it weren’t the case, but it is. And at that point, it often becomes necessary to throw away the artifacts of oppression in their entirety, in order to reclaim the history and culture that colonialism attempted to erase.

I guess the TL;DR of this is that the value of this history exists independently of British historical, and need not justify itself in opposition to such

I’m not sure I managed to capture what I wanted to say very well, but I hope I’m close enough that you get my gist. Please do let me know if there’s anything you would add or amend about my points, because my goal here isn’t to lecture at you, but to engage in a conversation (which is possible even if you don’t find yourself inclined to reply). If you feel I have been an asshole at any point in these comments, I am open to being called out on that. After all, the last thing I want to do is to be yet another British asshole attempting to speak over and override people. I can’t go back in time and prevent colonialism, but I can attempt to recognise the impact of historic (and ongoing) oppression, and aim to subvert that by engaging in conversations between equals. I learned a lot from this post, and my hope for my first comment was that I could reciprocate by telling you about something relevant that I know a heckton about. I wrote this second comment because the rhetorical shape of how you used corsets as a contrast reminds me of something I have slipped into quite a few times in the context of some of the axes on which I am marginalised. I tended not to notice it until allies and friends pointed it out to me, and that changed now I framed things. I was hoping that I might be able to do something similar for you, because I’ve found that the shape of oppression looks uncannily consistent, no matter what axis it occurs on. I’m unsure of whether I have been coherent enough to actually achieve this, mind. In hindsight, I should have probably gone to bed at least an hour ago, and not attempted to say something so complex when I’m this tired, but oh well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯