EVIE PORTER - YEAR 12
On 28th February, the world witnessed a tense atmosphere in the Oval Office after, during a meeting to discuss the future of his war-torn country, president Zelensky was asked “Why don’t you wear a suit?”. The response was a media storm, dominated by criticism of the US senate, and accusations of ‘democratic’ bullying, but also concern over how badly Zelensky’s messaging was misunderstood. Since the beginning of humanity, dress has been used as a form of self-expression. Biblically, this literally is exemplified with the first humans. ‘Skimpy belts of fig leaves’ (Genesis 3:21) are used as a clothing motif in descriptions and depictions of Adam and Eve. While practically this is to maintain modesty, throughout the bible fig leaves are used as a ‘symbol for man-made religion and false righteousness.’ (amazingfacts.org).
In Matthew 21:18-20, Jesus used the withered leaves of a barren fig tree as a metaphor for the hypocrisy of the rabbis who would put him to death just a few days later. Biblical wrongdoers like Adam and Eve are clothed in fig leaves as an unspoken message to Christians, reminding them of the repercussions they will face if they choose to follow the same sinful path. And this concept is seen repeatedly throughout history, from the decedent garments worn by monarchs, to military uniform distinguishing who stood on which side of a conflict. But not only have clothes been used to assert the dominance of authoritative establishments, this a deeply entrenched societal norm has also been used to peacefully and subtly subvert authority. An example that springs to mind (after learning about it in History A-level), which, to me, holds a stark resemblance to the situation in Washington last week was Churchill’s comments about Gandhi. Churchill, who believed in the white person’s duty “to rule these primitive but agreeable races for their welfare and our own.”, was outwardly critical of Gandhi's Satyagraha movement of civil disobedience. Speaking as a backbench MP, he described Gandhi ‘striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace’ as ‘alarming and nauseating’. While Churchill intended to alienate Gandhi as part of a foreign, uncivilised and inferior race, this attempt to undermine Gandhi’s political professionalism instead highlighted Churchill’s own ignorance. The home-spun cloth draped over Gandhi’s lean figure was an integral symbol of his desire to free India from British economic oppression, part of the Khadi Cotton Revolution. Protesters were encouraged to hand-weave fabric, boycotting the exploitative system where Britain sold manufactured cotton clothing at inflated prices back to the Indian people. The sophisticated subtlety of Gandhi's political protest underlines the irony of Churchill’s commentary. So, why didn’t President Zelensky wear a suit? Since the beginning of the war, Zelensky has shown his solidarity with his country’s soldiers by sporting standard-issue military uniform at press interviews, conferences and meetings. It had nothing to do with respect for America. The black sweater, emblazoned with an emblem of the Ukrainian trident, was a symbol of his duty to his country and an acknowledgement of his soldiers, who have been resisting Russian aggression since 2014. The Ukrainian trident was ‘enshrined in the constitution’ (ukraine.ua) in 1996, but its history bears links to ancient Ukrainian ancestry, a sign of the Rurik Dynasty (10th-12th century), with its image found on ‘coins seals, utensils, bricks, murals’. Volodymyr the Great, the Prince of Kyiv, ordered coins with an image of him on one side and the trident on the other, as a symbol of his power. While there are over 40 theories on the trident’s origin, from resemblance of falcon wings to the holy trinity, what is certain is that it is a symbol of the fight for their country’s independence and freedom, for Ukrainians past and present.
As seen with Gandhi, history remembers wartime leaders who use clothes to proclaim their political messages. Expecting the leading US politicians and reporters to understand these implications was a flattery that was, perhaps, an overestimation.
In the wake of the political outcry, people have been forced to ask: Is it concerning that, in the most powerful government in the world, there is space for such misjudged remarks?
With the America-Ukraine relations becoming increasingly fraught, perhaps this is a question we should all be asking ourselves.
https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-march-10-2025
Add comment
Comments