Note: This article was originally published in 2009. We’re currently switching to a new hosting provider, and it’s a messy process. So while we wait for the “OK, you can start posting again” note from the server migration people, we’ll be putting up a few stories you may have missed the first time around.
The clothes may make the man, but sometimes it’s what the clothes make the man do that makes the story. Throughout history there have been more than a few instances of an article of clothing actually inciting a riot. Here are some examples.
In 1797, London haberdasher John Hetherington was hauled into court on charges of breaching the King’s peace, found guilty, and ordered to pay a £50 fine. His crime? Wearing a silk top hat, or, as it was described in court, “appearing on the public highway wearing upon his head a tall structure having a shining lustre and calculated to frighten timid people.” According to contemporary reports, people booed, dogs barked, women fainted, and a small boy suffered a broken arm after a crowd formed around the hapless Mr. Hetherington.
Top hats were evidently outlawed in London for a time after that, although not for very long — 50 years later, Prince Albert boosted the hat’s popularity in England by wearing one, and establishing the primacy of the top hat for generations to come. In America, it’s virtually impossible to picture Abraham Lincoln without it, Monopoly just wouldn’t be the same without it, and what else would Uncle Sam possibly wear?
Acceptance of the top hat grew and by the 1920s, women didn’t faint and dogs didn’t bark at seeing gentlemen attired thusly. But the straw hat, however, that’s a different story.
Over several nights in September 1922, gangs of hundreds of young thugs terrorized Manhattan, destroying any “unseasonable straw hat” they found. According to contemporary New York Times reports, these fashion vigilantes were armed with sticks, some with nails at the ends, and forced men in straw hats to run “gauntlets” of fists and boots. The streets were littered with broken and trampled straw hats and the remains of straw hat bonfires, the police were called in to disperse the unruly hat-haters, and hat stores were forced to stay open late to accommodate the newly hatless.
While Magistrate Peter A. Hatting (no, really) upheld the inalienable right of a man to wear a straw hat “in a January snowstorm if he wishes,” the hat-smashers disagreed, choosing instead to attack any straw-hatted person and destroy their hat for them. Dozens were arrested and fined over the course of the riots and people, including several off-duty and presumably straw hat-wearing police officers, were injured.
Oddly, this same scenario had unfolded only eight years earlier, in Bridgeton, New Jersey, when the official end of hat season was September 1. The hat-snatching started as a fraternity prank, but quickly turned violent as people got rowdy and hat-wearers began to fight back. Eventually, the police and fire department had to be called in to subdue the rioters and a good number of them were hauled into court.

Soccer fans have never had much difficulty finding things to riot about, enjoying a reputation as some of the most rabid of sports fans. But back in 1910, it was an article of clothing that reportedly prompted a riot at a soccer match. Evidently, famous goalkeeper Leigh Richmond Roose caused a fracas when he played as a guest for the Port Vale team in a reserves match against his former club, Stoke – and insisted on wearing his old Stoke City jersey. Even though he won Man-of-the-Match, that didn’t stop the rioting fans and players.
Paris takes its fashion very, very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that wearing the wrong thing has actually caused a riot.
In 1911, two rival Parisian couture houses launched their “trouser skirts,” an innovation in fashion that trod the very fixed line between the genders and seemed to promise greater flexibility for women in general. There were two different versions of the trouser skirt: One was a sort of baggy pant with a very low hanging crotch, described as “a sack with holes made for the legs to go through,” not unlike the fashions on high streets today, and the other a pair of the same kind of pants topped with an over-skirt, again, not unlike high street fashions of today. Both versions were launched by models at the opening day of racing season to general revulsion and disgust, but thankfully, no violence.
It wasn’t until the ladies attempted to promenade their future fashions on the boulevards that the fisticuffs started – at the Place de l’Opera, the poor models were attacked by a jeering mob of fashion Philistines, who pulled their hair, trampled their hats, and reduced them to tears. A squad of police officers on bicycles were dispatched to rescue the girls and escort them to safety.
Riots in Paris we get – people in Paris love any excuse, good or not, to riot – but at anything-goes Coney Island? Bizarre, but true.
In 1908, two women clad in daring sheath, or Directoire, skirts – very tight, though long, skirts – were forced to take refuge in an automobile from an angry, pressing crowd until they were rescued by police. According to a contemporary report from the New York Times, the two women, attired in “steel gray” and “livid purple” respectively, in front of a restaurant with their dates. The couples were attempting to go to dinner when a crowd began to form around the women, “craning their necks and making remarks that did not please the wearers of the skirts.”
The women were forced back into the car by the several hundred men and women crowding around them; the local policeman had to call in reserves in order to disperse the mob.
In March 2009, a tourist was blamed for a “mini-riot” at a swinging sex party at an Australian nudist camp after he refused to remove his clothing. Really.
According to the owner of the White Cockatoo Resort in North Queensland, where the fracas occurred, the fight started when four female guests were confronted by one clothed man. The women complained that if he was going to see them naked, they ought to get to see him naked as well. The owner asked the man to remove his clothes, the man got angry, some “argy-bargy” (whatever that means) followed, the man was kicked off the premises, and the police were called.
there’s a hat season?
posted by the creature on 5-15-2009 at 5:26 pm
It’s so nice to be included amongst such important historical facts ;-)
Fancy being a part of history when one is still alive and thriving :-)
Been saying for years that it’s the bloody dressed people who cause problems in society, Not Nudists, so many thanks for clarifying that fact ;-)
posted by TheWhiteCockatoo on 5-15-2009 at 5:43 pm
How about the Bra in 1960′s USA? My aunt Susan participated in a big bra-burning riot in Portland, Oregon when she was in high school. She said that 20 people went to the hospital for riot injuries and 14 were detained including herself.
Recaptcha: Shocking Miseries
posted by Kate on 5-16-2009 at 6:45 am
Where are the rioters for popped collars?
posted by kelz on 5-18-2009 at 2:30 pm
This British woman says argy-bargy is simply an argument.
posted by Christine on 5-21-2009 at 8:42 am
Any season is hat season, but I agree with the straw hat rioters. Straw hats shouldn’t be seen in public, just gardens. Unless it’s really hot (in the summer, of course).
posted by Tim Steinert on 3-21-2011 at 9:38 pm
“argy-bargy” is English slang for a lively or heated debate. It’s also the title of an album by the British New Wave group Squeeze.
posted by Sammy on 3-22-2011 at 9:41 am
No zoot suit riots ?
posted by Canuckucklehead on 3-22-2011 at 11:06 am
We should have rioted over parachute pants.
posted by Jamie on 3-22-2011 at 11:24 am
Kate, your aunt is almost certainly pulling your leg. There is no record of a large scale riot related to bra-burning, as there really was no bra burning. It was a hoax/myth/exaggeration. See my web link for the snopes entry.
posted by Edward on 3-22-2011 at 11:25 am
@the creature, hats were actually worn out in public by both men and women for centuries. No proper man would be seen not wearing one until JFK became president and went without one. So just like our No White After Labor Day “rule” there were fashion rules pertaining to hats as well.
posted by Sara P on 3-22-2011 at 11:33 am
“It’s also the title of an album by the British New Wave group Squeeze.”
It’s also the title of a song by Cocksparrer.
It comes from the Scottish “argle-bargle”.
Argle was coined as sort of a cross between argue and haggle, and bargle was a nonsense word added simply because it rhymed.
posted by Dr. Jones on 3-22-2011 at 1:23 pm
@kelz I’m with you. I hate popped collars, unless your Dracula, then it’s ok.
posted by hockeyzombie on 3-22-2011 at 2:13 pm
I never thought of hats as being so upsetting…
posted by Brian on 3-22-2011 at 2:16 pm
I too am baffled by the lack of zoot suit love in this list.
posted by Weredingo on 3-22-2011 at 3:57 pm
Weredingo me too, other than the fact they did an entire article on it before.
posted by xanderjones on 3-22-2011 at 5:06 pm
His crime was “appearing on the public highway wearing upon his head a tall structure having a shining lustre and *calculated to frighten timid people*”???
Well, it’s official: 18th-century Londoners were a bunch of pansies.
posted by MetFanMac on 3-23-2011 at 9:27 am