Yeah they were probably a middle class family, but I wasn’t talking about them though lol I was talking about people in general, from that time period, but it’s good to know besides that little ball of confusion we’re on the same page in agreement 👍🏻 Goes to show you have good taste :)

Yeah lol so much different is right, but to each his own you know? I won’t hold it against someone if they wanna stay casual and comfortable all day, but I myself prefer to dress up and look nice lol if I had a nice wardrobe I’m the kind of guy that’d wear a guayabera with slacks and a fedora to the supermarket xD I’m an old soul, but hey, that’s what sets me apart from the norm and makes me unique 😌 Thanks for commenting

Or wearing pjs to work. (And I'm not talking WFH, I'm talking about a taxi driver and a convenience store worker...)

No jammies for me outside ever, never, Never! Why would you want to? . . Unless you're a kid! 🙃

I didn’t, there was a slight misunderstanding with Annabelle because I worded my comment wrong I supppose

My thoughts exactly. Being black a 100 years ago was not a synonym for poverty. A majority, yes, were poor and it was evident by the rags they wore and their lack of sleds and the lack of free time to have fun in the snow with their children. The slightest observation and common sense shows this is not a poor family.

The baby carriage alone was a sign of wealth.

@Weasel You are correct. There was even once a black "Wall Street" way back around that time. Until white rioters decided to destroy it. Some black folks did manage to work against the odds and become wealthy. I actually have black relatives through marriage who built up their wealth after the Civil War through home design and construction. They have way more money than my white side of the family.

Professionally written, thanks for the input and for your comment 👍🏻 #Facts

It’s one thing to want to attempt to correct what was said about the fashion, everybody has their own opinion, their own taste. In your case it was on the factual side, then again, so was mine; whether you agree with that or not. But, it’s another thing to yet again bring up the FALSE racial undertone of the comment, doesn’t matter if you were simply pointing it out to correct it, or if you just don’t believe my defense (again, could care less if you don’t), it’s the fact that it keeps getting questioned and reprimanded (somehow), even after I attempted to explain and correct myself. Your reply to that when you mentioned it seemed like you were doubting me and/or trying to scold me for it, which I didn’t take too kindly. Whether you meant to or not that part of your message really rubbed me the wrong way and from here on I’m ending the discussion by leaving this convo, it’s old news anyway now. Just so everyone knows, I’m moving on from this chat link. Might not respond to new messages

However, what really bothers me, is how you imply I had a certain undertone to my message that can be described as “racist”, since, you and a couple of others have it stuck in your heads that I was saying this family was dressed like they were among the lower class and THAT’S racist in my book. That is something I DID NOT imply, nor intend to even hint at. I explained myself about 3 times, I WORDED MY COMMENT WRONG BY MISTAKE. But you seem to insist I said it intentionally, and can’t accept that it was an honest mistake on my part that I didn’t even think about. What is it with people like you, too stupid to comprehend or something? I don’t even have to explain myself, didn’t have to from the start, but I don’t care for the assumptions. I’m going to defend myself and I’m done being nice about it. What do I have to do to please the likes of you, edit or erase my comment?? No f*****g way, I didn’t mean my message the way you took it, simple as that. Could give 2 shits less what you think

Leanne, to start off, I seen pictures like these too and yes, they’re grim and sad, but the thing is these kind of pictures that we have access to see, only make up a certain percentage of poverty stricken folks back then compared to the thousands of others, we don’t know the exact circumstances behind their poverty level or the circumstances about what they had to work with that allowed them or didn’t allow them to live this way. These pictures represent individuals that had to make-do with what they had available to them, as the rest of the folks did who live/lived in poverty, but these images DO NOT speak for or represent every individual (with a family or not) who lived in, and identified with, that group; or should I say “class”. I’ve been homeless on more than one occasion, have been in shelters (including in NYC), was also stranded in Philly one time, and where I was stuck, that area had a pretty large homeless population. So I’ve seen worse than what these pictures show.

@AR, one difference back then was that everything was made of natural fabrics that breathed, unlike today. So those outfits may not have been as hot as they looked. And hats served the function that sunscreen does today. That was of course, before tanning came into fashion. It was considered low-class to have a tan, since at that time it was usually outdoor workers who had a tan.

Very many of the clothes back then, and quite likely more so higher classes, were incredibly uncomfortable. Starched collars, woollen stockings, garters to hold up men's socks, big skirts, woollen underwear, petticoats, shoes with thin leather soles, corsets etc. And caring for them... omg.

Good point, there’s truth here to this

I’d definitely agree that it’s a boy; the style of hate doesn’t match what is worn by the girl on the right, who is closest in age. Plus, what you said about the coat.