How did this particular outfit (suit, tie, underjacket) become

>>3326413
western imperialism

>>3326413
It is traditional Anglo attire.

>>3326413
bump for interest, i know that because the current nation-state system and current corporate systems generally were set up by europeans and that was what europeans wore so it got spread around the world to developing nations. However i have no idea why europeans adopted it as their preferred style of dress for people of wealth and status, especially considering it hardly actually indicates wealth status or power compared to the attire of, say, the french nobility of the 18th century.

>>3326428
But it did indicate wealth, status, and power. The reason the rest of Europe started talking French and wearing wigs and tights in the 18th century is the same reason they started talking English and wearing suits and ties in the next century.

File: Obama and McKayla.jpg (87KB, 905x603px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 905x603px

>>3326428
1) The suit & tie does indicate wealth and status and power BUT
2) It does so in a way that's in line with liberal society's ideals that all men are equal and that you're just an accomplished citizen not some snooty blue-blooded nobleman.

>>3326413

Good question.

A fashion of the times, very likely in line with what >>3326455 says. Except that is more like a fake 'liberal' pretension. Anyone can wear a suit and it doesn't mean shit at all. Older attire was more honest in the sense that only the ones with actual status/power could afford/were allowed to wear them.

Anyway, when did the suit fashion started being a thing?

Imperialist nonsense, and 'looking good' does not jive well with liberal propaganda.

When did the Chinese give up on the mao suit?