Candy Cane Marriage Vows
1) A person’s wedding should be magical. Michelle Rosen and David Zornitsky had their own vision for that perfect day many dream of. I love that they choose to throw away tradition and turn that special day into their own dream. You really should check out the slide show on the following link to a New York Times article on their wedding.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/fashion/weddings/26VOWS.html?ref=weddings
I have never been married. Never meet the women who could even tolerate me for more than a few months. 🙂
My sister was married four times, so I have had some experience with weddings. 🙂
For those of you who are married I am interested in hearing about any part of the magic of your wedding.
If you have not been married what is your vision for that day?
2) In some parts of the world the tradition is for parents to arrange the marriage of their daughters, some as young as thirteen, some even younger.
Rekha Kalindi, a 12-year-old girl living in Bararola, India, had the courage to say no.
From an article, by Ben Arnoldy, in the Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0424/p06s07-wosc.html
“Rekha Kalindi, a 12-year-old girl living in Bararola, India, refused to get married when her parents tried to arrange one she wanted to stay in school.
Her revolt, and those of two other girls in the region, have halted new child marriages in their rural region of West Bengal, India.
The legal age for marriage in India is 18 for girls and 21 for boys. But recent study published in the Lancet found 44.5 percent of Indian women in their early 20s had been wed by the time they were 18. Of those, 22.6 percent had been married before age 16, 2.6 percent before age 13.”
If the life expectancy of the an adult is under 40, as it is in some places in the world, I can understand that people need to start having babies at an early age, so they will live long enough to guide their children to adulthood.
From what I have read about the practise of “child brides” I believe it is mostly done because that is the tradition that has been handed done, in some cultures for a thousand years or more.
I don’t see anything wrong with traditions, as long as we aren’t forced into them. When conditions change, such as people living longer, societies need to re-evaluate their rules and customs, even if they have existed for a thousand years.
Can you think of any cultural tradition that should never change?
Are there any cutltral traditions in the country you live in that you think need to be changed?
The World Through My Eyes 
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 27, 2009 at 1:48 am
lovewillbringustogether
It Takes all kinds…..
We should never lose our sense of Child-like Wonder….
But there is just something so wrong about that First marriage pic in my mind… 😉
If that is to be the way two grown adults choose to enter into what is a (supposedly) one-time lifelong commitment ‘until death us do part’ i have grave fears for it’s continued success against the many trials the ‘adult’ world will place in front of this couple.
Now i realise i have a certain ‘bias’ here and i don’t know either of them from Adam – or what their true motives for such a wedding might have been… but i do seriously worry about that pic and what it ‘says’ about their view of the institution of Marriage? Just how seriously are they taking their commitment to one another and how will they approach life together in terms of the day to day realities as opposed to carrying an immature outlook into the future?
i had an absolute Ball on my Wedding Day (a traditional Church Wedding even though i was not at the time a believer)- everyone doing all the ‘work’ for you and all you had to do was Turn Up – get your words right and enjoy every moment. Things went perfectly for us (apart from a brief moment when the Day was almost over and during the reception with our friends and relatives the previous pressure and the relief of it going so well ‘got’ to my ‘child’ bride (she was 18) and she had a little ‘mad moment’ but i was easily able to bring her back into a place where she could see things clearly and the evening went smoothly again from there. 🙂
I would not think ANY tradition should remain Unchanged throughout History – but i believe it is VERY important that the reasons behind traditions be more widely considered and the things that those traditions contain that ARE important to our culture remain intact while being brought into our ‘modern’ world.
I think many of the ills of society today are due to the breakdown of important traditions that people had gradually forgotten just what it was about them that were important. Change taking place more because we want to be ‘modern’ and not tied down by traditions long forgotten as to their true meaning.
I believe it is our link to our past through tradition that provides a buffer to the selfishness and shortsightedness of what is now known as the “me’ generation.
If we let our own generational selfishness overcome the wisdom of our ancestors encapsulated through ‘Tradition’ we will be a sadder society as a result, losing much of what we have ‘gained’ and passing on a similar ‘permission’ to forget what we have learned to our children, and so on.
It is important that we learn from History – this often means giving respect to our eldest residents and the practices they developed that allowed them to pass on so much to us for our benefit. Tradition has a place – an important place that we should not forget, but should retain the essence of it and incorporate it into our current life.
<B
April 27, 2009 at 5:38 pm
edfromct
Love, it looks we have a subject we really do disagree on. 🙂
My bias against tradition is at least as strong as your’s may be for it. 🙂
I may be one of the least traditional people on the planet. I would be quite happy if we threw away our old book of traditions, and wrote a new one. I believe the traditions of the past resulted in our putting up the barriers that now divide us, ethnicity, religion and nationality.
I don’t believe there is another country in the world that follows the traditions of the past more than India. Parts of their culture go back thousands of years, well before Jesus. One result is the child brides I wrote about in part two of my post above.
Is the style(?) of a wedding ceremony reflective of the depth of a couple’s commitment to each other ? I think not, especially when I look at the divorce rate. 🙂 I would rather have the couple make up their own wedding vows, then simply repeating the traditional ones.
If I believed the Bible dictated, in some manner, how the wedding ceremony should be conducted, then I would agree with you.
We do need to know about past traditions, so we can learn from the mistakes. It is better to build new rules for the societies of the future, which can include adopting some of the old ones. I don’t not want future generations to accept a practise solely because that was how things we done in the past.
April 27, 2009 at 7:55 am
Indian Lake Papa
As you probably are aware – mama and I met after writing 300 + letters – got engaged, I went back over seas – lied some more in 500 more letters and then we got married – almost 44 years ago. she still drags out a letter now and then to say; “Thats not what you said in your letters..”
I did make pre-arrangements for my daughter. No dating until 35. No marriage until 50. She violated my conditions much earlier – no respect from children!
April 27, 2009 at 5:51 pm
edfromct
Papa, it is never a good idea to put all your promises into writing before the wedding. 🙂
I think the vow “Unit Death Do Us Part” should be enough of a promise. 🙂
I think you may have tried to be a little tough on your daughter. If I had a daughter I might let her date when she was 30. 🙂
April 27, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Indian Lake Papa
You would have been a good dad Ed – I wonder if you would have let your kids survive their teen years ?? LOL 😯
April 28, 2009 at 3:29 pm
edfromct
Papa, the question for me isn’t whether my kids would survive, but would I? 🙂
Based on my experience with women, any daughter of mine could probably twist me around her finger and get what ever she wanted.
If that included body piercings, and biker boy friends, I would be the one having the heart attack. 🙂
April 27, 2009 at 10:08 am
Rain
I’m not a good person to reposnd to this, but I’ll just say I think it’s not good to spend too much money on a wedding. It should be special though.
April 27, 2009 at 5:59 pm
edfromct
Not spending a lot of money on a wedding, unless you are rich, is a very good idea.
It was a lesson my father learned, after my sister’s third wedding. 🙂
I think as long as the bond between the couple is special everything else doesn’t matter that much.
April 28, 2009 at 4:11 am
lovewillbringustogether
A Cheap Wedding is sometimes worth what was paid for it! 😉
Something that is easy to get into can be all to easy to walk away from also.
I feel sympathy for men who father more than one daughter 🙂
While i WOULD like to agree with you concerning a ‘special’ bond between a couple being of the greatest importance i know of too many cases where one half of the relationship thought it was a ‘special’ one and the other was less than convinced of this with divorce and worse being the outcome.
Of course tradition does not necessarily prevent this – i believe however you would find there are fewer divorces in India’s arranged marriages than in our modern western versions, mostly because we fall in love for emotional reasons whereas marriage is arranged by parents for less changeable ones.
I truly believe that a couple contemplating marriage, much like any individual in a society, has to consider more than just their own feelings for one another, but needs to take account of the fact that they have to live as a couple AMONGST an entire society and that places pressures on them they need to seriously consider if their life is to be sustained together within that society.
We might not be able to adequately consider EVERY single aspect in advance of a wedding – i don’t expect any fully could – but i believe that ignoring the rest of society and trying to ‘go it alone’ is a futile waste of effort and wil not come without serious cost to long term happiness.
(Said as one who married ‘too’ young and has gained wisdom from his divorce and life in the meantime) 😉
<B
April 28, 2009 at 3:58 am
lovewillbringustogether
I don’t think finding a subject we can disagree on is all that much of a bad thing! 😉
But don’t be so sure we have just yet! 🙂
‘I don’t not want future generations to accept a practise solely because that was how things we done in the past.’
ME EITHER! – that’s the kind of blind faith we BOTH are in strong disagreement with.
I DO however feel it is VERY important we understand why the tradition exists – what it has to teach us that we might have forgotten or overlooked and which, as a result, our society fails in a significant issue.
‘We do need to know about past traditions, so we can learn from the mistakes’. Mistakes? As i tend to view it Traditions contain things designed to help us AVOID making the same old mistakes, and are not reasons to go on making such? ❓ They must have had some value to be made into a tradition and held in a society for any length of time – even if today we have not listened to our Wise Old Men to understand what the tradition means to us today?
Your and my generations are not the first to believe that we know ‘best’ what is best for us – we lose traditions at our peril.
Only seeing negatives in some traditions can be a dangerous practice, i believe.
I don’t personally agree that a tradition of itself has been the sole cause for the barriers we still today make to divide us from our fellowman – i believe that comes down to how we think and how our leaders use division to keep power over us – ‘divide and conquer’ applies as much to one nation as it does to the world’s population.
As for the couple pictured… i did make the proviso that i don’t know them, nor knew their true motive for choosing that theme for their wedding – for all i know they are candy cane company executives and wanted to use up existing stores supplies to give a flash look but at a cheap price for their ‘special day. My greatest concern is not that they have gone for a somewhat ‘non-traditional’ wedding ceremony – all should be free to select a wedding that expresses what they feel about each other in a unique way if such is their wish.
No, my big issue here was WHAT they chose to symbolise their Union ( i am guessing they are not really candy cane company execs!) 😉 and exactly what it says about their combined perspective of what should be a very Sacred Commitment between two people who enter into a ‘contract’ with both eyes wide open and fully understanding some of the priorities of daily life.
That picture does little to inspire me with confidence that is what those two have done and i hold concern for the future of any such union where (seemingly childish) fantasy seems to take the place of an adult reality.
Of course, i could be wrong in my perspective on this – but seriously – what WERE they thinking of when they agreed to that for their Special Day???
<B
April 28, 2009 at 5:42 pm
edfromct
See response in new thread.
April 28, 2009 at 5:43 pm
edfromct
1) Arrianged Marriages & Divorce
My guess is that the divorce rate in a culture is related to how acceptable divorce is, not how a spouse is chosen, or the style of the wedding ceremony.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriages_in_India
“In India, the marriage is thought to be for life, and the divorce rate is extremely low. In India, 1.1% of marriages result in a divorce compared with over 45.8% for USA. The arranged marriages generally have a much lower divorce rate. The divorce rates have risen significantly in recent years:
“Opinion is divided over what the phenomenon means: for traditionalists the rising numbers portend the breakdown of society while, for some modernists, they speak of a healthy new empowerment for women.”
“The wedding is conducted in accordance with Vedic rites and rituals with the invited guests considered to be the ‘society’ in whose presence the girl is given away in holy matrimony to the boy.
From that moment on, he is to consider himself responsible for fulfilling her smallest of small desires to the biggest of them, to the best of his ability. He promises to be faithful to her and to worship the ground she walks on. She in turn is to treat him as her lord and master, her guide and advisor through good and bad, for the rest of her life.”
I will go out on a limb and guess that the part about “lord and master” might not go over too well with most of the women in my country. 🙂
I agree that if a marriage is based soley on “romantic love”, our emotions, the possibility of a divorce is likely to be higher than if we take into account other factors(?) in the society we live in, such as financial stability.
I will also guess that you are probably right, a couple, such as Michelle Rosen and David Zornitsky, who choose to add an element of “whimsy” to their wedding ceremony, throw out tradition, may be more likley to have the more modern(?) view of divorce, than a couple who have the traditional wedding of whatever culture they belong to. (A one sentence paragraph. Hope you could follow it. 🙂 )
I don’t agree with the Indian traditionalist view, referenced in the Wikipedia article, that a high divorce represents a “breakdown of society”. I think it does reflect a “healthy new empowerment of women”.
Love “No, my big issue here was WHAT they chose to symbolise their Union” “exactly what it says about their combined perspective of what should be a very Sacred Commitment between two people”
I think the symbol that they choose has more meaning to them than if they simply went along with tradition. A couple should pick the symbols that have the most meaning to them.
April 29, 2009 at 12:43 am
lovewillbringustogether
I never have a problem following what you say Ed – even in loooooooong sentences 😀 We are not entirely in agreement on Tradition but we do see the good points, i think, in each others view i hope we can both also see the not so good ones 😉
I must be getting ‘old’ because i still, for the life of me, can not see why ANY couple would choose THAT as ‘the most meaningful symbol’ of their life’ for their marriage??? If they are starting out as they mean to continue then what that pic says to me is those two want to try to live a life of pure fantasy and childish things in their life together – a kind of escapism from reality.
While i would be one of the first to not conform to what society expects of me i DO have some standards and a quite clear view of reality versus fantasy and the respective places in our life.
I’m not sure those two do from what they have chosen for such an important time in life. or is this, as i might fear, part of our problem in an increasingly non-traditional world today – to them marriage is nothing REALLY important – it’s seen as a bit of a laugh really and can be walked away from any time it no longer meets personal ‘need’ or is no longer ‘fun’??
The Cult of Fame in America seems to promote the idea in our younger generations that marriage can be entered and left in a remarkablty ‘casual’ fashion.
This is nothing ‘new’ or only a result of gen X or Y but was made light of by people such as Zsa Zsa Gabor who married at least 8 times and Sir Richard Burton who married ( and divorced) Liz Taylor – Twice! 😯
Mere popularity should never be substituted as a good reason to follow a practice – be it a tradition, or the breaking of them. 🙂
<B
April 29, 2009 at 2:43 am
edfromct
I am old enough to remember the “hippie” weddings of the 1960’s. 🙂
I agree that the wedding theme of couple pictured above is pure fantasy. I don’t see anything casual about it. I will guess it took a great deal of planning to set the whole thing up. I will also guess all those custom made decorations cost a pretty penny. This is not trailer park couple. These guys are likley worth a few dineros. 🙂
I am less concerned with how casual, or not, couples are about getting a divorce. It’s the decison to have a baby that needs to be taking very seriously.
Prior to the arrival of children I don’t really care how often people chose to get married, divorce, and married again.
April 29, 2009 at 3:37 am
lovewillbringustogether
i know personally i would have found divorce as an answer to our predicament far more problematic if our marriage had already resulted in children – the signs that this might not have been the lifelong commitment i had hoped for were evident to me and were a definite factor in not planning children before our ‘issues’ were sorted out – which ultimately they were not but were run away from – as this was the ‘easiest’ option for us both.
There are still days i regret that – and then days i am thankful i was not made to live with the consequences of what was basically a rather poor choice for a life-partner. 🙄
in my view marriage is meant to be a SERIOUS commitment between TWO individuals who believe in the ability to live ‘as One’.
Being able to enter into it to easily and get out of it almost as easily does not fill me with much confidence for our society’s ability to understand what commitment means or how our relationships should actually work.
Be they just between ourselves – or between us and Him.
<B
April 29, 2009 at 7:23 pm
edfromct
I think being around children great, as long as they belong to someone else, and I can go back to the peace and quiet of my condo. 🙂
How much of a commitment should two people be making to each other when they get married? I don’t believe it should be “Til Death Do You Part”.
What if we did away with the “institution” of marriage? If people live together as long as they want to. If they decide to have children they should create a loving home and guide their children to adulthood. Otherwise if they are unhappy they just go their separate ways.
Of course I am someone who does not believe in God, and I am not talking about the kind of “sacred” commitment the Bible speaks about.
April 30, 2009 at 12:16 am
lovewillbringustogether
When it comes right down to the ‘nitty-gritty’ the real reason for marriage is to get regular sex. It satisfies our most basic animalistic need and does so in a socially acceptable and theoretically ‘safe’ fashion. Virtually every human society throughout known history has had a ‘sacred’ marriage right ceremony, be it mono- or polygamous. One of the most important reasons for this is the consequence of not knowing who your father is so as to prevent the disastrous genetic consequences of interbreeding.
Messing around with the main idea behind marriage – ensuring siblings don’t intermarry through lifelong relationships with a single partner (or at least a single Father in the case of polygamy) is likely to produce unwanted effects – this is one of the reasons i believe ‘tradition’ holds importance that we in the ‘modern’ world can easily forget – much to our long term cost.
Humans all to easily tend to forget the good reasons traditions began in the first place.
This is especially true when an individual puts their own ideas of what is important ahead of the community’s.
And then there is the Spiritual side of the situation to consider…..
Assuming one believes in a Spirit of course 😉
<B
April 30, 2009 at 1:48 am
edfromct
I agree that all societies, that I know of, have ceremonies with births, marriage and death. That won’t change.
“One of the most important reasons for this is the consequence of not knowing who your father is so as to prevent the disastrous genetic consequences of interbreeding.”
I know of several Muslim countries where marrying first cousins is common. I have read that in Pakistan between 40% to 50% of all marriages are between first cousins. There is a genetic condition, Microephaly, children born with small heads & brains, that is rare everyone, but occurs far more frequently in Pakistan.
In the US I believe 31 out of 50 states ban this practise.
April 28, 2009 at 6:12 pm
edfromct
2) Value of following traditions.
“We do need to know about past traditions, so we can learn from the mistakes’. Mistakes? As i tend to view it Traditions contain things designed to help us AVOID making the same old mistakes, and are not reasons to go on making such? They must have had some value to be made into a tradition and held in a society for any length of time – even if today we have not listened to our Wise Old Men to understand what the tradition means to us today?”
A tradition, social rule, stands on it’s own merits. Whether it was developed 5,000 years ago, or yesterday, makes little difference. Since I believe we are continuing to evolve better brains, I think we are also continuing to learn how to create better socities. If we hope to survive we need to continue to improve on what worked in the past.
Our past history, and traditions, are part of our body of knowledge. As the environment changes, which it always will, we need to adopt old ones, and create new ones. We can respect a tradition, that help evolved the socities we have today. However we need to keep finding ways to imporve them.
I am not satisfied with the socities we have today, too much war and poverty. War and poverty have been apart of our cultural heritage from the past. My hope lies with the evolved generations of the future, and the new, better, socities they will create.
April 29, 2009 at 12:57 am
lovewillbringustogether
Great Points 🙂
As for ‘better’ societies as our brains evolve better – the sad truth about evolution is: it is not a slow, steady constant process with improvements being made day to day, year to year. Rather is it very much a ‘discrete’ process with long periods of relative inactivity (no improvement) followed by rapid sudden changes which may or may not end up in ‘dead-end’ branches of the evolutionary tree who’s inhabitants simply die out and are replaced by another species.
I don’t see us making better societies in the last 200 or 2000 years – only Bigger ones – and bigger is not by any means always better. 😯 being able to live longer, if the price we pay is in working longer and harder to ‘earn’ a decent wage to support your family/self, is not a sign to me that we have a ‘better’ society – or more importantly that we can understand ourself any better than we could have, say, in Jesus’s time, for example..
I agree we humans do have the potential to make improvements and i understand your Hope for the future – especially given the failures of our past and present (like those you mentioned, War, Poverty, Crime, ignorance, etc)
<B
April 29, 2009 at 2:55 am
edfromct
I agree with your description of the pace of evolutionary change. It doesn’t happen at a steady, predictable, pace.
That is way it is important to have socities that can quickly adopt to change.
“I don’t see us making better societies in the last 200 or 2000 years”
I think this is where we disagree the most. Perhaps my eye glasses are as rosey as your’s are dark. 🙂
My bias in wanting to see our socities change is based on the belief that in order to significantly reduce war and poverty, we need to break the models of the past and forge new ones.
April 29, 2009 at 3:54 am
lovewillbringustogether
If only we could swap glasses and see what the other sees for a time 😉
Want to see if we can agree on what existing models need breaking and what we should keep to build that ‘better’ society?
Who currently controls our society the most ? Politicians? Money magnates? Corporations? Scientists? The Religious Right? The Socialist Left? The Can’t Decide Centre? 😉 some other group?
Should we be led by a single powerful leader – or should we be truly Democratic and each and every one of us take the responsibility of running our country/society/world? is there one way that all the world should follow or is there benefit to be gained in having differences in societies?
I feel it is the Money men who most control our planet – but they do it by giving us ‘targets’ with the appearance of power but whom only hold power so long as they deem it to them. These people can be ‘Democratically’ elected politicians, Military despots or Religious Rulers of tribal kingdoms – all are in power mostly because of the money behind them.
I think it is probably best that we don’t all follow the same system but learn from each positive and negative that exists within each form of society.
I’d like to think we could live in a True Democracy but the evidence is that most people can’t be bothered understanding their responsibilities in such a society for it ever to become reality.
Most seem to want someone else to do the hard yards for them and complain when they stuff up.
I’d love to hear some more ‘rosy’ perspective! 🙂
<B
April 29, 2009 at 7:06 pm
edfromct
“Who currently controls our society the most?”
In terms of creating, and enforcing, the rules of society, for the greator part of the world, it’s the people who elect their leaders. All of North and South American, parts of Africa, most of Asia, the Australian continent (including NZ & nearby Islands) and most, if not all, of the South Pacific Islands.
In some places like China, parts of African, Asia and the Middle east, it’s a dictator, or small group of people who rule. Russia has moved towards democracy, but it’s not quite there yet.
I think democracy is much more wide spread now then in the 1940’s and 50’s, when I grew up. I agree too many citzens don’t vote, or take enough of an interest in their countries politics, but when there is a crisis voters make their wish’s know, as with the US election of 2008.
I also think it’s individual consumers who control the economy. If a company is selling an inferior product people will know very quickly. Some products, like gasoline, are still control by a small group, the oil cater and a few big componies. I think the increasing pace of technological advances is causing the breakup of most monoploies.
There are no more colonial empires. International trade has made the countires of the world far more interdepenant on each other. I think this is a very positive trend.
A few things I see with my rose colored glasses:
The life expectancy of a aids patients, in the US, 49.9 years, per 2008 Lancet study, is greater than that of an African American in 1930, 49.2.
People paralyzed from the waist down now surf. There is a wheel chair dancing world championship. People born with Down’s syndrome now have their own housing, and compete in the Special Olympics, instead of spending their lives in an institution.
When I was born Barack Obama would be operating an elevator, not be President.
I think I will just skip over movies and TV. 🙂
April 29, 2009 at 11:59 pm
lovewillbringustogether
I think I will just skip over movies and TV.
Lol – or switch to the Discovery Channel? 😉
How long do you think it will take for America to have a Native American as President?
About as long as My Country waits to elect an Aboriginal one perhaps?
America seems far more eager to ensure the ‘original’ owners of a small piece of desert at the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea occupy the land (while denying the rights of the actual owners of the land ) to the tune of several billions of Tax-Payers dollars annually, and much donated weapons of mass destruction, for over fifty years now while at a similar time paying Egypt and Jordan similar monetary payment so as to try to keep them on side and thus ensuring the horrible situation for all people living in the middle-east continues year after year and results in several long lasting wars – yet do not seem very keen on ensuring the original inhabitants of North America have similar rights?
What’s with that??
(This could perhaps require an entirely new post maybe? 😉 )
<B
April 30, 2009 at 1:22 am
edfromct
We have had Native Americans elected to congress, but I don’t think any serve in the current one.
“The first member of Congress to claim Native American ancestry was Charles Curtis (Republican-Kansas), who was one-eighth Kaw-Osage. His mother died when he was three, and Curtis was for a while raised by his Indian grandmother. He often visited the Kaw reservation in Oklahoma. Even after he was elected to the House in 1892 and to the Senate in 1906, Curtis was listed on the rolls of the Interior Department as an Indian ward of the government. A few other members, largely from Oklahoma, were also part Indian.
Benjamin Reifel (Republican-South Dakota), a Sioux born on the Rosebud Indian Reservation, served in the House from 1961 to 1971. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Democrat/Republican-Colorado), a Cheyenne who designs Indian jewelry and dresses and wears his hair in Indian style, was elected to the House in 1986 and to the Senate in 1992.”
Since many of the Indian Tribes have become rich opening gambling casinos they might gain the money, an influence, to make it to the White House someday. BN Campbell did get to the Senate.
We may be a little ahead of you Aussies in this respect.
Discussing the conflict in the Middle East would take a whole blog post, or two. 🙂
I don’t think the US has that much influence over what peace process there is. The Palestine’s need a homeland and the Arab countries must recognize Israel as a sovereign state. I don’t think there is anything the US can do to make those two things happen.
July 13, 2010 at 10:23 am
Rudy Arifin
Icons Hairstyles Setting Cultural Trends
Hairstyles of the rich and famous not only serve to be their signature identity. You can also specify, cultural changes and trends. A celebrity hair style is a statement to the world. And if this hairstyle is copied and popular, could only mutual relations of the people affected. So we can say it is a way of a haircut to a social trend set.
Celebrity hairstyles symbolize each generation. From a haircut to say what it was ten years old can. In the 50s, the hair securely in place, which was considered the era of reconstruction in the United States. The 60s was a transition from the reconstruction of the boom. There was relative prosperity and could be seen in the “Twiggy” and the page boy. 70s was the age of Aquarius, an era of radical hippies, the Black Panthers, anti-Vietnam War, LSD, Woodstock. The adults had taken a relaxed attitude to life and youth spoke out against the decades-old traditions, or secular. This was the age of conformism, in which boys and men wore long hair or greater than that of women. The general styling of which have long been flowing, as she wanted to be the world. Rebellion was more open in the 80 years, has become as the wild hair was hard or drastic cutbacks.
The end of the millennium the new millennium, we witness hairstyles mixing so many decades. This attitude reflects the current life, past and look to get by him, combined with those together to create something completely new can.
Celebrity hair fashion and trends are set. A cut popular celebrity who is an inspiration for new fashion designs. The 70 long hair flowing caftans inspired muumuus popular in the Middle East and Hawaiian. This was a sharp contrast to the structured hairstyle of the 50’s with semi-rigid and lifestyle combined. The wild hair cuts and saw the 80’s, are metal and leather clothing and accessories abound.
Groups of films, TV programs, have the companies hair, which had become popular. Facts that become icons of the introduction, a trend that will be in the generation of the then common. The worldwide phenomenon of the Beatles has a haircut that, similarly, has become popular in the world. Michael Jackson and Motown Afro popular across the Atlantic to Europe and even Asia. The stars of fashion created Twiggy Twiggy hair and began preference for anorexic thin that still exists to this day. Charlie’s Angels catapulted Farah Fawcett Farah Fawcett hairdo and worldwide popularity. In recent years, the Friends TV show Rachel lay in different countries for almost a decade.
The haircut or style affects how people live. The company is structured hairstyles 60s and demanded a lot of preparation meant women had to get up before you have enough time to have to fix her hair. This would be a day’s work harder. The long hair cut short or long ones are easier to keep the people time for other activities for the day.
We hope, Celebrity hairstyles always give us the time. If we can prevent not copied