The Macaroni in ‘Yankee Doodle’
atlasobscura.com
atlasobscura.com
I'm not sure what the modern analogy would be, because I'm not sure what fashion is widely ridiculed. "Drew a fake tattoo with a ballpoint pen and called himself 90's emo goth kid."
Drew a moustache on his lip and called himself hip.
driving an abomination.
Clipped a tie onto his shirt
and called it sophistication.
In an '83 Mercedes,
Slapped a moustache on his lip
And belted out "Mmmm'ladies."
Escaping covid lockdowns
Bought up all the real estate
And thinks it’s Churchill Downs
buying all the comp'nys
the internet knocked down his door
he said "no that's for phonies"
You're probably thinking of Williamsburg, which the hipsters were priced out of long ago, into Bushwick. Those hipsters are now being priced out to Ridgewood (Queens).
Go into Brownsville and let me know how many hipsters you see.
This is similar to the canard that "your bully is just jealous of your <favorable attribute here>." It's codswallop: more like to be the normal reaction to a trend taken "too far," as it were, and something like the backlash one thinks of regarding the grunge, goth, "emo", and "hipster" fads. Nobody was jealous of the supposed freedom that these people had, so much as they were amused (or appalled) at the absurd lack of introspection and awareness they exhibited by latching onto a played out trend.
I mean, their whole schtick is that they feel like a different animal trapped in a human body. That's pretty introspective and self-aware, I guess.
The funniest part is where it's asserted that these "fads" were "played out" by the time they gained any popularity. Which was only true of emos; they swept aside everything that made grunge and goth culture aesthetically interesting, and adopted normcore instead. Well, true of hipsters, too, but "before it was cool" was their whole thing; the played-out nature of the fad was effectively a joke on everybody who cared enough to be bothered by shat beer and silly facial hair.
But, no, I don't think you're right about furries. They aren't "animals trapped in a human's body," that's a mischaracterization used by edgelords who dunk on transgender people. Furries extremely diverse in their internal and external narratives, and I won't attempt to provide an alternative characterization.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_(1940s_subculture)
Yes, people mocked them, but they were perfectly happy demonstrating that they were a member of some given group - or maybe just happily enjoying some given aesthetic.
This seems quite separable from the general arc of subgroup/subgenre identity which seems to follow a typical arc of from groundbreaking through "cool", to mass adoption, to "played out" as you put it. The article suggests "macaroni" was something beyond the predictable cyclic arc, in at least that it's impact was unusually strong and short lived.
Mocking them was just as much of a played out trend though. We've got evidence of it as far back as 1772 linked right above.
People look on those who can wear what they want as free, because they know they are not, and that they are afraid of being judged.
I saw a guy wearing a kimono and a belt yesterday. Was quite a sight.
Typical judgmental thoughts of "look at that odd dude“ went through my head. But I realized that I couldn’t wear that and the reason would be other people judging me for it, or assigning questionable gender identity upon me.
When looking back to 18th century fashion it is extreme compared to the extremes that people are chasing today.
Everyone is trying to be different. Maybe wigs will come back.
Imagine a world without fashion judgement. What would you wear?
But leaving that aside, without judgement 1/2 would probably just wear enough to stay warm and the other 1/2 as ridiculously colorful as they could manage.
The only thing I see changing really is I would probably accelerate toward buying multiple of the same outfit for every day but I have been headed in the direction incrementally already.
But I am more of 'function over form' person when it comes to clothes.
I'd never really given much thought to what this line meant but knowing the context it's pretty gross.
Hold on, let's see what Webster's 1913 says...
2. Skillful in using the hand; dexterous; ready; adroit. "Each is handy in his way." Dryden.
OK, that one seems a bit... vulgar, at worst, and is the sense I took it in, basically.
What I find very funny is sense 4:
4. (Naut.) Easily managed; obedient to the helm; -- said of a vessel.
Might the line have a double-meaning? The obvious one of "knows how to please a woman", but also a near-opposite second reading of "women walk all over him"? Kinda fits with the rest of the song, which reminds me a lot of The Offspring's "Pretty Fly (For a White Guy)".
[EDIT] yeah, in context it probably just means handling your partner well while dancing as the surface reading, with a possibly-intended somewhat-vulgar "hur hur hur, if you know what I mean" subtext.
I have always taken this to mean that if you aren't good to look at, you can still make yourself appealing by being good at things. There is a possible double entendre with foreplay, but I never considered this joke to be suggesting unconsensual groping (I think that's the implication being suggested above?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Green_Show#Handyman_Co...
Given the era it comes from I can't imagine that there's a sexualized meaning to the words. There was certainly bawdy stuff back then, but from what I've read of the era I don't think it was casually thrown around like it is in today's (US) culture.
[1] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=497026...