Polo neckAn example of a classic polo neck.
A polo neck (UK) (or turtle neck in the US) is a garment—usually a sweater—with a close-fitting, round, and high collar that folds over and covers the neck. It can also refer to the style of collar itself, or be used as an adjective ("polo-necked").
HistoryWoman in a black polo neck.
The poloneck sweater, like most sweaters, first emerged in the 1890s as an article of sportswear. It had a varied application but was most often used for the more static players in field sports (a use preserved for the soccer goalkeeper as late as the 1950s in the UK). It was also used in some equestrian activities, though no evidence exists for its use in polo, which might otherwise have explained its name. Originally a thick woollen garment, lighter versions were designed for those who found coarser wool uncomfortable against their skin. These lighter polonecks would become popular for golf amongst both sexes by 1895. Its use by women was also extended into field sports like hockey soon after this. This use as sports wear would continue into the early 20th Century.
Polonecks crossed over from sportswear to work wear at the turn of the century, mostly amongst menial workers and seamen. The latter use at sea also led to its adoption by Royal Navy. It was probably at this time that its unisex status as sportswear was exploited by early feminists, who would wear their Hockey sweaters as day wear.
Over time polonecks would become acceptable casual wear, though still usually for men only. It was in this stage that a range of light polonecks in a variety of colours began to be designed. Their adoption by Noel Coward in the 1920s turned them into a brief middle class fashion trend. Again, it was the feminists who turned these into a unisex item.
Absorbed into mainstream American fashion by the mid 20th century, the poloneck came to be viewed as an anti-tie, a smart form of dress for those who rejected formal wear.
Later its increasing acceptability as women's wear saw it become a fad amongst teenage girls, especially in a lightweight form that emphasised aspects of their figures. It was not long before Hollywood was also exploiting this image as part of the sweater girl look.
By the late 1950s the "tight poloneck" had been adopted as part of the preppie style amongst students, a style emphasising neatness, tidiness and grooming. This would become an important aspect of the polonecks image in America. The look would filter through to Britain and Europe in a watered down version.
In contrast, France saw the black poloneck adopted by left wing bohemians and intellectuals, and by the late 1950s their counterparts in the United States and Britain had also adopted the fashion.
This trend continued into the 1960s and 1970s, with the white poloneck being briefly adopted as a corresponding item for mainstream feminists. The poloneck was generally seen as a unisex and classless garment and wearing one remained a political statement in many circles. However, the poloneck in all its forms soon became a standard wardrobe item for both sexes during this period.
As explained in the spandex fetishism article, another reason why spandex and other tight fabrics may be fetishised is that the garment forms a "second skin," acting as a fetishistic surrogate for the wearer's own skin. Wearers of skin-tight spandex garments can appear naked or coated in a shiny substance like paint. The tightness of the garments may also be seen as sexual bondage.Polo neck with sleeves. Polo neck without sleeves.
Return to fashion
By the 1980s it was largely out of fashion, though continued to be regarded as a staple item. However the 1990s saw its return to the catwalk, and it was soon to regain its place as a popular fashion item, particularly in America and on the Continent.
This page about Turtleneck includes information from a Wikipedia article.
Additional articles about Turtleneck
News stories about Turtleneck
External links for Turtleneck
Videos for Turtleneck
Wikis about Turtleneck
Discussion Groups about Turtleneck
Blogs about Turtleneck
Images of Turtleneck
However the 1990s saw its return to the catwalk, and it was soon to regain its place as a popular fashion item, particularly in America and on the Continent. These include:. By the 1980s it was largely out of fashion, though continued to be regarded as a staple item. This in turn means that soldiers have to be trained to fight in a specific type of terrain. The tightness of the garments may also be seen as sexual bondage. The terrain over which a war is fought has a big impact on the type of combat which takes place. Wearers of skin-tight spandex garments can appear naked or coated in a shiny substance like paint. Non-lethal chemical weapons, such as tear gas and pepper spray, are widely used.
As explained in the spandex fetishism article, another reason why spandex and other tight fabrics may be fetishised is that the garment forms a "second skin," acting as a fetishistic surrogate for the wearer's own skin. Various treaties have sought to ban its further use. However, the poloneck in all its forms soon became a standard wardrobe item for both sexes during this period. Poison gas as a chemical weapon was principally used during World War I, and resulted in an estimated 91,198 deaths and 1,205,655 injuries. The poloneck was generally seen as a unisex and classless garment and wearing one remained a political statement in many circles. Intentional air pollution in combat is called chemical warfare. This trend continued into the 1960s and 1970s, with the white poloneck being briefly adopted as a corresponding item for mainstream feminists. Military action produces a very small percentage of air pollution emissions.
In contrast, France saw the black poloneck adopted by left wing bohemians and intellectuals, and by the late 1950s their counterparts in the United States and Britain had also adopted the fashion. Terrorism can be considered an extreme form of asymmetrical warfare. The look would filter through to Britain and Europe in a watered down version. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a common example of asymmetrical warfare. This would become an important aspect of the polonecks image in America. This type of war often results in guerrilla tactics. By the late 1950s the "tight poloneck" had been adopted as part of the preppie style amongst students, a style emphasising neatness, tidiness and grooming. Asymmetrical warfare is a conflict between two populations of drastically different levels of military mechanization.
It was not long before Hollywood was also exploiting this image as part of the sweater girl look. A war where the forces in conflict belong to the same country or empire or other political entity is known as a civil war. Later its increasing acceptability as women's wear saw it become a fad amongst teenage girls, especially in a lightweight form that emphasised aspects of their figures. (Compare with unconventional warfare and nuclear warfare.). Absorbed into mainstream American fashion by the mid 20th century, the poloneck came to be viewed as an anti-tie, a smart form of dress for those who rejected formal wear. "Conventional warfare" describes either:. Again, it was the feminists who turned these into a unisex item. This usage is not always recognized as valid, however, particularly by those who do not accept the connotations of the term.
Their adoption by Noel Coward in the 1920s turned them into a brief middle class fashion trend. When one country sends armed forces to another, allegedly to restore order or prevent genocide or other crimes against humanity, or to support a legally recognized government against insurgency, that country sometimes refers to it as a police action. It was in this stage that a range of light polonecks in a variety of colours began to be designed. Smaller armed conflicts are often called riots, rebellions, coups, etc. Over time polonecks would become acceptable casual wear, though still usually for men only. Wars are a natural outgrowth of the free market and class system, and will not disappear until a world revolution occurs. It was probably at this time that its unisex status as sportswear was exploited by early feminists, who would wear their Hockey sweaters as day wear. It sees wars as imperial ventures to enhance the power of the ruling class and divide the proletariat of the world by pitting them against each other for contrived ideals such as nationalism or religion.
The latter use at sea also led to its adoption by Royal Navy. The economic theories also form a part of the Marxist theory of war, which argues that all war grows out of the class war. Polonecks crossed over from sportswear to work wear at the turn of the century, mostly amongst menial workers and seamen. It is most often advocated by those to the left of the political spectrum, who argue that such wars serve the interests of the wealthy, but are fought by the poor. This use as sports wear would continue into the early 20th Century. invasion of Iraq. Its use by women was also extended into field sports like hockey soon after this. Unquestionably a cause of some wars, from the empire building of Britain to the 1941 Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in pursuit of oil, this theory has been applied to many other conflicts including the 2003 U.S.
These lighter polonecks would become popular for golf amongst both sexes by 1895. In this view, wars begin as a pursuit of new markets, of natural resources, and of wealth. Originally a thick woollen garment, lighter versions were designed for those who found coarser wool uncomfortable against their skin. Another school of thought argues that war can be seen as an outgrowth of economic competition in a chaotic and competitive international system. It was also used in some equestrian activities, though no evidence exists for its use in polo, which might otherwise have explained its name. For example, Sweden made efforts to deceive Nazi Germany that it would resist an attack fiercely partly by playing on the myth of Aryan superiority, and by making sure that Hermann Göring only saw Elite troops in action, often dressed up as regular soldiers, when he came to visit. It had a varied application but was most often used for the more static players in field sports (a use preserved for the soccer goalkeeper as late as the 1950s in the UK). If you think that you can convince the opponent that you will fight, the opponent might desist.
The poloneck sweater, like most sweaters, first emerged in the 1890s as an article of sportswear. One major difficulty is that in a conflict of interests, some deception or at least not telling everything is a standard tactical component on both sides. . The American decision to enter the Vietnam War was made with the full knowledge that the communist forces would resist them, but did not believe that the guerrillas had the capability to long oppose American forces.
A polo neck (UK) (or turtle neck in the US) is a garment—usually a sweater—with a close-fitting, round, and high collar that folds over and covers the neck. The first is to find out the ability of an enemy, the second their intent. Tennis shirt. There are two main objectives in the gathering of intelligence. Preppy. While purely random events, such as storms or the right person dying at the right time, might have had some effect on history, these only influence a single battle or slightly alter the outcome of a war, but would not mean the difference between victory and defeat. Polo Ralph Lauren. This theory is predicated on the notion that the outcome of wars is not randomly determined, but fully determined on factors such as doctrine, economies, and power.
Lacoste. If it had been known for certainty that the Third Reich would collapse after only a few years of war, the Nazis would not have launched the invasion at all. Spandex fetishism. If in 1940 it had been known with certainty the Germans would dominate central Europe for many decades, it is unlikely the Norwegians would have resisted. The Norwegians did not know whether the German domination would be permanent and also felt that noble resistance would win them favour with the Allies and a position at the peace settlement in the event of an Allied victory. The Norwegian decision to resist the Nazi invasion was taken with the certain knowledge that Norway would fall.
Lack of information may not only be to who wins in the immediate future. The leaders of these nations chose not to resist as they saw the potential benefits being not worth the loss of life and destruction such resistance would cause. On the other hand, Finland's decision to resist a similar Soviet aggression in 1939 led to the Winter War. However, throughout history there are as many invasions and annexations that did not lead to a war, such as the U.S.-led invasion of Haiti in 1994, the Nazi invasions of Austria and Czechoslovakia preceding the Second World War, and the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union in 1940.
This notion is made harder to accept because it is far more common to study the cause of wars rather than events that failed to cause wars, and wars are far more memorable. This notion is generally agreed to by almost all scholars of war since Clausewitz. This is based on the notion that wars are reciprocal, that all wars require both a decision to attack and also a decision to resist attack. If both sides at the outset knew the result neither would fight, the loser would merely surrender and avoid the cost in lives and infrastructure that a war would cause.
This theory, advanced by scholars of international relations such as Geoffrey Blainey, argues that all wars are based on a lack of information. A popular new approach is to look at the role of information in the outbreak of wars. This theory accounts for the relative decrease in wars during the past fifty years, especially in the developed world, where advances in agriculture have made it possible to support a much larger population that was formerly the case, and where birth control has dramatically slowed the increase in population. Thomas Malthus (1766 - 1834) wrote that populations always increase until they are limited by war, disease, or famine.
This is one of the earliest expressions of what has come to be called the Malthusian theory of war, in which wars are caused by expanding populations and limited resources. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulcher; wrest that land from a wicked race, and subject it to yourselves.". Let hatred, therefore, depart from among you; let your quarrels end. Hence it is that you murder and devour one another, that you wage wars, and that many among you perish in civil strife.
Pope Urban in 1095, on the eve of the First Crusade, wrote, "For this land which you now inhabit, shut in on all sides by the sea and the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; it scarcely furnishes food enough for its cultivators. This differs from the traditional approach of Carl von Clausewitz and Leopold von Ranke that argue it is the decisions of statesmen and the geopolitical situation that leads to war. Thus World War I was not a product of international disputes, secret treaties, or the balance of power but a product of the economic, social, and political situation within each of the states involved. One based on the works of Eckart Kehr and Hans-Ulrich Wehler sees war as the product of domestic conditions, with only the target of aggression being determined by international realities.
Sociology has thus divided into a number of schools. Rummel has found that civil wars and foreign wars are very different in origin, but Jonathan Wilkenfield using different data found just the opposite. Data looked at by R.J. Many sociologists have attempted to divide wars into types to get better correlations, but this has also produced mixed results.
One correlation that has found much support is that states that are democracies do not go to war with each other, an idea known as the democratic peace theory. A detailed study by Michael Haas found that no single variable has a strong correlation to the occurrence of wars. So far none of these formulas have successfully predicted the outbreak of future conflicts. More recent databases of wars and armed conflict have been assembled by the Correlates of War Project, Peter Brecke and the Uppsala Department of Peace and Conflict Research.
The statistical analysis of war was pioneered by Lewis Fry Richardson following World War I. Some use detailed formulas taking into account hundreds of demographic and economic values to predict when and where wars will break out. Sociology has long been very concerned with the origins of war, and many thousands of theories have been advanced, many of them contradictory. Theorists such as Ashley Montagu emphasize the top down nature of war, that almost all wars are begun not by popular pressure but by the whims of leaders and that these leaders also work to maintain a system of ideological justifications for war.
They see the fighting of animals, the skirmishes of hunter-gatherer tribes, and the organized warfare of modern societies as distinct phenomena each with their own causes. Many anthropologists also see no links between various forms of violence. To this school the acceptance of war is inculcated into each of us by the religious, ideological, and nationalistic surroundings in which we live. Thus if human societies could be reformed, war would disappear.
They see it as fundamentally cultural, learned by nurture rather than nature. Several anthropologists take a very different view of war. By this theory, war is another 'opiate of the masses' by which a state controls its people and prevents revolution. Thus the people are prevented from seeing that their true enemy is in fact their own repressive government.
War inspires fear and hate among the people of a nation, and gives them a 'legitimate' enemy upon whom they can focus this fear and hate. In his fictional book Nineteen-Eighty-Four, George Orwell talks about war being used as one of many ways to distract people. Kennedy, who argue that the organized, sustained war of humans differs more than just technologically from the territorial fights between animals. These theories have been criticized by scholars such as John G.
The earliest advocate of this theory was Konrad Lorenz. We have the same instincts of a chimpanzee but overwhelmingly more power. However, while war has a natural cause, the development of technology has accelerated human destructiveness to a level that is irrational and damaging to the species. This school tends to see war as an extension of animal behaviour, such as territoriality and competition.
A distinct branch of the psychological theories of war are the arguments based on evolutionary psychology. This extreme school of thought argues leaders that seek war such as Napoleon, Hitler, Bush and Stalin were mentally abnormal. Other psychologists have argued that while human temperament allows wars to occur, they only do so when mentally unbalanced men are in control of a nation. Critics, of course, point to various examples of female political leaders who had no qualms about using military force, such as Margaret Thatcher or Indira Gandhi.
This theory has played an important role in modern feminism. One alternative is to argue that war is only, or almost only, a male activity and if human leadership was in female hands wars would not occur. If war is innate to human nature, as is presupposed by many psychological theories, then there is little hope of ever escaping it. Periods that are seen as peaceful are actually periods of preparation for a later war or when war is suppressed by a state of great power, such as the Pax Britannica.
A solution adapted to this problem by militarists such as Franz Alexander is that peace does not really exist. If the innate psychology of the human mind is unchanging, these variations are inconsistent. In addition, they raise the question why there are sometimes long periods of peace and other eras of unending war. While these theories may have some explanatory value about why wars occur, they do not explain when or how they occur.
This combines with other notions, such as displacement where a person transfers their grievances into bias and hatred against other ethnic groups, nations, or ideologies. While this violence is repressed in normal society it needs the occasional outlet provided by war. Durban and John Bowlby have argued that human beings, especially men, are inherently violent. Psychologists such as E.F.M.
Social scientists criticize this approach arguing that at the beginning of every war some leader makes a conscious decision and that they cannot be seen as purely accidental. There are some conditions and situations that make them more likely but there can be no system for predicting where and when each one will occur. Taylor famously described wars as being like traffic accidents. P.
J. A. Historians tend to be reluctant to look for sweeping explanations for all wars. Representatives of many different academic disciplines have attempted to explain war.
There is great debate over why wars happen, even when most people do not want them to. Sometimes the term "war" will not be used in order to circumvent national constitutions which restrict the power of the executive to wage war without the agreement of other branches of government. For example, the United States Government referred to the Korean War as a "police action", and the British Government was very careful to use the term "armed conflict" instead of "war" during the Falklands War in 1982 to comply with the letter of international law. This has resulted in wars (in the sense defined in the introduction to this article) without formal declaration and combatants who officially choose terms other than "war," such as:.
Sometimes the term "war" is restricted by legal definition to those conflicts where one or both belligerents have formally declared war. By only illegalising "war against the rules", it is alleged, such treaties and conventions, in effect, sanction certain types of war. It must be noted that in war such treaties are generally thrown to one side if they interfere with the vital interests of either side; some have criticised such conventions as simply providing a fig leaf for the inhuman practice of war. 135, entered into force 21 October 1950.
A couple of examples are: Resolutions of the Geneva International Conference, Geneva, 26 October-29 October 1863 and Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. Treaty signing has since been a part of international diplomacy, and too many treaties to mention in this scant article have been signed. The most pervasive of those are the Geneva Conventions, the earliest of which began to take effect in the mid 1800s. A number of treaties regulate warfare, collectively referred to as the laws of war.
Charter, "save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.". The United Nations is the latest and most comprehensive attempt to, as stated in the preamble of the U.N. In modern times, increasing international attention has been paid to peacefully resolving conflicts which lead to war. In some cultures, for example, conflicts have been highly ritualized to limit actual loss of life.
While culture, law, and religion have all been factors in causing wars, they have also acted as restraints at times. Total war is the modern term for the targeting of civilians and the mobilization of an entire society; when every member of the society has to contribute to the war effort. Limitations on the targeting of civilians, what type of weapons can be used, and when combat is allowed have all fallen under these rules in different conflicts. At times throughout history, societies have attempted to limit the cost of war by formalizing it in some way.
Today, some see only just wars as legitimate, and believe that it is the goal of organizations such as the United Nations to unite the world against wars of unjust aggression. The defeat and repudiation of the fascist states and their militarism in the Second World War, the huge psychological and physical damage of nuclear war and a growth of the respect for the sanctity of individual life, as enshrined in the concept of human rights and as a cultural consequence of falling natural mortality rates and birth rates, have contributed to the current view of war. At the outbreak of World War I the writer Thomas Mann wrote, "Is not peace an element of civil corruption and war a purification, a liberation, an enormous hope?" This attitude was embraced by many societies from Sparta in Ancient Greece and the Ancient Romans to the fascist states of the 1930s. Many thinkers, such as Heinrich von Treitschke saw war as humanity's highest activity where courage, honor, and ability were more necessary than in any other endeavour.
The negative view of war has not always been held as widely as it is today. Gandhi (called "Mahatma" or "Great Soul"). This position was passionately defended by the Indian leader Mohandas K. Pacifists believe that war is inherently immoral and that no war should ever be fought.
Today war is generally seen as undesirable and morally problematic, although this view is contested by some. Although many ancient nations and some more modern ones viewed war as noble, over the sweep of history concerns about the morality of war have gradually increased. Throughout history, war has been the source of serious moral questions. The study of warfare is known as military history.
Inventions created for warfare play an important role in advances in other fields, but modern technology has greatly increased the potential cost and destruction of war. Armies with iron weapons easily defeated armies armed with bronze. As well as organizational change, technology has played a central role in the evolution of warfare. Organization and structure has since been central to warfare, as illustrated by the success of highly disciplined troops of the Roman Empire.
The earliest city states and empires in Mesopotamia became the first to employ standing armies. War seems as old as human society, and certainly features prominently in the recorded histories of state-cultures. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."---The Art of War by Sun Tzu. "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survival or extinction.
. A war to liberate an occupied country is sometimes characterised as a "war of liberation", while a war between internal elements of the same state may constitute a civil war. A common perception of war is a series of military campaigns between at least two opposing sides involving a dispute over sovereignty, territory, resources, religion or a host of other issues. War is contrasted with peace, which is usually defined as the absence of war.
Other terms for war, which often serve as euphemisms, include armed conflict, hostilities, and police action (note). War is a state of widespread conflict between states, organizations, or relatively large groups of people, which is characterised by the use of lethal violence between combatants or upon civilians. Space warfare. Air warfare.
Urban warfare. Mountain warfare (sometimes called alpine warfare). Sub-aquatic warfare. Naval warfare or Aquatic warfare.
Jungle warfare. Desert warfare. Ski warfare. Arctic warfare.
War where nuclear or biological weapons are not used. A war between nation-states. "crime against international peace". "police action";.
"state aggression by armed force";. "armed conflict";.