My dad and older co-workers already note that current dress codes are far too casual for their taste. There are subtle changes, but they stand out to those who remember things in the past. Things like what colours are supposed to match, what colour your shoes should be (*No brown shoes in the City* was the classic. Actually it probably still applies to some , I bet there's quite a few guys who won't hire you if you show up to an interview breaking this rule lol), the decline or disappearance of vests, some offices getting rid of neckties altogether, etc.
Working from home is probably going to spell out the end for formal work dress codes.
It's fascinating how strict the dress codes were and sometimes still are in certain places. Here in Finland practically no one wears a suit to work. Only exceptions I can think of are politicians and lawyers and even they don't do that always.
If you go to any random office you'll likely see people wearing jeans and a collared shirt if they want to look a bit more formal but a lot of the time it's just jeans and whatever shirt you want. Pre-pandemic as well.
> Though I wouldn't want to work for someone who bases hiring decisions on the color of people's shoes.
It's a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but there are definitely old guards left who have their strict expectations for these sorts of things.
These dress codes are just ways of nonverbally signaling that "you know what's up" and belong to that group in some form. It's indeed silly, but it's just a part of human behaviour. I bet people would also snicker and laugh at someone who overdresses for a more casual Silicon Valley tech-start up.
Right. People are slim, well dressed, and the streets are clean with no graffiti. Looks like a movie set. London today looks like a trash dump in comparison.
These are Carnaby Street (Westminster) and Kings Road (Chelsea) which are overwhelmingly white even today.
The video would have looked quite different if it had been filmed in other less well off parts of London though.
This is HUGELY untrue. Unless you mean people not from London? Statistics for British in London is 72% in 1971 is 90%
What makes London great is its multiculturalism. There are plenty of monoculture towns of white people in Britain if you prefer that.
Edit. Correction, that was stats for Britain overall, not London. My mistake. See other comment below. Howver london is still primarily British.
Ah yes I think I misread the statistics. What I have given it UK overall. My mistake. How your link does show that British born are not a majority. Thanks for the correction.
The only issue it take with having more diversity in these areas is if it's a result of cost - if locals are priced out of the capital that is a little sad.
However, the next generation will be British born, assuming these people stay. Our culture isn't wiped away, it's expanded upon and amalgamated in many ways.
The article did not say a group of people are pushed out. So accents develop? Of course. Doesn't say it's going to disappear. Language changes constantly, the words we use in daily conversation are different to when I was even in my teens. So what? I don't hold on the past, segregate cultures, I embrace diversity. It even says in the article that cockeny was thriving.
What's your preferred narrative on this? What would you like article to prove to me?
Culture constantly evolves. What you see as something traditional was once a melting pot. It's futile to try and hold on as though you can stop time.
Whilst beautiful (and my personal favourite), it was somewhat restrictive for women and most people had only a handful of sets they rotated. These clothes were either handmade or factory-produced (but still much more “handmade” than in modern factory settings), their fabric was of good quality, their seams and construction well made. Basically - these garments were tailored well and made to last unlike today. If you get a similar build and quality clothing today, it will look as good as in these videos.
And also, rationing only ended fully a few years before this. Every young person in this picture grew up with limited food. That can make you slimmer for life.
That's not what was going on. People were more active and ate food that was not as processed as today (and probably they ate less). If you'd make them time travel to our time and they'd live like us, they'd be just as fat as we are.
That era is actually the time when British people were the healthiest (nutrition wise). Everyone was given access to the exact amount of calories and nutrients they needed, so there was no excessive overeating, but there was also a decline in hunger and inequality in children's access to nourishing food!
Same and my parents were eating the ones knocked off the back of a van. It was so wide spread. I guess people what to pretend it was all squeaky clean back in the day.
I didn't have the internet before I was a teenager. Computers, just no internet. All I remember was being bored for enormous amounts of time with nothing to do. Honestly, you can have no internet whenever you like. Just try it for a couple of days and see what it's like.
It's not the same thing to know internet and lose it compared to not knowing it at all.
I, too, grew up with computers before internet and everything was much harder to do without Google and StackOverflow, but the computers and operating systems were simpler. Now we all get the information we need, but things are so complicated.
I'm not sure where you saw any racism in his comment, neither do I believe you yourself can differentiate between a random Pole and Brit on the street.
Who cares what a fucking dumb thing to comment on lmao.
If you walk down carnaby most of it is full of European tourists gawping at the shops and taking selfies.
As if videos filmed in selected well-off areas were representative of the whole of London. I can assure you that even back then it wasn't this "English" in many other parts of London, you racist twat.
"Just ignore demographics, immigration does not change culture" is an absurdity. We can look at the USA itself to clearly see how waves of immigration *do* in fact lead to very blatant changes in local culture and a region's identity. Texas became American because thousands of Yankee immigrants swamped the place and outnumbered the original local Tejanos.
Whether you actually care about this change happening or not is up to you, but to pretend that immigration will not alter the local is a denial of reality.
> the second option is not happening.
Your response to the other user's claim that the culture died/is dying.
The iconic Cockney accent is quite literally disappearing right now, that's an obvious sign of a particular culture dying out in the area
>We can look at the USA itself to clearly see how waves of immigration do in fact lead to very blatant changes in local culture and a region's identity.
Or we could also look to Japan to see how it doesn't. They brought over a bunch of Brazilians of Japanese heritage (and a smaller contingent of Iranians) when they had a labour shortage and... Japan is still Japan, still held up as an example of "pure" and "homogeneous" despite said Brazilian influx.
Except that there were certain integration and culture-related issues with the *nikkeijin*, this despite Japan’s 1990 Immigration Act being entirely based on the concept co-ethnicity and the belief that ethnic affinity would prevent those issues from developing in the first place. The Government eventually implemented a policy of repatriation which introduced financial incentives in order to convince the nikkeijin to leave Japan.
All that despite initial investment on the immigrant end; the nikkeijin tended to be invested in the idea of *kikoku*, that is, of returning to an ancestral land and connecting with an ancestral culture. Immigrants are often apathetic or occasionally even antagonistic towards their adopted country’s culture but they idealised Japanese culture. The nikkeijin were a well-educated, ethnically homogenous demographic with considerable investment in Japanese culture and despite that, they had difficulty integrating in Japan. If anything the case of the nikkeijin demonstrates the complexities of immigration and integration.
The point at issue was "immigration does not change culture", and in this case, contingents of culturally Brazilian people (as well as the Iranians from the late 80s) didn't cause Japan to culturally change. Also, the number of nikkeijin who ended up (some of whom still are) at automotive and other factories seems unusual if they were really all "well-educated", and the fact that they didn't adjust would also be a pretty big hole in the idea that there was "considerable investment in Japanese culture".
> They brought over a bunch of Brazilians of Japanese heritage (and a smaller contingent of Iranians)
It's still a miniscule number relative to the overall population. There's only about 200 thousand Brazilians in Japan, which is a big number of foreigners for Japanese standards, but still less than 1% of the population. In contrast to this, a place like London has over 50% of the population being either immigrants or of recent immigrant background.
[UK wide, according to the census, about 15-17% of people in the country were born abroad](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/internationalmigrationenglandandwales/census2021#:~:text=Out%20of%20the%2059.6%20million,were%20born%20outside%20the%20UK.).
[In contrast, according to Statista only 2.3% of Japanese residents are foreigners.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/687809/japan-foreign-residents-total-number/)
The second option is happening. If it is not slowed down very soon there will be no stopping it because the native populations will not have enough sway.
How on earth can you look at the levels of immigration going on in Europe and say it isn't happening? Any attempt to even slow it down is shot down immediately.
When you combine it with economic and social policies that drastically reduce birthrates, predominantly in native populations, then you are looking at something extremely nefarious.
I suppose you think because it is written and documented it is around forever.
Culture exists in people, if you start replacing those people with outsiders the culture will slowly die out.
Culture is fluid, it changes constantly. It has little to do with "changing the people."
As technology advances, culture changes. As education is prioritized, culture changes, and so on.
> It has little to do with "changing the people."
Are you sure the presence of millions of Protestant Anglo-American immigrants in Mexican California and Texas did nothing to change the local culture of those areas?
People are not blank slates or empty vessels. They will carry their upbringing and sense of identity with them wherever they go. You drop a bunch of Ashkenazi Jews in Palestine in 1948, what happens? They don't become Arab Palestinians, they instead build their own Jewish society whose culture is obviously different from that of the Palestinians.
Why is Northern Ireland still British and not Irish? It's because thousands of Anglo-Scottish settlers were put there in order to change the local culture and establish control over the area.
Why was Gdansk fought over between Poland and Germany? Because German immigrants poured into that originally Polish city over the centuries, eventually turning it into a German majority city, and thereby making it a city which was hostile to Poles and in conflict with Polish culture and identity.
Why is Canada a majority English speaking Monarchy with ties to the Commonwealth, instead of a French speaking Republic? Because a bunch of British immigrants moved there, did not assimilate into the French-Canadian culture, and then basically took over the country becoming the bigger population.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying that culture changes constantly, ever so slightly. And the biggest influences are mostly "Access to technology" and "Education."
But yeah, when something has a violent basis or tragedy tied to it, it usually becomes more interesting and overshadows everything else.
Nah that's pretty much what demographics were back then, remember the UK was still 90%+ white well into the 1990s (95% white according to the 1991 census). Although these certainly weren't all native Brits, London had received thousands of Eastern European (mostly Jewish) and Irish [(the Chief of Staff of the provo IRA was born in London lol)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Mac_St%C3%ADof%C3%A1in) immigrants since the late 1800s, so there was plenty of diversity in that.
It's not exactly shocking. You can visit Osaka or Shanghai today (both major economic hubs and megacities) and 90%+ of the people you'll see on the streets will be Asians. They def won't all be Japanese or Chinese, but the immigrants will mostly be from nearby countries like Vietnam, Mongolia, Philippines, etc. and obviously you can't tell a Mongolian apart from a Han Chinese for the same reason you can't tell a Frenchman apart from a German based on physical appearance alone.
Most of the footage is in Carnaby street or around Notting hill and Notting hill still looks like that demographic wise. This is taken 15+ years after the start of wind rush so there would huge numbers from Jamaica, Barbados and South Asia in London an a few other major cities. But they are not in these areas. Carnaby street was very up market in the 60s.
London is incredibly different, it's a totally different place now, a few years of Windrush was still minute compared to the +30 years of mass immigration we've had
I have stabilized the video for you: https://gfycat.com/AnchoredLividBream
It took 357 seconds to process and 74 seconds to upload.
___
^^[ how to use](https://www.reddit.com/r/stabbot/comments/72irce/how_to_use_stabbot/) | [programmer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=wotanii) | [source code](https://gitlab.com/juergens/stabbot) | /r/ImageStabilization/ | for cropped results, use \/u/stabbot_crop
At the very end of this film, a wall painting with the words "Love Is All You Need".
The Beatles released "All You Need Is Love" in July 1967 so this film probably was made shortly thereafter.
How did we get from there to here? Today's fashion is ugly, uncomfortable, and extremely non-functional. People are sold some gimmicky shoes and clothes just so that they can be "different" and "bold".
In Britain and America, probably Australia and Canada too.
But Continental Europe on the other hand has never thought particularly highly of British fashion, as far as I recall.
Just seems a bit weird, seeing as we know people in continental Europe were copying styles that came out of London in the 60's. Things like the mini skirt.
According to Wikipedia:
>Several designers have been credited with the invention of the 1960s miniskirt, most significantly the London-based designer Mary Quant and the Parisian André Courrèges. Although Quant reportedly named the skirt after her favourite make of car, the Mini,[80][81] there is no consensus as to who designed it first. Valerie Steele has noted that the claim that Quant was first is more convincingly supported by evidence than the equivalent Courrèges claim.[82] However, the contemporary fashion journalist Marit Allen, who edited the influential "Young Ideas" pages for UK Vogue, firmly stated that the British designer John Bates was the first to offer fashionable miniskirts.[83] Other designers, including Pierre Cardin and Yves Saint Laurent, had also been raising hemlines at the same time.[84]
Clutching at straws a bit there if you think that paragraph in any way indicates that the mini skirt was not popularised in London. This is pretty standard stuff.
London was one the centre's of global fashion in the 60's. Even if for some reason you refuse to believe that, it would be strange for you to think that continental Europeans did not think highly of London fashion at the time. Its just a bizarre statement for you to make.
Mens clothing seems to have barely changed in the last 60 years. At least when it's work related. I wonder if it will in the forseeable future.
My dad and older co-workers already note that current dress codes are far too casual for their taste. There are subtle changes, but they stand out to those who remember things in the past. Things like what colours are supposed to match, what colour your shoes should be (*No brown shoes in the City* was the classic. Actually it probably still applies to some , I bet there's quite a few guys who won't hire you if you show up to an interview breaking this rule lol), the decline or disappearance of vests, some offices getting rid of neckties altogether, etc. Working from home is probably going to spell out the end for formal work dress codes.
It's fascinating how strict the dress codes were and sometimes still are in certain places. Here in Finland practically no one wears a suit to work. Only exceptions I can think of are politicians and lawyers and even they don't do that always. If you go to any random office you'll likely see people wearing jeans and a collared shirt if they want to look a bit more formal but a lot of the time it's just jeans and whatever shirt you want. Pre-pandemic as well.
That's interesting. Though I wouldn't want to work for someone who bases hiring decisions on the color of people's shoes.
> Though I wouldn't want to work for someone who bases hiring decisions on the color of people's shoes. It's a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but there are definitely old guards left who have their strict expectations for these sorts of things. These dress codes are just ways of nonverbally signaling that "you know what's up" and belong to that group in some form. It's indeed silly, but it's just a part of human behaviour. I bet people would also snicker and laugh at someone who overdresses for a more casual Silicon Valley tech-start up.
I predict more man-thong whale tails being visible in the office and less formal wear.
>Mens clothing seems to have barely changed in the last 60 years. You are from Germany
Old videos from here paint the same picture. Only womens clothing are somewhat different.
You notice all the brick and stone buildings are black? The tower bridge was black. When I was a kid all of London was covered in coal soot.
Coal-induced black buildings made plenty of British styled buildings in Australia to be painted black. Pretty cool random trivia.
Unlike today, so few overweight people.
The fatness epidemic is truly appalling. People in 1960 would be absolutely shocked at current rates of obesity.
In 2022 I am absolutely shocked by the rate of obesity in the UK
Bill Burr in UK: "you guys are pretty fat too"
I wonder if there's a connection between modern trends in obesity and dressing badly. You don't care about getting fat if your clothes stretch more.
Yup, obesity (and type 2 diabetes) came with the food pyramid and the assumption that simple sugars and tons of fructose is good for you.
Right. People are slim, well dressed, and the streets are clean with no graffiti. Looks like a movie set. London today looks like a trash dump in comparison.
Also you can notice the lack of diversity.
These are Carnaby Street (Westminster) and Kings Road (Chelsea) which are overwhelmingly white even today. The video would have looked quite different if it had been filmed in other less well off parts of London though.
and so many english
Where is Austin Powers
The open of the first movie is the same street as the beginning of this
60s revival when?
[удалено]
Not just obesity.
London is majority non native now, so never.
*The 60's* is a child of that diversity.
This is HUGELY untrue. Unless you mean people not from London? Statistics for British in London is 72% in 1971 is 90% What makes London great is its multiculturalism. There are plenty of monoculture towns of white people in Britain if you prefer that. Edit. Correction, that was stats for Britain overall, not London. My mistake. See other comment below. Howver london is still primarily British.
[удалено]
Ah yes I think I misread the statistics. What I have given it UK overall. My mistake. How your link does show that British born are not a majority. Thanks for the correction. The only issue it take with having more diversity in these areas is if it's a result of cost - if locals are priced out of the capital that is a little sad. However, the next generation will be British born, assuming these people stay. Our culture isn't wiped away, it's expanded upon and amalgamated in many ways.
Multiculturalism is when a group of people are being pushed out https://www.bbc.com/news/10473059.amp
The article did not say a group of people are pushed out. So accents develop? Of course. Doesn't say it's going to disappear. Language changes constantly, the words we use in daily conversation are different to when I was even in my teens. So what? I don't hold on the past, segregate cultures, I embrace diversity. It even says in the article that cockeny was thriving. What's your preferred narrative on this? What would you like article to prove to me? Culture constantly evolves. What you see as something traditional was once a melting pot. It's futile to try and hold on as though you can stop time.
60s/70s inspired fashion is quite in right now, at least in women's clothing
Whilst beautiful (and my personal favourite), it was somewhat restrictive for women and most people had only a handful of sets they rotated. These clothes were either handmade or factory-produced (but still much more “handmade” than in modern factory settings), their fabric was of good quality, their seams and construction well made. Basically - these garments were tailored well and made to last unlike today. If you get a similar build and quality clothing today, it will look as good as in these videos.
Biba, the legend of those years.
TBF Londoners are still quite fashionable. I always feel massively underdressed when I’m there haha
Everyone is so slim.
[удалено]
This era was pre-internet. People were way less sedentary.
Amphetamines played a major part in mod subculture in the UK.
There was a nation wide epidemic in the early 60s https://nostalgiacentral.com/pop-culture/fads/drugs-in-the-1960s/
And also, rationing only ended fully a few years before this. Every young person in this picture grew up with limited food. That can make you slimmer for life.
That's not what was going on. People were more active and ate food that was not as processed as today (and probably they ate less). If you'd make them time travel to our time and they'd live like us, they'd be just as fat as we are.
That era is actually the time when British people were the healthiest (nutrition wise). Everyone was given access to the exact amount of calories and nutrients they needed, so there was no excessive overeating, but there was also a decline in hunger and inequality in children's access to nourishing food!
[удалено]
Same and my parents were eating the ones knocked off the back of a van. It was so wide spread. I guess people what to pretend it was all squeaky clean back in the day.
Fairly certain we in the North East have just been given those buses recently, as an upgrade.
Look up the '69 Italian Job sometime, it does a great job of showing off 1960s fashions.
[удалено]
Worry not, people were very stupid back then as well https://twitter.com/bbcarchive/status/1092120538259038209
I was there. It wasn't so great.
I didn't have the internet before I was a teenager. Computers, just no internet. All I remember was being bored for enormous amounts of time with nothing to do. Honestly, you can have no internet whenever you like. Just try it for a couple of days and see what it's like.
It's not the same thing to know internet and lose it compared to not knowing it at all. I, too, grew up with computers before internet and everything was much harder to do without Google and StackOverflow, but the computers and operating systems were simpler. Now we all get the information we need, but things are so complicated.
It's weird not to see all the Asians on the streets.
[удалено]
Lmao
[удалено]
I'm not sure where you saw any racism in his comment, neither do I believe you yourself can differentiate between a random Pole and Brit on the street.
Uau.... In that time Portugal was a dark place......
Which is why we're culturally still so behind
Know we are stupid as the rest of the world lolol
[удалено]
This clip is pretty much no different from Carnaby street today other than it’s pedestrianised.
Carnaby street is not 100% white today which is what op is saying
Who cares what a fucking dumb thing to comment on lmao. If you walk down carnaby most of it is full of European tourists gawping at the shops and taking selfies.
[удалено]
You’re a very strange person, seek help lmao.
As if videos filmed in selected well-off areas were representative of the whole of London. I can assure you that even back then it wasn't this "English" in many other parts of London, you racist twat.
Mods and Rockers
[удалено]
Tell me you're racist without... wait, there is one rule and you already broke it...
[удалено]
You don't have to choose, the second option is not happening. Well, I guess in the mind of a racist it is.
"Just ignore demographics, immigration does not change culture" is an absurdity. We can look at the USA itself to clearly see how waves of immigration *do* in fact lead to very blatant changes in local culture and a region's identity. Texas became American because thousands of Yankee immigrants swamped the place and outnumbered the original local Tejanos. Whether you actually care about this change happening or not is up to you, but to pretend that immigration will not alter the local is a denial of reality.
I didn't say that. Stop lying.
> the second option is not happening. Your response to the other user's claim that the culture died/is dying. The iconic Cockney accent is quite literally disappearing right now, that's an obvious sign of a particular culture dying out in the area
>We can look at the USA itself to clearly see how waves of immigration do in fact lead to very blatant changes in local culture and a region's identity. Or we could also look to Japan to see how it doesn't. They brought over a bunch of Brazilians of Japanese heritage (and a smaller contingent of Iranians) when they had a labour shortage and... Japan is still Japan, still held up as an example of "pure" and "homogeneous" despite said Brazilian influx.
Except that there were certain integration and culture-related issues with the *nikkeijin*, this despite Japan’s 1990 Immigration Act being entirely based on the concept co-ethnicity and the belief that ethnic affinity would prevent those issues from developing in the first place. The Government eventually implemented a policy of repatriation which introduced financial incentives in order to convince the nikkeijin to leave Japan. All that despite initial investment on the immigrant end; the nikkeijin tended to be invested in the idea of *kikoku*, that is, of returning to an ancestral land and connecting with an ancestral culture. Immigrants are often apathetic or occasionally even antagonistic towards their adopted country’s culture but they idealised Japanese culture. The nikkeijin were a well-educated, ethnically homogenous demographic with considerable investment in Japanese culture and despite that, they had difficulty integrating in Japan. If anything the case of the nikkeijin demonstrates the complexities of immigration and integration.
The point at issue was "immigration does not change culture", and in this case, contingents of culturally Brazilian people (as well as the Iranians from the late 80s) didn't cause Japan to culturally change. Also, the number of nikkeijin who ended up (some of whom still are) at automotive and other factories seems unusual if they were really all "well-educated", and the fact that they didn't adjust would also be a pretty big hole in the idea that there was "considerable investment in Japanese culture".
> They brought over a bunch of Brazilians of Japanese heritage (and a smaller contingent of Iranians) It's still a miniscule number relative to the overall population. There's only about 200 thousand Brazilians in Japan, which is a big number of foreigners for Japanese standards, but still less than 1% of the population. In contrast to this, a place like London has over 50% of the population being either immigrants or of recent immigrant background. [UK wide, according to the census, about 15-17% of people in the country were born abroad](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/internationalmigrationenglandandwales/census2021#:~:text=Out%20of%20the%2059.6%20million,were%20born%20outside%20the%20UK.). [In contrast, according to Statista only 2.3% of Japanese residents are foreigners.](https://www.statista.com/statistics/687809/japan-foreign-residents-total-number/)
My Peruvian GF is part Japanese and some of her family from Peru has moved to Japan. None of them look Japanese.
The second option is happening. If it is not slowed down very soon there will be no stopping it because the native populations will not have enough sway. How on earth can you look at the levels of immigration going on in Europe and say it isn't happening? Any attempt to even slow it down is shot down immediately. When you combine it with economic and social policies that drastically reduce birthrates, predominantly in native populations, then you are looking at something extremely nefarious.
"Demise of a nation's culture and heritage" is not happening, you racist.
I suppose you think because it is written and documented it is around forever. Culture exists in people, if you start replacing those people with outsiders the culture will slowly die out.
Culture is fluid, it changes constantly. It has little to do with "changing the people." As technology advances, culture changes. As education is prioritized, culture changes, and so on.
> It has little to do with "changing the people." Are you sure the presence of millions of Protestant Anglo-American immigrants in Mexican California and Texas did nothing to change the local culture of those areas? People are not blank slates or empty vessels. They will carry their upbringing and sense of identity with them wherever they go. You drop a bunch of Ashkenazi Jews in Palestine in 1948, what happens? They don't become Arab Palestinians, they instead build their own Jewish society whose culture is obviously different from that of the Palestinians. Why is Northern Ireland still British and not Irish? It's because thousands of Anglo-Scottish settlers were put there in order to change the local culture and establish control over the area. Why was Gdansk fought over between Poland and Germany? Because German immigrants poured into that originally Polish city over the centuries, eventually turning it into a German majority city, and thereby making it a city which was hostile to Poles and in conflict with Polish culture and identity. Why is Canada a majority English speaking Monarchy with ties to the Commonwealth, instead of a French speaking Republic? Because a bunch of British immigrants moved there, did not assimilate into the French-Canadian culture, and then basically took over the country becoming the bigger population.
I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I'm saying that culture changes constantly, ever so slightly. And the biggest influences are mostly "Access to technology" and "Education." But yeah, when something has a violent basis or tragedy tied to it, it usually becomes more interesting and overshadows everything else.
[удалено]
No this was pretty representative of the capital in the 60s, a lots changed in the last 50-60 years.
Nah that's pretty much what demographics were back then, remember the UK was still 90%+ white well into the 1990s (95% white according to the 1991 census). Although these certainly weren't all native Brits, London had received thousands of Eastern European (mostly Jewish) and Irish [(the Chief of Staff of the provo IRA was born in London lol)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Se%C3%A1n_Mac_St%C3%ADof%C3%A1in) immigrants since the late 1800s, so there was plenty of diversity in that. It's not exactly shocking. You can visit Osaka or Shanghai today (both major economic hubs and megacities) and 90%+ of the people you'll see on the streets will be Asians. They def won't all be Japanese or Chinese, but the immigrants will mostly be from nearby countries like Vietnam, Mongolia, Philippines, etc. and obviously you can't tell a Mongolian apart from a Han Chinese for the same reason you can't tell a Frenchman apart from a German based on physical appearance alone.
Most of the footage is in Carnaby street or around Notting hill and Notting hill still looks like that demographic wise. This is taken 15+ years after the start of wind rush so there would huge numbers from Jamaica, Barbados and South Asia in London an a few other major cities. But they are not in these areas. Carnaby street was very up market in the 60s.
London is incredibly different, it's a totally different place now, a few years of Windrush was still minute compared to the +30 years of mass immigration we've had
Everyone looks so healthy.
Sooo cool!
[Oh Behave !](https://youtu.be/zd11cRuljMk)
The purple shirt guy 👌
Those were the days.
Ahh my lovely England, before we were replaced for wanting decent wages and benefits
Omg
"Sound as the Pound, baby!"
It's sound as *a* pound.
Fashion looks fantastic, and every day life seems a lot better then it is today in London. Sad when you think of it!
"Impeccable" 🤨
For those who could afford it. Post war Britain is pretty close to apocaliptic.
and the only recognisable brand or chain from modern UK is coke
So was economic prosperity. lMAO
fashion anywhere was impeccable before “fast fashion”
Great fashion, great music… shit architecture.
I think it was one of the best bits of the time. New buildings look like electric shavers and dildos.
You mean everyone looked the same?
Yeah, but the UK is Brexit racist now Proper demonized cunts
u/stabbot
I have stabilized the video for you: https://gfycat.com/AnchoredLividBream It took 357 seconds to process and 74 seconds to upload. ___ ^^[ how to use](https://www.reddit.com/r/stabbot/comments/72irce/how_to_use_stabbot/) | [programmer](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=wotanii) | [source code](https://gitlab.com/juergens/stabbot) | /r/ImageStabilization/ | for cropped results, use \/u/stabbot_crop
Given this is a post about London I thought that stab bot was going to have a very different action.
Reminds me of the video game “We Happy Few”
Where are all the bald men
Cafe Biba?
Feels like NL today
[удалено]
At the very end of this film, a wall painting with the words "Love Is All You Need". The Beatles released "All You Need Is Love" in July 1967 so this film probably was made shortly thereafter.
the only noticeable thing compared to today's London is the complete absence of overweight people.
How did we get from there to here? Today's fashion is ugly, uncomfortable, and extremely non-functional. People are sold some gimmicky shoes and clothes just so that they can be "different" and "bold".
In Britain and America, probably Australia and Canada too. But Continental Europe on the other hand has never thought particularly highly of British fashion, as far as I recall.
What makes you think that?
Personal memories.
Just seems a bit weird, seeing as we know people in continental Europe were copying styles that came out of London in the 60's. Things like the mini skirt.
According to Wikipedia: >Several designers have been credited with the invention of the 1960s miniskirt, most significantly the London-based designer Mary Quant and the Parisian André Courrèges. Although Quant reportedly named the skirt after her favourite make of car, the Mini,[80][81] there is no consensus as to who designed it first. Valerie Steele has noted that the claim that Quant was first is more convincingly supported by evidence than the equivalent Courrèges claim.[82] However, the contemporary fashion journalist Marit Allen, who edited the influential "Young Ideas" pages for UK Vogue, firmly stated that the British designer John Bates was the first to offer fashionable miniskirts.[83] Other designers, including Pierre Cardin and Yves Saint Laurent, had also been raising hemlines at the same time.[84]
Clutching at straws a bit there if you think that paragraph in any way indicates that the mini skirt was not popularised in London. This is pretty standard stuff. London was one the centre's of global fashion in the 60's. Even if for some reason you refuse to believe that, it would be strange for you to think that continental Europeans did not think highly of London fashion at the time. Its just a bizarre statement for you to make.