DOES WHITE MATTER?
Posted: 21 Oct 2016, 06:47
DOES WHITE MATTER?
One of the subjects of the interviews I did for the Lancashire Textile Project was the weekly wash. Several things became clear, the almost universal adoption of Monday as 'Washing Day' proved the truth of the old song “'Twas on a Monday morning that I beheld my darling....”. We've described washing day a hundred years ago in other articles, all I'll say here is that it was a major operation and we should thank God for the washing machine!
The process may have changed but one aspect hasn't, the perceived benefits of 'whiter whites'. In those days it was very competitive, if a new family moved in, neighbouring housewives made a swift assessment of the competence of the in-coming wife by how white her whites were. In those far off days this pristine cleanliness was achieved by boiling, scrubbing and harsh soaps. From ancient times we know that various curious additives were used to increase the efficiency of normal soaps but when soap made from animal fats became scarce during the Great War chemical companies began to look for substitutes and by the 1920s 'washing powders' were coming on to the market. Though harsh, they were effective and as they were cheap to produce there was a ready market for them in industry and by the 1950s they were widely available for domestic use.
Where there is a market for a profitable product there is competition and this promotes advertising. Nowhere was this more evident than in the massive efforts by the big chemical companies to promote their products. Household names appeared Like Dreft, Rinso, Persil, Acdo, OMO and many others. ( By the way, did you know that there is a legend that in army Married Quarters it was said that a pack of OMO on the windowsill was a signal 'Old Man Out'?) The 'Cunning Wheeze' sections of the advertising firms looked for ways of differentiating their product and increasing their attractiveness to housewives. Packaging became increasingly colourful and distinctive and of course, as is the way all advertisers operate, wilder and wilder promises were made.
This is where we have to go back to our housewives of 100 years ago. The phrase 'A whiter white' became common and powders were sold on the promise that your whites would be whiter than her next door! Daz in particular hammered this home incessantly. As textiles became more colourful the question of fading colour from the harsh chemicals became important and 'Brighter Colours' was added to the armoury. In effect the producers were trading on housewives' insecurity.
My question is, does it matter to the extent that the advertisers suggest? Of course we all want a decent result but is it worth going into a decline if your child's white blouse or shirt is eclipsed by some woman using an even more powerful detergent? My advice is to chill out on this subject. Don't be suckered into paying extra for ever more harmful chemicals, it just isn't worth it!
Stanley's clothes rack, clean but not the whitest white! Who cares?
One of the subjects of the interviews I did for the Lancashire Textile Project was the weekly wash. Several things became clear, the almost universal adoption of Monday as 'Washing Day' proved the truth of the old song “'Twas on a Monday morning that I beheld my darling....”. We've described washing day a hundred years ago in other articles, all I'll say here is that it was a major operation and we should thank God for the washing machine!
The process may have changed but one aspect hasn't, the perceived benefits of 'whiter whites'. In those days it was very competitive, if a new family moved in, neighbouring housewives made a swift assessment of the competence of the in-coming wife by how white her whites were. In those far off days this pristine cleanliness was achieved by boiling, scrubbing and harsh soaps. From ancient times we know that various curious additives were used to increase the efficiency of normal soaps but when soap made from animal fats became scarce during the Great War chemical companies began to look for substitutes and by the 1920s 'washing powders' were coming on to the market. Though harsh, they were effective and as they were cheap to produce there was a ready market for them in industry and by the 1950s they were widely available for domestic use.
Where there is a market for a profitable product there is competition and this promotes advertising. Nowhere was this more evident than in the massive efforts by the big chemical companies to promote their products. Household names appeared Like Dreft, Rinso, Persil, Acdo, OMO and many others. ( By the way, did you know that there is a legend that in army Married Quarters it was said that a pack of OMO on the windowsill was a signal 'Old Man Out'?) The 'Cunning Wheeze' sections of the advertising firms looked for ways of differentiating their product and increasing their attractiveness to housewives. Packaging became increasingly colourful and distinctive and of course, as is the way all advertisers operate, wilder and wilder promises were made.
This is where we have to go back to our housewives of 100 years ago. The phrase 'A whiter white' became common and powders were sold on the promise that your whites would be whiter than her next door! Daz in particular hammered this home incessantly. As textiles became more colourful the question of fading colour from the harsh chemicals became important and 'Brighter Colours' was added to the armoury. In effect the producers were trading on housewives' insecurity.
My question is, does it matter to the extent that the advertisers suggest? Of course we all want a decent result but is it worth going into a decline if your child's white blouse or shirt is eclipsed by some woman using an even more powerful detergent? My advice is to chill out on this subject. Don't be suckered into paying extra for ever more harmful chemicals, it just isn't worth it!
Stanley's clothes rack, clean but not the whitest white! Who cares?
