Star Glove Jackets

[Chevalier]

This is a an informative ad. Granted, I’m reading a lot into it, but…
The “Star Glove and Leather” name for the company goes back to at least 1948
It also looks like “Star” was a model name for their police jackets.

Has anyone ever seen a pair of ”Star Glove” gloves?

SG ad from 1948 Yellow Pages

View attachment 741816

 

[oneterrifichog]

First let me say that finding out that the original guy that owned the Star Glove factory was only hiring white girls for his manufacturing did not sit well with me. This is my opinion so I am not trying to start something.


Now to the Lost Worlds version . Stuart did a fantastic job of this jacket! I have owned it for one year so it is not broken in. I asked him to use black snaps and zips and I feel like it worked well. This is definitely a long term keeper for me.

 

[Biff42]

First let me say that finding out that the original guy that owned the Star Glove factory was only hiring white girls for his manufacturing did not sit well with me. This is my opinion so I am not trying to start something.


Now to the Lost Worlds version . Stuart did a fantastic job of this jacket! I have owned it for one year so it is not broken in. I asked him to use black snaps and zips and I feel like it worked well. This is definitely a long term keeper for me.
View attachment 742091 View attachment 742092 View attachment 742093 View attachment 742094 View attachment 742095

I hear you on the hiring practices. That said (and not to excuse it), it was the 1930s. Scouring old digitized newspapers was crazy; for instance, they'd announce so and so committed a final act of self-harm (written as such because FL blocked the real word), then leak the contents of the self-harm note. Times were sure different.

I love that jacket and saw your original post with it. It's a future/contemporary classic. Hopefully, you have someone good to give it to or that your family knows its true worth if you hang on to it.

 

[jchance]

“A mistake constantly made by those who should know better is to judge people of the past by our standards rather than their own. The only way men or women can be judged is against the canvas of their own time." – Louis L'Amour

The future generation would commit the same mistake and judge you harshly, using their own standard of their time, not yours. You stand on the shoulders of giants, and if you think you’re morally superior, think again.

 

[Biff42]

“A mistake constantly made by those who should know better is to judge people of the past by our standards rather than their own. The only way men or women can be judged is against the canvas of their own time." – Louis L'Amour

The future generation would commit the same mistake and judge you harshly, using their own standard of their time, not yours. You stand on the shoulders of giants, and if you think you’re morally superior, think again.

Consider this, I cannot even use a word I alluded to in my post above. What would people in the 30's think of that? I'm not making a judgment or calling out FL rules, but they'd think it's really odd.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

“A mistake constantly made by those who should know better is to judge people of the past by our standards rather than their own. The only way men or women can be judged is against the canvas of their own time." – Louis L'Amour

The future generation would commit the same mistake and judge you harshly, using their own standard of their time, not yours. You stand on the shoulders of giants, and if you think you’re morally superior, think again.

Well said.

What I find interesting is that they say they only hire white girls as if doing so is a sign of moral fortitude. Of course there is racism involved, but they have no need of advertising their white supremacy - just about everyone was a white supremecist.

I believe the point they are trying to convey is that a company who hires other than white girls is a sweat shop (I just learned that this term was current even in those days - FDR used it in a speech in 1936 I was just listening to). Star Glove is saying that they are NOT a sweat shop because they pay a wage that a young white lady would find appropriate.

By our standards, this is a statement of racism. By their standards, this is a statement that they provide a quality product made by employees who are treated fairly.

It's an interesting view into those times.

 

[oneterrifichog]

Ok leaving all this alone but before I move on be aware that I have lived this nonsense. I am from Georgia and was in manufacturing most of my business life. Be aware that while the cultures of the past may have been different if we do not stay abreast of the past we will find ourselves in their times again.

 

[Joseph Hill]

I'm usually not a big fan of the 'blacked out' look (in cars or clothes), but that LW definitely makes it work.

 

[jchance]

Has anyone ever seen a pair of ”Star Glove” gloves?

to the extent Cal reuse their predecessor’s pattern, this is what Cal-Leather gloves, with removable wool liner, look like

 

[cbez]

Even in the 30s there were people hiring all races and treating people decent, so I don't think the moral relativism applies.

That said I don't think some dude being ****ty a century ago would stop me from getting a vintage jacket I like.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

Even in the 30s there were people hiring all races and treating people decent, so I don't think the moral relativism applies.

That said I don't think some dude being ****** a century ago would stop me from getting a vintage jacket I like.

I don't think in the US 100 years ago there was anywhere much at all of what we would think of as "racial equality" (which, without moral relativism, is what must be understood as "decent").

In the 1930s, when non-whites had jobs, it was less desirable work and/or less desirable pay and (most probably) less desirable conditions. In the garment industry, non-whites might have been doing the same work but they were getting less pay and laboring in conditions that were probably not healthy and even more probably not comfortable. There's obviously nothing decent about any of that by today's standards.

Again, I argue that Star Glove is saying, "We only hire employees whom we treat fairly. Since we won't treat non-whites fairly, we simply don't hire them."

Obviously racist as hell. But also an interesting moral position even by today's standards which is, "We refuse to take advantage of our employees and we make sure that even our lowest employees are treated right."

I could be wrong. This could very well mean, "Non-whites make inferior products so we don't hire them." But that doesn't jive with the following paragraph in the article which talks of the girls working in pleasant conditions in well-lit factories - again, "we take care of our employees" is the message.

Sorry, I don't mean to belabor the point but moral relativism is absolutely essential when looking at history. Otherwise there's no way at all to even begin to understand anything before roughly 1800 when for the first time EVER human slavery began to be outlawed broadly.

 

[cbez]

There were integrated labor forces well before the 1930s. Not to say it was the majority and def not in the jim crow areas.

So yeah, they (star glove) were in line with the prevalent attitude at the time, but there were still a minority of people pointing out that it was stupid. Just like there were founding fathers and such pointing out slavery was terrible even back in the 1700s.

Also, I think their messaging is probably more like 'our product is made by better paid white girls' to place themselves above companies using non white garment workers.

 

[cbez]

Also there was definitely a tradition of Asian (Chinese and later Japanese/filipino) tailors and garment workers on the west coast (see: peter's tailormade for ex) so it was probably differentiating themselves from them as well.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

There were integrated labor forces well before the 1930s. Not to say it was the majority and def not in the jim crow areas.

So yeah, they (star glove) were in line with the prevalent attitude at the time, but there were still a minority of people pointing out that it was stupid. Just like there were founding fathers and such pointing out slavery was terrible even back in the 1700s.

Below is the Google AI result when I queried "integrated labor forces prior to 1940." Not the best source for historical inquiry but it will have to do in a pinch.

I think a historical assessment of "they should have known better" is more-often-than-not morally self-aggrandizing. Not even the abolitionist movement was full of voices saying, "Free the slaves and treat the freed blacks equally". Indeed, what to do with the ex-slaves once they were free was an highly contentious debate since so few people even among abolitionists could conceive of them as equals.

The historical landscape is ALWAYS incredibly nuanced and complex and there are no easy answers except when we just write off historical actors as our moral inferiors.

Also, I think their messaging is probably more like 'our product is made by better paid white girls' to place themselves above companies using non white garment workers.

You and I agree on this point, but it sounds like you are saying the implication is, "and that makes our product better, full stop" whereas I am saying the implication could very well be, "and ontop of having a superior product that makes our company more ethical because companies who use non-white labor run sweatshops."

As I said before, my reading also coincides with the very next paragraph in the article.

(As an aside, ending sweatshops was a platform position for FDR in 1936. The historical context favors this as a political statement just as much as an ethical statement. The message from Star Glove could very well even be "We support FDR.")

 

[cbez]

I really do not think 'ethical company' played into it at all, at least not in the way we use and understand it today.

It was more like 'hello white folks, this is a good white owned company, and we use white workers'. The implication being, you're supporting your fellow whites by buying our product, and it's better because it's made by a 'better class' of people/workers.

I think it's fair to take the position that their actions were in line with what was broadly acceptable at the time.

I don't think it's 'moral relativism' to take issue with it either, because there were contemporary voices that took issue with it, even if they were a small minority.

for the record, I am not feeling argumentative, just think it's an interesting discussion on the history of the industry that we don't often get into.

 

[cbez]

There probably is a 'we're not a sweatshop' angle too, but I think it would be read from a product quality angle or a 'were not displacing whites with cheap labor' angle, not bragging about how well they treat the workers.

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

I really do not think 'ethical company' played into it at all, at least not in the way we use and understand it today.

It was more like 'hello white folks, this is a good white owned company, and we use white workers'. The implication being, you're supporting your fellow whites by buying our product, and it's better because it's made by a 'better class' of people/workers.

I think it's fair to take the position that their actions were in line with what was broadly acceptable at the time.

I don't think it's 'moral relativism' to take issue with it either, because there were contemporary voices that took issue with it, even if they were a small minority.

My response to that interpretation is what actually compelled me to start this line of reasoning. Namely: white supremacy was the default position for all of the United States in the 1930s with very very small and secluded pockets of exception (none in LA that I know of but there was some kind of a jazz culture in LA so I'll speculate that there were some voices of dissent). Those "contemporary voices" you talk about where so far drowned out as to be non-existent: most particularly in a world where even access to a radio was relatively new and expensive. You had to be in a specific sub-culture to hear any messaging whatsoever about desegregation or racial equality.

Given this context and the fact that Star Glove was already established as a policeman's jacket, what benefit was there for the owners to announce their white supremacy? There's no need to say publicly "I'm a white supremacist" when everyone you know is a white supremacist.

I also don't accept that it's a given that folks back then believed white girls made better jackets. There are lots of examples of stereotypes from that era of "people from x ethnicity do y thing better." Make pancakes, shine shoes, clean the house, pick fruit. I'm sure there are lots of examples.

So the idea that white girls make better leather jackets than say Latinas or (as you point out) Chinese is not a given.

These reasons lead me to look for some other explanation for this statement than simple "moral inferiority".

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

There probably is a 'we're not a sweatshop' angle too, but I think it would be read from a product quality angle or a 'were not displacing whites with cheap labor' angle, not bragging about how well they treat the workers.

But again, you are ignoring the very next paragraph in the article, which goes into detail about the girls' working conditions. They certainly are bragging about the conditions:

 

[cbez]

My response to that interpretation is what actually compelled me to start this line of reasoning. Namely: white supremacy was the default position for all of the United States in the 1930s with very very small and secluded pockets of exception (none in LA that I know of but there was some kind of a jazz culture in LA so I'll speculate that there were some voices of dissent). Those "contemporary voices" you talk about where so far drowned out as to be non-existent: most particularly in a world where even access to a radio was relatively new and expensive. You had to be in a specific sub-culture to hear any messaging whatsoever about desegregation or racial equality.

Given this context and the fact that Star Glove was already established as a policeman's jacket, what benefit was there for the owners to announce their white supremacy? There's no need to say publicly "I'm a white supremacist" when everyone you know is a white supremacist.

I also don't accept that it's a given that folks back then believed white girls made better jackets. There are lots of examples of stereotypes from that era of "people from x ethnicity do y thing better." Make pancakes, shine shoes, clean the house, pick fruit. I'm sure there are lots of examples.

So the idea that white girls make better leather jackets than say Latinas or (as you point out) Chinese is not a given.

These reasons lead me to look for some other explanation for this statement than simple "moral inferiority".

Well white supremacist also has a different context. I don't think their stance would be seen as radical back then. And I don't think they were announcing specifically white supremacy, just that it was a white business.

But I do think there was a point in the advertising, since if you're holding a star glove or a Peter's tailormade, and you believe in patronizing local white businesses and workers against this onslaught of sweatshops or whatever, (this was a local paper), how would you differentiate unless they told you?

 

[The Lost Cowboy]

Well white supremacist also has a different context. I don't think their stance would be seen as radical back then. And I don't think they were announcing specifically white supremacy, just that it was a white business.

But I do think there was a point in the advertising, since if you're holding a star glove or a Peter's tailormade, and you believe in patronizing local white businesses and workers against this onslaught of sweatshops or whatever, (this was a local paper), how would you differentiate unless they told you?

View attachment 742421

The following response from you is exactly my point all along:

"But I do think there was a point in the advertising, since if you're holding a star glove (...) and you believe in patronizing (...) against this onslaught of sweatshops (...) how would you differentiate unless they told you?

Exactly! My argument is that the statement from Star Glove is not an advertisement of "we are racists, come shop with us" but "we are not a sweatshop, come shop with us."

But where is this ad from that you posted and what era? It definitely lends credence to your interpretation (showing that these kinds of statements were common about white businesses) but it requires contextualization.

Here is the Google AI response when I queried, "in the 1930s was it common for businesses to advertise that they only employed white.workers?"

Google AI is incredibly fallible, so I don't know - I'm just saying that ad you posted needs context.