"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
m...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

And so did those generals, many of who were well-bearded.

First of all, those generals were in camps with plenty of water. The
paintings [sic] weren't made under battle conditions, and their well-
trimmed beards were to show that they were important.

The photos of that era show that officers were much more likely to sport full
facial hair than enlisted men.

Did beards indicate some sort of social rank? I've wondered about this, and am
inclined to say "no". Beards were common throughout most of the 19th century,
regardless of one's social standing.


Secondly, the regulations changed. All we were allowed during the
Vietnam era was a well-maintained mustache.

Heck, they changed early in the 20th century. One of the reasons was the
possibility of being "grabbed" in hand-to-hand compact -- rather strange when
every soldier carried a rifle.

Towards the end of the 19th century, there was a reaction against beards. Part
of this must have been the usual back-and-forth of grooming styles. It might
also have been due to the spread of belief in the germ theory of disease --
beards were "dirty", and thus disease-spreaders.

As for the armed forces -- insisting that men "facially circumcise" themselves
is nothing more than an attempt to suppress individuality. (It has nothing to
do with parasites or infection.) About 25 years ago, there was a brief period
during which the Navy permitted trim beards. (In "The Abyss", Chris Elliot
(Bob's son) plays a bearded Navy man.) That didn't last long.

I remember the moment, in late 1977, when I threw off the shackles of social
convention. I would no more shave off my beard than I would cut off my
testicles.