There is a concept American readers will be most familiar with, and which often surrounds vintage and reproduction military clothing, known as ‘stolen valour’. 

It describes how wearing military clothing as a civilian, and particularly medals and awards, can be distressing for veterans. The assumption is that people wear the clothing in order to give the impression of being tough, having endured hazardous circumstances - even specifically having served - in order to gain respect and other benefits. Hence, stealing valour. 

It became particularly relevant in the US after the Vietnam War, and the term comes from a book of the same name. A law was introduced in 2005 - the Stolen Valor Act. In the UK a petition to introduce a similar law in 2015 was rejected by the government, saying no equivalent was needed. It remains, of course, an offence to actually impersonate a solider, as a police officer, and in some circumstances the wearing of military medals without permission is an offence. 

Even explaining this concept, though, shows what a range of behaviours it covers. Most would agree that pretending to have served in a conflict you haven’t done is wrong. Very few would think that wearing a piece of fashion styled after a military field jacket is the same.

As ever, the interesting bit is the grey area in middle, and that’s what we’re taking about today. I also find it interesting because so many opinions vary, including among those who have served. And my mind has been changed more than once. 

So our subject is clothing that is obviously military, being worn by someone who did not serve. No medals, no actual behaviour of pretending to be a soldier, but clearly with that origin. 

It could be a vintage piece, or it could be a new one - from a Japanese repro brand for instance. What makes it more or less acceptable?

Let’s start with an example of how opinions can vary. In a related discussion on Permanent Style, a reader commented that he wore vintage military clothing but preferred it without a name on it, as this seemed disrespectful - this guy actually wore it to serve, and now I’m not. 

But another said that he didn’t mind such clothes, and in fact wanted to keep the name and then research the particular soldier who had worn it, in order to know more about him and feel like he understood what the jacket had been through. This felt more respectful. 

Both readers were aware of the issues and were trying to do the right thing, but reached different conclusions. 

The same can happen with veterans. One veteran on another PS post claimed no one should be allowed to wear reppe ties, because those with a diagonal pattern originally indicated one’s regiment. A bit extreme, but still a very long way from my own grandfather - who served in the Navy - who told me he couldn’t care less as long as the wearer wasn’t actually pretending to be in the forces. It was all just fashion. 

Personally, I have no problem wearing military clothing with no name on it. After all, the military themselves sold a lot of it off to civilians as surplus. 

I'm less comfortable with camouflage, and still a little unsure about pieces with a name. It has been pointed out to me that some surplus had names on too - as it was surplus to the individual. And that protestors against Vietnam specifically wore such pieces to honour the soldiers that had died in them. But then, I’m not wearing it as a protest for peace. 

Wearing a jacket that’s more blatant - such as the US Airborne jackets that have emblazoned across the back ‘When I die I’ll go to heaven because I’ve served my time in hell’ seems a little more distasteful, particularly with the use of the first person. 

And it seems both distasteful and odd when you have a military jacket with ‘R Lauren’ on the breast and some made-up lightning insignia on the arm. 

Importantly though, a lot of my opinions have come from speaking to those with greater knowledge (eg around military surplus) and those that are meant to be offended - veterans themselves. 

Such opinions can vary, as we’ve noted, and in these debates there are often far more people talking on behalf of those that are offended, presuming offence, rather than the offended themselves. I know there are a good few veterans among PS readers, so I’d be interested to hear what they find offensive, distasteful, or neither. 

Other things that are relevant are period and context. 

Wearing a piece from WW2 is clearly different from wearing a current piece of military clothing. “I draw the line at Vietnam,” one vintage collector told me recently. “I’ve seen a lot less military clothing around recently from the first Gulf War onwards, and that’s because a lot of it is being sent to Ukraine, for actual use in actual war. So that kind of brings it home to you.”

And the relevance of context is most clearly seen in Japan. One reader commented that he couldn’t understand why the Japanese so enthusiastically wore the uniforms of a country that had defeated them. There are of course many reasons, mostly deriving from the long US occupation after the War. But the very fact that you can’t understand them - that they are socially complex - should stop anyone from proclaiming judgement. 

I can imagine this topic will engender quite a few comments. As ever, they are welcome and indeed a treasured part of PS. But let’s avoid extremes (yes, a T-shirt was originally military clothing; no, no one is suggesting that’s stolen valour; please don’t erect any windmills just to  be tilted at) and keep an open mind. It’s perfectly possible to change your mind and to do it publicly. I have on there, and I’m sure I’ll do it again.