Furor over Native American Fashion Costume

[Andre]

Oh and, Niqqie, don't forget Zwarte Piet and the debates about it.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

What a nonsense. I could understand an uproar if it were a real war bonnet, but it isn't.

Apparently the war bonnet is of spiritual importance. Would it be accepted if a singer wore a pope mitre on TV as fashion style?

 

[BobG]

The super intendent of schools in Oregon has ruled that there can be no Native American references in High School mascots and name. My high school teams the Roseburg Indians, must change its name.

Now this is an overreaction. Using Native American references, especially in an area where Native Americans played a significant part of the area's history, is not offensive.

However, some team nicknames are pretty offensive. The Washington Redskins would be the obvious example.

 

[Monique]

Would it be accepted if a singer wore a pope mitre on TV as fashion style?

Yeah, why not? Coincidentally coming Sunday many children and adults in the Netherlands will dress up with a mitre on their head. Should bishops protest?

"Saint Nicholas wears a long red cape or chasuble over a traditional white bishop's alb and sometimes red stola, dons a red mitre, and holds a gold-coloured crosier, a long ceremonial shepherd's staff with a fancy curled top."

http://www.youngmindz.nl/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/sinterklaas.jpg

 

[leroyjenkens]

Funny how no one seems to take offence that they're *still* referred to (and often referring to themselves) as "Indians".

I call them American Indians because the name "native American" is inaccurate. I'll gladly call them whatever name they referred to themselves as, but I haven't heard one yet.

I have an American Indian friend who calls himself Indian.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

People have way too much time to sit around and be offended. To me it seems more a form of flattery than disrespect. But then about the only thing that really offends me anymore is the thought of Jimmy buying his underwear at VS.

 

[lisab]

There's a distinction between an homage and a caricature. First off, the whole purpose of this ad is to sell something, so there's really no room for a true homage, IMO.

On Halloween 1999, my ex dressed up as the Y2K bug. It was funny and clever.

Dressing up as a waffle would be funny and weird.

Dressing up as a...race? wth?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There's a distinction between an homage and a caricature. First off, the whole purpose of this ad is to sell something, so there's really no room for a true homage, IMO.

On Halloween 1999, my ex dressed up as the Y2K bug. It was funny and clever.

Dressing up as a waffle would be funny and weird.

Dressing up as a...race? wth?

But it is a costume worn by a race, not a race issue. I don't think someone dressing up as the pope or a witch is offensive either. So I guess I just don't get the religious bit.

Shouldn't members of wicca be offended by the caricature of witches?

 

[Monique]

Dressing up as a...race? wth?

If I'd wear a bowler, I'd insult the English.
If I'd wear a ushanka, I'd insult the Russians.
If I'd wear a baseball cap, I'd insult the Americans.
If I'd wear a straw hat, I'd insult the Amish.
If I'd wear a conical hat, I'd insult the Asians.
If I'd wear a turban, I'd insult the Islam/Sikh/Rastafari/Jewish communities.
If I'd wear a sombrero, I'd insult the Mexicans.
If I'd wear a tam, I'd insult the Scottish.
If I'd wear a Greek fisherman's cap, I'd insult the Greek.
If I'd wear a fez, I'd insult the Mediterranean people.
If I'd wear a cowboy hat, I'd insult the Texans.
If I'd wear a Aussie bush hat, I'd insult the Austrians.
If I'd wear a beret, I'd insult the French.

I guess there is only one thing left for me to wear:
http://www.onthemovearoundeurope.org/1900/fashion/fashion1900w_files/image138.jpg

Now that's called stereotyping.

People should be free to wear what they're comfortable in and not be labeled as insulting other religions/cultures because of it: it's called tolerance.

 

[lisab]

But it is a costume worn by a race, not a race issue. I don't think someone dressing up as the pope or a witch is offensive either. So I guess I just don't get the religious bit.

Shouldn't members of wicca be offended by the caricature of witches?

I have no idea if a real witch would be offended by a 'typical' witch costume - perhaps she'd see it as a teachable moment?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have no idea if a real witch would be offended by a 'typical' witch costume - perhaps she'd see it as a teachable moment?

Well, wicca is a religion. And the members are witches. So how is this not a religious issue? Why are witches fair game but not Native American religions?

 

[russ_watters]

Shouldn't members of wicca be offended by the caricature of witches?

I know a few. They aren't offended by anything.

Lisa: homage or caricature? Neither.

I would argue that the word caricature is being misapplied here. A caricature is an intentionally negative exaggerated depiction and halloween costumes and leopard print bras are not typically intended for that. Kids don't dress up as Indians and firemen on halloween because they are trying to be insulting, they just like playing make believe.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, wicca is a religion. And the members are witches. So how is this not a religious issue? Why are witches fair game but not Native American religions?

It is strictly an issue of volume.

 

[WannabeNewton]

People have way too much time to sit around and be offended.

I couldn't agree more mate.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I guess I'm the only one here who can explain the Native American reaction.

The so-called "War Bonnet" was not an ornament. Each feather was earned by an act of bravery in battle, especially one of "counting coup", which entailed riding very close to an enemy armed with nothing but a stick, whacking him with the stick, and making it away with your life and limbs intact. A feather could also be earned by killing an enemy, or by stealing enemy horses from under their noses, that sort of thing. The closest thing we have to this are military decorations: the purple heart, medal of honor, etc.

A Plains Indian wearing a full war bonnet was displaying a lifetime of military courage in many battles. They tended, of course, to be the elders therefore, and would have represented the Indian equivalent of the very highest ranking officers.

The feathers come from the tail of the Golden Eagle (not the Bald). There's a whole procedure for catching a Golden Eagle to get its tail feathers that requires spiritual preparation and purification, etc. They didn't just go out and shoot one with an arrow, like hunting for food. The feathers are then closely guarded by shamen until someone earns one, and there must be a meeting of war leaders and a kind of inquest with witnesses to make sure the brave deed actually happened as claimed.

The other incredibly offensive thing arises from the fact that Native Americans, in general, are vastly more modest about sex and sexual issues than the average church-going white person. Most of their cultures have a vast network of sexual taboos. In other words, the bulk of Native Americans were nothing like the Polynesians. If a Native American woman appeared in public in something like a bikini everyone present would have just about died of shame and guilt.

So, as the woman in the article said, this VS outfit sends about every culturally wrong message about Native Americans it could. It should be obvious that people just don't like being grossly misrepresented.

 

[Vorde]

The other incredibly offensive thing arises from the fact that Native Americans, in general, are vastly more modest about sex and sexual issues than the average church-going white person. Most of their cultures have a vast network of sexual taboos. In other words, the bulk of Native Americans were nothing like the Polynesians. If a Native American woman appeared in public in something like a bikini everyone present would have just about died of shame and guilt.

But yet I've seen 'sexy' nun costumes on numerous occasions, with no negative response. What would you say the difference there is? Or would you say a negative reaction in the nun case would be equally justified?

 

[rootX]

I guess I'm the only one here who can explain the Native American reaction.

The so-called "War Bonnet" was not an ornament. Each feather was earned by an act of bravery in battle, especially one of "counting coup", which entailed riding very close to an enemy armed with nothing but a stick, whacking him with the stick, and making it away with your life and limbs intact. A feather could also be earned by killing an enemy, or by stealing enemy horses from under their noses, that sort of thing. The closest thing we have to this are military decorations: the purple heart, medal of honor, etc.

A Plains Indian wearing a full war bonnet was displaying a lifetime of military courage in many battles. They tended, of course, to be the elders therefore, and would have represented the Indian equivalent of the very highest ranking officers.

The feathers come from the tail of the Golden Eagle (not the Bald). There's a whole procedure for catching a Golden Eagle to get its tail feathers that requires spiritual preparation and purification, etc. They didn't just go out and shoot one with an arrow, like hunting for food. The feathers are then closely guarded by shamen until someone earns one, and there must be a meeting of war leaders and a kind of inquest with witnesses to make sure the brave deed actually happened as claimed.

The other incredibly offensive thing arises from the fact that Native Americans, in general, are vastly more modest about sex and sexual issues than the average church-going white person. Most of their cultures have a vast network of sexual taboos. In other words, the bulk of Native Americans were nothing like the Polynesians. If a Native American woman appeared in public in something like a bikini everyone present would have just about died of shame and guilt.

So, as the woman in the article said, this VS outfit sends about every culturally wrong message about Native Americans it could. It should be obvious that people just don't like being grossly misrepresented.

I had some general idea about earning those feathers. I feel it's being ignorant calling "War Bonnet" a piece of decoration or piece of ethnic clothing. Atheists/scientific minded people just appear to fail at understanding significance of cultures and cultural objects to our society IMO.

 

[rootX]

But yet I've seen 'sexy' nun costumes on numerous occasions, with no negative response. What would you say the difference there is? Or would you say a negative reaction in the nun case would be equally justified?

People have to aware enough to tell the difference between what's right and wrong without needing negative/positive responses.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm former Navy and I've seen womens' clothing with stylized insignia including medals and rank insignia. I couldn't possibly care any less. Use of official insignia as a fashion accessory - particularly obsolete insignia - is not an insult.

People should know when they are being insulted and when they aren't.

 

[Vorde]

People have to aware enough to tell the difference between what's right and wrong without needing negative/positive responses.

Of course, but I think this isn't a case of that. It's an issue of who you are focusing your attention towards.

For instance, as someone who's family went through the holocaust and didn't all make it through, I'm very aware of being extremely sensitive with regards to talking about that period with people who I know or suspect have connections to those events.

But I'm totally okay with, and laugh at jokes targeting the same period when performed in comedic venues like a stand up show.

Whether or not something is offensive comes largely down to who you are targeting with your comment or image or whatever.

But someone who would take offense at the scantily clothed models or the misuse of the headdress (admittedly the significance of which I did not know until zooby's post) probably isn't who is going to be watching or wearing Victoria's secret. To go further onto that, I don't think the costume was offensive in any way.

Ignorant maybe, but that's not new.

 

[Monique]

Apparently even the "Native" fashion trend is pissing off "Native Americans" http://www.collectorsweekly.com/art...n-trend-is-pissing-off-real-native-americans/

These people are racist in the labels they attach to people. Apparently according to these people I'm not even allowed to wear a string in my hair, because I'm "white"? (see the comment on Jessica Simpson).

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think the people in this thread think Native Americans are white people with dark hair and skin and a superficial claim to an ethnic heritage, the way the rest of us say, "I'm Irish, Polish and Italian". Native Americans are a conquered people living in foreign occupied North America. We never assimilated them the way the Spanish did further south. (In Mexico and below you can't tell a person from Spanish heritage from an Indian to speak of because there was stirring and mixing of the melting pot from the get go.)

Here in North America we segregated the Natives, prevented them from being completely Native and also prevented them from becoming white. They're still here today, millions of them, in limbo on reservations. Real Native Americans who live on the rez are not Americanized in the way you all assume. They really don't quite get white culture and are living on very damaged remnants of their own former ways.

Some escape here and there, get a college education and try to act as go-betweens between the rez and the white world. There's very little progress there. They're too powerless for the white world to care what they think. No longer a force to be taken too seriously.

I'm former Navy and I've seen womens' clothing with stylized insignia including medals and rank insignia. I couldn't possibly care any less. Use of official insignia as a fashion accessory - particularly obsolete insignia - is not an insult.

In determining whether or not you'd be upset don't forget that this is being done by a conquering race so firmly entrenched in your people's former territory that you know they'll never, ever be dislodged. They can misrepresent what you used to be with impunity unless you're willing to undertake the strain of a lawsuit. I'm glad Victoria's Secret responded so well just at the level of objections.

 

[russ_watters]

In determining whether or not you'd be upset don't forget that this is being done by a conquering race so firmly entrenched in your people's former territory that you know they'll never, ever be dislodged...

I'm half German -- should my best friend, who is Jewish, hate me because of the Holocaust? For that matter, I'm a quarter English -- should I hate myself for the oppression of the crown?

This is just silliness. I've never killed a native American or Jew, nor have I quartered any troops of mine in Camden.

Native Americans are a conquered people living in foreign occupied North America.

Do they really still believe that? Given how much borders around the world have changed in the past 150 years, it is incredible to me that people would feel such a thing. It isn't like this is an active conflict.

Here in North America we segregated the Natives, prevented them from being completely Native and also prevented them from becoming white. They're still here today, millions of them, in limbo on reservations.

Nonsense. I went to high school with a guy who was half Cherokee. Mean jazz sax player (should blacks complain about him stealing their music?) and the chicks really dug the hair. They have a choice of where they want to live just like anyone else does.

They can misrepresent what you used to be with impunity unless you're willing to undertake the strain of a lawsuit.

You can copyright a name or a word, but you can't copyright history. And misrepresent? That assumes that there is a claim of accurate representation. I seriously doubt if Jessica Simpson cares if she's wearing her string "correctly".

 

[russ_watters]

I know that was condescending. I have trouble not responding to absurdity with sarcasm. Let me try to be more succinct, logical and unemotional:

Is not the desire for racial and cultural purity and an anger or hatred toward those who do nothing more than violate that racial or cultural purity pretty much the entire definition of racism?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I'm half German -- should my best friend, who is Jewish, hate me because of the Holocaust?

No, but don't you think he would have a right to object if a German manufacturer tried to sell women's lingerie using a Star of David? That more like the proper analogy here.

Do they really still believe that? Given how much borders around the world have changed in the past 150 years, it is incredible to me that people would feel such a thing. It isn't like this is an active conflict.

Which simply demonstrates that history is written by the victors. No, the Indians have not forgotten that it was the US Government's policy to render them all harmless by either 1.) relocating them to a reservation, or 2.) killing them. Easy for you and me to forget. We white people won.

There are, additionally, people south of the Mason Dixon line who are still not happy about the outcome of The War of Northern Aggression. It's easy for us northerners to view them as silly. We won.

You can't possibly understand any of this unless you can mentally put yourself in the shoes of the defeated parties.

Nonsense. I went to high school with a guy who was half Cherokee. Mean jazz sax player (should blacks complain about him stealing their music?) and the chicks really dug the hair.

This is probably not a Native American by Native American standards. Native Americans would say this is probably a black man who happened to be born in a red body. (Black people would also probably accept him as a "brother" if his sax playing has authentic "soul".) I'm going to bet you've never actually met a real Native American. You have the idea a Native American is an Americanized person with enough Indian blood in their background to physically resemble an Indian. I met a lot of those types in Minnesota, but they aren't the people objecting to things like this outfit. They don't care anymore than you because those types are essentially white people. They're completely Americanized. On the complete other end of the spectrum, there are people in remote parts of the Navajo reservation who never learned to speak English, Russ. Real Indians. I'm telling you, we didn't assimilate them. We segregated them and therefore, they still exist.

They have a choice of where they want to live just like anyone else does.

So do the Amish. Why is it they tend to stick with their own kind in Pennsylvania? The reservation is both a physical and psychological barrier. Leave the rez and you're surrounded by a foreign culture. You can never be sure you know what's going on. The reality is that people stick with what they know and understand.

And misrepresent? That assumes that there is a claim of accurate representation.

By this logic a Native American shaman should feel free to teach the kids on the rez that E=mc² is just a meaningless sort of decorative logo Einstein developed to put on T-shirts and coffee mugs, as long as he neglects to claim that's an accurate representation of what it is, and no one here would have the right to feel the least bit perturbed by it.

We know that's not going to happen. There'd be a long, angry thread generated by the news story reporting such a thing. People here get up in arms when anything scientific is misrepresented. People get banned for spreading ideas considered to be scientific misinformation. Why are Native Americans bad guys for objecting when their culture is grossly misrepresented?

I think what you may not understand is that, although their culture was badly damaged, they, many of them have continued to practice what they can of their religions in an unbroken line from the past to the present.

 

[micromass]

No, but don't you think he would have a right to object if a German manufacturer tried to sell women's lingerie using a Star of David? That more like the proper analogy here.

No... You really think he has the right to object because the manufacturer is German?? That's a bit racist, no??

 

[zoobyshoe]

Is not the desire for racial and cultural purity and an anger or hatred toward those who do nothing more than violate that racial or cultural purity pretty much the entire definition of racism?

So, you're saying you never feel the lest bit upset when you read about how rabble rousers in the Middle East misrepresent American Culture to their followers?

 

[zoobyshoe]

No... You really think he has the right to object because the manufacturer is German?? That's a bit racist, no??

I should think it would be particularly painful to Jews to have a German manufacturer try this stunt given that Germans tried to wipe Jews off the face of the earth, yes, and I would not object to them speaking up about it.

 

[Evo]

I should think it would be particularly painful to Jews to have a German manufacturer try this stunt given that Germans tried to wipe Jews off the face of the earth, yes, and I would not object to them speaking up about it.

There are German jews, you know.

 

[micromass]

By this logic a Native American shaman should feel free to teach the kids on the rez that E=mc² is just a meaningless sort of decorative logo Einstein developed to put on T-shirts and coffee mugs, as long as he neglects to claim that's an accurate representation of what it is, and no one here would have the right to feel the least bit perturbed by it.

We know that's not going to happen. There'd be a long, angry thread generated by the news story reporting such a thing. People here get up in arms when anything scientific is misrepresented. People get banned for spreading ideas considered to be scientific misinformation. Why are Native Americans bad guys for objecting when their culture is grossly misrepresented?

I think you're mixing up two things here.

1) If somebody teaches in school that E=mc² is nonsense, then I will get upset. If somebody teaches in school that native americans are barbarians, then I will also get upset. If an official in the US misrepresents native americans or any other kind of people, then I will get upset.

2) If somebody dresses like a native american, then I see no harm. If somebody wears a T-shirt with "E=mc² is nonsense", then I'm not going to demand the clothing manufacturers to issue an apology. If somebody in the US represents Belgian people as waffle eating drunks, then I'm going to find that funny.