Furor over Native American Fashion Costume

  • Thread starter Thread starter Vorde
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
A recent scandal arose from a Victoria's Secret fashion show where a model wore a Native American headdress, sparking allegations of racism and cultural insensitivity. Victoria's Secret issued an apology and removed the costume following public backlash. Some participants in the discussion argue that the costume is not inherently racist but rather a violation of cultural customs, comparing it to inappropriate uses of the American flag. Others emphasize the importance of respecting cultural artifacts and the potential harm of trivializing significant cultural symbols. The debate highlights differing views on cultural appropriation and sensitivity in fashion.
  • #91
zoobyshoe said:
These issues are worth discussing but I think you're wandering off topic. The woman at the link is being criticized here for speaking out because her culture is being misrepresented. The question is, are people who object to being grossly misrepresented really out of line?

I don't think so and I think everyone here would be agitated if they were misrepresented in a way they particularly disliked.
If no one is claiming the representation is accurate, how can one claim it is a misrepresentation?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
Vagrant said:
I'm still trying to figure this one out. Could you please say this another way?
It is the inverse of freedom of speech: people have a right to say things that are offensive. People do not have the right to silence speech that offends them -- in public.

Ie, bringing meat to a vegitarian's house is offensive and he can throw you out over it, but he doesn't have the power to prevent a McDonalds from opening up across the street.
 
Last edited:
  • #93
micromass said:
And I think people should act maturely if they are offended in some ways. People can get offended in a huge number of ways. Again: should we stop eating meat because it might be offensive? Should we not draw Muhammed cartoons because it might be offensive?? Or should the people who are offended grow a backbone and realize that they can't push their views on other people? I think the latter.

I don't believe we should aim to please everybody. I don't think we even can do that. All we can do is aim to be the best person we can be. And I don't think that wearing religious symbols makes me a bad person. And if somebody is offended, then they should deal with it. They should accept that I am a different person who does not think like them.

What's your definition of acting maturely?

Is it to burn someone's house down every time they get offended? (probably not since it's a rhetorical question)

Is it to tell people you don't like it when they do that and tell them why?

Or is it to shut up and color and just take it?

Some people would say it takes some backbone to tell people when you're bothered by what other people do (especially if that person is bigger than you and has a violent temper).

By the same token, no one here knows how Native Americans as a whole feel about the fashion show. We just know that a few Native Americans were offended.

Just like a military veteran or two that aren't offended by people wearing the US flag apparel doesn't tell us how military veterans as whole feel about it.

If I had to guess, I'd guess not too many people are offended by either one. Some people get offended any time customs and courtesies are violated. Some people couldn't care less about any customs and courtesies even when they're just good manners. Most people probably notice when customs and courtesies are violated, but don't get very excited about it.

But, if it does bother them, I don't have a problem with them saying so. Doesn't mean it would change my behavior, but I'd at least consider their concerns if I knew it bothered them.
 
  • #94
aquitaine said:
People don't have the right not to be offended. To say otherwise is inviting a whole mess of trouble along with some very outrageous restrictions on individual rights.

I, too, find this a very strange way to say things.

It almost sounds as if you're saying that you don't have the right to say anything about things you don't like. As if you're saying the offender deserves more rights than the offended.

I think it's more accurate to say the offended person doesn't have the right to force the offender to change.

If the offender is offended by the offended's comments about what the offender did, then what would you suggest the offender do in response to the offended's offensive comments? (geez, I wish I could say this 10 times fast)
 
  • #95
Years ago, my great-aunt bought her husband a 4-point Pendleton blanket (the kind that was white with bold colored stripes) and hired a seamstress to make him a heavy coat out of it. He was a pretty big guy and hard to fit, but the seamstress did a wonderful job, and it looked great on him. Since most of my mother's side of the family is French-Canadian and Native American (Metis), nobody thought twice about it. It probably helped that about half the town shared our heritage.

He got lots of compliments on that coat. Even 30+ years ago, those trade blankets were $$$. He explained to me that the "points" woven into the hem of the blanket indicated not only the quality of the blanket, but also served as an indicator of how many beaver pelts would be required to trade for such a blanket.

He was a massive, ruddy-faced guy and could wear that well. Perhaps part of the critique over the VS costume was that a skinny white female was depicted wearing a ridiculously long flowing bonnet (reserved for chiefs of the Plains tribes) and that jarred the sensitivities of members of those tribes. I know that it was just a costume for a fashion show, but if you could come to central Maine when people of woodlands Native American descent hold their annual gatherings, you would see how seriously the participants take their heritage.

The French part of my family came from northeastern Maine (bordering NB and PQ) and I'm not even sure whether I'm descended from MicMacs or Maliseets. The French trappers and traders intermarried with native women, and at some point the Roman Catholic church became the record-keepers of those marriages, and records are scant.
 
  • #96
turbo said:
Years ago, my great-aunt bought her husband a 4-point Pendleton blanket (the kind that was white with bold colored stripes) and hired a seamstress to make him a heavy coat out of it. He was a pretty big guy and hard to fit, but the seamstress did a wonderful job, and it looked great on him. Since most of my mother's side of the family is French-Canadian and Native American (Metis), nobody thought twice about it. It probably helped that about half the town shared our heritage.

He got lots of compliments on that coat. Even 30+ years ago, those trade blankets were $$$. He explained to me that the "points" woven into the hem of the blanket indicated not only the quality of the blanket, but also served as an indicator of how many beaver pelts would be required to trade for such a blanket.

He was a massive, ruddy-faced guy and could wear that well. Perhaps part of the critique over the VS costume was that a skinny white female was depicted wearing a ridiculously long flowing bonnet (reserved for chiefs of the Plains tribes) and that jarred the sensitivities of members of those tribes. I know that it was just a costume for a fashion show, but if you could come to central Maine when people of woodlands Native American descent hold their annual gatherings, you would see how seriously the participants take their heritage.

The French part of my family came from northeastern Maine (bordering NB and PQ) and I'm not even sure whether I'm descended from MicMacs or Maliseets. The French trappers and traders intermarried with native women, and at some point the Roman Catholic church became the record-keepers of those marriages, and records are scant.
It would be nice if they teach more about heritage in schools. Else, one day our heritage and culture will only be on bikinis or underwears.
 
  • #97
rootX said:
It would be nice if they teach more about heritage in schools. Else, one day our heritage and culture will only be on bikinis or underwears.

Probably depends on the school system and I may have just gotten lucky by coincidence, but both cities I attended school in taught the cultural heritage of the native Americans that lived in the area. I had "Wichita history" which included the Plains tribes when I lived in Kansas and I had "Ohio history" which included the tribes of Ohio. "Ohio history" was more comprehensive, but that was a junior high course, while "Wichita history" was something taught in elementary school.
 
  • #98
BobG said:
Probably depends on the school system and I may have just gotten lucky by coincidence, but both cities I attended school in taught the cultural heritage of the native Americans that lived in the area. I had "Wichita history" which included the Plains tribes when I lived in Kansas and I had "Ohio history" which included the tribes of Ohio. "Ohio history" was more comprehensive, but that was a junior high course, while "Wichita history" was something taught in elementary school.
We had none of that when I was a kid in Maine, and in fact we were looked down upon by lots of Anglos that didn't know or appreciate the contributions of our forebears. Forced assimilation results in the loss of valuable knowledge.
 
  • #99
rootX said:
It would be nice if they teach more about heritage in schools. Else, one day our heritage and culture will only be on bikinis or underwears.
This would benefit only those who gave two cents about heritage and culture in the first place.
 
  • #100
WannabeNewton said:
This would benefit only those who gave two cents about heritage and culture in the first place.
Or perhaps the accumulated knowledge that the ethnic groups could contribute. This is not a trivial thing. I learned valuable stuff from my family that is barely mentioned today. I grew up poor, as did most of my family, but we valued the contributions of the great and great-great elders. If you can't spend the time and effort to talk with them, it can be lost.
 
  • #101
How far back do we take this? I'm offended that Christoper Columbus wrongly gets credit for discovering America, he never even set foot on the American Continent, so I want Columbus Day eradicated as a national holiday.
 
  • #102
WannabeNewton said:
This would benefit only those who gave two cents about heritage and culture in the first place.

I think you hit the nail on the head, WBN. Some people treasure their heritage, some don't give a rip. If those two groups of people could at least *try* to understand each other a bit.
 
  • #103
rootX said:
It would be nice if they teach more about heritage in schools. Else, one day our heritage and culture will only be on bikinis or underwears.

Are you aware, in even the slightest sense, that different Native American tribes have different cultures? That they have occupied North America for, at the very least, 12,000 years? Do you know how many cultures would be woefully excluded from any kind of curriculum in schools, were they to take heed of your words and choose to act in your pity?

When was the last time that you gave the slightest damn about the Aleuts? The Alutiiq? The Yup'ik? How about the Inuits?

They all live in, and lived in, what we now currently call the United States of America. In what way should we implement all of their varied cultures into our education? Their thousands of years of different cultures, traditions, ideologies, religious practices, means of survival, social heriarchy; their history, their confrontations, their wars; their advancements, their inventions, their languages; their divisions, their migrations into North America, their expansion throughout the land; and finally, and apparently of the utmost importance to all whom it may concern; their thoughts of sexuality and how they feel when other people choose, in complete innocence of thought and action with regards to cultural sensitivity, to wear their head-gear?

You feign compassion, yet I see empty words. Are all scientifically literate and skeptical people entirely ignorant and dismissive of the cultures which other people have become fond of? Absolutely, undoubtedly, and undeniably no. To say otherwise is not only a blatant, injustifiable generalization, but appears to be based merely on someone's profession of choice, and their personal preference as to not believing in any sort of God or entity.

Whether or not it is culturally taboo for another Native American to steal another's headdress, and whether or not it is culturally taboo for a Native American woman to trounce around in a bikini is utterly and completely besides any point that has been made here; they are their own system, their own culture, their own beings, their own people, and they have their own ways. We are our own people, we have our own system, we have our own ways, and those ways include not only intolerance of unjustified intolerance, but also complacency and understanding for those who choose to dress up occasionally.

This occurrence is nothing more than the opinion of people who cannot appear to handle having their feelings hurt, and who apparently are void of any comprehensive analysis skills which allow for them to determine whether or not something was meant to be offensive.

This is not an attack to those who haven chosen to defend their cause (had it not been brought to the attention of the world that some Native Americans found the model's attire offensive, then not a single one of you would have chosen to speak out against it), but against those who implanted the ideals of cultural insensitivity behind an offenseless and playful idea that an underwear and bra company thought up.
 
  • #104
AnTiFreeze3 said:
Are you aware, in even the slightest sense, that different Native American tribes have different cultures? That they have occupied North America for, at the very least, 12,000 years? Do you know how many cultures would be woefully excluded from any kind of curriculum in schools, were they to take heed of your words and choose to act in your pity?
Here's what I said "It would be nice if they teach more about heritage in schools. Else, one day our heritage and culture will only be on bikinis or underwears.". I wasn't even talking about natives heritage! My argument was to make people aware that these religious and cultural symbols mean something they aren't just some things that you can put where you wish. You better educate yourself about the symbols before you use them.

When I was in school, we learned a bit about almost every major human civilization. In university, we were forced to take some society/anthropology related courses. That didn't educate me about everything about humans heritage but at least I am aware of the significance of it in our lives.

When was the last time that you gave the slightest damn about the Aleuts? The Alutiiq? The Yup'ik? How about the Inuits?
err.. few weeks ago I guess.
Whether or not it is culturally taboo for another Native American to steal another's headdress, and whether or not it is culturally taboo for a Native American woman to trounce ...
I have no clue what you are talking about here.
You feign compassion, yet I see empty words
I already said earlier (#47) I know nothing much about native cultures other than that "War Bonnet" plays high significance in some people lives.
 
Last edited:
  • #105
I'm not exactly sure why this topic has triggered such passionate responses, but let's all remember - keep your posts respectful of other members.
 
  • #106
lisab said:
I'm not exactly sure why this topic has triggered such passionate responses, but let's all remember - keep your posts respectful of other members.
Thanks for reminder :smile:

I always end up getting caught in these religious/cultural threads!
 
  • #107
rootX said:
Thanks for reminder :smile:

I always end up getting caught in these religious/cultural threads!

Me too o:)!
 
  • #108
Can someone fill me in? This story seemed pretty simple and I'm not entirely sure where all this discourse is coming from. It appears to me as if Victoria Secret used Native American headress that offended a group of people. Some within that group voiced concerns and informed Victoria Secret it was offensive. Victoria Secret apologized for being offensive.

So what's the issue? That someone got offended or...that Victoria Secret apologized. I'm actually rather clueless.
 
  • #109
MarneMath said:
Can someone fill me in? This story seemed pretty simple and I'm not entirely sure where all this discourse is coming from. It appears to me as if Victoria Secret used Native American headress that offended a group of people. Some within that group voiced concerns and informed Victoria Secret it was offensive. Victoria Secret apologized for being offensive.

So what's the issue? That someone got offended or...that Victoria Secret apologized. I'm actually rather clueless.
The OP just wanted to know how use of headress could offend people. But I agree story is pretty simple.
 
  • #110
MarneMath said:
Can someone fill me in? This story seemed pretty simple and I'm not entirely sure where all this discourse is coming from. It appears to me as if Victoria Secret used Native American headress that offended a group of people. Some within that group voiced concerns and informed Victoria Secret it was offensive. Victoria Secret apologized for being offensive.

So what's the issue? That someone got offended or...that Victoria Secret apologized. I'm actually rather clueless.

My original question was asking why it is that this is seen as offensive. It's evolved (in my opinion) to a discussion about when it the sensitivities of specific cultures should affect the behavior of members of different cultures.
 
  • #111
Ok that makes more sense now. Thank you all!
 
  • #112
russ_watters said:
Should a German hate Americans due to WWII? German style houses are popular here: is it insensitive of us to build them because of all the Germans we killed?

The circle of hate goes round and round and is very difficult to keep track of.

As far as I know none of the Natives who objected to this VS outfit said anything about hating whites or calling whites racists. This is the only quote in the story linked to:
"Being a American Indian woman and mother, I am disgusted at the recent picture of your non-Native model dressed inappropriately with a war bonnet on her head, not to mention all the other culturally wrong messages this image sends to the world" wrote Charlene Hunt.

I suppose the other "culturally wrong" messages consist of the fact that silver/turquoise jewelry is a Southwest Native thing and wouldn't be worn by the same tribes that had war bonnets, plus whatever misuse of the jewelry this might represent (I don't happen to know what it stands for, if anything, but it might be religious or clan oriented).

They're not saying they hate white people. They are saying they don't like having their significant cultural things misrepresented, trivialized, and mixed with sex in order for white people to sell white people's products to other white people.
russ_watters said:
If no one is claiming the representation is accurate, how can one claim it is a misrepresentation?
I already answered this question but I'll try again making it more personal: how could you claim I was misrepresenting you if I called you, say, a murderer, as long as I didn't claim it was an accurate representation of you? The logic behind this question is ridiculous.

And, to be explicit, the misrepresentation is the implication that the War Bonnet was just a piece of Native fashion with no other significance; that any Indian, man, woman, or child could make and wear one. I've already explained what it actually means and why this isn't the case.
 
  • #113
zoobyshoe said:
As far as I know none of the Natives who objected to this VS outfit said anything about hating whites or calling whites racists. This is the only quote in the story linked to:I suppose the other "culturally wrong" messages consist of the fact that silver/turquoise jewelry is a Southwest Native thing and wouldn't be worn by the same tribes that had war bonnets, plus whatever misuse of the jewelry this might represent (I don't happen to know what it stands for, if anything, but it might be religious or clan oriented).

They're not saying they hate white people. They are saying they don't like having their significant cultural things misrepresented, trivialized, and mixed with sex in order for white people to sell white people's products to other white people.

I already answered this question but I'll try again making it more personal: how could you claim I was misrepresenting you if I called you, say, a murderer, as long as I didn't claim it was an accurate representation of you? The logic behind this question is ridiculous.

And, to be explicit, the misrepresentation is the implication that the War Bonnet was just a piece of Native fashion with no other significance; that any Indian, man, woman, or child could make and wear one. I've already explained what it actually means and why this isn't the case.

Can I expect you are going to send angry letters to the manufacturers of these things: http://www.costumecraze.com/Traditional-Costumes-Indian-Costumes.html ??
If not, why??
 
  • #114
micromass said:
Can I expect you are going to send angry letters to the manufacturers of these things: http://www.costumecraze.com/Traditional-Costumes-Indian-Costumes.html ??
If not, why??
I am not, because they don't bother me, but I'm not an Indian.

I am posting in this thread because I have no problem with Indians being bothered by it, and I think Victoria's Secret did the right thing in response to the complaints.

I used to make replicas of Indian Pipes and sell them at the swap meet. They were really well made and meant to be a respectful homage to the Natives. I was aware pipes are sacred to Natives, so I refused to sell to teenagers who seemed to be looking for pot pipes.

A lot of Indians came by to check me out. Some said vaguely negative things. About half realized I was respectful about it and didn't mind. One kind of militant Indian religious group declared them suitable for religious use, meaning it was OK for Indians to buy them and use them as prayer pipes. But then a shaman came to talk to me. I straight out asked him if he thought I should stop doing it. He wouldn't say yes or no. He paused a long time and said something like, "Some people who buy these are going to hang them on their wall as decorations." I took him to mean he didn't think that was a proper use for a pipe. So, I stopped making them.

I was very sad, but I like Indians and didn't want to offend them any more than I probably already had.
 
  • #115
Point of view from a pueblo indian:
http://inamerica.blogs.cnn.com/2012/11/23/opinion-just-say-no-to-playing-indian/?hpt=hp_c3

I'm old now, but I spent a lot of my adult life living on the rez. I do not speak for them, but I have seen this same stuff forever.

Really intelligent Western people often do not "get" non-western cultures. I see that in most of the posts here. No need for disclaimers and proofs. We are all completely entitled to respond the we do. Just don't delude yourself into thinking you really understand it.

Largely this whole thing is a pretty much harmless cultural bypass. The only people who usually get what I mean here are ex-Peace Corps types who got into the whole gig. They get exactly what is going on.

Another simple fact: The Navajo culture is as foreign to a Pueblo indian as it is to you and me.

1. There is no such thing as a 'Native American'. They don't exist, they are REALLY different peoples.

2. No one person really speaks for them. Jenni speaks from her perspective. Just like Russ does not purport to speak for Monique.

Clearly I speak for none of them as well.