#and profit off of minimizing/erasing other cultures in a way that benefits whiteness

[vampiric-transsexual]

Okay, serious discussion about s5e7 of wwdits. I have a lot of mixed feelings about it. The creatures fell into the uncanny valley, why did they choose the donut lady as a plot for nadja when it could've been with the guide, etc. HOWEVER, what I do appreciate about this episode is the meta commentary on how Nandor's culture is simultaneously erased in history classes and then mocked by museums. His culture, his writings, his garments.. almost everything about his history is completely misrepresented by the museum and all of his artifacts were stolen. He literally sees a pair of his underwear on display! He is looked at as an object, a relic of the past. The museum portays him as being unintelligent and frowns upon his writings. And that's based on their narrow understanding of him, Al Q, and his culture. The historians do not know Nandor of course, but they view him through a lense that chooses to only see him and his culture as unintelligent, subhuman even- because why else would someone write something like this? Or wear something like this? Or use weapons like this? It reminds me of those TV shows that theorize the pyramids were made by aliens. Because how else could the Egyptians have been capable of creating the pyramids? Surely they can't be intelligent enough! *eye roll*

Idk someone could probably use better words to communicate what I'm trying to say here, but I wanted to bring it to the table anyway. Oh, also Colin becomes the center of attention by acting like the stereotypical white professor who is more focused on feeding their ego than actually educating his pupils. And this ends up in Nandor being pushed out of the conversation. A literal metaphor for how whiteness obscures and diminishes other cultures and immigrant communities. Of course Colin did that just to feed off of the students. Because then he ends up replacing the museum display with a more accurate representation of Nandor (albeit for comedic effect). And then by taking back his horsie necklace. But.. everyone listened to Colin! And ignored Nandor! Lots to think about in terms of erasure, white washing, forced assimilation, how museums profit off of stolen artifacts and skewing history, etc.

Nandor is an immigrant to Staten island and he was forced to assimilate. Imagine how he must feel when he sees all these stolen artifacts in the museum, and plaques that inaccurately portray his culture and history. And people gawking at the clothes and weapons he proudly wore/still wears. This is a reality for many native and immigrant communities here in America and abroad. Being forced to view your culture, your way of life through the lense of the oppressor.

[silver-and-ivory]

hello! I saw your recent posts and thought, I've read an article on that ever! "But Why Can't I Wear A Hipster Headdress?" by Adrienne Keene brings up some specific points for a specific example of cultural appropriation. I'm not sure I grok all of them, but I do get the idea of people who survived recent cultural (and other) genocide being frustrated by religious and cultural artifacts used for profit when bans on some of their religious practices were lifted in living memory.

Yeah, me too.

http://nativeappropriations.com/2010/04/but-why-cant-i-wear-a-hipster-headdress.html

Interesting article. Vaguely stressful to read.

> Headdresses promote stereotyping of Native cultures.

>The image of a warbonnet and warpaint wearing Indian is one that has been created and perpetuated by Hollywood and only bears minimal resemblance to traditional regalia of Plains tribes. It furthers the stereotype that Native peoples are one monolithic culture, when in fact there are 500+ distinct tribes with their own cultures. It also places Native people in the historic past, as something that cannot exist in modern society. We don’t walk around in ceremonial attire everyday, but we still exist and are still Native.

Endorsed.

> Headdresses, feathers, and warbonnets have deep spiritual significance.

>The wearing of feathers and warbonnets in Native communities is not a fashion choice. Eagle feathers are presented as symbols of honor and respect and have to be earned. Some communities give them to children when they become adults through special ceremonies, others present the feathers as a way of commemorating an act or event of deep significance. Warbonnets especially are reserved for respected figures of power. The other issue is that warbonnets are reserved for men in Native communities, and nearly all of these pictures show women sporting the headdresses. I can’t read it as an act of feminism or subverting the patriarchal society, it’s an act of utter disrespect for the origins of the practice. (see my post on sweatlodges for more on the misinterpretation of the role of women). This is just as bad as running around in a pope hat and a bikini, or a Sikh turban cause it’s “cute”.

It’s not wrong to wear a pope hat and a bikini, or a Sikh turban because it’s cute. No one is obligated to obey other people’s religious traditions.

But yeah, it’s pretty disrespectful and is a good reason for other people to dislike you or to reprimand you. Probably a lot of people who do things like this don’t even realize that they’re being disrespectful or how sad/disrespected this makes other people feel, and it’s good to tell them about it.

> It’s just like wearing blackface.

>”Playing Indian” has a long history in the United States, all the way back to those original tea partiers in Boston, and in no way is it better than minstral shows or dressing up in blackface. You are pretending to be a race that you are not, and are drawing upon stereotypes to do so. Like my first point said, you’re collapsing distinct cultures, and in doing so, you’re asserting your power over them. Which leads me to the next issue.

Yes. In many cases it asserts power over others, and certainly it Others and mocks them, which is morally wrong.

> There is a history of genocide and colonialism involved that continues today.

>By the sheer fact that you live in the United States you are benefiting from the history of genocide and continued colonialism of Native peoples. That land you’re standing on? Indian land. Taken illegally so your ancestor who came to the US could buy it and live off it, gaining valuable capital (both monetary and cultural) that passed down through the generations to you.

Not wild about this. Really, really not wild about this. This point isn’t even relevant. You can’t alter the fact that you live in America and that your ancestors colonized America by *not wearing headdresses*.

So why is it here? My cynical side says that it’s to make people feel like they have an infinite debt to repay to American Indians.

> Have I benefited as well, given I was raised in a white, suburban community? yes. absolutely. but by dismissing and minimizing the continued subordination and oppression of Natives in the US by donning your headdress, you are contributing to the culture of power that continues the cycle today.

What a clever rhetorical move. The author dismisses the statement that they also benefit from American colonialism by bringing up something completely unrelated.

Whether the author involuntarily benefits from a history of American colonialism or not is irrelevant to the piece, but acknowledging this would also require acknowledging that everyone else’s involuntary benefiting is also irrelevant.

Anyway, the last part is just reiterating the same points as before: that wearing these shitty approximations of headdresses feeds into continuing power dynamics that are rooted in a history of colonialism.

> Yes, absolutely. But, I’ll paraphrase Jess Yee in this post, and say these are very real issues and challenges in our communities, but when the only images of Natives that Americans see are incorrect, and place Natives in the historic past, it erases our current presence, and makes it impossible for the current issues to exist in the collective American consciousness. Our cultures and lives are something that only exist in movies or in the past, not today. So it’s a cycle, and in order to break that cycle, we need to question and interrogate the stereotypes and images that erase our current presence–while we simultaneously tackle the pressing issues in Indian Country. They’re closely linked, and at least this is a place to start.

Excellent point. It’s a bit short on evidence, which is fine because it’s paraphrasing a different article it links and which I don’t want to bother reading. (And it’s not difficult to imagine a good case for this.)

> Ask yourself: if you ran into a Native person, would you feel embarrassed or feel the need to justify yourself?

Well, this is not a metric that will work for everyone, because some people have social anxiety and get embarrassed about everything. I wore a Hopi-made ring to school and felt anticipatorily embarrassed about if a Hopi person saw me.

But probably for most people this isn’t the case!

> As commenter Bree pointed out, it’s ok to own a shirt with kimono sleeves, but you wouldn’t go out wearing full kabuki makeup to a bar.

I have to admit when I read this my eyes nearly rolled out of my head. This is the kind of false equivalence that makes the concept of cultural appropriation such a convoluted, overreaching mess.

To my (limited) knowledge, kabuki is just a kind of traditional Japanese theatre without an especial spiritual or cultural Significance. It’s not actually disrespectful of Japanese culture to wear kabuki makeup and the average Japanese person is not going to be offended at it.

Morally speaking, you shouldn’t wear it to encourage stereotypes of Japanese people, or while acting like a stereotype. But just wearing kabuki makeup is neither morally wrong nor antisocial.

— Anyway. Good article. Makes lots of common sj mistakes, but succeeds in articulating actual concrete harms. I like the blog and appreciate your recommendation!