Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
And, if so, then is it not a part of a culture?
Culture is not static.
It changes.
In fact, our current "culture" is most definitely a "trend"- a trend towards multicultural mashedup craziness- one that I am wholeheartedly enjoying.
To quote Hakim Bey-
Cultural Drift is Sacred Drift.
Change or Die.
Lots of terrible things have happened; and I'm sure many terrible things will happen. Imagine if the English still loathed the French for the Norman conquest; imagine if the state of Israel refused any truck with the contemporary state of Germany on the grounds of the holocaust. It would be impossible for anyone to get along with anyone if we all recalled ancient wrongs.
The short-ish version is that native imagery and ideas are frequently taken for their 'exotic' look & feel, and there is a very long cultural war that has gone on with regard to extinguishing the real, living culture of the various native people in America. That you refer to it as 'a native american in traditional garb' is kind of interesting, since that garb is specific to specific tribal affiliations in specific areas, and isn't generic 'native american' wear by any stretch of the imagination, any more than (insert appropriate offensive cultural stereotype here) is a generic descriptor for another culture.
If you would like to try and understand why someone might take issue with this stuff, there's a great video on youtube in 3 parts called White Shamans and Plastic Medicine Men. Or read up on Indian Schools. There really, honestly, is a problem that is still present and should be thought about.
The person who wrote in to Dan took a very good and non-strident voice. If you can't even raise the ISSUE around appropriation without being accused of 'hypersensitivity', how do you expect any kind of dialog to ever happen at all?
See it's not that people (namely: Americans, even the Native ones) are hypersensitive, it's that they think everything is about them all the time in every situation no matter what.
There is narcissism in the presumption that Dan's post was anything more than satire about a shit painting.
But if it is a specific garb to a specific tribe etc. etc. doesn't that indicate it was likely made and is being sold by someone involved in that culture? If this is the case are you suggesting that that person shouldn't be allowed/frowned upon for doing it? The quality of the painting aside, that seems a little radical, people who make art of any form usually use a subject they are familiar with, should people also not buy NA music as well? I'm not really sure where you are going with this, lots of people buy lots of things that aren't from the GAP specifically because they are different or find it "exotic". Not everyone wants to wear floral print or listen to Lady Ga Ga or have paintings of the Civil War.
Wow. I feel like I'm reading comments on the Fox News site.
it's interesting because I come from Seattle where things like this is ALWAYS about being PC. But now that I live in New Mexico (where 11% of the entire native american population reside) and people honestly kinda have it down here. The natives have pueblos, but are also totally integrated in the cities and towns as they please. I work with them, they're drag queens, go to the bars, clubs, restaurants... I've been hired by people by the last names of Midthunder and Smallbear. There's no separation really, unless they choose so. Whereas in Washington it's incredibly segregated yet soooooo PC. I think once people stop trying so hard to be PC everything can and will fall into it's natural place.
The best thing to do for "white" people is to simply ignore any & all things Native. Let them do what they do, but anything that has the slightest bit to do w/ Native American culture should be shunned, because then they'll get angry. So don't read a book or go to an art exhibit or see a movie if it's by a Native artist, got it? Those things are for Natives and if you participate, you're stealing their culture. Native culture is for Natives only.
Considering the number of things that Dan points out that are the result of culturally-driven homophobia, I'm a little surprised to see Sloggers claim that Native American stereotypes, racism, and appropriation are not important.That these things have absolutely no impact on living Native Americans.
Dan does a lot of work to undo stereotypes of LGBT people, as well as showing the real harm those stereotypes do. I'm surprised to see Sloggers vehemently attack someone else's work to undo stereotypes about Native Americans. It strikes me as hypocritical.
I wish more people would take polite, well-worded complaints like this letter seriously rather than derail the conversation with cries of, "I'm not a racist and I have never had a racist thought, what are you talking about?" If someone is taking the time to educate you about your privilege, the least you can do is listen without getting defensive and making fun.
Good on Dan for posting this letter without any added snark.
Either way, I think Dan deserves the benefit of the doubt. I didn't see anything in his posting of the painting that indicated that he didn't understand how problematic the painting is. Rather, I inferred that he wanted the painting precisely because it's so awful.
Way to show your privilege, guys. I just lost a lot of respect for you.
Put me in the "it's harmless" camp. The LW is overestimating the cultural harm caused by stereotyped images, to begin with, and then further is not acknowledging that whatever tiny amount of stereotypical/denigrating "power" this particular painting might have is pretty well undermined by the incongruous lapdog. It's hilarious and 99% harmless.
And no, I'm not Native American. So take the above with a grain of salt, naturally.
Agreed.
I've had friends tell me that Native Americans are all lazy slackers that get government handouts and they should all stop complaining and give up on their culture or go live in a cabin in the woods somewhere.
But yeah, you are probably right: They are way too sensitive and just need to suck it up.
This is an interesting and unexpected side issue - please remember that Slog, by definition and by deed, is a soap bubble; a diversion, and not that big a deal, one way or the other.
So confusing.
Have some perspective people. The person politely pointed out the double-standard. Accept that his/her feelings are valid, even if they are not the same as yours. Move on. Find a hobby.
There's nothing more boring and unoriginal than people who feel victimized because they can't discriminate.
@7: Go fuck yourself.
Painting didn't make me think about Native Americans one way or another. Made me think about the painter. Thinking he should be looking into another line of work.
And for the record, I'm not white, and I was not offended. Well, maybe my eyes.
My post, fyi, is called 'sarcasm.' I know it doesn't translate as well online, but most Slog readers can detect it.
The fact is, culture is a verb, it is something people do. You can't steal a verb. You can steal the cultural artifacts, like a painting, but you can't steal how people view or identify themselves.
And for the record, Dan does *not* get the benefit of the doubt-- that painting was butt-ugly.
Owning that painting would be roughly equivalent
to having a lawn jockey in your front yard. You are best
off without it.
And @18 how dare you leave us angry bisexuals out of your list of offended minorities! I am so offended right now.
No, sure you're not. But this is for you, anyway. Smile back, honey:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga98brEf1…
That said, I don't think the painting discussed falls into that spectrum. The garb is culturally specific and ceremonial, and the figure is far from idealized. The artist's sheer lack of technical skill however identifies it with those kitschy velvet paintings that perpetuate the image of the Native American as noble savage as seen in countless cowboys and injuns flicks out of Hollywood.
Also, nice video but shitty music. I'm not a fan of laura ortman. I prefer Swil Kanim, who actually has talent and something worthwhile to say.
Unless people can actually find some facts of the painting like who did it and when it was done, then as far as we know it's just an ugly painting.
Seriously though, would you all feel any different if the painting was done by say a Native American Grandma in Idaho who maybe just started painting portraits and decided to do it of her grandson or something decades ago?
Just saying, before you all get your rage on you might want to check things out before engaging in speculation just so you can blow your righteous argument wads.
AND HOW COME ONLY ONE ACCUSATION OF PRIVILEGE AND NOT ONE ONE-LINER WITHOUT EXPLANATION ABOUT HOW THIS IS SYMPTOMATIC OF "ELITISM"? I expect better of my slog commenter cliches! =)
This is like me saying that because I'm a minority as well, and because I have black friends, it's okay for me to affect "Blackness" and throw around "nigger" with whoever. This logic does not pass the smell test.
What @36 said.
What might be a really interesting project for any talented artists out there would be to do a series of paintings of the same Amerindian person in the same pose dressed in a certain type of ceremonial garb but also a business suit, jeans and t-shirt, emo/hipster garb, clothing popular in hip-hop scenes, etc. I would find that to be a delicious deconstruction of the normative portrayal.
It doesn't matter if the painting was done by a tribal member or not. If it was, it still embodies a disconnected spirit, an oppressed person clinging to the symbols of his oppression because there's no equivalent modern expression. Indianism is frozen in the amber of the Conquest, and Indians are invisible today. If you don't see this, you don't understand yourself either.
And this might be the equivalent of owning a lawn jockey, if the traditional dress of African Americans was racing silks, and they chose to wear them at traditional gatherings.
Man the guilt is thick in this thread. It's a stupid painting that may or may not have been painted by someone who meant it to be a loving depiction of their kid, or as a joke. Of course, all the latte liberals know what's best for everyone, and have to tell them what the facts are and what to think about them.
Oh, and lest you think modern stereotypes are less hurtful than traditional ones - I'm an Italian American from the Jersey Shore. The modern stereotypes can be just as infuriating.
Why would you want to get so huffy about defending your inclinations to offend and upset people? Sure, there are 14 year olds out there who enjoy being little shits, but really? That's what you want to make a stand for?
The freedom and right to say what you want to gives you the freedom to be an asshole, but that doesn't make being an asshole something worth fighting for.
The problem surrounding this painting is its decontextualization and categorization with that Primitivist crystal of hate and disrespect. The painting itself isn't necessarily the problem, it's how the viewer reads it, and how that reading is used to make minorities invisible and convert their cultures into commodities for the Empire.
Likewise, if a Native American wants to depict a Native American in a manner reflecting living their living tradition, that deserves affirmation as it provides an alternative and means to resist assimilation into the conquering culture.
The letter writer isn't branding Savage as a racist. The letter simply voices an opinion, politely. Raising up in arms against the straw-man PC police isn't accomplishing anything. No one is trying to ban paintings or stop people from getting trend boners for Native American art or whatever.
But, maybe, the next time you see weird, faux-Indian imagery, you will THINK about it, rather than just be like "LOL Indians R rad!".
S/he was not saying that Dan would be a racist if he bought the painting, or even that the painter was racist. It's just that buying that kind of crap encourages people to make more of that crap.
See? Making up bullshit about a stranger is a game anyone can play.
Honestly though, why is it that the ones who look down, shake their heads sadly and cast judgment on all the rest of us secret racists come off as more horrifying than the ones who say "Racist? It's just a shitty painting."
The writer wasn't accusing Dan of racism; he or she was merely pointing out that something that may seem benign to those in the majority culture can still carry negative associations for those who are not.
Yeesh.
Question. If this were an asian girl in traditional garb/regalia, would this person still have been affected the way they were?
The amazing thing about the painting is how shitty it was on top of the juxtaposition of the style, the native boy and the strange Ewok/Mogwai looking puppy creature.
I'm sorry for the the feelings of the individual who wrote this. But I'm positive even Sherman Alexie could find the humor, intrigue and awesome power of this painting.
it's a painting. It's art. It's meaning, purpose, intrigue, is all subjective. That's what's so great about art. You see what you see. I see what I see. You can't displace you're feelings and experiences onto a painting and expect everyone else to know and understand what this painting makes you feel.
Indigenous people have indeed suffered and are almost completely misunderstood, misrepresented and still mistreated to this very day by the US Government. But that has nothing to do with this painting, as much as PETA and animal rights has nothing to do with this painting.
I don't think perpetuating stereotypes, degrading the spiritual nature and custom of indigenous people, or poking fun in any manner was the purpose of sharing the painting, nor was it the intent of the painter. That's on America.
This I believe was for the love of bad/curious art, and I LOVE THAT PAINTING!
But hey, everyone's a critic. Thanks internet.
(although the painting was hilariously ugly)
Oh well, back to my comfortable middle-class life I go. Cheerio!
As far as I can tell, not one commenter raised the issue then, though many questioned the artistic value.
@75, The black velvet painting in this motel room is unfair to depression era hobos hopping trains across the country. It has no bearing or relationship to homeless people living on the streets today who are there for mostly completely different reasons. A stereotyped painting of a "Red Injun" is a problem because Native Americans are still living with the shit we've dumped on them for centuries now, and such images allow us to dismiss those issues.
I think that condemning a painting, itself, for racist content is kind of pointless. I think it's perfectly possible that someone might enjoy a racist painting of a pickaninny with full awareness of why the imagery is problematic; to enjoy kitsch, after all, is a sort of low-stakes perversity. I know, for instance, a guy who loves cartoons from the black and white era precisely for their horrifying-by-today's-standards racist/sexist/homophobic images. He's both a brilliant guy and liberal to the point of being a hippie. He's not endorsing the racism of the cartoons' creators, he's delighting in its jarring incongruity in today's context.
I agree with the OL writer's implication that paintings like this one come from an exoticist aesthetic which is a problem for the people who are objectified, but I don't have to share that aesthetic to like the painting for other reasons. Should we really destroy or at least condemn every artifact that has racist content?
"We were at Santo Domingo Pueblo, and we had kind of left the crowd and walked around a corner, and here sat a buffalo dancer," she recalls.
Scholder went home to paint him. In the portrait, the dancer wears a horned headdress and beads around his neck. And in his hand — just as Scholder saw him — instead of the traditional rattle, there's an ice cream cone with two scoops.
"He went, 'Oh my God,'" says Romona Scholder, recalling her late husband's reaction to the incongruous sight. "And I think that that's why this painting is quintessentially Scholder — because he picked up [on] that Indian-as-mythical-being and Indian-as-ice-cream-cone-eater."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story…
@78, Images of "Red Injuns" make Native Americans invisible because they paper over the reality of being Native American with an exoticized Other that never existed. Sure, a lot of us can hold two ideas in our heads at once, but you might be surprised to find how many people have never been exposed to any real Native American culture. Also, it's not clear that this picture is implicitly erasing, as it may depict a young Lakota man dressed according to living tradition.
But! I am offended by being told what to be offended by by people who have no clue.
Classic.
I'm not a convenient point for you.
This person may not have been, but this is absolutely an issue that comes up for Asian women. When you say "traditional regalia" you're making a lot of assumptions: that the regalia is authentic and being worn/depicted properly, appropriate for the person wearing it, and so on. There are many, many images of East Asian women depicted in some kind of geisha-inspired getup and/or makeup that are deeply problematic for the way they collapse vast swathes of geography and culture, make assumptions or perpetuate stereotypes about "Asian" women, and borrow from images of geisha with no knowledge of the symbolism and significance of the tradition, to mention just a few.
And you're missing the big draw of the painting--it really has nothing to do with Native Americans or giant flaming headdresses--THERE'S A BABY FUCKING FALCOR IN IT. OMFG.