It may be one thing for a Native American artist to use a headress in their work but it doesn't then give hipsters an excuse to go around dressing up like an "Indian". Check out www.nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/20…;

Whatever Dan. If I saw a poster with people in minstrel blackface, I would call it racist. You might come back and say that the person who made it is half-black so it's ok. But it's not ok.

#2 - yeah.....it's OK. So just get the fuck over it.

Nope. Still cultural appropriation.

I don't think that's a Chippewa hat. If that kind of hat is a cultural symbol and if it's rude to appropriate it (and I don't know that either of those is true, but if), why would a Chippewa person have any more right to use it than, say, a Swedish person?

Oh, for pete's sake, Dan. It isn't okay to appropriate the artist's comfort and tongue-in-cheek art to make some sweeping point against us natives. For the millionth time. And for the It Gets Better Project, no less?

It's the "that's what they call eachother" defense.

@4: Dressing up as a "towelhead" shouldn't be offensive to someone?

Personally I find Raja to be more offensive than that headdress. That bitch didn't deserve to win she has zero personality or talent!!!! Manila Luzon was ROBBED.

Parties in the San Fran area have been shut down over this
kind of thing. See:
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/eastbay/bu…

@6 They wouldn't.

This overly sensitive nonsense from certain Indians is a form of tyranny. Nothing you do or say will ever be good enough to satisfy them. If you wanted to turn the tables you could argue that Indians should never be allowed wear cowboy hats or play the violin.

I would not call this "appropriation."

I mean maybe if this becomes the new fashion thing, or something like that.

But one poster does not cultural appropriation make.

@1, 2, 5: Jeeeeeeeezus. So, are we then not allowed to dress up at all? Can't wear green on St. Paddy's day 'cause the Irish will be offended? Can't dress up like a priest on Halloween 'cause the Catholics will be offended? (and yes, both groups can in their respective histories claim persecution) Don't even think about dressing up like an Irish-Catholic, eh?

Look, there's exploitative and mockery dress (blackface, stereotypical exaggerations of speech and mannerisms done for ridicule or to draw attention) and then there's just wearing costume. In a thinking society, let's all just pretend for a moment now and again that we can maturely recognize nuance, and that not every depiction is exploitation. If you look for offense under every rock, then you're going to go through life generally pissed off.

Chill the fuck out.

Cienna said Hari Kondabolu vented some bile over the headdress fashion during his routine at Sasquatch this weekend:
http://lineout.thestranger.com/lineout/a…

Oh hey, here's something interesting I just remembered -

I saw something a friend showed me of Indians (from India) saying that yoga is a form of spiritual prayer for them and is part of their culture, and white people need to stop using it for exercise and flexibility.

Yoga is actually probably the biggest example of cultural appropriation that we have.

And yet no one has an issue with it at all.

tl;dr if you want to get mad about the poster, then you should never be okay with any white person doing yoga ever.

So calm down.

no more toga parties i guess? the greeks are rolling in their graves

Jesus Christ, racists. Next you'll be acting like kilts and leis and kimonos are ok.

The motif on Raja's headband is a Comanche pattern representing the Wichita and was used rarely except by the Comanche. We didn't generally use headdresses but were the primary users of this particular motif. The 4-mountain motif is Southwestern, although a similar motif of 4 hills as seem from Mount Scott and another indicating the 4 ranges ringing the Comancheria were used as sacred iconography.

Since the Comanche were generally the tribe most depicted after the Apache and Sioux, we get mocked an awful lot. Apparently by the Chippewa, now.

The European tribal ancestors of those white kids just didn't have any good warm weather party clothes.

sheesh. what's an overprivileged white person to do? guess i better stick to khakis, blue blazers, top-siders and aerobics. anything else is cultural appropriation.

@20 A reference to something of your culture is you being mocked?

You must be angry a lot.

Where is the Indian dude from the Village People when we need him most?

Well, think about it.

Headdresses are meant to be worn by men alone. They're items of deep spiritual significance. You have to earn the right to wear them.

It doesn't matter if the owner if Native- they're still removing their items from their original context and importance to make a profit. Thus, appropriation. It isn't that hard.

I'm more offended by the shitty graphic design. How are the Indian costumes are even relevent to the poster? Doesn't Raja have more of an Egyptian feel to her? You name the event "Trouble" and have a Pre-Pride Bouncy Ball therefor the artist puts indians in rainbow clouds? Yikes!

Also, you can dress it up, but you CANNOT sneak Comic Sans by me goddamn it.

/Indians

I don't want to offend anyone. :P

shit.

It's cool. Raja is Indonesian and if you can't spell that without Indian.

Indians! Indians! Indians! For fuck's sake. GET. OVER. IT. Really? Racist? Go fuck yourselves.

The yoga issue would be a more coherent comparison if we'd nearly exterminated all of India, and kept a romantic view of their distant past as the only 'true' version, while marginalizing or otherwise excluding the modern culture that still exists to this very day.

Still, good to be reminded that nobody can be 100% for equality all the time. We've all got blind spots. Dan, I don't think you're a monster or a shitheel for your take on this, but I do think you're very wrong. Not for your opinion, but for your rather nasty way of making the other side out to be "handwringers". Should people just 'be quiet' and not bring things up that upset them? I don't think you'd suggest that.

People can engage in cultural appropriation and racial stereotyping and not be racists. That people might have that initial harsh reaction when they see the same stupid hipster headdress again and again should be considered and accounted for.

What is it about one specific piece of tribal ceremonial headwear is so attractive that it should be on that poster? what's the draw?

The argument I seem to be getting from this thread is-

1.) No this is racist against WHITE people why don't you get it.
2.) Minority groups are not capable of being racist towards their particular minority group.
3.) Not being racist is too hard.
4.) Every culture is a grab bag of crazy new costumes, so why are Indians any different?
5.) Genocide? Get over it.
6.) Random incoherency.

@23: I honor my culture, especially since I have plenty of relatives that dress like that for culturally significant events. The same twinge of annoyance I get when I see right wingers accuse gays of being immoral disease buckets happens when folks tell me my culture is fair play for reinterpretation by folks that don't get or won't acknowledge the significance.

We aren't going away. I'm sorry if you're offended anytime someone points out that you don't get it.

@ 32, no, actually, this is different.
Leiderhosen is not a piece of religious significance. You don't have to earn the right to wear them. You don't have to be male. You don't have to be a pillar of the community in order to wear leiderhosen. Headdresses? Yes. All of these things.

It isn't a matter of wearing clothing from a different culture while not belonging to that culture. It's a matter of disregarding and denying the importance of aspects of that culture by stripping them of their significance. You don't disrespect the Scottish by wearing a kilt. You do, however, greatly disrespect the Plains tribes by wearing a headdress.

Dan, the term "handwringers" is highly insensitive to offense-inventing dipshits. Please be more careful in the future.

@35 What I'm saying is, I don't think people are reinterpreting your culture. I think someone made a poster with headdresses on it. It's not as if it's native american themed, or uses language that's supposed to make it sound like it is. It's just one (well, technically two) reference.

Now, if this turns into a major fashion trend or something, yes, that would be appropriation and it would be horrid.

But I think getting really mad over this one thing is taking it a bit too far.

Just put fucking pope hats on them and be done with it.

@38, waitaminute, if it happens twice, it's okay, but any more than that and then it's appropriation?

.... so racism only comes in bulk now?

.... Like q tips?

i'll tell you what. you can decided whether or not i as a native person should or should not be offended by this. outsiders take on this responsibility all the time, why should now be any different.

in the mean time i have been avoiding stores and restaurants with this poster since i don't like it. i know a few of my friends have been doing this as well.

@38: It has been a fashion trend. It's been a big deal, that's why Dan referred to hipsters in the title. That's why there's a blog post (and a tumblr-beloved drawing) here: http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com…

And here's this: http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com…

It's been around, and it's been this crazy little "look at all this neat fashion flair they had oh my gosh" trend for some time as though we were carrying beaver-pelt purses emblazoned with Vuitton logos in our Louboutin mocs.

It does have meaning, it's not some benign cultural reference.

If you wanted to pick a native fashion trend not so deeply spiritual, you'd be better off going naked or wearing a buckskin g-string.

The "oh come on chill the fuck out everyone gets so offended these days you can't say anything anymore" is a classic defensive posture of entitled white people who can't/won't take the time to listen to why their actions and words are hurtful. You call roll out all the examples you want that you think backs up your point, at the end of the day Native Americans are offended by this appropriation.

You don't like to think about your privilege and their genocide, hence the defensiveness.

@42 ....I did not know that. That isn't a thing where I live (Boston), I've literally never seen someone do that. Wow. So, uh, that's cool.

...

I withdraw my comments. I had no idea it was this much of an issue. My bad, everyone.

I suddenly feel significantly more disappointed in that poster.

@40 I bet bulk racism would be exclusively sold in WalMart.

Many Indians simply live to be offended and nuture their white devil-Indian victim chip like it's a badge of honor. Not all but many.

"nurture" I meant.

Love the exchange culminating in @42 and @44.

I wanted to add, as a nexus of privilege that likes multiculturalism, that it isn't hypocrisy for the onus of caution to be on the privileged group. (As @32 implies -- that comment has since been retracted but is a common enough sentiment, echoed in other comments on this thread.) The reason is not that one should try to be politically correct; it's that one should try not to be hurtful. History and relative privilege make it a lot easier to be hurtful as a white person wearing another person's culture than another person wearing a white person's culture.

If you are having trouble understanding, I recommend reading microaggressions.com

I'm not sure what to think of this poster, given the fact that the designer is Native American. I must say, though, that I feel like I could punch the next hipster I see dressed up as an "Indian."
It's a particularly egregious example of the already egregious tendency of hipster fashion to poke fun at outsider culture (and don't tell me it's admiration). I feel the same way about people who deliberately dress like they're poor trailer trash even though they live in the city and can afford nice clothes. They see themselves as fashionable; I see them as a bunch of overprivileged little twats who think of less privileged people as a source of fun fashion accessories. It's like they're making a show out of their (actually quite sad) anomie, like they're screaming, "I poke fun at everything because I don't care about anything."
I know most people would say it's dumb to get so worked up over fashion, but it's gotta mean something, like @42 says. Otherwise, people wouldn't put so much effort into it.

@44: That was very cool to read. It brightened my day a little.

@46: "Many" huh? Exactly how "many" do you actually know?

My eyes are barely even bleeding. Try a little harder next time, we gays have a tacky-ass stereotype to live up to.

loopback@33 There are a lot of valid reasons why the cultural appropriation of headdresses is BS and people shouldn't do it, but do not pull the "victim olympics" card and suggest that American Indians are deserving of more consideration because East Indians didn't suffer as much as them. Victims of colonialism are victims of colonialism and they don't need to be subject to genocide to object to something.

The reason yoga (despite its religious associations) is considered appropriate and hipster headdresses (ditto with religious associations) is not has nothing to do with how much or how little East Indians suffered. It has to do with the very different history and attitudes towards yoga versus headdresses. We do not respect cultures based on how much they've suffered. We respect them because it's the right thing to do.

Additionally, do some research: http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/?p=174 Just because you're ignorant of history doesn't mean a people haven't suffered.

Well, headdresses aren't "Chippewa" so your "CHIPPEWA" isn't any more entitled to culturally appropriate a headdress on a crappy poster any more than some over-privileged WHITE hipster. Being a descendent of someone who is Native, say a grandparent, doesn't give a person license to be a culturally appropriating dick. There are no generic Indians. If someone is Native American but from a different tribal tradition, he has no right at all. But he's served his worth, little as that might be, by providing people entertainment. What a good little clown. White people always look for a pardon with the uncle tomahawk. And what a fucking relief! There's always one to be had.

Honestly, that headdress made me think "Village People" as opposed to a specific tribe.

People need to stop taking everything so goddamned serious all the time.

@55: See my comment @43.

@39, LOL!

Also, how is a headdress inherently racist? Or is it just racist if a white person wears it? Would a white woman wearing a sari or a cheongsam be considered racist?

Wait, I just want to understand something here. If a native american was to wear a cowboy hat and matching boots would that be bad too?

Also is it sexist for a guy to wear a dress?

Can a european even wear blue-jeans?

I'm looking at my plaid shirts and getting worried because I've never chopped down a tree and the lumber jacks may get pissed :(

If these headdresses are so sacred, why do so many Native American tribes sell them as souvenirs?

Why is it such a big deal? How does avoiding inadvertent offense lead to a PC Armageddon?

Is the gratuitous use of headdresses so essential to the US cultural identity that it must be protected from all criticism?

If something offends and it's not personally important to you, why bother doing it at all? Or, if the right to disregard people's reactions is that important to you, why bother with all these justifications?

As a white person struggling with understanding cultural appropriation - this really helped clear it up. http://zinelibrary.info/headdress

@59: Where have you bought them? How often have you seen them? Are they plains tribes selling the headdresses or another group that wears headdresses like the above? Or are you recalling something trivial (and maybe non-existent) and trying to blow it up into a grand irrational defense?

@58: I know as a hipster you attribute great meaning to your plaid, but it isn't sacred. A more appropriate comparison is a bunch of people dressing like your grandma the day of her funeral, saying "oh but we are HONORING her"... and even then, that's only if your grandmother actually meant something to society.

Your plaid is closer in meaning to, say, our g-strings or bear robes. Well, okay, you couldn't kill and skin anything to save your life, but still.

@57: How do wear something like that in a non-racist way? Please explain! You'll solve all the world's problems. After you figure that one out, you can give a lecture at Spelman on why the "that's what they call each other" defense works or you can give an uplifting speech to asian students on why depictions of asians doing laundry is a sign of industriousness. Finally, you can crack that awful misconception folks have down in Arizona that demanding someone's papers is racist.

Well, except deflecting onto other races to quash the complaints of another is, as a matter of fact, racist so maybe we need to double-check your credentials.

Let me start off by saying that 'culture' is not static nor uniform, and particular motifs are not owned by any particular group. "Cultural appropriation" is essentially a meaningless phrase because cultures are constantly in flux and all memes are 'appropriated', sometimes from previously-extant cultures in the same area that the meme is being used and sometimes from previously-extant cultures in other areas, sometimes by people who are categorized as belonging to the same 'cultural group' as that from which the meme is being drawn and sometimes by people from a different 'cultural group'. A headdress, whether worn by someone who is read or self-identifies as part of a grouping that historically contained members that also wore similar headdresses or not, is not inherently racist; presenting (or interpreting) the headdress as representative of all Amerindians, or all of a particular tribal grouping, or even any particular member of one of those groups is. The idea of a group's ownership of a particular trope is rooted in an Essentialist, static, universal (for said group) notion of 'culture' that is patently absurd. If I put a feathered band on my head and jump around making a howling noise while slapping my hand over my open mouth, I'm an idiot and probably an asshole (of course, context matters - is it nearly as problematic if my IQ is 60, I'm not aware, nor could I be, of the racist historical-cultural background of the practice, and I find hopping around while wearing feathers and howling to be great fun?); if I (or anyone else) claims that this is somehow representative of a group of people, THAT'S racist (assuming it's a false portrayal - it would be an accurate portrayal of idiots who actually DO behave like that).

All of that said, cultural tropes are certainly constructed with particular meanings in particular contexts. Some of those tropes, in particular contexts, carry a lot of problematic baggage because of, for example, histories of oppression or exploitation for a particular grouping of people, and should therefore be treated carefully. Context (historical-cultural positionality, intent, and the likely interpretation by the likely audience) is what determines the meaning of any given trope, and these are the things that need to be questioned to determine if a particular usage is problematic (or how problematic it is). Just because a trope has been used in a racist way or a given person finds any usage of it offensive offensive does not make a particular usage so problematic that it should be avoided; consider the right-facing swastika - many people of European or American background identify it solely with the Nazis, but they took it from an ancient Tibetan motif, and it has a very different connotation in Buddhist works.

So, for this particular case, the important questions are: Is the intent of the artist in using the headdress to marginalize or exploit a vulnerable group? Is the likely audience likely to interpret the headdress as unfairly representative of a particular group and/or reflecting negatively on a particular group? Is there any likely direct harm posed by the use of the headdress (e.g. inciting violence against particular persons or people)? Does the usage serve primarily to deconstruct or reinforce a problematic trope?

Ultimately, I personally find the headdress trend both stupid and insensitive to people who do attach cultural/spiritual significance to headdresses (as a result, I'm not about to start going around wearing them), but I'm also deeply bothered by the Essentialist notions of culture and cultural tropes being levied to defend the objection to the hipster use of headdresses. Just go with something like, "I find this offensive because I attach spiritual significance to headdresses, and these hipster fucks are completely disregarding that significance." They're not assholes because they're wearing headdresses, they're assholes because they either haven't considered the impact that wearing them (a practice from which they derive very limited benefit, and even less marginal benefit as compared to wearing gaudy garb not inflected by a history of oppression and exploitation and genocide) will have on a particular group of people, or they have but don't care.

@5: Actually, it's not cultural appropriation; or, more accurately, it IS cultural appropriation, but not from any Amerindian group. What's being appropriated is a racist trope (a stereotype, in this case) from early European-Colonial/-expansionist American culture.

@35: Your relatives wear neon-purple-dyed feathers and gaudy contemporary underwear for traditional Comanche cultural events/ceremonies? Really? You're either misrepresenting your position, or contemporary Comanche ceremonies differ radically from pre-European-Colonial-period ceremonies, in which case your Essentialist claim to certain Amerindian groups' 'ownership' of the headdress motif is suspect, given the obviousness of the cultural mutability surrounding the usage of the symbol within said groups.

@36: Religious significance is your defense? You're barking up the wrong blog with that one. The fact that people believe ridiculous things without evidence does not legitimately protect those beliefs from critique or abject mockery. In fact, I think you just made your position weaker. You or anyone else absolutely has the right to view a headdress in a particular way. That doesn't mean I have to buy into your view or consider it anything other than ridiculous (I don't buy into it and do consider spiritual significance ridiculous, and the gendered aspect misogynistic, but it also doesn't cost me anything to not go around mocking it, especially since doing so will obviously make others bad and I have no desire to make people feel bad, so I don't go around wearing cheap and inaccurate imitations of ceremonial head adornments traditionally associated with particular Amerindian groups). Let's substitute female genital cutting or foot binding as a 'cultural' practice for which one is demanding legitimacy and respect, or, for that matter, the enslavement of Africans or the genocide of Amerindian populations (both of which were parts of European-Colonial American culture), and see how far we can get with the "respect for other cultures" argument. It is not, on its own, sufficient justification for any particular practice or for a practice or motif only being used in a particular context or by a particular group. One needs better reasons, and in this case I think there are better arguments to be made against a headdress trend.

@40: Yes, absolutely "racism only comes in bulk"; racism is, by definition, an institutionalized cultural practice/norm/perspective/paradigm. An individual instance of someone treating someone badly because of e.g. race is just someone being a (bigoted) asshole; a cultural system that marginalizes or exploits a particular group of people based on race is "racism".

@48: I very much agree with this sentiment - the onus is absolutely on members of privileged groups to be careful of their actions and consider the potential impacts on members of unprivileged/marginalized groups and to avoid being hurtful (unless, of course, being hurtful is necessary for some important purpose e.g. combating the socially-destructive public policy initiatives of the Religious Right). That said, that doesn't mean it's never appropriate for someone in a privileged position to invoke a trope associated with a marginalized group, even in a way that might make some members of that marginalized group uncomfortable or offend them; it's a case-by-case judgement call, though I prefer to err on the side of caution, as it costs me nothing to do so.

Again, I agree that the headdress trend (like Helix, I also had no idea that this was a hipster trend, though I don't find it surprising, as all of the hipsters I know - that's all of the hipsters I know, not all hipsters - are assholes, even if wearing headdresses isn't a thing in Milwaukee) is stupid, insensitive, and to be discouraged. That said, I have serious problems with many of the objections being cast, particularly those by Baconcat and RaindogBride, who seem to be presenting an argument that marginalized positionalities or cultural tradition or Belief constitute legitimate criteria to exclude one from mockery or enforce control/exclusive use of cultural tropes (as well as the essentialized construction of "culture" on which these are predicated). It's the same sort of argument I had with so many Iraq War protestors whom I thought were opposed to the war for really stupid reasons (I agreed with the opposition to the war, but not their reasons for their opposition).

@62:

http://www.crazycrow.com/about.php

http://www.crazycrow.com/mm5/merchant.mv…

@63: "Your relatives wear neon-purple-dyed feathers and gaudy contemporary underwear for traditional Comanche cultural events/ceremonies?"

Oh, dear.

@64: You just linked to a website selling the headdresses and warbonnets for a traditional purpose and we're discussing the sale or usage of headdresses for non-traditional, non-native purposes. How does this disprove what I've said? By digging blindly for an irrational technicality like "well, you didn't specify WHAT KIND OF SALE so there"? Or by assuming that any time a native sells a headdress it totally absolves you of this sort of thing?

I don't get your angle aside from trying desperately to be SO RIGHT about natives being sensitive. Well, maybe your angle is that you're desperately trying to convince yourself that you're never bigoted, I guess, but here we are.

You're putting on a benefit about tolerance and yet, surprisingly, you're having difficulty grasping the basic idea.

It gets better! Unless you're a native american and want to stop being used as a go-to for "exotic" and want people to stop screaming "SENSITIVE" whenever you assert your right to not be aped or mocked or to have your culture distilled into a technicolor pile of design vomit.

@58...

You don't have to listen to the "hand-wringers"... you can just go on stomping through life, disregarding the people you choose to disregard, telling yourself that if anyone is ever bothered by anything you do, they are just over-sensitive.

@36 does this mean crowns (prom queens, brides, Burger King, etc) are out, too? Is it only wearing a headdress that's disrespectful, or is wearing any Native-inspired fashion/jewelry bad? What about Hawaiian-print dresses, etc? I have some Masai cloth I want to make a dress out of this summer—is that bad, too? I ask because I love fashion and textiles and making clothes, and I occasionally find inspiration in non-white cultures. And in doing so, I'm always coming from a place of respect and admiration, not disrespect.

@68: you're partly there when you acknowledge intent and awareness.

On the other hand, however, saying "why are you mad Group A, we do the same to Group B and they don't care" is a step in the wrong direction.

This particular poster doesn't seem like tney're either trying to look like Indians, or making fun of Indians, so in that sense it isn't comparable to blackface.

62, My stepfather was (he's passed away) a Native American, I've been to plenty of reservations, most have gift shops that sell headdresses.

@66 is right. It gets better unless your from a small minority. I'm not the first to get offended but representations matter.

When I was young I loved historical fiction and would read all the books in school. And since leaving the reservation the school library was my second home. Seeing all the stereotypical representations of natives made me ashamed of my race and who I was. I stayed out of the sun so I wouldn't get browner. After history lessons where we learned of indian massacres I would be taunted on the playground.

I have little appreciation of non natives, and even natives, doing the 'fun' indian misrepresentations (unless your kent monkman). So, if I see posters like this I stay away. I usually don't say anything I just avoid it and continue on with my life. But when I get told I shouldn't be offended by it, its putting aggression on what was just an annoyance.

This is cultural appropriation like an American mid-life man driving a little European sports car with one of those tweedy caps is.

It's racist like the Village People.

Everyone needs to get the fuck over themselves.

(Or should I give my squash blossom necklace to the first person I see on the street who looks like they might be part indigenous American?)

@69

is it? it's actually better to view every stupid piece of misplaced advertising as a slight, rather than to focus on the bigger things where intent might actually matter? I mean I'm not trying to belittle your experiences and your culture, but really, wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone just chilled out and assumed that people who did stupid shit like this were just morons, not racial hierarchists? (I am not defending this trend, only speaking broadly)

@69 I certainly want to be intent and aware. But you're wrong in interpreting that I think it's OK to disrespect Group A simply because Group B doesn't care. What I want to know is when is it OK to wear clothing from a nonwhite culture if you are white. Never? Because that flies in the face of the creative experience. For instance, I've never worn a headdress in my life, and have no plans to, but I do wear and sew a lot of "ethnic"-print textiles and wear styles, such as mocassins and jewelry, that are directly inspired by nonwhite groups.

In fashion, every culture borrows from every culture. The most popular American fashion designers right now are 3 or 4 Asian-American males and their collections draw from dozens of non-Asian influences that are primarily American influences (meaning, the melting pot of cultures that make this country pretty freaking amazing). So are their inspirations disrespectful, too? I guess my big question is: Is this only about headdresses, and if not, then is inspiration from all Native American culture disrespectful or is it OK to admire and wear any of it? And is it OK for me, as a white person, to wear Mandarin collar dresses, Hawaiian-print dresses, etc.?

The culture appropriated has the right to say so and object. Period. End of discussion.
No member of the queer tribe appreciates the straights aping us. I am offended when I hear right-wing homophobes using the term "drama queen" like it belongs to them. They appropriate terms we created, use them in everyday speech, and then have the nerve to call the queer community Drama Queens.
Call me hypersensitive, but that's how I see it.
And don't even start about natives appropriating the dominant culture's things. Small compensation for mass-extermination in the name of God & Country. Imagine an America where the native people were still a majority; what a different place this would be. I'm thinking S America, S Africa, India, Mexico.

You realize that indigenous Mexicans are less than 10% of Mexico's population, right?

You're (ironically) making broad assumptions based on the idea that all brown foreign people must be indigenous.

Whoops.

Ha: I have been misappropriated.

I didn't apologize because the issue is simple and yay-please-get-over-racism-already. I apologized because I didn't bother to look before I crossed the road of tossing up the poll. And because nowhere in my imagination did I conjure up the possibility that the store owner is mixed-race. She's *not just* "Native American." She's mixed. It's complicated, as usual.

@76 You seriously get offended when a homophobe says "drama queen"? Wow. As a left-wing non-homophobe, I think that makes you a bit of a drama queen.

Personally what I think is offensive is that the homophobe wants to deny you equal rights and that the general White population doesn't want to justly compensate the Native Americans whose land we stole.

As for this? Meh. It might be offensive. Be offended. No skin off my back. I can see how people would have trouble with it. I don't but if you do vote with your wallets and don't attend/give money/shop at places that display the poster.

---

@Baconcat If headdresses can only be worn by men, that sounds pretty sexist. It makes me personally care even less about appropriating the ceremonial garb of this particular tribe.

@15-dressing up like a Native American as a "costume" IS EXACTLY FUCKING LIKE BLACKFACE! I hate to minimize the racism of black face by comparing it to something else. But people just do not fucking get that it is NOT OK to appropriate this stuff unless you compare it to something they have been programmed to feel uncomfortable about already.
Whatever happened with this poster, wHat really really bothers me is, as usual, when someone calls out the fact that it is not ok to use someones culture as fashion or fun, some white person pushes back and gets all whiney because they apparently don't want to have their last bastion of racism taken away from them. Yeah, it sounds like I'm calling Dan a racist, and that really isn't my intention, but I don't know what else could be going on. A racist action or attitude is different than actually being a racist.
And I am mixed, Northern CHeyenne, Mohawk, and white. I respect the right of the store owner to display her culture however she wants, but I can say it pisses me off. And I would never ever use an image like, and I can't think of any of my Native friends, mixed or otherwise, who would.
Dan, you're really 0 for 2 here. Making fun of fat people and Indians is ok with you? Hmmmm......

Also, you realize that several of you are not actually having a discussion or argument, but just talking about why you should get to be racist, right? Yeah, we should totally just get over it and stop wearing a chip on our shoulder like a badge. Over racism. We should just suck it up and let 46 tell us when it's ok to be offended.
At 44, big high five. You made this discussion productive. You too baconcat. Thanks.

I'm not "making fun of Indians, for Christ's sake. I pointed out what seemed like a similarity between the shop owner's use of Native American imagery/products/stuff and the poster designers. Folks on Slog rushed to defend the store owner, and her right to use those images/products/stuff as window display, while there was some griping about the poster for TROUBLE. So I wrote it up.

And now we're having this great, big, consciousness-raising session. And isn't that grand?

But there's no hate going on here, for fuck's sake, and on one is being mocked.

And Baconcat? Crazy Crow doesn't just sell to Native Americans. They sell to anybody. Dink around their website and you can find pictures of what would appear to be -- but who the hell knows for sure? -- non-native white folks.

@82 Racist? Your costumes have nothing to do with your race. It's culture and someone can borrow it or appropriate if they feel like it. You're only hurting yourself with that chip on your shoulder so get the fuck over it and get a life. Some folks won't play your pc guilt game.

I'm actually interested in the conversation, and I genuinely wish someone would answer my (sincere) questions at 75 and @68. This isn't about trying to find a way to be racist, it's about understanding how wearing clothing inspired by the beautiful work of other cultures is (or is not) racist. A headdress: I get it; it's bad for the reasons stated above. I never knew a headdress was a sacred garment to ONLY be worn by men until today and now that I do, I'll never look at one the same way again. But what about everything else? When is sincere appreciation of a culture's artistry racist?

http://www.notracistbut.com

@80: "@Baconcat If headdresses can only be worn by men, that sounds pretty sexist. It makes me personally care even less about appropriating the ceremonial garb of this particular tribe."

Here's a crazy idea: your perspective on whether or not another culture is in the wrong doesn't make it ok to write off your behavior.

As an Irish person who gets sick of seeing the "Irish Saint Paddy's" versus "minority culture that's being too uppity for us" dichotomy, here's the thing: we Irish integrated very well into the dominant culture a long time ago. Why? Because we looked like the dominant culture, plain and simple. Once we lost our accents in America, no one could really tell a Gavigan from a Smith and they decided we were worth having around. It's called white privilege.

This poster is a giant freaking embarrassment, and it's not an isolated incident. Check out http://mycultureisnotatrend.tumblr.com/ for one perspective on why cultural appropriation of Native American traditions are problematic. [...and as someone said, you do realize there are still Native Americans here? And they don't run around wearing headdresses and being one with nature? So stop relegating your concept of what's 'Native' to that frigging box.]

@85, I could be totally wrong, but I think it's possible that it's better to appreciate a different culture than to wear it like it's yours. I'm not trying to be snarky this time, either!

Well, make no mistake about it, the language you chose to use while defending the poster and store owner started this "consciousness raising session" You cited the poster incident while using general language that made all us silly people, Native or no, who understand that cultural appropriation is not ok, sound like whiney kindergartners. There was a way to defend her and the poster without making people who don't like racism sound like assholes. And if you never want discussion about anything you post close the comment thread. It seems to really piss you off.

It's amazing to hear all of these arguments from a, mostly, liberal demographic and see just how defensive and bigoted we can be when it's something that doesn't directly affect us. It's offensive for a lot of reasons, just like blackface is offensive for a lot reasons. The biggest reason? It's a misappropriation of an ethnic and cultural stereotype being used by white people. Considering all of the shitty things we have done to Native Americans and African Americans, that makes it all the more offensive. White people co-opting cultures that have been oppressed by white people is offensive, especially if it's for profit. Also, the "Village People"?? That's your fucking argument? The fucking "Village People"?? Now I'm going to say something offensive: that is the single most RETARDED argument ever used regarding the defense of racial stereotyping. Also, Dan, when your defense is that the artist was Native American, so that should make it okay? That's kinda like saying the "N" word and then defending it by saying you have black friends. You do some great stuff, Dan, but sometimes you also put your foot so far in your mouth that i'm surprised you're not shitting shoelaces.

@84 You're wrong about the "costumes" and obviously a racist, so there's no point in explaining it further to you. No guilt game here, you just want to be a racist and that's you're prerogative. Can't blame a girl for calling you like you are.

@88 So are you saying it's never OK for a white person to wear clothing, jewelry or fabrics that are directly inspired by or hearken ones created in non-white culture? And that the best way for a white person to love another culture's artistry is to ignore it, i.e. not buy it, frame it, etc?

I'm really into fabrics and love south and central american block prints and weavings, especially, and have a lot of them. I never thought wearing, framing and hanging them was racist but was appreciative.

I would have merrily gone on with my day after seeing this poster. I was somewhat offended by it when I first saw it, but I knew that was not the intention behind the poster so therefore I let be...until now.

The genuine issue is how instead of just promoting the show and not defending something you deem is harmless. You instead call people out and tell them that what they see is not racist and to get over it. Which, guess what, makes that image racist now. Why? Because you have now put a minority group in the mindset of the many times they have dealt with racism and connecting it to that image.

Would you mock a car accident victim if they twitched at the sound of a revving engine? No, you won't. That's how being victimized by racism works. To be placed in a position where you feel that any point in time someone can tactfully attack you for your race in either the smallest gesture to grand scale genocide.

So don't tell us what we see is not racist, don't tell us to get over it, and don't use an example of another time someone called something racist but it wasn't. Be a tactful human being, and apologize if you ever offended anyone but didn't intend to. Don't try to defend yourself like you're a war criminal, and only help fuel more subtle racism.

@91
@93
Get over it. You have adults like everyone else.

@94
No you.
(Also I don't "have" any adults. I'm not into owning other humans.)

@87 It's not my shitty behavior, it's their's. I'm not the one putting it on posters. I am simply less inclined to get my weepy, bleeding little heart worked up about the whole thing. Two wrongs don't make a right but my only wrong here is apathy. I don't care if it's the Catholic church, an Islamic sect, or the (a?) Comanche religion--if your religious doctrine does not allow for women to practice it fully then it deserves my (admittedly inconsequential) scorn.

@96 The apathy defense doesn't work for me.

@92 I don't know. It's something I think about and don't have any clear answers on...but I do think wearing anything *sacred* that isn't from my culture is verboten. Even if we think we're respecting the culture, it just isn't ours to pick and choose from. I wouldn't wear a yarmulke, so why would I wear a headdress?

This conversation could have pretty much ended at 44. Rather, it should have.

The sky spirit will not be mocked.

...but maybe some people are just assholes.

@97 What I'd love to hear are responses to all of my questions about everything BUT headdresses. I'd never wear a headdress either. But unless someone can tell me how it is offensive/disrespectful/racist to wear non-sacred clothing of another culture (not one person has responded to my questions on this), then I'll keep on wearing moccasins, batiks, Masai prints and other non-white-originating clothing and fabric and jewelry, because I love it.

I'm going to wear a ceremonial free-speech feather on my slog icon in remembrance of this fine discussion. If given a choice to side with free speech or the support of unity between church and state, I'll take the former. I don't really care if it's a pope hat or a plains headdress.