stfuconservatives:

twelvebats:

veganltw:

So why can’t I wear it? 

• 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.

• 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 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.

• 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. 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.

But I don’t mean it in that way, I just think it’s cute!

• Well hopefully I’ve illuminated that there’s more at play here than just a “cute” fashion choice. Sorry for taking away your ignorance defense. 

But I consider it honoring to Native Americans!

• I think that this cartoon is a proper answer, but I’ll add that having a drunken girl wearing a headdress and a bikini dancing at an outdoor concert does not honor me. I remember reading somewhere that it was also “honoring the fine craftsmanship of Native Americans”. Those costume shop chicken feather headdresses aren’t honoring Native craftsmanship. And you will be very hard pressed to find a Native artist who is closely tied to their community making headdresses for sale. See the point about their sacredness and significance.

I’m just wearing it because it’s “ironic”!

• I’m all for irony. Finger mustaches, PBR, kanye glasses, old timey facial hair, 80’s spandex—fine, funny, a bit over-played, but ironic, I guess. Appropriating someone’s culture and cavorting around town in your skinny jeans with a feathered headdress, moccasins, and turquoise jewelry in an attempt to be ‘counterculture’? Not ironic. If you’re okay with being a walking representative of 500+ years of colonialism and racism, or don’t mind perpetuating the stereotypes that we as Native people have been fighting against for just as long, by all means, go for it. But by embracing the current tribal trends you aren’t asserting yourself as an individual, you are situating yourself in a culture of power that continues to oppress Native peoples in the US. And really, if everyone is doing it, doesn’t that take away from the irony? am I missing the point on the irony? maybe. how is this even ironic? I’m starting to confuse myself. but it’s still not a defense.

Stop getting so defensive, it’s seriously just fashion!

• Did you read anything I just wrote? It’s not “just” fashion. There is a lot more at play here. This is a matter of power and who has the right to represent my culture. (I also enjoy asking myself questions that elicit snarky answers.) 

What about the bigger issues in Indian Country? Poverty, suicide rates, lack of resources, disease, etc? Aren’t those more important that hipster headdresses?

• 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.   

Well then, Miss Cultural Appropriation Police, what CAN I wear?

• If you choose to wear something Native, buy it from a Native. There are federal laws that protect Native artists and craftspeople who make genuine jewelry, art, etc. (see info here about The Indian Arts and Crafts Act). Anything you buy should have a label that says “Indian made” or “Native made”. Talk to the artist. find out where they’re from. Be diligent. Don’t go out in a full “costume”. It’s ok to have on some beaded earrings or a turquoise ring, but don’t march down the street wearing a feather, with loaded on jewelry, and a ribbon shirt. Ask yourself: if you ran into a Native person, would you feel embarrassed or feel the need to justify yourself? 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. Just take a minute to question your sartorial choices before you go out.       

…and an editorial comment:  I should also note that I have absolutely nothing against hipsters. In fact, some would argue I have hipster-leaning tendencies. In my former San Francisco life, had been known to have a drink or two in the clouds of smoke outside at Zeitgeist, and enjoyed shopping on Haight street. I enjoy drinking PBR out of the can when I go to the dive bars near my apartment where I throw darts and talk about sticking it to ‘The Man’. I own several fringed hipster scarves, more than one pair of ironic fake ray-ban wayfarers, and two plaid button downs. I’m also not trying to stereotype and say that all hipsters do/wear the above, just like not every hipster thinks it’s cool to wear a headdress. So, I don’t hate hipsters, I hate ignorance and cultural appropriation. There is a difference. Just thought I should clear that up.

WAY more notes please

A great explanation of why you should stop this hipster nonsense.

(Source: veganparty)

raptorific:

audreyjamesbogart replied to your post: why are you voting for Obama?!

Rebloggable version PLEASE!!!

Done and done!

stripesandteeth:

brofagski:

americas-nantucket:

perpetualparadisiac:

hetaliashippingconfessions:

Hating on another pairing doesn’t make the one you ship any better.

-Anon

At least this one post brought some intelligence to that blog.

u tell it france

This so hard.

hopelessly-british:

(Source: unfair-poeticjustice)

zimothy:

             I AM NOT A THREAT.

• I AM NOT a predator
• I AM NOT a murderer
• I AM NOT DANGEROUS.

• I AM living somewhere that has nobody with the same humor, interests, intelligence, or tastes as I do.
• I AM talking to your son or daughter because THEY DO.
• I AMwishing you wouldn’t judge me when you don’t know me.

This is for Jay, first and foremost. She’s 17 years old and received a pair of mouse earrings for Christmas from one of her online friends. (She’s in the Charles/Erik fandom and they signified Charles, who gets represented as a mouse in a lot of fandom references)

Her parents flipped out, ignored the fact that I was willing to have a conversation with them on the phone in order to keep RPing with her via text and email, and completely banned her from the internet. That was months ago, and she still can’t come back. They’ve completely disregarded her assurances that we are RP partners, friends who like the same fandom, and assume that all of us are sexual predators who just want to find where she lives and kidnap her and do unspeakable things to her.

I’m getting sick of this stereotype, I hate that parents assume everyone on the internet is a sexual predator, and their kid is the #1 victim. I feel like this is insulting to the child AND their friends, because you assume that your kid is susceptible and stupid and can’t tell the difference between who is and isn’t a creep.

I’m not saying that there aren’t kids like that, but maybe you should stop assuming your kid is one of them.

We come to the internet to find friends, we come here to find people who like to read and write and draw and make funny faces and horrible photoshop manipulations. We don’t come here to get off, to stalk children or bully anyone.

So please signal boost this, because I want Jay’s parents to realize that there is no reasonfor them to punish their daughter. Not when all she’s done was find friends who like what she likes, and encourage her to write and share her talent with the rest of us.

lvck:

Rhythm 0, 1974 To test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, Abramović developed one of her most challenging (and best-known) performances. She assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her. Abramović had placed upon a table 72 objects that people were allowed to use (a sign informed them) in any way that they chose. Some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her. Among them were a rose, a feather, honey, a whip, scissors, a scalpel, a gun and a single bullet. For six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions. Initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed (and the artist remained impassive) people began to act more aggressively. As Abramović described it later: “What I learned was that… if you leave it up to the audience, they can kill you.” … “I felt really violated: they cut up my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the audience. Everyone ran away, to escape an actual confrontation.”

(Source: ragata)

rainbowsrobots:

My Harry Potter confession. I thought it was equally sad that he wasn’t in the resurrection scene in the forrest. 

theimmortalcardinal:

sc83x:

Dogs are only as good as their owners.

come home with me cutiepie i’ll give you lots of love! <3