So here's a fun question, inspired by an earlier post from Native Appropriations (at least, I think it was there).

Say we have a South Korean pop group who appropriates ignorant stereotypes of another culture for one of their music videos . Is it worse if they:
A) Use teepees and feathers?
B) Use banjos, and straw hats?
C) Dance the lindy hop?
D) Wear lederhosen and dirndls?
E) All are equally offensive.
F) All are equally inoffensive.

Since the South Koreans haven't oppressed, or been oppressed by any of these groups particularly recently, I feel like this might be a good test case to try to identify some kind of clear principles.

Thanks for tuning me into the 1491s' film.  Wow.

I'm always rather conflicted over things like this.

I get that certain things are sacred to certain people. I respect their right to hold such things sacred, and wouldn't ever dare to tell them they're wrong for it.On the other hand... I'm not them. Those things are not sacred to me, they're just things. Why do their beliefs come before my freedoms?Not taking sides here. Just wondering if anyone can explain.

I wonder what she thinks about Jacob from Twilight!

Watch the documentary called "Reel Injun". It really brings home the point.

The 1491 clip was fascinating.  Those guys really have some racial pride.  I know I should say 'cultural pride' but that's the interesting thing. Culural pride just doesn't cover it.

All the speakers, with one exception, actually looked as if they were members of a large extended American Indian family.  And it's that family, or race, that they seem to be advocating and protecting.  If it was just a culture, then appropriation would be a moot point because anyone could learn the rules and join the club, as it were.  But this does seem to be an exclusive club that you need to be born into; like a family.

A discussion of some sparse points in the video.

One of the first points they cover is a discussion about the codename for Osama Bin Laden's capture attempt, but inevitable killing, that of "Geronimo". This is seen as problematic. He was Osama not Geronimo, they say. Which of course is entirely true. So there might be any one or more of several reasons this codename is problematic to them. There might be other reasons I am not listing here.

1. The video states "Geronimo was not a billionaire who ordered planes into a building" (or something to that effect). True. So was the video suggesting that code names could not be used? In the case of every possible code name, unless the codename was Osama Bin Laden, the statement "Code Name such and such was not a billionaire who ordered planes into a building" would be true. If the objection is that we could ONLY use the codename of an actual billionaire who ordered planes into a building, then this part of the objection, makes sense. (Though of course the point of a code name should be obvious to all but the most leftist reader). Otherwise it is completely irrelevant to the appropriateness of use as a codename.

2. Perhaps the objection is because doing so [purportedly] conflates the man Geronimo, a Christian convert who practiced Christianity and his old Apache ways, with a murderous Muslim who practiced a form of strict monotheism. I could see some Christians and Pagans taking issue here. Except I doubt seriously that any of the soldiers involved, the President, his cabinet, or anyone else in the world, would confuse Geronimo's various spiritualities and himself, with Islam and Osama.

3. I suppose some might make objection under the mistaken belief that Geronimo and his people, were only always innocent victims of whites and never were wrongful aggressors against whites (or Mexicans). This of course ignores the extreme violence the Apache were guilty of in wiping out town after town from their earliest interactions with Europeans. And no, contrary to what you might have learned in public school, the whites were not always the aggressors and these raids were not always (or even most often) retalitory. Since Geronimo really was the aggressor, in this respect at least he shares something in common with Osama.

Having said all of that, as an Irishman, I would have preferred if the codename they had used had been "William of Orange" or "The Virgin Queen".

--------------------

The subject of blackface was brought up by the host who stated "...but blackface was something that was used specifically to play out stereotypes of African Americans".

This is an inaccurate portrayal of the ORIGINS of Black Face. Blackface became stereotypically later on, but its roots lie in the shared history of the Irish slaves and Black slaves, whose jigs were used to entertain their Anglo masters. (Jigs of the Irish and African slaves).

--------------------

There was an objection to all Natives being lumped together, with the statement being made specifically that "we know so well the history of the European settlers..." Actually most Europeans are lumped together and indeed were right there in that statement. And few are aware of actual European history. Since we are on the topic of whether doing certain things that the Prior Nations Peoples [may have done] is appropriation, this is a good time for a mini history slash appropriation lesson.

Isn't it appropriation of Prior Nations Cultures for a person of European descent to wear feathers, paint themselves, dance wildly, praise the earth, thank the sky father, conduct drum circles, use spiritual healing techniques, wear skins, wear skins on their feet, hunt with bows, gather in sweat lodges, use smoking plants in religious and spiritual and tribal ceremonies, wear shells, wear beads, cut themselves, burn themselves, talk to plants and get answers, talk to animals, shape shift, visit other [spiritual] lands, ride horses and conduct themselves in any one of thousands of other ways, since these are strictly activities that Prior Nations Peoples practiced and Europeans did not?

Grasshopper, no. The Teutons, Keltoi, Nordics, Jutes, Germanics, Slavs, Romans, and the hundreds of other cultures of Europe, ALL had similar customs. In particular, most of Europe lived until very recently, in tribal, shamanic groups, and not in urban settings. Indeed, quite a few of the things I mentioned were not even practiced by many (or even most) Prior Nations Peoples and their tribes. For instance, the video mentions how only a couple of the tribes even wore feathers.

So no, if you are white, doing these things, the very things YOUR ANCESTORS did, is hardly appropriation. Indeed, what's actually happening is the making invisible of a rich omniversity of European history, culture and spirituality, in the most egregious and dismissive manner the left can muster, that of claiming that that history didn't exist and practicing things within it, is theft from another culture. It's not theft, it's not appropriation because we actually DID do these things.

-------------------

Another thing that was talked about was the need to respect other persons spirituality. Notice that the term religion is often avoided. Why is this? Because whites have religion and not spirituality, and it's ok to mock religion, just don't mock spirituality. It was then said that no one would tolerate persons wearing a pope hat, practicing a mockery of Catholic (universal) religion, charging for Catholic ceremonies at the side of the road, as evidence that it likewise is not appropriate to disrespect Prior Nations spiritualities. 

Except that Catholicism in particular, and Christianity as well, are mocked ALL OF THE TIME. They are mocked on the news. They are mocked in tv comedies. They are mocked by atheists and liberals and yes, conservatives alike. Wearing a Pope hat might be DISLIKED by the Catholics, but most others could give three pixels in the d'mned wind about it. I suppose that the speaker had never heard of a Black Mass. (Problematic all on its own someoen will say). If she had heard of it, then her comments are disengenuous at best, outright lies at worst.

So, why is it that it's ok to mock Christianity, to satirize it, to dismiss it, to argue against it, and all other forms of European spritualities by disappearing them, but Prior Nations spiritualities are deserving of a pass? But but but but but but but Aoirthoir, they were oppressed. Sure. I agree. They oppressed and were oppressed. That doesn't make their lifestyle and religions any less fodder for dismissal than anyone else's. If we can mock and disrespect Christianity (and we do) then we can mock and disrespect Prior Nations spiritualities. (And Islams and Pagans and and and...).

--------------------

Finally lets address this nonsense that it is OK for people to appropriate European and American European culture, but not others, because Europeans were the oppressors. Uh huh. Because, as I pointed out earlier, ALL Europeans are LUMPED together. Objectionable when done to Prior Nations peoples, Africans, Blacks, and French People (who no one really gives a damned about...), but just okely dokely when done to Europeans. So time for another history slash, I have to get a diet coke with Lime, lesson.

Europeans did not oppress. SOME very specific Europeans oppressed, whilst the vast majority of Europeans were themselves oppressed by those very same persons. 

So it was brought up how Prior Nations persons were enslaved. They were. As were Irish, and Africans and others. But here's something people keep missing in that statement, that word. That word that is incredibly dismissive of an ENTIRE CULTURE of people. That culture isn't enSLAVed Irish. It isn't enSLAVed Africans. It isn't enSLAVed Prior Nations persons. 

The word slave comes from the word Slav. It hearkens to the time when Slavs were so often forced into non-consenting labor (slavery) that their very name came to represent their condition across the known European (and now global) landscape. The bitter abuses they suffered were so great, so terrible, so incredibly demeaning and destructive that their very name came to represent the lowest condition of a man. I won't even get into the need to decide on a different word for slave, though we certainly should shouldn't we? (Watch a leftist provide an excuse to why it is okely dokely to continue to use this word...).

No those SLAVS were not the oppressor. Indeed nor were those Irish SLAVS who were brought here AGAINST THEIR WILL. Were they, either of them, to simply DISAPPEAR? CEASE to exist? So that they could avoid claims that THEY the OPPRESSED were ACTUALLY oppressors whose culture then was WORTHY of APPROPRIATION whilst others not?

--------------------

If you want persons to not appropriate your culture, YOU have a few responsibilities. 

First, to not appropriate others cultures. Since most Europeans were the oppressed, you don't get off by claiming they were not. This is still your responsibilty.

Second, to make damned well sure that their culture didnt do the thing that you are claiming they are not allowed to do because their culture didn't do it, 

Third, to send a check Payable to "Aoirthoir Does'nt buy your bullshit" 1313 Pagan European Lane, Keep of My Grass Georgia 11111, in the amount of 3 dollars and 7 cents.

--------------------

Slan go foill.
Chifidh me sibh.

--------------------

Is it offensive to wear fashion items that reflect different Native looks, if you are not related to them? I love mocassins (not the plush rubber-soled kind!) and beaded jewelry, however I would never want to assume that it is ok. I admire the beauty, and would never trivialize the way of life or hardships anyone has endured.

First I apologies for my bad typing I have to use one hand at this point after having surgery.

I would like to call in to light a show band from Ireland called the Indian's. I wish they had been brought up in this discussion. they hit every popint of what  this band stands for. they feel they have the right to do this and are hurting no one. but the money they are makeing from this is wrong.

Btw cultural appropriation.
Isn’t the way US citizens consider their country “America” and themselves “the” Americans by definition cultural appropriation? Or is it something else? (Watching a documentary on the Mayflower. Just throwing it out there).
There are geologically three “American” continents. North, Middle and south. The latter two often called “Latin” America. All inhabitants of the three are by definition “Americans”. Even just “North Americans” would by definition include Canadians. .
So isn’t US citizens calling themselves “the” Americans essentially the same as f.i. the French calling themselves “the” Europeans? Or the Chinese calling themselves “the” Asians?
That would be absurd right?
By extension even the term “Native Americans” for original indigenous peoples can apply to the Innuit, Aztecs, Mayans, Inca’s, Olmecs, Yanomamö etc (and that feels more like an insult, as their people lived there long before the Europeans decided to call their continents “Americas” after the ‘discoverer’ Amerigo Vespucci).
just a thought.