Younger but more arrogant crowd this year?

[progue]

I'm not sure irrational is a word that I would use, but I would actually question the overall benefit, to you, of you taking personal offence or more importantly allowing yourself to be hurt by anything that another individual chose to say to you or to wear in your company.

You could argue that taking offence in itself is simply learned behaviour that is actually completely pointless and really serves no other purpose other than to create a feeling of unnecessary hurt to yourself. Why Bother?

We seem to have developed and entire collective of people who want to take offence and create ever increasing reasons to take offence for no other reason than the self-destructive purpose of enveloping themselves in their own individual or collective misery.

[progue]

So your solution is to make Glastonbury a no-go area for native Americans just so people can wear fancy dress?

Are you aware native Americans continue to be oppressed by the white invader to this day?

Your views are born out of ignorance.

"The White Invader" ....Sounds like a Starwars character!!

[CaledonianGonzo]

I don't think anyone was actually causing anyone 'misery' by wearing a head-dress and I wasn't 'hurt' or 'offended' by it - but on the sliding scale of cool / not cool for me they're a bit over the line into 'not cool'.

Still, though - the Native Americans are a great bunch of lads.

[DeanoL]

So your solution is to make Glastonbury a no-go area for native Americans just so people can wear fancy dress?

Are you aware native Americans continue to be oppressed by the white invader to this day?

Your views are born out of ignorance.

Not a no-go area for native americans no. Just a no-go area for native americans that get offended by other people wearing 'their' clothes. If you want to be that materialistic, you have to deal with the consequences. Just because you ascribe a certain set of values to a certain dress, doesn't mean that everyone has to fall in line. To some people they are just clothes that look pretty. That's not a judgment on the culture in any way, shape, or form beyond saying the person thinks the dress looks pretty.

I was under the impression that Native Americans were still oppressed in actual bad ways to this day, but honestly if 'other people wearing our clothes' is all they have left to complain about, I'd be tempted to change my mind.

[russycarps]

I'm not sure irrational is a word that I would use, but I would actually question the overall benefit, to you, of you taking personal offence or more importantly allowing yourself to be hurt by anything that another individual chose to say to you or to wear in your company.

You could argue that taking offence in itself is simply learned behaviour that is actually completely pointless and really serves no other purpose other than to create a feeling of unnecessary hurt to yourself. Why Bother?

We seem to have developed and entire collective of people who want to take offence and create ever increasing reasons to take offence for no other reason than the self-destructive purpose of enveloping themselves in their own individual or collective misery.

You seem to have confused empathy for personal offence.

[progue]

I don't think anyone was actually causing anyone 'misery' by wearing a head-dress and I wasn't 'hurt' or 'offended' by it - but on the sliding scale of cool / not cool for me they're a bit over the line into 'not cool'.

Still, though - the Native Americans are a great bunch of lads.

When you get to a certain age or maybe a certain point in your life, the concept of "Cool" can kind of disappear out of the window.

[progue]

You seem to have confused empathy for personal offence.

I'm not sure I did, though perhaps I should have quoted Ruwise, then it was clear who I was responding to.

[russycarps]

Not a no-go area for native americans no. Just a no-go area for native americans that get offended by other people wearing 'their' clothes. If you want to be that materialistic, you have to deal with the consequences. Just because you ascribe a certain set of values to a certain dress, doesn't mean that everyone has to fall in line. To some people they are just clothes that look pretty. That's not a judgment on the culture in any way, shape, or form beyond saying the person thinks the dress looks pretty.

I was under the impression that Native Americans were still oppressed in actual bad ways to this day, but honestly if 'other people wearing our clothes' is all they have left to complain about, I'd be tempted to change my mind.

Yes they are oppressed in actual bad ways today, which is why it pains them to see their most culturally and spiritually important icons being trivialized into a superficial fashion statement by the very people who are oppressing them.

[zero000]

Slaughter millions of people, steal their land, then dress like them because it looks cool. It doesn't take a genius to see why that's not acceptable.

[progue]

Yes they are oppressed in actual bad ways today, which is why it pains them to see their most culturally and spiritually important icons being trivialized into a superficial fashion statement by the very people who are oppressing them.

Aye and no doubt the eagle, bear or wolf might have an issue with their bodily parts being trivialised for spiritual purposes, but hey ho..they can't speak and it's the good ole oppressed Native Americans wot dunnit so it's alright.

[russycarps]

Aye and no doubt the eagle, bear or wolf might have an issue with their bodily parts being trivialised for spiritual purposes, but hey ho..they can't speak and it's the good ole oppressed Native Americans wot dunnit so it's alright.

That's a completely different issue though. If people are wearing headdresses as a form of vegan protest then I support them 100%.

The fact the novelty headdresses seem to made with real feathers suggest this is absolutely not the case though.

As you well know.

Edited July 2, 2014 by russycarps

[KryziF]

Is part of the problem that there aren't any similar British symbols that have the same sort of cultural significance, so people don't understand how wearing them inappropriately can be offensive.

I was trying to think of a British equivalent but closest I could come up with would be the poppy or maybe military medals, but think that would be mostly the daily mail crowd that would get upset so still doubt that applies to the people wearing the headresses.

[mrtourette]

Yes they are oppressed in actual bad ways today, which is why it pains them to see their most culturally and spiritually important icons being trivialized into a superficial fashion statement by the very people who are oppressing them.

Slaughter millions of people, steal their land, then dress like them because it looks cool. It doesn't take a genius to see why that's not acceptable.

I suppose they make sense if your view is that every white person oppresses/oppressed every black person, but as usual the situation is rarely so black and white and of course depends on the attitudes of the people involved. A white racist wearing a dread wig and rasta hat as a mocking gesture in front of unfairly persecuted black Carribeans would fit your description. A white person sympathetic to black oppression who chooses to wear dreads is unlikely to offend a black person who does not value his or her roots to the point where the aren't even aware of the connotations of dreadlocks. To say that it pains black people to see white people with dreads as it's trivializing their oppression is spectacularly vague and over-simplifying the situation. I'm sure some it does some, but others won't give a shit. Such a sweeping generalisation is grossly inaccurate, and at the end of the day who are we (speaking as the white man) to speak on behalf of or claim to know what one or many black people think.

[russycarps]

There isn't a British equivalent as no fecker has ever oppressed us since 1066!

Whereas the misery we have inflicted on others is immeasurable.

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the British raj for example must surely realise how wearing a bindhi can be seen as bad taste.

[mrtourette]

Good point well made.

[progue]

That's a completely different issue though. If people are wearing headdresses as a form of vegan protest then I support them 100%.

The fact the novelty headdresses seem to made with real feathers suggest this is absolutely not the case though.

As you well know.

Of course it is not the case, but I just simply cannot see how it is possible to claim ownership of anything that you yourself have adopted from a source that was not your own in the first place.

[russycarps]

I suppose they make sense if your view is that every white person oppresses/oppressed every black person, but as usual the situation is rarely so black and white and of course depends on the attitudes of the people involved. A white racist wearing a dread wig and rasta hat as a mocking gesture in front of unfairly persecuted black Carribeans would fit your description. A white person sympathetic to black oppression who chooses to wear dreads is unlikely to offend a black person who does not value his or her roots to the point where the aren't even aware of the connotations of dreadlocks. To say that it pains black people to see white people with dreads as it's trivializing their oppression is spectacularly vague and over-simplifying the situation. I'm sure some it does some, but others won't give a shit. Such a sweeping generalisation is grossly inaccurate, and at the end of the day who are we (speaking as the white man) to speak on behalf of or claim to know what one or many black people think.

Even if it is just a small minority who are offended, why would you want to cause them offence over a mere fashion accessory?

It's about respect and common courtesy.

[russycarps]

Of course it is not the case, but I just simply cannot see how it is possible to claim ownership of anything that you yourself have adopted from a source that was not your own in the first place.

Well as a vegetarian and almost-vegan I can't really disagree with you here.

[progue]

There isn't a British equivalent as no fecker has ever oppressed us since 1066!

Whereas the misery we have inflicted on others is immeasurable.

Anyone with even a basic knowledge of the British raj for example must surely realise how wearing a bindhi can be seen as bad taste.

I fail to see how wearing a Bindi should be seen as bad taste at all.

Edited July 2, 2014 by progue

[mrtourette]

Even if it is just a small minority who are offended, why would you want to cause them offence over a mere fashion accessory?

It's about respect and common courtesy.

Yeah that's a fair point, but there are situations where it might be appropriate. We shouldn't be reinforcing race and colour barriers, so if a white kid ws brought up in an area with or with an extended family of mostly black Atricans/Carribeans then due to his beliefs and values being defined by that group should he feel ashamed or guilty for choosing to have dreads, given his upringing and the fact that dreads may be a more common and genuine prescence around him? Should he be treated the same as the middle-class chinless wonder who chooses to grow dreads during his six-month trip to India (funded by his parents of course) just because they are the same colour? Seems to me that while they are both white the same rules or expectations shouldn't necessarily be applied to both of them.

Edited July 2, 2014 by mrtourette

[zero000]

I suppose they make sense if your view is that every white person oppresses/oppressed every black person, but as usual the situation is rarely so black and white and of course depends on the attitudes of the people involved. A white racist wearing a dread wig and rasta hat as a mocking gesture in front of unfairly persecuted black Carribeans would fit your description. A white person sympathetic to black oppression who chooses to wear dreads is unlikely to offend a black person who does not value his or her roots to the point where the aren't even aware of the connotations of dreadlocks. To say that it pains black people to see white people with dreads as it's trivializing their oppression is spectacularly vague and over-simplifying the situation. I'm sure some it does some, but others won't give a shit. Such a sweeping generalisation is grossly inaccurate, and at the end of the day who are we (speaking as the white man) to speak on behalf of or claim to know what one or many black people think.

It is a generalisation, I do agree. I don't really see it as being white man guilt, but merely an acknowledgement that what *some* of our ancestors did was horrendous and that we recognise that today in the way we behave.

[DeanoL]

Even if it is just a small minority who are offended, why would you want to cause them offence over a mere fashion accessory?

It's about respect and common courtesy.

Maybe so eventually they get the hell over it and we can stop fighting and arguing over what's nothing more than a symbol and actually deal with the real issues.

Yes they are oppressed in actual bad ways today, which is why it pains them to see their most culturally and spiritually important icons being trivialized into a superficial fashion statement by the very people who are oppressing them.

And I feel bad for them over a lot of that oppression but I genuinely couldn't give two tugs about people getting upset over icons. It's properly pathetic, and if it's all you've got left to complain about, you don't get to claim oppression any more.

[mrtourette]

It is a generalisation, I do agree. I don't really see it as being white man guilt, but merely an acknowledgement that what *some* of our ancestors did was horrendous and that we recognise that today in the way we behave.

Can't disagree with that. A bit more awareness and sensitivity from everyone would go a long way.

[frostypaw]

This thread has become amazing

[mrtourette]

This thread has become amazing

russy got involved