Glastonbury Festival bans sale of Native American-style headdresses

[davefrompompey]

If retailers are prevented from selling them on site, then I take that as retailers are banned from selling them. I suppose you could argue the semantics that they're not licensed to sell them on site. But I take your point about nobody is being banned from wearing them.

I have 2 default points in life:

1) unless it's illegal, people shouldn't be banned from selling, buying or wearing anything.

2) disagree with everything Norman Tebbitt thinks.

But nothing's illegal until you ban it by making it illegal...

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

It pains me that so many people are ignorant of the harm stereotyping can have on people who suffer discrimination that affects their daily lives.

The blacking up comment earlier was a real peach.

What are your views on Patois being spoken by anybody at all?

[Keithy]

But nothing's illegal until you ban it by making it illegal...

Indeed. And as far as I'm aware no legislation has been passed preventing the selling or wearing of Native American style headdresses so it's not banned or illegal which goes back to my point about it being disappointing (to me) that glastonbury have restricted (/banned) the sale of something that is not illegal. Doesn't sit right to me but I appreciate the cultural points people are making and the wearing of headdresses being potentially disrespectful.

[MatthewBL]

Not forgetting army surplus!

What about Mohicans and tartan.

Would the village people still be able to play?

[davefrompompey]

Indeed. And as far as I'm aware no legislation has been passed preventing the selling or wearing of Native American style headdresses so it's not banned or illegal which goes back to my point about it being disappointing (to me) that glastonbury have restricted (/banned) the sale of something that is not illegal. Doesn't sit right to me but I appreciate the cultural points people are making and the wearing of headdresses being potentially disrespectful.

I was more making the point that if your principle is not to ban anything that isn't already illegal, how do you go about making something illegal in the first place?

In 2007 the sale of sub-prime mortgages was legal in the US. I think you'd be stretching a bit to suggest that it shouldn't have been banned because it was legal.

I'm with you on the general distrust of banning things, though. I would say that there should be a presumption against banning some behaviour until it can be firmly demonstrated that the behaviour has a negative impact on someone else's rights or interests.

I just think that this is a case where the presumption against a ban is overturned by the strength of the argument for the ban.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I just think that this is a case where the presumption against a ban is overturned by the strength of the argument for the ban.

Why?

[davefrompompey]

Why?

Because there is a clear and cogent argument that the widespread wearing of headdresses causes, or at least contributes to, harm to individuals within a category of people defined by their shared ancestries (who therefore can't escape the possibility of that harm).

Because, since the restriction of freedom of expression is only secondary to the actual restriction, which is on profit-making activities, the weight that should be given to the argument from free speech is consequently lower than it might be if the festival were banning the wearing of headdresses rather than their sale.

And because the claim to freedom of speech is significantly weakened when that speech involves promulgating cultural stereotypes.

Add in the likelihood that the extension of a ban will encourage at least some people to consider the harm that otherwise innocuous-seeming behaviour can cause, and I think there's a strong argument to overturn the presumption against a ban.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Because there is a clear and cogent argument that the widespread wearing of headdresses causes, or at least contributes to, harm to individuals within a category of people defined by their shared ancestries (who therefore can't escape the possibility of that harm).

There's an argument alright but where's the evidence that wearing a Native American headdress at Glastonbury causes, or at least contributes to, harm individuals within a category of people defined by their shared ancestries?

[Zoo Music Girl]

If retailers are prevented from selling them on site, then I take that as retailers are banned from selling them. I suppose you could argue the semantics that they're not licensed to sell them on site. But I take your point about nobody is being banned from wearing them.

I have 2 default points in life:

1) unless it's illegal, people shouldn't be banned from selling, buying or wearing anything.

2) disagree with everything Norman Tebbitt thinks.

Glastonbury festival is held on private property, though, not public so they can ban the sale of whatever they like. Plenty of legal things are banned at the festival: glass, those lantern thingies, generators...

They can make whatever restrictions they like really, just like you can ban someone from smoking in your house or ask them to leave their shoes at the door.

Really want to know Tebbitt's view on headdresses now...

[russycarps]

It's just a simple case of showing respect to other people in a way that doesnt impact your existence in any way at all.

Shouldnt that be reason enough to comply with their wishes?

You people should read the book bury my heart at wounded knee. The education would serve you well.

Edited October 15, 2014 by russycarps

[Padgey]

I guess the Village People and Sinitta won't be on the line up for next year then?! Gutted.

[5co77ie]

And Pharell...

Though he apologised for wearing one before Glastonbury this year:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/jun/05/pharrell-apologises-wearing-native-american-war-bonnet-elle

If you so wish feel free to support:

http://whitepeopleinheaddresses.tumblr.com/

Whilst I understand the sensitivities of the Star Nation, I do feel we could be heading for more trouble with Glastonbury - particularly tipis:

http://mic.com/articles/87709/why-so-many-american-indians-have-an-issue-with-coachella

Why this matters: In 2010, the Native Appropriations blog assembled a useful breakdown of why many American Indians frown on these practices. The crux of the argument is that they amount to more than just "fashion" — headdresses in particular hold "deep spiritual significance," akin to a burka or yarmulke. Wearing them as costumes also references a time when "playing Indian" was more common in pop culture, and the media used it to stereotype, dismiss and dehumanize Natives in ways that helped justify their marginalized status.

Other reasons are obvious, but bear repeating: Coachella, along with everything else in this country, takes place on land that was stolen from American Indians as part of a massive multi-generational genocide, the impact of which persists today. Natives face disproportionately high rates of alcoholism, suicide and depression, among other things. If they say they don't want you treating their culture like your own personal Halloween party, do humanity a favor and listen.

These Coachella attendees aren't the only perpetrators, of course. But it's reached a point that people commonly associate the festival with rich white kids in Native headdresses, and that's not something to be proud of. With the issue of cultural appropriation becoming an increasingly high-profile topic of discussion, one would hope more people start realizing how problematic such actions are and adjust themselves accordingly.

I personally have a headdress I wore to Glastonbury years ago, to remember Kenneth Meadows (a guru of mine along with Hawkwind), that was before I read about the Amerindians' campaign and I've not worn it since.

Edited October 15, 2014 by 5co77ie

[Avalon_Fields]

Thank you Glastonbury, I admit I did not think to realise wearing headdresses is offensive (And relieved I never have been interested in wearing them anyway) and looking online further educates me, for example from http://apihtawikosisan.com/:

HEADDRESSES IN NATIVE CULTURES

For the most part, headdresses are restricted items. In particular, the headdress worn by most non-natives imitate those worn by various Plains nations. These headdresses are further restricted within the cultures to men who have done certain things to earn them. It is very rare for women in Plains cultures to wear these headdresses, and their ability to do so is again quite restricted.

So unless you are a native male from a Plains nation who has earned a headdress, or you have been given permission to wear one (sort of like being presented with an honorary degree), then you will have a very difficult time making a case for how wearing one is anything other than disrespectful, now that you know these things. If you choose to be disrespectful, please do not be surprised when people are offended… regardless of why you think you are entitled to do this.

Even if you have ‘native friends’ or are part native yourself, individual choices to “not be offended” do not trump our collective rights as peoples to define our symbols.

[neil999]

It's just a simple case of showing respect to other people in a way that doesnt impact your existence in any way at all.

Shouldnt that be reason enough to comply with their wishes?

You people should read the book bury my heart at wounded knee. The education would serve you well.

next you'll be telling me i cant use outmoded language to describe peoples ethnicity

i suppose i'll have to stand idly by while the gays kiss too......ffs

[found home in 2009]

It's just a simple case of showing respect to other people in a way that doesnt impact your existence in any way at all.

Shouldnt that be reason enough to comply with their wishes?

You people should read the book bury my heart at wounded knee. The education would serve you well.

You could also say not telling people what to wear is showing respect to other people in a way that doesn't impaction your existince in any way at all though.

[mr gumby]

You could also say not telling people what to wear is showing respect to other people in a way that doesn't impaction your existince in any way at all though.

It has been made very clear, no-one is telling anyone what to wear, or what not to wear. Glastonbury are telling traders not to sell headdresses. If someone chooses to bring one to wear that's up to them, but I'm personally hoping that the absence of them on stalls might make a few people think twice.

Of course, only people who give a shit about other people's culture, compared to their own 'freedom of expression' are likely to think about it at all, and clearly some people don't.

[The_Amazing_Oblong]

There are quite a few locals offended by the festival itself...Should it be banned ?

I think it's opening a can of worms. How does the festival pick which bits are offensive and which aren't ? Is wearing combats offensive to veterans ? Viking helmets to Scandinavians ? Police outfits... the list is endless.

My mate went as an IRA terrorist year before last. Probably offensive but got a shedload of laughs wherever we went, which was the reason he did it.

I've always been impressed with the way the festival polices itself from within. A better solution would be to have a stall/initiative on site educating people on why it is offensive and then let people make their own minds up.

I think whomever is making this decision on behalf of everyone else is up their own arse.

[mr gumby]

A better solution would be to have a stall/initiative on site educating people on why it is offensive and then let people make their own minds up.

There is one, in the Green Futures field, I believe.

[Winslow Leach]

It has been made very clear, no-one is telling anyone what to wear, or what not to wear. Glastonbury are telling traders not to sell headdresses. If someone chooses to bring one to wear that's up to them, but I'm personally hoping that the absence of them on stalls might make a few people think twice.

Of course, only people who give a shit about other people's culture, compared to their own 'freedom of expression' are likely to think about it at all, and clearly some people don't.

Sadly people seem to confuse 'freedom of expression' with the 'freedom to continue being obnoxious even though I know all the problems regarding my choice of headwear' or the 'freedom to totally ignore any calls to consider my own attitudes'

It reminds me of the people who make death threats and bomb scares on Twitter and then whine about how its all part of their 'freedom of speech'

[Winslow Leach]

I think it's opening a can of worms. How does the festival pick which bits are offensive and which aren't ? Is wearing combats offensive to veterans ? Viking helmets to Scandinavians ? Police outfits... the list is endless.

Read what others have already said, especially davefrompompey, it's not just about this straw man idea of avoiding 'offence'

My mate went as an IRA terrorist year before last. Probably offensive but got a shedload of laughs wherever we went, which was the reason he did it.

Personally, I'd find a new mate.

[neil999]

worrying that people going to/interested in glastonbury dont 'get' this...

[The Nal]

Theres lot of anti religious tshirts sold at the festival. Thats more offensive than a native American head dress considering the amount of native Americans who attend compared to religious people is rather low one would think.

This is a bullshit thread. Full of stereotypical online mock outrage. Self perpetuating, moral grandstanding nonsense.

[oneeye]

Theres lot of anti religious tshirts sold at the festival. Thats more offensive than a native American head dress considering the amount of native Americans who attend compared to religious people is rather low one would think.

This is a bullshit thread. Full of stereotypical online mock outrage. Self perpetuating, moral grandstanding nonsense.

Sounds like you're spitting feathers.............

[The_Amazing_Oblong]

There is one, in the Green Futures field, I believe.

Good. There you go then, If people get the message then they wouldn't wear them as they would feel a twat doing so, If they don't get the message then it's not a big enough issue.

I was aware of it some time ago through following the Flaming Lips. The culmination of that headdress argument was such that Kliph Scurlock left the band and Wayne Coyne posted a picture of a dog wearing a headdress.

[whisty]

It's a good thing for the avian community.