Glastonbury Festival bans sale of Native American-style headdresses

[kerplunk]

Mate, I am entitled to back myself when you making comments like "highlighting my ignorance nicely"! You poked me and I poked you back.

I am not ignorant, and I am not even someone who is saying that the ban of this head dress is all political madness...I am sympathetic to the Native American people, but my point is that there are many others who, given the voice, may be upset to see their own cultural image being mocked in fancy dress. I don't understand why one is banned, but not the others?

Peace and Love man!

The difference is sombreros aren't given to mexicans as a mark of honour like a medal - do you not see some difference there? If they were you would probably have heard mexicans complaining about it

remind me when mexicans were repressed, marginalised and victims of genocide?

I sincerely hope you are not referring to the aztecs because guess what, aztecs didnt wear sombreros. Or speak spanish, wear ponchos or have black bushy moustaches.

But hey, keep making your lazy stereotypes as it highlights your ignorance nicely.

Is it about the unhappy history of the american indians though or the fact that (unlike sombreros) head-dresses are given as a mark of honour like a medal? I would suggest it's more about the latter.

American indians aren't complaining about the wearing of moccassin shoes, although I note in one of the articles somebody linked to they point at tipis at festivals as part of the problem which seems to be missing the point as much as you with your focus on the history of oppression.

Edited October 15, 2014 by kerplunk

[sjseabass]

The difference is sombreros aren't given to mexicans as a mark of honour like a medal - do you not see some difference there? If they were you would probably have heard mexicans complaining about it

Yes. Keep making this point. All the opponents are missing this.

[Barefooted_raver]

The difference is sombreros aren't given to mexicans as a mark of honour like a medal - do you not see some difference there? If they were you would probably have heard mexicans complaining about it

Is it about the unhappy history of the american indians though or the fact that (unlike sombreros) head-dresses are given as a mark of honour like a medal? I would suggest it's more about the latter.

I'm not too sure that the protest against the head dress is purely in relation to the image of their 'mark of honour medal' being abused. The main leader in this petition raised further issues like below:

“There has long been consensus among indigenous civil rights activists in North America about the wearing of headdresses by non-Natives – that it is an offensive and disrespectful form of cultural appropriation, that it homogenises diverse indigenous peoples, and that it perpetuates damaging, archaic and racist stereotypes.”

These happen to be people who have been massively hurt through years of oppression; and I guess the final insult to them is to see people on the other side of the world (often unintentionally) mocking their traditional dress. People who haven't faced such hardship arguably may not take as much offence when their own traditional dress is used; eg. Germans and the lederhosen! Scots and the kilt.

The point I was trying to make was that if it is offensive to one group of people, you would need to keep an eye on whether the other costumes you are selling are potentially offensive to other groups.

[Barefooted_raver]

But I concede that the Sombrero is not a 'medal' type traditional dress. But one that would be equally insulting/ provocative to the traditional bearers to, say for example, set on fire!

[siblin]

No. For a start, one chooses to be a police officer, not to be a member of a particular set of cultures. So conceptually it's completely different.

In my experience I'd say that the majority of people who join the police do so to join a particular culture. However, that's another discussion from this one.

And also one does choose their culture to a point, unlike their race.

Part of me kind of understands the issue, but at the same time part of me wants to say you can't ban something simply because someone says its offensive. Whats the limit? is it simply a case of numbers? Could I arbitrarily say I find someone from another continent (say asia) wearing George by ASDA t-shirts offensive?

Like I say I'm very torn on the issue, but one thing i'm certain of, if there is an argument for their being banned its not the "They've not earned the right" issue. You could ban pretend crowns, wearing of national football shirts, judges wigs, public service uniforms (police, fire, medical etc), mock up religious cloth etc. Last year i wore a caveman outfit but never actually wrestled a mammoth for its fur.

There might be an argument due to oppression (like blacking up), but this is such a hard subject. Blacking up isn't offensive in itself, its the history of mockery that goes with it. Theres some question about whether the child who darkened his skin as an homage to his favourite footballer was racist (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/01/el-hadji-diouf-blacked-up_n_2392365.html). It certainly wasn't done with racist intent, and the child in question had no idea of the subtext (and apparently neither did his father)

[5co77ie]

we don't actually know for certain what Glastonbury's motives are for banning their sale, there's been no official announcement - they also ban the sale of mobile phone chargers - but then EE do the charging. And clothing with Glastonbury written on them - but sell their own T-shirts.

Perhaps they'll be selling their own Glastonbury feathered headwear?

[The Nal]

we don't actually know for certain what Glastonbury's motives are for banning their sale, there's been no official announcement - they also ban the sale of mobile phone chargers - but then EE do the charging. And clothing with Glastonbury written on them - but sell their own T-shirts.

Perhaps they'll be selling their own Glastonbury feathered headwear?

They just added them to the things traders can't sell "without prior authorisation".

So technically we could still have a native American headgear stall that sells phone chargers, booze, fags and mags.

[Matt42]

I'd much rather they had these signs at the gates

"Don't wear bindis you fucking indie bastards".

[dentalplan]

I'd much rather they had these signs at the gates

"Don't wear bindis you fucking indie bastards".

That's much the same as wearing a crucifix and not being a practicing Christian. Not the same at all. Also I hope you don't actually categorise people as 'indies' Matt.

[dentalplan]

.

Edited October 15, 2014 by dentalplan

[windy_miller]

I'm a bit confused by this. I have a Native American headdress that was bought for me as a present. I am 99% certain that it was bought on an Indian reservation in the US.

If Native Americans are upset about people wearing headdresses, why are they selling them themselves? I suspect that this all came about by someone being offended on behalf of Native Americans.

[A Guy Called Matt]

I'm a bit confused by this. I have a Native American headdress that was bought for me as a present. I am 99% certain that it was bought on an Indian reservation in the US.

If Native Americans are upset about people wearing headdresses, why are they selling them themselves? I suspect that this all came about by someone being offended on behalf of Native Americans.

I am offended by the use of purple space invaders and BBC cartoon characters who make flour

[Matt42]

That's much the same as wearing a crucifix and not being a practicing Christian. Not the same at all. Also I hope you don't actually categorise people as 'indies' Matt.

I don't, but I really protest against this 'bindi fashion statement' that has emerged.

[kerplunk]

I'm not too sure that the protest against the head dress is purely in relation to the image of their 'mark of honour medal' being abused. The main leader in this petition raised further issues like below:

“There has long been consensus among indigenous civil rights activists in North America about the wearing of headdresses by non-Natives – that it is an offensive and disrespectful form of cultural appropriation, that it homogenises diverse indigenous peoples, and that it perpetuates damaging, archaic and racist stereotypes.”

These happen to be people who have been massively hurt through years of oppression; and I guess the final insult to them is to see people on the other side of the world (often unintentionally) mocking their traditional dress. People who haven't faced such hardship arguably may not take as much offence when their own traditional dress is used; eg. Germans and the lederhosen! Scots and the kilt.

The point I was trying to make was that if it is offensive to one group of people, you would need to keep an eye on whether the other costumes you are selling are potentially offensive to other groups.

Well it's the earned 'mark of honour' aspect that's the strongest argument to my mind.

I'd also suggest that people wearing head-dresses as adornment at a festival on the other side of the world probably isn't the 'final insult' to native americans - white americans wearing them in america should get that one

Edited October 15, 2014 by kerplunk

[eFestivals]

I guess that white geezers with dreadlocks* should send their tickets back.

Shangri-la will be quiet.

(* true Rastafarians excluded, of course)

[UEF]

I guess that white geezers with dreadlocks* should send their tickets back.

Shangri-la will be quiet.

(* true Rastafarians excluded, of course)

Not only that, who would man the stalls in the green fields?!

[dentalplan]

I don't, but I really protest against this 'bindi fashion statement' that has emerged.

Is it a statement? Why is wearing a bindi bad? It's developed into a mostly fashion thing in Indian culture anyway so why can't it be in Western culture? It'd be like if loads of Native Americans walked around in headdresses then chastising non-Native Americans for wearing them. Edited October 15, 2014 by dentalplan

[Winslow Leach]

I guess that white geezers with dreadlocks* should send their tickets back.

Shangri-la will be quiet.

(* true Rastafarians excluded, of course)

Nah, of all the SE corner areas this year, Shangri La seemed the one most filled with the Pyramid camping, Mumford & Sons, Jack Wills crowd.

Or maybe it was just the busiest and I noticed more of them.

[The 38 year old virgin]

I'm getting deja vu here.

Wasn't this discussed at length a while ago?

[jeffie]

remind me when mexicans were repressed, marginalised and victims of genocide?

I sincerely hope you are not referring to the aztecs because guess what, aztecs didnt wear sombreros. Or speak spanish, wear ponchos or have black bushy moustaches.

But hey, keep making your lazy stereotypes as it highlights your ignorance nicely.

Russy, go and read some mexican history before you make your big statements.....

I forget how fast these blasted forums move

Edited October 15, 2014 by jeffie

[guypjfreak]

bloody stupid .........

[The Nal]

I'm a bit confused by this. I have a Native American headdress that was bought for me as a present. I am 99% certain that it was bought on an Indian reservation in the US.

Yes indeed. Loads of reservations sell them directly. And other "sacred" items too.

Heres a rather fetching traditional war bonnet for $185 from the Lakota Tribe. Available to anyone.

But I guess this lad from the West Midlands knows better.

Edited October 15, 2014 by The Nal

[davefrompompey]

I'm a bit confused by this. I have a Native American headdress that was bought for me as a present. I am 99% certain that it was bought on an Indian reservation in the US.

If Native Americans are upset about people wearing headdresses, why are they selling them themselves? I suspect that this all came about by someone being offended on behalf of Native Americans.

Who's they? Some native americans might choose to sell versions of their own cultural artefacts (I'd guess not ones that would attach to a particular social importance) but should that be a justification for people unconnected with their culture appropriating those artefacts? I don't think so.

[russycarps]

I'm a bit confused by this. I have a Native American headdress that was bought for me as a present. I am 99% certain that it was bought on an Indian reservation in the US.

If Native Americans are upset about people wearing headdresses, why are they selling them themselves? I suspect that this all came about by someone being offended on behalf of Native Americans.

There are over 500 different tribes. North America is massive. It's not likely that they would all have identical views

[guypjfreak]

Yes indeed. Loads of reservations sell them directly. And other "sacred" items too.

Heres a rather fetching traditional war bonnet for $185 from the Lakota Tribe. Available to anyone.

But I guess this lad from the West Midlands knows better.

you cant have it both ways if they dont like it far enough [ but i think banning it is OTT ] but dont then go and sell it to tourist who may just end up at some strange festi wearing it .................and does this mean the kids cant play cowboys and Indians any more ..............................................