Glastonbury Festival bans sale of Native American-style headdresses

[stuartbert two hats]

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 ..............................................

A non-homogeneous group certainly can have it both ways, because it's actually different people with different opinions.

Edited October 15, 2014 by stuartbert two hats

[5co77ie]

Talking of kids, and the blanket ban, reminded me of this

Tell General Howard I know his heart. What he told me before, I have it in my heart. I am tired of fighting. Our Chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Ta Hool Hool Shute is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are - perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my Chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.

Chief Joseph - Thunder Traveling to the Loftier Mountain Heights - 1877. He only died 110 years ago in case anyone thinks this is ancient history.

Edited October 15, 2014 by 5co77ie

[Winslow Leach]

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

Because they're all sold by one Native American bloke, who also makes all the decisions for all the Native Americans.

.................and does this mean the kids cant play cowboys and Indians any more ..............................................

I'd rather the decimation of an entire culture wasn't normalised and even romanticised through the ritualisation of child's play, yes.

[ICGenie]

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

So how do you differentiate between those who are wearing it as a "fashion statement" and those who aren't? Do you have to be brown to wear one?

[scorp]

Is the tipi field cultural appropriation? Should it be banned as it's an amalgamation of many disparate Native American tribe's different cultural artefacts? I.E central North American tipis and northwest North American totem poles? Are you saying they're all the same/all look the same? Can guess the answer to this already: "It's authentic, sweetie, not like those charvs in their headdresses".

Good point. If those head dresses go, those tipis must also. think "wounded knee" and other horrors inflicted on the native american indians. or will they just ban the selling of tipis at the fest. not that you'd likely to come across one for sale on a stall, but i think i've seen a "for sale" notice on a tipi in recent years.

[scorp]

Talking of kids, and the blanket ban, reminded me of this

Tell General Howard I know his heart. What he told me before, I have it in my heart. I am tired of fighting. Our Chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Ta Hool Hool Shute is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are - perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my Chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.

Chief Joseph - Thunder Traveling to the Loftier Mountain Heights - 1877. He only died 110 years ago in case anyone thinks this is ancient history.

very sad indeed. the mention of blankets reminds me of the claim of the dishing out of thousands of blankets to "indians" by the [uS army, I think]. the blankets had been deliberately infected with smallpox...

[midnight]

Talking of kids, and the blanket ban, reminded me of this

Tell General Howard I know his heart. What he told me before, I have it in my heart. I am tired of fighting. Our Chiefs are killed; Looking Glass is dead, Ta Hool Hool Shute is dead. The old men are all dead. It is the young men who say yes or no. He who led on the young men is dead. It is cold, and we have no blankets; the little children are freezing to death. My people, some of them, have run away to the hills, and have no blankets, no food. No one knows where they are - perhaps freezing to death. I want to have time to look for my children, and see how many of them I can find. Maybe I shall find them among the dead. Hear me, my Chiefs! I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more forever.

Chief Joseph - Thunder Traveling to the Loftier Mountain Heights - 1877. He only died 110 years ago in case anyone thinks this is ancient history.

Indeed.

And Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee should be part of the curriculum. For the over 16s. It is a sobering account of what actrocities can be committed and later justified by the historical winners when they defend their interests. It is a chilling example of what people can do to other people if they can be made to believe that the others are lesser human beings, for some reason. And with that kind of history, a population should be entitled to a few sensitivities, particularly one that is as easily accommodated as the request not to wear a certain type of head-dress for fun.

But for lots of reasons, this is a less well known part of history, and I don't think it is at all helpful to call people who are not aware of the background and can't relate it to the debate thick, stupid, ignorant, dickheads and so on. It jst rubs them up the wrong way. I'd also give the vast majority of people who wear the plains native american feather head-dress versions (because this is what it is about, not just some sparklies and feathers randomly arranged) the benefit of the doubt that they do not mean to offend. Some may not care if they do, quite a few would probably say, oh, sorry, and take it off. Ok, perhaps not immediately, as many people don't like being told what to do. Which brings me to the "ban", although it isn't really a ban, and I think that choice of word is unfortunate if the intention really is to stop people wearing these things. Because no-one wants to be told what they can/cannot do. A debate is usually better. A debate where we don't call others fascists or dickheads, preferably.

It's not exactly made headlines on BBC news. Many people don't follow the Flaming Lips, or North American internal politics. Many people who go to festivals don't spend enourmous amounts of their spare time on festival related websites, or reading The Guardian. That doesn't make them idiots. That also doesn't necessarily mean that they really think all Native American peoples wore this attire, that they are all the same, and that they are running around all day in these ceremonial clothes. Though it probably does mean that they are not, or not fully, aware of the significance of the feathered head-dress as something that needs to be earned.

There is a summary here, I am a bit dissappointed with some of the reasoning and assumptions made in the article, but some of the comments below are very similar to what's been going on here today:

http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2014/jul/30/why-the-fashion-headdress-must-be-stopped

Btw, if anyone wants to read about Native American lives but doesn't have the stomach for starting with grim genocide accounts, there are some very good novelists. Louise Erdrich, for instance. She is from the Ojibwa tribe (through her mother) and several of her books are based on her extended family's history. Awful things happened to them, but she puts it in context very well and keeps it tempered with descriptions of daily life and what keeps people going. She also wrote some books on the topic that are for/can be read with children (The Birchbark House, The Game of Silence).

[scorp]

Indeed.

And Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee should be part of the curriculum. For the over 16s. It is a sobering account of what actrocities can be committed and later justified by the historical winners when they defend their interests. It is a chilling example of what people can do to other people if they can be made to believe that the others are lesser human beings, for some reason. And with that kind of history, a population should be entitled to a few sensitivities, particularly one that is as easily accommodated as the request not to wear a certain type of head-dress for fun.

But for lots of reasons, this is a less well known part of history, and I don't think it is at all helpful to call people who are not aware of the background and can't relate it to the debate thick, stupid, ignorant, dickheads and so on. It jst rubs them up the wrong way. I'd also give the vast majority of people who wear the plains native american feather head-dress versions (because this is what it is about, not just some sparklies and feathers randomly arranged) the benefit of the doubt that they do not mean to offend. Some may not care if they do, quite a few would probably say, oh, sorry, and take it off. Ok, perhaps not immediately, as many people don't like being told what to do. Which brings me to the "ban", although it isn't really a ban, and I think that choice of word is unfortunate if the intention really is to stop people wearing these things. Because no-one wants to be told what they can/cannot do. A debate is usually better. A debate where we don't call others fascists or dickheads, preferably.

It's not exactly made headlines on BBC news. Many people don't follow the Flaming Lips, or North American internal politics. Many people who go to festivals don't spend enourmous amounts of their spare time on festival related websites, or reading The Guardian. That doesn't make them idiots. That also doesn't necessarily mean that they really think all Native American peoples wore this attire, that they are all the same, and that they are running around all day in these ceremonial clothes. Though it probably does mean that they are not, or not fully, aware of the significance of the feathered head-dress as something that needs to be earned.

There is a summary here, I am a bit dissappointed with some of the reasoning and assumptions made in the article, but some of the comments below are very similar to what's been going on here today:

http://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2014/jul/30/why-the-fashion-headdress-must-be-stopped

Btw, if anyone wants to read about Native American lives but doesn't have the stomach for starting with grim genocide accounts, there are some very good novelists. Louise Erdrich, for instance. She is from the Ojibwa tribe (through her mother) and several of her books are based on her extended family's history. Awful things happened to them, but she puts it in context very well and keeps it tempered with descriptions of daily life and what keeps people going. She also wrote some books on the topic that are for/can be read with children (The Birchbark House, The Game of Silence).

Good post, midnight. this websitecontains 132 legends, myths and folklore of the native american indians - and more: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/Indian/stories.html

[eFestivals]

and the difference with this is ....?

[5co77ie]

and the difference with this is ....?

Is that real? In my naivety I never realised people wore complete fake dreads like that, I assumed it was just those rasta hats with woollen dreads.

I'm guessing it's real hair it's quite gross to think of that on someone's head! It's certainly not something I'd look at and go cool - probably more than the pretty fashionista headdress.

Have any actual Rastafarians complained about its appropriation? Is there a campaign against the wearing of fake dreadlocks - apart from the one i vaguely remember run by the Daily Mail concerning squatters in the '90s. I guess that's the difference.

[5co77ie]

Good post, midnight. this websitecontains 132 legends, myths and folklore of the native american indians - and more: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/Indian/stories.html

I know some of those, strange that there's no Wampanoag stories - Manitonquat is a great teller of tales - some of them are in this book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wampanoag-Morning-Stories-English-Invasion/dp/1438900104/ (the prison tale is good) another aimed more at kids - http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Children-Morning-Light-Manitonquat/dp/0027659054/

[russycarps]

Have any actual Rastafarians complained about its appropriation? Is there a campaign against the wearing of fake dreadlocks - apart from the one i vaguely remember run by the Daily Mail concerning squatters in the '90s. I guess that's the difference.

Yep. Dreadlocks are a big spiritual deal for various african groups, rastas and indians (hindus I think). In the times of slavery dreadlocks became a symbol of defiance and resistance against their white oppressors.

so to see white hipsters with dreadlocks causes the same ill-feeling as headdresses, for similar reasons I guess: the white oppressor appropriating the oppressed culture as a frivolous fashion statement.

Edited October 16, 2014 by russycarps

[5co77ie]

Yep. Dreadlocks are a big spiritual deal for various african groups, rastas and indians (hindus I think). In the times of slavery dreadlocks became a symbol of defiance and resistance against their white oppressors.

so to see white hipsters with dreadlocks causes the same ill-feeling as headdresses, for similar reasons I guess: the white oppressor appropriating the oppressed culture as a frivolous fashion statement.

Agreed but are they for sale at Glastonbury, and is there a campaign group?

[eFestivals]

Have any actual Rastafarians complained about its appropriation?

Yep. For instance, Solo Bantam did from the stage at Boomtown this year.

Dreads are no less a part of a person's spirituality/identity as a north American head-dress, and in just the same way they've been appropriated as a fashion statement (tho more normally as a semi-permanent one, with real dreads rather than a wig).

But then again, everyone's identity* is built up from a huge number of appropriations from others. We are not the individuals we like to imagine of ourselves.

(* gawd, I hate the 'identity' idea. It's much of the cause of today's fucked up world )

The demand - and often acceptance - of particular things as 'special' actually pans out as being a demand for self-importance, a demand that 'you' are recognised as more-special than other inhabitants of the planet, that 'you' are allowed what others are not.

I'm not pretending to have the answers, tho I don't see that the answers are within a claim of 'special' or an acceptance of that.

[eFestivals]

Agreed but are they for sale at Glastonbury, and is there a campaign group?

Where something might be on sale in a particular place isn't really any part of anything. Either something is fine to sell, or it's not.

Likewise, the same applies to campaign groups; something is either right or wrong without any need of a campaign. Tho it's worth bearing in mind what some have raised within this thread, that 'campaigning' for the opposite of that 'campaign group' are the native Americans who happily sell head-dresses as a trinket. Who can rightfully claim one as right over the other?

Edited October 16, 2014 by eFestivals

[Winslow Leach]

The demand - and often acceptance - of particular things as 'special' actually pans out as being a demand for self-importance, a demand that 'you' are recognised as more-special than other inhabitants of the planet, that 'you' are allowed what others are not.

I'm not pretending to have the answers, tho I don't see that the answers are within a claim of 'special' or an acceptance of that.

Given how some of these groups have been treated historically, the least people could allow them is a little self-importance. At least until they've got up to the rest us in the 'self-important' stakes.

[oneeye]

Bugger!

[russycarps]

Given how some of these groups have been treated historically, the least people could allow them is a little self-importance. At least until they've got up to the rest us in the 'self-important' stakes.

but then are we being a bit patronising here?

"ahh let them have their funny little headdresses"

Maybe we are wrong to give them special treatment.

[Winslow Leach]

but then are we being a bit patronising here?

"ahh let them have their funny little headdresses"

Maybe we are wrong to give them special treatment.

It's not really our place to say at all.

[The Nal]

It's not really our place to say at all.

It is if you live in the West Midlands.

What the native Americans should do is make a load of headgear and sell it to the traders at festivals as authentic. At least they'll make some cash then.

[eFestivals]

Given how some of these groups have been treated historically, the least people could allow them is a little self-importance. At least until they've got up to the rest us in the 'self-important' stakes.

while I certainly don't reject the idea that some groupings need a leg-up, I'm not sure that something as conflicted as this issue within that grouping is an issue to do it around.

It's not really our place to say at all.

Then it's also not our place to accept what 'they' say, because that is also having a say from our place.

Personal choices are aside from that; mass imposition "because we say so" I'm far less comfortable with.

[russycarps]

while I certainly don't reject the idea that some groupings need a leg-up, I'm not sure that something as conflicted as this issue within that grouping is an issue to do it around.

Then it's also not our place to accept what 'they' say, because that is also having a say from our place.

Personal choices are aside from that; mass imposition "because we say so" I'm far less comfortable with.

in fairness they arent banned from the festival, just the traders cant sell them right? This way it isnt heavy handed, but the festival has expressed it's "personal" opinion. I think they've gone about it the right way.

[jeffie]

and does this mean the kids cant play cowboys and Indians any more ..............................................

It's an interesting question. I used to play cowboys and Indians, Japs and Commandos, War! All sorts of games that would be frowned upon now.

But I would hope that those who know me would say that it hasn't stopped me having a keen appreciation and respect for diversity and a total abhorrence of war and the military in all its forms.

[eFestivals]

in fairness they arent banned from the festival, just the traders cant sell them right? This way it isnt heavy handed, but the festival has expressed it's "personal" opinion. I think they've gone about it the right way.

They've certainly gone about it one way. Whether that's the right or wrong way I'm less sure.

As has been raised by many in this thread all of the same things could apply in many other directions too, but are not being applied.

If we take today's common idea that it's wrong to dress up as a Nazi for a fancy-dress party, why are other historical recreations acceptable when there's plenty of badness around some of them too?

Via that route we end up with taboos that there's no logical justifications for in light of other doings, which closes off discussion and thought and considerations. I think these ultimately lead us to a worse place and not a better one.

[5co77ie]

.....but also those full feather war bonnets are more annoying than flags for blocking your view of a band - apart from umbrellas, and signs I can't think of another item in a crowd more irritating.