Glastonbury Festival bans sale of Native American-style headdresses

[jeffie]

Wasn't the Chinese/Indian swastika the other way round?

[russycarps]

Wasn't the Chinese/Indian swastika the other way round?

you racist bastard

[eFestivals]

Wasn't the Chinese/Indian swastika the other way round?

Indian, and yes it's the other way around.

The existence of it was a total surprise to me in India in 1986. At that point in time i'd never encountered it (or mention of it) in Britain.

[windy_miller]

Religious swastikas can be either way round. The Nazi one is always right facing.

It was also a surprise to me when I went to a Buddhist temple in Hong Kong about 10 years ago. I'd never seen one outside of a Nazi context before.

[fatyeti24]

[5co77ie]

is that Gram Parsons?

[DeanoL]

The difference for me is that native americans continue to be oppressed and marginalised today

That's the core issue to me. That stuff actually happens. So to see campaigning, pressure groups and press coverage wasted on something as trivial as what other people are wearing, while actual nasty stuff goes on, bothers me. The whole thing seems so petty on both sides.

I don't think that's the difference. The difference is that Nazis wouldn't be offended by people dressing up as Nazis but Jews (the people who they oppressed) would.

Yeah that's different. I see why the swastika is offensive, and I can understand why Jews would not want to see it anywhere. It'd be offensive and upsetting. But this is like Jews going "don't wear the swastika, because I find it offensive, but I reserve the right to wear it as a reminder to you of our oppression".

The idea that one race should be allowed to do something, but other races aren't, is to me an inherently racist attitude. If you genuinely believe that all races should be equal, that includes anyone being able to wear anything. Denying someone else the right to wear something based on their race or cultural background feels wrong to me.

That will create some awkward situations, but that's the price of equality.

I'd also note that someone copying an item or symbol that has meaning to you doesn't mean it automatically has the same meaning. It's just an imitation, it's not the actual meaningful thing itself.

[Winslow Leach]

That's the core issue to me. That stuff actually happens. So to see campaigning, pressure groups and press coverage wasted on something as trivial as what other people are wearing, while actual nasty stuff goes on, bothers me. The whole thing seems so petty on both sides.

Improving conditions is a continual uphill battle unless you change attitudes. As long as the popular image of an entire culture is defined entirely by a few cartoon stereotypes and pieces of fancy dress iconography, the very real problems faced by that culture will be largely ignored. These things do matter.

But this is like Jews going "don't wear the swastika, because I find it offensive, but I reserve the right to wear it as a reminder to you of our oppression".

Well not really. That doesn't work as an analogy at all. What it would be like is if the Nazis had started making, selling and wearing fancy dress Kippahs as fashion items at Nuremberg (which is as close to a Nazi version of Glastonbury as I could think of...). Even then I wouldn't use that as a proper analogy, as genuine analogies featuring the Nazis are almost always a bad idea.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Winslow Leach

[UEF]

They won't engage because they've already rejected what people like you or I might say. They have already decided that there's nothing of worth that can be offered by the likes of us.

Would you do the same with anyone you don't consider to be "left wing"?

Edited October 16, 2014 by UEF

[DeanoL]

Improving conditions is a continual uphill battle unless you change attitudes. As long as the popular image of an entire culture is defined entirely by a few cartoon stereotypes and pieces of fancy dress iconography, the very real problems faced by that culture will be largely ignored.

But as long as a culture claims exclusive ownership of that dress, it will always remain a defining visual element. Surely that dress becoming more associated with middle class white girls helps break that stereotype? People are not wearing them to stereotype a culture, they are wearing them because they like the aesthetic.

[UEF]

It's all kicking off now! http://fashionista.com/2014/10/glastonbury-native-american-headdress

[russycarps]

I wonder what tribe Daniel W Round belongs to?

[bocumaroy]

A lot of good stuff in this thread. I can understand why people might be wary of the banning only because it opens a can of worms, in the sense that there are a lot of questionable examples of appropriation that exist which could also be banned. But I also think it’s been established why this is different to all those cases.

The fact that this thread has happened at all is a good thing and makes the ban worthwhile, for me. I just don’t see why anyone would have a problem with it. It’s not like people who wear them are expressing anything. It’s mostly ignorance, which is why it’s important that it’s been addressed. Now at least anyone who is wearing one will have probably had to consider their reasons more, and the significance it holds, rather than just buying one on a whim because it looks a bit zany and everyone else has one. That can only be a good thing.

From a very good article about the human turd hurricane that is the Gamer Gate fiasco:

"Co-opting the language and posture of grievance is how members of a privileged class express their belief that the way they live shouldn't have to change, that their opponents are hypocrites and perhaps even the real oppressors. This is how you get St. Louisans sincerely explaining that Ferguson protestors are the real racists, and how you end up with an organized group of precisely the same video game enthusiasts to whom an entire industry is catering honestly believing that they're an oppressed minority. From this kind of ideological fortification, you can stage absolutely whatever campaigns you deem necessary."

Important.

A lot of the clothes sold at the festival are made using child labour. Lets find them out and ban them. Lets face it, this is actually happening now.

While we're at it, lets ban most of the technology at the festival - screens, speakers etc. And your phones. A lot of that stuff is made in Foxconn which is basically a tech labour camp.

Can’t we try to do both? Just because one thing is more harmful and problematic than another doesn’t mean that we should just ignore the less serious of the two, especially when it’s so easily addressed by a simple ban on selling onsite, like this.

If Native Americans are upset about people wearing headdresses, why are they selling them themselves?

They don’t all have a big meeting and decide what is okay. Not all Native Americans have to agree on everything.

[jeffie]

you racist bastard

Bugger, you got me

[midnight]

That's the core issue to me. That stuff actually happens. So to see campaigning, pressure groups and press coverage wasted on something as trivial as what other people are wearing, while actual nasty stuff goes on, bothers me. The whole thing seems so petty on both sides.

That is exactly what I thought when I first got wind of this debate. I have read lots of stuff about their problems, past and present, and I thought "Haven't they got bigger fish to fry than this one?' But perhaps it's because this is something that could be changed quite easily, and be turned to their advantage, or perhaps there is so little left that they feel they can call their own now, perhaps it's because it creates publicity and they want some for their cause - who knows. What settles it for me is that it is really not that much to ask, and so I'd feel quite silly and stubborn to resist for the sake of the argument.

[Scotdy]

For goodness sake! I would normally support groups of people, if they felt that they were offended by other cultures "stealing" their heritage" etc. However, I have travelled in America (sometimes off the beaten track!) and when you get Native Americans selling replica headresses in the casino's they own, the argument that they don't want non Native Americans to wear them, goes right out of the Window as far as I'm concerned!

This was posted on facebook not by me though.

I have been in two reservation casinos, both sold headdresses. It seems like the people who should have a issue with this, don't...

[DeanoL]

perhaps there is so little left that they feel they can call their own now,

Is there much left that any culture can call it's own though? And is that a bad thing?

It seems self evident to me that we can't have equality and extend special rights to specific cultures and not others. That would include the right to wear a feathered head dress, as inconsequential as it may seem.

[eFestivals]

A lot of good stuff in this thread. I can understand why people might be wary of the banning only because it opens a can of worms, in the sense that there are a lot of questionable examples of appropriation that exist which could also be banned. But I also think it’s been established why this is different to all those cases.

It's not been established for dreadlocks - either real or a wig.

It's an identical situation, but more-so. Dreadlocks are a religious/spiritual/cultural symbol that has been borne directly out of oppression, as opposed to being a existing item from before oppression.

[danbailey80]

I had a bitingly satirical "it's political correctness gone mad" post all good to go.....then someone actually said it. Blimey.

Me too...was gutted, mine was comedy gold. Until today I'd never heard anyone say it without being joking.

[UEF]

How about we all share freely and play nicely instead?

[siblin]

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.

Great post Neil. And for me this is the crux:

"You can't wear feathers because you're not native american", "you can't wear a habit unless you're a nun", "You can't wear white foundation unless you're a goth", "You can't wear a bindi unless you're Hindu", "You can't wear a skullcap because you're not Jewish".

Well what do the words, Goth, Nun, Native American, Hindu and Jewish actually mean? these are arbitrary identities people have chosen (either for themselves or imposed by others). They're not real, and they're not static. If i want to temporarily embrace an aspect of one of these cultures or histories, well, fuck it - I'm an individual, I'll do it!

And pre-empting the argument that the difference is that "Native American" is a race where as "Goth" or "Nun" is not, well thats simply not true. Yes there is a race of native americans and that is separate from native american culture and the head-dress is very much associated with the latter. This is in the same way as you can be ancestrally jewish or religiously jewish and the skull-cap is part of the latter.

If its the culture of "Native american-ness" that would find others wearing the head-dress offensive, well so what? Thats life! everyone is offended. I can't ban americans making jokes about the state of british dentistry and Family Guy depicting us with massive, crooked, decaying teeth - and thats a direct insult (albeit quite a funny one), not someone wearing the same clothes as me! You could argue its insensitive, not funny, or even an outright nasty thing to do and i wont debate it, but its not ban-worthy, and its not against the law.

If its the race of "Native american-ness" that finds thers wearing the head-dress offensive because they are not pure-blood native americans.. well i'm sure i don't need to point out the obvious problem with that argument!

Basically, Racism is quite rightly ban-worthy. Identity mocking/mimicking might be insensitive but if you chose to have an "identity: prepare to have it mimicked, altered, mocked, ridiculed etc. The head-dress classes as part of someones identity/culture not race. It might be insensitive, but deal with it!

[russycarps]

Great post Neil. And for me this is the crux:

"You can't wear feathers because you're not native american", "you can't wear a habit unless you're a nun", "You can't wear white foundation unless you're a goth", "You can't wear a bindi unless you're Hindu", "You can't wear a skullcap because you're not Jewish".

Well what do the words, Goth, Nun, Native American, Hindu and Jewish actually mean? these are arbitrary identities people have chosen (either for themselves or imposed by others). They're not real, and they're not static. If i want to temporarily embrace an aspect of one of these cultures or histories, well, fuck it - I'm an individual, I'll do it!

And pre-empting the argument that the difference is that "Native American" is a race where as "Goth" or "Nun" is not, well thats simply not true. Yes there is a race of native americans and that is separate from native american culture and the head-dress is very much associated with the latter. This is in the same way as you can be ancestrally jewish or religiously jewish and the skull-cap is part of the latter.

If its the culture of "Native american-ness" that would find others wearing the head-dress offensive, well so what? Thats life! everyone is offended. I can't ban americans making jokes about the state of british dentistry and Family Guy depicting us with massive, crooked, decaying teeth - and thats a direct insult (albeit quite a funny one), not someone wearing the same clothes as me! You could argue its insensitive, not funny, or even an outright nasty thing to do and i wont debate it, but its not ban-worthy, and its not against the law.

If its the race of "Native american-ness" that finds thers wearing the head-dress offensive because they are not pure-blood native americans.. well i'm sure i don't need to point out the obvious problem with that argument!

Basically, Racism is quite rightly ban-worthy. Identity mocking/mimicking might be insensitive but if you chose to have an "identity: prepare to have it mimicked, altered, mocked, ridiculed etc. The head-dress classes as part of someones identity/culture not race. It might be insensitive, but deal with it!

they arent banned though.

The point is why, knowing that some people are bothered by it and the reasons behind it, would you still want to wear one?

[The Nal]

The point is why, knowing that some people are bothered by it and the reasons behind it, would you still want to wear one?

Knowing that an iPhone is made by exploiting cheap labour do you still want one or continue to use yours?

[russycarps]

Knowing that an iPhone is made by exploiting cheap labour do you still want one or continue to use yours?

I dont own an iphone.

[siblin]

they arent banned though.

The point is why, knowing that some people are bothered by it and the reasons behind it, would you still want to wear one?

No, I know. I think the thread has gone beyond glastonbury's policy and more to the general ethics. Its about the whole scream of "I'm offended, pander to me!" (Stephen Fry did a good interview where he made some good remarks about this phenomenon, i just can't track it down at the moment).

I have no interest in wearing a head-dress, and yes, the reasons behind it have been explained very well and i understand, and I personally would probably choose not to now. I just don't believe they are good enough reasons to impose bans or restrictions. It's not racism.