Baby Teepees are like, totally, in.

The newest accessory for your already perfect nursery? A tipi of course! Eagle-eyed readers Andrea, Laura, and Mieko spotted these "adorable" tipi's all over tumblr last week. Most of the pictures are from Design Chic, and here's how the author sets up a slew of tipi-pics:

Grown-up or child, we all need a little bit of space that is all ours. Last week, I was looking for the perfect gift for my nephew's two-year-old birthday. I wanted to give him a cute tent to put in the yard, but Mom suggested a teepee instead. What a perfect gift! He loves it, learned a great, new, easy-to-pronounce vocabulary word, and, most important, it looks adorable in the house but can go outside at any time. Definitely a winning combination.  These teepees are not only the perfect place for a child's imagination to run wild, but also add a whimsical design touch to the room (or yard). We hope you love them as much as we do!

Um, yeah. I laughed out loud at Julia's commentary on her tumblr (she blogs at A'allure Garconniere as well), and I really don't think I can say it any better:

Teepees are great because they are whimsical! (as opposed to tents, those are just boring) teepees are great because it’s a new, simple, easy to pronounce vocabulary word for a two year old! (because “tent” is just so overly complicated). teepees are great, because as a rich white privileged person, they allow me to relegate western plains native people to this archaic, whimsical, historical vestige of the past, instead of confronting my nation’s history of colonization and acknowledging native people’s lives and ways of living as complex and multifaceted. this new teepee trend is just so great, because now expensive design companies can make a buck by selling western plains native iconography as playtime places for kids in the suburbs!

I’m so happy incorporating teepees into my home decor allow my child the opportunity to erase my nation’s history of violence and cultural genocide by encouraging his imagination run wild about the ways he, too, can be cultural appropriative when he grows up. 

Love it! Whenever I post about tipi's, like when I talked about the Glastonbury music festival in the UK last year, I tend to get push back. "It's just a tent!" people say. "We're not allowed to appreciate Native technology?" they protest. My problem is that the tipis I see and the discussions around them always seem to involve some level of fantasy play, you're not just hanging out in a tent that looks like a tipi. At the music festival it was adding to the whole free-rugged-in-nature-wild-thing athestic, these kid-tipis are encouraging "playing Indian" in the most literal way possible. I don't know if you can have an innocent usage, because I feel like no matter what there's a fetishization of "how Indians lived before"--and it continues the stereotypes that we all live/lived in tipis. I don't know. I'll ruminate as we look at a bazillion more pictures:

All of these are from Design Chic, and there are more on the post, if you need them. So what do you think? Cultural appropriation? Cringe-worthy? Should we just be glad the benevolent design bloggers have deemed us cool for a minute? Should I fly into a uncontrollable rage? NATIVE HULK TEEPEE SMASH!!

(Thanks Andrea, Laura, Meiko, and Julia!)

But Why Can't I Wear a Hipster Headdress?

(image from http://www.facebook.com/iamhowlingwolf, which is an entire post in itself. geez.)

I've posted a lot about the phenomenon that is the hipster headdress (see here, here, and here), but I've never really broken it down as to why this trend is so annoying and effed up. A lot of this will be review and is repeated elsewhere on the site, but I thought it was high time I pulled things together into a one-stop-anti-headdress shop. Much of this can also apply to any of the "tribal trends" I feature here, and you can also consider this a follow up to my "Cultural Appropriation Bingo" post. The many sources I drew from are included at the end of this post.

So why can't I wear it? 

• Headdresses promote stereotyping of Native cultures.
The image of a warbonnet and warpaint wearing Indian is one that has been created and perpetuated by Hollywood  and only bears minimal resemblance to traditional regalia of Plains tribes. It furthers the stereotype that Native peoples are one monolithic culture, when in fact there are 500+ distinct tribes with their own cultures. It also places Native people in the historic past, as something that cannot exist in modern society. We don't walk around in ceremonial attire everyday, but we still exist and are still Native.

• Headdresses, feathers, and warbonnets have deep spiritual significance.
  The wearing of feathers and warbonnets in Native communities is not a fashion choice. Eagle feathers are presented as symbols of honor and respect and have to be earned. Some communities give them to children when they become adults through special ceremonies, others present the feathers as a way of commemorating an act or event of deep significance. Warbonnets especially are reserved for respected figures of power. The other issue is that warbonnets are reserved for men in Native communities, and nearly all of these pictures show women sporting the headdresses. I can't read it as an act of feminism or subverting the patriarchal society, it's an act of utter disrespect for the origins of the practice. (see my post on sweatlodges for more on the misinterpretation of the role of women). This is just as bad as running around in a pope hat and a bikini, or a Sikh turban cause it's "cute".  

• It's just like wearing blackface.
  "Playing Indian" has a long history in the United States, all the way back to those original tea partiers in Boston, and in no way is it better than minstral shows or dressing up in blackface. You are pretending to be a race that you are not, and are drawing upon stereotypes to do so. Like my first point said, you're collapsing distinct cultures, and in doing so, you're asserting your power over them. Which leads me to the next issue.

• There is a history of genocide and colonialism involved that continues today.
  By the sheer fact that you live in the United States you are benefiting from the history of genocide and continued colonialism of Native peoples. That land you're standing on? Indian land. Taken illegally so your ancestor who came to the US could buy it and live off it, gaining valuable capital (both monetary and cultural) that passed down through the generations to you. Have I benefited as well, given I was raised in a white, suburban community? yes. absolutely. but by dismissing and minimizing the continued subordination and oppression of Natives in the US by donning your headdress, you are contributing to the culture of power that continues the cycle today.

But I don't mean it in that way, I just think it's cute!

• Well hopefully I've illuminated that there's more at play here than just a "cute" fashion choice. Sorry for taking away your ignorance defense. 

But I consider it honoring to Native Americans!

• I think that this cartoon is a proper answer, but I'll add that having a drunken girl wearing a headdress and a bikini dancing at an outdoor concert does not honor me. I remember reading somewhere that it was also "honoring the fine craftsmanship of Native Americans". Those costume shop chicken feather headdresses aren't honoring Native craftsmanship. And you will be very hard pressed to find a Native artist who is closely tied to their community making headdresses for sale. See the point about their sacredness and significance.

I'm just wearing it because it's "ironic"!

• I'm all for irony. Finger mustaches, PBR, kanye glasses, old timey facial hair, 80's spandex--fine, funny, a bit over-played, but ironic, I guess. Appropriating someone's culture and cavorting around town in your skinny jeans with a feathered headdress, moccasins, and turquoise jewelry in an attempt to be ‘counterculture’? Not ironic. If you’re okay with being a walking representative of 500+ years of colonialism and racism, or don’t mind perpetuating the stereotypes that we as Native people have been fighting against for just as long, by all means, go for it. But by embracing the current tribal trends you aren’t asserting yourself as an individual, you are situating yourself in a culture of power that continues to oppress Native peoples in the US. And really, if everyone is doing it, doesn't that take away from the irony? am I missing the point on the irony? maybe. how is this even ironic? I'm starting to confuse myself. but it's still not a defense.

Stop getting so defensive, it's seriously just fashion!

• Did you read anything I just wrote? It's not "just" fashion. There is a lot more at play here. This is a matter of power and who has the right to represent my culture. (I also enjoy asking myself questions that elicit snarky answers.) 

What about the bigger issues in Indian Country? Poverty, suicide rates, lack of resources, disease, etc? Aren't those more important that hipster headdresses?

• Yes, absolutely. But, I'll paraphrase Jess Yee in this post, and say these are very real issues and challenges in our communities, but when the only images of Natives that Americans see are incorrect, and place Natives in the historic past, it erases our current presence, and makes it impossible for the current issues to exist in the collective American consciousness. Our cultures and lives are something that only exist in movies or in the past, not today. So it's a cycle, and in order to break that cycle, we need to question and interrogate the stereotypes and images that erase our current presence--while we simultaneously tackle the pressing issues in Indian Country. They're closely linked, and at least this is a place to start.   

Well then, Miss Cultural Appropriation Police, what CAN I wear?

• If you choose to wear something Native, buy it from a Native. There are federal laws that protect Native artists and craftspeople who make genuine jewelry, art, etc. (see info here about The Indian Arts and Crafts Act). Anything you buy should have a label that says "Indian made" or "Native made". Talk to the artist. find out where they're from. Be diligent. Don't go out in a full "costume". It's ok to have on some beaded earrings or a turquoise ring, but don't march down the street wearing a feather, with loaded on jewelry, and a ribbon shirt. Ask yourself: if you ran into a Native person, would you feel embarrassed or feel the need to justify yourself? As commenter Bree pointed out, it's ok to own a shirt with kimono sleeves, but you wouldn't go out wearing full kabuki makeup to a bar. Just take a minute to question your sartorial choices before you go out.       

...and an editorial comment:  I should also note that I have absolutely nothing against hipsters. In fact, some would argue I have hipster-leaning tendencies. In my former San Francisco life, had been known to have a drink or two in the clouds of smoke outside at Zeitgeist, and enjoyed shopping on Haight street. I enjoy drinking PBR out of the can when I go to the dive bars near my apartment where I throw darts and talk about sticking it to 'The Man'. I own several fringed hipster scarves, more than one pair of ironic fake ray-ban wayfarers, and two plaid button downs. I'm also not trying to stereotype and say that all hipsters do/wear the above, just like not every hipster thinks it's cool to wear a headdress. So, I don't hate hipsters, I hate ignorance and cultural appropriation. There is a difference. Just thought I should clear that up.

This manifesto draws heavily from these awesome posts:

A l'allure garçonnière: The Critical Fashion Lovers (basic) guide to Cultural Appropriation

Threadbared: LINKAGE: The Feather In Your “Native” Cap
Racialicious: Some Basic Racist Ideas and Some Rebuttals & Why We Exist
GSU Signal: Mockery of Native heritage only perpetuates Native issues

Bitch Magazine: Ke$ha and the ongoing cultural appropriation and sexualization of Native women
Bitch Magazine/Racialicious: On Hipster/Hippies and Native Culture

Cultural Appropriation Bingo: proving your comments are unoriginal and ignorant

 (made by Livejournal user Elusis)

On all the fantastic articles on cultural appropriation that have been making the rounds these past couple of days (Threadbared has a awesome round up here, I definitely recommend a look), the comments are getting heated. People are getting defensive, people are throwing the "omg it's just fashion, get over it!" card, and people are getting downright nasty. I think the worst offenders so far have come on Jessica Yee's post over at Bitch Magazine--I couldn't even make it through the whole comment thread I was so angry.



a couple of highlights:

Oh please.
This is like saying its not cool to eat pizza unless you're Italian. Or only the French can drink champagne. Learn to share your heritage. Stop holding on so tightly.
My ancestors weren't even around before the 1900's. They didn't kill your ancestors. Get over it.

ugh. I get that one a lot. and my new favorite response (thanks jezebel) "Dear anonymous commenter, YOUR WHITE PRIVILEGE IS SHOWING."  By the sheer fact that you live in the United States you are benefiting from the history of genocide and continued colonialism of Native peoples. That land you're standing on? Indian land. Taken illegally so your ancestor who came in the 1900's could buy it and live off it, gaining valuable capital (both monetary and cultural) that passed down through the generations to you. Have I benefited as well, given I was raised in a white, suburban community? yes. absolutely. but by dismissing and minimizing the continued subordination and oppression of Natives in the US, you are contributing to the culture of power that continues the cycle today. This could be a whole post in itself, so I'll stop there.

..ok, you know what? I'm not even going to post any others. These people aren't worth it. head over to the thread if you really want to read it. The article is here.

I'm proud of Jess. Her points are things that bother me everyday. She has every right to be angry, and she doesn't need to apologize for her article, her tone, or her points. It's a voice that needs to be heard. 

So why am I posting this? Not only to point out the ignorance of commenters on the internet, we all knew that already, but to point out how cliched and cyclical this conversation is. That awesome bingo card? made at least a year ago. This, sadly, isn't new. These arguments continue to be brought up, and marginalized voices speaking out continue to be dismissed.

That's why I'm so glad there have been so many articles out on the internet, even in the few months since I started this project. It seems like the issue is being raised again and again, and the word is getting out. But how outrageous and offensive does it have to get before people stop and take notice? Rolling on the floor in a sacred war bonnet on national television (looking at you Ke$ha)? giving yourself a fake "Indian" name for the sake of publicity (that's you Speidi)? Mocking religious practices and calling them "Bro Therapy" (thanks Details)?

It's not ok. It's just not.

So go ahead, pick an article, any article, and head over armed with your brand new "Cultural Appropriation Bingo Card". Believe me, you'll be a winner in no time.



Threadbared roundup: http://iheartthreadbared.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/linkage-the-feather-in-your-native-cap/

Jessica's Bitch Magazine article: http://bitchmagazine.org/post/to-the-hipstershippies-on-native-culture-%E2%80%93-please-stop-annoying-the-fuck-out-of-me

Sweat Lodges Part II: No, you can't. Here's why.

AK note: This is Part II in discussing sweat lodges and non-Natives. For Part I and background,click here.

After that long lead in, lets break it down into some of the major issues at play here. I feel like I'm treading in a bit of dangerous water here, because admittedly sweats have not been a part of my spiritual tradition. If anyone has corrections or comments, please let me know, and know that it is not my intention to generalize, stereotype, or offend.

Sweat lodges are sacred. plain and simple. Not every tribe in the Americas has a tradition of sweat lodges, but many do. Each tribe has different origin stories surrounding the ceremonies and songs--hear that? songs, not chants!(one of my pet peeves)--that go along with them, so it is impossible for me to write a concise history. But realize that these ceremonies, when performed in their traditional cultural contexts, are religious practices. Equivalent to something, like, say, the act of receiving communion for Catholics (not an exact comparison, but work with me). Even non-Catholics respect the role of a priest and his position, and would never wander around selling "communion ceremonies" out of a backyard or garage, and moreover, people wouldn't think that participating in one of these ceremonies was a replacement for the real thing.

Why, again, is it ok to appropriate sacred traditions from Native peoples?



There are many directions I could go with this discussion--the commodification of cultural practices (ie there are many "legit" Natives who sell their services as medicine men and women or lead sweats for money) , the fact that these men (and jezebel women) are participating in dangerous practices that when not understood or performed correctly can result in death and injury (see this case from Arizona last year where 4 people died in a sweat run by a white new-ager), or the fact that these non-Native "shamans" are making $500 an hour on an appropriated (well, stolen, really) practice while Natives live in some of the poorest communities in the US. All valid issues. But, for sake of space, I'll focus on the Macho Man/oppressed women narrative.

Assumption One: Participating in a sweat is a way to "prove" your manliness, push yourself to the limit, put on a show of bravado

No. Again, I can't speak for all tribes, but from my understanding, it is the exact opposite. A sweat is a time to be humble, not assert your strength. This description from a book written by a non-Native, called "The Lakota Ritual of the Sweat" (you can read part of it online here) shows just how unimportant machismo is to the process--though I hesitate to post it because I can't vouch for the accuracy or if the community is ok with the publication:

(I hope I'm not violating like 1200 copyright laws with that). Note the lines "This was not an endurance contest", "insisted he was not worthy", "repeatedly stated that he was poor, humble, and nothing". Does this sound like the description from Details? not so much.


Assumption Two: Not allowing women who are menstruating into the sweat is a sign of patriarchy and sexism and is rooted in a deep disrespect of women.

No. Again, it is completely the opposite. Barbara Omaha, White Earth Ojibwe, says of the practice:

During her Moon time, a woman is going through her own natural purification process. While her body is going through this natural purification, she is also recharging her own body's powers and energies, so it is a cleansing and restorative time for her. Because a woman's power is being renewed during this process, she must stay away from all sacred ceremonies...A woman's power during her moon time is so strong that it can draw the power away from the sacred Sweat Lodge, Sundance, and Pipe ceremonies. Her power during this time can interfere with the power in the Sacred Pipe, Eagle Feathers, and the food offered for the feasts following ceremony.

Women cannot participate not because they are "unclean" or as a sign of male power, it is because women have so much inherent power that they can interfere with the ceremony. Omaha also notes:

Men do not have their own natural purification and renewal process, therefore they must come to the Sweat Lodge ceremony for purification.

So, Jezebel women, it's not a sign of disrespect, it's a sign of ultimate respect. That's the case with many practices outsiders deem sexist towards women in Native communities--standing outside the drum circle, for example--come out of a place of a deep understanding of the power and role of women in our communities.

In sum, cultural sensitivity: ur doin it rong.

For a great documentary on the subject, check out "White Shamans and Plastic Medicine Men", which is actually on youtube, in three parts (but it appears part 3 is missing). Watch it. Inform yourself. Part 1 below:



(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCLmT_M-qtk)

Article on deaths in Arizona sweat lodges:  http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/religionandtheology/1906/new_age_tragedy_in_sedona:_non-indians_in_the_sweat_lodge__/

Earlier: http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/2010/04/sweat-lodges-bro-therapy-part-i-summary.html

Details article: http://www.details.com/style-advice/grooming-and-health/201005/sweat-lodges-enlightenment-health-detox?currentPage=1

Jezebel article: http://jezebel.com/5517139/sweat-lodges-the-therapy-of-choice-for-bros

Mardi Gras Indians: can cultural appropriation occur on the margins?

(image via http://library.duke.edu)

Last week, the New York Times published a really interesting article concerning Mardi Gras Indians, specifically looking at the possibility of  the "Indians" copyrighting their costumes so their images can't be used in things like calendars, promotional materials, etc, without their consent. I'll get to that issue in a second post, but I think the entire concept of Mardi Gras Indians deserves a deeper look.

Let's look at the 'culture' of the Mardi Gras Indians, independent of history and context (something the anthropologist in me cringes at, but work with me), then we'll backtrack a bit.

These men and women call themselves "Indians." They are members of "tribes," with names like "Yellow Pocahontas," "Geronimo Hunters," and "Flaming Arrows" (a complete list of the tribes is here). They wear over-the-top, elaborate costumes based (very) loosely on American Indian powwow regalia--with headdresses, feathers, and beading (there is a slideshow on nytimes.com that can be found here):

(image via nytimes.com)

They have an anthem called "Indian Red" whose lyrics include:

I've got a Big Chief, Big Chief, Big Chief of the Nation

Wild, wild creation

He won't bow down, down on the ground

Oh how I love to hear him call Indian Red

When I throw my net in the river

I will take only what I need

Just enough for me and my lover

Objectively, out of context, this is by-definition cultural appropriation. Imagine if these were white men and women. I should be offended...right?

But it's complicated. The history of Mardi Gras Indians comes out of a history of shared oppression and marginality between the Black and Native residents, or some stories point to a desire to honor Native communities who took in escaped slaves. Wikipedia (again, the academic cringes, ha.) notes, of the history:

Mardi Gras Indians have been parading in New Orleans at least since the mid-19th century, possibly before. The tradition was said to have originated from an affinity between Africans and Indians as minorities within the dominant culture, and blacks' circumventing some of the worst racial segregation; laws by representing themselves as Indians. There is also the story that the tradition began as an African American tribute to American Indians who helped runaway slaves.

I still see some problems with that, the "honoring" argument is what many proponents of Indian mascots use, but what it boils down to, for me, is the question:

Can one marginalized group appropriate another?

Inherent in the concept of cultural appropriation is the notion of power. The group in power takes cultural aspects of a subordinate community out of context and uses them how they see fit. These Mardi Gras Indians are African American, and arguably at the lowest economic strata of society (the nytimes article talks about copyrighting as a means to recoup money for these performers). They are by no means in a position of power over Native communities in Louisiana or elsewhere. The Mardi Gras Indian culture does not appear to come out of a desire to "play Indian", and in many ways, it has moved outside of the realm of cultural appropriation into a distinct culture and community of it's own. But above all, it seems the history comes not out of a relationship of power, but out of a shared position of marginality and discrimination.

So, in this sense, I find it hard to write my usual rant on an insensitive appropriation of Native culture, but, on the other hand, it still makes me uncomfortable.

Thoughts?

(thanks for sticking with me, I know that was a long one)

Nytimes article: In New Orleans, Getting Serious Over Suits: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/us/24orleans.html

NYtimes slideshow: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/03/24/us/0324ORLEANS_index.html?ref=us

Wikipedia on Mardi Gras Indians: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mardi_Gras_Indians

(Thanks MK, Sees, and Kimball!)

Appropriations at the Boston Museum of Science

This past weekend I took a trip to the Boston Museum of Science to see the Harry Potter Exhibition (which was amazing and awesome and anyone who is a fan should go see it...but I digress), and since our tickets got us into the rest of the museum, we wandered around the galleries a bit. I didn't even have my Cultural Insensitivity Radar (I should trademark that) on, because I figured "science" would be a safe zone, right?

Apparently not. The above image is a diorama on the second floor, not in the context of an exhibit, in fact kind of just stuck in a hallway. It depicts a "Hopi Indian Village," and is about six inches away from a diorama of an "African Watering Hole".  In addition to the diorama, there was also an interesting display in another part of the about migration and genetics with some eyebrow raising use of graphics and language, and a couple of other small things.

After the jump, more images of the dioramas, as well as the analysis of the migration and genetics display.


(all images can be clicked for a bigger version)

This is a close(r) up of the interior of the diorama

Even closer. They are performing a "Snake Dance" according to the didactic panel. Are any Pubelos/Hopi's able to verify the accuracy?

One last close-up

 

Sorry for the photo quality (I really need to get a better camera if I'm going to keep doing this blog!) but the most interesting and disheartening part of this descriptive panel was the pervasive past tense. Apparently Hopi's and the Snake Dance are not something alive and continuing today, according to the museum. 

This was the neighboring display, the African Watering Hole. These were the only two dioramas, and it is interesting to note that this one does not include people. So animals in Africa=Natives in US? It's hard to imagine the typical museum visitor would be able to make a distinction between the two. 

This is my friend Jenny showing how close the two displays were to each other, further adding to the idea that they are somehow related, or meant to be viewed on the same plane. 

Next we jump to the Human Body exhibit, which was actually pretty cool--we played with stethoscopes (Jenny couldn't find her heartbeat and thought she was dead), found out which of our eyes were dominant, weighed ourselves to find out how much blood we had (Jenny would die first in a knife fight, I have more blood), and then there was this display:

"Mapping People in Native (Indigenous) Populations." I'm glad they used the Native/Indigenous distinction, though it got to be a little overkill to see the parentheses in every sentence. The point of the display was to examine the roles of migration and genetics in human evolution...I think. But they throw "culture" in there too.

This is the side panel. "Most of us no longer live in the same place or cultural group as our great-great-great-great-grandparents." Um, actually, a lot of us Natives (Indigenous) do. Well, at least those of us who weren't forcibly removed from our homelands.

 

This was kinda a cool graphic showing levels of lactose intolerance (the other side had the Americas). There was also a map talking about a certain bitter chemical that only certain indigenous populations can taste.

But then there was this:

Skin color in Native (Indigenous) Populations.

That's the Americas side. 

We decided Jenny was some sort of Asian. But in this photo I guess she could be North African too. 

How they describe Skin Color to the kids. (click for bigger image)

We REALLY wanted to find a volunteer to ask these questions. I'd love to hear the talking points that they give volunteers, especially on "How does skin color affect us today?" are they actually trained to start a discussion on race and racism with children? 

Finally, this cave art was on the wall above the display. 

I do think it is an interesting display, and I liked the images about lactose intolerance, but I don't know, it just felt a little wrong, and very "otherizing"--like these "Native (Indigenous) Populations" have evolved away into "modern" humans, and are not like "you" (the visitor) at all. 

Then as we were leaving, we stepped into the exhibit on human reproduction. Since we didn't think we needed the lesson (ayye) we left, but not before seeing this:

Guess what? Indians have babies! Totally reminds me of the scene of Simba's birth from Lion King:

haha.

This is the larger context of the display, a "cross-cultural" depiction of birth--and I just noticed, of fatherhood in particular. Interesting!

So that's it for the whirlwind tour of the Boston Museum of Science. Museums in particular have such a complicated and upsetting history with Indigenous Peoples, and it's weird to see that a museum focused on "science" (not Natural History, or Archeology, or Anthropology) can still have so many instances of cultural appropriation.