NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Also with regard to religious things of any sort, lets not forget the big picture. Namely:



And the religions of oppressed people are getting a temporary pass because the people are oppressed. Not because their religions are religions.

Actually this is where Dawkins is full of shit, and a bigot. It's is also an observation that ignores,data and therefore profoundly unscientific in itself.
As an example, the Koran specifically states the principle of observation, various hadiths stress scholarly value, and it's Golden age was responsible for great scientific progress. Lets not forget Nasir al-Din al-Tusi who through the thirteenth century observatories was first to challenge Ptolemy's notion of static earth, Ibn al-Haytham who pioneered the scientific method, and Al Jahiz wrote "The Sruggle for Existence" a thousand years before Darwin.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Actually this is where Dawkins is full of shit, and a bigot. It's is also an observation that ignores,data and therefore profoundly unscientific in itself.
As an example, the Koran specifically states the principle of observation, various hadiths stress scholarly value, and it's Golden age was responsible for great scientific progress. Lets not forget Nasir al-Din al-Tusi who through the thirteenth century observatories was first to challenge Ptolemy's notion of static earth, Ibn al-Haytham who pioneered the scientific method, and Al Janis wrote "The Sruggle for Existence" a thousand years before Darwin.

We all know about that but as long as there is a God involved your examples are woefully insufficient.

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
Actually this is where Dawkins is full of shit, and a bigot.

Also I'm done with this thread as well for this reason.

So you may continue to call my thought processes full of shit and bigoted at your leisure.

Enjoy

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:

Select Models wrote:
Good question... maybe asking HIM would provide you the answer...

Not only was it in this thread it was just a few posts back.

Figures JenB wrote:
Considering that the Cherokee didn't historically have headdresses, (until roadside shows that is,) I'm sure it is not relevant to her personally unless making a tongue in cheek slight sort of Native humor to roadshide Cherokee in full Plains Tribal regalia.

Now, that is good Indian humor!!
She is a riot and I'll bet her grandma has a huge chuckle!
Jen

Actually it rather appears that the Cherokee began wearing warbonnets in the nineteenth century, as did several tribes relocated. They appropriated them from plains neighbours it would appear Just as they had turbans from the original visits to Britain. They also appropriated the spinning wheel, and lets not forget the plains Indians who were responsible for the most famous cultural appropriation of all time: the horse.

NothingIsRealButTheGirl wrote:
Also I'm done with this thread as well for this reason.

So you may continue to call my thought processes full of shit and bigoted at your leisure.

Enjoy

I didn't say yours were. Just Dawkins statement. And have proved it.


I also question how you are prepared to defend an artefact for being sacred on one hand, yet attack religion on the other. Using belief in the supernatural to defend appropriation then attacking it appears contradictory.

I'd say the peoples of oppressed cultures should be far more concerned about such a 'bigger picture' of intolerance of belief structures.
The painting of a picture that scientists are against religion is also a fallacious one. Many scientists , and particularly anthropologists,and geographers, are opposed to the 'fundamentalism' of the new atheism and have pointed out it's unscientific basis. Scott Atran has been fiercely involved on such debate with Harris and pointed out the lack of data for his assertions.  Higgs (as in Bosin) is the latest
http://theday.co.uk/science/science-her … campaigner


Thankfully some scientists, especially in my field, bringing it back on topic, are far more respectful of indigenous beliefs as scientific observation crouched in supernatural terms and are interfacing with it.

https://minerva-access.unimelb.edu.au/h … 1343/39421

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mmichie/interfacing.html

http://www.carc.org/pubs/v20no1/inuit.htm

Eliza C  new portfolio wrote:
I'd say the peoples of oppressed cultures should be far more concerned about such a 'bigger picture' of intolerance of belief structures.

Furthermore..., talking about and getting up in arms about headdresses is almost an insult and skirting the issues...

I think that most of the tribal councils are much more concerned about the economics, crime, poverty and health situations on tribal land.

AFAIK... poverty, extremely high unemployment, desperation, alcoholism, rape and other violent crimes are a serious, paralyzing issue.

The states in which casinos are allowed on tribal land are often run by a handful of people with just enough trace amount of native blood to be card carrying Natives..., and despite the super high profits from those gambling enterprises... NOTHING of the earnings flow back into the reservations.

There is an ethnic genocide still going on, no support, no infra structure etc... and people ignore those real issues that are life threatening to the existence of those communities, but... they feel good about themselves when they can fight the good fight against cultural appropriation...

You really want to fight injustice happening to the Native Americans/First Nations... it's not happening on the runway... it's happening on the reservation in shags with no running water, caused by racism and broken treaties...

Real issues!

udor wrote:

Furthermore..., talking about and getting up in arms about headdresses is almost an insult and skirting the issues...

I think that most of the tribal councils are much more concerned about the economic, crime, poverty and health situations on tribal land.

AFAIK... poverty, extremely high unemployment, desperation, alcoholism, rape and other violent crimes are a serious issue.

The states in which casinos are allowed on tribal land are often run by a handful of people with just enough trace amount of native blood to be card carrying Natives..., and despite the super high profits from those gambling enterprises... NOTHING of the earnings flow back into the reservations.

There is an ethnic genocide still going on, no support, no infra structure etc... and people ignore those real issues that are life threatening to the existence of those communities, but... they feel good about themselves when they can fight the good fight against cultural appropriation...

You really want to fight injustice happening to the Native Americans/First Nations... it's not happening on the runway... it's happening on the reservation in shags with no running water, caused by racism and broken treaties...

Real issues!

+1000

udor wrote:
I am not a Shintoist, but my beliefs are nature based... as found in all shamanic traditions, such as Shinto...

Now... would you please send an email to Japan and let those Shintoist below, know that you googled their religion and that they do not know how to interpret their religion properly, which, btw., not only co-exists but is often practiced parallel to Buddhism, Shingon and some other practices. Furthermore... Shinto is not really structured, like, let's say Catholicism.







Btw., if you take a look why tattoos came up, it was a question  by NBG, how Japanese people feel about my tattoo in relations to "appropriation" ...

My guess is that you have inadvertently posted pictures of Yakuza participating in a Shinto ( edit ) event

Edit - I found the confirmation that one of the images You have posted is indeed a shot of Yakuza participating in such

http://factsanddetails.com/japan/cat26/ … m2302.html

I understand that many Yakuza identify themselves as Shinto -similar to how the Italian Mafia identify themselves as Catholic

udor wrote:
I am not a Shintoist, but my beliefs are nature based... ...

You are neither Japanese or a Shintoist but have chosen to cover your body with tattoos drawn from Shinto mythology .

You know what that sounds like to me .....

udor wrote:
Furthermore...

CENSORED

Real issues!

No Doubt Udor - but the real question I have for you with respect to what you wrote is

What makes you think that you can stray so far off the topic being discussed and into obvious soap box territory

Are you trying to get this thread locked ?

Garry k wrote:
My guess is that you have inadvertently posted pictures of Yakuza participating in a Shinto ceremony - similar to this photo of the Takahashi Gumi Crime Syndicate participating in the Shinto Asakusa Sanja Festival

[ img]http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/144886918-members-of-the-japanese-yakuza-takahashi-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=Z0zsWpN2ukUDXYqF4boPJY4aujaLat0edYqHxxMEMpBUmIGGpBM3zvcYJdnMpTV2goWRvSBf2c7V%2f0EyHD0cXA%3d%3d[/img]

I understand that many Yakuza identify themselves as Shinto -similar to how the Italian Mafia identify themselves as Catholic

Garry... are you arguing just for arguments sake...?

The more you google without understanding what you are reading and the context... the more I have to start to explain things to you... and the circle will widen even more.

Yakuza will come and participate in the Sanja Matsuri, no doubt... but, despite your "research" not everybody who is wearing horimono is Yakuza... there are a good number of tattoo aficionados in all walks of life who are tattooed in the traditional style, but will never show it in public. At the matsuri in Asakusa (I got tattooed in Asakusa, by Horicho), all regular people with tattoos come out.

When I was at Horicho's Tattoo Museum (his studio was upstairs) he showed me photos of politicians and other officials that he himself tattooed, or other tattooed notables who keep this private.

I am part of this community too long, I know too many Japanese tattoo artists who tattoo in the traditional style, who I have conversations and friendships with... I know Mr. Shimada from the Japanese Tattoo Institute, since the late 1990's, and I have done research on Japanese tattoos since the early 1990's. 

I really don't want to continue to explain to you what your google results mean!

udor wrote:

Garry... are you arguing just for arguments sake...?

The more you google without understanding what you are reading and the context... the more I have to start to explain things to you... and the circle will widen even more.

Yakuza will come and participate in the Sanja Matsuri, no doubt... but, despite your "research" not everybody who is wearing horimono is Yakuza... there are a good number of tattoo aficionados in all walks of life who are tattooed in the traditional style, but will never show it in public. At the matsuri in Asakusa (I got tattooed in Asakusa, by Horicho), all regular people with tattoos come out.

When I was at Horicho's Tattoo Museum (his studio was upstairs) he showed me photos of politicians and other officials that he himself tattooed, or other tattooed notables who keep this private.

I am part of this community too long, I know too many Japanese tattoo artists who tattoo in the traditional style, who I have conversations and friendships with... I know Mr. Shimada from the Japanese Tattoo Institute, since the late 1990's, and I have done research on Japanese tattoos since the early 1990's. 

I really don't want to continue to explain to you what your google results mean!

Some people use Google just to find the answers that they want.  They really don't know how to do research.

Garry k wrote:
You are neither Japanese or a Shintoist but have chosen to cover your body with tattoos drawn from Shinto mythology .

You know what that sounds like to me .....

I don't care what it sounds like to you... you will probably never understand.

Just a little example... I practiced Ninjutsu since 1983 (other martial arts since 1972)... on my back is the teaching scene, based on a woodblock print by Kuniyoshi titled: "Tsukahara Bokuden receives divine instruction by the mysterious Yamabushi Tengu Enkai of Haguro Mountain".

So... not only have I been a life long mountain climber and hiker... I am also a lifelong martial artist. The Yamabush Tengu are hybrid creatures (Shinto) between human mountain warrior monks (Yamabushi) and crows who are considered the inventors of ninjutsu... and... well... they live in the mountains.

As a ninjutsu practitioner and climber and hiker... the character of the yamabushi tengu, teaching a famous samurai fits perfectly with the path my life has taken even before I hit my teenage years.

So... the motifs are part of my upbringing..., traditional Japanese tattoo artists, one of them a famous master, put it on my body... no Japanese person ever had a problem with my tattoos... but... there you are, insinuating appropriation as the lone defender of an issue that is non-existent.



P.S.: Ever enjoyed sushi and sashimi using hashi (chop sticks)?

udor wrote:
Furthermore...

CENSORED

Real issues!

Nice... you finally were able to "censor" me, right!   

Garry k wrote:
What makes you think that you can stray so far off the topic being discussed and into obvious soap box territory

Are you trying to get this thread locked ?

Nothing in my post had to be censored, especially not in a discussion about Native Appropriation and it's implications. What I said is not SB territory, or you have to delete this kind of discussions.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Some people use Google just to find the answers that they want.  They really don't know how to do research.

Sad truth! 

I am out... wasted too much time already...

Select Models wrote:
Oh sure they didn't... here's a Cherokee Chief wearing a war bonnet very similar to Lexi's grandma's... image almost 60 years old...

http://theucn.proboards.com/thread/114

Are you any part  Cherokee? I am.

And I studied Native American Studies at University.

just because you can find a a photograph of a "Chief" after the relocation of the Cherokee nation on the internet does make it true that full war bonnets were worn by the Cherokees.

Maybe after they were moved to reservations in the Southwest and were forced to do whatever as a means of economic survival.

http://www.native-languages.org/headdresses.htm

Here is a better link discussing the mis-attribution of the Feathered warbonnet.

Also a woman  -- even a woman chief would never wear a war bonnet.
" In the 1800's, Native American men from other tribes sometimes began to wear Plains-style warbonnets. Partially this was because of the American tourist industry, which expected Native Americans to look a certain way. Partially it was because many Native American tribes were forced to move to Oklahoma and other Indian territories during this time in history, so tribes that used to live far apart began adopting customs from their new neighbors. In most cases, the feather warbonnet did not have the same significance among the new tribes that adopted it. For them, wearing a feathered headdress was a matter of fashion or a general symbol of authority. But for the Plains Indian tribes, feather warbonnets were a sacred display of a man's honor and courage, and each feather told a story. Eagle feathers are still sometimes awarded to Plains Indians who serve in the military or do other brave deeds today"

sweetcheekscouture wrote:
[...]so tribes that used to live far apart began adopting customs from their new neighbors. In most cases, the feather warbonnet did not have the same significance among the new tribes that adopted it. For them, wearing a feathered headdress was a matter of fashion or a general symbol of authority. But for the Plains Indian tribes, feather warbonnets were a sacred display of a man's honor and courage, and each feather told a story. Eagle feathers are still sometimes awarded to Plains Indians who serve in the military or do other brave deeds today"

Thank you so much for your input, Sweetcheeks! 

So, after this quote above... showing that some tribes literally appropriated the customs or dresses from other tribes, sometimes for fashion, or tourism... what is your opinion on war bonnets on the runway and in fashion in general?

udor wrote:
Thank you so much for your input, Sweetcheeks! 

So, after this quote above... showing that some tribes literally appropriated the customs or dresses from other tribes, sometimes for fashion, or tourism... what is your opinion on war bonnets on the runway and in fashion in general?

I also question the idea about the warbonnet has the meaning it did now as it did then. The feathers were earned for battle deeds I believe. Women shouldn't therefore wear them? Well actually the men now who haven't earned them in battle shouldn't wear them either then? And they shouldn't be sold as decor either. I can't see that doing native American craftsmen any favours.

I also think the feathers used awarded for battle success were eagle feathers. They bestowed the magical powers of the eagle on the warrior.
They are not now eagle feathers are they? So has it in fact lost this meaning?

udor wrote:

Thank you so much for your input, Sweetcheeks! 

So, after this quote above... showing that some tribes literally appropriated the customs or dresses from other tribes, sometimes for fashion, or tourism... what is your opinion on war bonnets on the runway and in fashion in general?

I think every culture has appropriated from each other. I don't care but then again I don't believe I am a high enough percentage to count.

I was not raised as a Native American and would identify as Caucasian -- the only real exposure I had was to may grandfather who taught me a few songs in Iroquois.

I think there are more important issues to concern ourselves with in regards to Native Americans -- like poverty, alcoholism and drug abuse to name a few.

You can buy a headdress at the Hard Rock cafe in Hollywood ( which is owned by and part of the Seminole Indian Reservation.

The Seminoles also did not wear Plains Indian feathered headdresses like that.

Also to be fair the full feather to the floor is more of a ceremonial headdress -- a full headdress like that would not be worn into battle.

Not very practical.

But I think if you don't want people to wear authentic headdresses that they should stop selling them to non-natives.

sweetcheekscouture wrote:
http://theucn.proboards.com/thread/114

Are you any part  Cherokee? I am.

And I studied Native American Studies at University.

just because you can find a a photograph of a "Chief" after the relocation of the Cherokee nation on the internet does make it true that full war bonnets were worn by the Cherokees.

Maybe after they were moved to reservations in the Southwest and were forced to do whatever as a means of economic survival.

Never claimed to be Cherokee... Lexi's grandma was not a woman chief.  The war bonnet was her grandfathers, passed down to her from her grandmother.  I honestly don't know much about war bonnets.  All I know is it looked very old, well preserved and may have been worth a lot.  There's a photo of her wearing it on page 2.

Select Models wrote:

Never claimed to be Cherokee... Lexi's grandma was not a woman chief.  The war bonnet was her grandfathers, passed down to her from her grandmother.  I honestly don't know much about war bonnets.  All I know is it looked very old, well preserved and may have been worth a lot.  There's a photo of her wearing it on page 2.

No you said she was Cherokee. It's not a Cherokee headdress. Period.

Maybe someone gave it to her ( or as you say passed it down but it ain't a Cherokee headdress.)