Many years ago, back when I was a wee sophomore in college, my roommate Charlotte stumbled upon this poem in the streets of San Francisco. I've had it on my computer ever since, and I love it.
This blog is filled with negative images, instances of racism and ignorance that erase our current existence--but this image is the opposite. I like to picture the busy residents of San Francisco scurrying through their everyday lives, heads down, eyes lowered, and pausing--for even a moment--to read the poem. Reading the mix of recognizable references combined with contemporary Native identity, and realizing, for one second, that Native people might live in their very city, and questioning the preconceived notions they hold.
I love the temporary nature of the project, and the anonymity. I think it lends to it's power. The poem is a fleeting moment, not meant to be permanent--guerrilla art in a rare Native form.
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:
2. The text: "Katy Perry looks a sight for squaw eyes"? and she could have "doubled for Pocahontas"?
3. Her pose: please tell me she's acting demure and not war-whooping?
4. The photo caption: "How girl"?
The Sun managed to wrap four of the most egregious and horrible stereotypes into one little post. So, first of all, of course there's the mention of Pocahontas, the only female Indian that anyone seems to know. Then, the use of the absolutely demeaning and offensive word "squaw" (read this article if you want/need more background on the term). Then, her pose, doing the stereotypical war whoop that is characteristic of almost any bad western movie or any non-Native attempting to do an "Indian dance". Finally, the caption. Because we all know that every Native in the US greets each other with a solemn face and says "How." Sigh. This is just a mess.
Can we play a little imagination game and think of this with Katy in an African-inspired dress? would that fly at all?
Can you believe it's been almost 3 months since I first grappled with "The Strange Case of the Hipster Headdress?" Since then, I've definitely been shocked by just how much the trend has invaded indie/hipster culture, as well as more mainstream outlets (like Ke$ha on American Idol). Two weeks ago, the Coachella music festival was held in the desert of Southern California, and it seems like the go-to outfit of choice for attendees (and even some performers) included the now ubiquitous headdress. Abundant evidence below:
A commenter on the Coachella.com forum asks: "Why was every other douchebag at this year's festival dressed in a colorful Native American Feather Headress with neon paint all over their bodies?"
Twitter user krishaleanne tweeted, the day before coachella: "packed for coachella. but still needed: an indian headdress, more confetti, light-up toys . . .oh and a ticket to coachella."
Then there was Icelandic artist Jonsi, who performed his set in a full-on warbonnet-type thing:
These are by no means exhaustive, there was a ridiculous amount of material to draw from. I just wanted to use this post to point out how prevalent it was, but look for a follow up that will offer a primer on just why and how this trend is harmful, hurtful, and effed up.
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.
My friend Sam spotted this skirt at Gap Kids/Baby Gap, which seems to be inspired by a Native Plains-style star quilt. If you're unfamiliar with the tradition of quilt-making in Native communities, here are a couple examples:
I hesitate to call this an outright "appropriation" because I know I will get push back--"quilts aren't 'traditionally' Native!"... "Other people besides Natives make star quilts!" "how can you lay claim to a quilt design?!" "It's called a 'chevron skirt'--it's just diamonds!". But anyone who is familiar with the history and ongoing tradition of star quilt making (and giving) in Indian Country (especially in Lakota/Dakota communities) might think otherwise.
To start, quilting was brought to tribal communities by missionaries, but was quickly adapted to reflect designs that had adorned clothing and dwellings for centuries. For plains communities, one such design was the eight pointed star. These quilts have been around for a long time, as demonstrated by this photo of Chief Red Cloud's wife, taken in the late 1800's (look at the bed):
The quilts still hold deep significance in Indian Country, they are often given as symbols of honor, celebration, or thanks--at powwows, at basketball tournaments, at graduations, at baby showers, you name it. Like this picture of Kyle Langstaff, who received a quilt from his parents in honor of scoring 1000 career basketball points (they even made it in his school colors):
So, for me, the baby gap dress represents a little more than just a cool design. I would venture to guess that most people wouldn't associate the dress automatically with Natives, but I think it offers an interesting case to bring up the line of appropriation/inspiration and what crosses the line. Would I say this crosses the line? probably not. But I like to make people think about the images they see in everyday life, and this is an example of a product most people would walk by without thinking about any deeper significance.
here's a picture of the dress in real life:
and the ad on the homepage of gap.com (I will say those are some adorable kiddies):
Tipster Lucia pointed me to this backyard "tepee" from Design Within Reach. It retails for $2,200, and is made by "Dave Ellis, who spent 10 years working in the canvas business before creating his own line of tents and tepees in 1982."
Here's the screenshot of the page (click for a bigger version):
The description reads:
Tepee
For adventurers of all ages, the classic Tepee (2008) is a simple solution for spending time outdoors with minimal impact on the surrounding landscape. This one was crafted for DWR Tools for Living by Dave Ellis, who spent 10 years working in the canvas business before creating his own line of tents and tepees in 1982. We chose his work because of his quality materials and construction that provides proper ventilation, flame resistance and reinforced stress points. What’s also unique about this design is the sewn-in floor liner that allows proper air flow, while ensuring that nothing accidentally leaves or enters the Tepee. This floor also makes it easier to see where the poles should be placed when building the Tepee. The floor liner is not waterproof, which Ellis did on purpose since material that breathes won’t kill the grass underneath. The exterior canvas is tightly woven, preshrunk 100% cotton Army Duck that’s finished with a Sunforger baked-in process to make the canvas mildew resistant and water repellent. Campfire songs and ghost stories not included.
"Campfire songs and ghost stories not included." At least it didn't say "war paint and headdresses not included"? Also note it's categorized under "Tepee--Outdoors--Play--Accessories". Look, they even offer "location" shots so you can see how it will look next to your expensive mid-century modern patio furniture:
or when you decide to lug it to a fake desert movie set:
look at that comforting glow. ha. This is definitely for a very specific demographic--it's a very small portion of America that can afford to spend $2200 on a backyard tent. Is there even a market for this?
Welcome to a new feature--The Ridiculously Maddening Quote of the Day! Today's inaugural quote comes to us from James Cameron, director and screenwriter of Avatar (maybe you've heard of him?).
Quote comes from this article, talking about his activism and involvement with indigenous peoples in Brazil:
"I felt like I was 130 years back in time watching what the Lakota Sioux might have been saying at a point when they were being pushed and they were being killed and they were being asked to displace and they were being given some form of compensation," he said. "This was a driving force for me in the writing of Avatar– I couldn't help but think that if they [the Lakota Sioux] had had a time-window and they could see the future… and they could see their kids committing suicide at the highest suicide rates in the nation… because they were hopeless and they were a dead-end society – which is what is happening now – they would have fought a lot harder."
Wow, James Cameron. Wow. So, the contemporary Lakota are "hopeless" and a "dead-end society"? and the generations of fighting against colonialism and continued oppression weren't and aren't fighting hard enough? Talk about ignorance. He makes it seem like the Lakota just rolled over and let their land be taken away. Couldn't be further from the truth.
Ugh. So hear that Natives? We should have just fought harder, and the state of our Native nations would be different. right.
I'm about to let some of my major dorkiness show. Well friends, I have a confession to make. I, Adrienne K, am an unabashed Hanson fan. Yes, THAT Hanson. Of mmmbop fame. I've been a fan since I was 8 and I saw them at a county fair in Tulsa, and continue to be a loyal follower of their new music (which is actually really good!). The best birthday present I recieved in recent memory was a set of tickets to see their show in San Francisco for my 22nd birthday. So, yes, I am a nerd.
Anyway, I posted the random appropriation from their newest music video above. Did you miss the it? don't worry, I made it more explicit below:
See it now? haha. Also, obviously, that's not Hanson in the shot. It's their band. But the big 'ol cigar store Indian is in the background of most of the "studio" shots throughout. Their video is catchy and pretty good, and I think I might be the only one who caught the Indian in there--but I thought I would share.
And, if you're curious as to what the Hanson bros look like now:
all grown up! And that's Weird Al in the red pants, if you were curious about that too.
I've come across some awesome blog posts in response to the Jezebel piece (found here) on Native fashion that Lisa at Sociological Images pulled together with images from this blog. The comment thread on the piece was really interesting, with people debating what should be deemed "ok" what is "offensive" and some just telling us all to STFU. I thought I would share a couple of the responses here. (If anyone knows of any others, please let me know)
" I have heard a lot of arguments that there are way more important things we could be debating instead of cultural appropriation; that native people themselves don't give a shit if a severely intoxicated white hipster decides to tattoo pocahontas on his leg or if some magazine decides their next nude photoshoot should feature blonde women wearing headdresses. who knows! maybe the jingle dress will be the next hot thing in haute couture, but it doesn't impact the quality of life of the people who make, wear and perform in those dresses.
my response to this is clear and simple; i don't think the issue of institutional racism and discrimination can be completely divorced from the question of cultural appropration. they feed into one another. one would not exist (at least not in the same way) without the other. if we lived in a culture that acknowledged the fact that most of us live on stolen land in north america and that recognized native people as complex, diverse, intelligent people without romanticizing or glamourizing them, i'd like to think that it would put an end to these sorts of reductive stereotypes popping up in fashion, film, music scenes. reducing an entire culture to a simple "inspiration" for your outfit, art project, fashion collection, or photoshoot is disrespectful and unhelpful, especially when we look at the bigger picture."
And later she addresses what many of the Jezebel commenters were struggling with--what is ok to wear and what isn't?
the biggest problem with the concept of cultural appropriation, in my opinion, is that it doesn't set out any explicit black and white rules for people to follow. as you can see based on the comments on jezebel, people are genuinely confused as to what the "right thing" to do in these situations are, and there's nothing wrong with that. you can't get answers if you aren't asking questions. my advice in these situations is largely about context, intention, and education.
She was able to put into words many of the issues I was struggling with after reading the comment chain. great stuff.
Another post came from Molly at the University of Michigan Arts Ink blog, entitled "The Hipster Headdress: A Fashion Faux Pas." The post itself is great, but I really appreciated the back-and-forth she posted in the comments between her and some facebook friends. It's really enlightening and says a lot:
Friend 3: …great opinionated synopsis molly, really like your writing style and i agree with the feathered headdress as a stupid hipster clique. Although to be honest, I sometimes wear a feather in my hair (completely in humble respect to the Native Americans)…a modest little decorative item once in awhile.
Molly: I think moccasins are items of comfort – though I realize there are “designer moccasins” out there selling for hundreds of dollars. You don’t put on a headdress because you lost your baseball cap. They’re not practical or comfortable. Plus, you can wear moccasins and walk down the street, go to a party, and nobody would really notice. I don’t know why people wear headdresses around, but whether or not it’s their intention – they get attention. I realize throwing in that P.S. is rather hypocritical regardless, but perhaps the note’d make more sense taking into account that Native Americans, at powwows, posts, what have you, might sell moccasins or dream catchers or other crafts – but you never see them selling headdresses (unless for ceremonial purposes, I suppose, but I’ve never seen a headdress for sale personally, at least). I found a hawk feather and wore it around for a little while. I don’t think single feathers are offensive, though I know that’s again flirting with contradiction. It’s like the difference between wearing some green eyeshadow or painting your entire body green. Also, I’m not insinuating that anyone who enjoys wearing headdresses occasionally is absolutely void of morals. I’m just not a fan.
Thanks to both of you for keeping the conversation going, I'm just so glad these issues are being discussed in the blog-o-sphere after remaining off the map for so long. Keep up the good work!
Virtue B. sent over these smurf figurines from her recent trip to New York. They were posed to look like they were acting out a scene from a movie with cowboys and Indians.
This guy's wearing a buffalo headdress and leggings/loin cloth combo
While this guy's got an angry expression, some war paint, and a feathered spear. (see the smurf with the boom mike and headphones in the back?)
Note the mid-war whoop pose on that center one.
The thing about these little figurines is, I have one. My friend Scott has them in his office (he's Native). The associate director of the Native program at my school has some. I can only speak for myself, but I bought the one I have (he's in a canoe) because I thought it was hilarious and should be so offensive, but, it's a smurf, so you can't help but smile. Sometimes you just have to laugh at the ridiculousness, because I find it tiring to be angry all the time. By buying the figurine I realize I play into the stereotyping and mis-appropriation, but at the same time having it in my room as something ironic and silly makes me feel I have more power over it. It's a give and take. :)
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:
AK note: Thank you all so much for the love and positive feedback I've gotten in the last few days. It's so exciting and humbling that this project I thought wouldn't go outside of my family and a few friends has taken really taken off. I'm so appreciative of the support and so glad these issues are getting out there!
So, I had another post all ready to go for today, but then logged onto Jezebel this morning and saw this post entitled: "Sweat Lodges: The Therapy of Choice for Bros", and decided that after the comment thread on the post about tribal fashion yesterday (here) I should say something.
The Jez post is based on an article in Details concerning a new "trend" towards successful, macho, business men participating in "sweat lodge" ceremonies for renewal and cleansing purposes. The Details article is pretty bad overall, though I feel like the tone is a little mocking towards these "bros", so that's good (?). First of all, the title of the post is "The Hottest (and Most Dangerous) New Trend in Therapy". They then describe Durek Verret, a former model and self-described "healer" who looks "more like a hipster than a healer":
Verrett works out of a converted garage next to the laundry room in his home. Between chants, you can hear the dryer churning. On a makeshift altar on the wall behind him, he has placed a beeswax statue of a rotund woman he calls Mama, a cylinder of sea salt, an empty wine bottle, and a dried pomegranate...Verrett charges $500 an hour for these sessions and sees about 25 clients a week.
and describe a "healing session":
Verrett—the son of a Norwegian medicine woman and the grandson of a Haitian shaman—starts by summoning Hale's spirit guides, asking them to enter the young man's body, which is reclined on a massage table. "We now begin to unprogram all of the fears he has in his relationships," he says. "He's running from love. He uses these fears to block him from experiencing women the way he needs to." Verrett moves his hand in the air above Hale's body like a magician set on making something vanish. As Hale shakes and flops, the healer yells, "Now, spirits! More, spirits!"
This reads like a parody of a new-age healer. Working out of a garage? makeshift altar? summoning "spirit guides"? but it gets worse:
In the garage in Silver Lake, after some chanting in Greek and Italian, he closes the session by rubbing lemongrass on Hale's chest to clear his mind and sprinkling sea salt on him for protection.
Chanting in Greek and Italian? rubbing him with lemongrass and sea salt? a Jezebel commenter pointed out that it sounds more like he was preparing him for dinner than summoning spirits.
The second half of the article describes a group of men who participate in "sweat lodges," which are described by the author as "macho bonding experiences":
A fixture in Native American culture, sweat lodges were embraced by men's groups in the sixties and again in the nineties as macho bonding experiences, hearty cures for the emasculating upheaval of the women's-liberation and political-correctness movements. Today they're mostly seen as dangerous.
These men in the article sit in a sweat lodge in a backyard that is adorned with elk antlers and a disco ball "just for fun" and participate in primal screams during the final round of the sweat. One man mentions he found his "spirit animal" during a sweat in Alaska--he now calls himself "Summer Fox" in his prayers to the "Great Spirit". gag me.
Anna, the author of the Jezebel post, had this to say as her closing:
And before I rag on the middle-aged white dudes in Schaefer's article for appropriating Native American traditions to solve their decidedly white-dude problems, I should confess that I too once signed up for a sweat. But I couldn't go. Because I was menstruating. True story.
She had an opportunity to address the inherent issues with the idea of white bros and white "shamans" appropriating spiritual practices, but instead the comments turned to swapping stories of sweat lodge experiences and disdain over the fact that menstruating women weren't allowed into Anna's sweat.
Some of the Jezebel comments:
"I used to do a sweatlodge with my all female feminist women's group in my hometown, all were welcome, no matter the time of the month. It was actually amazing. We'd sweat and meditate and then run out buck naked and jump in the river. Young, old, skinny, fat, and we'd just dance or howl or sit quietly. It was great. And we always called the sweat lodge "the womb" so take that Macho Man!"
and
Sweat Lodge culture is very weird place for women. I once had to do a sweat lodge ceremony when I was dating the future Mr. Tusk (his godfather was WAY into it) and I was asked in front of a large group of strangers (and my boyfriends parents!) if I was menstruating!! I was told that if I was, I had to go and sit in the other tent by myself and I couldn't participate. Needless to say, I'm a bit jaded on sweat lodges and their lodgers.
and
I did a sweat lodge once. My friend was doing a rotation in holistic-style medicine and one of her teaches had a lodge in her backyard. A Native American man led the experience with the appropriate chanting and so on. I have to say, it was an incredible experience. I did not expect to be affected the way I was.
All I have to say is: YOU'VE GOT IT ALL WRONG!! There are so many assumptions and inaccuracies in this discussion, I don't even know where to start. This is already the longest post ever, so I'm splitting it into two. Part II immediately to follow.
art tattoo designs are very painful and I think what is being drilled into the body, if you have decided on the coast KOI tattoo design on your body, and you, but fear the pain that you do KOI tattoo design the coast with less pain. We will tell the body part we make a perfect style, and lower costs KOI tattoo design. The party helps him endure the pain unbearable.
Well there is a different part of body of men and women as well, which is painful. Try to avoid the painful areas, such as abdominal, chest and back, and in particular human being should be able to manage these areas. Women should not penetrate the thoracic spine and ankle tattoo. Tattoo can be an interesting and less painful hand and back to male. Women may be the most glamorous and less KOI has ribs tattoo design on the belly, thighs, shoulders and buttocks. Profile of work affects the body part visible tattoo, so it must be taken into consideration before bidding.
This Cross tattoo designs are very popular tattoo design among users. This tattoo designs of the Cross means that many tribal culture, spirituality, religion, crucifixion and many other compounds. Cross tattoo designs that you can get a lot of truths, as the Celtic cross, cross war memorial and more. A drawing of the Celtic cross is a rich and vibrant green color and very similar to an emerald. This tattoo design Cross-users use of any part of the body, but usually use this place where they show everyone. War recall the crosses are very popular with service men. We see faith and religion.
Some tattoos most beloved that can be selected for back tattoos are formed by black ink and dark, are seen through the usual tattoo tribal designs. Thanks to the design, which is formed with a dark color and is close in.
