The Privilege of the Yay Life Tribe

 (screenshot from the Yay Life documentary trailer...not exploiting Native cultures at all, right?)

Someone posted a link to the "Yay Life Tribe" on the Native Appropriations Facebook page a couple of days ago. The "Yay Life Tribe" is the brainchild of a 20-something named Tucker, who got a spirit hood, it changed his life, and then he quit his job to devote all his time to spreading the message of loving life and positivity. The way he plans to do this is through selling Spirit Hoods, having a blog, twitter, and facebook page, and traveling around to music festivals this year where he will spread the gospel (and make a documentary while he's at it).

I spent a fair amount of time that night looking at the facebook page, clicking through fan photos, and watched the trailer to the documentary. When I was done, I shrugged, and thought "I'm all for positivity and loving life. If this is how they want to do it, whatever." I was perturbed at the use of the "tribe" idea--but I'm clearly not going to claim that American Indians are the only people who can use the word. There was also something else that really bothered me about the whole thing, but I couldn't put my finger on it until yesterday.


Yesterday afternoon, I got a comment on my Spirit Hood takedown from the founder of the "Yay Life Tribe" himself, Tucker Gumber:

You guys are amazing. You are taking a product that actually adds happiness to the world and make it come off as some jab at native americans. Spirithoods have changed my life and inspired me to start a movement to get the world to realize that being happy is a decision (one that it seems like many of you on here need to make). Just google Yay Life Tribe to find our Trailer to the documentary we are making. You should also get used to seeing Spirithoods.... this is only the beginning.

I would be honored if you would join our tribe.

Tucker, Chief Of The Yay Life Tribe

I really had to take a step back here, and read the message twice. It's rare these days, when I get constant emails of horrible outright appropriations and stereotypes, that I get a burn of outright rage in my chest. For some reason, this did it.

The bottom line is, The Yay Life Tribe, and Tucker's message, reek of privilege and self-promotion.

Unfortunately, I can't conquer the complexities of power and privilege in this post. What I can do is offer my interpretation of his words, and point out how it makes me feel.

Tucker, perhaps for the first time in his life, has felt the pinch of privilege. All of a sudden, someone tried to burst his bubble--taking something that he is intensely proud of and protective over, and told him that it exploits an entire group of people, and continues to contribute to the oppression and marginalization of Indigenous peoples. That's a lot to handle. So he reacts. He reacts by blaming me for being overly sensitive (a classic tenet of colorblind racism), that I'm "making it come off as some jab at Native Americans." He tells us that we need to "realize that being happy is a decision," and then, in closing, to "get used to seeing Spirit Hoods." He was happy in his land of protected privilege--a land where he had the ability to quit his job, cash out his 401K, and spend the summer traveling to music festivals where he will hang out with others who have the ability to shell out hundreds of dollars for a ticket, and propose that we all love each other, and that somehow will change the world. Who am I to come along and burst his happy bubble? How dare I.

First of all, honey, I didn't "make it come off as a jab at Native Americans". The darn thing is called a "Navajo Black Wolf" hood, and the founder of your beloved Spirit Hoods confirmed that he is "influenced" by Indian "culture." I didn't make that up. I'm really glad that a disembodied animal head changed your life. But for someone who is all about happiness, your message really hurt me. You dismissed my opinion, didn't listen to what I had to say, and basically wrote me off as a party pooper trying to ruin your dream. The tone of saccharine laced with malice is what gets me the most. A "get used to it" threat in closing does not paint you as a peace-loving happy freak.

And then, THEN, you have the audacity to list yourself as the "chief" of your "tribe". I'm sorry. Chiefs of our communities are respected, honored, revered figures--leaders who serve the people, not 25 year olds who run around with stuffed animals on their heads.

The thing is, I honestly don't give a flying eff about your campaign to change the world one drunk music festival goer at a time. But there is absolutely no reason to bring Native cultures into this. Celebrate loving life, talk about how awesome you are for giving away your iphone, promote the hell out of your documentary, paint yourself as a martyr for the cause, gain some of the fame you clearly desire in the process, but why do you have to call yourself a "tribe"? Why do you have to paint yourself up and wear a breastplate? Just wear the animal on your head. Leave it at that. There is nothing that inherently screams cultural appropriation about "Spirit Hoods"--the cultural appropriative and exploitative aspects have all been added on after the fact--and that's what bothers me.

So no, I won't be a member of your "tribe." Sorry. #yaylife?

Oh Spirit Hoods.

Oh Spirit Hoods. One of those fashion trends that makes me pause, cock my head, and say "really??" If you're unfamiliar (meaning you're not one of the 15,000+ people who "like" the brand on facebook), Spirit Hoods are furry animal hat/scarf combos that are all the rage with tweens, celebs, and hipsters alike. I've gotten a few tips recently about the company, particularly their use of the tag-line "join the tribe":

http://spirithoods.com/about-2/

At first, I was annoyed by the tag line, but found the whole concept of wearing an disembodied stuffed animal on your head so ridiculous, figured it wasn't worth the fight. They also don't focus solely on what I would call the stereotypical mystical, Native animals (wolves, bears, deer, buffalo, owls, etc), they have pandas, leopards, and lions as well. But then, I started exploring their site further, and I got a tip about their new "Navajo wolves" line. And boy did I change my mind.
 

The "Navajo Wolves" collection are the wolf hoods, lined in Pendleton-style fabric.

For each "animal" they provide a description of what the "animal spirit" represents--traits and characteristics that the wearer will somehow embody. And the accompanying description for the "Navajo Black Wolf" is just fantastic:

Black Wolf-Navajo
Mysterious » Shapeshifter » Beauty

The black Wolf spirit has unmatched ferocity, cunning, stealth, confidence, and loyalty. They howl at the moon and are great communicators with a strong appreciation of music. This animal spirit feels at home within order and chaos. Often a teacher or dancer with keen senses, these warrior spirits will also defend their ground. The Black Wolf is in touch with lunar influences and the shadow within. This healer brings the magical spirit-medicine.

Deep breath. Ready? Let's looks at this critically. How many stereotypical "Indian" traits can we fit into a short paragraph? So apparently Navajos are described by the terms "mysterious, shapeshifter, beauty"--because we're all like twilight and turn into wolves. Though, it's an interesting reference to skinwalkers too (f you want to be scared s***less, have a Navajo tell you some of those stories. ::shudder::). Then we've got the "warrior spirit" and "brings the magical spirit-medicine"--basically every line of this description reads like a bad Indian fantasy novel. We've got the warrior stereotype, the connected with nature and the environment stereotype, the wise teacher stereotype, the mystical healer stereotype, the musical stereotype...on and on and on. "But," you may be saying, "it's about a wolf, not an Indian, you silly blogger-woman!" I think it's fairly obvious the connection they're trying to make with the Pendleton fabric and calling the darn thing a "NAVAJO" wolf.

So, a few brave Native Approps readers took the issue head-on over at "Kingdom of Style". Look for the comments by "Mea." The fascinating part comes from a comment by the Co-Founder of Spirit Hoods--this is the philosophy of the company, straight from the horse's mouth. Another deep breath may be necessary, and try to read past all of the misspellings and grammar errors:

This is a good topic for discussion, and in fact we at SpiritHoods have taken a lot into consideration when it comes to Native American culture. In no way are we trying to demean or prostitute Native American's, in fact their way of life has been so inspiring to us that it has forced us to evaluate our lives and everything we do within it. For instance us four owners went to a traditional native American sweat lodge out here in California together. If anything we are inspired by native culture and their respect for the land and it's animals, but not just Native American's, native's all over the world.
The animal headdress is seen in many cultures, Alaskan natives, American natives, South American natives, African natives etc. The Spirit of the animal and our connection to it is seen in cultures all over the world and we believe it is innate within us. Hence the importance of Product Blue and why we give back to non-profits that help in the rehabilitation of these animals.
Native American's see this duality and the importance of our co-existence and protecting it. If anything we are trying to help perpetuate that.
We try our very best to respect all people and cultures in everything we do, we are inspired by their designs, their philosophies and what we want to do with SpiritHoods is embrace self expression with a foundation of giving back.
If your interested in more about this topic here is a good read:
http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2010/04/13/american-indian-is-in/
and check out out http://www.spirithoods.com/problue/ to learn more about how we support the animals
Alexander Mendeluk
CO-Founder/Director of Design&PRSpiritHoods www.spirithoods.com/problue

Wow, thank you, Alexander for telling all of us what exactly Native Americans (all of the millions of us) think! and thank you for realizing that there is only one "Native American culture" and that we are all exactly the same! and thank you  for finding our way of life (since we only have one!) "inspiring"--since marginalization, colonization, and ongoing poverty are awesome, right? and thank you for going to a "traditional Native American sweat lodge" so you now have the first-hand experience and knowledge to speak for all of us! and finally, thank you for considering the animals first. I'm glad to know your "foundation of giving back" doesn't extend to the people that your product is so clearly "inspired by"--that would be silly!

Dripping sarcasm aside, I love the irony of him linking the SocImages post that's a summary of my blog. Talk about missing the point.

Honestly though, it's a hard line, because clearly Alexander and Spirit Hoods don't think they're being offensive. They truly believe that going to a "traditional Native American sweat lodge" is enough to force them "to evaluate our lives and everything we do within it," they truly think they are showing respect to Native peoples and cultures. 


So how do we go about addressing something as deep as this? That's a struggle I have with many of these examples--if the owners read this, they are going to get defensive and dismissive, and not actually think deeply about what effects their actions are having on the collective American consciousness about Native peoples. Especially when their products are making them hella cash (each retails for $150) and are all the rage--what motivation do they have to change? So if we can't change the company, let's change from the ground up: Don't buy from Spirit Hoods, because they promote the stereotyping of Native peoples, the appropriation of our tribal names and traditions, encourage the problematic practice of "playing Indian", and the company philosophy is based off of a harmful romanticized vision of Native cultures. 

Spirit Hoods Official Website: http://spirithoods.com/
Kingdom of Style: The Night Owl

(Thanks Jackie, DC, Christi, Alyss, and the others who sent this in!)

The Today Show thinks "Tribal Jewelry" is a "Summer Outfit Maker!"

 Right on the heels of our great discussion on Al Jazeera's The Stream, the Today Show decided to feature "tribal jewelry" as one of its go-to summer "outfit makers." I'll embed the video clip below, but I don't know how long it'll be up on the site, so I took some screen shots and made a quick transcript as well:

 Text of their conversation (more or less...they should learn to listen while someone else is speaking!) is below:

"Our next trend is that all that tribal look has morphed into more of an American Indian vibe. And this is a look that is in summer, we see it a lot in summer..." (Kathy interrupts)

"well you always see this out there in Arizona and those western states..."

"true,true,  but this is actually something that is carrying into Fall. We saw it on the runway. This necklace is from Lauren Wells, it's inspiration, it's 96 dollars, but I promise you this with a white t shirt and jeans is a great go to summer look. it's a really strong look, and these are from express, these earrings here are good if you just want to try the trend."

"So is the feather thing still going to last?"

"Well yes, I think so, it's that Hollywood-Coachella festival kind of vibe..."

Here's the Lauren Wells Necklace:

and the Express earrings:

So, basically this one minute clip is demonstrating a lot of the points I try to get across with this trend. The use of generic "tribal" to represent some random stereotype of "Indigenous"--or even the term "American Indian vibe"--Honestly, what does that even mean? And which American Indians are you talking about?

Then, the fact that all of the pieces are shoddy knock offs of Indian artisan work--Lauren Wells seems to be a designer that takes a LOT of "inspiration" from Native designs, and those express earrings look just like ones you could buy at any powwow from, you know, a real Native artist. What a novel concept.

Finally, the "feather trend" which Kathy (or Hoda, I can't tell, they're all talking at once) says she's "sick of" and that people should "go to Las Vegas" where they'll see "plenty of feathers." The "feather trends" are based off of Native practices of wearing feathers as part of regalia or traditional clothing, and their comments are reducing a sacred practice (feathers in many communities are given as part of special ceremonies, or in honor of large accomplishments) into a trend that you can be "sick of" or akin to a showgirl's headdress in Vegas. Exactly the same thing, right?

The last point about the feathers is part of a larger issue I've been grappling with--while I look forward to the day that I no longer see Native cultures mis-represented in store windows, the whole process of "discarding" the trend as "over" or "so last year" by default makes Native peoples and cultures disposable as well. The dominant culture can take what they want, use it as they see fit, and then ultimately throw it away.

So in one minute, the Today Show manages to condense millions of Native people into a single, incorrect, otherizing stereotype, encourage viewers to buy Native style jewelery from non-Natives, and minimize an important and sacred cultural marker of many tribes. Bet the producers didn't think about all that.

Today Show: Summer Outfit Makers

(Thanks Myrton!)

Don't Trend On My Culture, aka that time I was on Al Jazeera.

In case you missed it, I was a guest on Al Jazeera English's social media news show The Stream yesterday. I was super nervous going into it, but ended up having a lot of fun and feeling like my voice was actually heard for once.

The host asked some tough questions, like "In a multi-cultural society, isn't a certain level of cultural appropriation to be expected?" and the dreaded headdress-blackface connection, but I'm fairly happy with the way the whole interview went.

I'd love to hear your thoughts!

The article is here:
Al Jazeera The Stream: Don't Trend On My Culture

The YMCA Responds

(image source)

On Tuesday, I sent my local YMCA this letter asking them to remove an offensive picture in their fitness facility and to reconsider the overt cultural appropriation and racism in their "Indian Guides" programming, which I initially wrote about here.

I was pleasantly surprised that less than an hour after I sent the email, I received a response directly from the Executive Director:

Adrienne,

Thank you for writing this letter and bringing these most critical things to my attention.  Please know I apologize on behalf of the Y and will do everything to ensure this is changed.

I am meeting with my staff tomorrow and will have a response to you then regarding the action we are taking.

Again, thank you. 

That was Tuesday afternoon, so I'm still waiting to hear what was decided at the staff meeting, but a good first step, don't you think?

Pretty cool.

UPDATE 6/10: The Associate Executive Director of the Y emailed me to ask if we could set up an in-person meeting:

Adrienne,

I am the Associate Executive Director for the [name] YMCA. My supervisor, [Executive Director] has shared with me your letter and we have met to discuss the issues in which you have brought to our attention. I have also shared your letter with [employee] who directly supervises the program.

We would like to set up a time to meet with you to further discuss and work together to accomplish a positive outcome. If you are open to meeting with us, please let me know your availability next week.

Thank you for your time,

Unfortunately, I'm in Boston, so I'm hoping we can set up a phone call to talk more. What I'm worried about is that they'll ask for a compromise, because it doesn't seem feasible to change the entire culture of a program like the Indian Guides overnight--but I don't know what a middle ground would look like, or if it's even possible. I'd welcome any ideas.

Earlier:

Hoya, Hoya Cultural Appropriation! Or why suburban white folks shouldn't play Indian.
Dear YMCA, I haz the sads.

Dear YMCA, I haz the sads.

On Friday, I wrote about the Indian Guides program at my local YMCA. I decided to write a letter to the director of the YMCA, as a community member and former employee--telling them exactly why the practices employed by the Indian Guides are so hurtful. I'm posting it here, but I also sent it directly to the Executive Director. (If some of it sounds familiar, it's because I paraphrased myself)

Dear Ms. [Director],

My name is Adrienne K., I am a life-long [city name] resident, and former camper and employee at [this YMCA]’s summer programs. I am also a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, and care very deeply about issues concerning Native peoples. Recently, I went to use the fitness facilities at the Y, and came across the picture I’ve attached to this email, of a mother and child wearing feathered warbonnets. I was extremely taken aback, because I knew that in 2001 the national YMCA had reformed the “Indian Guides” program and done away with the Indian theme out of respect for Native American communities. I know that your YMCA is dedicated to serving the community and does fantastic work, but I was very hurt by the image, and respectfully request that it be removed, for several reasons.


First, wearing headdresses promotes the continuing stereotyping of Native peoples. 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, each 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 every day, but we still exist and are still Native.

In addition, 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.

I see the wearing of a fake feathered headdress as akin to dressing in blackface—it is the donning of a costume of a racial group that is not one’s own, based off of stereotyped caricatures that allow for the continuing subordination of Indian people.

I know that this mother and child would probably say that they are “honoring” Native Americans or “paying respect” to Indians, but the reality is that most Native people find no honor or respect in taking sacred objects out of context with no regard to their significance or origins.

I am further saddened, because in a minimal internet search, I found an abundance of evidence that [this] YMCA groups have not ceased in the use of the Indian theme at all. I would encourage you to watch this clip of a 2007 guide encampment, and try to picture how it feels, as a Native person, to watch your culture being misrepresented, mocked, and distorted beyond recognition.

There are so many aspects of this video that are deeply rooted in stereotypes and racism, including the use of the terms “medicine man” and “chief” to apply to leaders, but the use of our tribal names is especially disheartening. The names of our communities are not just labels that can be applied to a recreational group; they are representations of our living cultures, our histories, and our contemporary nations--not something that should be able to be manipulated to fulfill Indian fantasies. The fact that all of these “tribes” are represented by the same plains “costume” is also very upsetting.

In addition, I take issue with the process of giving "Indian names" that the video highlights--traditional names are sacred, and in most communities only certain elders or community members can be entrusted to give out names. The reality is that very few traditional names follow the extremely stereotypical “adjective + animal” format that the guides seem to favor.

Your mission statement states that your YMCA is “dedicated to improving the quality of human life and to helping all people realize their fullest potential as children of God through development of the spirit, mind and body.” I know that the acts of the Indian Guides are not done with malicious intent, but as it stands, it feels like Native American people are not included in your concepts of “human life” and “all people”. The Indian Guides practices demote Native peoples to a sub-human status, something that can be reduced to a series of stereotypes and inaccurate representations. The reality is that there are 13 Indian reservations in San Diego County, meaning there are far more Native residents in our community than you realize, and these acts marginalize them from the very community in which they live.

The national YMCA released guidelines for the “responsible use of the Indian theme”—but it is clear that these groups have not reviewed them or taken them to heart. The guidelines make a number of very good points, but it is still my opinion that there is no way to “responsibly” play Indian. The “guides” program is supposed to be about parent-child bonding, and I feel the program would actually be stronger if it weren’t rooted in racist acts.

I urge you to remove the photo in question, but it is also apparent that the entire guides program needs a substantive review. I encourage you to deeply think about the consequences of allowing this type of programming to continue.

I also write a blog called "Native Appropriations" where I discuss issues of cultural appropriation and representations of Native people. I have written about the guides program here, and will also be posting a copy of this letter. Please feel free to read other postings to gain an understanding of how pervasive these issues are and their continued effects on Native peoples.


Wado (thank you) for your time,
Adrienne K

Hoya Hoya, Cultural Appropriation! Or Why Suburban White Folks Shouldn't Play Indian

A few weeks ago I was home visiting my family in southern California, and went to my local YMCA with my sister to work out. They've done a lot of remodeling since the last time I was there, including adding oversize (like 4 feet tall) photos on the walls of staff, kids, members, and events. Most of them are nice, but as I was leaving, I stopped in my tracks at the photo above.

I don't know if all readers are familiar with the YMCA "Indian Guides" program (check out this facebook note for a history), but the basic premise is that it is/was a Father/Son bonding activity. Kinda like boy scouts, but with way more cultural appropriation. There is/was also "Indian Princesses" (father/daughter), "Indian Maidens" (mother/daughter), and "Indian Braves" (mother/son). But don't worry, it was started with the help of "Joe Friday," an Ojibwe, so that makes it all ok, right?

Typing this out, I can't believe how outwardly offensive it seems from the get-go, but this was SO normalized in my hometown growing up, that I didn't even begin to question it until I moved away.

I say is/was because technically, in the early 2000's, the "Indian" part was dropped and the organization released guidelines for the "respectful use of the Indian theme." My research online is showing that this really meant nothing, and the picture shows that even YMCA's are still supporting the "Indian theme".You'll see in a minute exactly what this entails.

In my community, our annual "Holiday Parade" is a big deal. We used to joke that we couldn't believe there was anyone left to watch the parade, since every single kid in town was marching in it. Girl and Boy Scout troops, dance classes (I marched when I was about 4 with my "Robin's Rhythm and Moves" class), local dog rescues, 4H, you name it. And a huge portion of the parade growing up was dedicated to Indian Guides.

The whole scene would make adult Adrienne K. cry, but at the time I just remember feeling a little confused and annoyed by how into it all the "tribes" got. We're talking banners proclaiming their "tribe"--"Arapaho," "Mohawk," "Blackfeet," dads (and moms) in full, floor length headdresses, everyone in war paint, fringed vests covered in "Indian designs" and dangling plastic pony beads. The leaders were called "chiefs" and I remember everyone always shouting "Hoya hoya!"--their "Indian Greeting."

Of course, every tribe, regardless of region, was represented by the horrific buckskin and feathers routine.

Don't believe me? Watch this video. Take a deep breath, I almost started screaming in my office. This was taken in 2007, at an Indian Guides encampment put on by my YMCA.



The video starts with a "roll call" of all of the "tribes" in attendance--by an MC in a full "buckskin" and a headdress. The "tribes" include real tribal names, like "Sioux," "Yurok," or even "Bella Coola," mixed with stereotypical Indian names like "soaring eagle" and "wolf." They each have a "cheer"--wait until you get to the "Bella Coola" (a small First Nations community): "Bella Coola, makes us hula!!" Then they pass the mic to the "Chief" who calls up a boy from the "Soaring Eagle" tribe, asking him "what's your Indian name?". As the boy hesitates, the crowd jokes that his name is "Sticky Bun!!", but he answers with "Little Surfing Fox." It's his birthday, so the whole crowd sings Happy Birthday, accented with "Hoya Hoya!", of course.

This video is one of those things that is so blatantly racist, the stereotypes are so deep and egregious, that I don't even know what to say. The part that gets me is that this was in 2007. This was not in the 70's. This is after Indian Guides supposedly "reformed" their ways. The scary part is these are my neighbors, my mom's students, the folks I see at the grocery store and at the beach. I am a member of a community that supports this.

So when I'm walking around wearing my powwow shirts, or driving my car with a big feather sticker on the back, my neighbors are conjuring images of these "tribes." That scares me.

People often argue that there is nothing wrong with playing Indian--that dressing up or donning headdresses does no harm. I find it hard to imagine that someone could watch that video and think that a young Native child encountering that scene would walk away unscathed.

I should add that I have been very involved with the YMCA through the years, I was a summer camp counselor at this very YMCA the summer after my freshman year of college, and I have been a camper, counselor, and director over the past 10 years at one of their camps on Catalina Island (not the one in the video above). That's why this hurts me even more to know that all along I've been supporting an organization that condones racism against Native peoples.

I'm going to write them a heartfelt letter with the point by point breakdown, I'll definitely post it here when I'm done.

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.