[RD] Cultural Appropriation: The Solution?

[Traitorfish]

I got quite confused reading that, I thought you meant like Indian subcontinent. Native Americans who lived on European land before perhaps the Seven Years War were either slaves or not-yet-captured. The only interaction between Europeans and Natives for centuries was genocide or slavery, nearly without exception.

It's really very hard for me to overstate how profoundly untrue this is.

European-Native interactions were chequered, yes. Mutual violence was frequent, and a great many Indians ended up in bondage to Europeans. But that was absolutely not the sum of these interactions. Europeans and Natives engaged in trade, diplomacy and cultural exchange more frequently than violence. The colonial frontier was a marketplace more often than a warzone, through which furs and manufactured goods crossed borders more often than armed men. The greatest Indian leaders of what American call the colonial period were overwhelmingly diplomats and orators, not warlords, which couldn't have been possible if they lived in the sort of apocalyptic hell-scape you're suggesting. The trade in furs, above all in beaver, created economic links from London, Paris and Amsterdam to the deep heart of the continent, beyond where any more than a handful of white missionaries had tread, which would have bee impossible if the transition from white to Indian land had been all scorched earth and corpses.

Indian slavery in North America, while inarguably tragic, was never as widespread or as legally entrenched as black slavery. It lasted for around a century, and almost exclusively in the South-East, petering out in the early eighteenth century, because Indians made for strikingly bad slaves. They ran away a lot, because they knew the terrain and they knew were they going. They had a habit of killing overseers and owners, because it turns out that young men from a warrior-culture do that sort of thing. And worst of all, they tended to instill similar rebellious in black slaves who were otherwise rendered more obedient by the profound and physiologically destructive dislocation of the Transatlantic trade. Those that remained tended to get absorbed into the black population, and while they might survive in communal memory, this rendered them invisible to incurious whites. Those Indians who remained behind the frontier as distinct communities took up marginal, often mobile trades, especially in New England and the Midatlantic States, where they survive to this today as wholly distinct peoples. They are widely overlooked now, but were familiar enough even in the mid-nineteenth century for Melville to include in Moby-Dick the character of Tashtego, a Wampanoag harpooner sailing out of Natucket, without audiences going "haha, what, silly Meville, there are no whaling ships in the Dakota Territory".

All of this meant that slavery was never the defining characteristic of Indians in British and French North America, as it became for blacks, and while Indians did not by any means enjoy a privileged position in white society, but they were not defined by servility, and legal freedom was not seen as an exception warranting specific identification. What defined them rather was wildness, the sense of something beyond the control of the white social order, even while nominally on its margins. This is something that the romantic, ferocious Tashtego embodies to a tee; notably, he is placed alongside Queequeg, a Polynesia, Daggoo, an African, and Fedallah, a Parsi, all of whom are situated outside the norms and, implicitly, the enduring control of white Protestant society.

 

[Lexicus]

I did, and I should clarify, my comment wasn't meant as a rebuttal to what you were saying specifically, just using it as a jumping-off point, because I think the image in question, the combination of the controversial imagery (sexy warbonnet) and the lack of deeper context (white-passing but undefined model, invisible designer) prompted it. I felt that it was worth going beyond the point you had made about existentialism to add that not only the trappings or content of a given culture but how people relate to those things is almost not innate or essential, and that this has implications for what we identify as and therefore how we talk about "appropriation".

By "existentialism" do you mean "essentialism"?

The Holocaust was an Antisemitic program, not a racist one.

It was both. The Nazis framed their anti-Semitism in racist terms. The Jews were identified as a separate, inherently parasitic, race.

Probably not. There was racism before race— slavery against Africans and Native Americans predated the construction of racialized identities around those groups.

How can that slavery be called "racism" if it was practiced in the absence of racialized identities?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There was racism in Europe before it was ever directed outside of Europe. Before Europeans even really knew there was an outside of Europe.

 

[inthesomeday]

It's really very hard for me to overstate how profoundly untrue this is.

European-Native interactions were chequered, yes. Mutual violence was frequent, and a great many Indians ended up in bondage to Europeans. But that was absolutely not the sum of these interactions. Europeans and Natives engaged in trade, diplomacy and cultural exchange more frequently than violence. The colonial frontier was a marketplace more often than a warzone, through which furs and manufactured goods crossed borders more often than armed men. The greatest Indian leaders of what American call the colonial period were overwhelmingly diplomats and orators, not warlords, which couldn't have been possible if they lived in the sort of apocalyptic hell-scape you're suggesting. The trade in furs, above all in beaver, created economic links from London, Paris and Amsterdam to the deep heart of the continent, beyond where any more than a handful of white missionaries had tread, which would have bee impossible if the transition from white to Indian land had been all scorched earth and corpses.

Indian slavery in North America, while inarguably tragic, was never as widespread or as legally entrenched as black slavery. It lasted for around a century, and almost exclusively in the South-East, petering out in the early eighteenth century, because Indians made for strikingly bad slaves. They ran away a lot, because they knew the terrain and they knew were they going. They had a habit of killing overseers and owners, because it turns out that young men from a warrior-culture do that sort of thing. And worst of all, they tended to instill similar rebellious in black slaves who were otherwise rendered more obedient by the profound and physiologically destructive dislocation of the Transatlantic trade. Those that remained tended to get absorbed into the black population, and while they might survive in communal memory, this rendered them invisible to incurious whites. Those Indians who remained behind the frontier as distinct communities took up marginal, often mobile trades, especially in New England and the Midatlantic States, where they survive to this today as wholly distinct peoples. They are widely overlooked now, but were familiar enough even in the mid-nineteenth century for Melville to include in Moby-Dick the character of Tashtego, a Wampanoag harpooner sailing out of Natucket, without audiences going "haha, what, silly Meville, there are no whaling ships in the Dakota Territory".

All of this meant that slavery was never the defining characteristic of Indians in British and French North America, as it became for blacks, and while Indians did not by any means enjoy a privileged position in white society, but they were not defined by servility, and legal freedom was not seen as an exception warranting specific identification. What defined them rather was wildness, the sense of something beyond the control of the white social order, even while nominally on its margins. This is something that the romantic, ferocious Tashtego embodies to a tee; notably, he is placed alongside Queequeg, a Polynesia, Daggoo, an African, and Fedallah, a Parsi, all of whom are situated outside the norms and, implicitly, the enduring control of white Protestant society.

Just about everything you said mostly excludes the earlier Spanish and Portuguese strategies of colonialism. In which case I’ll amend my timeline by a few decades or perhaps a century, whenever the French and British began to more actively expand into the continent.

For at least a century— 1492 to the beginning and more realistically middle of the 17th century— it was the Spanish and Portuguese genocidal programs that defined European-American relations. Again, those natives that were successfully placed under the rule of those two empires— specifically excluding those that managed to escape— were slaves or otherwise economically subordinate to the Europeans. For some century or so before the fur trade even became lucrative, the Spanish used natives in plantations and in mines. The casta system of racial hierarchy— the first of its kind— developed before Africans even came to America. Certainly before any serious British or French expansionism. By the time there was trade between nations, the recognition of native sovereignty besides as tribes to be exploited, the native “race” was created, as the bottom of a pyramid which already existed.

How can that slavery be called "racism" if it was practiced in the absence of racialized identities?

Because it happened along color and geography lines, essentially. The slavery came before the racialized identities, I agree. It was the combination of physiological difference and socioeconomic division that forged race. This is why the Jewish people were never a race in Germany until arguably the height of the Holocaust and ghettos— despite the propaganda, they really weren’t economically that different from your average German. They worked in the same environments and lived in the same cities.

There was racism in Europe before it was ever directed outside of Europe. Before Europeans even really knew there was an outside of Europe.

I disagree. Racism was invented in 1492, and race sometime in the 16th century.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I disagree. Racism was invented in 1492, and race sometime in the 16th century.

Yeah, right.

"The problem here is not the quality of the soil but rather the lack of industry on the part of those who should cultivate it. This laziness means that the different types of minerals with which hidden veins of the earth are full are neither mined nor exploited in any way. They do not devote themselves to the manufacture of flax or wool, nor to the practice of any mechanical or mercantile act. Dedicated only to leisure and laziness, this is a truly barbarous people. They depend on animals for their livelihood and they live like animals."

Spoiler :

Giraldus Cambrensis, on the Irish race, circa 1200AD

A commonly held view of the 'lesser humans.'

 

[inthesomeday]

It’s this kind of rhetorical inconsistency that confuses people. You all know the useful meaning of racism— the socioeconomic one— but then also use it to mean opinions with no social or economic power. Some European calling other Europeans from another place lazy isn’t really racism. Danes hating Swedes isn’t racism.

 

[Berzerker]

Lexicus - your photo on p2 may be offensive, but a Cleveland Indians fan dressed up like the team logo (Chief Wahoo) isn't cultural appropriation

 

[Valka D'Ur]

This thread assumes that "cultural appropriation" is a legitimate concept in western society.

I recently participated in a thread on Facebook with a woman who was asking if head-wraps for babies was appropriating Sikh culture. Most responses ranged from "yes", to "white people can't have an opinion on this", to "only Sikh people can answer this question". Anyone who dared say "no" may as well have thrown themselves unto a pyre.

This didn't sit well with me because the ruling premise for why it's cultural appropriation just didn't make sense to me. It feels fundamentally unsound.

The offered argument was this: A dominant culture adopting from a marginalized culture is cultural appropriation and inappropriate. It should not happen. A marginalized culture's traditions and styles, even derivatives of them, should be restricted to their members and their members only. This is because the response to a dominant culture's adoption of a style is positive while the response to a marginalized culture's adoption of their style is negative.

Therefore, because of this discrepancy, the solution for cultural appropriation is for the dominant culture to "stay in their lane" and not adopt anything from a culture that may be marginalized. The marginalized culture owns the tradition/style. It is theirs.

While this is normally a white vs "ethnic" debate, the example used above had some crossed streams and there was even an argument between an Indian and an African because both overarching cultures regularly use head-wraps, and they could not determine who "owned" the style. Eventually it was decided that they were both in the right and everyone else should stay in their lane.

Now, here is where I start taking issue. The solution seems flawed. They established that there's a discrepancy between attitudes depending on who is doing the style adoption. Let's assume that this is true (personally, I think it is true).

Is the solution, then, to restrict who can do what?

To me, no. That is not the solution. That is not even a solution. From my perspective, this solution is actually a detrimental force towards actually solving the problem. By drawing lines in the sand, you prevent a marginalized culture from becoming, well, not marginalized. You're setting impassable boundaries that permanently segregate.

So for me, the question becomes: What is the solution?

My position is that the solution is for the marginalized culture to no longer be marginalized. If cultural appropriation is wrong because of the dominant culture punching down, then the solution is to stop the "punching down". These cultures should be on equal footing and the racism curbed where possible. Equality and free expression is the solution and not arbitrary restrictions. You will never be equal if you are an Other, either imposed by an external force or by your own hand.

I posted this perspective and received, "Are you white?" as the prevailing response before an admin locked the thread and purged all the comments. So! I'm taking the dilemma to CFC.

Am I off-base? Are they right? Is there another answer that applies?

Head-wraps for babies are appropriating Sikh culture? WTH???

Okay, what style was the head wrap? Did the kid look like Jagmeet Singh (the federal NDP leader) or Harjit Sajjan (Minister of National Defense, who wears a different style of turban)? Somewhere in my photo albums there's a picture of me as a baby, wearing a knitted toque. I think it's safe to say that my mother had never heard of Sikhs, let alone decided to appropriate anybody's culture.

Besides, aren't turbans reserved for adult males in that culture? (I could be mistaken on this point)

If it was just a regular toque, this woman is woefully ignorant and I would guess that she's also someone who has no clue about the difference between a burka, niqab, chador, or hijab.


Re: the argument between the Indian and the African, they need to understand that similar styles of clothing, architecture, kinds of foods, hairstyles, etc. have been invented independently in numerous parts of the world, before the cultures had contact with each other. It would be like people screaming "cultural appropriation" over who was the first to develop agriculture. It didn't just happen in one place.

The solution is to understand the cultural appropriation is a subtle phenomenon that is highly dependent on context. The peak of idiotic cultural appropriation discourse that I've seen is probably "white people shouldn't become bilingual". I have seen posts arguing that it is appropriative for white people to learn Spanish and posts arguing it is appropriative for white people to learn Japanese.

Last year there was a series of articles on CBC.ca about cultural appropriation and in one of them, a Native person opined that non-Natives/FN/Indigenous/whatever they're going to insist on being called next week (since they keep changing their minds about that) shouldn't even be allowed to use Native words.

Well, that would be highly inconvenient in Canada, given that there are so many place-names that are either directly taken from Native words or are (approximate) English/French translations of Native words, and we'd have to change the name of our country and stop using some words that have become such a normal part of Canadian English (and I assume French) that it's impossible to imagine not having them.

And then there was this notion that all Canadian cities should have their names changed to a Native name. I don't remember what they wanted to rename Calgary, but it was long and mostly unpronounceable.

To me it seems that there are 2 distinct things that can be referred to as cultural appropriation. Things like head covering (seriously, what culture does not cover babies heads, they get cold!) or sari's are spreading good ideas around. They may have been developed somewhere, but they are good things for everyone to have so everyone should have them.

Then there are things like the native american headdress, which has a very distinct, even religious, cultural meaning and would not have any reason to exist without that cultural meaning. I think there is a very good case that something like that should not be used without giving appropriate consideration to how it will be taken by the community involved.

The thing about Native American headdresses is that they have significance politically and spiritually, and are part of a chief's regalia. Putting on a headdress as a costume for Halloween, for instance, is a disrespectful thing and if a non-Native wears one, it should only be with explicit permission.

I'm not sure 'cultural appropriation' is the best way to describe all of these scenarios. It's cultural appropriation for a clothing company to make clothes that turn Native styles of dress into costume for money, but I think it's just crassly racist, not cultural appropriation, when college students dress up as Native Americans or day drink in sombreros or whatever.

I have to ask, in all sincerity because I'm not up on this: What is the problem with a sombrero? Is it a piece of religious regalia, or something that only a person in authority should wear? If it's so awful for non-Mexicans to wear them, why are they sold to non-Mexican tourists?

To me it's just a hat. An unusually large hat, granted, but one that would likely be very useful for protection against sunburn.

Not really. Establishing ownership claims/private property on this is extremely difficult, in contrast to things capitalism routinely enforces. Sub-categorization of people gets increasingly ridiculous and extreme until you realize you're finally at the individual level, and at that point we'd have some dude 2000+ years ago with "original claims" to a certain piece of clothing and his thousands and thousands of descendants all fighting over weak claims to the toga. You'd have an easier time fighting over air.

Togas are a lot older than 2000 years.

I used to play with plastic model native american warriors, as a child. Is that too shameful? They were among my favourite ^_^

Some would think so. Obviously, since you're Greek, you should have played with model Greek warriors.

You don't mind that I have a set of ceramic bookends made to resemble the Porch of the Maidens, do you? After all, I'm not Greek. And if there's anyone from Egypt on the forum, do forgive me for having a set of ceramic bookends that represent the cat goddess Bast. /sarcasm

No, it's not cultural appropriation that you played with those model warriors, and it's not cultural appropriation for me to have a variety of art objects around meant to represent various different cultures around the world.

Should Irish folk be upset when Brits celebrate St Patty's Day?

They probably just roll their eyes and get on with their day. Maybe @Lemon Merchant can answer this question.


The solution, or at least a solution, would obviously be education and respectful dialogue between the concerned parties. Some of this makes as much sense as Egypt screaming at Mexico for culturally appropriating the pyramid.

 

[Yeekim]

In my games of cowboys and Indians, the Indians were always the good guys

In mine as well. But should we now apologize for having played with Indian figurines?

It must be nice going through life convinced you can use logic to argue away your responsibility for hurting other people's feelings.

It is, actually.

I'm surprised you haven't linked to your favorite picture yet.
View attachment 495200

Amazingly, it turns out the artist was rather correct.

Spoiler :

https://www.theguardian.com/science...k-black-skin-cheddar-man-dna-analysis-reveals

 

[luiz]

Just about everything you said mostly excludes the earlier Spanish and Portuguese strategies of colonialism. In which case I’ll amend my timeline by a few decades or perhaps a century, whenever the French and British began to more actively expand into the continent.

For at least a century— 1492 to the beginning and more realistically middle of the 17th century— it was the Spanish and Portuguese genocidal programs that defined European-American relations. Again, those natives that were successfully placed under the rule of those two empires— specifically excluding those that managed to escape— were slaves or otherwise economically subordinate to the Europeans. For some century or so before the fur trade even became lucrative, the Spanish used natives in plantations and in mines. The casta system of racial hierarchy— the first of its kind— developed before Africans even came to America. Certainly before any serious British or French expansionism. By the time there was trade between nations, the recognition of native sovereignty besides as tribes to be exploited, the native “race” was created, as the bottom of a pyramid which already existed.

Completely untrue. Yes, Indian slavery was important and widespread in the early portuguese colonization of America, but it was relatively short lived, was always opposed by the church and a even by much of the Portuguese establishment, and was far from the only relation between natives and Europeans. Indeed, just across the bay from my native city, lies Niterói, a city founded in early colonial times by an Indian chief who was an ally of the Portuguese. Several tribes allied themselves with the Portuguese and prospered. Others allied themselves with the French and Dutch invaders, and prospered before their final defeat. Until the 18th century boom of European immigration due to the discovery of gold in Minas Gerais, the de facto official language of Brazil was Língua Geral, essentially Tupi Guarani written in Latin alphabet.

And no, there was never any genocidal policy towards the natives. The kings of Portugal were actually quite serious about saving their souls. Of course, the results were mostly bad for the natives. But you can't call it a genocidal policy.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Ditto. (Changing Portuguese by Spanish and Brazil by all Spanish america)

In fact it can be argued that the modern concept of human right was born the 27 December 1512 in Burgos, Spain.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Last year there was a series of articles on CBC.ca about cultural appropriation and in one of them, a Native person opined that non-Natives/FN/Indigenous/whatever they're going to insist on being called next week (since they keep changing their minds about that) shouldn't even be allowed to use Native words.

And many of the remaining North American indigenous languages are well on their way to extinction, so the offspring of that individual may see that wish fulfilled unfortunately

I have to ask, in all sincerity because I'm not up on this: What is the problem with a sombrero? Is it a piece of religious regalia, or something that only a person in authority should wear? If it's so awful for non-Mexicans to wear them, why are they sold to non-Mexican tourists?

To me it's just a hat. An unusually large hat, granted, but one that would likely be very useful for protection against sunburn.

Sombreros in Mexico are loosely identified with national spirit and patriotism, like the Phrygian for France, Tricorner for the USA, Fez for Turkey etc. It's not the most politically correct symbol because it's also a symbol of poor/rural/revolutionary class warfare which has always had a love-hate deal with the Mexican government. But there\s no actual reverence or special use for sombreros. Obviously in some contexts and historical usage the hat can be derogatory.

But the common souvenir type that Americans wear on Cinco de Mayo is just the symbol of the Mexican national football team. No one in gets upset at foreigners wearing Mexican sports merchandise.

The sombrero controversy was born in the US and apparently exists mostly on college campuses seeing as the vast majority of complaints are against 20-something frat boys.

 

[Lexicus]

EAnd no, there was never any genocidal policy towards the natives. The kings of Portugal were actually quite serious about saving their souls. Of course, the results were mostly bad for the natives. But you can't call it a genocidal policy.

Come on man. While "it was totally genocidal" is wrong, "never any genocidal policy" is equally wrong, and you must know that.

 

[metalhead]

The sombrero controversy was born in the US and apparently exists mostly on college campuses seeing as the vast majority of complaints are against 20-something frat boys.

Oh gosh, if anyone is in need of protection in the social hierarchy it's the frat boys! Who shall we find to take their slings and arrows??

 

[rah]

Now *this* is peak middle-class and up white guy stuff. "I admit I am completely ignorant regarding the issue at hand, but let me opine anyway..."

Typical arrogant bullcrap equating 'not read any academic research' with completely ignorant. La di da. Did you get that definition reading academic research?

 

[Lexicus]

This is why the Jewish people were never a race in Germany until arguably the height of the Holocaust and ghettos— despite the propaganda, they really weren’t economically that different from your average German. They worked in the same environments and lived in the same cities.

First of all - the problem with defining race in this way is that it ignores -wait for it- intersectionality. And it means that your idea of race is largely not applicable to the very many historical times and places in which racism existed but did not manifest in a strict and sharply-defined caste system as it did with black and white people in the United States.

Second of all, this is true if you ignore a swath of German history lasting from, like, 1000AD to 1850 or so. During the medieval period Jewish people were absolutely systemically discriminated against, excluded from most if not all aspects of public life, and I believe in most places they were forced to live in their own districts or quarters in towns. This was the case throughout most of Europe.

It was only in the second half of the 19th century that legal barriers against Jewish people's full participation in society were lowered.

Racial antisemitism arose in (I believe) the 19th century as well, in keeping with the general decline in importance of religion in public life. Anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages (and going back even further, arguably anti-Semitism in the Roman period as well) was based more on religious or ethnic grounds. The Romans viewed the Jews with suspicion because the Jews largely refused to assimilate into Roman culture, and more pertinently because they refused to give even lip service to reverencing the Imperial cult, and for this reason were seen as disloyal. With the rise of Christianity spiritual anti-Semitism dominated because the Jews supposedly killed Jesus etc. This was the form of anti-Semitism that characterized European society during the middle Ages, and the important difference was that Jews could basically be absorbed into the larger society by conversion and cultural assimilation.

So when the Spanish issued the Alhambra decree, this didn't affect Jews who had converted due to persecutions in the past. When the Nazis published the Nuremberg Laws, it didn't matter if you had converted from Judaism and were culturally indistinguishable from ordinary Germans, if you had a Jewish grandparent you were in trouble. And that's the important distinction between racial and spiritual/cultural anti-Semitism.

Some European calling other Europeans from another place lazy isn’t really racism. Danes hating Swedes isn’t racism.

This is just not true though...by your definition above there has been racism against Eastern and Southern Europeans in Europe for quite a long time. Prussia for example was characterized by an economic structure where German nobles basically lived in plantation houses and the fields were worked by Polish laborers. Hell, there is plenty of overt racism today in the UK against Eastern Europeans (especially Poles), and likely in other parts of Western Europe as well. The Nazis' genocidal policies in Eastern Europe were motivated by explicit racism, and that racism certainly didn't suddenly spring into being when the Nazis invaded Poland.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

And no, there was never any genocidal policy towards the natives. The kings of Portugal were actually quite serious about saving their souls. Of course, the results were mostly bad for the natives. But you can't call it a genocidal policy.

Please clarify: You're just talking about your country, and not generally throughout North and South America, right?

The bolded part is absolutely not true when it applies to Canada. Cultural genocide was policy (round the native kids up, confine them in residential schools, indoctrinate them in Christianity, literally beat their own languages and customs and religions out of them, and don't even inform the parents if/when the kids die of malnutrition, disease, and numerous other reasons). I'm sure that raping some of the kids wasn't policy, but a lot of it happened.

And then there was the Sixties Scoop, in which kids were forcibly kidnapped and literally sold on the "adoption market" - many of them out of Canada and some ended up as far away as Europe or Australia. This is something that wasn't taught in schools; I had no idea it happened until a series of news reports came out in the last year or two.

This is why the Truth and Reconciliation Commission made a very long list of ways in which the government and its departments - including school curricula from kindergarten through university - are supposed to try to make a dent in some kind of meaningful apology to the survivors of all this, and their descendants.

It's why the Prime Minister personally asked Pope Francis to come to Canada and issue an apology for the Catholic Church's part in this (some residential schools were run by the Catholics). I can't fathom why the Pope refused. Okay, I can because of how utterly allergic some organizations are to admitting they committed egregiously horrible deeds, but supposedly this pope is different from his predecessors. Guess we were wrong on that score.

And it's why some buildings and streets are being renamed, statues are being removed, and a bunch of teachers in Ontario want to change the names of every school in the province that bears the name of Sir John A. Macdonald (our first Prime Minister, who was very much in favor of this cultural genocide).

And many of the remaining North American indigenous languages are well on their way to extinction, so the offspring of that individual may see that wish fulfilled unfortunately

It's not only that. They want to stop our use of words that have been in common use alongside English, as well as place names.

However, some of the languages are making a comeback. They're being taught in schools, and Inuktitut is a third official language in the territory of Nunuvut. Inuktitut is now part of the Parliament Hill Remembrance Day ceremonies, with English and French.

Sombreros in Mexico are loosely identified with national spirit and patriotism, like the Phrygian for France, Tricorner for the USA, Fez for Turkey etc. It's not the most politically correct symbol because it's also a symbol of poor/rural/revolutionary class warfare which has always had a love-hate deal with the Mexican government. But there\s no actual reverence or special use for sombreros. Obviously in some contexts and historical usage the hat can be derogatory.

But the common souvenir type that Americans wear on Cinco de Mayo is just the symbol of the Mexican national football team. No one in gets upset at foreigners wearing Mexican sports merchandise.

Okay, so it's neither religious nor a symbol of authority. I guess the objection comes when somebody dresses like a Mexican character from a Clint Eastwood spaghetti western and acts like those characters are typical of all Mexicans?

The sombrero controversy was born in the US and apparently exists mostly on college campuses seeing as the vast majority of complaints are against 20-something frat boys.

Who are the people making the complaints? Actual Mexican people or others?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

@Valka D'Ur, I guess both luiz and me were speaking about physical genocide and slavery. Cultural genocide was totally a policy in ibero-america since the main objective, at least in Spanish territories, was to convert the indians to Christianity, so convert them into more spaniards. Multiculturalism and such was not a big thing in the 16th century at all.

 

[Kyriakos]

Oh gosh, if anyone is in need of protection in the social hierarchy it's the frat boys! Who shall we find to take their slings and arrows??

What about cultural appropriation re calling those fraternities as greek, when they are just chad USian? ^_^

Though, again, i personally don't mind at all. Obviously they have only few greek elements, and just on the outside (greek letter names, and some prop clothes), but who cares. If they want to actually study a culture they can read books. Making it a tall order to just cos-play isn't a good idea, imo.

 

[metalhead]

In my experience the Greek thing at U.S. fraternities doesn't go beyond the letters on the house. Maybe at some colleges they take it beyond that, but at my college they did not.