First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Dude wearing Native American Costume to Yale Causes Chaos
16759 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

Loziano wrote:


Rujikin wrote:

People wear everything that was complained about in that thread for various reasons. Theres a difference between wearing a uniform that looks like a general with tons of plastic awards and having REAL awards or replicas of real awards. You mimic someone's appearance because you like it in some way and that is called a tribute, even if it isn't correct.


Who would want that offensive and insensitive "tribute"? It's like people claiming that the Washington Redskins' name is a "tribute" to Native Americans when they're really just using a racial slur. A headdress is an honorary symbol with restricted use even within our tribes. If this man understands the gravity of what he is doing, then he is just dismissing anyone's concerns about it being disrespectful, and that means he is not paying tribute or respecting our culture.


MiB119 wrote:

I'm Native American, Tlingit to be exact. My buddies and I joke around about which of them is my spirit animal and when I'm going to go "Clubbing" (Clubbing baby seals for those of you that are more innocent than I).
A white guy wearing Native garb to a speech of that topic, that's just perfect. I can't personally think of any Native that would be offended by this other than these over-sensitive people. It's fitting and should be allowed as it proves his point. Stop being so politically correct people.


I'll quote the article I linked earlier:


Even if you have ‘native friends’ or are part native yourself, individual choices to “not be offended” do not trump our collective rights as peoples to define our symbols.


Meanwhile in Germany and India..... Germans are forced to be associated with the swastika as a symbol of evil and their past while India watched their sacred symbol of peace be used as a symbol for evil. So How do you solve this situation Mr SJW? Getting Using a Swastika is an insult to Jews, not using a Swastika is an insult to indians/finns, and Swastika's are banned in Germany which means so are Indians symbol of peace.


lambofgenesis wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


lambofgenesis wrote:


Loziano wrote:


Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos has caused a stir on Yale University’s campus for his plan to give a lecture on cultural appropriation in full Native American garb and headdress right before Halloween.


No, no, no. As a Native American myself, I was just discussing with my family how this is wrong. Even I am not allowed to wear a headdress because it would be so offensive. I'd explain why, but I think this link would do it better justice than I.

http://apihtawikosisan.com/hall-of-shame/an-open-letter-to-non-natives-in-headdresses/

I don't think the guy's racist, but I still think he shouldn't wear it.


I'm surprised the majority of peeps backed the prof on here.

I think it's because America really doesn't have a culture so we can't understand why it's wrong.

In India for example, they have the dots on their foreheads to signify cleanliness or purity. For people on Halloween to "dress indian" is offensive.

Idk, but I guess it's like if on Halloween in Japan they dressed like Americans and mimicked our accents and mannerisms in a mocking way.


It's not offensive its paying tribute to them.

I want all of Japan to dress in fat suits, get on hover-rounds, and sing "America fuck yeah" while trick or treating it would be fucking amazing, if only they would... But they do have this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0dTG1_x-K8

As an American I can confirm some people talk like this.


not everyone who dresses culturally is paying tribute.

You know like if kkk members dress like slaves with afros and charcoal rubbed skin?

I sincerely doubt that elementary school kids dressed like native americans are trying to honor them. They just wanna look "funny" and probably don't even know why chiefs wore headresses, or carried animal bones



That would be very ironic, white supremacists making themselves look black. I think they might get kicked out of the KKK for that.

They just find it looks cool or funny. No harm or insult there. If they couldn't wear those things they might not even know a single thing about natives.
6951 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

Nogara-san wrote:

Normally I'd make fun too, but in this case?

Yeah...this guy was being a dick all around and sounded like he wanted to troll. Also unless you're Native American, I find people who wear headdresses, like those Coachella tryhards, tacky.


He's also from Brietbart. That alone tells me he's just doing it for shits and lulz


Yes. He was definitely doing it for shits and giggles. Which made me laugh.
Sogno- 
45722 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/7/16
everyone needs to chill and eat guacamole
14947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16
You know I remember a day when I thought Ann Coulter was the worst thing to happen to American political discourse. Thanks Milo for proving me wrong, you ambulatory mass of human frogspawn.

Honestly how do people still buy into this guy. Did you miss him throwing a temper tantrum and starting some petulant hashtag aping the Charlie Hebdo shootings over twitter removing the blue check mark next to his name? Guy's a tool, always has been a tool, and will likely continue to be a tool for the foreseeable future. End of story.
604 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 4/7/16
Symbols cannot exist in isolation and so cannot be controlled by their creators. The cross-cultural roil itself is amoral, as is cultural "appropriation", though our participation in such may not be. And the more sacred a symbol becomes, the greater the temptation for others to smear it. All this is why we dump Christ in urine, draw Mohammed, see Justin Bieber in dreadlocks, and have Milo Yiannopoulos planning to wear a Native American headdress. It's also why Greek science traveled from the Byzantine Empire to Persia, was picked up by Islamic culture, and was fed back into Western Europe through Spain.

The headdress has become a symbol beyond its initial meaning: to Western culture it's almost a synecdoche for Native American society, as many of the stereotypical images of Native Americans in our culture include it. Adapted as a Western symbol, it no longer possesses its initial significance; any such significance was lost long ago. One cannot battle that any more than one can put a broken mug back together; it is irreversible. The meaning of the headdress is further transforming by our focus on it as a symbol of appropriation: the situation Yiannopoulos has constructed is far more complicated than simple mocking of a culture, though if he carries it through, it will indeed be disrespectful. But why should Native American culture - or any other norm - be respected? Is such respect a right? In Saudi Arabia women are effectively barred from driving; I think I would have a hard time following along with that. The morality and utility of subversion are not obvious. Until they become so, Yiannopoulos wins this one - especially since he's picking on myopic, entitled Yalies.
69881 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / Oklahoma
Offline
Posted 4/7/16 , edited 4/7/16
He's clearly mocking those that feel they need protection from offense.

He's an asshole, sure. So what? You're going to encounter a lot of them in life - he just proves the point that SJW's cannot cope. They are disruptive, authoritarian, and oft violent when they don't get appeased (attempts to provoke conflict are quit consistent).

Even the left is fed up with progressives - I think Milo has a better point than you even if he's wrong on the majority of things. Keep riding on character assassination though, it really shows how weak the arguments are.
33510 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 4/7/16
Same shit; different day.
16759 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hoosierville
Offline
Posted 4/7/16

auroraloose wrote:

Symbols cannot exist in isolation and so cannot be controlled by their creators. The cross-cultural roil itself is amoral, as is cultural "appropriation", though our participation in such may not be. And the more sacred a symbol becomes, the greater the temptation for others to smear it. All this is why we dump Christ in urine, draw Mohammed, see Justin Bieber in dreadlocks, and have Milo Yiannopoulos planning to wear a Native American headdress. It's also why Greek science traveled from the Byzantine Empire to Persia, was picked up by Islamic culture, and was fed back into Western Europe through Spain.

The headdress has become a symbol beyond its initial meaning: to Western culture it's almost a synecdoche for Native American society, as many of the stereotypical images of Native Americans in our culture include it. Adapted as a Western symbol, it no longer possesses its initial significance; any such significance was lost long ago. One cannot battle that any more than one can put a broken mug back together; it is irreversible. The meaning of the headdress is further transforming by our focus on it as a symbol of appropriation: the situation Yiannopoulos has constructed is far more complicated than simple mocking of a culture, though if he carries it through, it will indeed be disrespectful. But why should Native American culture - or any other norm - be respected? Is such respect a right? In Saudi Arabia women are effectively barred from driving; I think I would have a hard time following along with that. The morality and utility of subversion are not obvious. Until they become so, Yiannopoulos wins this one - especially since he's picking on myopic, entitled Yalies.


+1
27244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/7/16
I love Milo. He's a complete shitlord. He does all this to prove a point and I agree with most of what he has said in all his speeches.

You guys should listen to a debate he had with a feminist in which he has to fight off the entire crowd just to get his turn to speak and provide reasoning.
11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 4/8/16

auroraloose wrote:

Symbols cannot exist in isolation and so cannot be controlled by their creators. The cross-cultural roil itself is amoral, as is cultural "appropriation", though our participation in such may not be. And the more sacred a symbol becomes, the greater the temptation for others to smear it. All this is why we dump Christ in urine, draw Mohammed, see Justin Bieber in dreadlocks, and have Milo Yiannopoulos planning to wear a Native American headdress. It's also why Greek science traveled from the Byzantine Empire to Persia, was picked up by Islamic culture, and was fed back into Western Europe through Spain.

The headdress has become a symbol beyond its initial meaning: to Western culture it's almost a synecdoche for Native American society, as many of the stereotypical images of Native Americans in our culture include it. Adapted as a Western symbol, it no longer possesses its initial significance; any such significance was lost long ago. One cannot battle that any more than one can put a broken mug back together; it is irreversible. The meaning of the headdress is further transforming by our focus on it as a symbol of appropriation: the situation Yiannopoulos has constructed is far more complicated than simple mocking of a culture, though if he carries it through, it will indeed be disrespectful. But why should Native American culture - or any other norm - be respected? Is such respect a right? In Saudi Arabia women are effectively barred from driving; I think I would have a hard time following along with that. The morality and utility of subversion are not obvious. Until they become so, Yiannopoulos wins this one - especially since he's picking on myopic, entitled Yalies.


I don't agree that the headdress has lost cultural significance. We still only associate it today with Native Americans, rather than just America.

If I think I understand you, you're theorizing that it's been used so frequently and historically in our culture that it shouldn't offend natives anymore because after all, it's already so widespread!

Well, like the headdress, I researched other long-standing seemingly offensive parts of our culture and found this : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface This sort of theatrical performance was widespread (internationally ) since the 1800s, and actual blacks started performing it on stage as well! (Which means it's lost its offensiveness right! ?)

But hey, blackface was still discontinued during the Civil rights movement and only in limited use today.

I guess the point people realized is that just because we've been doing something offensive for a long time doesn't excuse it from being offensive. We can always change and be better rather than sticking to what we're doing

I don't agree with SJWs on most things, but I certainly don't also agree with insensitivity when it's unfair. I'm not exactly sure if native Americans are offended by the wearing of headdresses, but if one went up to you on Halloween stating that you're disrespecting her culture, would you tell her to "man up" cause it's not really just her culture anymore?
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 4/8/16

paul25454 wrote:
Yes. He was definitely doing it for shits and giggles. Which made me laugh.
Yup, thats milo loving to get some heat in the house.. party all night!

Sogno- wrote:
everyone needs to chill and eat guacamole
Wait I don't wanna become green ;( but again its too good XP

Morbidhanson wrote:
I love Milo. He's a complete shitlord. He does all this to prove a point and I agree with most of what he has said in all his speeches.
Yeah thats why they got a series called shitlords (or streams) but I guess you would mostly agree to his against fem BS claims (etc).
While he can be a bit over the top on other topic's.

14947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Massachusetts
Offline
Posted 4/8/16 , edited 4/8/16

zinjashike wrote:

He's clearly mocking those that feel they need protection from offense.

He's an asshole, sure. So what? You're going to encounter a lot of them in life - he just proves the point that SJW's cannot cope. They are disruptive, authoritarian, and oft violent when they don't get appeased (attempts to provoke conflict are quit consistent).

Even the left is fed up with progressives - I think Milo has a better point than you even if he's wrong on the majority of things. Keep riding on character assassination though, it really shows how weak the arguments are.


The only point Milo proves is how far the reactionary right in this country has fallen into the mire. This is just the latest in his long line of stunts that masquerade as an attempt to uphold free speech which are in fact absolutely nothing of the sort. People calling you on being an asshole does not constitute some authoritarian attempt at repression. The only thing Milo has ever championed is the right of people to say whatever they want to anyone they want and not face any repercussions for it.

This is no different. Of course people are upset about this, Milo intends for it to be upsetting. All this talk entails is him telling people who are offended to shut up, stop complaining and accept the thing they took umbrage with. Not to advance free discourse, but to shut it down. Milo can in fact make these comments, he already has. Constantly. but I don't see why it's suddenly wrong for people to take issue with him doing so. I mean yes this British man of Greek descent clearly has the authority to dictate how native americans should feel about cultural appropriation.

This is not to say that there is one correct way to view this. As this thread demonstrates two people of native descent have already expressed differing viewpoints, both in favor of and against this. Which is perfectly fine. It's fine for Milo to disagree about this topic as well. As for my part I tend to come at this from the standpoint that it is rather offensive. Some people even of native descent don't feel this way. And it's not my place to call this view invalid, after all it's their culture we're discussing. Being a snow white irish catholic, it's not my place to speak for them or claim that my left wing perspective trumps theirs. I have my opinion, but I have no authority to call other people wrong for how they feel about the subject. Because it takes a special kind of arrogance to presume you have the authority to dictate to people how they should feel about representations of their culture when you're not a part of that culture yourself.

Yet Milo does, and has the gall to act as though he's the victim of repression when people criticize him for it.

Because what Milo's actual deal is isn't about freeing up the discourse, it's about fostering control of it. That's all he and this reactionary fringe has ever cared about, preserving their ability to dominate the discourse. Sure they have the right to be arrogant and deliberately mean-spirited pricks but the second anyone says anything against them suddenly they're called censors. Any time someone expresses dissent from their view of the matter they get dog-piled and silenced.

Yeah there's a segment of progressives like this, I used to have laughs at their expense back in those days when social justice warrior still meant something. But if the last few years have demonstrated anything to me, it's that this segments opposite number has grown drastically worse in size and scale. The same people who complain about how thin-skinned social justice warriors are, are the first ones to freak out whenever someone disparages them. They cannot deal with other people's opinions and seek to shut them down. And that's the ultimate freaking hypocrisy here. The only freedom of expression this reactionary fringe gives two shits about is it's own. They hate anyone else's.

An open discussion about this issue would be welcome, but that's the last thing Milo wants. What he wants is to end that discussion before it starts like he always does. Because the only voices that matter to him are the ones that echo the groupthink. His view of free speech is one in which the dominant and correct way of thinking is able to crowd out and effectively smother any dissent. This isn't a view exclusive to him by any means. Like I've said, the people who actually qualified as "social justice warriors" back when that term hadn't lost all meaning, used to and still do act like this. It's just really hard to see them with the way the other side swarms like a destructive plague of locusts.

The only thing Milo's crowd gives two shits about is having their way. There is one right way of thinking about things, and all dissent from that opinion is invalid. Any one else's voice is invalid. Anything that does not echo the dominant mode of thought is invalid. Critics become censors because they disagree. People who feel something is offensive are hysterical by default and their opinions don't matter. The only point of view that matters is their own.

If this sounds familiar it's supposed to. Milo's behavior is characteristic of everything he claims to despise. Because free speech isn't his goal and he's never cared about defending it. His view of freedom of speech and expression is a hive mind that ceaselessly echoes the dominant mode of thought. It's inherently selfish and repugnant. He wants to be able to say whatever he wants about other people, but can't stand it when other people criticize him.

In his view people's opinions and freedom of speech should be respected only if they coincide with his own. As for ones that aren't part of that collective? Well, he and his cronies are very good at burying them, and shouting them down.

Sorry I think Milo trying to mock people for being intolerant of other people's opinions falls a little flat when there are very few people more intolerant of other people's opinions.
15947 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Cold and High
Offline
Posted 4/8/16

vanguard1234523 wrote:
The only point Milo proves is how far the reactionary right in this country has fallen into the mire. This is just the latest in his long line of stunts that masquerade as an attempt to uphold free speech which are in fact absolutely nothing of the sort. People calling you on being an asshole does not constitute some authoritarian attempt at repression. The only thing Milo has ever championed is the right of people to say whatever they want to anyone they want and not face any repercussions for it.

This is no different. Of course people are upset about this, Milo intends for it to be upsetting. All this talk entails is him telling people who are offended to shut up, stop complaining and accept the thing they took umbrage with.
Yet Milo does, and has the gall to act as though he's the victim of repression when people criticize him for it.

In his view people's opinions and freedom of speech should be respected only if they coincide with his own. As for ones that aren't part of that collective? Well, he and his cronies are very good at burying them, and shouting them down.

Sorry I think Milo trying to mock people for being intolerant of other people's opinions falls a little flat when there are very few people more intolerant of other people's opinions.
more or less... but some he does is better then their goal and what those others actually do...
Sure he can be a bit over the top sometimes (thinking that he is a bit better, unless when he is with friends)

But I find it annoying from both sides and atleast milo did try to fix somethings and calm down the furious view on patriarchy etc.
something he is better at, and he is dealing so much with BS and viral people that he is becoming a bit more viral himself (with his "counter-attacks" or something else)
604 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The Ivory Tower
Offline
Posted 4/8/16 , edited 4/8/16

lambofgenesis wrote:

I'm not exactly sure if native Americans are offended by the wearing of headdresses, but if one went up to you on Halloween stating that you're disrespecting her culture, would you tell her to "man up" cause it's not really just her culture anymore?


An Asian woman wearing a Native American headdress telling another woman to man up? That'd be something - especially since Native American women couldn't wear headdresses, if I understand correctly. But even for a feminazi like me it'd be a little too disrespectful.


lambofgenesis wrote:

I don't agree that the headdress has lost cultural significance. We still only associate it today with Native Americans, rather than just America.

If I think I understand you, you're theorizing that it's been used so frequently and historically in our culture that it shouldn't offend natives anymore because after all, it's already so widespread!


The headdress as a symbol within Western culture doesn't have the same significance as it does as a symbol in Native American culture. The cultural significance it has for Native Americans isn't gone, it's just not fully part of the meaning of the headdress within Western culture. Further, whether or not wearing a headdress outside of the Native American prescriptions is offensive is highly subjective, depending on the reigning cultural norms (and even personal tastes). What would it mean, for example, for a white person to be offended by someone mis-wearing a headdress? This is what makes wearing a headdress different from blackface: blackface is universally acknowledged to be offensive. No matter your intentions, you can't do blackface without being insulting, because that is what it means to do blackface in this culture. But you can get away with mis-wearing a headdress, because doing so now is culturally associated with making a point about oversensitivity.

Finally, even if mis-wearing a headdress is offensive (and I kind of think it is), offense is not the only criterion for disallowing something. Lying about having a purple heart offends a lot more people in our culture than mis-wearing a headdress, but doing so is also protected by the first amendment (as was ruled by the supreme court in 2012). It's not even as simple as "punching up" versus "punching down": no doubt Milo would say he's fighting some kind of decay into the mass censorship of an authoritarian state.

I hope he dresses up as the pope next.
Posted 4/8/16
It's a private school, their rules to make. They can run it however they please.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.