Historical ignorance isn't bliss

Historical Ignorance is Not Bliss
By: Renee Hoppe

Throughout history, many groups have faced oppression, genocidal actions, and the dehumanization of their people. Instances such as the Apartheid in South Africa or Holocaust in Europe resulted in actions of reconciliation and a public outcry for atonement. The United States, on the other hand, in committing one of the most heinous and abhorrent crimes against humanity did not feel the need to make amends with the oppressed group, but instead appropriated their culture and spirituality in one of the most ignorant and disrespectful acts of America’s dark history. It was through the appropriation of Native American culture that the United States perpetuated the stereotypes and ideas that were created through colonization, which has negatively impacted both the colonizer and the formerly colonized.

As more and more White immigrants came to America in the 1800’s and 1900’s, land was needed for farming, industrialization, and homesteading. As a result of this, Native Americans were forcibly removed from their lands and relocated through violence and unfair treaties. This trend occurred in every corner of the country, ranging from the Spokane in Washington, to the Great Plains bands in the Midwest. One specific example of such violence is the Wounded Knee Massacre, which occurred at the end of the nineteenth century when United States soldiers opened fire on several hundred unarmed Lakota, killing mostly women, children and the elderly (King 34).

Another example from the Midwest was the largest mass execution in United States history, which occurred on December twenty-sixth in 1862. In Mankato, Minnesota, thirty-eight Dakota men were hanged in front of the public for “atrocities committed against Whites”, which ranged from killing to rape. Although President Abraham Lincoln’s biggest concern was the Civil war at this point, he signed off on the papers allowing this execution to happen. After the thirty-eight bodies were buried, they were later recovered to use as cadavers for medical experiments (Dakota 38). While those are just two examples of the racism and violence against indigenous peoples that took place in the founding years of America’s history, nothing speaks to the public’s opinion at the time like the Declaration of Independence, which describes Native Americans as “merciless Indian Savages” (King 34).

While there was much bitterness and resentment towards Indigenous groups immediately after these wars, massacres, and conflicts, it was not soon afterwards that White Americans began to see the “benefits” of appropriating their cultures and traditions for their own sake. According to Pauline Turner Strong’s work, Cultural Appropriation and the Crafting of Racialized Selves in American Youth Organizations,

“The performance of Indianness in American youth development organizations dates back to the birth of these organizations in the Progressive Era (1890-1920), when White reformers were intensely concerned with what they saw as degeneracy and artificiality of modern American urban culture. Looking for a model for revitalizing American youth and reforming their character, these social reformers turned to American Indian cultures, which in the tradition of the Noble Savage had long been represented as a repository of natural virtues,” (Strong 202).

In many white adaptations of Indigenous cultures, the idea of the “Noble Savage” is what shaped the ideas of what Native Americans were actually like. This prompted activities such as canoeing, archery, bead working, and tracking animals amongst others (Strong 203-204). In this same article, Strong reflects on her own experience,

“When I was a Camp Fire Girl in the 1960’s...[m]y Camp Fire friends and I fashioned ourselves as Indian princesses: We chose or invented “Indian names,” designed a symbolgram to visually express that name, sewed our own fringed ceremonial gowns, made beaded headdresses on a handmade loom, and decorated our gowns with strings of colored beads representing our achievements,” (Strong 209).

Accounts such as these were commonplace until recently. While the acts of teaching children how to canoe, perform archery, or do crafts are not inherently bad, the fact that they were learning through the lens of falsified “Native American” culture was. The children who attended these camps were unknowingly the recipients of antiquated stereotypes, which they then proceeded to pass down to future generations. Because of this “passing of knowledge”, Native American spirituality and culture is often commoditized today and deemed appropriate.

In addition to summer camps, school mascots are another way in which the white dominating class of America has projected various Native American stereotypes to the masses. One of the most well-known college sports teams, the “Fighting Sioux”, is a prime example of this. This mascot not only perpetuates the idea of the “savage Indian”, but also makes a mockery of an entire culture. “Native American mascots misrepresent, distort, and trivialize many aspects of Native American cultures, such as drumming, dancing, singing, and some aspects of religion,” (King 25). When sacred ceremonial acts are made into a form of entertainment at something as trivial as a sports game, it furthers the belief that this type of behavior is acceptable and tells a one-sided narrative.

According to C. Richard King, “High school traditions were created without in-depth knowledge of Native traditions; they are replete with inaccurate depictions of Indian people, and promote and maintain misguided stereotypes of rich and varied cultures,” (13 King). He goes on to talk about how schools use sacred objects such as the drum, eagle feather, and face paint to portray whatever image the institution desires (King 14).

While the fact that using a culture’s sacred objects in such a way that it becomes a mockery of that culture is obviously disrespectful, the actual problem is much deeper. When racist ideas are promoted at something as light-hearted as a sporting event, people tend to willingly accept it without questioning what they are seeing. Spectators do not go to games in order to question the ethicality of a team’s mascot, but rather to enjoy the atmosphere and have a good time. When confronted with racial stereotypes, they are more likely to ignorantly approve of what they are seeing, demonstrating to younger generations that it is appropriate.

Through continuing the tradition of blindly accepting racial stereotypes, society today has taken much of Native American cultures and used them to embellish music videos, costumes, and fashion trends. In Chase Iron Eyes’ article Halloween: Time to Wear Your Indian Costumes, he writes, “Because most Americans see American Indians as a conquered and disappearing race, they see no wrong in playing Indian dress-up, particularly in social situations which do not include Indians,” (Iron Eyes). It is this mentality along with the blatant stereotypes regarding Native Americans that lead White people to believe that dressing up in what they consider to be “indigenous costumes” is clever and appropriate.

One argument that many white people use in justifying their choice of dressing up as a Native American for Halloween is that they are not “portraying them in a derogatory manner” and that it would not be offensive if they were dressing up as a person of another culture such as a Scottish bagpiper or a German wearing lederhosen. While these seem like legitimate arguments, one important point to consider is that groups such as the Scottish and German were never colonized or the victims of a genocide inflicted upon them by a “dominant race.” Native Americans were subjected to mass executions, torture, and the destruction of much of their culture. Because of this trauma, many Native Americans are still reeling from the effects of colonization that their ancestors had to suffer through.

In the film, Dakota 38, which was created by Smooth Feather Productions, one of the men participating in the memorial ride to Mankato (which is dedicated to the thirty-eight Dakota that were hanged there in 1862), explains how painful memories such as these still resonate in the minds of the Dakota today,

“A deep, embedded, genetic depression. See our people at one time, the Dakota people are all Native Americans. Had a very strong connection with the creator. A very strong connection with Mother Earth. A very strong connection with nature and the forces of nature, all living things on this planet. And all this was taken from us. Just like that. We lost this connection with everything that we had. That’s where this depression comes from. A lot of our people are severely depressed and they don’t even know it. This depression is just now clinically diagnosed as the same thing soldiers suffer from when they return from combat,” (Dakota 38).

This sentiment helps to illustrate just how much derogatory costumes hurt the native community. When their original way of dress is made into a mockery it perpetuates the same kind of racist stereotypes that prompted the wars, conflicts and massacres of the 1800’s. For the Native American community, this brings back memories of oppression, genocide, violence and the loss of pride in their culture in the same way that Vietnam veterans have flashbacks to their combat experience. Although the pain is felt for different reasons, it hurts in the same way.

Another contemporary problem regarding the appropriation of Native American culture is the hyper-sexualization of women through inappropriate “Native American” dress. One example of this took place when Victoria’s Secret model, Karlie Kloss strutted down the runway wearing “tribal underwear” and a Native American headdress. In her article, Victoria’s Secret’s Racist Garbage Is Just Asking for a Boycott, Ruth Hopkins writes,

“Ms. Kloss has no business wearing a war bonnet at all. Not only is she not Native, she hasn’t earned the honor. Among my people, the Oceti Sakowin (Sioux), war bonnets are exclusively worn by men, and each feather within a war bonnet is symbolic of a brave act of valor accomplished by that man…Who wears a war bonnet? Tatanka Iyotanka, Sitting Bull. Not a no-account waif paid to prance around on stage in her underwear,” (Hopkins).

As stated by Hopkins, this incident was incredibly offensive for two primary reasons. One, the model had not earned the honor of wearing this sacred piece of clothing and two, Victoria’s Secret took something that is considered holy to Native American spirituality and made it into a sexualized costume for the public to gawk at.

While sexualizing sacred Native American objects is degrading in its own way, what makes it even more offensive is the fact that the entire culture is being made into a sexual object as a result. As Hopkins points out, “Given the epidemic levels of sexual violence Native women and girls are faced with in the United States, why can they not see how incredibly insensitive and inappropriate it is to equate Native womanhood as little more than a sexual fetish?” (Hopkins). When women sexualize Native American dress, through costumes it gives the impression that Native Americans are of a monolithic culture and that within that culture; it is acceptable to view women as mere sexual objects. Although the women who are dressing up this way may not realize it, these outfits suggest negative generalizations about the culture as a whole, which damages the already hurt psyche that is still prevalent today due to the decades of oppression and abuse that many of the tribes within this culture have already suffered.

In addition to the hyper-sexualization of Native American women, another major contemporary problem is the commodification of both a culture and its spirituality. In describing this Hopkins writes,

“Also, we’re a people, not a trend. We don’t wear costumes. We dress in regalia, and every single piece means something special. Our beadwork, leatherwork, and quillwork-every piece is a work of Art, unique onto itself and created by skilled, dedicated craftsman. War paint is also evocative, with colors and patterns that are meaningful. They tell a story. It’s not finger paint,” (Hopkins).

While most of society sees nothing wrong with dressing up in beaded moccasins or dream-catcher jewelry because “they’re not trying to be offensive”, what they do not realize is that they are usually funneling money from these purchases towards white designers who took their ideas from a culture that has already had everything else taken away from it.

One specific example of this is Urban Outfitters “Navajo Hipster” line of clothing that they just recently hit stores. One specific item, the “Navajo Hipster Panty” has caused much tension between the company and the Native American community. Although the Federal Indian Arts and Crafts act of 1990 makes it illegal to claim a product is made by a Native American when it’s not, the title of this item certainly gives off that idea (Hix). Additionally, Urban Outfitters used the name “Navajo” to describe its line, without first getting permission to use the word from the Navajo tribe, who trademarked it originally (Tillotson).

After being called out for their blatant racism and insensitivity, Urban Outfitters refused to both pull the items from their shelves, and to change the name in an act of ignorant defiance. Kristin Tillotson, a writer for the Star Tribune points out, “It’s an example of the passive, subtle racism and cultural appropriation that is ongoing. I’m not against people wearing clothes that have native-tribe connotations,” (Tillotson). She also brings up a very important point at the end of her article when she talks about how Minneapolis has one of the largest native populations in the country. Although consumers have the ability to support Native American artisans through purchasing authentic clothes and jewelry, they often times resort to shopping for designer labels or at trendy stores such as Urban Outfitters instead. As a result, the native community suffers while the dominating white community makes a profit off of their culture.

In describing why it is that white people desire to dress up like Native Americans and appropriate their culture, Vine Deloria writes,

“They are discontented with their society, their government, their religion, and everything around them and nothing is more appealing than to cast aside all inhibitions and stride back into the wilderness, or at least a wilderness theme park, seeking the nobility of the wily savage who once physically fought civilization and now, symbolically at least, is prepared to do it again”(Deloria).

Without realizing it, Deloria has essentially summarized what the hipster movement is about. In an act of rebellion to what mainstream society is pushing upon today’s youth, hipsters value the idea of “living freely”. They aspire to leave behind a culture that pushes academic, financial, and other forms of measurable achievement in favor of a more holistic style of living that was originally considered to be Native American. What hipsters did, however, was take this style of living and turn it into something that is supposed to be trendy instead of genuine. Unfortunately, it is also at the cost of the Native American community in many cases.

When looking at the problem of cultural appropriation of Native Americans, it becomes apparent almost immediately that the problem lies in the United States’ education system. As King points out in his work, U.S. History courses teach students about history through the White perspective because History textbook are generally written from the “winner’s” point of view. He goes on to explain,

“It is commonly asserted, and undoubtedly true, that Americans don’t know enough about their own history (or that of the world). The question isn’t whether we should pay more attention to history; the relevant questions are: Who gets to write history? From whose point of view is history written? Which historical realities are emphasized and which are ignored?” (King 34).

In taking into consideration how insensitive most Americans are regarding Native American
culture and spirituality, it is obvious that this is due to a lack of teaching from that particular
perspective. Although ignorance of the United States’ bloody past may be bliss for one group, it
certainly is not for the other, causing a deeply rooted chasm in society, which negatively affects
everyone.

Works Cited

Berkhofer, Robert F. The White Man's Indian: Images of the American Indian from Columbus to the Present. New York: Knopf, 1978. 196-97. Print.

Dakota 38. Prod. Smooth Feather Productions. Perf. Jim Miller. Dakota 38. Smooth Feather Productions, n.d. Web. 5 Dec. 2012.

Deloria, Vine. Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact. New York: Scribner, 1995. Print.

Hix, Lisa. "Fresh Type." Collectors Weekly. Collector's Weekly, 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 5 Dec. 2012.

Hopkins, Ruth. "Victoria's Secret Fashio..." Victoria's Secret Fashion Show News, Video and Gossip. Jezebel, 12 Nov. 2012. Web. 11 Dec. 2012.

Iron Eyes, Chase. "Indian Country." Halloween: Time to Wear Your Indian Costumes. Indian Country, 28 Oct. 2011. Web. 29 Nov. 2012.

King, C. Richard, and Charles Fruehling. Springwood. Team Spirits: The Native American Mascots Controversy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2001. Print.

Strong, Turner. "Cultural Appropriation and the Crafting of Racialized Selves in American Youth Organizations: Toward an Ethnographic Approach." Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies (2008): 197-213. MLA Online. Web. 18 Oct. 2012.

Tillotson, Kristin. "Lifestyle." Urban Outfitters' Hipster Panty Is a Navajo No-no. Star Tribune, 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 2 Dec. 2012.

Historical ignorance isn't bliss

Friday, December 14, 2012

US Forest Service literally taking a sh*t on sacred Navajo land

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

As the 150th anniversary of the Dakota hanging approaches, here are some important things to remember...

Monday, December 10, 2012

Why this blog exists: