HOME | DD
JuDKo β Indian
Published: 2013-05-04 14:39:31 +0000 UTC; Views: 15744; Favourites: 417; Downloads: 318
Redirect to original
Related content
Comments: 33
Boring uninspired and racist....that and the model looks pretty generic and bland
π: 0 β©: 0
Right? And this person's gallery is chock full of it. Unbelievable.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
this is definitely a very pretty picture... put i'm afraid that i must point out that this is cultural appropriation. Headdresses and traditional native american garb have very sacred and are a vital part of native american tradition. The native american tradition shouldn't be taken advantage of and abused for the sake of a pretty picture. I'm sorry.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
DUUDE YOU ARE SO RIGHT ON SO MANY REASONABLE FACTS AND LEVELS MAN!
WHY DO WHITE PPL DRESS UP LIKE NATIVES AS A "FASHION" WHEN CLEARLY THE NATIVES ARE SPECIFICALLY A CULTURE!!!
π: 0 β©: 0
Sorry for cluttering up your comment section, but nice work by the way
π: 0 β©: 0
Pretty! Ignore the girl that said it was "culturally insensitive." She probably thinks Disney's Pocahontas isn't sensitive enough either.
π: 0 β©: 1
it's not sensitive at all. pocahontas is a very flawed movie with tons of historical inaccuracies. The only reason why people like Pocahontas is because they rather see the love story between John and Pocahontas instead of actually acknowledge the fact that early settlers completely screwed over the native americans.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
This is absolutely fantastic. I've been looking for a headdress like that FOREVER! 
Stunning!
π: 0 β©: 0
I hate that my culture is used this way. Disrespectful. Not much else to say.
π: 0 β©: 1
Are you saying that only native Americans can be shown in this kind of outfit?
π: 0 β©: 2
Besides the cultural and religious significance of the actual outfit being used/imitated, there's also the racial context to consider. It's not unlike wearing blackface.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's absurd. That's like saying only a Jewish actor can portray a Jewish character in a movie.
π: 0 β©: 1
The blackface thing is a red herring. An actor in blackface presents a caricature of a black person (like the old cartoon representations) That's what's offensive about it. There's nothing like that here.
π: 0 β©: 1
This isn't an over-the-top caricature of an entire culture? This looks, to me, like a bikini model wearing war paint and as many native-looking artifacts as can possibly fit into the scene.
You say red herring; I say fair comparative example. Let me paint a more analogous picture along in the same theme. Imagine this same model wearing a giant 70s afro-wig, with giant gold chains around her neck, a diamond 'grille' in her mouth, holding a basketball and a voodoo doll. No matter how gorgeous you might think the resulting image turns out, it would still be playing off multiple stereotypes at once mainly for reasons of juxtaposition and surprise. [Notes: Headdresses are worn by male chiefs, which is why I'm using so much typically male imagery in my example. Also, no two pieces of her costume (if they were accurate) would have come from the same tribe, hence the mixed sources in my example.]
As for the Jewish actor/character comment, this isn't a movie and the model isn't trying to accurately portray a role. The point is that all this paraphernalia makes it MORE obvious that she's not native, not less.
π: 0 β©: 1
And what's wrong with afro-wigs, gold chains, diamond grilles, etc.? Please answer that. (Really) Don't you realize YOU'RE the one attributing negative connotations to these things? And because YOU'RE actually the bigot you assume the same misguided thought processes when you see works like this.
π: 0 β©: 1
Go make such a photo and see how quickly people are offended by it. In the post I was responding to, you specifically said that "An actor in blackface presents a caricature of a black person" and "that's what's offensive about it." How can you then turn around and say that none of these other things are offensive? I chose them to reflect both the inherent stereotypes associated with the things I listed and to compare their hypothetical use with the mish-mash of native 'artifacts' in this image.
I didn't come here to call you or the artist a racist, yet you're reacting as if I am. Racism, rightly so, has very strong negative connotations in much of the world. I can understand why you'd want to defend yourself, if that were the case, but don't let that defensiveness blind you to the point I was actually trying to make. I was just pointing out the cultural appropriation and perpetuation of stereotypes being used in the image. Nothing changes when everyone just turns a blind eye with an attitude of 'I'm not offended, so no one else has the right to be, either.'
To answer your question: nothing is wrong with any of these items. They're just things, of course. However, if you bring them all together and intentionally use them out of context to make an artistic statement, it's pretty important to understand all the baggage that comes along with them.
[By the way, I didn't realize that I was responsible for all the events in human history that resulted in "attributing negative connotations to these things." Mostly, because I wasn't even alive during much of it.]
To get more specific, an afro is a hairstyle that was popular with some blacks in the 1970s. An afro-wig is a costume element tied directly to that image. You can't wear an afro-wig and expect no one to make that association.
In the same way, you can't wear a swastika armband and expect the word 'Nazi' not to cross anyone's mind. Obviously, this is an extreme example but I hope it drives the point home that items have symbolism associated with them.
You didn't look at this photo and ~only~ think that the leather, feathers, and beads were pretty. ['What's that red on the model's cheeks? I guess they just wanted to bring out the color of her lips.'] I guarantee that you immediately associated everything the model is wearing with Native American culture. The artist is reinforcing this extremely obvious association with the title "Indian". It's difficult for me to believe that you're completely ignorant of the history and context that comes along with Native Americans and their image.
If you had a culture that could be used to offend you, you might have a bit more empathy when other people are genuinely offended.
π: 0 β©: 2
It's not about putting Germans in a bad light. In that particular case, it would have more to do with glorifying or supporting Nazism or trivializing the Holocaust. However that wasn't my point either. The point is that someone wearing a red armband with a swastika is almost completely inseparable from a Nazi at this point, for obvious reasons. You can use all these associations in art to create powerful statements, whether to elicit an emotional response directly on the subject matter, to use the symbolism in a novel way to comment on something else (satire, for example), or to reinforce the symbolism in ways that insult or marginalize people, intentionally or otherwise.
It seems like you're coming from a place of freedom of expression. I don't disagree with you on that point. Artists can use whatever they want in their artwork. The viewers of that artwork are also free to respond to that artwork. My main point through all of this is NOT that no one can ever use these objects, images, or symbols again but that people should realize the power and meaning behind them. Either the artist(s) was ignorant of the effects these things might have or they were aware and chose to proceed anyway. In that case, they should not be surprised that someone is hurt or offended by the work.
I realize that we're not likely to come away from this discussion with any sort of agreement on the issue, so we'll have to leave it here (or on your next point, if you have more to say). At least a conversation took place here, rather than the complete dismissal of the subject it started with.
π: 0 β©: 0
This is getting a bit long-winded. Here's the bottom line: Your argument boils down to: One should not use a swastika in a piece of artwork because it puts Germans in a bad light. Think about it, and understand why I totally disagree with this type of thinking.
π: 0 β©: 1
Particularly the headdress, headdresses are earned and are meant for war chiefs. I understand the model and the photographer probably did not mean to offend, but cultural sensitivity should be considered.
π: 0 β©: 1
It is unreasonable to expect such subtle sensitivity to your culture by non native Americans. If you agree that no offense was intended - why are you offended?
π: 0 β©: 1
I obviously can't speak for ElizadeathTaylor but people don't generally ~choose~ to be offended by something. She apparently ~was~ offended and expressed her opinion to the artist that posted this. If the artist truly isn't aware that their actions could be considered offensive, the only way they will ever know is if someone tells them. I think Elizadeath brought it up in a calm and respectful manner. To simply discount her feelings out of hand because you don't agree just adds insult to injury.
Just how subtle the cultural appropriation in this image is, is up for debate but it's not unreasonable at all to bring it up and discuss it when it comes to light.
π: 0 β©: 1
I disagree. I think that many people indeed "choose" to be offended by the most trivial and harmless things - as is the case here. Therefore the artist does not need YOU to tell them anything. All you are offering is whiny political correctness.
π: 0 β©: 0
gorgeous work love the cool feel the lighting gives this shot
π: 0 β©: 0
