The Music Festival Hipster Headdress Goes British

(image via Boston.com)

Well, it's official. The hipster headdress has gone British. Last week was the Glastonbury music festival in the UK, a huge music spectacular not unlike Coachella, or The Bamboozle, or Sasquatch! or Lightning in a Bottle here in the US. Boston.com posted an image of festival goers sporting the (no-longer) edgy hipster headdress, maddening, but pretty unsurprising, actually. It was only a matter of time.

However, not to be out done by their former subjects across the pond, these British hipsters took playing Indian to a whole new level. Observe the "tents" at this year's festival:

Yeah. Those are tipis. A whole lot of tipis. So while you're wasted, or high on something or another, gallivanting through the fields and communing with nature while rockin' out, you can "authenticate" your wild-man experience by coming back to your tipi--living like the original bad asses, those Indians who didn't give a damn, no rules, no "civilization", just one with life, man.

Snarky imaginative narrative aside, there is a really interesting dynamic of playing Indian in countries other than the US/Canada--there are "powwow" communities, especially in Germany, where participants make painstakingly "authentic" regalia, sing in drum groups, etc. That's a whole post in itself, but it raises the question of how these actions are perceived and interpreted in a country without Native Americans, lacking both the genocidal history or contemporary culture to provide context and understanding of their actions.

Not that people in the US, even with that context, have some greater understanding (or my blog wouldn't exist!), but it reminds me of the incident a few months ago when Harry Connick Jr was a guest judge on a show in Austrailia, and participants came out in blackface to perform Michael Jackson:

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDlfgA7jfLE)

As an American, Connick Jr. was offended, and rightfully so. However, the Australian community shared no such outrage, because wearing blackface has no history in their country. There was a lot of back and forth debate, and there are any number of similar examples, but it goes to show that history and context is key in the understanding of racist actions.

Does it make it ok? absolutely not. Just like I'm not ok with british headdress wearers or a tipi village at a music festival overseas. Perpetuating stereotypes and erasing the current presence of Native people is never excusable in my book, even if it occurs thousands of miles away.

Boston.com Glastonbury slideshow: http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/06/glastonbury_festival_2010.html

Earlier:

Educating Non-Natives at Lightning in a Bottle: http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/2010/06/educating-non-natives-at-lightning-in.html

But Why Can't I Wear a Hipster Headdress?: http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/2010/04/but-why-cant-i-wear-hipster-headdress.html

The Hipster Headdress Abounds at Coachella: http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/2010/04/hipster-headdress-abounds-at-coachella.html

Headdresses and Music Festivals go together like PB and...Racism?: http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/2010/06/headdresses-and-music-festivals-go.html



(Thanks to Stephen from Drawing on Indians, who sent me the pics. He did a great post on the topic as well, which can be found here.)

North American Indians: a step by step guide to "playing Indian"

My friend Katie is currently in her first year of teaching 4th grade on the Rosebud Sioux reservation in South Dakota (go Katie!), and she sent me a scanned copy of this ridiculous book that was in her classroom library. I'll let her give the context:

"I finally started going through my classroom's library and was pretty appalled to find this book (along with the typical Indian the Cupboard and Little House on the Prairie-esque books).  I teach 4th grade on the Rosebud Reservation; 100% of my students are Lakota.  The book purports to give a history of Native Americans and a guide to Native crafts, but what it ends up being is a veritable handbook for white kids to "play Indian."  All the photos are of white kids dressed up as Indians!  I can't find one picture (other than the historical ones, of course) of a Native American child.  Even more disturbingly, the descriptions make it sound as if these white kids are authentic representations of Indian clothing, etc. The worst thing is that this book is (now was, ugh) in the library of a classroom full of Lakota children.  It's like hey kids, these pictures of white kids can teach you how to be Indian better than your own people!"

After the jump, scanned selections of the book. Prepare yourself, it's pretty bad. (All images can be clicked for a bigger version)

First thing of note: the title page says "Consultant: Anne Armitage, BA--The American Museum in Britain. So, there weren't any qualified "consultants" who were actually Native? or I don't know, maybe in AMERICA? Also, this is published by Scholastic--usually a well known and trusted name in children's books. 

This page talks about "Indian clothing". Everything is in past tense (as is the whole book), and it has instructions on how to make a "war bonnet" along with a historic photograph. 

"Hairstyles were important ways to look different but still fit in with tribal traditions. Some groups smeared their hair with mud and sculpted it into different shapes." Um, really? 

The descriptions of the tribes (not to mention the accompanying images) make me so upset. The past tense and historic descriptions would leave any child thinking there was no way a Nez Perce, Chumash, Tlingit, or Navajo person still lived today. 

Katie pointed out that the caption with the boy reads: "Plains warriors carried spears and hide shield and wore elaborate headdresses for ceremonial occasions", implying that he IS a "plains warrior".

More tribal descriptions--the description of the seminole is especially interesting. It's mostly about North American settlers and influence rather than the tribe. 

look at the boy's stance. Sitting "Indian style".

A couple of things: I like the fact the "Plains Warrior" and the "Seminole" are playing stickball--complete disregard for regionality of the game. Also, the one reference to traditions continuing today mentions that a form of this game is still played today "called lacrosse." Not that tribes still play the traditional form, which they do. 

"Early European Explorers and settlers tried to write down the sounds of Indian words, but some could not accurately be conveyed using our alphabet."

The caption reads "a sioux boy and a nez perce girl would have been able to speak to each other using sign language". 

So, overall, I'm a bit at a loss for words. I can't believe scholastic decided this was a great book to promote "hands on learning," and that someone decided this was a good book to put in a 4th grade reservation classroom. I mean, this is straight up, by definition cultural appropriation. 

I also just googled the book, and found it on a few "recommended book" lists for teachers (gross), and found that there is an entire series of books that teach kids how to "play history": Egypt, Rome, Stone Age...and American Indians (completely the same, right?). It appears to be still in print. 

Another example of placing Natives in the historic past, of melding of hundreds of distinct tribal traditions, of playing Indian, of not allowing Indians to be "experts" on ourselves, the "otherization" of American Indians...and about every other issue I've dealt with on this blog. So frustrating. 

Major kudos to Katie for cleaning out her classroom library, her students are lucky to have her. 

(Thanks Katie!)