Authenticity

[stdavidshead]

I was a little nervous to open this thread again as I saw the notifications piling up. While I do think it has reached the point of no return from my (admittedly clumsily) posed question, but it has been mostly very interesting.

with regards to the intent of your original question...I think it all boils down to "can the person reasonably explain why they like this item without resorting to its symbolism or what it might trying to infer about themselves"

I do think though that this thread has well, kind of lost the thread. It seems that I fundamentally misunderstood OP's intent with their post. It seems that really he was asking if we dress a certain way, are we being honest with ourselves and who we are? (feel free to correct me if I am still not getting it). I think that if you really love clothing and the way that it makes you feel, then you are constantly reevaluating this. It's okay to try things that aren't really "you," and realistically how else are we supposed to grow and expand in our style? And if something sticks and you really like it, then unless you are constantly being called out for offending someone why not rock it? Sure I might look silly in a flannel and raw denim 50% of the time when I am soft as I am right now, but no one is asking me to chop down a tree and I like hardwearing clothes. But if something doesn't feel right even if you like the aesthetic, if it truly feels inauthentic as OP put it, then feel free to ditch it. Clothing should enhance our lives not detract from it or further insecurities

I personally found these answers very satisfying.

FWIW, I have never seen these discussions come up in womenswear. Meaning, people who say you have to dress like your "authentic self." I also rarely see gendered discussions come up in womenswear (e.g. "dress like a woman," kind of like how menswear aficionados emphasize "dress like a man"). I do often see age-related discussions (e.g. "dress your age"), but not the other things.

Makes me think men are just too uncomfortable with liking fashion/clothes and have to mask this traditionally feminine interest with some masculine virtue. "Dress like a man," "dress to show respect," "dress as your authentic self," etc. A tie is not worn for style but worn as a sign of respect. A hat is not worn for style, but to keep your head covered from rain. A suit is not worn cause it's fun but because you're a grown man, etc.

I don't think this was directed at me, but even if it was, I don't take it as an insult. I hope you'll take my response in the same spirit.

Your thought process on wearing (non Type I) Native American designs strikes me as more concerned with personal authenticity than you'd care to admit. Plainly, you've done a hell of a lot of work. You've identified a group of academics (Scafidi, unnamed Native American scholars) that makes you comfortable with one course of action, and another group (the ones you mention subsequently) that makes you uncomfortable. Accordingly, you're a little "stuck". At the end of the day, because you are concerned not only with personal clothing choices but also with material impacts, not buying something is potentially as harmful as buying the wrong thing.

I admit I've never been in your position. For better or worse, my beliefs are different than yours, and my interest in clothes is way more narrow. But you're still making a deeply personal calculus, which reflects something about you, how you see yourself, and what you think is important.

Some would uncharitably and (so far as I know) unfairly call this "virtue signalling". I've always thought that term implied that the person is signalling something they don't actually believe in (a bit like wearing the religious articles of a faith to which you don't subscribe). It's clearly something very important to you. This is a species of personal authenticity. It's admittedly more complicated than wearing a baseball cap, but at it's base I think it's the same issue.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

I think this question arose when a native person on this board asked someone else to not use the term Indian. You then included a link about the Washington Redskins and mentioned your experience with native people to seemingly correct a native person on this board, which ... seems weird?

People can walk and chew gum at the same time; you can care about both issues. It's possible that some people are concerned with just semiotics and not material matters, but since this specific discussion isn't about material issues, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

I don’t know the ethnic background of the gentleman in question. He may speak for himself and that’s fine. The point is that it’s not a blanket reflection of attitudes of native Americans.
Just for the record, I’ve been saying “Native American” for some time now because I just feel it’s more dignified.
As to your argument about material things vs. semiotics, the article you cited earlier and the authors certainly conflated those points. To the point of appropriating culture, the terms itself implies some sort of theft or at least misuse vis a vie one’s own culture in order to gain from it. Affecting an accent or pretending to be of a certain heritage is an example.
I don’t think anyone would consider it appropriation to wear a sweater with the depiction of a Native American chief as the wearer may not be trying to pass himself off as one.

 

[radicaldog]

Are these ties that have been removed from people who wore them inauthentically? I've never had occasion to visit Oxford nor set foot in the Bodleian, but should I, in the future, I believe I'll wear a grenadine solid tie.

Haha no, I think they had a tradition such that you could get a pint (or maybe half, can't remember) in exchange for a piece of your tie.

 

[efta]

I don’t know the ethnic background of the gentleman in question. He may speak for himself and that’s fine. The point is that it’s not a blanket reflection of attitudes of native Americans.
Just for the record, I’ve been saying “Native American” for some time now because I just feel it’s more dignified.
As to your argument about material things vs. semiotics, the article you cited earlier and the authors certainly conflated those points. To the point of appropriating culture, the terms itself implies some sort of theft or at least misuse vis a vie one’s own culture in order to gain from it. Affecting an accent or pretending to be of a certain heritage is an example.
I don’t think anyone would consider it appropriation to wear a sweater with the depiction of a Native American chief as the wearer may not be trying to pass himself off as one.

I don't know, I've personally always been perplexed at the "cultural appropriation" idea. Cultures mix, and taking inspiration from other cultures is a way of not only accepting but show approval of it. I don't bat an eye if a white man wears "native american" accessories - and neither would I complain if a japanese man wears a suit.

I don't know, I just don't get it.

Edit: is there a list of exonyms that are slurs today? I remember using the term "chinese" last week and got told in a not-so-subtle way that thats a slur. I'm still pretty sure that it isn't, but is it?

 

[dieworkwear]

I don't know, I've personally always been perplexed at the "cultural appropriation" idea. Cultures mix, and taking inspiration from other cultures is a way of not only accepting but show approval of it. I don't bat an eye if a white man wears "native american" accessories - and neither would I complain if a japanese man wears a suit.

I don't know, I just don't get it.

Edit: is there a list of exonyms that are slurs today? I remember using the term "chinese" last week and got told in a not-so-subtle way that thats a slur. I'm still pretty sure that it isn't, but is it?

No, Chinese is not a slur. I suppose unless you use the term like "Chinese virus."

 

[cb200]

I agree that it may be an easy road to do things that could easily seen as symbolic and bypass the harder material issues at hand. Locally there's been a trend for events and meeting to acknowledge that the events are taking part on traditional territories... or if the speaker is bold - unseeded lands. This has spread overtime to encompass more and more events.

That said, there's many people who find that the words are empty and patronizing without meaningful actions or changes.

If I steal your car on Monday and run it out of gas, and on Tuesday tell everyone that I stole the car while I'm run it out of gas and into a ditch....

I'm thinking that along with authenticity there's a need to understand sincerity and impact as well. Authenticity I think is fine for a Rolex but when it comes to the self, relations, morals, and politics there's many more layers.

 

[Keith Taylor]

I remember using the term "chinese" last week and got told in a not-so-subtle way that thats a slur. I'm still pretty sure that it isn't, but is it?

Ha, that reminds me of a great Bill Burr bit that YouTube has helpfully titled ‘Oddly Racist’. “This is gonna sound oddly racist, but there are a lot of Asians in this restaurant.”

Worth a watch

 

[vdubiv]

since we're going down this "culture appropriate" rabbit hole, I feel like the word "Karen" is a slur, leaning heavily towards a racial slur, since it is used to describe a white woman. This to me is the same as using the "N" word.

 

[stdavidshead]

since we're going down this "culture appropriate" rabbit hole

Could we, like, not?

 

[vdubiv]

like what 'evs

 

[vdubiv]

so since part of this thread started about jewelry, it got me thinking and I called my sister last night to go look around at my parents house for a bracelet I bought like 20 years ago from a Native American shop way up in Northern Quebec when I was on vacation. It's nothing crazy, just some leather and a few beads. If she is able to find it I will post pictures.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

No, Chinese is not a slur. I suppose unless you use the term like "Chinese virus."

ooooh! You’re so subtlety viscous.

 

[Stylewords]

No, Chinese is not a slur. I suppose unless you use the term like "Chinese virus."

Like the "British strain".

 

[upsett1_spaghett1]

I don’t know the ethnic background of the gentleman in question. He may speak for himself and that’s fine. The point is that it’s not a blanket reflection of attitudes of native Americans.
Just for the record, I’ve been saying “Native American” for some time now because I just feel it’s more dignified.

For the record, I DID clarify that I am Native American. I also made it expressly clear that I don't presume to speak for all indigenous peoples because some of my views are not shared by all native folks. That being said, the term "Indian" is generally considered a slur by most people. It's a term that carries a lot of history that is painful for some people. For the sake of having a polite discussion I asked we not use it in this thread to refer to natives; especially since I think we all can agree that accuracy in language is preferable.

As to your argument about material things vs. semiotics, the article you cited earlier and the authors certainly conflated those points. To the point of appropriating culture, the terms itself implies some sort of theft or at least misuse vis a vie one’s own culture in order to gain from it. Affecting an accent or pretending to be of a certain heritage is an example.
I don’t think anyone would consider it appropriation to wear a sweater with the depiction of a Native American chief as the wearer may not be trying to pass himself off as one.

I think that most native folks, especially those living on a reservation care much more about material conditions than semiotics, but isn't it possible to care about both?

I think that you are hitting close to what is truly offensive and cultural appropriation and that is when someone attempts to affect belonging to a group they are not a part of. The offense being the degree of importance in what they are wearing/doing that is specific to that group. This is why after reading this thread I am never bringing a striped tie to the UK

 

[upsett1_spaghett1]

when you’re around people long enough you get to know their concerns, problems, fears and anxieties. Poverty, education, drugs and alcohol related issues were first and foremost. Did I ask them? Of course not.

One only has to look at the Twisted Tea incident to be reminded that even if a slur is used by the group themselves, folks outside the group should use it at their own peril. "Indian" is considered by enough people I think that's easier to be empathetic and not use it. It's not outside the scope of reason that we can address people kindly and be sincere about it, while still meeting material needs.

I agree that it may be an easy road to do things that could easily seen as symbolic and bypass the harder material issues at hand. Locally there's been a trend for events and meeting to acknowledge that the events are taking part on traditional territories... or if the speaker is bold - unseeded lands. This has spread overtime to encompass more and more events.

That said, there's many people who find that the words are empty and patronizing without meaningful actions or changes.

If I steal your car on Monday and run it out of gas, and on Tuesday tell everyone that I stole the car while I'm run it out of gas and into a ditch....

I'm thinking that along with authenticity there's a need to understand sincerity and impact as well. Authenticity I think is fine for a Rolex but when it comes to the self, relations, morals, and politics there's many more layers.

Okay this is one of those things where I think "woke" culture and liberal bourgeois bullshit really just goes too far into semiotics. Beginning every meeting with a land acknowledgment accomplishes absolutely nothing besides make everyone feel uncomfortable for a few seconds until they get their 23 & Me results back and find they're 1/64th native and then they feel good again.