A Victoria’s Secret model shows off her underwear while wearing “a Native American headdress (also called a war bonnet)” and some group calling itself “Native American Appropriations” gets all bent out of shape at the “culturally insensitive faux pas.”
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/victoria-secret-apologizes-fashion-show-gaffe-194400804.html
“Ruth Hopkins, a columnist for a Native American news site, wrote that ‘after years of patronage and loyalty to the Victoria's Secret brand, I am repaid with the mean-spirited, disrespectful trivialization of my blood ancestry and the proud Native identity I work hard to instill in my children.’ Putting a headdress on a white model is particularly offensive, she wrote, because among the Sioux tribe, war bonnets are exclusively worn by men, with each feather symbolizing an act of valor.”
Hey, Ms. Hopkins, here’s a news flash: There were wars and your side lost! Would you show the same dismay at cultural insensitivity if the model had worn a Viking war helmet? Or a Confederate army hat?
No? Why not?
Is not one cultural insensitivity equal to another?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.