How to use this Page

That's a great idea, Kerry. As usual the mind is blank though.

Hi, Catherine. Glad you like the idea! My mind is blank much more of the time than I would like it to be these days, so no worries! Thanks for the support :)

Sounds like a really cool feature. Can't wait to read it! :)

Thanks, Maria!

Hoping this isn't a duplicate...
Your links to Days One and Two of your Swamplandia analyses seem to be for your drafts page. Day Three works.

Thanks, Christine. They work now. Odd error! I don't know how it happened, but I definitely appreciate your quick note.

When explained, the side by side view helps.

I'm curious what the initial letter stated from the parents' perspective...?

I would love to hear more about why children would find it offensive to see a child dressed in this costume. Is it that they would feel it belittles their culture? I am Native Hawaiian and would not, for example, be concerned if Ladybug Girl were dressed in a hula costume (although grass skirts are not authentic, people!). Is it that it's just one more drop in the bucket of insensitive images? Just trying to understand.

Dear Anonymous,
The problem is that the child is wearing clothing that has specific ritual and religious importance to Native Americans.

As an outsider (I am "white," "Caucasian", "of European ancestry") I don't need to understand the religious significance of the clothing. I hear that it is offensive and that is understanding enough for me.

The costume box in my house growing up had "gypsy," "Chinaman," and "cigarette girl" costumes. I wouldn't dream of dressing up my child as any of those things. (I would not put my child in a grass skirt either-dinosaurs, power rangers, ninja turtles and the occasional princess was fine for my girls.)

Times change...it is not about political correctness, it is about empathy and understanding.

Clearly it is a suit vest, likely from her father's closet, which she is using to pretend. Do you think perhaps that you may be over-reacting?

Like Christine, I'm an outsider to this culture. It is offensive to Debbie and someone who brought it to her attention.

@ Anonymous, April 12: Didn't you notice the girl is wearing a feathered headdress? I think that's the issue.

@ Anonymous, April 12: and clearly she is also wearing a feathered headdress.

@ Christine: ditto for me.

She doesn't say what she specifically objects to about the costume. She only says "the 'Indian' costume your daughter wears." If it is only the headress she objects to, she should say so. However, my point still stands. The little girl is making costumes for her "pretend" play with what she can find. This is common child's play. And those headdresses are sold, authentic or not, from many stores and mail-order houses, and people buy them. I think people should learn about different cultures, but I also think that people should not throw a fit over harmless child's play.

And people used to dress in blackface. I think the main point here is to bring this to our attention so that the ignorance changes. Ignorance just means one is not aware. Debbie is telling us it's not harmless child's play in the pov of those in her culture. You're missing the point when you parse the fine point of saying she didn't say what part of the costume was objectionable. As Christine said, it's enough to hear that it's offensive.

@ Anonymous, April 12: Debbie, correct me if I'm wrong but I think you're missing her point, Anonymous. It’s not that the little girl (or really, the adult author projecting through the girl) doesn’t have authentic things to dress up in – it’s that one of the dress-up items, authentic or not, is sacred to another culture, and she shouldn't be dressing up in it. You didn’t know, I didn’t know, the author didn't know, but Debbie does. Perhaps you and I don't have things that offend us because we're so accustomed to a different worldview and that's partly why a defensiveness kicks in.

"Little Black Sambo" used to be acceptable, even recommended, but Langston Hughes noted in 1932 that it was a typical "pickaninny" book which was hurtful to black children.

Check out this site:
"The Picaninny Caricature" page; the Jim Crow Museum of Racist Memorabilia, sponsored by Ferris State University.

www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/picaninny

I would copy and paste a quote but this function is disabled by the website. Midway down the page, find the section "Characteristics of Picaninnies."


This observation especially struck me as similar to the little girl clad only in a long vest and headdress: the author talks about how the picaninny caricature shows Black children as poorly dressed or nearly nude, which implies that Black parents neglect their children because a loving parent would provide clothing. The author continued to say that it also suggests that Blacks are less civilized than Whites (who wear clothes)."

It seems to me that you should step back and dispassionately consider Debbie's points before reacting. The tiniest bit of research I just did helps reinforce other historical instances of the same kind of thing she's still seeing today. She's acting on behalf of her culture and the children in the same way that Langston Hughes did.

Read her "About AICL" section in which she explains her background and her goals. It would make you more empathetic to her p.o.v.

I will concede one point, Anonymous: I think it would be helpful to explain exactly what's objectionable about the image so that those who are ignorant *will* understand and will know what to be sensitive to. It could be the scanty vest, it could be the headdress and its sacred significance...

"Becky Wyatt, a teacher at Kettering Elementary School in Long Beach, decided to alter the costumes for the annual Thanksgiving play a few years ago after local Indians spoke out against pupils wearing feathers, which are sacred in their culture. Now, children wear simple headbands."

Source: http://card.wordpress.com/2006/11/23/a-revisionist-thanksgiving-teaching-racial-conflict-to-students/ Accessed 13 April, 2012.