Post by Souriquois on Jun 2, 2017 23:02:17 GMT -4
I have heard debates on this.
I kind of alluded to it on the Cultural Appropriation thread on ABF, the last two Canadian Prime Minister have gotten war bonnets. These were ceremonies and they were both given new names as well.
I tried to bring that as an example, of why any douchebag wearing a headdress at Coachella is being hella disrespectful. I mentioned it to drive home that not just any Joe Blow can wear one, you have to earn it, via bravery and war, or holding high office... not just any indigenous person can wear one, and you don't have to be indigenous to wear one (Stephen Harper is not indigenous, Justin Trudeau is of mixed ancestry). Kevin Costner is another non-indigenous person who got one.
Anyway, the PM getting one has been debated. Some people are against it because they see the Canadian government as a colonial institution. Others see it as incorporating indigenous knowledge into how Canada is run. I see validity on both sides of the argument, though, I do not really have an opinion, I just follow it from the sidelines... although personally, I think that maybe, adorning someone in high office with one will help non-indigenous people who don't know much about the issue understand that wearing a fake one to a music festival is inappropriate (so there is that advantage).
It is actually quite common for indigenous politicians in Canada to wear traditional dress in the Parliament, like non-indigenous politicians wear a suit and tie. Usually only for big occasions though.
They're lawmakers. In pre-Columbian times, lawmakers wore them, so, there really isn't a difference in my eyes. It's the appropriate dress for the place. White folks got the ceremonial mace, which lawmakers in many European countries used for thousands of years. I'd like to see both in the HoC. In fact, the ceremonial mace in the Legislature of my home province was modified to feature indigenous stories as well as European ones. It's the same thing.
Ceremonial mace:
What do you think?
I kind of alluded to it on the Cultural Appropriation thread on ABF, the last two Canadian Prime Minister have gotten war bonnets. These were ceremonies and they were both given new names as well.
I tried to bring that as an example, of why any douchebag wearing a headdress at Coachella is being hella disrespectful. I mentioned it to drive home that not just any Joe Blow can wear one, you have to earn it, via bravery and war, or holding high office... not just any indigenous person can wear one, and you don't have to be indigenous to wear one (Stephen Harper is not indigenous, Justin Trudeau is of mixed ancestry). Kevin Costner is another non-indigenous person who got one.
Anyway, the PM getting one has been debated. Some people are against it because they see the Canadian government as a colonial institution. Others see it as incorporating indigenous knowledge into how Canada is run. I see validity on both sides of the argument, though, I do not really have an opinion, I just follow it from the sidelines... although personally, I think that maybe, adorning someone in high office with one will help non-indigenous people who don't know much about the issue understand that wearing a fake one to a music festival is inappropriate (so there is that advantage).
It is actually quite common for indigenous politicians in Canada to wear traditional dress in the Parliament, like non-indigenous politicians wear a suit and tie. Usually only for big occasions though.
They're lawmakers. In pre-Columbian times, lawmakers wore them, so, there really isn't a difference in my eyes. It's the appropriate dress for the place. White folks got the ceremonial mace, which lawmakers in many European countries used for thousands of years. I'd like to see both in the HoC. In fact, the ceremonial mace in the Legislature of my home province was modified to feature indigenous stories as well as European ones. It's the same thing.
Ceremonial mace:
What do you think?