Wheeler, who is an Ojibwa-Mohawk from Winnipeg, said that they were not appropriate, as headdresses are traditional garb worn by Indian chiefs. “They are a sign of honour and respect and leadership, they’re not a cute accessory to be worn in a nightclub while people are dancing to music,” Wheeler said.
Wheeler refuted suggestions that the headdresses were a sign of respect. “I appreciate where people are coming from and that they want to say ‘we’re respecting you,’ but it really isn’t,” she said. “There are other ways that we can respect our culture instead of wearing colourful faux headdresses.”
Canada-based company spokesperson Emily Scarlett said the company received three complaints about the hair pieces, which were available for purchase at five stores. Earlier this week, all 62 H&M locations in Canada were ordered to remove them from store inventory, Scarlett said. “Of course we never want to offend anybody or come off as insensitive,” she said. “We’re always about being there for our customers.”
With news video.
18 comments:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: NO ONE has the right not to be offended. You're supposedly an adult, deal with it.
It's the kind of capitulation and appeasement shown by this company that's turned our society into an overly-sensitive, hand-wringing, thin-skinned mockery of what it once was. The correct response should have been, "we're sorry you took offence" and the item should have remained on sale.
My hat is off to you BoS.
Before you know it you won't be able to buy a beret (offensive to french people), or a hard hat (offensive to construction workers), a policeman's hat (offensive to the three little pigs) or a bishops mitre (just offensive)
...and kids are not allowed to climb trees.
I am offended by fat people like Kim Wheeler, something needs to be done!!!
*facepalm*
I disagree with you BoS. Firstly your assertion of 'our society' being some sort of homogeneous society. Clearly society is filled with different individuals, representing different races, creeds and cultures. This item is offensive in its significant lack of cultural competence and respect. Firstly. Imagine if your people had their land taken away from them, their people treated as savages, decay, disease and addiction inflicted often unwilling by people from a far. Then imagine that a hundred or so years later people are selling items that strongly resemble traditional and ceremonial items of cultural importance for a few dollars at chain outlets for people to 'party in'. It is disrespectful and offensive.
Tjhom... ok, but, what's the relationship between what you said and a headdress? What about any african design?
I would imagine that it is mainly culturally insensitive for the items to be sold in the stores in Canada, where First Nations people live.
Stating that you are a Scot and have experienced disrespect, abuse and ridicule does not in anyway connect to this issue. If this was about clan plaids maybe? Don't offer your own understanding of hardship as a reality for another cultures experiences. I appreciate that you only pay attention to those you respect and are not bothered by behaviours of those you don't. I get it, you are pragmatic. But saying that everyone else should just go ahead and follow suit assumes that you somehow have the right attitude. Being apathetic about what does and does not offend others can lead to some pretty awful behaviour. Laying down platitudes like "your responsibility as an adult", arguably there are no responsibilities for anyone, such notions are culturally and socially generated within a given society. Hell lets get existential and consider that nothing matters, everything is nothing, matter is just atoms randomly in flux and there is no meaning to anything.
Whatever your definition of being a human is, your core values and beliefs, these things we clearly do not have in common. But of course that's fine. I was just trying to say that these headdresses are in fact offensive, whether you find them offensive or not personally is your prerogative. But they are directly offensive to the Native Americans involved - as they trivialise a culture for profit.
Yet again, I don't care whether they are "offensive" or not. You don't have the right not to be offended and you don't get to impose your particular brand of puritanism on the rest of us.
There's no law against hurting someone's wittle feelers, we're not all 4 years old, and if we continue to go down this route of knee-jerk offense-taking we may as well bring a halt to all political and cultural debate because someone might be "offended". Where does it end? I find many of the ideas of the political Right in my country offensive, do I demand they're banned from expressing their opinions? No, because I'm an adult and I understand how democracy works. I find the lies told by religionists offensive, do I start an internet campaign to have then silenced? No, because I'm an adult and I understand how civil society works.
I don't care who is offended, I don't care what they're offended by but I do care when grown ups act like children. That's very offensive.
Trivializing? :D :D :D
Why? I can't see it.
Who care's if an adult acts like a child. Its his problem. What I could really find offensive is that an adult treats other adults as if they where children.
I care if an adult acts like a child, when those "adults" shout and scream and stamp their feet because they were "offended" and then, as a consequence of that "offence", try to impose their childish way of thinking on the rest of us.
And as for an adult treating other adults like kids, I suggest you take it up with the professional offence-takers; they're the ones who're taking the piss and making a mockery of our society.
I like how you have positioned yourself here...there is virtually no way I can comment without you leaping forward with your assertion that my arguments equate to childishness.
I rarely comment, what did cause me to comment was the bigoted tone of your original comment. I'll admit I could have just ignored it and forgot it, but that's the thing, It wasn't so much that you were representing your opinion, it was the assertion that your opinion was THE opinion. This is what bothered me, so I felt it necessary to enter my arguments into the arena. As much as I have enjoyed the casual trade of insults, I don't see where we can go from here as we both have different opinions on the matter. Furthermore you seem to be more inclined to behave like a child, covering your eyes and chanting "childish, our society, responsibility, adult" and not actually considering these thoughts as anything other than an attempt to push my "Puritanism" on to others. Consider this - have you not been guilty of pushing your apathy and cynicism on others? What exactly was your intention when commenting in the first place? To bully your belief that anyone who expresses empathy, demonstrates cultural competence or for that matter considers another viewpoint - is a child? Maybe we are both guilty of not shutting up... In any case I appreciate your responses, it has been fun to spar with you.
BoS: finally, we are talking the same (my message was not responding to yours, just related to what you said). When a adult acts like a kid, he's treating the rest of like his equal, wich denotes some kind of paternalism (in this case even with american natives... who knows, maybe the dont need or not want to be "protected" this way) and arrogance.
Tjhom: Are you american native or are you near to some of them? Because I have the impression you speak and think in name of all of them and their feelings and culture, more than being empathic. I'm not saying only american natives should be offended with the headdress, because I admit some people could find it offensive, but as BoS says, thats not the point. Please explain this.
And also I would like you to explain why is this case trivialising native amercan culture, because as far as now, you just said it is, you didn't say why. And that really is the real point.
Finally, Tjhom, its really ironic how you say BoS covers his eyes, when its you who defends that an object should not be to public exposure and retired based on a personal point of view. This is like admiting there is no other options. He (and me) is not saying ours is THE opinion. Its rather up to each of us how to react and act in consequence in a personal way. Telling and forcing H&M what to do with rest of us actually is making the world a place with only ONE way yo can handle this kind of thing.
PS: Sorry, my english is probably quite shitty. Its not my native language.
Anon, the reason why it is considered offensive to native Americans is in the article - read it. I commented that it trivialised their culture because it appeared to be hijacking a culturally significant object and using it in what can be considered inappropriate means. Items ,objects, symbols of culture etc have social, political and emotional power. This is why people get so worked up when the flags are burned in protests. Nobody says - oh its just a flag. Its a symbol of sovereignty and a plethora of other things beyond the objective notion that a flag is a flag.
Finally, my own background is not a concern, nor is any relationship I have with Native Americans. One should not offer offer up relationships as evidence of understanding with a marginalised group or community. That would be like saying "I'm not racist, I understand Black issues because I have Black friends". Identity does not spring over individual privilege from association alone.
What I was trying to say with the whole covering his eyes thing, was that he wouldn't be interested in what I was saying and just consider it childish whinging. That is fine, BoS and I are no longer in a situation where one of us is arguing who is right or wrong, we are attacking the attitudes of each other in proposing a different opinion in the first place. Or so it seems.
There was nothing "bigoted" in anything that I said, you have completely and, I think, wilfully, missed the point I was trying to make.
I agree with you that I see no point in continuing this discussion, not when accusations of bigotry are being thrown around - that's a common tactic of the cultural terrorist, designed to shut down all dissent and to browbeat their opponent into going along with the "groupthink". Well, I wont be.
People, no matter their race, creed or colour, need to accept that offense will be caused and that the solution to it is NOT to try to sanitise society, mollycoddle people, ban things or try to have their detractors silenced. It's to understand that people are different, have different opinions and may not happen to see things exactly the same way you do. Oh, and to grow up.
I forgot to say: sorry, anon, I misunderstood your first reply to me and I agree with much of what you subsequently said. I fail to see how those who defend multiculturalism can at the same time demand that society be homogenised, that all potentially "offensive" items, behaviours and language be erased from public life.
And for someone who is not a native English speaker you express yourself very well.
BoS: thanks. I can speak or read properly, but writing is more hard for me.
Tjhom:
Sorry, but I did read the article, and it explains why ONE specific person, american native in this case, is offended by a headress on sale. "Somebody could be a jerk while wearing it or mock my culture while wearing it". Sorry, but is the only explanation I can read and find. I understand the personal feelings when the situaction happens, but it doesn't happen just because the headress is on sale. Sorry, but this argument is purely subjective and speculative.
I was interested in YOU explaining why it is offensive to you in this specific context: a headress put on sale. I dont find valid the argument "it could be offensive in x or y situation". It will be or not in a real and concrete situation.
Nobody is burning publicly an american native headdress or other symbols. The burning flags (nobody does this without a particular, and normally disrepectful intention) comparation with this case is kind of artificial.
A specific racist (its curious you call it 'black issues'), homophobic or whatever comment or attitude is objectively offensive and disrespectful, no matter the personal background and circunstances of the offender or the offended. I agree.
Sometimes a personal and subjective situation does explain a special senstiveness to certain topics. I wasnt thinking of privileges or meaning I could understand better your point of view, or this point of viwe justified because of that background.
Oh, I forgot. Maybe you are all right, and its nonsense to go on, but I have a question for Tjhom, because I really want to understand him. The only thing I hace clearly understood is that the witdrawall of the headdres is OK for him because its offensive to some people (not necesarily to him).
Would you have complained and asked the item to be retired if you had seen it yourself?
Anon
If I had been in the store I would have been surprised that they were selling the item in North America. I would say that it was probably going to offend some people and I could understand why. I can also understand why it would not offend other people. I also understand what BoS was saying - if we allow some items to be taken away because they are offensive, then all items are subject to being deemed offensive. Furthermore, who decides what is and isn't offensive? etc etc etc. I get it. I can just see that in a country where multiculturalism and cultural sensitivity is particularly an issue, having a company from another country step in, not realising the potential for offence is pretty short sighted.
Both on a macro and a micro scale this can be considered offensive and disrespectful to First Nations people.
Post a Comment