Dia de los Muertos drama: Users in /r/makeupaddiction battle over whether or not wearing 'sugar skull' makeup is culturally offensive. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
40 ups - 0 downs = 40 votes
119 comments submitted at 20:59:29 on Oct 4, 2014 by floatingm
I don't even know why this is even a big deal. The entire history of America is the mixing of peoples and traditions. Mexican and Latino culture, especially in the southwest, is mixed into the popular zeitgeist and its strange to say that this custom is "ours" to the exclusivity of everyone who might find it interesting/aesthetically pleasing.
/2cents
Because simply put, adopting a sacred cultural part of a minority culture into the mainstream zeitgeist and turning it into a fashion statement is problematic and incredibly ignorant. It inevitably loses it's importance due to the watering down of it's usage and eradicates the importance and message behind the origin and it's intended purpose.
EDIT: -4 in 3 minutes? Yeah sorry for facts guys. I forgot we should just use feelings instead.
I'm going to make this extremely simple. I'm from Mexico. I was raised in Mexico. I lived in Mexico nearly all my life. I think it's beautiful to see people sharing my culture. And sugar skulls are a food we enjoy. Granted a food we also leave out in altars for people but we enjoy them too. "Culture appropriation" is something I keep hearing but see none of it. They're not claiming it's an original idea. They're not claiming they made it. They've always said they took inspiration from the culture they're learning and borrowing from. That's not stealing and claiming it your own. That's Sharing.
> Yeah sorry for facts guys. I forgot we should just use feelings instead.
You posted feelings, not facts.
Of course. I forgot sociological concepts are based on feelings. Just like the use of Redskins as a team name. Or the use of the indian war bonnet as a head accessory. Silly me.
Lots of people wear Native American war bonnets on Halloween. Also, sugar skull makeup isn't a racial slur.
That might be a bad example maybe more like people dressing like santa for christmas. The war bonnet itself is the important item, in this case the sugar skulls are more a decoration used as part of a ritual, I not clear on the details but aren't the skulls suppose to be tributes to the dead and the design is just icing on the cake.
Sugar skulls are seasonal candy, you can leave pretty much any food or drink as an offering.
So its like candy corn?
>Lots of people wear Native American war bonnets on Halloween.
Yeah, and that isn't ok. That's not understanding the cultural significance of an item and appropriating it.
'Redskins' and war bonnets both have histories of being used as caricatures of first nation culture. Sugar skulls don't have that baggage. It's the difference between dressing up as a menorah or dressing up as a rabbi with a huge nose.
This is a really good point. Sugar skulls by themselves are not sacred relics.
> Sugar skulls don't have that baggage.
Yeah sugar skulls have the baggage of being used as halloween costumes.
No, the baggage of being used as a short hand/code word for racist themes. Sugar skulls are not ponchos or sombreros.
> No, the baggage of being used as a short hand/code word for racist themes. Sugar skulls are not ponchos or sombreros.
They do not have to be used as racist caricatures for them to be watered down and rebranded. That is not what we are arguing about. We are arguing about the majority, wiping out the significance of a minority cultural relic to suit themselves. Whatever information the rest of the world will get about Sugar skulls will not be from the Mexicans. It will be from the greater influence which is mainstream American pop culture and that is how the message gets lost in the vine.
You kinda just spouted off on something without any proof, I'm not sure that counts as facts. Also I think there is an argument to be made that cultural sampling increases knowledge in the overall population and keeps cultures relevant rather than disappearing.
> cultural sampling increases knowledge in the overall population and keeps cultures relevant rather than disappearing.
How? How does turning a sacred symbol into a halloween costume increase knowledge? Do the wearers understand the relevance of what they are wearing other than it looks cool? If someone started dressing up as a WW2 vet on halloween, wouldn't people be up in arms about it?
> If someone started dressing up as a WW2 vet on halloween, wouldn't people be up in arms about it?
No. Not even a little bit.
> No. Not even a little bit.
That is objectively untrue. The amount of significance placed on WW2 vets is astoundinjg and it's surprising you're lying about something that we see everyday.
http://m.halloweencostumes.com/military-costumes.html
First hit on Google. Down the bottom. WWII soldier costume.
Not hard to prove how wrong you are.
I did not say they did not exist. Lol. I said people take offense to it which the other guy said people do not so try again bruv.
Do you want to provide any examples of people taking offense to it? Or you're just happy dealing with feels?
People dress up like soldiers all the time so that's a real bad example. Now we don't appreciate people pretending to be soldiers, but it's not like wearing a war bonnet is the same as claiming you earned it.
Anyway, for the most part the amount of people who truly know about a cultural item or tradition is not decreased by more wide spread adoption. The people wearing war bonnets because it looks cool aren't influencing people who know about them to just throw away their knowledge. They might influence people to look into the tradition though. That can increase knowledge. Meanwhile when an idea is kept in a singular culture, especially a minority culture, it has a chance to be extinguished because of being isolated from new people.
> People dress up like soldiers all the time so that's a real bad example. Now we don't appreciate people pretending to be soldiers,
And why don't you? after all it's just clothes is it not? You just got the point I was trying to make and choose to gloss over it.
> Anyway, for the most part the amount of people who truly know about a cultural item or tradition is not decreased by more wide spread adoption. The people wearing war bonnets because it looks cool aren't influencing people who know about them to just throw away their knowledge. They might influence people to look into the tradition though. That can increase knowledge. Meanwhile when an idea is kept in a singular culture, especially a minority culture, it has a chance to be extinguished because of being isolated from new people.
No. If the amount of people who use war bonnest because they are cool, suddenly overwhelms those who actually adhere to the customs, it would lead to a societal rebranding of the origianal relic to fit the whims of the majority. And those attitiudes will be translated into the adoption of stereotypical understanding of the original internet. That's why native Indians take offense to the use of the War bonnet. Becasue all of a sudden it has become symbol for hippie white college kids at burning man and has completely overshadowed the actual cultural meaning behind it. It does not spread awareness. It spreads ignorance more than anything and the cycle continues.
I like how you skipped the explanation to insult me. Pretending for fun ok, representing yourself for material or societal benefit bad.
As for the second part, those people wouldn't know about the bonnet to begin with if it wasn't exposed. So it's not like they would have great respect for it, they wouldn't even think about it. At least with exposure people have a chance to learn, and again no one is harmed.
> As for the second part, those people wouldn't know about the bonnet to begin with if it wasn't exposed. So it's not like they would have great respect for it, they wouldn't even think about it. At least with exposure people have a chance to learn, and again no one is harmed.
Exactly! That's my point. The would not learn about the bonnet being sacred. They would learn about it being cool head gear worn by pothead college kids and that's the take away. The intended use is not translated to them since the usage they saw was from the mainstream instead of the original propreitors which are the natives.
But there is a chance they look into it, whereas if they had no exposure they wouldn't at all. You seem to be deliberately dropping parts of my arguments and claiming weird victories. It's strange.
> But there is a chance they look into it, whereas if they had no exposure they wouldn't at all. You seem to be deliberately dropping parts of my arguments and claiming weird victories. It's strange.
The looking into it has already happened. If someone presented a cultural relic that I know nothing about, I would take it as being its intended purpose. You keep saying I'm dropping parts of your arguments when it;s been the same thing over and over.
More Comments - Click Here
I disagree that there's an inherent benefit in keeping the importance of something. Samhain used to be an incredibly important ceremony for the Gaelic people, and now it's what it obviously is. Lent used to make whole nations shut down, now the biggest concession to it is the filet of fish. Cultural things are still just things people do.
> I disagree that there's an inherent benefit in keeping the importance of something. Samhain used to be an incredibly important ceremony for the Gaelic people, and now it's what it obviously is. Lent used to make whole nations shut down, now the biggest concession to it is the filet of fish. Cultural things are still just things people do.
So we might as well discard all culture then and just live lives as one blend of activities. The rosetta stone was bullshit and we don't need to understand the circumstances of the past that defined the current present we live in.
Yes, that is exactly what I said. You are so good at this.
Culture is not something separate from people. Culture is not exotic, culture doesn't have borders. The fact that I took my shoes off when I walked into this apartment is culture. It is not worth preserving. If someone else has a "barefoot party" without respecting that Michigan has a lot of salt and dirt on its roads, it is NOT a big deal.
If someone serves pierogi at a birthday party when my family has used them exclusively as funeral dishes, it IS culture, it IS important to me, it is NOT a big deal.
You can understand culture without trapping it in amber. It can mean different things to different people. People enjoying it one way does NOT stop other people from enjoying it in their traditional way. Deciding whether it's important or not is an individual thing, and when someone wears sugar skull makeup, there is never a person that goes "whelp, guess it's not important." After a thousand years of it, it might not be important to people anymore. Then we end up with Samhain. It's not that bad.
> You can understand culture without trapping it in amber. It can mean different things to different people. People enjoying it one way does NOT stop other people from enjoying it in their traditional way. Deciding whether it's important or not is an individual thing, and when someone wears sugar skull makeup, there is never a person that goes "whelp, guess it's not important." After a thousand years of it, it might not be important to people anymore. Then we end up with Samhain. It's not that bad.
We are not arguing about individuals. We are talking about mainstream adopting it and rebranding it to suit the mainstream. The mainstream therefore influences a wider audience on the cultural relic. What the wider audience will understand about that relic is based on what the mainstream present it as. Therefore an indian war bonnet will not be known as a tribal relic, it will be known as something cool to wear to burning man.
And my points are twofold:
You were talking about mainstream adoption, I am talking about individuals. Individuals are the ones doing these things. I did not enter into this conversation about societal trends because the conversation started because an individual did something.
And Samhain is known as Halloween, a night to dress up in costumes and drink because why not? instead of a sacred holiday meant to protect us from evil spirits, and celebrated exclusively in Ireland and Scotland. If you wanted to research it, you could easily find out what it originally was for, but the fact that Samhain is a night to give out candy and dressed as superheroes does not matter. In a thousand years, that's what sugar skulls will be, that's what Lent will be, and we'll have different cultural traditions that have developed because of other things.
> And my points are twofold: > You were talking about mainstream adoption, I am talking about individuals. Individuals are the ones doing these things. I did not enter into this conversation about societal trends because the conversation started because an individual did something. > And Samhain is known as Halloween, a night to dress up in costumes and drink because why not? instead of a sacred holiday meant to protect us from evil spirits, and celebrated exclusively in Ireland and Scotland. If you wanted to research it, you could easily find out what it originally was for, but the fact that Samhain is a night to give out candy and dressed as superheroes does not matter. In a thousand years, that's what sugar skulls will be, that's what Lent will be, and we'll have different cultural traditions that have developed because of other things.
Then why are you arhuiing with me if we are talking about two different things?
Secondly Samhain is still Samhain. That does not change. But the cultural significance to those in Ireland and Scotland will be overwhelmed by it being know as Halloween. In essence that cultural relic has been eradicated even though there are people who still adhere to sahain. It is then unfair to suggest that the proprietors adapt to the misinterpreted mainstream and not the other way around.
More Comments - Click Here
This is one of the only cultural appropriation topics that I feel somewhat qualified to talk about. I think that it's a little complicated because it's not really easy to point to what aspects of the culture are actually sacred. My family is mostly Guatemalan, but we still celebrate dia de los muertos to an extent. However I'm not sure that my family would consider the imagery of sugar skulls and picado banners to be sacred. The observation of Allhallowtide and honoring of the dead is more important. It's a generational thing too. The older first generation members of my family care a lot more about the religious aspect of the holiday and the younger generations are more likely to just enjoy the festivities and food. Fiambre is trash though, IMO.
Appropriating the imagery of dia de los muertos isn't really something that would be upsetting in and of itself to a lot of the more traditional latinos I know. They would be more likely to be upset by people celebrating, but not attending mass, especially on All Saints' Day considering it is a holy day of obligation. The thing is, a lot of the younger generation isn't as religious as the older generation. So in a way, people are appropriating their own culture, or redefining it.
Still, I don't see any reason for people to be callous about or dismissive of cultural appropriation. There's nothing wrong with trying to be respectful of sacred culture. I know there is a movie coming out called Book of Life that is about dia de los muertos and I've wondered how people will react to it in terms of cultural appropriation.
I think your stance is valid, for what it's worth. I just think that it's not simply cut and dry.
Thank you. I never said it was cut and dry. I was just explaining why it would be perceived as a negative where the religious relic is being used as a costume. But people have shut their ears because it's not something they want to hear. I might as well just sit back and let the downvotes do what they must. Cheers.
You're getting downvoted because you're talking out of your ass. I normally agree with a lot of what you say, but you're all over the place on this thread trying to fight a last stand on an issue that you don't seem to know a whole lot about.
I think that's their mo, however this time they crossed into an area where you disagreed with him. He pretty much always looks like this to me.
Eh. Maybe. Judging by their history I seem to have agreed with them in two posts and just ignored them since. Guess I put to much faith in the little green [+].
It can happen. I have multiple computers with res and I think there is one poster who is like +15/-15 range just because I saw them argue different things.
Oh please, say something sensible and stop pandering for upvotes.
I've said the similar things when you've been on the otherside of the karma train. I find your style abrasive and lacking in substance. You just happened to cross the current "progressive" line this time. I'm sure next time you act this way you'll receive your normal voting pattern.
> I've said the similar things when you've been on the otherside of the karma train. I find your style abrasive and lacking in substance. You just happened to cross the current "progressive" line this time. I'm sure next time you act this way you'll receive your normal voting pattern.
You find my style aggressive because I do not agree you. That is all. You keep saying I'm insulting you when I have not done so and would have been banned if I did.
Only said it once actually. What I did say is that you seem to ignore things, which continues to be true.
> You're getting downvoted because you're talking out of your ass. I normally agree with a lot of what you say, but you're all over the place on this thread trying to fight a last stand on an issue that you don't seem to know a whole lot about.
Nope. I'm being downvoted because Redditors in general hate sociological concepts and as such can't see the significance of contextual, historical and cultural relics. I've explained all my points which can simply be googled but people aren't arsed to do that.
A minority? Where in Mexico are the people celebrating Dia de los Muertos an endangered "minority"? This is simply borrowing one image from one holiday of another country, which had already been "adopted" in turn from the native tribes that had lived in the region centuries before Mexico even existed. It's completely harmless and in no way hampers their ability to celebrate it any way they like.
The "approbation" response just seems like more cultural suppression nonsense in the same vein as the outrage over the cartoons of Muhammad published in Denmark.
> The "approbation" response just seems like more cultural suppression nonsense in the same vein as the outrage over the cartoons of Muhammad published in Denmark.
not even close to the same thing
> A minority? Where in Mexico are the people celebrating Dia de los Muertos an endangered "minority"? This is simply borrowing one image from one holiday of another country, which had already been "adopted" in turn from the native tribes that had lived in the region centuries before Mexico even existed. It's completely harmless and in no way hampers their ability to celebrate it any way they like.
We are not talking about mexico. We are talking about America. We are talking about how the watering down of the cultural template for the jollies of suburbanites ruins the sacred prestige behind it's origin. The river flows two ways. The dominant culture has a significantly greater influence than the subordinate cultures which are made up of minorities.
This is straight from wikipedia
> Day of the Dead (Spanish: Día de Muertos) is a Mexican holiday observed throughout Mexico and around the world in other cultures. The holiday focuses on gatherings of family and friends to pray for and remember friends and family members who have died. It is particularly celebrated in Mexico where the day is a bank holiday. The celebration takes place on October 31, November 1 and November 2, in connection with the triduum of Allhallowtide: All Hallows' Eve, Hallowmas, and All Souls' Day. Traditions connected with the holiday include building private altars called ofrendas, honoring the deceased using sugar skulls, marigolds, and the favorite foods and beverages of the departed, and visiting graves with these as gifts. They also leave possessions of the deceased.
Some clueless girl wearing it to a halloween party is not doing it to show support or bring awareness to it's origins and why it's used. Mainstream America has an incredibly great influence on the world at large and not understanding that is the crux of the problem. It is not simply an exchange of culture. It is a re-rendering to suit the whims of those who are not familiar or involved in the culture in the first place. So the Mexicans who do observe the holiday now have to see their culture used as a fashion statement because people felt it looked cool.
> The "approbation" response just seems like more cultural suppression nonsense in the same vein as the outrage over the cartoons of Muhammad published in Denmark.
Christ almighty. Cultural suppression? So if people started taking things that others hold dear and turning it into punchlines, others are not allowed to get offended because?
I think someone has brigaded this thread. These voting patterns are not what I would expect to see in SRD.
In that case, Americans are no longer allowed to celebrate halloween. Samhain is a sacred part of my Celtic culture and you are all mocking it by carving pumpkins and having parties.
>It inevitably loses it's importance due to the watering down of it's usage and eradicates the importance and message behind the origin and it's intended purpose.
I don't think that will be the effect of cultural diffusion though. If everyone started wearing a cheongsam as a fashion statement, it wouldn't suddenly lose it's historical or cultural importance. It would most likely raise awareness of the time period it came from as well as expose a lot of people to a giant cultural shift in Chinese history. Its "message" and "intended purpose" would be not not be lost at all.
> I don't think that will be the effect of cultural diffusion though. If everyone started wearing a cheongsam as a fashion statement, it wouldn't suddenly lose it's historical or cultural importance. It would most likely raise awareness of the time period it came from as well as expose a lot of people to a giant cultural shift in Chinese history. Its "message" and "intended purpose" would be not not be lost at all.
This is what it is...
> The cheongsam (/ˈtʃiːɒŋˈsæm/,[1] /ˈtʃɒŋˈsæm/ or /ˈtʃɒŋˈsɑːm/) is a body-hugging one-piece Chinese dress for women, also known in Mandarin Chinese as qipao (旗袍; pronounced [t͡ɕʰǐ pʰɑ̌ʊ̯] Wade-Giles ch'i-p'ao), and Mandarin gown in English. The stylish and often tight-fitting cheongsam or qipao (chipao) that is best known today was created in the 1920s in Shanghai and made fashionable by socialites and upper class women.
So someone wearing it as a fashion statement is not really deviating from it's intended purpose.
Yea a new style emerged from it. That's kind of what culture does. It changes and evolves. But the message and purpose was preserved. No one forgot about the history behind the cloth and its continued usage brings awareness about its history.
> Yea a new style emerged from it. That's kind of what culture does. It changes and evolves. But the message and purpose was preserved. No one forgot about the history behind the cloth and its continued usage brings awareness about its history.
The message of the Indian war bonnet has not been preserved after being used as a uniform for burning man. The message for sugar skull face paint has not been preserved after being turned into a halloween staple. They have been watered down into fashion statements and in no way bring awareness to the history.
> Yeah sorry for facts guys. I forgot we should just use feelings instead.
lol
This thread has been linked to from elsewhere on reddit.
^If ^you ^follow ^any ^of ^the ^above ^links, ^respect ^the ^rules ^of ^reddit ^and ^don't ^vote ^or ^comment. ^Questions? ^Abuse? ^Message ^me ^here.
I don't why people get mad about saying stuff like that is rude.
The Irish get mad about St Patricks day and Irish car bombs.
Native Americans get mad about rain dances and the red skins name.
The Japanese hate japanophiles, ect.
Why is it hard to accept Mexicans get offended when people try to include their hoilday about remembering their loved ones with your drinking holiday?
Except I don't see a lot of Mexican people getting offended in here. The two people who are Mexican don't really give a shit. It's Americans getting offended on their behalf.
Most people that complain about it tend to be American SJW rather than mexicans,