[OLChemist]

Originally Posted by TeenaBear

Let's start with Princess Jazmine and Princess Ariel.

Hmmm, a mermaid and another non-white woman. The white (and African-American)girls, as Josiah pointed out, are dressed in a less hyper-sexualized manner and set on a high status, safe shelf.

Originally Posted by TeenaBear

I see your logic, however, if you feel that strongly about costumes in general and the cultural aspects of holidays...

I appreciate that you saw the logic, I just wish you had gotten the gist of my argument. I don't care about Halloween or costumes per say. I don't really care if you dress your kids as pirates (a career), pumpkins or unicorns. The point I was trying to make is that we need to examine the historical matrix and consequences of the image packaged within these outfits.

Is there a connection between the dominant culture Pocahottie complex and the over 600 murdered or missing Native women in Canada or the stunning rates of non-Indian sexual violence against Native women in the US? I find it hard to compare the visual depictions Snow White, Bella or Merida with Pocahontas and not see the legacy of the dehumanization process by which a colonizing power/spirit desensitizes its own people, so that they can betray their own moral code. Pocahottie is not the cause of this violence, but a illustration of the dehumanizing prejudices and stereotypes that have become imbedded in post-colonial dominant culture and cause ongoing damage to us.


It is tempting to dismiss the less virulent manifestations of this stereotyping process like the Disney Pocahontas as harmless. Or the see the complex of imagery as so divorced from our own conceptions of womanhood as to be totally irrelevant. Or to be so glad that some reference to Native woman exists within pop-culture that we ignore the distortions. But then some little non-Indian girl grows up to be a voter that can't connect modern, real Indian people to the romanticized tree-singing Princess. The non-Native boy grows up steeped in the darker hyper-sexualized imagery of this imagined Indian womanhood and one night, while under the influence, fulfills his fantasies with a Native girl he found hitchhiking.


Now lest I be accused of pomposity and idling away my percap (I wish) on the internet, I'm just a child who thought too much about how good, God-fearing people, with lofty ideals, on both sides could be heirs to the blood soaked history, that they turned into my bed-time tales, who grow up to be a pattern-seeking scientist and artist. I like a good debate. Now, present your contrary viewpoint and persuade me. In the interest avoiding negativity and keeping the site PG, should you feel the urge to insult or defame me, please do so without resorting coded profanity :) (I especially like insults that require I look things up in the dictionary, LOL. )

[wardancer]

OC , you could give her the eye dee ten tee test !

[TeenaBear]

Originally Posted by Joe's Dad

So you would dress up your daughter like this if the costume were available?

Here are a couple more appropriate options :)

[TeenaBear]

Originally Posted by OLChemist

Hmmm, a mermaid and another non-white woman. The white (and African-American)girls, as Josiah pointed out, are dressed in a less hyper-sexualized manner and set on a high status, safe shelf.



I appreciate that you saw the logic, I just wish you had gotten the gist of my argument. I don't care about Halloween or costumes per say. I don't really care if you dress your kids as pirates (a career), pumpkins or unicorns. The point I was trying to make is that we need to examine the historical matrix and consequences of the image packaged within these outfits.

Is there a connection between the dominant culture Pocahottie complex and the over 600 murdered or missing Native women in Canada or the stunning rates of non-Indian sexual violence against Native women in the US? I find it hard to compare the visual depictions Snow White, Bella or Merida with Pocahontas and not see the legacy of the dehumanization process by which a colonizing power/spirit desensitizes its own people, so that they can betray their own moral code. Pocahottie is not the cause of this violence, but a illustration of the dehumanizing prejudices and stereotypes that have become imbedded in post-colonial dominant culture and cause ongoing damage to us.


It is tempting to dismiss the less virulent manifestations of this stereotyping process like the Disney Pocahontas as harmless. Or the see the complex of imagery as so divorced from our own conceptions of womanhood as to be totally irrelevant. Or to be so glad that some reference to Native woman exists within pop-culture that we ignore the distortions. But then some little non-Indian girl grows up to be a voter that can't connect modern, real Indian people to the romanticized tree-singing Princess. The non-Native boy grows up steeped in the darker hyper-sexualized imagery of this imagined Indian womanhood and one night, while under the influence, fulfills his fantasies with a Native girl he found hitchhiking.


Now lest I be accused of pomposity and idling away my percap (I wish) on the internet, I'm just a child who thought too much about how good, God-fearing people, with lofty ideals, on both sides could be heirs to the blood soaked history, that they turned into my bed-time tales, who grow up to be a pattern-seeking scientist and artist. I like a good debate. Now, present your contrary viewpoint and persuade me. In the interest avoiding negativity and keeping the site PG, should you feel the urge to insult or defame me, please do so without resorting coded profanity :) (I especially like insults that require I look things up in the dictionary, LOL. )

nono, I totally understand what you're saying, and I totally respect your position in this conversation. I'm also thankful that you're not degrading me or insulting me for my viewpoints as well. I completed a couple months reading non-stop about culture and how Disney construes and mis-interprets international values. Disney gives little girls an "image" of how a "beautiful woman" is "supposed" to look. I get that. After having my own children and looking back on when I was a kid, I decided as a parent that I am going to allow my daughter to live in this "fantasy world" if she wants. If she feels like wearing a huge poofy dress will make her feel like a beautiful princess, then so be it. If my daughter wants to "feel pretty" by pretending to be Disney's Pocahontas, then cool...as long as what she wears is modest, I'm fine (heck, I wont even let my daughter wear a bikini lol). I remember how I wanted to be a Princess when I was a kid and now that I'm an adult and have the common sense to know that ALL Disney Princesses are fake, I'm ok with it.

I suppose my point is, In my opinion, it's ok to let kids be kids and let little girls be little girls. They will learn the truth about Pocahontas and the truth about how ugly/cruel the world really is when they're old enough.

[OLChemist]

Hmmmm. Let's look at this then from dominant culture norms....

I certainly can remember playing princess with my non-Indian friends and family when I was a child. We also played Wonder Woman and witches. (Bear with me, these are related.) These were all female figures with power -- based on royal blood and exceptional beauty, magic lassos, or occult powers. These archetypes elements of a culture which, especially post-industral revolution, has been none too kind to their women. They offer a means to transcend the disadvantaged position of women.

For modern dominant culture women the sexual attractiveness of the princess/Pocahottie is a kind of power. In my opinion a false power, because it is still predicated on dominant culture male desires.


That said, I understand what you are saying about letting kids be kids and enjoy their fantasies. But, I'm not sure when the fantastic crystalizes into stereotype.

[OLChemist]

Ahh, fall is in the air. Time for more sexually exploitive imagery of Native women:

ICTM on Tasteless Thanksgiving Ad

[wardancer]

You should send that in a PM to teenabear , she probably doesn't read ICT !

[alumphfres]

Take a hint from Frozen - 'Let It Go!'

[Toolbox]

The ad is doing exactly what they intended it to do and people fall for it over and over again. What they intended to do was use imagery and verbiage that they know will cause a controversy and that people will start sharing it around on Facebook and the internet thereby spreading the ad around for FREE. As for as the owners of that establishment they could probably care less about what a handful of people in MPLS/St. Paul think as they probably would have not even considered going to such a place anyway. They also couldn't give a rats butt about people that don't live in that region as those people wouldn't become customers. In sum a lot of people in that region have now seen the ad due to social media and the majority of them that don't care about the controversy might consider going there instead of their usual place.

Do I think the use of such imagery and verbiage is wrong - YES.