Cultural Appropriation

[dowie]

You don't expect people with broadly irrational points of view to be consistent do you?

That said there may be something to do with the fact that Native Americans were and have been persecuted for hundreds of years, whereas no one could really say the same about the Vikings.

(I don't actually have any idea on this subject, but the above is something that immediately came to mind).

with that idea you end up with a subjective hierarchy of victimhood from which to derive special cupcake status

the vast majority of the planet was 'oppressed' if we go back a little over 100 years - even white 'privileged' people living in the UK

if people were trying to mock native Americans as a people then that might be different, but dressing as one in the way Hillary Duff's boyfriend did certainly doesn't seem to be an attempt to mock anyone and was done respectably

 

[Shampoo]

.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Care to tell me what it was about my comment that broke the forum rules to warrant it being deleted, or was it just a case of Amp34 getting his knickers in a twist and crying to teacher?

Same here. Werewolf deleted one of my posts from another thread yesterday and didn't state a reason. I queried it but no response. I feel that censorship on here is getting out of hand lately, including an increasing list of unknown banned words.

If you want to query moderating decisions then please use the Forum Content Discussion sub-forum. Thank you.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I know... I've not claimed it is about what is or isn't legal

point is there is a difference between say dressing as a soldier for 'fancy dress' and actually impersonating/passing yourself off as one

Exactly - The difference being the former is a question of good taste, while the latter is a question of legality and in wearing certain parts of that uniform that is the illegal part, regardless of whether for fancy dress or otherwise.

I don't think so - at least not in the case of wearing say a jacket etc..

That's why I said certain parts, ie those that are illegal to wear without entitlement.

 

[dowie]

Exactly - The difference being the former is a question of good taste, while the latter is a question of legality and in wearing certain parts of that uniform that is the illegal part, regardless of whether for fancy dress or otherwise.

Well not so much in the example presented - I'm not really talking about legal issues as I mentioned before but just offering an example where I could see there being valid complaints. I.e. a genuine Indian war bonnet, genuine medals etc.. and actually trying to pass yourself off as something you're not.

Whether illegal or not doesn't matter as far as my point there was concerned - I'd personally believe both to be wrong. I'd also state that dressing as a soldier or an Indian for fancy dress is absolutely fine.

That's why I said certain parts, ie those that are illegal to wear without entitlement.

Out of interest what parts would those be - I guess medals possibly? Just in terms or the uniform I'd thought the issue would be actually passing yourself off as a member of the armed forces not simply wearing one or more items of uniform? Would be quite curious as an aside - the US has 'stolen valor' laws, I'm really not sure what the UK has as an equivalent?

 

[fez]

Outside of the internet and certain college campuses, this crap doesn't occur in reality. If you live online/social media it might seem like a big deal, but walk away from the PC and you'll see it's fairly non-existent. Somebody trying any of that crap on the streets of Glasgow would be put back in their box fairly sharply.

That may be true for some things however there are plenty of issues like this where a tiny minority is influencing policy and law. Politicians are being forced to address these things because if they don't they will be crucified as being insensitive, out of touch or making fun of insert group.

You might think these things are inoffensive until suddenly one day you will see that a law has been passed that says you are committing a hate crime if you don't use a persons chosen pronoun or if you wear a costume that isn't part of your designated culture.

The students of today are also the leaders of tomorrow.

 

[ttaskmaster]

I'd personally believe both to be wrong. I'd also state that dressing as a soldier or an Indian for fancy dress is absolutely fine.

In general, yes, but fancy dress is supposed to have a slight comedic side and be obvious. It's not re-enactment or even CosPlay.

For example, a 'Robber' should have an eyemask, a stripey top and a big brown sack with SWAG written on it... not an all-black outfit, balaclava and a sawn-off.

Out of interest what parts would those be - I guess medals possibly?

Medals are the obvious one, but distinctive unit insignia, citations, certain crests, patches and generally anything the wearer would had to have earned, as well as (technically) the uniform in full.

There's currently a big one about the CIB - Combat Infantrymans Badge, which is something often seen on people fancy-dressing up as American officers (seems they're always officers and always in sunglasses).
The CIB is awarded to those individuals who have actually fought in combat. In basic terms, you have to be shot at by the enemy before you're entitled to wear it.

Just in terms or the uniform I'd thought the issue would be actually passing yourself off as a member of the armed forces not simply wearing one or more items of uniform?

It's primarily about wearing something you're not entitled to and is considered highly disrespectful to those who are entitled.
Doesn't matter if it's a cap badge or the Victoria Cross.

Basic general issue things like jackets and trousers, be it Dress, Barrack or Combat uniform is fine and you can buy then down the surplus shops. Single items are fine and a frequent fashion thing.

Wearing the full outfit is debatable at best though, unless you're engaged in re-enactment, theatrics or some other legitimate military representation. Wearing full regalia to go Airsofting isn't legit, especially the ones who wear it like a bag of ******** and have SAS patches everywhere.
Obsolete uniforms have a bit of leeway to them, which is why Napoleonic style stuff is popular... but wearing things that, by default, designate your belonging to a unit, or having been decorated is where the offense (legal and moral) comes in.

Would be quite curious as an aside - the US has 'stolen valor' laws, I'm really not sure what the UK has as an equivalent?

We did.
The Uniforms Act still covers it to some extent.
The Army Act 1955 that did deal with people Walting was replaced, though and the Armed Forces Act 2006 isn't very good about it.
Few people were prosecuted to any great extent under these laws... but the fact that some still were is sufficient if they want to start prosecuting people again.

 

[adolf hamster]

Wearing the full outfit is debatable at best though, unless you're engaged in re-enactment, theatrics or some other legitimate military representation. Wearing full regalia to go Airsofting isn't legit, especially the ones who wear it like a bag of ******** and have SAS patches everywhere.
Obsolete uniforms have a bit of leeway to them, which is why Napoleonic style stuff is popular... but wearing things that, by default, designate your belonging to a unit, or having been decorated is where the offense (legal and moral) comes in.

True dat, especially in full mtp, you can spot them a mile off, which kind of defeats the point

I'd take me old dpm's and mis-matched amazon special webbing any day given the amount of times lying down seems to make me invisible

I guess historical is ok, but how do you define it? Within living memory maybe?

 

[Roar87]

Wearing full regalia to go Airsofting isn't legit, especially the ones who wear it like a bag of ******** and have SAS patches everywhere.

Part of airsoft is that it's a military simulation, people want to accurately portray a Soldier when they're participating in airsoft, there's nothing wrong with that imo. You can't expect civilians to conform to military standards on wearing a uniform, though I disagree with wearing badges showing a rank as plainly, unless you're ex-military, you haven't earned that rank. If there was a problem with wearing military uniform the gear wouldn't be sold at Army Surplus stores around the country

 

[ttaskmaster]

I guess historical is ok, but how do you define it? Within living memory maybe?

Depends on what you do and how well you do it.
WW2 is one of the popular ones, but there are Vietnam, Falklands and even Iraq groups out there.
Generally re-enactment is about replaying battles and showing some of the (family-acceptable) ways people died in war, whereas Living History is about showing how people lived in spite of it.
Good taste would be showing a training camp with the unit doing drill or a dug-in position with everyone sleeping and eating the way they did back then. Bad taste is Nazi/Gestapo officers shoving around shaven-headed people in stripey blue pyjamas.

It must be done correctly and with respect.
In essence, you're telling the tales of heroes, not making an Oliver Stone statement flick.

Part of airsoft is that it's a military simulation, people want to accurately portray a Soldier when they're participating in airsoft, there's nothing wrong with that imo.

Then they should learn to wear the uniform correctly.

You can't expect civilians to conform to military standards on wearing a uniform,

13-year-old cadets can manage it, as can anyone with access to Google... It's not hard, either. Just simple things like blousing the boots, tucking in your shirt, etc.
There are Airsoft sites that, regardless of whether you're trying to portray a soldier or not, *insist* you wear it correctly or finding a cammo alternative like the Jack Pyke stuff.

I disagree with wearing badges showing a rank as plainly, unless you're ex-military, you haven't earned that rank.

Even if you had that rank, you don't get to wear it when you're no longer serving. Some ranks are permitted titles post-military, mainly officer ones like Captain and above.

If there was a problem with wearing military uniform the gear wouldn't be sold at Army Surplus stores around the country

If there wasn't a problem with people wearing it, there wouldn't be laws against it.
Generally combat kit is so generic it's not really uniform and since many civvy items for field work, gameskeeping, hunting and so on is already produced, genuine issue DPM stuff isn't really an issue.
It's more about things like full dress uniform - It's what parts you wear and how you wear them.

You can also buy genuine army-issue parangs, goloks, kukri and machetes at surplus shops, but you try wearing one of them out on the town!
A lot of things are legal to buy, including rank badges, insignia and many medals, which is the Collectors Market. Doesn't mean you're allowed to go out wearing it all, though.

 

[adolf hamster]

Part of airsoft is that it's a military simulation, people want to accurately portray a Soldier when they're participating in airsoft, there's nothing wrong with that imo. You can't expect civilians to conform to military standards on wearing a uniform, though I disagree with wearing badges showing a rank as plainly, unless you're ex-military, you haven't earned that rank. If there was a problem with wearing military uniform the gear wouldn't be sold at Army Surplus stores around the country

I dunno, airsoft is just a bit of fun, cod with immersive 3d graphics and some mild leachings of real world combat lessons (like run and gunning it everywhere just means you die quickly and exhausted)

I get milsim, trying to inject teamwork and actual tactics rather than a free for all.

But theres a line between "generic us special ops" and patching up and pretending like you're in the 101st.

 

[Roar87]

It must be done correctly and with respect.
In essence, you're telling the tales of heroes, not making an Oliver Stone statement flick.


Then they should learn to wear the uniform correctly.


13-year-old cadets can manage it, as can anyone with access to Google... It's not hard, either. Just simple things like blousing the boots, tucking in your shirt, etc.
There are Airsoft sites that, regardless of whether you're trying to portray a soldier or not, *insist* you wear it correctly or finding a cammo alternative like the Jack Pyke stuff.


Even if you had that rank, you don't get to wear it when you're no longer serving. Some ranks are permitted titles post-military, mainly officer ones like Captain and above.


If there wasn't a problem with people wearing it, there wouldn't be laws against it.
Generally combat kit is so generic it's not really uniform and since many civvy items for field work, gameskeeping, hunting and so on is already produced, genuine issue DPM stuff isn't really an issue.
It's more about things like full dress uniform - It's what parts you wear and how you wear them.

You can also buy genuine army-issue parangs, goloks, kukri and machetes at surplus shops, but you try wearing one of them out on the town!
A lot of things are legal to buy, including rank badges, insignia and many medals, which is the Collectors Market. Doesn't mean you're allowed to go out wearing it all, though.

Thanks for the detailed reply. Totally agree with wearing a uniform correctly actually, I would personally take the time to ensure that, but if you're expecting a bunch of young lads playing airsoft to then you'll probably be disappointed.

The Uniforms Act is from 1894, no one is going to get prosecuted for wearing the uniform and playing airsoft, unless they were wearing rank/tags and falsely claiming they were actually in the military. Common sense does apply here.

 

[ttaskmaster]

but if you're expecting a bunch of young lads playing airsoft to then you'll probably be disappointed.

As I've already seen, some of those wearing more than just a 'cammo jacket and trousers' do seem to be taking it a bit more seriously.

Plus a lot of current and ex-Forces peeps do go Airsofting too, you know - It's as big as Paintabll used to be. Never know when you'll run into one... literally, if their fieldcraft is still up to standard!

The Uniforms Act is from 1894

So?
That's just when it was made law. It's still in force and people are still prosecuted under it to this day...

no one is going to get prosecuted for wearing the uniform and playing airsoft

It's not especially likely, just as wearing a Napoleonic uniform is unlikely.
However, it is still a uniform that was issued on behalf of the crown to the Armed Forces, so technically it could be done.
A guy on University Challenge, obviously not trying to impersonate anyone due to the blatant Mohawk, was still asked to remove his RAF uniform jacket (which was sold to him with NCO rank and ribbons already on it) following a complaint from an ex-RAF chap in the audience.

The kicker is Article 3 - Bringing contempt upon the uniform.
If you behave in a way that makes someone (doesn't matter who) think that you are bringing contempt upon the uniform you're wearing, then you just committed an offence, and can be arrested by Police. Technically.

A lot is down to interpretation, of course, but they could quite easily go that route as America has.


In fact:
This is post Army Act 1955, concerning the UA:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/...rvice-uniforms-and-equipment#S5CV0740P0-07542

This one also concerns uniforms in general, NOT even specifically British kit:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1969/jul/17/hyde-park-concert-wearing-of-uniforms

 

[adolf hamster]

As I've already seen, some of those wearing more than just a 'cammo jacket and trousers' do seem to be taking it a bit more seriously.

Plus a lot of current and ex-Forces peeps do go Airsofting too, you know - It's as big as Paintabll used to be. Never know when you'll run into one... literally, if their fieldcraft is still up to standard!

Any of the ones ive met still have it, they can generally be found in the bush behind you

 

[dowie]

 

[Ahleckz]

At first I thought the people in brown were potatoes, and it was an Irish person at Queens University Belfast being offended. That would have been hilarious.

 

[twist3d0n3]

 

[krooton]

At first I thought the people in brown were potatoes, and it was an Irish person at Queens University Belfast being offended. That would have been hilarious.

Are they supposed to be Tibetan monks?

 

[Orionaut]

I have always felt, quite seriously, that the people who get most vociferous about things like this are those who might have taken an intellectual position that goes against how they actually feel.

The rage comes from the inner conflict and the outbursts are as much to do with trying to convince themselves of their position as it is to try to convince anybody else.

 

[MookJong]

What would happen if a bunch of Japanese students dressed up as Native Americans?