Because making a movie in which an actor of Polynesian descent voices a character from Polynesian folklore is totally different than making a costume where kids of all races don a Polynesian person’s skin?
Again, it’s not just the fact that they made a costume. Few if any people are upset about the Moana dress.
Most arguments of cultural appropriation to me seem to be meritless, though that doesn’t mean that there aren’t genuine cases of a majority taking things from another culture and emulating it as a novelty. See Europe’s fascination with Egyptian and Greek culture, which lead to real world theft of their cultural artifacts. Or Fance’s fascination with “Nubian” culture, which saw wealthy french households importing “personal servants” from African countries to serve them.
These days cultural appropriation isn’t quite as blatant but it can trivialize issues that other people have to deal with because the majority will only focus on the desirable aspects.
The people making that sort of argument truly are exasperating, I know, but I still think smug dismissal via gif is a poor substitute for actual conversation.
I mean, don’t get me wrong, if she’d come in third and first and second place had also made their costumes, I wouldn’t be so annoyed. I just like to think things like costume contests are places to show off your artistry, not how fat your wallet is.
Yeah, but Disney is not Polynesian, nor are the writers, nor the animators. They put a Polynesian voice to the character, and have managed to appease you, but the vast bulk of profit goes to the corporation.
I think you’ve been acclimated to corporate cultural appropriation - it’s fine until the corporation enables little kids to do it.
I’m not trying to start a fight over this, but I do think we need to examine our complacency, and why this costume is a trigger, but not the rest of the multi-billion dollar corporation’s actions.
So people are dissatisfied and are saying so, but by your own words: The fact that they are doing so is political correctness gone too far. The costume’s been released and no one is allowed to speak of it.
That’s the thing I tried to say.
Oh, I agree, for sure. If this costume was made in adult sizes and marketed towards college aged fratboys, I’d be coming down hard on the side of “yo, this is super not cool” because the context and the intent of those likely to wear it would be way, way different.
Context matters. Results matter. Intent matters. Cultural issues are almost never black and white, no matter how much people want them to be or how settles they feel the issue is among their own circles.
I agree on the context, because a kid is not going to know better and if i had a kid and they really wanted to dress up as Maui… or a ninja, or whatever i’d at least consider it. I don’t know if i really end up dressing up a kid in the Maui costume though
Actually the production team includes a pretty significant number of Polynesian-descended people, including writer Taika Waititi and the people who produced the musical score.
It’s already been explained why a costume that focuses on the skin color of an ethnic minority is widely considered more offensive than the fact that the story is being told at all. You can either accept that explanation or not, but I see no reason to keep asking the question.
Hmm yes. I wonder how many. Or is it the usual tempest in a teacup that they’d rather not stir? Even in this thread opinions are divided.
These are not my own words. If you’re going to quote me, quote me. Don’t make shit up.
We’re ALL speaking of it are we not? And AFAIK the costume’s been recalled.
Facts are best served straight.
A fair point. But it remains that the movie is a corporate production, with the majority of the profits going to the very much non-Polynesian company. Whereas, kids wearing a costume of a character they like don’t do so for profit at all.
Agreed. Semi-clothed white dude works far better as a dress.
I guess in your desire to immediately voice your concern (thus proving my point) you missed the part where I stated it also comes at times from people whose side I support.
My overall point to @EricB was that no matter what position you espouse, you must always prepare for someone to have issue with it/you, no matter how good/bad/indifferent your intent and that often that issue is clouded in their misunderstanding (willful or otherwise) or misinterpretation or incorrect assumptions.
You’re conflating two almost entirely unrelated issues. It wasn’t the “profit” angle that got most people upset about the costume.
Personally, I think there is a marked difference between college students wearing a costume as part of a mocking trivialization of its origin, because it’s “funny”, and elementary aged children wearing a costume because they see something worth emulating in a character and they want to be that person, if only for a night.
So I know you wrote some words to someone else, frustrated with the people who criticized this and won at having gone “too far”. I’m going to digress here, too, because I’m not sure how productive the conversation you’d have with them would be, but I honestly believe the same thing.
Conversations like this are frustrating to me, because the people getting upset have the power to stop the second, but don’t have the power to stop the first: A company like Disney that is at least remotely conscious of the need to maintain an image of doing the “right thing”, who caters almost exclusively to the second group, shuts their operation down in response to criticism, but the third party garbage marketed to the mocking audience… that’s going to keep going, because those companies don’t care at all.
I just wish people would stop a moment and think about the message they are actually sending to children - especially to polynesian and other minority children! They can go to the store, they can see a bunch of costumes with explicitly white skin (Tarzan, Hercules, basically any white character with significant muscles that shows skin will have skin fabric), and those are apparently alright (or at least no one seems to be arguing they shouldn’t exist on the basis of racism concerns), but they are effectively being disallowed from dressing as minority character.
That seems fucked up to me. It seems a lot more fucked up than some adult being offended by concerns about cultural appropriation. I want kids to be able to have and embrace minority role models, I want it to be okay for minority characters to be embraced by and be seen as acceptable for broad audiences, I want a future where our children can love a character for what they represent and not be told this character is not for them simply because the color of their skin is wrong.
Because of the people that have criticized this, that’s not possible. I feel like the actions taken by those who were offended by this outfit, pressuring the company to remove the option for minority costumes from shelves, have caused actual harm. Results wise, I can’t help but see this as equivalent to a bunch of white supremacists getting the outfit removed because they think it’s inappropriate for white children to dress as a lesser race, even if the intent is obviously different, and it bothers me that most people seem unwilling to stop and ask if that’s really what they want.
Maybe it’s just a difference of values. Maybe I’m simply wrong. It’s possible, there are undoubtedly countless things I’ve failed to consider. But its frustrating to bring it up and feel like my concerns and values are just being outright dismissed in the most smug and condescending manner possible. I know I’m bringing in feelings I’ve had in similar conversations I’ve had elsewhere, and that’s probably not fair. Or maybe I’ve just had a bad day, and just plain shouldn’t have posted in this thread.
I don’t even know.
That’s kind of my point. Corporate cultural appropriation on a billion+ dollar scale, distributed world-wide? Fine! Kids wearing costumes of those exact same characters for no profit? How dare they! Such insensitivity!
Perhaps I’m just slow, but what do your ad hominems have to do with whether or not you support the position of the people who’s sincerity you apparently disbelieve? More to the point, why on Earth should they give your sincerity the benefit of the doubt if you won’t extend that good faith to others?
Or have I merely “proved your point” by responding, since I’m not you and therefor must be insincere/white knighting/signalling?
On that much I agree. It’s your cynical assumption of other people’s bad faith that seems presumptive, that they are simply out to get you or posture instead of, you know, genuinely disagreeing with you in part or in full.
darn…so much for getting this for casual fridays! seems like a real conversation starter!
