Sorority suspended for "Indian Party."

[SWTXBelle]

Drole, the Anglican tradition came from the Roman Catholic, true, but just because the Roman Catholics have changed ( some, at least - I know Roman Catholics who still celebrate the two religious observances) while we haven't, our beliefs aren't negated, are they? I think the point is that any group, not just the "first", that finds their religous or cultural practices being used for amusement may be offended.


What Peppy said.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

OK, OK, I didn't mean for this to get into an argument about Mardi Gras being offensive. My point was that actually most people don't find partying on Mardi Gras offensive, even Catholics. But along those lines, I have to ask whether people celebrating Mardi Gras appreciate what the celebration is for...and if so, do they even observe Lent? I get tired of people celebrating holidays that have nothing to do with them, or holidays that even completely contradict their beliefs. Christmas is the worst in this regard. I can't stand it when people say that Christmas is about Santa Claus, being nice, world peace, etc. Sure, those things are commonly associated with Christmas, but the fact is that Christmas is a Christian holiday and nothing else; if you're not Christian, you shouldn't be celebrating it. Really, Mardi Gras, though not a holiday itself, was established with Christians in mind. But nowadays most people don't even think - or don't know - what it's about.

Who's having an argument? This was just a bit of a fun tangent. Here's the difference IMO. First, as you state, Mardi Gras is not a "holiday" and the observance of Lent is rather irrelevant to that for non-Catholic/Christians.

As for Christmas, I again see a difference since even those who aren't celebrating Jesus' birth are celebrating a rather joyful season with a joyful spirit. Not everyone certainly, but many.

However the point here is that somehow, American Indians shouldn't be upset that people dress up like them and get loaded because Catholics/Irish/Mexicans don't get upset about Mardi Gras/St. Patrick's Day/Cinco de Mayo. There's a big difference here. The latter are events that are intended for celebration (even St. Patrick's day), the first is dressing up in an attempt to "imitate" another culture. The equivalent here would be dressing up as a pregnant nun/ pedophile priest combo. I hate that and I get offended by it. VAST difference.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Drole, the Anglican tradition came from the Roman Catholic, true, but just because the Roman Catholics have changed ( some, at least - I know Roman Catholics who still celebrate the two religious observances) while we haven't, our beliefs aren't negated, are they? I think the point is that any group, not just the "first", that finds their religous or cultural practices being used for amusement may be offended.

What Peppy said.

Hey, I even looked again, checked the Catholic Encyclopedia and since before the Reformation the Church thought Carnival had gotten out of control but no mention of a specific service as there may be for the Anglicans. Doesn't mean that some parishes don't have a tradition of doing something though. And I do know where the Anglican Church comes from.

Did you see the "silly" comment? You're taking this too seriously, possibly in an attempt to justify its legitimacy as a "come-back" to the American Indian's complaints in ND, possibly because you don't get that I'm not really saying that only X group gets to be offended because of X thing.

I will maintain there's a difference between someone else "co-opting" your day and someone mocking who you are.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

However the point here is that somehow, American Indians shouldn't be upset that people dress up like them and get loaded because Catholics/Irish/Mexicans don't get upset about Mardi Gras/St. Patrick's Day/Cinco de Mayo. There's a big difference here. The latter are events that are intended for celebration (even St. Patrick's day), the first is dressing up in an attempt to "imitate" another culture. The equivalent here would be dressing up as a pregnant nun/ pedophile priest combo. I hate that and I get offended by it. VAST difference.

THANK YOU! Also it bears mention that Cinco de Mayo *in some cases* involves those of non-Mexican heritage dressing like "Mexicans" in s disparaging way.

Hey, I even looked again, checked the Catholic Encyclopedia and since before the Reformation the Church thought Carnival had gotten out of control but no mention of a specific service as there may be for the Anglicans. Doesn't mean that some parishes don't have a tradition of doing something though. And I do know where the Anglican Church comes from.

Not to mention that there were numerous such holidays and saint days in the medieval Catholic church that had a "carnivalesque" element to them. Because you didn't have to work on these days, peasants and city people had parades/masquerades/all kinds of parties on these days. It was one thing that early Protestants critiqued and that the Catholic Church cut back on during the counter-Reformation (or Catholic Reformation if you prefer)--they reduced the number of religious holidays by over half I think. Don't remember if that was at the Council of Trent or not. Mardi Gras as we know it was a far more common style of holiday before say, the late 16th-century.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

THANK YOU! Also it bears mention that Cinco de Mayo *in some cases* involves those of non-Mexican heritage dressing like "Mexicans" in s disparaging way.



Not to mention that there were numerous such holidays and saint days in the medieval Catholic church that had a "carnivalesque" element to them. Because you didn't have to work on these days, peasants and city people had parades/masquerades/all kinds of parties on these days. It was one thing that early Protestants critiqued and that the Catholic Church cut back on during the counter-Reformation (or Catholic Reformation if you prefer)--they reduced the number of religious holidays by over half I think. Don't remember if that was at the Council of Trent or not. Mardi Gras as we know it was a far more common style of holiday before say, the late 16th-century.

You're right about some people dressing up on Cinco de Mayo, that'd be where the offense lies IMO, not in the fact that the local bars have a special on Corona.

I don't know if they officially reduced the holidays or just the days of obligation. It seems as most of the days of obligation were turned into festivals of some sort, Michaelmas for example was a harvest festival.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I don't know if they officially reduced the holidays or just the days of obligation. It seems as most of the days of obligation were turned into festivals of some sort, Michaelmas for example was a harvest festival.

Yeah, I have no idea of the technical/canon law terms for all these things since I'm not Catholic. But there were a lot of days in the pre-Trent Church were all peasants had to be given the day off from work. Like a hundred or more. Trent reduced those numbers drastically and reformed saints' days and festivals more generally. Right now I can't seem to find reference to the exact numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident...oman_calendars

I still don't think a non-Christian using a Christmas tree is anywhere near as offensive as dressing up as an "Indian" for a lame party. Most non-Christians who put up Christmas trees are not intentionally mocking Christians.

MysticCat, while I respect your views, I have to point out that part of the reason early Christians put their holidays at the same time as major pagan holidays (Christmas and Easter are just two notable examples) was not just to "replace" pagan holidays but to encourage observance by rural/pagan people who might not really know all the details of theology. The Church (and here I'm speaking primarily of the Catholic Church) has had a long tradition in the history of its missions and proselytization that allows new Catholics, former practitioners of other religions, to practice their old rites, but usually under a Christian guise. See the syncretism of early Christianity (this includes the holiday issue we've been discussing, but also things like the cult of saints itself, and often specific saints who have no written historical record), the Christianization of Latin America, the Christianization of the Kingdom of Kongo, the Chinese Rite controversy of the 17th/18th c., etc., etc., etc. It wasn't just about "replacing," but often about respecting and incorporating the former religion's rites. Of course Protestants and some Catholics might be offended by this today, but the historical record stands.

[SWTXBelle]

There is a line of thinking that pagan symbols were in preparation for the coming of Christ, at which time the true, full meaning would be clear. Kind of like pledging vs. initiation. ()

Actually, I have no problem with the fact that the early church was brilliant enough to realize that they would be more effective by converting the meaning of pagan celebrations to bring them in line with Christianity. That's just good public relations. Today of course we have pagans and Christians both using evergreens to symbolize eternal life - just different beliefs as to how the whole "eternal" thing is going to work.

And the digression we've taken should in no way be seen as an attempt to excuse the actions of the ND chapter. At least, that's not my intent.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

I still don't think a non-Christian using a Christmas tree is anywhere near as offensive as dressing up as an "Indian" for a lame party. Most non-Christians who put up Christmas trees are not intentionally mocking Christians.

Your argument kind of begs the question, doesn't it? I mean, you assume that the purpose of this party was to intentionally mock native Americans. I'm sure that the ladies of that chapter would just tell [or they would have before becoming the targets of the PC police] you that the party was all in good fun, that it was "cowboys and Indians" and that they had no clue anyone would be offended by this.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Your argument kind of begs the question, doesn't it? I mean, you assume that the purpose of this party was to intentionally mock native Americans. I'm sure that the ladies of that chapter would just tell [or they would have before becoming the targets of the PC police] you that the party was all in good fun, that it was "cowboys and Indians" and that they had no clue anyone would be offended by this.

Oh, come on, Kevin. These girls are from North Dakota. I think almost everyone knows that "cowboys and Indians" isn't all good fun, especially if they're from North Dakota. As t*p said - they should have known better. They have been disciplined by their nationals. End of story.

And besides, almost any group/person that does something offensive and gets called out for it is going to claim it was all in good fun and not meant to be offensive - unless they're an open racist or just an idiot.

An incident happened at my college - that never hit the media somehow - where a guy showed up to a sorority's "Famous Lovers" date party dressed as Liesl's boyfriend from The Sound of Music. He came in full-on Nazi paraphernalia. He went around doing "Heil Hitler" salutes and multiple other offensive and Anti-Semitic gestures. He was told by several Jewish members of the sorority in question to cease and desist. He did not. He was told by male guests at the party who were in fraternities and student government to cease and desist. He did not. He took tons of party pictures that were later posted online doing the "Heil Hitler" salute. He was consequently brought before W&L's Student-Faculty Hearing Board (which deals with issues of sexual assault-sexual harassment-discrimination-offensive behavior, etc). He ultimately wasn't disciplined. But what did he claim to the newspaper, the dean, and the SFHB? He "didn't realize he was doing anything offensive." Even after multiple people told him to stop and he was being offensive, he claimed he didn't know. This is just how people defend themselves! Claiming that "it's all in good fun" doesn't mean the people in question actually thought that - or that what they're doing is OK.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

MysticCat, while I respect your views, I have to point out that part of the reason early Christians put their holidays at the same time as major pagan holidays (Christmas and Easter are just two notable examples) was not just to "replace" pagan holidays but to encourage observance by rural/pagan people who might not really know all the details of theology. The Church (and here I'm speaking primarily of the Catholic Church) has had a long tradition in the history of its missions and proselytization that allows new Catholics, former practitioners of other religions, to practice their old rites, but usually under a Christian guise. . . . Of course Protestants and some Catholics might be offended by this today, but the historical record stands.

Oh, I wouldn't disagree at all -- I just wasn't going into that much detail.

The Celtic Christians referred to this as "baptizing" pagan practices.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You're right about some people dressing up on Cinco de Mayo, that'd be where the offense lies IMO, not in the fact that the local bars have a special on Corona.

I don't know if they officially reduced the holidays or just the days of obligation. It seems as most of the days of obligation were turned into festivals of some sort, Michaelmas for example was a harvest festival.

I agree with all the points you've been trying to make Drolefille.

An "Across the Border" Mexican themed party (I vaguely remember this being mentioned years ago) would be offensive just like a 'Let's Dress up like Indians and put on war paint" themed party, or a "Let's Dress up in Blackface" themed party.

The girls SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT. PERIOD.

And them choosing to do so is in NO WAY the same thing as a bar having a special on Corona or Dos X for Cinco de Mayo and lots of non-Mexican's coming out to enjoy the said beer specials.

[Kevin]

TP, you say those things [border crossing party vs. Cinco de Mayo] are different, but you haven't filled us in as to why those things are different.

Additionally, I'm not sure why warpaint/indian outfits is in and of itself targeted at portraying something negative about a group of people. I can see the border crossing party being offensive since it implies that Mexicans in the United States are here only due to their past (and ongoing) illegal activity. War paint though? What's inherently negative about that?

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by Kevin

TP, you say those things [border crossing party vs. Cinco de Mayo] are different, but you haven't filled us in as to why those things are different.

Did you not read Drollefille's post? Guess not.