Sorority suspended for "Indian Party."

[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.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

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.

So you can't have a Cowboys and Indian party in any state that is/was home to large Indian populations?

And I really can't believe you are comparing a Cowboys and Indians themed party with a kid dressing up like Nazi SS.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by macallan25

So you can't have a Cowboys and Indian party in any state that is/was home to large Indian populations?

And I really can't believe you are comparing a Cowboys and Indians themed party with a kid dressing up like Nazi SS.

I think the argument would be you can't have a Cowboy and Indian party period, actually. Or at least you shouldn't do so if you don't want to get called out on it.

I wasn't really comparing the two parties/incidents, and don't want to. I was just pointing out that people who do offensive stuff are always going to use the excuse that "it was all in good fun," even if it's clear that that's untrue.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

I think the argument would be you can't have a Cowboy and Indian party period, actually. Or at least you shouldn't do so if you don't want to get called out on it.

I wasn't really comparing the two parties/incidents, and don't want to. I was just pointing out that people who do offensive stuff are always going to use the excuse that "it was all in good fun," even if it's clear that that's untrue.

Why should I get called out for having a Cowboy and Indian party? That's absolutely ridiculous.

........dressing up like a Nazi probably wasn't in all good fun. Dressing like some Cowboys and Indians that you would see in any cheesy western is completely harmless.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

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.

I'm not even going to touch the comparison of the GPhiB's conduct to dressing up like a Nazi and shooting "Heil Hitlers" at people. Absurd.

I don't buy that being disciplined by their National has really anything to do with the argument as to whether they should have been punished. I think the national was in a tight spot. I can understand why they acted because to not do so might have jeopardized relations with the ND administration and the administrations of other schools.

These girls were not being openly racist. They were just doing something in good fun. No one was hurt. That should have been the "end of story."

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm not even going to touch the comparison of the GPhiB's conduct to dressing up like a Nazi and shooting "Heil Hitlers" at people. Absurd.

I don't buy that being disciplined by their National has really anything to do with the argument as to whether they should have been punished. I think the national was in a tight spot. I can understand why they acted because to not do so might have jeopardized relations with the ND administration and the administrations of other schools.

These girls were not being openly racist. They were just doing something in good fun. No one was hurt. That should have been the "end of story."

I wasn't comparing the two incidents or equating them, or claiming that one is just as offensive as the other. That part is an open question in my mind. I was just using an illustration of some actions that were CLEARLY offensive and that were CLEARLY known to be offensive by the perpetrator, but where the individual still claimed it "was all in good fun." I'm just saying that that's not an effective counter to accusations of offensiveness. It can "be all in good fun" and still be offensive and inappropriate. People who claim to have done things "all in good fun" are also usually lying.

Originally Posted by Kevin

It's pointing out that the point you are making is not rooted in reality whatsoever.

LOL. OK. You still don't have any response to my argument that "it's all in good fun" is not a way to get out of this situation - and that it's usually a lie.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

LOL. OK. You still don't have any response to my argument that "it's all in good fun" is not a way to get out of this situation - and that it's usually a lie.

Actually, if you actually buy the premise that anyone, at least from a logical standpoint where someone is reacting to something which was actually portrayed because that portrayal means something or does something bad, has anything to be offended over [I don't], the "it's all in good fun" line, if true, mitigates "intent to offend," which is apparently a class C felony on college campuses these days.

In this case, I'm definitely buying that this is true in this case.

TP: I really don't care what the school did. That they did what they did doesn't make it right.

I agree, social probation at the end of the semester, only a few weeks away from finals probably isn't going to affect the sorority that much. It's the principle of the thing which makes me wish they'd fight it, but really, when a punishment so light is on the table, sometimes, it's best to just take the path of least resistance.

[macallan25]

Originally Posted by breathesgelatin

LOL. OK. You still don't have any response to my argument that "it's all in good fun" is not a way to get out of this situation - and that it's usually a lie.

Why? Why are you not allowed to harmlessly participate in a party meant completely for fun. It's almost like you are saying that this isn't possible, you have to be lying.....you're party was certainly meant to be highly offensive and mocking.

What's next? Should we start threatening 3 year old trick or treaters who want to dress up like Pocohantas for Halloween?

[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?