Is it offensive or am I being silly?

[CocaColaaa]

Just a quick one but NC for this as I guess its outing.

My childrens school are doing world book day and the “theme” is peter pan, its given some suggestions of characters you can dress up as and one is tigerlilly. I was thinking of chosing that one for DD as I hate all of the tinkerbell dresses but ive heard its offensive to dress up as certain things. Native americans being on of them. Is it offensive or am I being silly? Why oh why do they have to do themes and not just let people pick their favourite book characters 😩

After the OPs last contribution I was feeling a bit upset until I realised that we’ve all been discussing unethical fiction on a thread that is itself unethical fiction. The meta-ness appeals to me for some reason.

I won’t be giving this any more oxygen but I just wanted to say that there’s been some really great contributions from people like Filbert

After reading such thoughtful contributions I actually feel quite confident that if such a school actually existed, there would be plenty of people who would address it with the head very competently. Thanks to those posters

Look up the Dakota access pipeline protests. Native Americans are still being treated horribly by the government

On page 4.

This is such a self indulgent discussion. Basically about the concepts of "cultural appropriation" and "offence". Over the whole 23 pages (so far), only two posters have given any relevant, factual or historical information about the native Americans. Endless to and fro about who is "right" about a kids fancy dress costume. There is no "right" and "wrong" here. It is all subjective interpretation about whether a child (with no ill intent) wearing an historically inaccurate costume will cause offence. The idea of who she could offend is ridiculous. It is highly unlikely that an actual indigenous person from north America will actually be there. Therefore she can only offend the sensibilities of other kids, their parents or the staff.

Imagine putting in the energy and time into doing something proactive for some of these oppressed people instead of trying to educate mn by telling them that they "frothing" or "PC gone mad" types (or would that be considered patronising, so best to type angrily instead?)

No - I think it's a pity that golliwogs have now been identified with racism to such an extent that only racists buy and display them, because that wasn't always the case. The US tradition is different from ours, for obvious reasons, but in the original books Gollie was a hero, Golliwog was a made-up nonsense name and the toy was merely a representative black toy, like the Dutch doll. Inclusive, if you like. They were popular with both black and white children throughout the British empire, because we didn't have the minstrel tradition where gollies were seen as a negative caricature of real people whose role was to make white people laugh.

I think in any group which has suffered discrimination through ethnicity, disability or sexism, there will be two camps: those who want to be treated the same as everyone else and feel insulted and patronised to be treated as a special case, and those who, for whatever reason, will never forgive or forget. I think it's better to focus energies on resolving the inequalities of the present than go raking over the coals of the past. So, e.g., if you're a black student at Oxford, better to spend your time on outreach to increase diversity than take offence at a statue of Cecil Rhodes.

Ime, away from the rarified atmosphere of identity politics, this is actually a majority view and most people live happier lives when they're not being lectured, often by well-meaning outsiders, about new things to be offended about.

Spot on.

Some people have thought gollywogs were racist for a long time. My mother explained to me why they were in the 1960s!

If ‘it wouldn't make sense for a white man to play Othello’ does that mean that black actors cannot play Desdemona or Iago?

Golliwogs have always been racist. There was never a time when they were just sweet and innocent toys.

As a white person, I don't feel I get to tell indigenous American people what they can and can't feel offended by. I have taken the time to listen to those who have wanted to express it to me, whether in-person or online. Maybe there's a silent majority who really don't care but I'm not going to assume that in the absence of evidence. Moreover, even if such a silent majority did exist, I still wouldn't choose to dress my child up as an 'Indian' knowing the strong views of others in that group.

And, in the case of indigenous Americans, I dare say part of the challenge in overcoming present day discrimination is dispelling the white characature of who they are.

And once again, do people really believe that it is important to refrain from racist actions/words/representations only in the presence of the targeted group? That it is fine and dandy to dress in a stereotypical costume simply because no actual Native Americans will be there to witness it?

I think it's better to focus energies on resolving the inequalities of the present than go raking over the coals of the past.

But in the present political climate, the coals of the past are still firing the inequalities of the present, at least in the US. It's simply impossible to talk about present-day discrimination and oppression without reference to the past.

Also I don't see this issue of Tiger Lily as cultural appropriation. It goes much deeper than that. It's about a damaging racial stereotype. A child dressing up as Tiger Lily is not appropriating Native American culture, she, or rather her parents and school, are engaging in racist stereotyping.

I am the op. The school does exist, I know some people would rather believe it was made up but it isnt. Ive attached a copy of the email, Ive zoomed in to avoid too much detail. I dont think the school set out to offend it obviously wasnt a well thought out theme and fair enough Ive read all of the comments and I do accept what people are saying so DD will go as a someone else instead. I only seen it in the newsletter as a suggestion other wise I wouldnt have even thought of tigerlilly.

“If ‘it wouldn't make sense for a white man to play Othello’ does that mean that black actors cannot play Desdemona or Iago?”
Can’t see why iago couldn’t be black. But of course Desdemona has to be white!

Couldn't you reverse them, like Noughts and Crosses?

Sorry, not point of thread, I know...

Sshh, I think they've wound down.

I would love to see Benedict Cumberbatch as Othello, the part was written for a white actor anyway. He could certainly convince me!

I do accept what people are saying so DD will go as someone else instead.

It's heartening to hear this.

Oh good, didn't expect that. Well done OP.

FWIW I'm not shocked that the school suggested Tigerlily, not that lots of Brits don't really see the issue. Most living in the UK won't have seen Native Americans outside of white cinema or literature and it's easy to be ignorant of much of the history and present-day challenges. I was until I emigrated. It really should be part of the national curriculum.

Othello wasn’t written for a white actor!
He was a Moor.
Just because Shakespeare uses the word ‘black’ doesn’t mean he was referring to an Afro Caribbean person.
WS precedes our terminology.
Othello’s birthplace is never mentioned, in WS’s time a Moor could be from Africa, the Middle East or parts of Europe.

the part was written for a white actor anyway.

What do you mean?

It was written for Richard Burbage, wasn’t it?

I assume the part was written for a white actor because they actors at the time would have been (mostly) white men.

I would love to see Benedict Cumberbatch as Othello, the part was written for a white actor anyway. He could certainly convince me!

His(non white) race is part of the plot...

I assume the part was written for a white actor because they actors at the time would have been (mostly) white men.

This. Although all the female parts were written for men too and I'm sure people wouldn't really want the default actor for those to be men again.

With Othello, isn't it only relatively recently that the part has been played by a non-white actor?

Othello was 'written for a white bloke', in the same way Juliet was.

The part was less written for RB, than RB played him (probably with black face) because he was the A-lister of the day.