The focal print from Spirit Animal, Tula Pink’s new line from Free Spirit. The print has been pulled.
On April 4 popular fabric designer, Tula Pink, announced on her Facebook page that she was asking FreeSpirit to pull the focal print from her newest collection, Spirit Animal. She had, it seemed, been accused of cultural appropriation because the image was of a girl wearing a Native America headdress.
“I do not wish to spend the next year defending my family tree,” she wrote. “I have no desire to make people uncomfortable, this has never been the object of my work. For this reason I have asked FreeSpirit to pull the main print from this collection. I have chosen not to replace this print but to let it stand as is with a piece of it’s heart missing.”
In the more than 900 comments that followed Tula’s fans and followers got into a heated discussion about artistic freedom. As this story unfolded I thought of Tsoniki Crazy Bull, an avid quilter and a Native American who grew up on a reservation. I decided to reach out to her to ask if she would share her perspective on what happened and she agreed.
Here’s what she told me:
+++++
“There are so many Native people. People definitely paint us in a historical view,” Tsoniki Crazy Bull says. For her family, however, Native culture is very much alive.
Crazy Bull’s mother, Cheryl Crazy Bull, is the president of the American Indian College Fund and a member of the Sicangu Lakota tribe. Tsoniki’s father is Shoshone Paiute and she grew up on the Rosebud Indian Reservation in south central South Dakota and lived there until she was twenty and went to college. The majority of her relatives still live on the reservation.
Crazy Bull is a quilter, blogger, and member of the Modern Quilt Guild. When she saw that Tula Pink had decided to pull the focal print depicting a young girl in a feathered headdress from her latest fabric line, Spirit Animal, she was filled with strong feelings.
“One of the big things that I saw from people who were not agreeing with it is headdresses are only worn by certain Native peoples,” she explained. “Plains Indians wear headdresses, but west coast don’t, southern, eastern don’t. They do have their own head coverings, but they don’t have feather headdresses the way we do. And I say we because my tribe does wear headdresses.”
“All the feathers that are on a headdress are earned for something. You get a feather for a specific reason, for a certain thing that’s done. You get a feather from a ceremony you’ve participated in. You can only imagine what someone has to accomplish to create an entire headdress,” she explains.
“Since the feathers are earned the headdress is often compared to military medals. Just as medals are awarded, so are feathers. And just as you would not wear military medals as a fashion accessory, you shouldn’t take wearing a headdress lightly.”
Crazy Bull points out that the headdress is also a religious symbol. “The other thing is that headdresses are sacred items. It’s like Christian people wear crosses, Jewish people have their symbolism.”
In the Facebook post announcing that the focal print would be withdrawn, Tula Pink explained that she is of Native American ancestry on her father’s side. “I have explored my maternal ancestry in past collections and in ‘Spirit Animal’ I chose to pay homage to my paternal ancestry,” she wrote. “I am proud of my father’s heritage and am grateful for the richness of culture that he passed onto me. I wanted to honor that crucial part of myself in the same way that I had in previous collections.”
While Crazy Bull respects Tula Pink’s heritage, and her efforts to guard her family’s privacy, choosing not to reveal where her father is from or which tribe he is associated with felt to Crazy Bull like a mistake.
“The image and the explanation of it, where she said that she was trying to honor her father’s heritage, don’t match up. The image didn’t look like any one thing. So then you’re contributing to what is called pan-Indianism which is just this mix of partially true, but also stereotypical Native American things,” she explains. “Like ‘every Native person is a warrior’ and ‘every Native woman is a princess.’ That’s damaging as well.” Crazy Bull points out that there are currently over 560 federally recognized tribes in the United States, each with their own distinct cultural nuances.
“If it was about her discovery of her Native ancestry, she also has a responsibility to ensure that the images she produces are not damaging to the culture,” Crazy Bull says.
The timing of Tula Pink’s revelation of her Native heritage also felt awkward for Crazy Bull. Given the long history of exploitation of Native people in the United States, “profiting from something is definitely a hot button.”
“How come you didn’t talk about this before?” Crazy Bull wondered. “Why are you only talking about this now as you’re trying to profit from this.”
Showing the headdress on a female figure added an additional layer of discomfort for Crazy Bull. “Women don’t wear headdresses,” she explains. “Why would you do this? It would be really easy to draw a headdress on a young man and have people not be nearly as angry as they were.”
Crazy Bull is sensitive to the depiction of a female Native American figure for another reason. “Native women are very sexualized,” she adds. “People always tie it back into the rate of sexual assault and rape and there are so many murdered and missing Native women in the United States and Canada. There are a lot of people fighting the hyper sexualization of Native women and I think that a lot of that stuff all ties back in here.” Even though we only see the figure’s head “if [this image] is the only image you ever see of a Native woman that’s damaging for a lot of reasons. We have the statistics to back that up.”
When Crazy Bull read the story about Spirit Animal in the Free Spirit Fabrics lookbook her thoughts about the print were complicated further. “The description of it was not, to me, in any way related to Native people. A lot of our stories – for us these are the truth. For other people, for other cultures that hear about it, it sounds like some weird story. It doesn’t sound believable. We have things that tell how something came to be for us as a people. The lookbook story was a fantastical myth. It has nothing to do with Native people as we exist in reality.”
Crazy Bull understands that it can be difficult to be accused of cultural appropriation and she can understand the outcry from Tula Pink’s fans when the print was pulled. “It’s hard to admit and accept that something you like or have a connection to is blatantly wrong,” she says.
Yet she feels it’s still important to speak up, even if hers is a minority voice. “When you belong to a group of people you have a responsibility to ensure that your culture is not only kept alive, but that it is respected, and that anything that’s created is not damaging to the people and culture.”
In the end she’s glad Tula chose to pull the print. “You’d have people thinking something about a culture that just isn’t true,” she says. “Then you also have people thinking that because it’s done it’s okay for them to do it as well.”
+++++
Updated: May 18, 2017, Quilt Market is taking place right now. This video of Tula Pink’s Schoolhouse presentation for Spirit Animal was taken by The Fat Quarter Shop and posted to their Facebook page. In it, Tula addresses the removal of the main print.
I’m constantly thinking about cultural appropriation as I see garments. This issue is complex, and one that I don’t fully understand- but I try! The popularity of “native” and “Aztec” prints recently has made me uncomfortable. I know that symbols, no matter how decorative and cute they seem to me (a white lady), can have great weight and importance to others. Plus- who’s profiting from the depictions of these symbols?
Thank you for exploring this- Abby!
Oh I so disagree with this woman. Simply because Tula is an artist and art is interpretation. This is silly PC bunk. If you do not like it don’t buy it. She is also entitled to her privacy. She works hard and entitled to her choices. I am very sad she caved to all the whiners out there.
Emily, I’m curious which part of Tsoniki’s words are silly, whiney, PC bunk?
I too am curious. I felt that Tsoniki was very respectful overall and this was a good conversation to have. Thank you for facilitating this, Abby. The only part of Tsoniki’s remarks that I questioned was that the image was a woman in a headdress…to me, the individual doesn’t appear distinctly as one gender or the other. But, I’m not sure what the artist’s intent was either.
Wow. I had no idea about this print line from Tula Pink. Thank you Abby for this great post and thank you to Crazy Bull for her extended comment.
Crazy Bull has some great points but then she’s had practice. Most Native Americans have _lots_ of practice in justifying why they object to their entire culture being handed out to one and sundry for commerce with zip appreciation for meaning or context.
This print ticks off all the points, too. Romanticized savage? Tick. Total ignorance of cultural meaning? Tick. Willing, beautiful Native squaw? Tick. It’s like “Dances with Wolves” in quilting cotton form!
The whole schmoo about “…piece of it’s heart missing?” Gimme a break. Sounds to me like it was too late to sub another design in. What’s weird about this is that Tula Pink thought it was ok. That’s what I don’t get. How could she not see the issues?
Even in Tula Pink did not see the issues, why didn’t the people at Free Spirit see the problem? Why not get feed back from established Native American organizations before going to all of the expense of producing the fabric?
I think it was wise to pull the fabric, since someone seeing it might not realize that it was offensive to some. After putting in money, time and effort to make something, being told that it was offensive would be heart breaking. She and Free Spirit owed it to Tula Pink’s fans to try to do the right thing.
As far as it not looking like a female, there are flowers, so I immediately thought female. Maybe others thought the same thing?
Funny, after initially reading this post I brought up the print with my knitting group. Engaging conversation ensued. I didn’t give them all the context at once, hoping that they would first make assumptions, remarks on the art by itself. One woman, who has extensively traveled in Peru and Mexico, remarked that to her it looked inspired by an image of an Aztec man. Another woman remarked on similarities she saw with her own Scandinavian heritage. I certainly don’t think flowers=female, personally. I filled them in on the controversy and it made me wonder – given a different context, would this art be considered less of a case of appropriation? Or are some people just always going to see “Dances with Wolves” regardless of intent? Are we so conditioned by our culture (personal as well as joint) that we can’t see past our own biases – both good and bad?
Thank you for this! Amazing post – very intelligent – I hope people read this and understand a little more why pulling it was important.
This is informative and insightful! Great perspective and I hope the sewing and quilting community continues to embrace these discussions.
Thank you for writing this article and thank you to Tsoniki Crazy Bull for sharing her perspective. I’m so glad the print was pulled and that there is intelligent discussion happening! I really hope the quilting industry continues in a more responsible, respectful manner when it comes to these issues.
I have to admit, this article made me sad. Not because of this specific print, or anything to do with this specific situation, really, but because of what it represents in our society. When I first heard the term Cultural Appropriation, I laughed. Honestly, the concept was propesterous to me. How could we, in this multicultural/melting pot/globalist society be so angry about sharing the best parts of our ancestor’s culture and ideas with other people? When I realized that this term was truly a controlling aspect of our new society, I was filled with fear. To be ruled by such an Orwellian concept in such an obvious way is terrifying. I realize that artistic representation can be offensive. It’s a grey area. What is offensive to some is beautiful to others, and the merits of artistic imitation have been argued for thousands of years. Plato and Aristotle had this exact conversation 2500 years ago. There is no clear cut answer. Should the print have been pulled? I don’t know. I’m just asking all of you to remember, freedom of expression is all we have. We have to be careful how we censor ourselves.
thank you
Well said, Angela. What has the world come to, when “quilt-makers” take it upon themselves to judge, denigrate and criticize “fabric designers”? Each has their own skills and expertise. Each needs the other. There is always “freedom of choice” – don’t choose what you don’t like. I don’t believe that on-lookers should have the right to judge another’s work, to the point where they interfere with a designer’s right to earn a living using her own considerable talents. Or to interfere in a quilter’s right to legally purchase a fabric which should be available to all. Most quilters are “individuals” and greatly resent censorship or judgement in any form.
thank-you- Well said
I’d say this was far less cultural appropriation and more a case of cultural caricature. Women did not wear warbonnets. Every feather in a war bonnet was earned through deed, action or participation in ceremony. It is/was deeply meaningful culturally and spiritually to those who earned them. She didn’t need to censor herself, she needed to do some real research to depict this heritage appropriately.
You should look up the definition of “orwellian”.
I agree wholeheartedly.
This put fear in my heart when will I unknowingly in a creative fervor offend someone .
Couldn’t agree more! I think you put your argument forward well.
Thank you. Well said.
Yes. I agree with “being destructive to the welfare of a free and open society,” (Orweillian) has become a tendency that is damaging our freedom to imagine. I agree with Angela and Lisa and sew happy. Other cultures may have women wearing feathers on their heads, it may not be disrespectful to do so, nor to imagine the dream like quality of women doing so in current culture. Let people design. Aztec and Mayan people wore feathered headdresses… today in different states of Mexico .. Guatemala, etc. Mayan queens wore feathered headdresses… as depicted here: http://discovermagazine.com/2014/march/16-the-power-and-glory-of-the-maya-queens. Perhaps modern day tribes do not have women wearing feathers as they consider it solely a sacred and male honor to wear a headdress. (in this article a Mayan queen is buried with feathered bird heads.) Other ancient cultures do. We may see the Brazillians, etc. with feathers on female heads in parades and dances, perhaps these are also related to their historical importance in their Olmec green feather or Mayan feather use in culture that has now developed into newer uses. If Plains Indians sign language originated in Mexican sign as has been researched, perhaps the Plains tribal hand signs will help us today to read Mayan glyphs of hand signs. The feathered serpents in the several mound communities across the North American continent may also play a part in how feathers were used for representing various Meso american gods … and possible unknown goddesses of ancient cultures. I would think that every feathered woman’s headdress is not meant to be disrespectful- –
Abby, thank you for reaching out to Tsoniki Crazy Bull and sharing her thoughts with us. Another very helpful voice in the discussion of Tula Pink’s new line, as well as in the overall conversation about cultural appropriation. I appreciate the insight!
Thank you for the article, Abby. I followed the link to Tula Pink’s FB post and I was really dismayed by the ignorance and tone-deafness of her followers.
See here’s the deal.
It seems harmless for nascent hippies to wear bindis at Coachella. We look at this with amusement and while “wrong” there’s a matter of degree to consider.
Native American icons, in particular, have baggage. Real and present baggage.
Native Americans are not history. There are horrible issues facing American tribes that only get touched upon by the media peripherally, if at all. Things like addiction, crushing poverty, alcoholism, disease. These issues aren’t in the past. They’re here now and they’re awful.
And more. The U.S. government still participates in land grabbing of what little there is left of Native American reservations. Silencing of tribal members by false imprisonment, alteration of tribal records, and, as we’re familiar with, desecration of sacred lands that should have been off limits. Inordinate restrictions on how tribal members can earn a living or places they can live. Yes, this exists. Today. I call this modern genocide.
When we romanticize Native Americans we substitute a warm fuzzy feeling for awareness. It makes us tolerate what would normally be cause for objection. It’s a substitute for action and keeps us on the couch, somnolent.
I take a hard line on Native American imagery being mis-appropriated, even for something seemingly innocuous as quilting cotton. There’s so little left. Please let us keep it.
Thank you. Native American or indigenous people is not a costume to be worn at Coachella.
Of course not.
Bindis are part of the Hindu culture and are now being worn as a fashion statement by some.
My comment about the consideration of just how “bad” this is was made on the observation that American Indians fare far worse at cultural appropriation that happens in the US. The impact of wearing bindis on the Hindu culture just isn’t felt as much by Hindus in the states. If bindi wearing became a fashion in India, however, worn by non-Hindus women, I imagine that a great outrage would occur.
My understanding (from what I’ve seen written by Hindu women, both in India and out) is that bindis have very much become a fashion accessory in India and as such, most people don’t care who wears them. I feel weird in them because a white girl in a bindi SCREAMS “hippie!” but I think they’re a very different matter than the headdresses.
(That said, I don’t know if the “you wouldn’t wear military metals as fashion” in the original post is a good comparison given just how much military-inspired fashion is out there. But the US Army isn’t exactly an oppressed people, so, still a very different matter. )
My cranky feminist heart finds it sad that the idea of a woman being a warrior and earning feathers is unheard of and totally unacceptable – but it’s not my culture and not my battle, nor does it excuse the print.
Booth, your responses are A+ just like the article/interview itself. Thank you for breaking this down further for those who aren’t aware of the depth of the ways cultural appropriation harms – it’s so important not to just let it be brushed off as “whining”.
I never knew that women don’t wear headdresses, and I never knew that each feather was earned. I absolutely love native prints — they’re usually so beautiful — but then, I have never been taught what’s appropriate and what isn’t. Thank you for explaining some of it for those of us who haven’t been taught a single thing about cultural appropriation. The info you’ve provided really should be widely known, and I have a better grasp of why this kind of stuff can be viewed as offensive now.
When I owned a brick and mortar yarn shop, I was asked to design and teach a cowichan sweater., so I did some research. The more I learned about the tradition (and ultimate exploitation) of this art form, the harder it became for me to figure out a way to teach it or design something that didn’t feel like cultural appropriation. I didnt offer the class. It is beautiful, but it isn’t my story to tell and it isn’t my tradition to sell. People ask if it isn’t the same as drawing from the tradition of the Shetlands or the Faroes or Estonia, and I don’t believe it is, mostly due to the history of those various art forms and the people who created them. Context generally provides a powerful clue.
Exactly!
In recent years, having native american heritage has fallen in and out of “style”. After the success of the movie “Billy Jack”, everyone and their grandma claimed Native American heritage, because it became “cool”. However. what did that really mean? For some people it simply meant being cool, for others, it gave them some kind of cultural identity in this cultural melting pot, and for others, it meant the chance to get college scholarships. When I was in college, it became a trend, or scam to some people, to claim native american heritage to get scholarships and aid. All they thought was needed was the “knowledge” that some parent or other had some native american heritage. To people of true native heritage, such as myself, this is both amusing and insulting. What does it mean to have “cultural heritage”? Is it just a rumor of native blood somewhere in grandpas family tree? In my family, the native american culture is real and alive. My husband, who also is of native heritage, would make it a point to visit his great uncle, raised on the reservation and who had a bow and arrow passed down to him, he made sure our daughter saw it and learned about it. He and I both have made it a point to learn as much as we can about our native tongue and speak certain words at home so our daughter became used to hearing the tone and dialect. We take the time to research and cook dishes native to our cultures. This does not mean that I feel I can dictate to someone else how to celebrate their own family culture, but it is such a cliche to pronounce mysterious native heritage on one side of the family, or the other, when convenient, without any other evidence of interest. I am glad that Tula Pink saw the need to pull it from her line, however, to not replace it, but to behave in this “victim” mentality is sad. To keep the collection incomplete, rather than designing a more appropriate pattern, seems just like more drama mentality. She was ignorant about the ramifications of what she was doing, she was educated, so redesign the fabric to be appropriate, and replace it. Leaving it out as though she were some sort of victim of native american “bullies,” rightfully defending their heritage against her financial exploitation of incorrect images is almost as much of an insult.
When i see how ‘in’ it became I was sad. It didn’t increase peoples knowledge or desire to know about the culture at all. It also reminded me of a female ancestor of mine who felt she had to lie about her ancestry because to be ‘Indian’ was a shameful thing in her day and age. So when people would ask her what she was she would say Portuguese or Spanish, etc. People were so generally ignorant of other places at that time that it was a family secret for years. She would become furious with her husband when he would talk about his first time seeing her with her ‘feet in the river’. She lived a life fearful that she would be shamed for her heritage. This secrecy has made it almost impossible to research my ancestry which I find so very sad. I am always so please to read things like your comment where that heritage is being passed down.
Well said..Thank you.
Great post Abby. I have followed Tsoniki on IG for a long while and it was very helpful to hear her thoughts on this. I felt a bit funny inwardly about that print but wouldn’t have been able to articulate why. It just seemed like it wasn’t right. Know what I mean? Anyway, kudos to Tula Pink for pulling it and rethinking this. Huge thanks to you and Tsoniki Crazy Bull for this discussion and perspective.
I, too, was dismayed by Tula’s response and that of her followers, particularly as it related to “bullying”. Artistic expression has been subject to criticism since forever. One thing I wonder, though, is where her fabric label was in all this. I mean, they surely must vet designs in some way.
Thanks for a thought provoking post, Abby.
I have wondered that, too. I wish FreeSpirit would come forward with a statement or engage in some way. Perhaps they will at a later time, but why not now.
When I saw this print and read that it had been pulled because of cultural appropriation of Native Americans I really didn’t see the connection to Native Americans and still don’t. As a Native American I did not and do not see my heritage but rather an image of the Polynesian culture. I can understand why it was pulled as it’s still cultural appropriation but the image translates differently to me. It may have something to do with the fact that I know women of my heritage do not wear feathered headdresses so I automatically saw a culture that does wear them. I guess it’s all in the eyes of the beholder as to what one sees.
@Rina, you make a good point. You could say that all offense taken really is the responsibility of the person being offended not the entity doing the “offense.”
I find it difficult to separate myself from discussions like this. It’s good to get a more measured interpretation.
Good point, Rina. And thanks for being honest. (Even though that inevitably subjects you to the risk of being criticized yourself).
You wrote : “As a Native American I did not and do not see my heritage but rather an image of the Polynesian culture. I can understand why it was pulled as it’s still cultural appropriation but the image translates differently to me.”
I agree. And as a retired lawyer I’d like to ask (everyone): What law, statute or regulation defines “cultural appropriate”? What are it’s elements? What is it’s legal status? Is it is a criminal or civil offence? In which forum? (Country / State / Region)? Who has the authority to make that decision? Is it appealable? What is the penalty?
If the status of “cultural appropriation” amounts to nothing more than personal opinion or morals, then surely – to each his own?
Hello Rina, I’m with you on your perception of the image. I immediately thought it was depicting Mayan legends or something similar. Whatever it was I found it very attractive. Frankly, I can’t understand the fuss over an image that could be viewed in so many ways. Perhaps it is because I was born and raised in Scotland, though I have lived in North America for decades, I have got used to the Scottish culture being “appropriated” left, right and centre. What about V. Westwood’s use of tartan in haute couture, or the depiction of kilt-wearing cheapskates in cartoons? I could go on and on. Here is another example of “cultural appropriation” –people going to fancy dress parties dressed as nuns or other religious figures. That may be hurtful to the people who follow those religions. So, my point is let’s lighten up on this. So-called “cultural appropriation” is everywhere and has been going on from time immemorial. Like beauty, “cultural appropriation” seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
Great answer! That was my reaction:l lighten up!
When someone from a group that has been oppressed for hundreds of years explains how an image is hurtful to them and harmful to their culture, telling them to lighten up feels really sad to me. Why not be open to her perspective?
Abby,
Thanks for the follow up. I appreciate hearing Tsoniki. It was important to understand the background and symbolism.
An interesting conversation being had. I am an Australian so have little knowledge of Native American culture and issues although we do have some similar discussion here with our indigenous Australians.
Having read the look book statement I didn’t see any suggestion of Native American people or culture but of a mythical people from a mythical place. I guess I struggle with the way being politically correct and inoffensive stifles creativity. I’m sure many are more qualified to discuss this but I just wanted to express how it looked from a complete outsider.
Thanks, Abby. As a fellow Australian I say: you took the words right out of my mouth. It’s hard to understand, sometimes, how people can be so “precious” about their own personal opinions. Really … do we want to go back to the drab, boring limited range of quilting fabric that was the norm in the 1970’s? Do you remember the blandness – the dearth of colour or choice? Tula Pink is a Fabric Designer – we should leave her be, and thank her for her creative efforts.
Okay, this is a super long comment, so sorry for that.
I grew up in Alaska. Natives are the largest minority in the state, about 30% of the population state-wide. So, I had friends, neighbors, teachers, and others around me who were Native and I never thought much about it.
So, when I saw things like this print, I thought, “Well, surely everyone knows that’s not really Native culture. That’s something else. Something fantasy, just like everyone knows Elves didn’t exist in Medieval Europe. It’s just imagination, It doesn’t matter.”
Then, I moved to the Lower 48 and I learned that most people had never met a Native person or had any contact with Native American culture outside museums.
What I came to realize is that there are so few depictions of actual Native cultures in the mainstream media that most people don’t have any ability to filter between “fantasy” and “reality.”
So, there has to be a strong pushback against inaccurate depictions, because there aren’t enough accurate depictions to counter balance them.
Cultural appropriation is complicated, because it is nuanced. When I put my leftover Indian takeout in a tortilla, I am culturally appropriating on several fronts. Yet, no one would mistake my korma-taco monstrosity for a real piece of Indian or Mexican culture. The great tragedy is that without accurate depictions of Native peoples in mainstream media, people see these sorts of fabric prints and they don’t even realize what they are seeing isn’t real.
And that, for me, is the problem. The print promotes the image of “magical Indian” and “Indian Princess” and there are not enough better depictions to counter balance these.
I am glad they pulled the print. I wish it hadn’t taken an outcry to do it. People should be more respectful from the start and recognize the power of their art to shape people’s perspectives on literally hundreds of distinct cultures that deserve to be treated as real and not as fantasy.
Beautifully said. Thank you.
THIS. Well said!
very interesting and helpful comment. thanks.
When this happened I had really hoped you would discuss it. I’m really grateful for what you contribute to the making community.
I was disappointed that so many people were quick to defend Tula, and accusing those of calling her out as bullies. That’s a word that hurts, and seems to get thrown around Willy-nilly. Tula made the right choice to pull the fabric. I hope more people come around to realize that.
Abby, thanks for once again giving talking space to a controversial topic in the crafiverse. It is so important that we are able to have open, intelligent conversations about these issues, and you have been very brave in tackling them. Thanks for inviting Tsoniki Crazy Bull to give us her perspective, and thank you Tsoniki, for participating and speaking up.
I was really upset that people were being called bullies for explaining their own heritage, and why this could be harmful. Most people were hashtagging #istandwithtulapink but the few voices that dared speak out were articulate and considered just like Tsoniki. As a white European I should not be in a position to tell someone of a different culture what they should feel. We need to respect one another more and be open to listen, i feel like that’s a skill slowly declining in general. Thank you for exploring this.
Good on you for seeking Tsoniki’s perspective on this. I find it really interesting.
Thank you for researching this subject. However, for balance, I would have also liked to have heard the views of another quilter with Native American background who did support Tula Pink. There were many of them, self-identified on the FB post, who may have welcomed the opportunity to discuss their perspective. Or, even better, why not reach out to a fellow Fabric Designer with Native American background? Someone who walks in Tula Pink’s shoes, expending the same amount of time, energy, and with the same education and experience in graphic design and art, would be worth listening to.
That’s an interesting idea, Lisa. I think I felt that hearing from Tula Pink was enough? She has Native American background and she worked hard to design this fabric.
I understand your point, Abby. But for a neutral perspective (to help us readers balance both sides of this story), I still think it would be helpful to hear from another successful, young, modern Fabric Designer. (Regardless of their ethnicity). This would help readers to understand the work, thought, responsibilities and challenges that all Fabric Designers have to deal with, especially when creating for a world-wide market.
That’s a fair point, Lisa. Thank you. I’ll think about the best way up share that perspective here in future posts.
but how was she honoring her Native American background by making this print which clearly shows ignorance of what Native American culture is? If she wanted to honor her father’s culture she could have made an accurate print that truly depicted the culture and was not a stereotypical caricature of it. And then to act like a victim about it is pretty bad. Meh. Never really liked her stuff anyway.
Lisa, one problem with this is that there are several flavors of Native Americans. Some, like Crazy Bull, are intimate with their culture be living it on a daily basis; their parents are Native Americans, their grandparents are Native Americans.
Some have a somewhat more hazy association. Whenever someone asks me about my ethnicity I usually get, “Wow, I’m Native American too! My great grandmother was a Cherokee!”
That’s not to say the amount of “blood” is 100% relevant in determining how well someone can “speak” for their culture. But it is worth noting that Tula Pink declined to recount her Native history.
Just how would Abby find an authentic voice to speak from a perspective more aligned with Tula Pink’s? Tula Pink is in this discussion because she touted Native ancestry and an authority that she seems to have mis-claimed.
Booth, I find your comments disturbing. You allege that “… she touted Native ancestry and authority that she seems to have mis-claimed”. And implied that she was “inauthentic”? On what evidentiary basis? And that she “declined to recount her Native history”. Why should she divulge her private life to appease you? Or is this a Trial by Public Opinion? Perhaps I’m a lone voice here. But I can genuinely see both sides. Why can’t you?
Lisa you’re correct. I cannot see both sides, nor do I feel compelled to do so.
I have serious issues with Native American culture being taken over, mis-identified, mis-used, and commercially appropriated. I’m sick of it and pissed off.
Usage of Native Americans by non-Native Americans is a form of exploitation. The exploitation of which furthers the decline of an already decimated and persecuted group. I weep for the people of my tribe and what’s been done to them and being done to them. I weep for the people of the other tribes. I weep for the genocide, the slavery, the sheer poverty, the alcoholism and drug addiction, the FASD children. I weep for the children taken from their families so as to become “more assimilated.”
Is a quilting fabric responsible for this? No, of course not. But ask yourself if you would feel ok with these images romanticized on quilting fabric:
Black “mammys” depicted on a bottles of syrup in a “cute” kitchen scene
Nazi swastikas
Jesus on a cross in a totally not-religious-appropriate way
Sexualized little girls
The issues facing tribes today become obscured by the appropriation of Native American imagery. I can only hope that non-Native Americans get an intimation of how bad this is and the damage it does.
“And implied that she was “inauthentic”? On what evidentiary basis?” I can’t speak for Booth but for me it was not knowing that you don’t put a warbonnet on a female. Lots of people want to celebrate their heritage because they have native American blood, that said, having the blood and knowing the culture and heritage are two different things. If she was a member of a nation that wore warbonnets (very, very few compared to the grand total of nations in the U.S.) then she would have known that. If she wasn’t of that nation, there wouldn’t be need to show the warbonnet unless she didn’t realize that the nation she shares heritage with didn’t wear them. It’s not that difficult to see or understand what Booth meant. At least to me.
I’m just curious why there’s not more of an outcry about letting women wear headdresses. In our culture of equality, don’t the Native American women want to be equal to the men? We have women priests, etc. So why are women not allowed to wear headdresses? Not trying to be controversial here, just curious why no one is discussing this aspect of things.
I doubt you’re a lone voice here – many Americans do not value the Native American experience, or take seriously the losses from theft and treaty-breaking that have occurred for centuries, as the “worthless” land onto which NAs were pushed became valuable for white settlement or natural resources and they were moved again.
Native American ancestry is not a state of mind. It is not a tattoo. It is not a wallpaper or an iPhone case. We can choose how much headspace we give it, yes, but one is either descended from NAs or not; it is horrifying for someone to pull a Rachel Dolezal and just pick a minority group to which to belong as though it’s chess club or drama boosters. I have no idea if Tula Pink knows her tribal affiliation or if she has one, but leaving that out of the discussion means that she has not established credibility. (Personally, I have legally verified membership, but I don’t even WANT to get into whether the definition of being a NA should only be determined by the US Govt, essentially a conquering power.)
Tula Pink opened the ball on this one. She made a print that offended many Native Americans and others who value that cultural history, and when she got pushback on it, she said that she had NA heritage herself but did not specify which tribal affiliation, etc.
THERE IS NO GENERIC NATIVE AMERICAN. Yes, there are pan-NA Pow-Wow events, but all tribes have their own history, some of it shared with other tribes, others not. She cannot use a vague “I have Native ancestors” as a get-out-of-jail-free card for cultural insensitivity. If she was not raised with awareness of whatever her ancestral traditions are, I for one don’t blame her – I wasn’t “raised Cherokee” – but she should darned well have done some research and then held off if the symbols she chose to use, and how she used them, would be offensive to Native Americans today.
I don’t think she’s unusual or even the most awful person who’s ever done this, but it is idiotic to condone this sort of thing, IMO, especially as it was done for financial gain. Yes, I know, she’s an artist, so this is how her work gets out there – but to profit off the old Indian Princess myth is rather revolting and I hope she moves on from this.
I like a lot of Tula Pink’s work; I have some yardage all cut out for a pair of pants. I’m not planning to boycott her over this, unless she escalates it, but I hope she learns a valuable lesson: if you’re going to use minority group cultural markers in your art, learn as much as you can beforehand, make measured decisions on how far you’re willing to go, and then be a grownup if people call you on it and want to know who gave you the right to mine that minority group’s culture to make money.
Exactly. There are a bazillion people with a vague (and possibly true) notion of some Native ancestry somewhere back in their family tree. Unless they’re willing to really get into a discussion about what can be verified, I’m afraid that voices like Tula Pink’s are just another wannabe. No, she doesn’t have to “prove” her right to claim ancestry, but if she’s going to make money off it, especially inaccurately, she’s going to have to deal with the fall-out. I wish people weren’t so ugly about it, on both sides of this debate, but I’m glad the print was pulled. It trivialized the Native experience.
Anyone who thinks that Native ancestry is all fireflies and sparkly feathers should read *Killers of the Flower Moon* by David Grann that just came out this week, about the Osages killed for their oil money in Oklahoma in the 20s and the community of whites, including law enforcement, that went right along with it.
Oh, wow, Booth, I’ve bought yarn from you! Awesome. (:
What a great interview, as I would expect from Abby!
I’m a member of the Cherokee Nation out of Tahlequah, OK, and the whole pan-Native American culture thing as described by Crazy Bull is SO TRUE. I wasn’t raised in full awareness of my heritage, as my mother’s family did NOT think being Cherokee was cool when she was a kid (hello, no one did then), so they did their best to forget and assimilate, and a lot of family history was lost. I am aware, though, of some things that are specific to Cherokee – like feather capes made and worn by young women. It was one of the weirdest experiences in my life to be told by a woman from whom I’d just purchased some livestock that she was Cherokee, too, that she had fought hard for her own daughter to express “her culture”, and it turned out that that “culture” was a kind of pan-Native American mumbo-jumbo that included more elements of Plains tribal activities than Cherokee (though it definitely was cherry-picked from multiple tribes, plus a good big dollop of American New Age). She’d never heard of feather capes.
None of this is surprising – we’re talking about some seriously oppressed and victimized tribal groups that have either lived on the support of the US Govt (which I certainly think is owed to them), or have scattered and tried to forget, and their remnants and descendants have formed their own memories and narratives in the years since. I’m glad that Crazy Bull is speaking on behalf of other Native Americans (especially that WE ARE NOT ALL THE SAME, or princesses or warriors). Tula Pink might mean well, but the despoliation of the American Indian isn’t a fairy tale. These symbols MEAN something, and further dilution and fake history only hurt the Native American of today.
On reading more of the comments and conversations already up, I want to add that I think Booth is right – that there are definitely several flavors of Native American. The Cherokee, for instance, are well known for intermarrying with other tribes and whites, especially as it was part of the way they made peace and created kinship bonds. The Cherokee have lived like whites, though generally as poor farmers, for a very long time ever since the end of the 18th century when they mostly moved out of their towns and onto individual farms as the US Govt wanted. Unlike some Plains groups, we have a very long tradition of assimilation and less of a reservation culture. Not that I’d recommend either.
So I’m one of the people who is very aware that they are Cherokee (Lord knows I’ve got all the health problems of a full blood, even though I look white), yet I don’t speak or read Cherokee or pretend to live in traditional cultural ways. Tula Pink seems to want to discuss her heritage, but I think she could have found a more sensitive way to do it, one that doesn’t view that heritage, whichever tribal affiliation she might share with others, as personal only to her. This isn’t like getting tattoos of all the things that matter to you, this is a fabric collection that referenced culture shared by a lot of Native descendants, many of whom are tired of seeing their culture appropriated. *White Comanche*, anyone?
I cannot tell you how angry this and other such conversations make me. I am so tired of the politically correct culture which is strong-arming us all….even fabric designers. I am a blonde of Icelandic heritage…should I rail against Beyonce for dying her hair blonde…or the Minnesota Vikings? Of course not! That would be silly, just as silly as anyone who is offended by a headdress, or kimono, or dreadlocks. Grow up, stop whining and realize that much cultural ‘appropriation’ is really cultural appreciation.
Wow. I’ve never come across a person who thought that blonde hair dye was a cultural appropriation/appreciation of Icelandic ancestry.
I don’t think you really understand what’s being discussed here. Iceland is still a country today. It controls its own borders; it has done a great job retaining its cultural heritage and history and the genetics of its adapted and interesting animal breeds. Their knitting is well-documented and fascinating. Descendants of Icelanders are not a persecuted minority; they were not conquered (except by international banking, and they’ve recovered and returned to fishing and tourism and are doing a slap-up job at them, as they always have). Apples and oranges, honey.
To me the definition of privilege is hearing that someone is hurting and telling them to grow up and stop whining.
Bingo!
Re the above, should Japanese only wear kimono and their traditional dress? Ditto those whose clothes are traditionally saris? Hasn’t western culture been appropriated the world over? Why look for aggravation where none needs to exists? Is braiding my hair using more than two plaits really an insult and misappropriation of another culture? Why not admiration? And in any case why should hair styles belong uniquely to one type of people? Should other cultures not straighten hair or bleach it, should pale skinned people stay out of the sun or not tan their skin? Should darker skinned people stop using bleaching products?
There are serious issues of oppression and land grabbing and inequalities in the world. This kind of thing makes a mockery of the that. Discussions of this kind are nearly always beside the points that matter. Americans stole and killed people to exploit the land they still benefit from, with many not admitting that. Native peoples were treated poorly and still are. Americans talk about not having a history, but of course they do, they just choose not to relate to it because their ancestors helped to destroy it.
What is your view? Isn’t this a blog not reportage? It seems very safe to get everyone else to put their opinions out there while leaving your own on the side line. It is not a very engaging style. I miss your old blogging when it was about making soft toys and was relevant , interesting and personal to that. The ethos of handmade and hand crafted was different and important. Sadly no one cares about that much any more.
Also, one person speaks for a whole race? If you asked I am sure you would have found differing view points also to give food for thought.
To add to the above, modern civilisation is based on one culture admiring and taking on many aspects of another and has been formative in western civilisation. I refer to the appropriation of Greek culture by the Romans no less.
I have mixed feelings about this. This is an imaginary story they are telling with fabric, not based on depicting any one particular group accurately. In this imaginary world why can’t the girl have earned feathers for a headdress? The art side of me says have fun and celebrate. Having read the interview I can see, as with anything identity related, that it’s more complicated than that. I can see now why Tula Pink pulled the design. I didn’t understand before. I don’t like censorship and we can’t change history. There seems to me to be a need to examine art for what it says about the artist and the user of art as much as about what the art depicts, but I don’t think Tula Pink needs to justify herself by sharing her family tree with the world. Respectful dialogue and engagement is the only way to make positive change for those of us who don’t see the nuances of identity a piece of art can raise. Without the art this conversation would not have happened.
I think that this is a very thoughtful comment, Ruth.
You know, the funny thing is that until this print was pulled, I didn’t even know about the kerfuffle. Not having Plains heritage, it wasn’t until the situation was explained and Tula Pink made her announcement that I realized that she even designed this and what the elements were that were disrespectful.
For me the big problems were Tula Pink’s assumption of victimhood and then the online ugliness (of others, not Tula Pink) to the Native Americans who were offended (which, yes, includes me). If this were my tribal symbology, I would have been hurt and angry first for that reason, and I am definitely concerned on behalf of Native Americans as a whole – but honestly, anyone can make mistakes. If Tula Pink purposely misused these elements to make a buck, well, that would suck, yes, but it feels to me more like she picked up some elements, magpie-like, and designed a mood and a story around them. It was a good thing she then pulled that main print down when it became clear how offensive it was, but to then act all wounded and attacked about it, wow, that’s kind of myopic. She misused cultural elements. Easy to do, if one is ignorant, which I tend to think she was. She knew enough to research this first, though, and I have a high enough opinion of her intelligence (I’ve heard her interviewed; she’s a smart cookie) to fault her for not doing so.
I think moving on is a good thing. I’m glad these issues came out, too, as at least enough NAs have a voice online to speak out on this issue (and isn’t it nice that we’re talking about American racism and expansionism through the lens of quilting fabric rather than that of drug-addicted Native youth?). And the print WAS pulled in response, even if grudgingly. Awesome! When a group of people has been as mistreated, even to this day, as Native Americans have been, I don’t think that group should have to endure yet one more la la la story about grizzlies and princesses being floated around using their symbology. Many people ARE ignorant of why this hurts, and they are not to blame for that ignorance. Once they find out, though – that’s when accountability sets in.
Honestly, you’d think none of these people had ever heard about being adults before.
This is so sad!!! This is beautiful artwork, a form of free and creative visual speech. People have become so hyper sensitive. You can’t let them force you to discontinue this. You can’t give into this. They have a choice to like use/buy or not. They don’t have to look at it….it is so beautifully done and not ostrasizing or denigrating in any way. PLEASE do non’t!
With an Asperger’s leaning, I tend to prefer accuracy, the kind Tsoniki Crazy Bull has provided in explanation of traditional and cultural perspective. But then there’s this 10 year old girl inside me that doesn’t really care about the facts and can imagine a land, like Oz or Never Never Land, in which young girls do wear feather (or other types) of headdresses that speak of their achievements. Maybe a feather for saving a bird that fell out of its nest, maybe a one for being kind to a stranger, or effectively taking down a corporation destroying the water of an entire town.
Fiction, takes images and ideas we know and rearranges them into dreams, possibilities.
Ms. Crazy Bull makes very good points about the facts and how we should but often do not aim for a realistic picture of human history rather than a strereotypical one.
But if designers are going to be held to accuracies, then forget cats who wear sunglasses and stars with smiles. Stop dreaming things that could never be. Art and history are two different things and it’s too bad the designer couched the design in terms of historical relevance because she could have just said – it’s fiction ; it’s a dream. She made a great mistake in trying to combine fact with fiction in this case and in doing so ended up having to take away a possibility to incite our imagining – a world completely separate from Native culture in which women wear badges of honor for their achievements large or small.
Allison, well said!
I think you are right about Tula making a mistake mixing fact and fiction. It is easy to do.
As fiction, I feel her design mixes many ideas together; she could redo it with a more generic design; then again fabric lines are here today and gone tomorrow, so there is not much use in spending 6 months to get a new design into the collection that might be replaced with a new line in a year. Now designers are expected to have a story for their fabric lines.
I like realistic images, but when it comes to fabric designs, many people like the fantasy designs the best. Look how popular Kawaii designs are now. That is a Japanese style of design meaning ‘cute’ and many designers do their own version of it.
Native Americans need to get accurate depictions of their culture out there, so it is recognized for what it is; the lack there of just adds to the stereotyping. The average person has no way of knowing all the history of each tribe. Abenaki in Vermont have only recently been recognized as a tribe, as there is no reservation and they have lived in mixed communities for a long time.
THANK YOU for interviewing Ms. Crazy Bull and sharing her thoughts with us. I appreciated learning about the history of headdresses as well as her thoughts on cultural appropriation. The Tula Rose issue had me going back and forth. As an art major I think people should be able to explore different ideas and themes, but work should still be accurate and respectful. Ms. Crazy Bull’s comments that the imagery used was too general to be representative of any one tribe, and showed a woman (who would never wear a headdress) helped me decide that I didn’t support the print. The designer could have been a lot more detailed/accurate in her representation and still made a beautiful design for the fabric.
I so appreciate this article & interview of Ms. Crazy Bull plus the thoughtful comments of readers. Maybe, just maybe our world is becoming more able to accept and appreciate diversity in all of its forms? I have hope! I see Native appropriation as outright robbery of cultural treasures. Museums are filled with objects of appropriation from many tribes and primitive peoples. Crazy Bull points out eloquently the impact of appropriation and misuse of Native images in popular culture and beyond. Thank you for entertaining this discussion, Abby.
The moment I saw the fabric, I loved it. Not a single thought of exploitation of Native Americans (or Canadian Aboriginals – I am Canadian) entered my head, I was simply admiring the collaboration of colour, design and heritage. “Cultural Appropriation”?? When did the world get so complicated? Does this mean I should be offended when Canadians AND Americans depict Canadians wearing lumberjack shirts or are cartooned saying “eh”, among other things? No, I just laugh. Offence doesn’t enter into it. And I’m still laughing when I hear your president telling the world how Canadians have been taking advantage of Americans on the subject of free trade. A sense of humour is required in this complicated world.
I think perhaps the difference is that Native Americans, in America for certain, are still being oppressed, lied to, their lands taken, treaties broken, etc. Perhaps if they’d had a couple hundred years of general decency from those who live in the land stolen from them as well as some level of prosperity as opposed to the grinding poverty that they live in they might have more of a sense of humor about it. What was done to them, and is still being done in some ways, has never been made right. If all they ask is that people not inaccurately portray the only thing left to them (their culture and heritage) it’s probably the least people can do. Literally the least…
Monique I 100 percent agree with you.. The issues that indinous people of the U.S. and Canada face are swept under the rug by government. In Canada it seems that anyone that brings up the realities of these issues never follows up and nothing changes. But this is a discussion for another form.
I agree with you 100%. The Scandinavians, for example, take little offence to any depiction of horns on Viking helmets . They chuckle and shrug it off. A healthy sense of humor just might keep the cultural police at bay.
I agree, Irene. Perhaps, though, our sense of humour is still intact because we have not been oppressed. It’s hard to know.
I think this could be a false comparison, though, because the Scandinavians haven’t experienced hundreds of years of oppression, often brutal, by their government.
I can understand loving the fabric and not having a single thought of exploitation in mind when you first see the design. If this isn’t your culture and you don’t have firsthand experience to help you understand the image, it’s hard to find any issue with it. I felt that way myself, but upon listening to Native American commenters explain what felt hurtful to them I wanted to learn more. That’s the reason I invited Tsoniki to share her perspective here.
When I first saw the design my thoughts were of how.magically beautiful it was just as I see all of Tula’s artistic designs. Then I read all of the comments and although I can understand why many see the print from a realistic and negative point of view I never lost the magical feeling that I first felt. I agree with the later more positive comments made by Ruth, Erin, Kathy, Allison. I am sorry that Tula pulled this piece. As quilters we could have made beautiful stories of accomplishment for our young girls.
Tula I wish you would rescind your request. You have the right to artistic freedom.
To those of you that disagree, turn this to a positive and educate the uninformed as you have done here with you comments.
When will this stop? Native Americans today. Will it be the American Irish tomorrow? American Italian next month. We are taking down everything that is history in this country. Soon all quilts on display ever where will be offensive to someone. and be taken down. When will it be over? Stop Stop. Just walk past what bothers you and let other see it as art.
We are free to express what we wish.
I reject the notion that telling someone to stop whining comes only from a place of privilege. The difference in perspective here is whether anyone is “hurting”. This is a beautiful portrayal of a fantastical human with only a wisp of any Native American design. The headdress. Does anyone hold a design patent for a headdress?
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen gorgeous, harmless, creativity killed by what I see as an angry mob mentality. Tula didn’t do anything obscene, illegal or immoral and yet a group of people harassed her about it until she gave them what they wanted.
We’re told to celebrate humanity, we’re all human, color doesn’t matter. Until a minority decides it matters. Then they will draw a line that a “privileged” person better not cross or else. It seems to me that certain groups are keeping our races intentionally divided.
I read the arguments for cultural appropriation the first time I saw a designer attacked for creating wooden figurines. (Yes, attacked. Those questioning the maker were not kind at all beyond the initial question of, “Are you of Native ancestry?” When she responded in the negative the gloves were off.)
I have an Irish grandmother who married a descended-from-slaves Mulatto man. Both races were (are, many blacks would say) severely mistreated in our country. I would love it if this fabric reflected the beauty of my ancestry. (Even a wisp.) I would take it as the compliment it was intended to be.
The more I study history the more I think that our current culture’s portrayal of natives is romanticized, which is why it’s become “cool” to be a native. If there is a realistic explanation of how a complimentary portrayal has hurt someone I would entertain the idea.
We live in an age of offense. Last night a gentleman made a point of holding the door for me at the gas station. Not casually, but stopped and held the door wide so that I could pass through first. I said “Thank you, Sir.” with a smile. I wondered how many women would have taken offense because we’re “just as capable as a man, he must think I’m helpless, etc. etc.”. Why? I don’t understand why a gesture of kindness, even deference if you think about it, makes people upset.
Isn’t it wonderful we can all reject others notions. I think so because I reject pretty much your entire post. If you are looking for things to be annoyed about, you’ll find them. Women not being grateful enough that a man held the door open? Come on….
I didn’t say that women aren’t grateful enough, but that some take offense easily. My point was that sometimes people read into another’s intentions based on where THEY are in life. A compliment can be perceived as a wrong and that isn’t the fault of the artist, or the man in my door analogy.
Ahh but there’s difference between fault or blame and being responsible. We all need to live in this world with the folks around us. I don’t run around blaming white identified folks for stealing my land or heritage. I do hold the White collective nation (for lack of a better phrase) responsible and I advocate for change. One way that advocacy takes is showing up in comments like these.
I tend to wonder how many of the “it’s ok what’s the problem” folks here think they are being blamed. by the “I’m pissed, my culture is being stolen” folks.
What one does when being responsible is another subject.
And if I read you correctly your analogy of the woman being offended by a man opening a door for her and that being “too touchy” is that the folks here not liking Tula Pink’s print in question is the same. We’re too easily offended?
I’m checking on this with you.
Maybe we are. Too easily offended. I’m not sure where I would draw the line if it wasn’t always, anywhere. How would I judge? I mean maybe if the print had some other sacred symbols mixed in. Then? Or maybe not this print but of a drawing of a “noble savage” on a cliff? Or non-Navahos selling Navaho silver? When is it ok to get offended?
I don’t think you CAN judge. That is what this whole topic boils down to. Artists are questioned as to whether they are of Native ancestry. Why, if not to divide us? If this art is permissible with the correct pedigree, why not without one?
My grandfather told my siblings and I that we had Cherokee blood. My brother has his ancestral headdress displayed in a shadowbox on a wall in his home. It does mean something to us, be it true or accurate to the tribe or not. I understand these familial stories being handed down and think that it’s ridiculous to expect perfect accuracy in art. Since when is art so limited?
Offense isn’t even the main issue here but what people decide to do with it. If we don’t like something, we don’t have to buy it. I don’t think censorship is the answer.
I guess I don’t see this art being created by someone in touch with their heritage.
But as far as judging when to get offended, or to the point of saying something, withholding funds, protesting, writing a letter to the editor, or otherwise speaking up? So you’re saying never speak up if the subject is art or artistic? For fear that the thing one is speaking against gets taken down?
You see the decision by the manufacturer to take down this print as censorship? Or perhaps the manufacturer censoring Tula Pink (I have no idea if she was cooperative when told this print was coming down or how the event played out).
If there’s a statue in a public place and 50% of folks are offended by it, is taking it down a form of censorship? What about 2% or even 98% of people?
Nuance. A mob does have power. Protest is welcome, attempting to control or shame another through attack is not. A mob wanted this fabric censored and they used mob power to accomplish it. The end result is the same as if Free Spirit (or any other entity) required it. Tula clearly was reluctant and sad to pull the fabric but felt she had to or defend herself for the next year. Read it on her FB page. No one wants to live in a state of constant defense.
“I have this concern with your design. XYZ, and I won’t be supporting it.” is an honest conversation we can all grow from.
“Who are YOU to design this? Are YOU of Native ancestry? YOU aren’t being respectful. YOU don’t know what you’re doing.” is an attack on a person. It is destructive and divisive.
“If this art is permissible with the correct pedigree, why not without one? ” I think the entire issue is that it wouldn’t be. Someone who spent their lives living their culture and their heritage wouldn’t likely put out something inaccurate and that created just another mishmash of symbolism that helps contribute to the, as Booth mentioned, ‘noble savage’ myth.
Any artist who says they want to honor a culture or heritage is responsible for doing so in a way that is accurate and truthful to that culture and heritage. It’s really that simple.
Molly, I agree with much of what you say. The last paragraph reminded me of a long-ago event. It’s sad, but true, that some women don’t have the decency to thank a man for holding open a door for them. Their identity is so fragile that they see what was meant as a kindness to be a statement of their inability to do something for themselves. Case in point: My husband went to the University of Chicago in the mid-80’s. He held open a door for a young woman (notice I did not say lady as there is a distinct difference) as most young southern gentlemen of that time era had been taught to do. It was a natural thing for him to do, something that he thought nothing of, until he got raked up one side and down the other for his effort. Needless to say, he didn’t stay in Chicago after he graduated.
Dixxie it sounds like you’ve been carrying your husband’s door incident around for awhile.
If I recall, the 80’s and in particular universities, were a time of women finding their strengths and weaknesses outside of a male definition. I know I used to get stares in my professional life when I expressed female gender as “women” instead of “girl.” I seriously doubt that same woman would take offense at a man (or your husband specifically) holding the door open for her today. It’s a different time and a different context.
Have never seen that happen here in T.O.
See the problem here Molly is an imagined rude event and conflating it with this argument about the Tula Pink print and all ussues today.
Women used to make a point, sometimes poorly, of educating men that they were not helpless. This used to happen in the 70’s and 80’s mostly. Women were struggling to enter the professional world on an equal footing with men and sometimes mistakenly (or not) took opening doors, pulling out chairs, as a gender bias statement by the man.
While some women get offended by this today, I just don’t see this happening enough to make it a cogent argument for “living in an age of offense.”
Although I do see other groups getting offended. I’m not sure if I could agree with “living an an age of offense” I guess mostly because I don’t see anything wrong with being offended appropriately. By this then I would take it that you see a *lot* of inappropriate offense taking. I’m not splitting hairs or trying to be contrary. The degree to which you see folks’ offense as valid or not and the prevalence of people taking offense is how one would classify “living in an age” or not.
See I worry that conflation makes it difficult to actually see when something needs fixing or it’s just more noise.
There are surely appropriate times to be offended. I did mention above that if anyone has truly been hurt by a complimentary portrayal it may be worth considering. If confusing the truth about history is off limits it would mean doing away with every work of historical fiction. The artist here did not put this design out as Native American history.
I think that whining makes it difficult to see when something needs fixing. Like the boy who cried wolf, for another analogy. 😉
Natives vs. artists, women vs. men, minorities vs. whites, poor vs. rich, liberals vs. conservatives. Yes, I see a lot of easily offended people and division is the result.
Your examples exhibit an imbalance of power.
so the minorities whine to the whites, the women whine to the men, the Indians to the artists, the poor to the rich.
Maybe it’s the imbalance causing the divisiveness and not the whining (as you put it)?
The imbalance doesn’t cause division but the response to it or the abuse of it. There will always be strong/weak in our society. The weak don’t have to resent a person with more money, talent, or strength than them. The strong don’t have to exploit those weaker than them. In many cases, the weak can become strong. Did Ben Carson (a black boy with a single mom raised in Detroit) whine that he was poor, a minority, with no chances in life, oppressed by the strong? No, he used what talent he did have to change his position in life. He became strong and is now helping the weak. He is very respected. Choices. To celebrate his success and resent white success is racism.
Oh, wow – I wondered when someone would pipe up with the “minorities who haven’t succeeded can only blame their lazy whiny selves”. The paternalistic view of the Southern slave-holder; some things never go away. I guess if Massa just took charge of us, we’d all be okay, wouldn’t we?
So the poor or oppressed are resentful and that response causes divisiveness? Not that they’re poor and have few options that get narrower with the growing power of the rich? The Native Americans objecting to this print envy Tula Pink’s talent?
Talented folks naturally rise to the top?
If you’re black all you have to do is work hard?
If you’re born on the rez, just get a job and get an education?
Is this what you mean? Just trying to understand your line of thought…
I think it’s more the imbalance of power and issues this causes, particularly economic issues, that makes for divisiveness. And I’m getting from you if all those minorities/poor/oppressed would just shut up things would be great. I’m checking with you to see if this is what you mean?
So the poor or oppressed are resentful and that response causes divisiveness?
Poor and oppressed are not synonymous. Some people are poor due to choices they have made. Many of those same people resent the wealthy simply for being wealthy while they are not. Is this divisive? Yes.
Oppressors are not just those with power but those who abuse power. That’s an important distinction. This is also divisive.
Not that they’re poor and have few options that get narrower with the growing power of the rich?
This perspective I believe to be fallacy. No one should fault the rich for being poor. You speak as if success is limited to the first X number of people. It’s not. I wouldn’t put an artificial barrier up. Anyone can be successful. There’s an Aussie out there missing his arms and legs yet he became a motivational speaker. It’s not because he decided to resent those people born with limbs.
The Native Americans objecting to this print envy Tula Pink’s talent?
I don’t know.
Talented folks naturally rise to the top?
No. Those that work their tails off are likely to. My point was that everyone will be better off focusing on their talent rather than their weakness.
If you’re black all you have to do is work hard?
Any color of the rainbow, hard work and a good attitude will take us further than resentment.
If you’re born on the rez, just get a job and get an education?
I don’t know about life on the “rez” but would apply the above statement to any scenario.
Is this what you mean? Just trying to understand your line of thought…
I think it’s more the imbalance of power and issues this causes, particularly economic issues, that makes for divisiveness. And I’m getting from you if all those minorities/poor/oppressed would just shut up things would be great. I’m checking with you to see if this is what you mean?
I think it’s the response to the imbalance that causes division. I recently read an account that I think fits well to illustrate. A rich man named Harv volunteered to help in a poor community. On his first visit he drove a flashy vehicle. He was the recipient of rude gestures, slurs, and glass bottles thrown through his sunroof. When he returned to his parked car it had been keyed. This man hadn’t hurt anyone, but he was obviously wealthy so the poor attacked him. This is the resentment I’m talking about. He rented a car on his subsequent trips to avoid being mistreated.
When a person (or race) is oppressed than of course we should speak up. I do not see a connection with Tula’s fabric design and oppression. Again, show me how anyone has been hurt. If the Native community desires more accurate portrayals then by all means produce them. I don’t see how anyone can try to put that responsibility on another artist’s shoulders.
Well heck. We are so far apart in basic assumptions it’s difficult to even know where to start in responding.
I assume going into a desperately poor neighborhood with a flashy car, like your Harve example, would be taken as an affront, the height of insensitivity to the folks struggling day-to-day for basics. I look at this example and think “Whoa Harve, boy. You are so out of touch. If you want to help these people displaying your wealth conspicuously is probably not the way to do it. They’re not suddenly going to become inspired to be you.”
It’s obvious that comments on this post aren’t changing anybody’s minds and only polarizing folks more into their respective corners. That’s too bad.
I’m going to quit this one for now. Quixote I am not.
“Did Ben Carson (a black boy with a single mom raised in Detroit) whine that he was poor, a minority, with no chances in life, oppressed by the strong? No, he used what talent he did have to change his position in life. He became strong and is now helping the weak. He is very respected. ”
How respected he is is highly debatable. I think plenty of folks lost a significant amount of respect when he suggested the Pyramids were used to store grain despite all conclusions of the experts who actually know about such things and because, you know, Egyptians actually wrote down what they were for. What that demonstrated is that he is a person who ignores the voice of those who the Pyramids belonged to in order to insist believing in a fallacy, aka, willfully ignorant.
Booth, our discourse here helps prove that different perspectives don’t change the facts, just our response to what happens. A man hopped in his car to go help someone and was mistreated. Your response it that he should’ve known better than to drive his car into that community. Was Harv out of touch? You bet! Since when is being out of touch a criminal offense? Where he was raised you didn’t use someone’s car as a trash basket or key it up. Displays of wealth are enjoyed and ARE inspirational to some people. One person says, “Some day I want a car like that.” and he dreams. Another cries, “How dare he drive a car that I’ll never be able to afford.” and he tries to ruin it. The man driving the car did nothing wrong, but is an ‘affront’ to poor people. That is pure undeserved resentment toward the rich. I hope people honestly considering these things can see that perspective makes the difference.
I’m further in my corner after these conversations for sure. I do appreciate everyone being peaceable about it. 🙂
Historically it is not “minorities” who have decided that color matters. We are reminded every day, writ large and small, that it does matter.
As someone from Ireland, I am often struck by the weird and wacky images and stereotypes that abound about Ireland and the Irish – especially around St Patrick’s day – in other parts of the world. Some of these bear no resemblance to their “true” cultural significance (although you could argue that cultural significance isn’t a static thing and morphs over time anyway).
These “misrepresentations” aren’t something that bother me. Perhaps that is because as an Irish person in the 21st century I don’t feel that I am in any way disadvantaged, oppressed or marginalized. This, however, was not always the case and there was certainly significant discrimination in the past (my father working in London in the 1950s recounts frequent boarding houses having signs saying “No blacks or Irish”). Perhaps under these circumstances I would have felt more indignant when someone misrepresented the truth of my race and culture because the discrimination and lack of equality already felt like such a “cultural misrepresentation”.
I do not live in the US or have any knowledge of the issues Native Americans have to deal with. I do wonder though if there are times in the life-history of a race, or group of people, when cultural identity may be more important, exactly because of the struggles that are present. Perhaps having a strong self=identity becomes an important strategy to cope with the adversity that is present. If this is the case then it is important that we respect it.
I think it can be hard for people from a different background or who have never had to experience these adversities to understand why cultural identity becomes so important. I do feel for Tula Pink in this scenario as I think she did most likely want to honor Native American heritage but lacked a full understanding of how her interpretation would be viewed ( a bit like how a 21st century Irish person lacks a full understanding of what things were like for my father’s generation). In the end, however, perhaps Tula’s attempt to honor her heritage has been successful anyway (although not in the way she intended) because it has certainly increased the crafting community’s awareness of the importance of Native American Identity and prompted many, including me, to try to understand this situation more fully.
Very well said and I think it certainly has.
Lord, someone should frame this. Beautifully said.
I’ve read pretty much all of the comments here and have to say it’s been quite entertaining. I’m from a mixed heritage myself, i.e. Irish, Scottish, German, and Cherokee from both my mother and father’s sides of the family. Therefore, I tend to refer to myself as a “mutt” when asked about my heritage. All in good fun of course.
I’m not really a Tula Pink fan, but I can’t say as I was offended by this specific design. Mainly because I didn’t see it as being Native American, not even as being a female really. I went back and studied it, and the face looks more like that of a young boy to me. It could be a young girl though as children at a certain age often don’t look like a boy or a girl depending on how they’re dressed and whether or not their hair is visible. My initial thought was actually one of Mardi Gras really. Lots of females wear a headdress for Mardi Gras. If you aren’t familiar with this event just do a Google search on “Mardi Gras headdress” and you’ll see tons of them. Please note: Some images may need to be censored as some of the the headdress-wearing women may have more feathers on their head than material in their costume. I say this because I don’t want anyone to receive a nasty shock based on some of the images one will find.
Whatever happened to “poetic license,” or even “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery?” I’m sure Ms. Pink had no desire during her designing process to offend anyone or to make light of a specific heritage. I just find it interesting that we can use symbols and designs from so many other cultures and never hear a peep out of those whose culture it is, i.e. Celtic designs come to mind immediately. Almost all cultures/races/peoples can claim to having been victims of some other culture at some point in time.
There are lots of “art” pieces out there that I prefer not to look at as they offend me, so I don’t. But I think we set a bad precedent when we start telling designers what they can and can’t design for fear of offending someone somewhere.
Well said. 🙂
Absolutely Dixxie, well said.
I also don’t see the face as specifically male or female. That is clearly a personal interpretation. In my opinion, if the viewer sees it in an offensive way it’s because they have read it as offensive. Other people (as illustrated in the comments here) have read it differently. It’s in the eye of the beholder.
For forever, art has been a tool for sparking discussion and debate and bringing issues to our awareness. If nothing else, this piece has gotten people talking about and rethinking how to view and approach cultural issues, and that’s a good thing. We all need to be aware, honor and respect each other. But muzzling creative expression is a slippery slope downhill…
Censorship. Shaming. I’m going to get a headdress, wear it whenever and put it in the dress up box for my grandchildren. This current myopic view is just like burning books.
You could dress in black face and do a minstrel show while you’re at it.
Thank you for saying it. Her post was worth being ashamed of.
Wish I could have said it first.
There is this other thing that’s happening in these comments.
The gluing of censorship to speaking out against something objectionable. These are not the same things.
Censorship happens when an entity in power supresses the voice of an entity that is weak or has little to no recourse but to submit.
Protest and public discourse should be welcomed. This is not the same thing as censorship.
We, in fact, do not have enough information here to cry censorship.
After public outcry, if Tula Pink thought, “Gee, maybe we out to pull that print, I messed up about that Indian thing,” that’s different than “Those stinkers at Free Spirit, they told me they’d wouldn’t pay me if I didn’t let then yank the single print and I can’t get a job anywhere else.”
See the dif? I don’t think we know what happened directly between Free Spirit and Tula Pink.
Either way the rest of us get to gripe about it or gripe about the gripers; which is what we’re doing. That’s ok, not censorship.
This isn’t an insignificant distinction either.
Man, so true, Booth.
The whole point of this, IMO, is that we are all able to talk about it. Do y’all even realize how amazing this is, in all of recorded history? Here we are, discussing in a public forum about whether we agree or disagree with the fact that, however much or little pressure was put on her, a fabric designer decided to pull a design from a collection. We seem mostly to be women, educated enough to type, and able to afford internet. WOW.
No one is being shot. No one is going to a camp. No one is being dragged across the country away from their farms. No one is being forced to marry anyone. No one is being silenced – truly silenced; posting on FB about how bummed she is means that TULA PINK IS NOT BEING SILENCED.
Art is a luxury (however much I love it), especially art that we, the people, get too choose (as in, not imposed on us by our rulers, etc.). Yes, this art was offensive to some Native Americans. Yes, either the designer or the fabric company decided to pull it. The designer is, as far as I know, still employed. This is art, but it is COMMERCIAL art. That is, it is being sold to the public. Part of the public, the market, responded that they disliked it, and the seller chose to withdraw it from sale.
If y’all think that’s oppression and censorship, my goodness, y’all have no idea what life has been like – or IS like, even now, for most people ever born anywhere (especially women). Read some history, y’all.
Oh, now we are back to the starving artist, because art is really only art if it is done for the sake of doing art! How about art for those who don’t do art for whatever reason? Non artists can enjoy art and artist can earn a living doing something they enjoy.
There is always something to take offence from in life and only those that are very egoistic, don’t find something that makes them feel of no worth. It is a very human feeling, but many times the person doing the offending doesn’t really mean anything bad by what they said. They are only speaking from their own insecurities.
I am not saying we should ignore what happened in the past, because we need to learn from history. But as much as it would be nice to be able to change the past, we can’t do that. We are only responsible for now and going forward as best as we can. (Personally I have said things I shouldn’t have said, people have taken offence at how I have done things and those people have held onto some of those perceived offences for many years; it doesn’t help ones self-esteem to have no forgiveness).
Exactly Kathy. What’s past is past. Today, now, currently the government participates in land grabbing, desecration of previously off-limits sacred land, and imprisonment of N.A. activists. Alcoholism and drug addiciton are rampant on the reservations and nearby N.A. communities. Bad educational opportunites and unavailable health care still makes FASD a terrible, preventable, issue and one that has generational implications. Restrictions by the government (how we’re allowed to make a living, where we’re allowed to go to school) make it difficult for many N.A to leave the reservation and seek a better life. And the poverty that’s experienced by many tribes is breathtaking.
This is part of the argument the folks commenting here about the inappropriateness of Tula Pink’s design are trying to make. Real and current issues make it important for an artist to be aware of what they’re doing, how their art will impact and be received by the very people she’s depicting. This isn’t a depiction of the Boston Tea Party or Greek mythology.
I’m almost positive Tula Pink wan’t intending her print to offend. I wish she had taken a bit more time to “explore her native heritage” that is being made today before making her design realized.
Bless your heart, Kathy. It’s funny to me how ANGRY all of y’all are that think that the dissenting Native Americans are in the wrong here. What on earth does it cost you that other people have opinions you don’t share?
You can rabbit-trail on false ideas about starving artists (what? Srsly? Um, isn’t ALL art actually commercial art? Surface design is, however, kind of OBVIOUSLY commercial art, wouldn’t you agree?) or victim-blame or whatever, but you can’t get around the real facts. Which are exactly what almost no one in opposition to Booth’s or Monique M’s statements has been able to deal with, instead going for ad hominem attacks, or setting up specious side issues that they then can demolish.
Dudes. Take a breath. If you want to be taken seriously on this topic, do some research. There are oh-my-goodness-soooooo many books out there on the screwing-over of Native Americans in this country going back several hundred years. That history is still being written today; this is not a yesterday thing. You just can’t get around this. Maybe you think the NAs deserve it, or are weak for not escaping the trap of poverty and addiction, but you can’t contradict the facts that land has been stolen from NAs from the very beginning, and still is being stolen today, that all US govt treaties with NAs were broken, and that NAs today often are trapped by their legal position as citizens – or as sub-citizens.
Me, personally, I’m living the life of a middle class American. I personally have no beef with the government, and am thankful for what benefits I do have, and my freedoms. I also know that many other NAs have none of these things. Are they the only disadvantaged folks in the world? Heck no. Have they suffered the most? Doubt it. All we’re saying is, deal with the truth, folks. If you want to reject the idea that NAs have had a bum deal, fine. But you are wanting to deny them the same free speech with which you are loudly trumpeting your own beliefs. Why can you be the only people with opinions? Fortunately, the laws of the United States don’t currently agree with you, and for that I am very thankful.
Abby, if you think my above comment is too off topic, please delete it.
Those that are replying here that have no background in surface design should look up some of your posts about fabric design. Tula Pink is well know, but that doesn’t mean she doesn’t work hard at what she does. Some of her reaction to pulling her design could be that she was worried about her job and she could be thinking about the money she would not be getting from sales. (I know I still think of a canceled order I had a few months ago and the disappointment of not having that money). Even the most popular designs don’t make an artist rich. One unknown at this time is whether the theme for this design was her idea or Free Spirit’s, but they would have signed off on the idea anyway.
I know from personal experience, that it is very hard to walk in someone else’s shoes and know how they feel and react to life. Believe me, the other person can seldom believe that you don’t understand they point of view and they think you are being spiteful. We can’t read minds and even if we could, everyone doesn’t think the same. I just find it sad that there is so much oppression in the world, that someone is hurt by what was meant as a fantasy design.
Fantasy is a big seller in the fabric world and else where. Not everyone can come up with fantasy that isn’t partly based in reality. Fantasy can be meant to ease the pain of reality, but for some relief is not possible.
Lets just hope that the pain this has caused can come to some good for all involved and educate all of us about the issues that Native Americans face and for that matter all oppressed people.
Ms. Booth – You said, “Censorship happens when an entity in power suppresses the voice of an entity that is weak or has little to no recourse but to submit.” Is that what you really want to say? I ask because that’s exactly what has happened with this print. When you think about it, “we the quilters/Native Americans/offended folks” are the entity in power as we “vote” with our dollars. Because of this, we do indeed have enough perceived power as to have suppressed Ms. Pink’s weaker, designer, voice causing her to have no recourse but to submit to the powers that be, i.e. those would-be buyers of her fabrics. In a nutshell, comments made regarding this print have caused Ms. Pink to engage in self-censorship by pulling the objectionable-to-some print off the market. Look up the definition of self-censorship and you will see that “fear” is one of the reasons artists inflict it upon themselves. Conformity is another. Do we really want to stifle creativity by insisting that designers conform to what we want to see/buy or what their audience thinks is politically correct for fear of not selling enough of his/her designs to make a living? Heavens to Betsy! Talk about going backwards… As Gwyn said, once we start that nonsense, we’re on a downhill slippery slope, a very slippery slope indeed.
Now to address those who are equating Ms. Pink to a petulant child by saying the heart of her design will now be missing, those who think all she needs to do is draw something else for us, something we’ll deem acceptable. You need to realize that creating these types of designs are often done with great effort and time commitment, not to mention ability that we who can’t draw decent stick figures admire, nay envy. To say she can just draw something else that we won’t object to and stick that in place of the original design shows how ignorant most of us are regarding the process of turning designs on paper, or in a computer, into fabric. As I understand it, fabric designers work approximately two years ahead of when we actually see their fabric on the shelf. So, this design could have been drawn back in 2015 or early 2016. She might be able to tweak the design fairly quickly, but that would still most likely delay the release of the whole group by several months. Fabric vendors are already hurting (and closing down) as it is without costing them more money by holding up the process to appease our sensibilities. Besides, if I were her I think I’d just say, “Why bother? I gave of myself and got shot down for my efforts. Why go through all that again?” and she’d be right. Hopefully, she won’t decide to stop sharing her creativity with us, as other designers have done. If she doesn’t rise above this, you’ll probably see her final fabric group on the shelves in a couple of years.
What I’m waiting for now is to see how long it takes the animal rights activists to jump on the band wagon and all over the print with the cute otter critter on it. No doubt they’ll claim that it’s being exploited for wicked profits because of the cute factor. Uh-oh…I bet I’ve opened a whole other can of worms now. How insensitive of me…
Except Tula Pink isn’t weak or powerless. She’s certainly got a built in public following and is far from powerless in this instance. For example, if she felt so strongly about the print being included she might have gone to a non-Free Spirit printer with an altered design and let her fans know how to purchase. Or simply kept the print. She’s certainly capable of finding another prominent position with a different company if Free Spirit was behind her decision. Even going so far as to make a legal case. It’s also entirely possible that she just didn’t care and wanted to avoid any controversy – we don’t really know.
I didn’t get from the article just how many folks objected to her about the print either. I think someone else used the word “mob.” We don’t know – I read nearly all of the comments on her FB page and found overwhelmingly folks asking her to keep it so I’m puzzled by this assumption that she was ganged up on.
I’m just not buying that Tula Pink is a weak and fearful victim. She strikes me as a strong and reliant personality with a mind of her own – in other words perfectly capable of standing up for herself and her art.
Your comment about the animal rights activists (and the door opening) seems to indicate that there is no separation for you between any group objecting to issues they feel are important now or historically. Is this true? Just when and under what circumstances is it ok to make an objection?
She is a person with feelings like anyone one else. Someone can appear strong, but how do you really know?
Wow, this is a lot of dialog inspired by a print I thought was a non-starter. Before I read any of this article or the first few dozen comments, my immediate thought was that this was designed by someone who did not understand what they were doing, as far as imagery goes. I’m not going to list all the elements that do not work together, for me. I just don’t like it on any level. But I don’t find it offensive, just, immature.
In short, I’m not for Tula’s right to make and sell the print, nor am I a champion for having it removed. I can only say that I would not have bought it, or likely anything made with it. (The long part begins here:) However, I think if this collection had been described as a personal mythology she had created, inspired by her interest in her heritage and freed by her imagination, that this whole dialog might have been different, if it even existed. I think a problem arises when we mislabel things born of our imagination as cultural, historical or factual depictions. It takes a lot of work to understand and represent a culture or sub-culture, even if you grew up immersed in it. I spent most of a year in my childhood reading all the mythology books in the library, until they banned me from the section and I had to switch over to something else. That changed my understanding of the culture I was growing up in, and also served as a basis for a different appreciation of the world and all the people in it. I identified more with the Native American mythologies because I am “Native Appalachian with hidden blood” and many of those images resonated with me. Could I tell you any of those stories or which exact culture they came from? No. But the undercurrent of those stories, the shared concepts and principles, stuck with me, and colored the person I am now. For that I am grateful. And make no mistake, I do not use “mythology” in any demeaning or derogatory way; but in the meaning of “a method by which we understand the universe and our place in it.” We each build a mythology to help us deal with the chaos and unknowable sources of activity in the world, whether you are aware of it or not, even today. It may share some elements with your heritage, religion, education, occupation, but you always modify it to your own ends. Such it is with “cultural appropriation” – we, U.S. citizens, are a culture of taking what suits us from others we come into contact with, whether we understand or honor the history and meaning of it or not. That said, neither my mate nor I see anything resembling our understanding of North American “Native Americans” in this print. He thought maybe badly imaged Mayan or Aztec, but then other elements don’t support that. So, I can’t identify it as cultural misappropriation, but simply as “not for me.” And as for genericizing, blending and diluting “Native American” cultures, aren’t we doing that with the label “Native American”? But then do we ask ourselves to learn all the different tribal and cultural groups that once lived here, and what their cultures were? Do we change the label to “Tribal Americans” or “First Americans”? Is that any less generic/insulting? It’s kind of like saying all European cultures are the same, all Asian cultures are the same, all cultures once under the domain of the USSR are the same. Part of the beauty and mystery of this world is the vast diversity of the people in it. There are things to admire in each – so is there something wrong with appreciating, replicating, adopting and adapting to those things? I’m sure this dialog will continue, as do dialogs about art, artistic expression and artistic integrity. But, as an artist, you have to understand what you are doing, the symbolisms of your imagery, the story you are telling, the meaning you are trying to convey, the reaction you are seeking, andI be ready to defend and take responsibility for your work. And if you are creating art for money, you have to be professional about it.
Thanks, Abby, for reaching out to Tsoniki Crazy Bull! I enjoyed hearing her perspective, as she made some valid points that hopefully helped some people see things differently.
However, after seeing some vitriol in the comments, I wonder if perhaps some people should re-read it all over again. And then perhaps again.
If we can’t shift our thinking to include other people’s perspectives, we risk not being able to shift our thinking ever again.
I used to have a hard time with the idea of cultural appropriation. I can’t wear something because it originated with a different culture? Does that mean no one can ever wear plaid unless their ancestors came from Scotland? Does that mean that I can’t sew anything using a fabric with a feather print on it? And although it is confusing, I have to just keep trying to understand. If someone says that something is offensive to them, you have to take their word for it. Same as if someone says that something scared them, or says that they are cold. It doesn’t make sense to say “No, you aren’t cold” or “No, that movie wasn’t scary”, or tell someone that they have no reason to be offended. If someone says you did something that offended them, you either need to try and make it right, or admit that you just don’t care about their feelings. Arguing that what you said or did is actually not offensive , just adds to your offensiveness, because it confirms that you don’t care about their feelings.
Well said.
‘Political correctness is the oppression of our intellectual movement so no one says anything anymore just in case anyone else get’s offended. What happens if you say that and someone gets offended? Well they can be offended, can’t they? What’s wrong with being offended? When did stick and stones may break my bones stop being relevant? Isn’t that what you teach children? He called me an idiot! Don’t worry about it, he’s a dunce.
Now you have adults going “I was offended, I was offended and I have rights!” Well so what, be offended, nothing happened. You’re an adult, grow up, and deal with it. I was offended! Well, I don’t care! Nothing happens when you’re offended. “I went to the comedy show and the comedian said something about the lord, and I was offended, and when I woke up in the morning, I had leprosy.”
Nothing Happens. “I want to live in a democracy but I never want to be offended again.” Well you’re an idiot.
How do you make a law about offending people? How do you make it an offense to offend people? Being offended is subjective. It has everything to do with you as an individual or a collective, or a group or a society or a community. Your moral conditioning, your religious beliefs. What offends me may not offend you. And you want to make laws about this? I’m offended when I see boy bands for god sake.
It’s a valid offense, I’m offended. They’re cooperate shills, posing as musicians to further a modeling career and frankly I’m disgusted.’e
– Steve Hughes.
Not using the “n” word to describe African American people, for example, isn’t “the oppression of our intellectual movement.” It’s human decency. It’s not just politically correct. It’s simply correct to listen to other people’s perspective and to be sensitive to their lived experiences
Thank you. “I’m an offended minority, therefore I’m right and you’re wrong.” Which is more productive in society, the lady designing fabric, the ones buying and sewing with that fabric, or the ones taking offense and complaining about the fabric.
In my experience working for social justice and being a productive member of society aren’t mutually exclusive.
In your case I would agree. Many people however refuse to participate in anything productive and sit back to protest about their lot in life while we pay their bills. (Which offends me, so according to arguments above that alone gives the argument merit.) But then we disagree that this print represents social injustice.
I’ve added a video of Tula Pink’s Schoolhouse presentation at Spring Quilt Market in St. Louis yesterday in which she addresses why she pulled this print.
It’s fabric. Is evrything depected in every fabric printed true? When is it an individual choice? I understand the many facets of both sides. Simply put, if you don’t like it don’t buy it. No one is forced to use any fabric that they are opposed to. I wouldn’t buy fabric with depictions of Christ. Not that it’s offensive, it’s not my style. Many others may flock to it. Ideally, we need to stop imposing our personal believes on others and live by action, not words. The deisner worked hard as an artist, not a historian. I applaud her art. I applaud Crazy Bull on her culural history knowledge. The almighty dollar will always speak louder than any words any one person could speak. I will use my dollar to express my preference in the fabrics area. We all have different tastes and that too should be celebrated.
I find this all very sad. Art is subject to an artist’s interpretation if a subject matter or idea. Since when has it been required that art must be true to life or representionally correct? Was Picasso also offensive and insensitive to human form? Tula Pink has every right to create a fantasy image expressing her vision. Clearly her story is a fictional fantasy. I don’t know anyone who would read it and think otherwise. No disrespect is meant towards anyone of Native Americsn heritage I’m sure and I find it offensive to manufacture it. My goodness this is artistic expression. Our culture is ridiculously tangling itself in an unending maze of vague speak. Also, why shouldn’t she profit from her work? She’s a fabric designer. Should writers not get paid because they may tackle an unpopular subject? What is happening to this country! I’m so sorry that Tula didn’t stand for her right to express her art in her typical stylized and fantastical representations.
I know it’s hard to have your beliefs challenged especially around something that doesn’t affect you personally. It’s in those moments that it’s most important to truly listen to other perspectives.
If Tula Pink didn’t have the courage to stand up for her art–without apology or explanation–then it probably shouldn’t be out there anyway. Art isn’t “art”. It’s Art. I’m just glad Lou Reed didn’t pull Heroin.
Thank you for this post! What a shame that so many commenters are unable to make the distinction between “Tula Pink’s freedom to make art “and “the ethics of stealing and warping an identity separate from her own for profit. “
Thanks so much for this article. I came across it while searching information on the de la Luna line that just came out and her connection to Mexican culture.
I am wondering why these people complaining about Tula’s misappropriation aren’t fighting the Disney studios for much more inappropriate things than this ? Tula much easier game ?