Hypothetical Scenario [Archive]

Cronos Impera

02-20-2007, 22:07

Imagine this:
You are a succesful designer and artist. A guy enters your gallery and buys one of your artworks. Later he covers his whole house with that particular design. Than he thinks about killing a group of people and succeads in his plans. Than he gets convicted and executed for his crimes.
Than......a group of idiotic bigots that call themselves "Civil Rghts Activists" decide the designs in his house are "symbols of hatred and murder' and bans them.And the victims's fammilies agree with them and you are thrown into the Recycle Bin of history.
Belive it, this thing has happened before with the swastika (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika) and the fasces and the red star and all things before.A confirmation that without any exception whatsoever, man has always been in a form or another a bigot, and bigotry isn't an exception, it's a general rule applied by both victims and executioners. It is sad that in the West...the so-called hub of civilization all meanings get deformed and twisted in such a way that anything valuable is thrown in the dirt and we call that "multiculturalism".

Now if you're allready bored of this post....and me in particular(I know you are) lets start discussing less philosophycal things and more facts.

The colour red has always been the prefered one of revolutionaries throught the world. Why? Because it symbolises fire and fire means change. All revolutionary ideologies from republicanism, to bolshevism and national-socialism embraced red and white colours. Should we ban those because on the WW2 Nazi flag they encircled the swastika? Or should we ban the skull and two crossed bones because SS officers had those on their hats. If thus, than pirates should have their logo censured as well.
Why must a symbol be censored because some hippy bigots are too narrow-minded to accept the fact that a symbol can have multiple meanings. Today's political-corectness is just another form of bigotism imposed over anothers.

Take another example: MISA (The Movement for Spiritual Integration Into Absolutism) founded by Gregorian Bivolaru.A well-known New Age sect, this one urges its followers to drink urine and heve group-sex. The movement has adopted The Star of David for its banner and if the self-righteous political correct trends continue the next time this movement does something really stupid and violent the Mosaic religion won't be able to use it's main icon anymore. They'll tear up shrines and ban the symbol from Bibles.....that is the world created by narrow-minded bigots who can't distinguish multiple senses.

Kralizec

02-20-2007, 22:13

Merkel IIRC tried to push for a EU swatsika ban recently (haven't been following the news very well as of late)
The effort stranded, among other reasons, because the swatsika is a religious symbol for Hindus. It's not all bad.

What I'm bothered more about is the double standard - swatsikas, unless in a Hindu or pre-1900 context are considered an evil symbol, while there are plenty of morons who go around wearing T-shirts with the hammer and sickle.

Vuk

02-20-2007, 22:36

Papewaio

02-20-2007, 23:33

And Buddhists... a lot of Vegetarian Buddhist restaurants have that symbol here... hardly a banned item.

In a particular configuration it is a brand mark for a hate group. Companies have exclusive rights to their brand logos too... you can brand letters/words in a colour combination... for instance a large M in yellow belongs to a particular group.

To deny that a symbol in a particular configuration has a particular meaning is to deny language.

Big King Sanctaphrax

02-20-2007, 23:49

Isn't the religious swastika arranged so that the arms are at 12, 3, 6 and 9, while the Nazi one is slanted? So you could ban one and not the other.

Better not to disallow either, of course. I hope our government would tell the EU where to go if they proposed a general ban.

ShadeHonestus

02-21-2007, 02:29

Try living in the states where Christopher Columbus personally killed millions of natives and the confederate flag itself runs the streets trying to enslave people.

Strike For The South

02-21-2007, 03:33

Try living in the states where Christopher Columbus personally killed millions of natives and the confederate flag itself runs the streets trying to enslave people. Not the dumbest thing I've ever heard but damn close

ShadeHonestus

02-21-2007, 04:48

Not the dumbest thing I've ever heard but damn close

What? You've never heard the rhetoric laying the fate of all native americans at CC's doorstep? Even calling for Columbus day to be excommunicated? Don't get me started on the issue of the confederate flag. You can't even talk about it or the south in the Civil War without being held in suspicions of racism.

Strike For The South

02-21-2007, 05:20

What? You've never heard the rhetoric laying the fate of all native americans at CC's doorstep? Even calling for Columbus day to be excommunicated? Don't get me started on the issue of the confederate flag. You can't even talk about it or the south in the Civil War without being held in suspicions of racism.

People attack CC and the Confedracy becuase they are small minded and believe everything the history channel tells them. The Indians died en masse due to an immune system that couldnt cope with European diease thats hardly CC fault. The Indians got a raw deal. As for the flag I really dont care I like it its nifty. I would also like to point every flag flying today has blood on it so to pin all the confedrates as teh racists is retarded at best. The stuff you posted is used by bleeding hearts to get into peoples checkbooks and its stupid.

KukriKhan

02-21-2007, 05:29

So the question is: when can a symbol, co-opted by some "evil" (read: war-losing) group, be safely used in the general population again, in art, literature, and common display?

10 years?
30 years?
a Generation?
2 generations?

Let's keep the discussion to that, please.

For example, would anyone get offended see ing these:

https://jimcee.homestead.com/180px-Lancashire_rose.jpg https://jimcee.homestead.com/180px-Yorkshire_rose.jpg on their dinner plates?

Out side the UK, definately not. Inside the UK, probably not also. Yet a mere 500 years ago, people died under those banners.

Strike For The South

02-21-2007, 05:48

So the question is: when can a symbol, co-opted by some "evil" (read: war-losing) group, be safely used in the general population again, in art, literature, and common display?

10 years?
30 years?
a Generation?
2 generations?

Let's keep the discussion to that, please.

Each suituation is different. However the union jack kept flying when millions of Indians were being sluaghtered the French flag still flew when Algerians were being massacered. The point is history is written by the victors. Socitey decides what is good killing and bad killing the winners decide Kurki. Symbols dont all of sudden cleanse after a certian point becuase thats all they are is symbols. Trying to tag everything with good and evil doesn work.

ShadeHonestus

02-21-2007, 06:19

The stuff you posted is used by bleeding hearts to get into peoples checkbooks and its stupid.

That was the point of the post...to point out the glaring stupidity in those examples. When you posted you made it sound like those were my views and I was stupid for stating them. Or that you agreed with those examples and thought posting them in that way was stupid. lol

KukriKhan

02-21-2007, 06:24

Symbols dont all of sudden cleanse after a certian point becuase thats all they are is symbols

I disagree there, although I agree with the rest of your post. Eventually, symbols stop being political statements of hatred and intent to kill & dominate, and resume their role as decorations, to be used by artists and craftsmen to make their objects look 'nifty' (to use your word).

The young, ever eager to differentiate themselves from their elders, usually lead that effort, taking up the "evil" idols their fathers learned to hate. As they should - it makes the symbol(s) de-nuded, shown for what they are: marketing devices, dramatic displays used to fire-up the masses behind some vague "us vs. them" language.

Banquo's Ghost

02-21-2007, 10:54

For example, would anyone get offended see ing these:

https://jimcee.homestead.com/180px-Lancashire_rose.jpg https://jimcee.homestead.com/180px-Yorkshire_rose.jpg on their dinner plates?

Out side the UK, definately not. Inside the UK, probably not also. Yet a mere 500 years ago, people died under those banners.

Hey, I'm Irish - as shown in the Ulster thread, I can get offended by symbols/people/imagined slights from thousands of years ago. It's a kind of national hobby. :wink3:

The young, ever eager to differentiate themselves from their elders, usually lead that effort, taking up the "evil" idols their fathers learned to hate. As they should - it makes the symbol(s) de-nuded, shown for what they are: marketing devices, dramatic displays used to fire-up the masses behind some vague "us vs. them" language.

I think the issue with some symbols is their resurrection by the young who don't know, or don't care, about the evil done under that banner. Symbols are incredibly powerful, and time does not necessarily diminish that power. It is dangerous to overlook that power and its hold on the unimaginative. Symbols represent ideas, and ideas are the most powerful things on earth.

Consider how many people have died for scraps of coloured cloth, or those funny little crosses and crescents.

AntiochusIII

02-21-2007, 11:12

I don't know why WIKI doesn't have it, but it was also a religious symbol of some American Indians. The Europeans were trying to market Indian rugs, but the Indian designs were not selling nearly as well as the ones from the Orient and Europe, so the Westeners introduced to the Indians the symbols that they are now associated with. One of those being a swastika. The Indians then incorparated those symbols into their culture and religion. It is funny, because all the "Indian" designs you see come from either the Orient or Europe. Those were not the design that Indians originally made on the stuff, but ones introduced by westerners to increase the value of their trade goods. Found that rather funny. :PThe HELL!?

You are claiming the Indians put the swastika pattern in their culture to impress the Europeans and frickin' sell their rugs, yeah...

Sorry, but I don't think it's a very strong claim.

I think the issue with some symbols is their resurrection by the young who don't know, or don't care, about the evil done under that banner. Symbols are incredibly powerful, and time does not necessarily diminish that power. It is dangerous to overlook that power and its hold on the unimaginative. Symbols represent ideas, and ideas are the most powerful things on earth.If you mean the skinheads who think wearing the Nazi swastika, tattoo it, etc., are cool; well...

They don't exactly make people shine with rebellious pride, or disturbed beyond reason of the heralding return of the Nazi regime; but they aren't very pleasant either. I'm afraid of them, though; they could beat the **** out of me.

The best way to destroy a symbol's power -- which I agree with you exists -- is to break the taboo associated with it. Destroy the symbolism, and the lines on the board will become what they really are: the lines on the board.

The question remains on when is the precise time where the taboo should be broken. It's a delicate question, with factors ranging from the intensity of the conflicts and ideology associated with the symbol to the lifespan of the participants, among many other things, down to pure guesswork; but I think, for the case of the swastika, that a generation is enough. The ban in Europe overstays its uses in my opinion. There ought to be a balance between delicate sensibilities and principles of freedom somewhere.

Cronos Impera

02-21-2007, 11:33

If you want to fight an ideea, you can't do it by bashing or banning some symbols currently asociated with that particular ideea.You can make a symbol of hatred, racist bull:daisy: or some pseudo-religious persecution out of everything. You can use sqares, triangles, letters, curves, lines or even smilies for that.
But that doesn't mean symbols can't have multiple meanings, that snakes are still used to symbolise health and that the celtic cross was and still is....just another cross.....we shouldn't blame symbols, we should blame those who use them to represent twisted ideologies. The murder weapon is always innocent..no matter what it was used for.

Justiciar

02-21-2007, 16:54

For example, would anyone get offended see ing these:
Acctually, I know a few old Lankies who'd sooner die than have a White rose painted on their pottery. :laugh4:

SwordsMaster

02-21-2007, 18:14

Whatever happened to free speech.... Why should I not use the svastika just because some morons used it as their symbol?

Continuing with that train of thought, you could ban the cross because the crusaders that used it killed jews and muslims, which is, of course against the PC multicultural multilateralism.

Or make them things M rated. If you want to use the svastika you must be over 18 or accompanied by an adult. Or something.

Tuuvi

02-22-2007, 00:57

Today's political-corectness is just another form of bigotism imposed over anothers.
That is one of the best statements I have ever read.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-22-2007, 01:08

Strike For The South

02-22-2007, 05:37

I disagree there, although I agree with the rest of your post. Eventually, symbols stop being political statements of hatred and intent to kill & dominate, and resume their role as decorations, to be used by artists and craftsmen to make their objects look 'nifty' (to use your word).

The young, ever eager to differentiate themselves from their elders, usually lead that effort, taking up the "evil" idols their fathers learned to hate. As they should - it makes the symbol(s) de-nuded, shown for what they are: marketing devices, dramatic displays used to fire-up the masses behind some vague "us vs. them" language.

Is that why the sickle and hammer is ok on a T-shirt but a swastika isnt?

ShadeHonestus

02-22-2007, 05:44

Is that why the sickle and hammer is ok on a T-shirt but a swastika isnt?

The sickle and the hammer has a better marketing team in the media. :smash:

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-23-2007, 22:46

I haven't seen many hammer and sickle shirts, but the image of Che flashing everywhere is rather annoying.

Marshal Murat

02-24-2007, 04:04

I see Mao, Che, Castro, Stalin, Lenin, and hammer and sickles.
I think it's because after the Berlin Wall fell, and ol' USSR fell apart, we think Communism is a laughing joke, not a serious threat.

Blodrast

02-24-2007, 04:22

I see Mao, Che, Castro, Stalin, Lenin, and hammer and sickles.
I think it's because after the Berlin Wall fell, and ol' USSR fell apart, we think Communism is a laughing joke, not a serious threat.

:inquisitive:
I seriously doubt that's the reason... I don't see how an ideology and regimes who killed and starved and force-migrated millions of people can be seen as a joke, merely 15 years after they are over.

The Holocaust happened 60 years ago, not 15, how come we don't consider it as a joke ? I mean, Communism killed way more people than died in the Holocaust.

So... no. I'm afraid I disagree with your reasoning.
And I'm also afraid that most of Eastern Europe and a good chunk of Asia might, too.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

02-24-2007, 04:28

Please delete.

Marshal Murat

02-24-2007, 20:29

Cowhead418

02-26-2007, 03:57

The difference between the Holocaust and Communism is this.

I get taught all about the Holocaust at school, and how bad it was, and told about the Museum in Washington D.C.

I don't get taught about the Communism scares and threats that were prevalent during the 60's and 70's. Its a laughing joke, that such a corrupt nation could have survived.
I wasn't around to be scared by Commies, maybe you were, but I wasn't.
Now it's just comedic, silly.
Tfui to Communism.Some atrocities just seem to get more pub than others. For example, last year I did a report on King Leopold of Belgium, whose greed ended up causing the deathes of nearly twenty million Africans in the Congo during the late 1800s (many of them had their hands and feet cut off). I had never heard of King Leopold before this report, and most people probably have no clue that this even happened. The atrocities Leopold committed would have to rank up there with the worst, yet you never hear about him. Racism is definitely a factor here, though there are many others.

Vuk

02-26-2007, 18:20

The HELL!?

You are claiming the Indians put the swastika pattern in their culture to impress the Europeans and frickin' sell their rugs, yeah...

What people think of as "Indian" designs are not. They are mostly Oriental, Indian, (note the distinction) and European. (Almost ALL Oriental and Indian)
I think you have seen a little to many 90's Westerns...

ShadeHonestus

02-26-2007, 18:33

Vuk

02-26-2007, 18:40

I have to back Anti up on this one a little bit from my study of Native American cultures. Many of the designs in culturally distinctive NA weavings actually have their source in the language. You can look at the Dakota language as a sound color language and their decorations on everything as an extension of that. The SW Native Americans who are recognized the most for their weaving has its foundation in their religion, language and culture with nothing borrowed outside of its Native trade structures. The swastika as found in Native American art has been traced to a very old pre-contact independent emergence. The type of thing we see with pyramid building and other forms of architecture and art that appears at different stages of cultural development but independent of contact between these cultures.

I never said ALL of what we consider Indian, I said MOST. You say you study Native American culture? Then you should be able to confirm that. Almost all of Native American commercial "cultural items" was thrown upon them by Westerners. Of course they had their own culture...it just wasn't marketable. For that reason, much of what is thought of as Indian today is not Indian at all.

P.S. The course I took on it said that the SW was introduced to them, not invented by them.

ShadeHonestus

02-26-2007, 19:15

I never said ALL of what we consider Indian, I said MOST.

What you consider and what I consider may be vastly different and indeed most of the people that I know that work in the field of archeology and anthropology focusing on NAs would differ.

You say you study Native American culture?

Yes, on my way to doing what I do now, I took the obvious shortcut of a degree in anthropology and on the way to that I was majoring in History (specifically the history of America pre-1900, when i became enamored with Indian cultures)....okay, obviously not a shortcut.

P.S. The course I took on it said that the SW was introduced to them, not invented by them.

Then you should be able to confirm that. Almost all of Native American commercial "cultural items" was thrown upon them by Westerners. Of course they had their own culture...it just wasn't marketable.

Not sure what you are referring to as commercial cultural items. The NA's had a vast trade network dating back thousands of years before Christopher or that Viking guy set foot and much of what they traded was cultural.

P.S. The course I took on it said that the SW was introduced to them, not invented by them.

The art of finger weaving was not introduced to them, it was there long before the Spanish arrived. They originally used cotton and other fibers. The only thing that was introduced was the availability of wool via the Spanish introduction of sheep. So if you want to say wool is not theirs, then thats fine, but the artistic depiction goes beyond the design in their significance and the act of finger weaving, which is at the center of the craft, is not a borrowed art form.

The one thing that is sometimes considered "Indian" is quilting, like their star quilts etc, however that is purely European aside from its cultural significance to the artist.

For that reason, much of what is thought of as Indian today is not Indian at all.

As Joseph Marshall once told me this is a huge problem when interpreting Native American history. There has been so much that has been written incorrectly in the past, either by accident or design, that much of what is taught or written today is completely false because the cultural perspective is off. This is evidenced in great degree by European cultural attempts to reclaim an influence on NA culture that it never had to begin with and only through resemblance and the recognition of trade, can they claim these things.

Of course there are things that can be claimed as commercially tailored items by NA's for the market Europeans created, but even the tiny fraction of these items speak more to NA culture than European influence.

[edit]
Items such as the swatiska variation, which this discussion was about, as stated above was pre-contact and independent in origin.

Vuk

02-26-2007, 19:27

Not sure what you are referring to as commercial cultural items. The NA's had a vast trade network dating back thousands of years before Christopher or that Viking guy set foot and much of what they traded was cultural.

I am not speaking of that, but their trade with people in Europe, and more importantly, settlers to America. Also, the "Indian Culture" items they make to attract tourists.

As Joseph Marshall once told me this is a huge problem when interpreting Native American history. There has been so much that has been written incorrectly in the past, either by accident or design, that much of what is taught or written today is completely false because the cultural perspective is off. This is evidenced in great degree by European cultural attempts to reclaim an influence on NA culture that it never had to begin with and only through resemblance and the recognition of trade, can they claim these things.

Of course there are things that can be claimed as commercially tailored items by NA's for the market Europeans created, but even the tiny fraction of these items speak more to NA culture than European influence.

This is the big misconception I am trying to shatter. Those things ARE Indian you could say (because they have been doing them for so long), but they were introduced to the Indians. i.e. a lot of the things they do are not part of their culture, but are tourist attractions introduced to them by the people of the West. This has NOW become part of their culture, but it is Western influence mixed with their original culture. It is very hard to identify original culture, and a lot things that people believed to be original, they are finding is not. (personally, I like their original culture much better. The flashy crap they have now is horrible imho :D)

[edit]
Items such as the swatiska variation, which this discussion was about, as stated above was pre-contact and independent in origin.

I was told that they used to believe that, but not anymore. Could you clear this up with a current source please? (I am too lazy to find one and wouldn't know where to look.) Whichever one of us is right, that doesn't effect my point.

*****************************************************

ShadeHonestus

02-26-2007, 19:54

I am not speaking of that, but their trade with people in Europe, and more importantly, settlers to America. Also, the "Indian Culture" items they make to attract tourists.

This is the big misconception I am trying to shatter. Those things ARE Indian you could say (because they have been doing them for so long), but they were introduced to the Indians. i.e. a lot of the things they do are not part of their culture, but are tourist attractions introduced to them by the people of the West.

Can you give some examples so we can get to disecting them? Besides casinos :laugh4:

I was told that they used to believe that, but not anymore. Could you clear this up with a current source please? (I am too lazy to find one and wouldn't know where to look.) Whichever one of us is right, that doesn't effect my point.

Sure, I don't have a link or anything although if you search in your college library under any of the archaeology or anthro journals out there you might find something published. The last thing I heard in the affirmative was 2005 at a lecture given by a gentleman from Colorado State I think, not sure...don't quote me on that as a lot of people spoke that day lol. But anyways it was about the Plains Indians and their relations to the four winds and circular world view in their religion and symbols relating this. The swastika in design was brought up along with many others at this time in its relevance to this. In this case the independent emergence theory came under scrutiny because of the fact that plains indians like the Sioux weren't plains indians until pushed into the plains from the great lakes and mississippi region where they were farmers and this was post contact. However independent emergence has been re-established as dated material from that region along with the mound building cultures to the south have been found in similar meaning. I could go on here, but this is getting long winded...

Vuk

02-26-2007, 21:27

Can you give some examples so we can get to disecting them? Besides casinos :laugh4:

...

Rugs, crafts (massive industry), reservations, parks, costumes, etc, etc, etc...

ShadeHonestus

02-26-2007, 21:51

Rugs, crafts (massive industry)

Modern day rugs and crafts are things we find in the modern day with Native American cultural depictions, but there are also a number of traditional craft items. www.alltribes.com shows a ton of modern and traditional. However modern day has little to nothing to do with borrowed culture as it does product of the age. Just because they use a microwave doesn't mean they are passing a microwave off as part of their traditional culture.

However I still can't tell you specifically whether a piece is modern, traditional, or european borrowed culture unless you can give me something specific.

reservations, parks

Reservations are federally mandated land set aside for NA tribes to inhabit. The history of reservations is an extremely sad story of corruption, exploitation, theft and ethnic cleansing. This history is extremely vast and I'd encourage anyone to read up on it, but if you had some specific questions, I could probably answer them. Something borrowed from europeans and made their own however, this is not.

Parks are sometimes given NA names, just like towns, rivers, etc.

costumes, etc, etc, etc...

What kind of costumes are we talking about? Gotta throw me a bone here lol

Vuk

02-26-2007, 22:01

Modern day rugs and crafts are things we find in the modern day with Native American cultural depictions, but there are also a number of traditional craft items. www.alltribes.com shows a ton of modern and traditional. However modern day has little to nothing to do with borrowed culture as it does product of the age. Just because they use a microwave doesn't mean they are passing a microwave off as part of their traditional culture.

However I still can't tell you specifically whether a piece is modern, traditional, or european borrowed culture unless you can give me something specific.

Reservations are federally mandated land set aside for NA tribes to inhabit. The history of reservations is an extremely sad story of corruption, exploitation, theft and ethnic cleansing. This history is extremely vast and I'd encourage anyone to read up on it, but if you had some specific questions, I could probably answer them. Something borrowed from europeans and made their own however, this is not.

Parks are sometimes given NA names, just like towns, rivers, etc.

What kind of costumes are we talking about? Gotta throw me a bone here lol

I don't think we are on the same page here. When I said rugs and crafts, I was not referring only to modern ones, but ones they have been making since they had contact with the West. The designs and the actual items in a lot of cases are only made to be sold and attract tourists.

As far as reservations, I am refering to the things they sell on the reservations - things made only to sell.

Lot's of the "Indian" designs on parks, and the crafts (really what I was talking about) sold there are not original Indian "culture items".

Commercial "Indian costumes" as well as clothing that Indians make to sell is horribly influenced and sometimed fabricated by Western cultures.

ShadeHonestus

02-26-2007, 22:54

I don't think we are on the same page here. When I said rugs and crafts, I was not referring only to modern ones, but ones they have been making since they had contact with the West. The designs and the actual items in a lot of cases are only made to be sold and attract tourists.

Well today this is a cottage industry in the modern age, but there is little in design that comes from Europe. There may be particular cases, but by in large this is not the case. As stated before the use of wool for woven items over Cotton and other native fibers constitutes something borrowed, but not the act of weaving.

When I wanted specifics I wanted specific pieces as examples. :beam:

As far as reservations, I am referring to the things they sell on the reservations - things made only to sell.

This is for the purpose of modern day income since the reservation system and a product of the reservation and not of something borrowed culturally. About the only thing that comes to mind without specific examples is silver jewelry. Silver working was introduced in mass by the Spanish to the SW. However it wasn't used in any scale by the native populations until 1870ish. The items they created, jewelry etc were items they already possessed but made from different materials. Turquoise for example has been found in use dating back to 150BC in North America along with seashell and other trinket jewelry.

Lot's of the "Indian" designs on parks, and the crafts (really what I was talking about) sold there are not original Indian "culture items".

Without anything specific its hard to know what you're talking about, most of my personal reference information is genuinely of Indian culture.

Commercial "Indian costumes" as well as clothing that Indians make to sell is horribly influenced and sometimes fabricated by Western cultures

Over 700 distinct groups of Native Americans with each one having its own sense of style (to use a modern day phrase). Without examples it'd be hard to know what you're talking about again, and specific examples. :whip:

I know there a number of Native American "costumes" or style of dress for which European culture has assigned incorrect cultural value or role. Such as Stephen Ambrose when he interpreted incorrectly the significance and role of being a "shirt wearer" in his book "Crazy Horse and Custer" (a good book btw even with its flaws).

Vuk

02-27-2007, 22:23

Well today this is a cottage industry in the modern age, but there is little in design that comes from Europe. There may be particular cases, but by in large this is not the case. As stated before the use of wool for woven items over Cotton and other native fibers constitutes something borrowed, but not the act of weaving.

When I wanted specifics I wanted specific pieces as examples. :beam:

This is for the purpose of modern day income since the reservation system and a product of the reservation and not of something borrowed culturally. About the only thing that comes to mind without specific examples is silver jewelry. Silver working was introduced in mass by the Spanish to the SW. However it wasn't used in any scale by the native populations until 1870ish. The items they created, jewelry etc were items they already possessed but made from different materials. Turquoise for example has been found in use dating back to 150BC in North America along with seashell and other trinket jewelry.

Without anything specific its hard to know what you're talking about, most of my personal reference information is genuinely of Indian culture.

Over 700 distinct groups of Native Americans with each one having its own sense of style (to use a modern day phrase). Without examples it'd be hard to know what you're talking about again, and specific examples. :whip:

I know there a number of Native American "costumes" or style of dress for which European culture has assigned incorrect cultural value or role. Such as Stephen Ambrose when he interpreted incorrectly the significance and role of being a "shirt wearer" in his book "Crazy Horse and Custer" (a good book btw even with its flaws).

I'm afraid the last time I read about it or took a course in it was not that soon. I cannot provide you with any specific examples (the last time I looked at India crafts was eight years ago (approx.)).