Skip to main content
Advertisement

Osheaga's headdress ban shows festival's zero tolerance for cultural appropriation

The Montreal music event’s decision to ‘respect and honour’ First Nations people was praised for taking an uncompromising stance toward the ubiquitous offence
Hipsters at Coachella
A Coachella attendee in an indigenous headdress puts her arm around a fellow festival-goer. Photograph: Ruth Spencer
On the website for Montreal’s Osheaga Music and Arts Festival, beneath the customary rules and regulations and frequently asked questions, there is a comprehensive list of items banned from the festival premises, including laser pointers, fireworks, drones and selfie sticks. This year the list boasts a surprising addition: traditional First Nations headdresses.
The rule is clear and ironclad. Any attendee who shows up wearing a headdress will have it confiscated upon entry or be asked to leave and return without it.
The First Nations headdress was much-discussed last week when a young white woman donned one at the Winnipeg Folk Festival. (She also sported a bit of vaguely aboriginal face paint, as if to double down on the offence.) A few surreptitious snapshots circulated on social media, arousing a maelstrom of outrage and indignation and within hours, the festival had issued a statement denouncing such gestures of cultural appropriation and insisting that the organisers consider banning headdresses from future events. They ultimately decided against an outright ban but said they would “certainly be asking patrons not to wear headdresses” in future.
The incident has effected more substantive change elsewhere, as music festivals across Canada continue to speak out against appropriation and impose hardline bans. The Edmonton Folk Festival revealed on Facebook earlier this week that at “this time of greater awareness” it would like its attendees “to respect First Nations cultures and to not wear any type of First Nations headdresses during the festival”, adding that these items would in fact “be confiscated by festival security” should anyone opt to bring one anyway. The Calgary Folk Festival, following Winnipeg’s precedent, has publicly implored its patrons to leave headdresses at home but won’t officially forbid them.
Osheaga, which attracts upwards of 40,000 people to its grounds each day, is the highest-profile music festival to ban headdresses in order to “respect and honour” the First Nations people. The Facebook announcement got more than 12,000 likes in only three days – and provoked serious conversation online and in the media about what can be done about cultural appropriation. The comments lurking under the post, of course, are rife with the expected discontent and hand-wringing about political correctness. But for the most part the reaction from indigenous people and non-indigenous people alike has been thankful, even celebratory.
Caroline Audet, manager of public relations at Evenko, Osheaga’s promoter, feels the response has been “very positive”. “Once people understand the meaning of it and the reasons,” she says, “they are very happy with the decision.” But no specific incident was the catalyst for the change in policy. “The First Nations headdresses have a spiritual and cultural meaning in the Native communities,” Audet explains. “We saw more and more fans wear these at other festivals and we just don’t want this to happen at our festival.” That A Tride Called Red, a First Nations electronic group from Ottawa, is set to perform this year made it “even more important to make this decision out of respect for them”.
A common refrain among those against the headdress ban is that it isn’t fair to stop a non-indigenous person from wearing something that an indigenous person could wear to a festival without complaint. But what those adopting this line of reasoning fail to understand is the context of the headdress in First Nations communities.
The headdress is not, contrary to its depictions in popular culture, a fashion accessory, or common component of a day-to-day indigenous ensemble.
Niigaanwewidam James Sinclair, head of the Department of Native Studies at the University of Manitoba, says the headdress is strictly ceremonial, so an indigenous person would never wear a headdress to a music festival in the first place.
“A headdress is bestowed to a person in a leadership position,” he explains. Its style is rich in meaning: “Each feather in the headdress represents a relationship that has been forged by that leader or a relationship that leader carries within the community and outside the community. A feather has thousands of little strands and they all represent different relationships. That’s what a leader carries: those relationships.”
Sinclair feels the ban is a long time coming because this sort of appropriation “happens all the time”. “People have been dressing up like Indians for 150 years,” he says. “It’s about celebrating the conquest of indigenous people. People don’t understand how degrading it is to have a sacred object within a culture stolen and appropriated and misused in an inappropriate setting.” Many indigenous people want to enjoy a music festival just like anybody else. “That’s impossible to do that when you have people celebrating genocide standing right beside you.”
But for Sinclair the proactive efforts of Osheaga and other festivals to address this offensive behaviour is a step in the right direction. “It takes a long time to educate people and this is one step in that re-education process,” he explains. “It’s only a matter of time now before people begin to understand that indigenous people will not tolerate the disrespect of their cultural objects.”
Cultural appropriation is doomed to go out of fashion, Sinclair believes. “Stupidity and ignorance never last in the face of reasoned arguments.”

comments (748)

Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion.
This discussion is closed for comments.
We’re doing some maintenance right now. You can still read comments, but please come back later to add your own.
Commenting has been disabled for this account (why?)
1 2 3 4 8 next
Loading comments… Trouble loading?
  • This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.
  • 0 1
    Aren't tattoos and piercings sacred to some indigenous peoples? Gotta ban those too.
    Reply |
  • 0 1
    So tired of the new chronically offended culture. I suppose next we will be banning goths from using crucifixes as fashion accessories because they are sacred to catholics? Where does it end?
    Reply |
  • 0 1
    Interesting points, the Indigenous people mention... I saw it coming over the last 20-30 years. All cultures get hacked to pieces for the fun of it. Like a "wurst maschine", a sausage machine, we get fed by cultural bits and pieces, being brought to us by the modern colloseum of so called entertainment. The age of spectacle in full swing...
    So, what do we now with our bits and pieces, other than assemble them in our own, distinct, individualistic, probably hedonistic ways?
    In fact, we show sympathy for the cultures behind our head dress, or tatoos, or the dijeriduus of the Aboriginals. We love them in a silly way, since we do not understand their culture. They probably would like to teach us, about their cultures, why they can live with so little electronic, produce all things necessary for life and still be happy, dance around fires and know their place in space.
    What we do, is, we take the dijie, learn to play and call it cool. Or don their head dress and call it a party. Its like someone starting to invite you in his house, or his history, or his secrets - and before he, or she even starts talking, you say: Sure! I totally understand you! I even... THINK like you....!
    This is the beginning of a global misunderstanding between indigenous cultures and West, which are still alive and many more, than the "westerner" thinks. He, or she, comforted through life by a fully alien life support industry, only looks at decorative gimmicks, pouring out on us by an endless stream of new-worthy explanations of so far untouched cultures, or unknown bits and pieces about them. Richard Attenborough style...
    In that light, I see remaining indigenous cultures as the last reservoirs of "human meaning", there is. "The west", seen in the fish eye, has lost this meaning. It has become a machine driven spectacle, in place for its own ends. Why, nobody knows. The spirit of Henry Ford, or Edison, Benjamin Franklin. Our long dead chiefs, which thought it all out. Also US follow the path of the old...
    But we should not go on a war path. Maybe we are being told, not to just use chiefs head dresses, but also use their medicine, see the world as a living creature and act accordingly.
    There might be nothing wrong with showing off as a chief. But then, LEAD! Help to get us out of the mess, the West has inflicted upon the planet, in the name of Edison et.al. We can't just exploit the world - also in a cultural sense. We cannot destroy the sense, some people call meaning of their culture. It leads to primitivism. Indigenous people rarely are primitive, they are wild, as far away from primitivism you can get. Free towards the world, by having understood, what is enough, what is right. Beginners are primitive. We are at the beginning of a new age, but instead of the age of aquarious it is the "age of Santa Claus". Everything for free, all nicely packed, everything just a game...
    In a deep sense, we approach the age of a new (cultural) seriousness. What seems to be over soon - is the "age of Mickey Mouse"....
    Reply |
    • 1 2
      "see the world as a living creature and act accordingly."
      For myself, the Earth is a planet driven by natural forces. It has no distinct personality of it's own. The Earth is neither good or bad and when the forces align just right, Earth destroys life on a massive scale. You have doubts? Ask the dinosaurs.
      "There might be nothing wrong with showing off as a chief. But then, LEAD! Help to get us out of the mess, the West has inflicted upon the planet, in the name of Edison et.al."
      Turn your computer off, start there. Then get rid of your cell phone.
      The Indians can do the same.
      Reply |
    • 0 1
      Indeed let's get back to the real and peel the skin off our captured male enemies and make slaves of their women and children.
      Reply |
  • 0 1
    I think we should dig a little deeper. The issue isn't cultural appropriation, it's that the Native Indians/Americans are pretty impoverished. Pretty sure the headdress would be fine if they actually were wealthy and successful, and not poor with rampant alcoholism.
    Reply |
  • 0 1
    These are your progeny,humourless lefties!
    Reply |
  • 0 1
    FFS. While we're at it can we please ban the under 30's.
    Reply |
  • 3 4
    Ban it, it offends me. Ban anything that offends me. Movies, books, accessories. Ban it all.
    When I was younger they wanted to ban our music because it glorified drugs, sex, the devil, etc. Now, it's genocide, racism, hurting peoples feelings.
    It's all the same shit to me. Fuck banning things and fuck people who want them banned.
    Reply |
  • 1 2
    OK, I get it. The symbols of the rich and powerful are the only ones legitimately available for emulation by the culture-seeking masses (as if there wasn't enough of this already). Anything originating from the poor and disenfranchised is at risk of being reframed as an "appropriation", and therefore taboo. The marginalized alone are entitled to exclusive rights to use their own symbols, but anyone better off should not.
    Guages? Tattoos? Earrings? Pendelton? Benetton? Marc Jacobs? Sorry. We're all damned to a future of wearing only what our great-grandparents did. Mixed-race or mixed-class ancestors? Hire an attorney.
    Reply |
  • 2 3
    One notices that, as always, those obsessed with difference, skin colour and genital configuration are the most self-obsessed, petty, selfish bores. These people must be resisted and told in no uncertain terms that the world is not the parent to their teenage tantrum.
    Reply |
  • 3 4
    In related news, most of the bands have been cancelled as they were found to consist of white people playing music with elements clearly appropriated from African-American culture.
    Reply |
  • 0 1
    Headline should read..."Osheaga's headdress ban shows SOME intolerance for cultural appropriation
    Reply |
  • 2 3
    That is a literally racist policy.
    Reply |
  • 1 2
    Our collective culture is just that, is it not? Cultural appropriation end to end.
    Reply |
  • 0 1
    Have some schnitzel with your schnauzer, Klaus.
    Reply |
  • 0 1
    I sure this decision was run by the festival marketing department. Maybe you could get us some of their emails.
    Reply |
  • 1 2
    why can't it be, "oh really, ok, fuck it, no headdresses" ? How come you ninnys get all flustered when some one says that the shit you do is fucking ignorant?
    Reply |
  • 1 2
    I think many of the non-Indians who dress up in headgears nowadays do so because they think its a beautiful thing to wear and not as a "celebration of genocide" . There are some people who are genuinely mesmerized by these beautiful headgears and wear them because they love them
    without any intent to insult anyone and probably without knowing that it is not to be worn as an ornament. And as Sinclair stated, its necessary to educate people about it.
    Reply |
  • 3 4
    Also, it's not cultural appropriation, it's SHARING. Cultures giving and taking from one another is positive. It's natural. It inherently denounces segregation and othering. Why are you and people like you so insanely purist when it comes to white people, and only white people, embracing cultures which make up our very culture?
    I like Thai food, but I'm Italian. Should we only let Thai people eat Thai food? It's unique to their culture, so only they should be allowed to eat it, right?
    Reply |
    • 9 10
      You miss the point. The Indians (or First Nations in Canada) are a conquered people. They were treated viciously. They were ethnically cleansed. Their people were butchered and the remnants scattered. In the USA the lucky ones were herded into concentration camps called reservations. They rest went into hiding. It was open season on Indians until the late 1800s. It's only very recently that it's been OK to be an Indian again. They are trying to reconstruct a semblance of what has been lost. All they ask is for a bit of respect.
      To compare this to any inconvenience you might feel in eating Thai food shows your lack awareness. Besides, the Italians didn't conquer the Thais, though the French might have some explaining to do.
      Reply |
    • 3 4
      Give the Americas back then. I hardly think banning headdresses at festivals makes up for anything. It's politically correct nonsense that ultimately serves the oppressor. The festivals are still operating on and probably trashing stolen land. You can argue that the people wearing headdresses, wittingly or not, are drawing attention to this fact. Banning the headdresses only serves to quieten those that would remind us of the oppressed people.
      Reply |
    • 2 3
      Banning does help because we are in the process of learning to respect First Nations values.
      Reply |
  • 3 4
    It doesn't hurt anyone. It's not meant to insult anyone. Offense is only taken. If you want to denounce all forms of cultural appropriation then start with rappers appropriating the Italian mafia lifestyle in their lyrics. Mine and many other immigrant families fled the old country to escape the mafia, which inevitably found it's way to America. It's culturally insensitive for rappers to appropriate any shape or form of something that damaged so many people's lives and use it as some kind of metaphor for power, or whatever.
    Just kidding. No one gives a s**t.
    Reply |
  • 3 4
    I'm so old-fashioned, I think anyone should be allowed to wear anything they damned well please.
    Reply |
  • 2 3
    Apart from this being as shallow a piece of journalism as is possible, it unfortunately emanates from Canada and is consequently of little significance.
    Firstly, the argument presented by Niigaanwewidam James Sinclair has more holes than a colander.
    “Stupidity and ignorance never last in the face of reasoned arguments.”
    Hopefully, these words will be carved on his tombstone.
    Secondly, as for A Tride Called Red (sic), a First Nations electronic group from Ottawa; apparently they blend instrumental hip hop, reggae, moombahton and dubstep-influenced dance music with elements of First Nations music, so no cultural appropriation there.
    We live in a post-modern culturally confused world which a few are evidently unwilling to embrace.
    Reply |
  • 1 2
    “Stupidity and ignorance never last in the face of reasoned arguments.”
    Except when we talk about the Tar Sands.
    Reply |
  • 2 3
    Just out of curiosity - the headdress the woman in the photograph is wearing looks pretty authentic - which gives rise to the question: where are these festival goers purchasing these headdresses from?! Are they made/sold at gift shops on reservations? If so, they're not that sacred then are they?
    Reply |
  • 2 3
    First of all headdresses are not sacred. They are no more sacred to the First Nations than the Queen's hats are to her. We do the same thing with Sikh turbans and hijabs for women. They are not sacred. They are a preferred tradition.
    Reply |
1 2 3 4 8 next
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
SECURITY WARNING: Please treat the URL above as you would your password and do not share it with anyone. See the Facebook Help Center for more information.
desktop
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%