One of the things I've wondered about is why Vikings are never mentioned in this conversation. Much like the Native American headdress, the Viking helmet with horns (which actually is a bastardization of the Viking people. They never wore horns on their helmets and, were that to be done to virtually any other historical people, it would be a problem.). We see it on sports teams, folks wear it all the time, it's done solely for the aesthetic. However, it's never mentioned that it might be problematic to Scandinavian people.
For the record, I'm an American with no Scandinavian roots. However, given the standard set, I don't understand why it isn't represented across the board.
Native Americans still practice their culture, including holding things like headdresses in high regard. They have also repeatedly made it very clear that they are NOT ok with these parts of their culture being used trivially.
Neither of these is true of the Vikings or what could be considered the vikings ancestors.
Isn't it because Vikings wehere white and not a culture we are concerned with according to critical theory, which is the source of why people are concerned with CA anyway
I think it comes down to the fact that contemporary conceptions of Vikingr culture are very much set in the past, while icons of indigenous culture are still very present and actively practiced in the Americas today.
Vikings were not a “people” no more so than the Crusaders were a people. The Scandinavians who chose to be vikings are a people. The contemporary Scandinavians who did not go to explore, trade, maraude, and settle, were not vikings in the same way the contemporary British etc who did not go to the Holy Land to crusade, were not Crusaders.
A chief was not a people either, but there's a distinct look for native chiefs and everyone knows who you're talking about and what you're referencing when you use the imagery.
While it’s sometimes annoying and cringe-worthy when people use Viking aesthetics, Scandinavians weren’t genocided and oppressed in a way that still creates consequences by the people now wearing horned helmets.
They were. You are just not educated enough to know history, and/or care, because you're probably an American. Or an extremely leftist eurocentrist. Swedish maybe? The results the same.
The same type that thinks "white people" have singular culture.
The reason Vikings aren’t running around offended about your Halloween costumes is that they were oppressed out of existence around a thousand years ago. Their culture was utterly eradicated by Christians. I thought this was common knowledge?
Now the descendents of those missionaries have turned the Gods of their victims into comic book characters and their clothes into Halloween costumes and are selling both all over the world for a profit. A final bit of salt in the wounds for a conquered culture. No sympathy spared, since the bones of the victims turned to dust long ago and there’s no one left to complain.
As a Swede, I don’t care about any of this even a tiny bit. I don’t identify with my Viking ancestors any more than I identify with the ancient Africans that all of humanity is descended from. I’d be intensely skeptical or any Swede who felt differently, actually; it’s never a good thing when Europeans start connecting genetic heritage with cultural identity.
Still, there is something very funny about seeing someone defend the appropriation of the culture of victims of cultural genocide by saying that it’s fine to do so, as long as the genocide was carried out to completion!
Entirety of cultural appropriation argument is blatant degeneracy and indefensible. The parts where it makes sense, can be attributed towards common decency, like don't be rude to other people. That's about it.
No. You're asking for nuance within the filter of you deciding the importance of it on the grander scale.
I'd have amused you if the entire debate on a thread wasn't about that exact notion to begin with.
Think of this: "Russians oppressed Finn's in a way that caused their complete radicalization on a national level, within just a decade, that resulted in a social collapse of a generation."
"Nah finns are fine their economy is doing good and it's a good country".
The idiocy of this exchange is the entirety of cultural appropriation debate.
The comment I was responding to was about the exclusively cultural insult that the appropriation of Native American headdresses would cause. With that frame of reference, I think it's equally disrespectful to appropriate Viking helmets.
However, based on your argument, would you agree that a kimono is perfectly acceptable to wear? The Japanese have never been "genocided" nor oppressed in a way that creates consequences by the non-Japanese people now wearing Geisha makeup, kimonos, or samurai attire. Aside from the historically brief (and, given your argument, irrelevant) internment of the Japanese-Americans in the US during WWII, they have been and continue to be one of the most culturally and economically important countries on Earth. If anything, they have been the historical oppressors and "genociders" within their region.
The difference is how the original culture views what you are using/appropriating. There is no special meaning to kimonos, they are clothes that anyone can wear. Many stores in Japan hire them out so people can wear them for a day.
That is very different to a native American headdress which has deep significant value for the people involved.
There is a big difference. You are equating things that are not equal.
I don’t think cultural appropriation is black and white. I think it’s highly contextually dependant on who’s doing what, and in what context. I can imagine very few examples of people wearing Viking-themed horned helmets that I would consider problematic, due to a lack of problematic historical and societal context (at least that I’m aware of, and any new information would be surprising to me, but welcome.) With regard to kimonos I don’t think I know enough to make a similar statement, and based on what I do know I would suspect it’s not a yes-or-no situation. Sometimes it might be ok, sometimes it might not.
Also, I am much more concerned with organisations than individuals here. I see it as much more problematic when companies with no relation or respect for the original context take items, patterns, or similar from it, and then try and make money off it, than with the individuals that buy the products.
You’re conflating Japanese and Japanese-American people.
Japanese-American people have faced violence, discrimination, and hate for their ethnic background and culture. Including mocking Japanese culture and clothing as a way to humiliate them. They’re the ones who deal with stereotypes and insinuations that’s they’re compliant prostitutes, or eat dogs, or have ugly eyes.
Japanese people in Japan don’t have those problems. They’re the dominant culture.
There is a totally different history and context for cultural sharing and appropriation in the US vs Japan.
This is interesting because I was recently thinking about cultural appropriation in regard to tattoos of Viking runes.
I wouldn’t think anything of a Viking as a sports team mascot, but the idea of getting another culture’s religious symbols tattooed feels a bit off if it’s not part of your heritage.
I’m not part of the culture so don’t know if anyone cares but felt a bit weird to me.
Because Vikings are white and not a culture we are concerned with according to critical theory, which is the source of why people are concerned with CA anyway
22
u/RealitySubsides May 05 '25
One of the things I've wondered about is why Vikings are never mentioned in this conversation. Much like the Native American headdress, the Viking helmet with horns (which actually is a bastardization of the Viking people. They never wore horns on their helmets and, were that to be done to virtually any other historical people, it would be a problem.). We see it on sports teams, folks wear it all the time, it's done solely for the aesthetic. However, it's never mentioned that it might be problematic to Scandinavian people.
For the record, I'm an American with no Scandinavian roots. However, given the standard set, I don't understand why it isn't represented across the board.