Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No, but when a group makes up a disproportionate percentage of our ruling class, as veterans do"

Citation, please.

Certainly. Veterans make up about 7 percent of the US population (that's folks who have ever served) but 18 percent of the US Congress (both houses). That is, as noted, disproportionate. Whcih is fine! But it makes it unlikely that they are an oppressed minority.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So is this offensive? It's cultural appropriation. It's a "sexy" take on the traditional dress of the native people of another country. A culture that still exists, and a people that still wear it.

It's certainly tacky and I'd side-eye if she let her 7 year old wear it, but in this case it doesn't have the "punching down" element of dressing up as a generic Indian girl.

It is absolutely punching down if you know anything at all about traditional German dress. First of all, it's a bastardization of the actual outfit, which isn't remotely sexy. Then it's based on something from a very specific region of Germany, and there are dozens of forms of traditional dress, most of which have to do with religious celebrations like weddings and funerals.

It's ignorant to think otherwise. Just because Germans really don't care what Americans do with it doesn't make it any less tacky.

"Was stoert es die Deutsche Eiche wenn die Sau sich daran schuppert?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"No, but when a group makes up a disproportionate percentage of our ruling class, as veterans do"

Citation, please.

Up until Clinton 1 every President served in the military. Bush 1 after.

Anonymous wrote:"No, but when a group makes up a disproportionate percentage of our ruling class, as veterans do"

Citation, please.

Anonymous wrote:"No, but when a group makes up a disproportionate percentage of our ruling class, as veterans do"

Citation, please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So is this offensive? It's cultural appropriation. It's a "sexy" take on the traditional dress of the native people of another country. A culture that still exists, and a people that still wear it.

It's certainly tacky and I'd side-eye if she let her 7 year old wear it, but in this case it doesn't have the "punching down" element of dressing up as a generic Indian girl.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So is this offensive? It's cultural appropriation. It's a "sexy" take on the traditional dress of the native people of another country. A culture that still exists, and a people that still wear it.

It's certainly tacky and I'd side-eye if she let her 7 year old wear it, but in this case it doesn't have the "punching down" element of dressing up as a generic Indian girl.

LOL at the 7 year old comment. I'd defer to what a member of that group says, but I don't think Germans are historically marginalized in this country, at least not to the extent that Native Americans have been!

Why would you defer that question and not the one about the American Indian?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So is this offensive? It's cultural appropriation. It's a "sexy" take on the traditional dress of the native people of another country. A culture that still exists, and a people that still wear it.

It's certainly tacky and I'd side-eye if she let her 7 year old wear it, but in this case it doesn't have the "punching down" element of dressing up as a generic Indian girl.

LOL at the 7 year old comment. I'd defer to what a member of that group says, but I don't think Germans are historically marginalized in this country, at least not to the extent that Native Americans have been!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So is this offensive? It's cultural appropriation. It's a "sexy" take on the traditional dress of the native people of another country. A culture that still exists, and a people that still wear it.

It's certainly tacky and I'd side-eye if she let her 7 year old wear it, but in this case it doesn't have the "punching down" element of dressing up as a generic Indian girl.

LOL at the 7 year old comment. I'd defer to what a member of that group says, but I don't think Germans are historically marginalized in this country, at least not to the extent that Native Americans have been!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
So is this offensive? It's cultural appropriation. It's a "sexy" take on the traditional dress of the native people of another country. A culture that still exists, and a people that still wear it.

It's certainly tacky and I'd side-eye if she let her 7 year old wear it, but in this case it doesn't have the "punching down" element of dressing up as a generic Indian girl.

Anonymous wrote:
So is this offensive? It's cultural appropriation. It's a "sexy" take on the traditional dress of the native people of another country. A culture that still exists, and a people that still wear it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"But dressing up as a "Chinese person" or a "Native American" still, to me, isn't ok."

We've heard your objections, and since you have no further arguments than it "isn't ok" to you, we disagree with you.

Veterans have traditionally been a marginalized group, and they are a protected class. Is it offensive to dress up as a soldier or sailor?

NP here. The bolded is absurd.

How do you figure?

Veterans have traditionally been one of the most honored groups in the US. They are applauded, celebrated, and honored in any number of ways, and rightfully so IMO.

LOL. You clearly don't know any history prior to 1991.

I have records from my far-back American ancestors showing their pensions from serving in the US military, back to the Revolutionary War. We also have the GI Bill (fun fact - they were structured in a way to be all but unusable for Black veterans), the VA, and veteran's preference for federal jobs began in 1952.

So if there are direct government payments, that means the group is no longer marginalized? Interesting.