What Is a "Good" Halloween Costume?

[Neo]

There's a difference between being conscious of your actions' impacts and reading too deep into them.

This is a (traditionally/originally children's) activity revolving around a demonstration of imitative talent. Dressing up a figure of any culture shouldn't be disrespectful to that culture if you properly identify what occupation, historic figure, or mythological/fictional character from that culture you are dressing up as. The harm comes from the perpetuation of stereotypes/generalizations of that culture - so if your costume doesn't accurately reflect who or what it's based on, then it is literally a bad costume.

If we come to attribute such fundamental aspects of a culture as the official garb of its leaders to genocide or mockery, even when they are presented in a perfectly respectful manner, then isn't that what's disrespectful to the culture?

The very act of turning cultural garb into a costume is disrespectful. Intention and accuracy do not negate that fact.

Just as I stated with the skin darkening. My skin, is not a costume. Every day I live with the systemic and social aspects it carries. To darken your skin for a costume is to insult me, my people, and our collective experiences.

An Native American costume may not be co-opting their skin color, but the act is in the same vein.Putting a part of them on, for a night, without having to carry all that they as a people carry.

We're not attributing the cultural garb to genocide and mockery. We're stating, these are a people that have endured these things. These are a people that are continually struggling now. They, are not to be reduced to a costume. Their garb that is sacred and carries significance should not just be thrown on and pranced about in by anyone.

[HughJ]

When your culture has essentially been attacked in the past and has experienced incredible discrimination and in quite a few cases, genocide, I don't think it's too strange a concept to wish that what's left of the culture is treated significantly. There's a difference between a worshipping Jewish man with his hair styled in payot and a person running around with curls of wig hair taped to a stereotypical hat begging for candy on every doorstep. To ask that these persecuted cultures be treated with respect by not using their cultural garments and styles for a silly costume doesn't seem like too much of a demand.

Didn't I just say that misrepresenting the subject of your costume is what makes it bad

If you just tape wig curls to a hat and call yourself a Jew that's a bad costume and we're in agreement.

Regarding your larger point that people should not dress up as figures from the Jewish culture because they have historically been oppressed has some wider implications, as nearly every existent culture (or religion, or nation) has faced oppression, discrimination, or persecution in the past. Where do you draw the line on what parts of these cultures or which cultures in entirety are acceptable to imitate for Halloween?

Are costumes only off-limits if based on groups that have been persecuted relatively recently, as Jews were in the Holocaust? Does it have nothing to do with time? Is it only for minority groups?

The very act of turning cultural garb into a costume is disrespectful. Intention and accuracy do not negate that fact.

Just as I stated with the skin darkening. My skin, is not a costume. Every day I live with the systemic and social aspects it carries. To darken your skin for a costume is to insult me, my people, and our collective experiences.

An Native American costume may not be co-opting their skin color, but the act is in the same vein.Putting a part of them on, for a night, without having to carry all that they as a people carry.

We're not attributing the cultural garb to genocide and mockery. We're stating, these are a people that have endured these things. These are a people that are continually struggling now. They, are not to be reduced to a costume. Their garb that is sacred and carries significance should not just be thrown on and pranced about in by anyone.

I'd argue that blackface is very different from wearing a headdress due to its status as a symbol of oppression. Blackface makeup isn't and has never been a component of black culture, even if physically having dark skin is. Blackface is a component of white society from the early 1900's and it was a means of disrespecting and mocking black people.

The headdress was actually a symbol of an occupation in Native American society, not tied even in its own nature to any form of oppression or mockery. See the difference?

Why is assuming the responsibility and history for a costume only relevant when it's based on garb exclusive to a certain people group?

I've made this point before, but is a person dressed up in a firefighter outfit disrespecting firefighters, because they're wearing a uniform that is contingent upon much training and sacrifice? People have died sacrificing themselves in firefighting costumes, so is wearing one wrong?

Is the difference that because only Native American people can even have the chance to become chieftains, it's wrong for someone outside their community, to, as part of a lighthearted occasion, wear the garb they would presumably receive upon becoming one?

I'll stick around for a few more posts and then go. Good discussion though

[Chase]

I really kinda agree with HughJ here, Neo - because I can think of several Native American figures that HAVE been respected even by their conquerors.

• Sacajawea (probably misspelled) helped Lewis and Clark explore the lands obtained in the Louisiana Purchase. This one is arguable of course, because the woman may only be respected because she treated white people with the same. Thankfully, the United States doesn't just pay dues to "the nice Native Americans".
• Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are often revered in our history books - as VICTORS over General Custer (a United States general) at the Battle of Little Bighorn and very much to a different tune than leader of Vietnam (who gets no reverence at all)

There's also Squanto, Pocahontas, Geronimo, Cochise, and various others, who are revered for anything from helping settlers to providing successful or at least very stout resistance.

Then there's how we grew up understanding Native Americans in this era. Ever play 'Cowboys and Indians' as a kid? There is no unwritten rule in which the cowboys were the good guys.

I think you have to pre-suppose that someone is intentionally trying to mock or insult Native Americans in order to say being a Native American for Halloween is inherently offensive. There is long historical evidence that it's not in the same ballpark as the kind of mockery that African Americans have put up with involving characterization. I -do- see your points, but I don't think they are strong enough to defend your argument.

[Neo]

Why is assuming the responsibility and history for a costume only relevant when it's based on garb exclusive to a certain people group?

I've made this point before, but is a person dressed up in a firefighter outfit disrespecting firefighters, because they're wearing a uniform that is contingent upon much training and sacrifice? People have died sacrificing themselves in firefighting costumes, so is wearing one wrong?

Is the difference that because only Native American people can even have the chance to become chieftains, it's wrong for someone outside their community, to, as part of a lighthearted occasion, wear the garb they would presumably receive upon becoming one?

I'll stick around for a few more posts and then go. Good discussion though

Right, so first off, nobody is born a firefighter. It's an occupation that, thankfully, people choose and know precisely what they're getting into. Firefighters don't have several thousands of years of history. So, again, that's not even remotely equivalent.

Natives, themselves specifically, see it as offensive for those who are not Native to dress up in their garb. It's bad enough that we as a nation do not take them seriously, that our government is constantly breaking treaties, but to dress up as them as the extensive history of genocide and mockery adds further insult to injury.

I really kinda agree with HughJ here, Neo - because I can think of several Native American figures that HAVE been respected even by their conquerors.

• Sacajawea (probably misspelled) helped Lewis and Clark explore the lands obtained in the Louisiana Purchase. This one is arguable of course, because the woman may only be respected because she treated white people with the same. Thankfully, the United States doesn't just pay dues to "the nice Native Americans".
• Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse are often revered in our history books - as VICTORS over General Custer (a United States general) at the Battle of Little Bighorn and very much to a different tune than leader of Vietnam (who gets no reverence at all)

There's also Squanto, Pocahontas, Geronimo, Cochise, and various others, who are revered for anything from helping settlers to providing successful or at least very stout resistance.

Then there's how we grew up understanding Native Americans in this era. Ever play 'Cowboys and Indians' as a kid? There is no unwritten rule in which the cowboys were the good guys.

I think you have to pre-suppose that someone is intentionally trying to mock or insult Native Americans in order to say being a Native American for Halloween is inherently offensive. There is long historical evidence that it's not in the same ballpark as the kind of mockery that African Americans have put up with involving characterization. I -do- see your points, but I don't think they are strong enough to defend your argument.

Right, but those are rather modern developments, and we've still got a long way to go with regards to how we portray and speak about Natives. Squanto and Pocahontas, for example suffered at the hands of white folks, and yet we don't talk about that. We celebrate Thanksgiving all while "thanking" Natives, but our actions speak much much louder than words.

While the blackface argument was a slight reach, it IS in a similar vein. Natives do, in fact, have their own history concerning mockery at the hands of the larger white populace of this nation. One need only look to the World Series right now to see that.

[Chase]

Are the Cubs fans delving into the unacceptable? I mean, I know they have some super mega World Series curse they REALLY REALLY want to break, but that's desperate even for them.

Squanto was kidnapped by an individual explorer, not an entire colony. Nobody would say Thomas Hunt acted with any class or respect, but you can't pin his transgressions on some kid dressing up like someone very similar to Squanto in 2016. Then you have his entire tribe being wiped out by smallpox - which is indeed caused by European settlement, but to say the settlers intentionally sickened the Native Americans is too much of a stretch. Smallpox is a very, very unfortunate side-effect of early colonization, and it is very much talked about by scholars.

Pocahontas had more than just being a Native American on her plate. She was a young woman (a young girl even if we're talking John Smith) living in a time period where feminine progressivism wasn't even remotely questioned, let alone proposed and championed. She was taken as hostage because her high ranking father held great value in her though, so this is indeed a point of contention. Was it wrong to use her as propaganda after using her as a bargaining chip? Absolutely. Again however, she was done in ultimately by disease - which is not something any European would actually intend nor could they actually be aware of during the time period.

I don't exactly see those two as "modern developments" unless you were referring to finding value in historical Native American figures as a practice. There have been positive interactions between settlers and Natives since before Manifest Destiny and even before the colonists discovered tobacco plants were quite profitable. Yes things would eventually turn for the worse with those developments before getting better, and yes as peoples there is still work to be done, but it's definitely not to the level where a Trick-or-Treater is out to poke fun at a centuries-maligned group. There has always been value in Native America as a people group. It's just at times been - sadly - valued less than expanding boundaries and making a profit.

African Americans have had to deal and still deal with much worse.

[DJWongTong]

Eh, I'd say a good costume is whatever you have a passion for making and enjoy wearing, within reason of course. I respect handmade ones the most, no matter the quality.

[Eviora]

Seriously, though, the point of Halloween varies in the eyes of one person to the next. If your goal for the night is to have fun, a "good" costume would be one that promotes having fun. If, for you, that means some innocent trick-or-treating and party-going and not dealing with angry, offended people, you should probably avoid costumes that are likely to offend, whether you believe other peoples' reasons for being offended are good or not. If fun, for you, is trolling people and making some social or political statement, so be it, but do realize that others are just trying to enjoy themselves, too, and that you may or may not be thrown out of the party for infringing upon that.

That said, it's wise to keep your audience in mind. There are plenty of costumes that are acceptable at the right private party but that will earn you some unkind looks if you wear them for trick-or-treating. Looking at you, Harley~