Theory on Dream Eaters

[MasterZeR0]

A great deal of this post i would argue to be racist to non native americans.

I would agree.

And also, lemme get this straight.

Because Dream Catcher=Ultimate offense to Native Americans?

Soz bro.

But seriously, I want the Ultima Weapon to resemble something... Dreamlike. I want it to be curved and smooth and interesting, incorporating possibly a dream catcher and the Spirit symbol. Maybe you get it for synthesizing the ultimate dream eaters, or one of each type.

 

[Memory Master]

Since we're all showing off our fake offendedness i'll just give a fake rant of my own:

The KK and IKK and the design of the two KK crossing on the X-Blade look similar to the "Keys to Heaven" design associated with St. Peter, as a Christian i'm assuming that this is meant to be offensive and degrading, despite the fact that Nomura has used christian themes in KH before, and despite christian themes as well as other themes from other religions are used as inspiration for video games and other forms of media, so it must be offensive rather than the more likely case that the author/creator was just inspired by something from a religion.

See why I don't like political correctness, not everything is meant to be offensive unless its blatantly is offensive, which I've not seen anything of in KH or any Square Enix game for that matter.

I kind of think the use of a Dream Catcher on the KH3D ultima Keyblade would be creative.

 

[MasterZeR0]

Since we're all showing off our fake offendedness i'll just give a fake rant of my own:

The KK and IKK and the design of the two KK crossing on the X-Blade look similar to the "Keys to Heaven" design associated with St. Peter, as a Christian i'm assuming that this is meant to be offensive and degrading, despite the fact that Nomura has used christian themes in KH before, and despite christian themes as well as other themes from other religions are used as inspiration for video games and other forms of media, so it must be offensive rather than the more likely case that the author/creator was just inspired by something from a religion.

See why I don't like political correctness, not everything is meant to be offensive unless its blatantly is offensive, which I've not seen anything of in KH or any Square Enix game for that matter.

I kind of think the use of a Dream Catcher on the KH3D ultima Keyblade would be creative.

Exactly. People are ridiculous.

I can't wait to see Ultimate Weapon in this game :3

 

[Moonlight Aqua]

Lawl yeah, black people are just butt hurt for not wanting to be misrepresented in the media via black face and other stereotypes, Jewish people are only complaining if they oppose people who are spreading anti-Semitic propaganda, Native people have no right to self-determine when, where and how they would prefer their sacred imagery be portrayed. Let's all go right back to the turn of the 20th century, 'cause racism is so cool and we don't have to listen when people identify the mentalities and behaviors through which they are being systemically oppressed. Everything should run according to the interests of mass culture: bonk the needs of minorities and their feelings on how they themselves are addressed.

How about you check your privilege? Indigenous people do not have to be "grateful" for anything non-Natives do "on their behalf" (actually, considering it's their fault our communities are in as bad a shape as they are, I'm pretty sure that doesn't make any sense); and no, the cultures of Native peoples are not play things for you to decide to conveniently "notice" by way of appropriation and exploitation under the guise of an actual interest in our lifestyles. You want to help Native people? Bonk off to wherever you came from and let us rebuild our communities.


Just like there's nothing wrong with a silly cartoon of a Jewish person with a big nose, or a black person with huge lips; and when movies (those silly little things no one should pay attention to) depict ethnic minorities in similarly misguided fashion, it's nothing to be concerned about. And I'm sorry, but since when have we gone back to a world where those committing acts of racism decide the terms of racist behavior? And, uh, sacred Native symbols are not "common" property, sorry to ruin your ethnic fantasy scenario.

I don't think the posters here understand the history of appropriation of Native imagery in the media and what it actually means for Indigenous communities, but I should be clear. I'm not here to educate you: if you're interested in being educated, go ahead and find the information on why this kind of cultural exploitation is harmful to minority communities (hint: it has a lot to do with the power structures of society and who gets to decide how they're represented on a societal scale). It's a Google search away. I'm here to tell you it's wrong: you do not get to tell me what I should and should not appreciate based on your drastically under-informed, totally irrelevant opinion of what is honoring me. I'm telling you that there is nothing gratifying about having a magical weapon in a video game written by Japanese people associated with Indigenous cultures: I can think of a thousand ways it would go to crap and not a single scenario under which such an escapade would end with positive impact to the Indigenous communities they would be referencing.

Indigenous society does not need more Native-coded BS perpetuated within the dominant ethnic narrative. We need actual Indigenous representation (which we are achieving) and a voice that isn't filtered through White race fantasies. :/

While I do respect your ideals because it's your race, I do feel like you are getting out of hand here.

You're talking about in cartoons where they draw people in stereotypical fashion, i.e: the black face for black people or the big nose for jewish people. But what we are talking about is an object. Now while this object is considered sacred to some native americans, we do use it what they are used for.The examples you provided are examples of racism in cartoons, things that are not appropriate, but using the dream catcher idea is anything far from racist. Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. Using it is not discriminating native americans, discrimination is when you are physically hurting an individual because of their race. Prejudging is when you are thinking of the individual in a discriminating way, but not acting on it. Using an object is not anything racist, discriminatory or prejudging to anyone.

Yes, it's sacred and but we are not talking about burning it, spitting on it or anything vulgar. We are talking about an idea that could be used for a game, an object that can't hurt anyone physically but get rid of dream monsters, It could happen if they decide they want to put a keyblade like that because of the dream theme going in the game, because what it's perceived in the Sioux culture, in other native american cultures and in our culture also; it's something that catches bad dreams and gets rid of them from the person sleeping.

 

[MasterZeR0]

Edit: I moved the picture of my Ultima Keyblade Idea to a new thread xD

This has grown too far past the original topic :I Let's go back to that.

 

[alexis.anagram]

You're talking about in cartoons where they draw people in stereotypical fashion, i.e: the black face for black people or the big nose for jewish people. But what we are talking about is an object. Now while this object is considered sacred to some native americans, we do use it what they are used for.The examples you provided are examples of racism in cartoons, things that are not appropriate, but using the dream catcher idea is anything far from racist. Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination. Using it is not discriminating native americans, discrimination is when you are physically hurting an individual because of their race. Prejudging is when you are thinking of the individual in a discriminating way, but not acting on it. Using an object is not anything racist, discriminatory or prejudging to anyone.

OK, I wasn't really going to respond because I felt I had said everything I needed to say, but reading this post I do feel compelled to make one thing clear which I didn't before. Many Indigenous Nations consider their spiritual and sacred items to be an intrinsic aspect of their beings; an extension of their existence, in a way. There are extremely important subtexts to their usage which are not (generally) apparent to people who are not of that culture or way of life. They are not objects to Indigenous peoples; things like the drum (which is considered the heartbeat for many of the plains tribes and is very much considered alive; my Oglala Sioux cousins consider their drum an actual member of their family and treat it as such), the use of tobacco, sage or water, the headdress and other regalia, certain feathers and, yes, the dream catcher all have a religious and cultural significance which is better described as being an actual "part" of the people than as something separate from them. They aren't just representative of a spirituality: they are actually a living force to the peoples of the nations to which they belong. Therefore, misrepresenting them, using them in a way they are not intended for, "interpreting" their usage when you aren't even of that lifestyle or culture, is not just an invalidation of our spiritualities (which is bad enough); it's exactly the same as dressing someone up in black face and mocking a real person. You're mocking the life which those symbols represent.

Yes, it's sacred and but we are not talking about burning it, spitting on it or anything vulgar. We are talking about an idea that could be used for a game, an object that can't hurt anyone physically but get rid of dream monsters, It could happen if they decide they want to put a keyblade like that because of the dream theme going in the game, because what it's perceived in the Sioux culture, in other native american cultures and in our culture also; it's something that catches bad dreams and gets rid of them from the person sleeping.

I think my previous statement already addressed this, but how they are used is not important. Whether it's an apparently negative application or not doesn't matter. Black face was generally comedic, not always obviously degrading, in nature and when it came to be challenged as a social form of racism many of the same arguments being put forth in this thread were used in its defense; that it wasn't meant to be offensive, that it provided a way for White people to understand black culture, that it gave representation to black people in the mass media of the time. Look it up. The arguments in this thread are literally point-by-point rehashes of every major argument in the defense of racist practices which have been applied in past scenarios and they perpetuate the exact same racist behaviors and mentalities. The only difference is that Indigenous people have been continuously disenfranchised as a fundamental ploy of Americanism to the point that even the immediately obvious racist treatments of us (Redskins is still a football team; bet we wouldn't have a team called the N word, and yes, those terms are entirely equatable in the form of their history) go unaddressed or are straight up defended by social policy. Naturally something which requires the cultural leaps most people have to make when coming to an even basic understanding of any Indigenous society itself, without relation to the colonized world, is going to be even less well regarded in the mainstream.

But hey, I'm just a Native kid voicing my concerns about things which directly affect me in a way I have to deal with. And guess who doesn't? I'm looking at you MasterZer0. Anyone in this thread who can honestly claim that my concerns are unfounded either doesn't know their history, doesn't want to acknowledge their history (*coughcoughwhiteguiltcough*) or is just trying to rebel against political correctness (which I don't agree with either, for the record) by being its direct antithesis, which is juvenile.

Also, apologies for the days-late reply. Crud happens and like I said, I wasn't even planning on checking back due to the absolute vitriol I was predicting my thoughts would be met with. I'm happy to find I just got insipid, lazy excuses not to think about the issue, for once (I actually got a good laugh at the idea that my ideas are racist against non-natives; oh, the Reverse Victimization Ploy, we've never seen that one before). Moonlight_Aqua18, you're at least thinking about this, so thanks for that, I guess.

 

[MasterZeR0]

OK, I wasn't really going to respond because I felt I had said everything I needed to say, but reading this post I do feel compelled to make one thing clear which I didn't before. Many Indigenous Nations consider their spiritual and sacred items to be an intrinsic aspect of their beings; an extension of their existence, in a way. There are extremely important subtexts to their usage which are not (generally) apparent to people who are not of that culture or way of life. They are not objects to Indigenous peoples; things like the drum (which is considered the heartbeat for many of the plains tribes and is very much considered alive; my Oglala Sioux cousins consider their drum an actual member of their family and treat it as such), the use of tobacco, sage or water, the headdress and other regalia, certain feathers and, yes, the dream catcher all have a religious and cultural significance which is better described as being an actual "part" of the people than as something separate from them. They aren't just representative of a spirituality: they are actually a living force to the peoples of the nations to which they belong. Therefore, misrepresenting them, using them in a way they are not intended for, "interpreting" their usage when you aren't even of that lifestyle or culture, is not just an invalidation of our spiritualities (which is bad enough); it's exactly the same as dressing someone up in black face and mocking a real person. You're mocking the life which those symbols represent.


I think my previous statement already addressed this, but how they are used is not important. Whether it's an apparently negative application or not doesn't matter. Black face was generally comedic, not always obviously degrading, in nature and when it came to be challenged as a social form of racism many of the same arguments being put forth in this thread were used in its defense; that it wasn't meant to be offensive, that it provided a way for White people to understand black culture, that it gave representation to black people in the mass media of the time. Look it up. The arguments in this thread are literally point-by-point rehashes of every major argument in the defense of racist practices which have been applied in past scenarios and they perpetuate the exact same racist behaviors and mentalities. The only difference is that Indigenous people have been continuously disenfranchised as a fundamental ploy of Americanism to the point that even the immediately obvious racist treatments of us (Redskins is still a football team; bet we wouldn't have a team called the N word, and yes, those terms are entirely equatable in the form of their history) go unaddressed or are straight up defended by social policy. Naturally something which requires the cultural leaps most people have to make when coming to an even basic understanding of any Indigenous society itself, without relation to the colonized world, is going to be even less well regarded in the mainstream.

But hey, I'm just a Native kid voicing my concerns about things which directly affect me in a way I have to deal with. And guess who doesn't? I'm looking at you MasterZer0. Anyone in this thread who can honestly claim that my concerns are unfounded either doesn't know their history, doesn't want to acknowledge their history (*coughcoughwhiteguiltcough*) or is just trying to rebel against political correctness (which I don't agree with either, for the record) by being its direct antithesis, which is juvenile.

Also, apologies for the days-late reply. Crud happens and like I said, I wasn't even planning on checking back due to the absolute vitriol I was predicting my thoughts would be met with. I'm happy to find I just got insipid, lazy excuses not to think about the issue, for once (I actually got a good laugh at the idea that my ideas are racist against non-natives; oh, the Reverse Victimization Ploy, we've never seen that one before). Moonlight_Aqua18, you're at least thinking about this, so thanks for that, I guess.

Wow, someone's cranky. Soz WE killed your ancestors bro. And soz we suggested a dream catcher. But you're getting very out of line, you took this way too far.

 

[Hillboy]

OK, I wasn't really going to respond because I felt I had said everything I needed to say, but reading this post I do feel compelled to make one thing clear which I didn't before. Many Indigenous Nations consider their spiritual and sacred items to be an intrinsic aspect of their beings; an extension of their existence, in a way. There are extremely important subtexts to their usage which are not (generally) apparent to people who are not of that culture or way of life. They are not objects to Indigenous peoples; things like the drum (which is considered the heartbeat for many of the plains tribes and is very much considered alive; my Oglala Sioux cousins consider their drum an actual member of their family and treat it as such), the use of tobacco, sage or water, the headdress and other regalia, certain feathers and, yes, the dream catcher all have a religious and cultural significance which is better described as being an actual "part" of the people than as something separate from them. They aren't just representative of a spirituality: they are actually a living force to the peoples of the nations to which they belong. Therefore, misrepresenting them, using them in a way they are not intended for, "interpreting" their usage when you aren't even of that lifestyle or culture, is not just an invalidation of our spiritualities (which is bad enough); it's exactly the same as dressing someone up in black face and mocking a real person. You're mocking the life which those symbols represent.


I think my previous statement already addressed this, but how they are used is not important. Whether it's an apparently negative application or not doesn't matter. Black face was generally comedic, not always obviously degrading, in nature and when it came to be challenged as a social form of racism many of the same arguments being put forth in this thread were used in its defense; that it wasn't meant to be offensive, that it provided a way for White people to understand black culture, that it gave representation to black people in the mass media of the time. Look it up. The arguments in this thread are literally point-by-point rehashes of every major argument in the defense of racist practices which have been applied in past scenarios and they perpetuate the exact same racist behaviors and mentalities. The only difference is that Indigenous people have been continuously disenfranchised as a fundamental ploy of Americanism to the point that even the immediately obvious racist treatments of us (Redskins is still a football team; bet we wouldn't have a team called the N word, and yes, those terms are entirely equatable in the form of their history) go unaddressed or are straight up defended by social policy. Naturally something which requires the cultural leaps most people have to make when coming to an even basic understanding of any Indigenous society itself, without relation to the colonized world, is going to be even less well regarded in the mainstream.

But hey, I'm just a Native kid voicing my concerns about things which directly affect me in a way I have to deal with. And guess who doesn't? I'm looking at you MasterZer0. Anyone in this thread who can honestly claim that my concerns are unfounded either doesn't know their history, doesn't want to acknowledge their history (*coughcoughwhiteguiltcough*) or is just trying to rebel against political correctness (which I don't agree with either, for the record) by being its direct antithesis, which is juvenile.

Also, apologies for the days-late reply. Crud happens and like I said, I wasn't even planning on checking back due to the absolute vitriol I was predicting my thoughts would be met with. I'm happy to find I just got insipid, lazy excuses not to think about the issue, for once (I actually got a good laugh at the idea that my ideas are racist against non-natives; oh, the Reverse Victimization Ploy, we've never seen that one before). Moonlight_Aqua18, you're at least thinking about this, so thanks for that, I guess.

i still don't see why you get worked up over this and call it racist... but theres nothing offensive about it. If you want to talk about steoritypical natives watch Peter Pan. Thats steorytyping and racist, but really theres no reason to be mad about using a dream catcher. Thats a pretty cool idea and is more about giving homage to natives than being offensive

 

[Moonlight Aqua]

OK, I wasn't really going to respond because I felt I had said everything I needed to say, but reading this post I do feel compelled to make one thing clear which I didn't before. Many Indigenous Nations consider their spiritual and sacred items to be an intrinsic aspect of their beings; an extension of their existence, in a way. There are extremely important subtexts to their usage which are not (generally) apparent to people who are not of that culture or way of life. They are not objects to Indigenous peoples; things like the drum (which is considered the heartbeat for many of the plains tribes and is very much considered alive; my Oglala Sioux cousins consider their drum an actual member of their family and treat it as such), the use of tobacco, sage or water, the headdress and other regalia, certain feathers and, yes, the dream catcher all have a religious and cultural significance which is better described as being an actual "part" of the people than as something separate from them. They aren't just representative of a spirituality: they are actually a living force to the peoples of the nations to which they belong. Therefore, misrepresenting them, using them in a way they are not intended for, "interpreting" their usage when you aren't even of that lifestyle or culture, is not just an invalidation of our spiritualities (which is bad enough); it's exactly the same as dressing someone up in black face and mocking a real person. You're mocking the life which those symbols represent.

But that's the thing, when I was thinking of this idea, I wasn't thinking of mocking any race. Mocking is your examples of the cartoons, in way that can hurt someone completely. I'm Hispanic, so I know how it feels to be mocked for my race. "Your lazy coz your mexican." or "Your taking our jobs!" That's mocking and that's racist. I know it's sacred for your people, but I was just voicing an idea. It's not possible that I said this and it'll be placed in the game. But I understand how hard it is when others mock and treat you like a minority.

But you know, if I was you instead of arguing over something meaningless as this, I would hold my comments until needed. Because if you remember there is one movie that they haven't placed in the game that is Native American. You'll never know what they'll place in the game because of it.

Also, apologies for the days-late reply. Crud happens and like I said, I wasn't even planning on checking back due to the absolute vitriol I was predicting my thoughts would be met with. I'm happy to find I just got insipid, lazy excuses not to think about the issue, for once (I actually got a good laugh at the idea that my ideas are racist against non-natives; oh, the Reverse Victimization Ploy, we've never seen that one before). Moonlight_Aqua18, you're at least thinking about this, so thanks for that, I guess.

Well because it bothers me that my idea is being called racist, when I'm far from being racist in any way. I was just voicing an idea and I get yelled by someone because I voiced it.

 

[Sky Lily]

i still don't see why you get worked up over this and call it racist... but theres nothing offensive about it. If you want to talk about steoritypical natives watch Peter Pan. Thats steorytyping and racist, but really theres no reason to be mad about using a dream catcher. Thats a pretty cool idea and is more about giving homage to natives than being offensive

Ah, yes, absolutely great point. The Native Americans in Peter Pan were highly offensive; although I'd like to think that Disney already gave their big apology by making Pocahontas, lol xD Same for those black crows in Dumbo vs. "The Princess And The Frog" (and for that they at least... tried, rofl. Also please note that I am black, myself.)

Personally I don't see the problem in various religious symbols being used for fun. I mean, if that really was a serious issue, then I'm surprised there's no huge uproar about The Chronicles of Narnia mixing christian allegories with a land of magic and myth.

I mean, that's what a lot of good stories do; incorporate various things from various places, peoples, and beliefs, and use it to make a fun story. As long as the material being used isn't being made fun of, I really don't see the problem.

And Dream Catchers are the last thing I'd expect anyone to get up-in-arms over about. I'd personally be so psyched to see that kind of concept used in Kingdom Hearts. But then again, I should be one to talk, heh |D My bedroom door is decorated with a few dream catchers, despite the fact that I'm actually Christian and don't necessarily follow Native American beliefs.

Guess that makes me an offensive racist, too. I'm quite sorry. o3o