Comments

1. Roni wrote:

   I don’t think it holds that it’s deliberately disrespectful. I’ve seen a number of Americans, raised in a dominant Judeo-Christian culture, or Christian themselves, dress up as God, Jesus, or the Devil. It’s not considered taboo by most people. Yet, I’m sure someone looking would be able to find “Christian leaders” to go on record saying it’s offensive.

   I think it raises some interesting questions. Can the quoted “Hindu leaders” be taken as representative of the population at large? If so doesn’t that treat Hindu people as one homogenized mass?

   Heidi Klum is certainly appropriating a religious figure she doesn’t understand, without question. I see this as being an unresolved question in discussing appropriation. If we define it as individual and subjective, as in ‘I would not do that, but you need to make your own decision.’ she’s obviously okay with it. If we define it as what a culture as a whole finds offensive, aren’t we demanding individuals to speak for their entire culture to get a judgment?

   Cultural appropriation is certainly problematic, but who draws the line for what is appropriate?

   Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 10:38 am ¶

2. A.D. Nix wrote:

   I readt hat Seal is supposed to be a pirate? Of some kind? Does not necessarily explain the facial hair.

   As for Klum – I was like ‘what the hell?’ My aunt, uncle and his family are Hindu – seriously, serious about their practices and generally humorless people – and I thought about how reverent they are when talking about the work of the gods in our world. I cannot imagine what their reaction to this would be.

   Klum’s explanation of how she arrived at the idea is also pretty . . . predictable. I’ll put aside the fact that English isn’t her first language and that she’s never been known as a great thinker or orator (”Your next challenge . . ” certainly doesn’t count) and just say: not that thought out, Heidi. Could not even be bothered to pretend that this is a figure that people actually believe in.

   That said – people do dress up as The Devil for Halloween all of the time – Christians and non – and probably think nothing of it. Jesus as well (I saw 3, one of whom was a drunk ass “Vacation Jesus”). Certainly in North America there’s less distance for most from the concept of the devil than from Kali – Satan is a cultural figure that’s known and even invoked by “non-believers” (like me!). That might be the difference?

   Ultimately, I felt queasy when I saw Miss Heidi sneering at the cameras over and over.

   Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 10:59 am ¶

3. miss a. wrote:

   Wow, Seal. What the fuck? Just because you’re a minority doesn’t mean that you can get away with this kind of bullshit. They’re like the Halloween couple from ignorant hell.

   Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 11:18 am ¶

4. Jess wrote:

   I always have mixed feelings about stuff like this.

   The reason is, what if she went as Frigg, Sif or Freya, or dressed up as Hera? I don’t think anyone would be complaining. Nor would anyone be so upset if Padma Lakshmi went out as any of those.

   Yes, it’s quite possible to be in a getup that is racist, and we’ve seen examples of that here. But that doesn’t mean anyone dressing up as “another” culture’s god is automatically racist. And what about dressing up as Jesus?

   Then there’s the whole thing about cultural appropriation. That’s a complicated discussion (more so than a lot of people here make it out) because it rests on a couple of assumptions.

   First, that there’s such a thing as a “pure” culture. I don’t think there is, or can be. American culture in particular has appropriated things from all over, as have the Japanese and Indians (and that in itself varies widely by region). It’s kind of, dare I say it, a right-wing view of what culture is.

   Second, there seems to be an assumption that appropriation can only be done in an oppressive way, or that all appropriation is some kind of taking, like stealing a car.

   I mean, is it cultural appropriation for me to write a blues song? Or a raga? Just because you dress up as a Hindu goddess for halloween doesn’t mean you must be an expert in Hindu culture or even part of it, necessarily. And Klum approaches it in a way that is actually, (I thought) pretty cool and not insulting the way the Asian man costume might be or blackface.

   I know there’s a whole “it’s the oppression, stupid,” argument that was posted here a while ago. But on closer examination I am not sure how well that works, either.

   Some of the structure of the American government was adapted from the Haudenosaunee, and I don’t think we’d be saying that’s bad in and of itself.

   Does this mean I am ok with white people using Natives as mascots? No, but that I end up filing under “insulting and stupid” rather than “cultural appropriation.”

   Maybe what I am getting at is that context and history sort of do matter, as well as what it is people are doing and why. My ancestors got a pretty raw deal from the Egyptians, but I would be jazzed if they “appropriated” my favorite charoset recipe and it became the next hot pocket there. (Maybe I see such things as a bit of justice )

   Also, “appropriation” is to some extent the way cultural exchange happens. If Europeans had never started getting into wearing beaver fur those mountain men would never have bothered to make any contact at all with the Natives here. That contact had a lot of horrible effects, but it also brought some knowledge of those cultures to Europeans, which in turn affected them in ways they weren’t always aware of (or willing to acknowledge).

   Europeans may have oppressed Middle Eastern people in the modern era, but there were a lot of really positive things that came of the stuff they brought back from there.

   Napoleon started an Egyptian craze in Europe, but the result was finding the Rosetta Stone, without which every single one of those monuments would have remained indecipherable. (At the time not even the Copts had the means to translate them). And that changed European’s views of their own history, even if they hated to admit it. I mean, at a minimum they had to acknowledge that there was a distinctive civilization that existed without reference to Greek and Roman antecedents. On top of that, the deciphering of Egyptian allowed Egyptians themselves to reclaim a big chunk of their own history. *

   In another way, the fashion for westerners to wear bindis, for instance, forces people to acknowledge that there are other design ‘ideas’ elsewhere, and forces them to start thinking out of the box, even if they would never admit it or understand why they are doing it.

   Or Rock ‘n Roll: Elvis ‘appropriated’ black music, which in turn changed the cultural landscape in ways I bet even he never thought about. And the Beatles and the Stones owe a lot to James Brown. But that doesn’t mean that every Rock musician since then is appropriating something from ‘black’ culture, however defined. And the ‘white’ music (again, a dicey concept at best) turned around and influenced hip-hop (sampling, the use of certain electronic sounds) and we go ’round again to the point where a black man playing in a ‘rock’ band was considered unusual. (I remember what a stir Living Color caused, and Run-DMC working with Aerosmith).

   Anyhow, what I am getting at in a far too long post is that I can’t say that every time I see something like this its “cultural appropriation” and therefore bad. Maybe the bad version is one of those things like porn — I know it when I see it, and this doesn’t seem to hit the mark.

   *Before anyone says to me “you think white people ’saved’ the Egyptians” or some such, the reason the Egyptians had no translations was historical accident more than anything else. The civilization of the pharaohs was 1,000+ years in the past at least by the time of the Muslim conquest. Egypt was largely Christian by that point, and had been heavily influenced by Greek civilization since Alexander’s conquest ca. 330 BC. Hieroglyphics hadn’t been used as a regular form of writing since at least then. Maybe an Egyptian archeologist would have found the stone, maybe not, Champollion just happened to be first to see what he had in front of him.

   Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 11:24 am ¶

5. Cynthia wrote:

   While no kid would have gone as Jesus or a nun at my Catholic elementary school, I’m not too sure if Catholics would be all that upset at a Jesus costume. I certainly wasn’t (but then again, I’m only “culturally Catholic”). I’ve also seen other Biblical figures at various Halloween parties I’ve been to over the years, including Moses, and Eve (usually without Adam…haha).

   Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 11:25 am ¶

6. shirky wrote:

   klum’s costume is not offensive in the same way as ‘ethnic’ costumes are, imo. I realize there are some that believe deities are not characters, that they are in fact divine beings; but, as a nontheist, to me all ‘gods’ are similar to literary characters. also? that costume is amazing.

   Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 11:45 am ¶

7. Cynthia wrote:

   Roni: Someone dressed up as a “Vacation Jesus?” Would people even be able to tell? Because if he looked like what I think he looked like, I would have guessed that he was a homeless guy.

   Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 11:53 am ¶

8. A.D. Nix wrote:

   @Cynthia: Think ‘Hawaiian’ shirt over robes. Sunglasses. Beard. He also said “I’m on vacation!” a couple times. Like Jesus meets Bernie from ‘Weekend at Bernies.’

   Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 12:04 pm ¶

9. David wrote:

   I think Klum’s costume is only racist depending on your definition.

   If you take the systemic/institutional view, I’m not sure you have much of a case here. I just don’t see the dots connecting to a broader theme.

   If you take the individual view, I’d say you could probably say she was being ignorant, insensitive, and a host of other things… all adding up to racist.

   That said, Halloween has been too full of costumes that are ignorant and insensitive in the past for me to care about another one. I went to a party a few years ago where the theme was explicitly to be as offensive as possible, and there were multiple costumes that drove past “the line” at 60 mph (Jesus, Katrina victims, etc).

   It’s part of the whole free speech thing in America. We don’t have the right not to be offended, but we believe in equal opportunity for all people. In a world where speech is increasingly important, finding that balance is far from easy.

   Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 12:17 pm ¶

10. UGLY PUNK GURL! wrote:

    as an Indian, I was so deeply offended and insulted by her Kali costume.

    Kali is one of my favourite goddesses and well, I don’t appreciate it when westerners portray Kali as “evil” because she’s not evil.

    People fucking make me so angry. Fuck Heidi Klum.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 12:19 pm ¶

11. Feminist Review wrote:

    I think that the lack of cultural/religious understanding is what is offensive. Certainly it is appropriation. Kali is not a part of Klum’s culture or religion, and Klum took a particular visual representation of the goddess to use for her own purposes. That’s appropriation. Yes, it happens all the time. Yes, it happens to white people too, but the power dynamic involved is different. A lot of what white people claim as theirs is actually something that they stole, uh, I mean appropriated, from someone else’s land/culture/history/etc. Looking at this costume in an historical context is what makes it problematic.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶

12. UGLY PUNK GURL! wrote:

    Also, people here are missing the big picture here:

    if she was an Indian living in India and went as Kali, most people would probably shrug it off. she would provoke outrage from a few right-wing Hindutva fanatics who are always looking for something to object to.

    but because she is a WHITE, European, blonde German woman with blue eyes, living in a Western country where Hindus (and Indians) are a minority, parading around as a Hindu goddess, as a “Halloween joke” is such a huge fucking insult for Hindus, Indians and South Asians.

    now, let’s switch the picture to another religion: Christianity.

    now, if Heidi Klum, a white European woman, dressed up as a nun or as the Virgin Mary, in this country, the United States, (where Christians are a majority), people would roll their eyes. There wouldn’t be as much outrage from people, except from right-wing Christian evangelists, who might scream how offensive this is, ok?

    BUT if an Indian in India dressed as the Virgin Mary, where Christians are a MINORITY (and persecuted to some degree in certain areas of India), it would be seen as very racist, offensive, and insulting.

    So yes, fuck Heidi Klum for making a mockery out of Hinduism, Indian culture, and South Asian culture, in this white-dominated Christian-dominated nation.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 12:24 pm ¶

13. RoslynHolcomb wrote:

    I know very little about Kali, Hindus or Indian culture and I found it unbelievably offensive. I know enough to know that it’s simply wrong to dress up as someone’s deity for Halloween.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 12:47 pm ¶

14. Mammith wrote:

    Jess,

    I agree with a lot of your post abut how culture changes and grows through interaction and there is no such thing as ‘pure’ cultures or anything.

    But I do have to disagree with some of your examples, I mean your example of music can grate a bit because people don’t consider the history behind things, like how some types of music and dance are a form of resistance and then being taken by the dominant culture of the area/country/whatever and being used by people with assumed power as the ‘next big thing!’ is a bit of a slap in the face.

    It’s very complex though, I mean another example is the kaffiyah, that scarf. I remember reading that people in Scandinavia (specifically Sweden I think, but I’m unsure) started wearing it as a sign of solidarity for the people of Lebanon, but this was taken by hipsters and made into a meaningless fashion item.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 12:54 pm ¶

15. Adri wrote:

    Her choice of costume was extremely disrespectful. Her reasoning for her choice -”I loved it because she’s so mean and killed all these different people and [had] fingers hanging off [her] and little shrunken heads everywhere.” – made it even more evident of how insensitive she is to the fact that Kali is a highly revered God(ess) in Hinduism and that people would be offended. She obviously didn’t put much thought into it, other then it was ‘cool’.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 12:54 pm ¶

16. atlasien wrote:

    @UPG: I totally agree with your big picture perspective.

    It’s the same with geisha costumes. Dressing up in yellowface geisha is totally different in Japan than it is in America.

    Except that I’ve noticed that if you say anything negative about geisha costumes, people will defend them with various snooty remarks. “I have superior knowledge of Japan, I have a deep connection to Japanese culture, I’ve been to Kyoto and saw a real-live geisha blah blah blah. Who are you to think you OWN Japanese culture, you don’t know anything about the real history of the geisha, blah blah blah.”

    The big picture is that what Japanese think about geisha is pretty much irrelevant to me. Go to Japan and dress as a geisha all you want, make a fool of yourself over there… just don’t do it here, where your costume reinforces damaging stereotypes about Asian-American women.

    It’s about power and respect, not owning culture or demanding cultural purity.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 1:28 pm ¶

17. Monie wrote:

    I found her as Kali offensive. I found it offensive in the same way I find it offensive when White people put on Afro wigs for sporting events or on Halloween.

    The dominate culture thinks it can do whatever it wants and when they are called on it they either have some lame excuse that they didn’t mean any offence or they say get over it because it was all just a joke.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 1:43 pm ¶

18. Tony wrote:

    Seals costume, where he’s embracing actual stereotypes on real people and looking like a Fu Manchu caricature is the offensive costume to me.

    If you’re insulting and stereotyping actual living breathing people, I get offended.

    Dressing up as a deity, even one I believe in, doesn’t strike me as offensive.

    The problem should be her complete misunderstanding of Kalis nature and role, not that she dressed up as Her.

    Then again, I come from American culture, where I routinely see people mocking ANY religion at all for laughs.
    I can’t turn on TV or surf the net without hearing about “Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter” or South Parks “Super religion friends”, or every bloody Fox comedy show.
    Then there’s people who mock all religions as fools and idiots.

    If I’m going to get ticked off about religious persecution,I’ll get ticked off with those people first, the people who are just ignorant of other religions later.

    But I doubt I’ll ever see dressing as a religious of folklore figure as something deserving of anger or hatred, atleast not when it’s done out of ignorance (Heidi) and not malice (many, many others).

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 1:46 pm ¶

19. cacy wrote:

    As a Vedic, the correct term to identify Hindus, I interpreted Klum’s Kali in a different way. Here is one of the world’s most photographed women dressed as Kali, a deity who is often interpreted as Evil by Westerners. Shouldn’t we be asking why Kali chose to appear now, at this time? If someone who was less known wore that costume, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. That Kali “chose” Klum in order to be seen is telling, to me. This age we are living in is described in Vedic texts as the age of Kali, the final age or the age in which Lord Krishna returns to humanity because of its lack of devotion.

    Other than Kali, many of God’s incarnations received lots of press this year. For example, Ganesh appeared as an amaranth outside a devotee’s garage in Queens, New York this past August. There are children in India born with multiple limbs, children worshipped and interpreted as manifestations of God. Shouldn’t the conversation be about the meaning of these manifestations and what they might represent in our present age of uncertainty? Worldwide depression, wars, ethnic cleansings, greed, etc.? I am not a conspiracy inclined person but I do believe that we are missing the point here.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 2:33 pm ¶

20. beka wrote:

    I agree with Adri in that what Klum did was a racist act, because of her racist reasons for doing so, i.e. that another religion’s goddess is scary/evil and she’s into the scary/evil “otherness” of it all. It goes beyond respect for someone’s deity and into the realm of othering another culture as well.

    And as for Seal, if he’s going for a pirate look, omigosh, all I can say is that it reminds me of that disgusting “Singaporean”/”Chinese” pirate from Pirates of the Caribbean 3. (Which was in itself awful partly because it ignores that the area was still Malay-majority in the 1700s, but I digress.)

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 2:48 pm ¶

21. cacy wrote:

    I think Seal is dressed as a Buddhist deity, not a stereotype lifted from film. There are millions of Buddhas and many of them are depicted as dark or angry beings, irregardless of their skin color. Westerners are used to seeing a Buddha depicted as a smiling fat man so thats what we are used to seeing. I am not an expert but I recognize Seal’s Buddha.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 2:48 pm ¶

22. Paz wrote:

    Jess: Totally agree with you.
    I am Catholic, and I would not be offended if someone dressed up as Jesus or a saint. One year Seal and Heidi dressed up as Eve and the apple (respectively..lol). When I saw it, I think she had the angry look on her face because, well, it’s Halloween…often costumes are scary representations of characters.
    That being said, I did not find her explanation cool at all. I was disappointed with her because I thought her costume was amazing. Had she not given that explanation, I wouldn’t have found the costume offensive but n ow that I see her reasoning, yet that;s not right.
    Excuse me for the very unrefined response…I;m still in the process of waking up.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 3:08 pm ¶

23. ijebu wrote:

    I honestly think people are overreacting. IMO, the main reason why some may take offense is b/c
    (1) it’s a white woman that’s doing it and I’m sure everyone is familiar with the history of white colonial oppression. This sort of thing can smack of exoticising and the dehumanisation of the “other.” I can’t speak for Klum, but something tells me that she meant no offense and just thought something along the lines of “Cool goddess, I love getting dressed for Halloween, I’ll dress up like her;
    and (2) we’re unbelievably colour struck. If she’d been a southeast Asian woman woman dressed up as Kali, I don’t think this would have even hit anyone’s radar. Most would not have considered that maybe, just maybe, she’s not culturally Hindi.
    For instance, I’m Yoruba. In the past (and sometimes still currently) we are not know for getting along with the Igbo. Of course by “not getting along,” I mean killing and oppressing each other. However, when my Igbo friend C dressed up as Yoruba goddess Oya for a costume party. I wasn’t offended. I didn’t even blink. Now, perhaps, some Yoruba somewhere would have been really annoyed by all this, but I wasn’t, nor was my family.
    Sometime later, C and I were with some “racially conscious” friends and joked about how our warring factions were getting along; and that we even get dressed in each other’s stuff.
    Nobody got it.
    One even said, “but you’re both Nigerian?” Of course that means we’re all the same right? We’re both dark brown sub Saharan Africans, how could we possibly culturally appropriate one another? My point is, that the main reason people are annoyed with Klum is b/c she’s obviously not Indian, but even if she were, that wouldn’t make her Hindi. So does the annoyance come from the act of cultural appropriation, or just the appearance of such?

    I doubt many would be annoyed if I dressed up as Isis or Artemis; nor would I be too put out if some random Egyptians or Greeks decided to dress as Oya. What can I say, maybe that’s just me.
    I’m not saying that cultural appropriation is not a problem, however, I think we need to be careful not to have a blanket knee jerk reaction to people indulging in the cultural garbs of others. It’s not always meant to be offensive. Sometimes it’s meant to be celebratory.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 3:41 pm ¶

24. MK wrote:

    When people dress like that, they might not mean any disrespect (i.e. they probably mean well, of course that’s not always the case), but there a lot of instances where people don’t mean any harm, but as a result of their action, it does become harmful. Ignorance, anyone?
    I for one hate it when I see non-Asians dress up in so-called Asian costumes. It’s like, what are you trying to prove? That traditional Asian attire is just a silly little costume that Westerners can toss on and off for a stupid holiday?
    Mental and social oppression.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 3:44 pm ¶

25. Vodalus wrote:

    BFP, I’ve known numerous non-white/non-westerners over the years who chose to dress up as Jesus (and then generally misbehave as much as possible). As a religious Christian, I wasn’t particularly offended by those excursions. I cannot think of any other, more conservative acquaintances who have been severely offended by Jesus costumes. So I think your argument lacks substance.

    However, there is a very good reason that celebrities generally don’t venture into the “questionable Christian figures” realm. Most Christians do find those sort of costumes to be in poor taste (just not outrages). Klum and Seal probably should have applied the same sort of sensitivity in picking their costumes–or at least in discussing their choices.

    In summary: I think that this merits the same response of “tsk tsk” given to people who dress up as Christian religious figures. (Unless, of course, there is some prohibition in the religion against the depiction of Kali similar to that in Islam.) I don’t think that a boycott or censure is in order–unless, of couse, you feel personally outraged and in which case I would encourage you to send a letter or email to Ms. Klum.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 3:49 pm ¶

26. ijebu wrote:

    my stupid mistake, : I meant “Hindu,” not “Hindi.”

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 3:50 pm ¶

27. Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

    WTF to the both of them…

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 4:12 pm ¶

28. Jess wrote:

    Yeah well, just so people understand, I do think her explanation was plain stupid and silly. But I don’t expect Heidi Freakin’ Klum to be an ethnologist.

    @Ugly Punk Gurl — well, hey, I have seen people occasionally dress us as Moses and it doesn’t bother me, but the fact that I’m pretty much an atheist may have something to do with that. If she had gone as a Greek Goddess would that have mattered as much? Does it matter if the culture involved exists anymore or not? (Yeah yeah I know that many civilizations claim continuity going back forever, but no serious person could say that the Greek culture of 200 BC still exists in a way that would make religious representations meaningful anymore — it isn’t like there are millions of Hera-worshippers these days).

    Another thing I thought of. Halloween is pretty far removed from it’s pagan/pseudo-Christian/whatever beginnings. As I see it it’s like Carnaval (sort of) in that adults get to play dress-up and do kinda-sorta-transgressive things. So costume ideas get taken from all sorts of places to act out fantasies and all that. So a lot of the “meaning” of costumes changes a bit.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 4:17 pm ¶

29. Kaonashi wrote:

    It was a beautiful, wonderfully detailed costume (Heidi and Seal always go all-out on Halloween) and I’m sure she didn’t mean any harm, but her explanation for her costume was…wow. I don’t always agree with what appropriation is, but I definitely draw the line at clothes and objects used for religious purposes/deities/ceremonies. In that respect, I found it extremely disrespectful.

    The Hindus I know were split on the subject; some thought it was absolutely wonderful and thought that she WAS being respectful. Rather than throwing on a wig and bellydancer outfit and calling it Kali, a lot of thought went into that costume to make it look as authentic as possible, and that in itself was honoring Kali and giving her the respect she deserves. The others pretty much thought it was horrible and disrespectful.

    To make it even more interesting, the deities have always been depicted in plays and comedies for entertainment purposes. So I guess it boils down to intent?

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 4:25 pm ¶

30. Black Canseco wrote:

    years ago, back when “thug” was going mainstream i wrote a column about the origins of the word. This is the gist of what i wrote:

    Kali or Kalika was a hindu goddess mostly associated with death + destruction. depending on the translation, “kali” means “black” which is why most kali renderings feature darkface.

    Many of the sects that worshipped Kali were known as thugges (pronounced ‘thug’). the more criminal-minded thugges had a habit of getting doped up and robbing tourists and outsiders in India and frequently strangled them with knotted towels, leaving heavy circular bruises on their victims’ throats. Consequently everyone knew “a thugge did it”.

    Over the generations thugge got shortened to thug and meant anyone who worshipped /used violence and death as a means to an end.

    When it took off in the hood i had to break down the meaning for folks.

    Sometimes cultural appropriation comes from ignorance, sometimes arrogance.

    I’d have to say Klum and even seal’s ghengis khan get-up were more about arrogance. Seal’s black/african, but he’s about as mainstream as it gets (i’d never heard of Seal until white girls started gushing over him and about him in the 90s; plus oprah likes him) so i think he takes liberties that most people of color wouldn’t think to take.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 4:34 pm ¶

31. Dan wrote:

    Who exactly is this Seal guy, by the way? I tried googling him because I was curious, but, well, I got a bunch of links to marine biology websites.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 4:36 pm ¶

32. browngirlinthering wrote:

    hm this is an interesting discussion. when i saw this post over on SM after halloween, i had the exact reaction as the poster did. “wow. should i be offended? i feel like i should be offended. but it is such a spectacular costume!” and kind of shrugged and forgot about it.

    i think part of why i wasn’t offended though, was that firstly, it was executed pitch-perfectly, and was a very faithful representation of how Kali is traditionally depicted. Second, and this sounds kind of sad as I articulate it, but I’m so starved to see representations of my own culture in broader American culture that I kind of love any exposure that’s moderately respectful (examples of unacceptable representation — deities screenprinted on underwear; “kitschy” Kali lunchboxes, etc).

    One thing that I think gives people pause (or at least me) is the fact that the concept of Kali is particularly revered for her vengeful and terrible wrath (she is an aspect of divinity that would inspire the proverbial “fear of god”) that as kids we weren’t even really to say her name. Her representation in particular is much trickier for that reason because this is an aspect of god that, to oversimplify and anthropomorphize, does not suffer disrespect of even the smallest kind. The worship of Kali, at least in the tradition I know, is a strange devotion that has a strong element of respect and fear to it too. Nor is she actually worshiped much in my tradition, in the same way as more benevolent aspects of the divine feminine like Lakshmi or Saraswati (or even warrior Durga).

    i too, like many other commenters above, am disappointed in Heidi Klum’s complete and disrespectful idiocy in her discussion of her costume, but based on the stunning and faithfully rendered visuals alone, even upon further thought I just don’t feel that visceral disgust and dismay that are the initial internal reactions to racist cultural appropriation. Her attitude is, to me, insensitive, but her actions, not offensive. Of course, I can only speak for myself, and based on what I wrote above about Kali, I can perfectly understand others’ offended reactions.

    I’m also trying to limit my reactions here to the representation of this Hindu deity. I think that as a whole, “cultural appropriation” as touched on by some earlier commernters is a big enough topic to merit its own long multi-post series, and that veering into topics like clothing and music is like opening up about a hundred cans of worms that each have to be treated differently.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 4:37 pm ¶

33. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @ cacy: I’m about 99% positive that Seal is not intending to be read as a Buddha of any kind.

    Side note: He’s covered with severed fingers also. I guess there were some left over?

    An even sid-ier note: Putting aside all things problematic, the execution of Heidi’s costume is pretty amazing.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 4:43 pm ¶

34. chanita wrote:

    I don’t think it had any racist undertones- she was just dumb. In a perfect world, everyone would be sensitive to others beliefs and religions, but it’s not a perfect world. In her eyes, it was all about being “outrageous” on Halloween. She’s known for that.

    That being said, I do understand that it would be offensive to those that believe in this particular goddess. What I did find offensive was the little understanding that she had and the stupid explanation of what she chose to tell the press of her choice of costume. The costume does look “scary”, and it would look that way to people who know nothing about the background of Kali and all the symbolisms of her dress– the same way non-Christians don’t understand the symbolism of “drinking the blood of Jesus”.

    Seal’s costume I just don’t get.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 4:51 pm ¶

35. browngirlinthering wrote:

    @ comments 23 and 24 and others: I do not think that the majority of the offense from Hindus derives from her being white and not brown. It’s that Kali is an aspect of god not to trifled with. I’ve heard of humorous references to Krishna or other deities in the Hindu pantheon, but never Kali. At least from where I’m standing.
    @Kaonashi – agreed that most Hindus I know were split between loving or hating it My sister was delighted by it. As I said in my longwinded commet above, I actually like it, but with some reservation.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 5:04 pm ¶

36. ladymaati wrote:

    To Cacy:: As much as I dislike the costume being wore by a ’star’ & her statement of Kali being ‘evil’ makes me question if she even bothered to look up Kali on Goggle at least, you do bring up a interesting point. And it’s made me think of the situation at the world at large. Thanks!!

    Halloween has a very spiritual meaning for me but I love dressing up. The My co-workers were disappointed I didn’t dress up because of an abecessed tooth & just wasn’t in the mood.

    I usually dress up with my own warped sense of humor in mind, like a bloody surgeron (i work in a hospital) or flameco dancer with a mini flame thrower.

    I’ve always been aware of the cultural insults some costumes have being a mixed with Seminole, Creole, Bermudian, English & African American & being raised with strong ties to each part of my hertiage.

    It bothers me that some people believe it ok to dress of a geisha, tibetian monk or christ just because they can & it’s Halloween. It doesn’t take much effort

    And I’ve noticed that some of the costumes get worse every year so if Halloween is reflective of hidden side of their personality, then this country needs a whole lot of therapy.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 5:25 pm ¶

37. Black Canseco wrote:

    i’m curious as to something:

    (1) why does “I’m sure she didn’t mean any harm” consistently pop up as an excuse for cultural appropriation/bias when it involves white women?

    would we be so understanding of a white male celeb who did this? (i’m thinking countless folks but specifically Mike Myers who got eviscerated for his love guru tripe.)

    whether it’s madonna and some of her pseudo button pushing antics or the past, Klum or Gwen Stefani’s asian chick fetish, it seems that there’s a prevailing sense that white women “mean well” or “don’t realize what they’re doing” while white males are intentionally biased and people of color are expected not to be hypocrites about cultural approriation (ie–don’t get mad at us then say nothing when it’s you guys”)

    what if Klum just decided she did care what anybody thought and decided this was what it was no matter who saw it differently?

    there’s a perverse level of cultural arrogance at work when someone’s defense becomes, “well, that’s just your opinion/prove to me that i’m offending you/these people.”
    (2)

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 5:26 pm ¶

38. Asada wrote:

    I did think it would offend Hindu’s. When I saw her I wondered why I didn’t here all the backlash on TV yet!

    But she executed it WELL. That is one heck of a costume and I actually looked Kali up on google after seeing Klum. I heard Klum’s Halloween parties were always something to watch. Now I know why…..

    I’d be interested to see if Racialicous has an commentary on Taylor Swift ( singing sensation ) and some of the themes that seem rampant in her music video’s ( esp. Love Story and Tear Drops On My Guitar). Although it isn’t quite cultural appropriation…

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 7:08 pm ¶

39. Gothic Guera wrote:

    Growing up Catholic i wasn’t really insulted if someone came dressed a Jesus. (in fact one girl in my Catholic school came dress as nun.) I don’t know why I’m O.k if some one comes as Jesus for Halloweens yet, I get a little upset if some one comes dressed as a priest and the Virgin Mary. I was absolutely disgusted how Heidi “justified” her costume.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 9:17 pm ¶

40. Jha wrote:

    Wow.

    Uh, wow.

    The costume is beautiful, wonderfully executed. I love how much detail she thought to put in. But her intentions, lack of understanding, and the occasion she chose to wear it for (Halloween) definitely puts the damper on the whole thing. Also the whole depicting Kali as just another thing for folks to be scared of, when She’s an aspect of God, and thus, (to me) an aspect of the human psyche.

    Had she educated herself on the facts related to the deity, and used this occasion to impart those facts, that would have been ideal. Instead, she just played right into Western demonization of Kali.

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 11:17 pm ¶

41. beka wrote:

    For those who compare this to Jesus costumes or Eve costumes or those pertaining to Christian figures, I think it’s still ignoring the rationale behind Klum’s dress.

    Look at it this way: people don’t dress up as Jesus or Eve or Our Lady because it’s “scary”, yet it’s acceptable to justify demonising Kali this way? It’s not only an unfair analogy, there’s a double standard going on here (”my”, Western, religion is this way; why can’t “other”, Eastern, religions work the same?).

    Posted 15 Nov 2008 at 11:05 am ¶

42. kamala wrote:

    i am not offended, nor are any of my friends here in india that i sent the picture to.

    In the case of Jesus or Mary costumes or some other bible figure, it is interesting that well, especially with jesus, from the descriptions above and from american friends: when people dress up as jesus, it’s usually as a “bad” jesus (drunk or whatevre), because to dress up as jesus has become boring in itself–not transgressive for halloween nor in the american society.

    in this case, though klum incorrectly assumes she is authentically playing a “bad” kali, she is anyway aiming to be “authentic” and to show of the theatrics of a spectacular costume.

    so the question is maybe to look at the transgressive intent more closely?

    Posted 15 Nov 2008 at 12:42 pm ¶

43. basbleu wrote:

    Ugly Punk Girl & Canseco – thank you!

    Posted 15 Nov 2008 at 3:06 pm ¶

44. NancyP wrote:

    “4. That she is taking a RELIGIOUS figure and using it as a “scary” costume.. ”

    If Halloween had some quasi-religious ritualistic content of acknowledgment and honoring/placating of the scary side of life, then a Kali costume might possibly be appropriate, to go along with the half-human half-skeleton costume, the thundercloud costume. A complete Deity evokes feelings of love, awe, fear of a kind (”awful” = full of awe, ie, fear and trembling before the Lord).

    American Halloween, as done by adults, is a frivolous costume party.

    Posted 15 Nov 2008 at 7:46 pm ¶

45. NancyP wrote:

    ijebu, your “racially conscious” friend who didn’t understand Igbo v Yoruba animosity and said “but you are both Nigerian”, probably just doesn’t understand how deep the ancestral identification can go, especially in light of the news emphasis on religious-tinged conflicts all over the world – frankly, for me, a white US-born American, the first thing that comes to mind about Nigeria is Christian South v Muslim North. She might equate Igbo v Yoruba as being equivalent to Irish v Italian, a US rivalry which has been defunct for generations. Never underestimate the ignorance of even educated Americans about world events, politics, culture – our commercial media are dreadful at covering international topics not directly related to the USA.

    OCICBW
    (Of Course I Could Be Wrong)

    Posted 15 Nov 2008 at 8:04 pm ¶

46. Katie wrote:

    To those comparing the Kali costume to a hypothetical costume as a Christian religious figure:

    IT IS NOT THE SAME THING.

    Christianity is the dominant religion in North America/Europe, and also the religion of the majority of white folks in these regions. The US is steeped in it, and it is privileged over all other religions, to the point where even those not affililiated are obligated to know about it and structure their lives around its holidays and traditions.

    Hinduism is not privileged in this way in the US, and those who practice it are primarily people of color and subject to racism. For a white person to use the religious symbols of Hinduism as a costume, a means of entertainment and titillation, is a political act, even when not seen as such by the person wearing the costume. It is an act colored by histories of colonialism by white European powers, by consistent appropriation of Asian religions and icons into the Western aesthetic, and by the lived reality of discrimination violence that Asian Americans face.

    BTW – Ugly Punk Girl and Black Canseco – right on.

    Posted 15 Nov 2008 at 10:29 pm ¶

47. Marge Twain wrote:

    I’m Indian, Agnostic with Hindu/Christian parents. I grew up with Hinduism and to me, this is comparable to people dressing up in devil costumes for Halloween. UPG/DFP compared it to an Indian dressing up as the Virgin Mary, but has this ever happened? India doesn’t have a holiday like Halloween where people dress up as what they’re not and the goal is tongue-in-cheek silliness.

    I posted a pic. of her on my facebook profile because it’s so meticulously executed. It’s obvious she put a lot of effort into this costume. She can’t have done it without doing some research and learning something, either.

    Posted 16 Nov 2008 at 12:47 am ¶

48. Marge Twain wrote:

    Regarding her explanation: by her own admission, Heidi Klum is really bad at communicating in English. Her occasional moments of ad-libbing on Project Runway, especially in the extra scenes shown on the reunion, tend to reflect this.

    Still, given what she said, I don’t hear that the costume is “all she got out of” her whole trip to India.

    @chanita
    I would think, unlike the Christian transubstantiation thing, knowing about Kali would make her appearance no less scary. Her outfit is made out of trophy body parts from men she’s killed.

    Posted 16 Nov 2008 at 6:24 am ¶

49. little mixed girl wrote:

    if people are going to judge someone’s costume as offensive or not, i think one of the things we have to look at is intent.

    was the costume made to make fun of a group? (like pulling eyes back to become a “geisha” or painting your face brown to be a “thug”)

    what is going to be considered as offensive will vary from person to person.

    i was quite offended at obama’s “mutt” comment, but i wouldn’t be offended at someone dressing up as an “african prince” or “native american princess”.
    i would be offended at someone dressing up in blackface or as a “geisha” and using it as an excuse to act stupid or ridicule a different culture/race.

    her reasoning for choosing the costume sounds pretty lame, and the first time i saw it, i sighed.

    finally, i think the discussion of cultural appropriation is a good one, but every single thing a person does shouldn’t be picked apart.
    when people in japan wear a scarf that strongly resembles a controversial palestinian scarf, i honestly don’t think they even know anything about palestine as they wear it.

    it certainly isn’t as simple as “they took cold and calculated action in stealing something from my culture”…

    Posted 16 Nov 2008 at 8:56 am ¶

50. Synaka wrote:

    If we hide these images, then isn’t it also hiding the problems we have with them?

    It provides an opening to discuss these issues and gain insight. Although it’s often waiting for the anger to subside and even then more of a struggle to attempt to infilitrate the crowds who believe steadfast in their own opinions.

    One of the problems in discussing racism and discrimination also lies in connection with PC-policing.. which ultimately if we’re unable to even bring up the issues, be it of the past or future hypotheticals, then it still remains a question of what the purpose is in discussing any of it.

    The blog which I previously had wasn’t a happy review of american social politics. It was one of many blogs which were shutdown post 9/11. Albeit most of my blogs followers were rather keen on testing the legal limits of perceived freedoms with random pictures of burning flags, breast-feeding in public or smoking joints on the steps of state capitol buildings.

    Maybe the question becomes should we ban Halloween? We’re teaching kids to go door to door to beg for food from strangers, to accept candy from strangers — who often are dressed in the way we suggest they avoid on the daily, and for adults to get drunk and dress up in ways that might offend someone else.

    Likewise, we could suggest getting rid of casual fridays and calling for uniforms throughout society. Solitary codes of dress as to ensure that no one is offended.

    What really is the balancing act in all this?

    If we changed the elements of what this was to another situation, such as if Seal dressed up as a traditional KKK member and lead Heidi by a noose … what would then be the response?

    It’s not necessarily about religious sensitivity rather than the socio-cultural focus. In order to understand discrimination and particularly how it applies to racism, sometimes we need the shock value even if it wasn’t intended.

    Frankly, that would be an entertaining image to be had.

    But all this rather reminds me of Renée Cox’s interpretations of the last supper and choosing to portray herself in the cruxifixation. And I loved her for it, I absolutely loved her for it. And it was rather tragic nothing else of hers hit with as much weight as that series did. Considering it was rather mundane…. but caused such an incredible uproar.

    Maybe that’s closer to my roots than anything and maybe that’s the place I stood and should be standing.

    I think all of this actually moves away from the intellectualism to pure emotional reaction, to gut instinct.

    And I’m thinking I should raise the question as a hypothetical in one of the popular Q&A forums.

    Although from the past to current experiences, I find most people tend to be rather uncomfortable with answering honestly… they’re driven to a group mentality to say it’s wrong but yet without really knowing why it’s wrong.

    Or as often I can be… tangled in other distractions.

    Actually, I think the fair play is everything should be picked apart and likewise it should also be irrelevant.

    It’s like hiding the truth or presenting a lighter version of history in the text books that plague our schools with inaccuracies and building legends upon myths as facts. Casually editing over the wide and ethnic history of american culture and the world over.

    In my earlier online ventures, I also held a bit of a goth fetish with cemeteries… wandering around various major city’s in search of history. It’s rather interesting to note how many people came from countries that are rarely mentioned in the chapters of american history, from the middle east to the far east… and yet headstones with names we’d all recognize from being one place or another, dated at the turn of 20th century.

    But I digress… I suppose it would be better if such imagery whether as a farce or in tribute should be hidden until mainstream media and entertainment decides to make it known and pretend that it’s all new… though even then it often just falls to the background.

    If we censor one, we censor all… and create an environment, where even the discussion of it is considered offensive.

    Posted 16 Nov 2008 at 6:03 pm ¶

51. Synaka wrote:

    the link, since it seems appropriate.

    http://www.reneecox.net/series04/series04_1.html

    Posted 16 Nov 2008 at 6:07 pm ¶

52. lium029 wrote:

    I agree with Roni for the most part. It’s interesting to see this picture and be offended and not at the same time. Whether I should be offended is another question. Clearly, Heidi Klum has not done the best research in her Halloween Costume, but then again, it’s Halloween.
    Should we be allowed to be angry at a person who didn’t mean to offend someone or know that it was offensive in the first place? I doubt Heidi purposely dressed up just to piss someone off.
    Then again, I was considerably annoyed when I saw the picture of Spain’s basketball team pose in a magazine with slanted eyes during the Olympics. (And they didn’t mean that either)
    Whether it’s Geishas or sexy nuns, or God, there is always going to be someone that is offended. I can’t count how many people I saw dressed as a skanky nun on Halloween. And how many people dress up as devils, with the tradition as wearing two little red horns on their head?
    So I’m fascinated why Heidi has been targeted so much more in the media and by people than say… P Diddy who showed up as God, or Seal who is dressed up as Confucius. I can’t help but wonder whether Heidi’s sex or the fact that she is blonde could be an easy target as well. Which only causes a derivation into being the stereotypical “blonde dumb”. It’s so appropriately tradition that we don’t turn heads, but when we take on something that is not of our own culture, it seems like there is an expected backlash.

    Posted 16 Nov 2008 at 10:27 pm ¶

53. Brooke AKA Ummbadier wrote:

    Double standard:
    This is a secular society and as such you may not express your religion–don’t talk about it at work, school, etc.
    But we the people may openly mock your beliefs at work, school, etc.
    Complete hypocrisy.

    Posted 17 Nov 2008 at 12:21 am ¶

54. BrownLady wrote:

    Katie and UPG, I am in total agreement. This costume is offensive, despite its detail and craftsmanship. A comparison between Christianity and Hinduism is just not appropriate in the Western world, where Christian figures are recognized by name and Hindu deities are a mysterious blur. The choice to execute this costume by a rich, white woman from the Global North at a Halloween party is not an educational event, but clearly a huge racial faux pas that reveals the inequalities of brown people in cultural representation. I call this costume cultural (in)appropriation, especially in light of it being inspired by India, where SO many celebrities ‘LOVE’ to go for spiritual enlightenment–from the Beatles to Madonna. And as for those who are dismissive about it being ‘racist’, it’s just more proof of how brown folks (including Indians and other South Asians) are ignored in the black/white racial dichotomy.

    Posted 17 Nov 2008 at 11:14 am ¶

55. A.D. Nix wrote:

    Since when could one not talk about religion at work or school?

    Posted 17 Nov 2008 at 11:22 am ¶

56. lium029 wrote:

    To BrownLady, I understand if you’re offended, that is a personal opinion but by pointing out the discrimination and inequalities against South Asians or “brown folks”, you deemed Heidi Klum as being offensive because she was a “rich, white, women” that chose to wear this costume. Isn’t that being a little hypocritical?

    Posted 17 Nov 2008 at 1:47 pm ¶

57. rob wrote:

    Brownlady, how exactly does the costume reveal inequalities of brown people in cultural representation? Surely hindus are a very small minority in the usa. Surely it is not unreasonable to excuse the average american an in depth knowledge of the many thousands of hindu deities.

    I dont think heidi klum is being deliberately insulting and most hindus, like many, many muslims are quite relaxed when it comes to their religions. The actions of irate religionists should not dictate the doings of progressive persons.

    The costume is fantastic and none of the indians i know here are at all offended and think it is a very well made outfit.

    Seals outfit just seems very lazy and not worth commenting on at all.

    Also the dismissive tone regarding people going to india to find enlightenment seems rather inaccurate to me. I have travelled extensively in india and went with no pretensions towards enlightenment but the experience definitely changed me in many profound ways. It is a place that can open your eyes. I thank my lucky stars nearly every time i drink water straight from the tap. My water bill is tiny.

    And even a celebrity would have to drive through very poor areas to reach their destinations, and if they spend any time at all in the cities they would soon come face to face with some of the poorest people in the world. Elderly beggars with no legs and fingers lost to leprosy are commonplace. And in these countries no one will know who they are. And Seal as a black man may well face far more prejudice than at home. For incredibly priviliged people such encounters may well be, if not enlightening, then certainly illuminating.

    Posted 17 Nov 2008 at 6:31 pm ¶

58. Eric Daniels wrote:

    What in the HELL is Seal and Hedi Klum wearing and who told them those costumes were cool. If you are going to pay tribute to a faith at least know how those people are going to take their icons being put on display as a “holiday costume”.

    Posted 17 Nov 2008 at 9:05 pm ¶

59. Brooke AKA Ummbadier wrote:

    A.D.- If your Hindu family members are in the states, ask them about their experiences discussing religion with their co-workers, classmates and educators. Ask specifically about their experiences as people that openly identify as members of a religious minority.
    What I continue to be disturbed by, is that the majority of my classmates would no-doubt self-identify as Christian, yet when my sister and I have witnessed professors bash, mock and ridicule Christianity in course after course, never has a student protested. Now maybe that is because students fear the teacher’s authority and don’t want to risk their grade, but why do we see the same attitude right here? Paraphrase: “Eh, I don’t mind if someone dresses up and mocks a figure that I hold sacred.” That is because people have been indoctrinated in schools to believe that such behavior is not just okay, but encouraged. In my college experience, religion has definitely been open for ridicule in nearly all of the courses I have taken.
    An example of the hypocritical approach to religion in the work place is of a friend of mine who is of a religious minority at her work. She is frequently asked extremely loaded questions about her religion by her co-workers, but when she brought in some literature to hand-out to the “curious” so she could get on with her work, she was accused of proselytizing. Religion can only be discussed within the norms created by the majority within a given context-which usually looks like—mock, bash, other, ridicule.

    Posted 18 Nov 2008 at 6:31 am ¶

60. A.D. Nix wrote:

    @Brooke AKA Ummbadier: They are in the States and I’ve been to dinners they’ve hosted with coworkers in attendance. If anything, polite curiosity seems to be the norm. I think that they, like myself, don’t really see what religion has to do with PowerPoint presentations or conference calls and, as such, it does not come up often enough to pose a problem. In short: It’s not explicitly the business of their coworkers and they like it that way.

    I am really not sure I get your point either way. Who is this majority creating the norms wherein the only way to discuss religion is to mock bash or ridicule? What is the ideal situation? Talking about religion in work and school all of the time? But never with humor? Never critically?

    I would not be interested in that. Not just as an absolute agnostic in the truest sense but as someone who likes peace and quiet.

    Posted 18 Nov 2008 at 12:46 pm ¶

61. BrownLady wrote:

    lium029: I didn’t say that Heidi Klum herself was offensive. Instead, I am suggesting that given her positionality, the fact she would wear the costume of a Hindu deity and a cultural symbol of India at a Halloween party is what is offensive. To choose this outfit in itself is a luxury for Klum since she doesn’t have to encounter questions of Indian representation daily. Secondly, the fact that her costume (which mind you, is not religiously accurate of Kali but of her own interpretation) gets far more press and attention than what Indians and Hindus have produced themselves is offensive. And I don’t feel satisfied in saying that Heidi Klum is able to ‘educate’ others at a Halloween party–if education was her intent, I think we can all agree a Hollywood Halloween party is not the place, let alone in costume. This is a clear example of cultural appropriation, where a white and incredibly rich woman with celeb status is able to interpret Hinduism and brown-ness at her own perogative, and with far more celebration and respect than legitimate examples by brown people themselves.

    rob: read above about why this is in an example of inequalities in brown representation. I don’t think that Klum is being deliberately offensive either–however, we also know that many white college students who wear blackface claim they aren’t trying to be offensive, but ‘funny’ or ‘creative’ or what have you. Her possible well-intentioned intent is not enough for me to call Klum a ‘progressive person’–instead, dressing up as a ‘mean’ looking goddess that you don’t understand sounds pretty problematic to me.

    Indian racial identity is incredibly complicated on this matter–sadly, just because Indians in the US are not upset does not make this matter non-racial. The relationship between race/ethnicity, the Indian diaspora, and India itself are super tangled, complex, and understudied in race relations. In my opinion, I’ve see three reasons why Indians are not reacting like I am to the Klum/costume incident:

    First of all, a lot of the discourse I’ve heard on Klum costume by Hindus has been to disassociate themselves from Muslim radicals who are against depictions of Mohammed–we’re okay with this costume because we’re not like ‘them’. Some of this is because of tensions between Hindus and Muslims of various ethnicities, but also because the US perception of terrorism has lumped brown folks together–people don’t know a lot about Hinduism, and maybe not enough to distinguish it from Islamist terrorism. I don’t think it’s conscious, but I think a lot of Hindus just want to get along rather than create a fuss that would have them be labelled as Muslims in the US have.

    Second, the practices of Hinduism does include dressing up in costume of deities as part of various festivals–but not American Halloween. Some Hindus may be okay with seeing the costume because they are dissociating it from the purpose of Halloween and how racial costumes typically play out then. Geishas, sumo wrestlers, ninjas, and even terrorists are all okay to dress up as Halloween–this is the larger context Klum stepped into when she made her costume (or more likely, had her costume designed for her). She had to put far more awareness into her costume because that is typically how brown folks are imaged on the 31st of October.

    Third, Indians as a group are NOT quick to define themselves racially. Ask an Indian what race they are–you’ll hear brown, black, white, and none for a lot of reasons. Recognizing structural discrimination directed at Indians, as well as other Asians, is not easy for many brown people to do because they are told repeatedly they are the model minority (or religious terrorists if they complain, which is much more recent development now). In all the race relations classes and groups I’ve been involved in, I almost never see a fellow Indian or Asian–we are not a group primed for race politics yet.

    As for celebrity interest in India towards ‘enlightenment’, I meant in terms of religious/spiritual co-optation rather than advocacy or awareness of poverty, which you seem to be referring to. For instance, think of celebrities who becomes enthralled with yoga, henna, meditation, or some vedic diet. While these may be genuine interests of these celebs, their interpretations of these practices generally lead to commericialization of images that were not theirs to author in the first place. In my book, that’s not okay. I’m not saying it’s not complicated because of diaspora ownership and love of cultures by ‘outsiders’, but I don’t think that Klum has contributed much to the discourse other than a fancy blue costume she wore once and made faces in.

    And while India is certainly a location with a lot of poverty, I think we all know celebs don’t travel the same as everyday folks. And you’d be kidding yourself to think that Indians in India don’t know who Heidi is–particularly in urban areas, there is a huge consumption of American celebrity news (and other news as well). People in the global South follow stuff going on the US like crazy because they sort of have to–our information is stuffed down their throats since the US is a global hegemon.

    Also, I’m not saying white American celebrities can’t do good work through love in the developing world–for instance, I think Angelina Jolie has done some amazing stuff. But mind you, she didn’t dress up as Buddha to show her love for Cambodia either.

    Posted 18 Nov 2008 at 1:31 pm ¶

62. rob wrote:

    Brownlady, Im quite sure 99% of indians would be blissfully unaware of the identity of ms klum. Outside of a super westernised elite, interest in the cultural happenings of american celebrities is virtually nil. They are far too busy with cricket and bollywood films to care!

    I cant understand your argument about people getting into yoga or meditation etc. to any degree. Why shouldnt anybody participate in customs or practices from other lands? Should we demand that africans stop wearing suits and ties or that frenchmen desist from wearing baseball caps? Should south koreans be barred from voting in aparliamentary democracy because its not part of ‘their’ heritage?

    If the knowledge of a diet or meditation is beneficial why should it not be spread amongst as many people as possible? I dont believe it has to be profit based. All the information you want is there on the web for free as soon as anything is commercialised.

    You talk about the reasons that you have heard hindus are not making a fuss about this and they all sound damned sensible. Hindus are generally very keen to distinguish themselves from muslims and a sense of moral superiority from not reacting strongly, to what is after all just a fancy dress costume will be most satisfying. Why should they weant to be dragged into the same mess that get dragged up with things like the mohammed cartoon. Dont forget hindus believe in the continuous cycle thingy. Anybody in need of justice will get it. But they might have to wait a while. What comes around goes around! And as you say lots of people in india dress up in god and goddesses costumes as well for theatre and shows. Its just not something many people feel the need to get too worked up about. And a good thing too.

    Kind regards,
    rob

    Posted 18 Nov 2008 at 7:15 pm ¶

63. BrownLady wrote:

    Again, rob, you seem to have misunderstood my post. I am problematizing when white, American celebrities take on areas of ‘interest’ that they then interpret in their own ways–such as the inaccurate depiction of Kali that Klum has used here. Essentially, because Klum’s costume is elaborate and Klum’s postionality, she is able to ’say’ more about Indian culture and Hinduism than Indians and Hindus themselves. Your examples about ‘Africans wearing suits’ are not the same as Klum taking on this costume–although possibly they are both linked to (re-)colonization.

    And your interpretation of practicing Hindus is SUPER simplistic–the ‘continuous life cycle thingy’? Are you really saying that because of a belief in Karma and reincarnation, that groups of people who are structurally discriminated against should wait until a higher power takes care of it? The reasons why Indians and those in the Indian diaspora are not racially-activiated is complicated, but certainly problematic–but your added interpretations need some more analysis.

    Posted 20 Nov 2008 at 8:06 am ¶

64. Neil Thomas wrote:

    Her choice of costume was extremely disrespectful. Her reasoning for her choice -”I loved it because she’s so mean and killed all these different people and [had] fingers hanging off [her] and little shrunken heads everywhere.” This shows she knows nothing about the godess.Those people killed by this great godess are evil people,the godess is not mean,she is mean only to cruel people and now its obvious klum IS AN EVIL PERSON.belive it or not she will pay a heavy price for what she has done.

    Posted 30 Jan 2009 at 5:05 am ¶