Tatau: The Tapping of the Comb and Needle

Today the cultures and fashions of the United States are intertwined so much that it has created another culture in its self. Cultures have borrowed ideas from other surrounding peoples to improve upon their ideas and society. To what extent is this borrowing too much? Cultural appropriation, or the use of someone else’s beliefs and culture not in the way it was originally tended to be used, is common in today’s society. Cultural appropriation tends to take from the society that it originated from, leaving them with less power and meaning to their faith. For example, many people of non-Polynesian heritage have gotten tribal tattoos, distorting the spiritual, genealogical, and rank significance.

In the past, the tatau represented spiritual, psychological, and physical change. Receiving the tattoos also represented one’s relationship with the Gods and ancestors. Tataus are produced by the needle and comb piercing the skin. The Tataus were originally performed by the shaman who held the closest relationships to the Gods. To receive the tattoos from the shaman, the person must go through a cleansing. When they doreceive the tattoo, another must help assist the shaman to make sure that theblood does not hit the Earth. The releasing of the blood represented birth, maturity, accomplishments and rebirth.  Also, tattoo designs represented the status or ranking of the person in the society, who their lineage connected to, and their sense of strength. “For those who have no cultural influence or heritage background it is an act of disrespect to display their symbols and designs. It was said that whomever got tattooed without the approval and blessings from the Matai and family members, they would be cursed with bad karma.”

Polynesian

There are different types of Polynesian tattoos. There are Hawaiian, Maorian, and Samoan tattoos. The designs differentiate, but the cultural significance stands strong between each one of them. The designs help to distinguish which culture you come from. The Samoan designs were on the thighs and butts of the men and women, but the men’s tattoos were more intricate and noticeable. The Maorian tattoos were usually on their faces and chest for men, depending on their ranking in society. Women received tattoos on their ears and chin. Despite the disgust of missionaries, they still used the designs because it projected beauty by enhancing their facial features.

Polynesian Samoan

Polynesian Hawaiian

Polynesian Maorian

Today, many people get the tattoo just to get the tattoo. First, the tattoo does not hold the same design that it once did. The design is what non-Polynesians view as what is appropriate. For example, Mike Tyson received a face tattoo resembling Maorian style. When interviewed why he chose the tattoo he admitted to originally wanting tattoos but his tattoo artist said it was not manly enough so he drew up this design. When Mike Tyson was supposed to travel to New Zealand, there was debate on whether or not he should be admitted. Maorians felt that his tattoo was offense due to the fact that he did not have any purpose, or spiritual reasoning for receiving the tatau. The tattoo represented adulthood and achievement, helped enhance the bone structure, and showed the strength of the soldier and knowledge of the shaman. Mike Tyson was not a warrior in the sense that he fought for his homeland, he did not receive the tattoo from the shaman who used the scapel-sharp chisels, he did not go on a spiritual cleansing, and has no lineage to the Maorian people. Instead, he helped create this new hype to receive these tattoos, dishonoring the Gods and ancestors of the Maorian people.

This is where the cultural appropriation gets questioned. Victor Whitmill, the artist of the tattoo sued Warner Bros Entertainment for using his complete tattoo in Hangover part two. Warner Bros Entertainment claims that is was a parody, and that it is now part of this mass culture. This is not the only aspect. Warner Bros has brought in the fact that Whitmill’s drawing comes from the Maorian people, and he has simply copy righted from them. In today’s society, it is okay that we use others ideas when we feel it is trending, but do not realize the effects of it. So in this case, who is in the wrong? They both are. If Whitmill and Tyson were to have gotten permission from many of the Maorians, then the two would be justified in using it. Warners Bros hen would have to receive permission from the Maorians and the Warners Bros.

Borrowing somebody else’s designs or beliefs to use in the wrong text takes away from the significance held within those people. Some practices hold ties to Gods, while others tie to social rankings and adulthood, but in either case, the person must be respected. As Te Awekotuku wrote, “raising issues of cultural appropriation, and ignorant use of traditional art as fashion. However we must acknowledge that Maori artists are sharing the art-they are marking the foreign bodies. The important reality remains-it is ours. It is about beauty, and desire, about identity and belonging. It is about us, the Maori people.” It is not okay for others to use your culture. At the same time some of the people want the culture to flourish and help distort the it, but it is one’s identity.

Jozui EAP

Every where we turn, there is some kind of  advertisement in our lives, whether it be a celebrity endorsed commercial, a billboard on the side of the road, or even a healthy food ad in a cafeteria. In this passage, columnist Sue Jozui contends that companies have celebrities sanction for their product. In other words, she firmly believes that businesses use someone well known to endorse their product. Jozui cites examples of celebrities who use a certain product in order to point out that these celebrity advertisements are used constantly, for many household items. For example, she says that a talk-show host will drive a certain kind of car. She also states that this talk-show host is paid to drive the specific car. The author expresses her suspicions of the notion that celebrity endorsed advertisements are misleading because the celebrity may not even like the product, but rather is using the product to gain a profit. Also, she believes that the audience will approve of the product because the celebrity uses it, which mocks the consumer’s intelligence. One of the main implications the author notes is if ads are regulated, consumers will be informed of facts about the product, rather than pictures. Because of this, Jozui concludes that that celebrity supported advertisements should be banned or regulated. Boycotting and regulating advertisements should not be banned because it will have an effect on the economy and it is against what the United States stands for.

            First, advertisement plays a huge role in the economy. Many businesses and not-profit organizations rely on these celebrities to bring in business. Many companies and organizations sometimes start off small, and use the known faces to bring in customers. On the other hand, big companies pay a lot of money to get the face of the stars, which helps create a bigger profit than what they used to get the familiar face. These companies gain business, which in the long run, boosts the economy. Also, some celebrities actually care about the cause they are supporting, not the money they receive. Many of the faces of non-profit organization donate millions of dollars into the cause, and are loyal. For example, Beyonce is part of multiple organizations in which she helps raise awareness for her organizations. She performs concerts to raise money for organizations like Stand Up to Cancer.

Next, the regulation would go against the system of the United States. The U.S. is a society of freedom of speech. The first amendment says that we have the freedom of speech and freedom to press. Some may argue that the content on an ad is misleading, and can harm society. There are laws that claim that products affecting health have to in some way let the consumer know of potential harms. It is up to the consumer to go past the billboard, commercial, or poster to see what they are getting themselves into about their purchase. It is on the person to know what they are putting into their bodies, or household. It is also up to them to know what is good or not, they have the power to actually say yes or no. The ads just urge you to buy there product, for they do not actually start your car, and put it in your hand. Secondly, getting rid of ads violates laissez-faire. Laissez- faire means that the government does not play a role into the economy. If the government regulates privates businesses, they are intervening with a part of society they would not touch. Lastly, we try to treat everyone and everything equal, but try to make someone work for what they want. These companies use these techniques to get where they want to be. If you regulate celebrity endorsed ads, then you must regulate other types of ads.

            Regulating ads will hurt the economy and society more than hurting individuals. Some may argue that we should have limits because obesity, self harm, and an increase in unnecessary consumerism has increased. These all occur due to the person’s own actions. The audience has to know what is right and wrong, and know about what they are getting themselves into.

Word Count: 695