Talk:Indian Wedding Blessing

[Untitled]

I'm thinking of moving this article to Indian Wedding Blessing over the existing redirect, because the verses are not actually a prayer but a non-sectarian blessing without religious significance.

It's also not particularly Apache. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Apache at all. - CorbieV^☊☼ 18:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity of author

It's relevant because this is a misrepresentation of Native cultures. It is laughably unrelated to Apache culture, in particular. We note when authors who write on Native topics are Native, and what Nation they are from, so when someone authored something that is falsely labeled as coming from Apache culture, or any Native culture, it's appropriated to note that the author is non-Native. As for how prevalent the meme has become, just google "Apache Blessing". - CorbieV^☊☼ 22:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC) P.S. Macrakis, you wrote: '"doesn't matter what Arnold's "ethnicity" was -- it would still be made up even if he were half Apache"'. Actually, no. :) If he were half-Apache and raised in the culture it would be an Apache blessing. - CorbieV^☊☼ 22:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that this blessing has nothing to do with Apache or Native American culture in general. The article is — and should be — very clear about that.

However, it is wrong to attribute this to the ethnic background of the author. It is perfectly possible for a non-X to document X cultural traditions. For example, Diana Kennedy has received "the Order of the Aztec Eagle, by the Government of the Republic of Mexico for her contributions to the documentation of regional Mexican cuisines". It would be racist and wrong for Wikipedia to write, say, "the recipe for mole poblano by the non-Mexican author Diana Kennedy...".

Conversely, it is wrong to assume that someone's ethnic background makes them an expert on their culture of origin, and their artistic production should be attributed to their ethnic background. I do not agree at all that if Arnold were "half-Apache and raised in the culture it would be an Apache blessing". It would be Arnold's blessing, and it might or might not have elements of Apache culture.

You say "we note when authors who write on Native topics are Native". Really? Could you point to the policy that says that? --Macrakis (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that there's a firm policy on noting what Nation authors are from, but it's the general convention on Native articles. I don't think you're understanding the difference between heritage/ethinicity and citizenship. Being a member of a Native nation is like being the citizen of a country. It's a legal matter. Someone with distant heritage and no community involvement compared to a Native who is a part of the culture is like the difference between an American of distant Irish heritage and an citizen of Ireland. This is not a matter of opinion, it's a legal issue as well as community standards in Indian Country. - CorbieV^☊☼ 21:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A writer's legal nationality is a legal issue, but that legal status has no bearing on their competence on some topic. Mentioning a writer's non-nationality or non-ethnicity effectively smuggles in an ad hominem argument, implying that can only be competent on topics related to X if one is of nationality or ethnicity X. --Macrakis (talk) 00:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "ad hominem." If it were promoted as a generic blessing or poem, and never associated with any culture, no one's ethnicity/culture would matter. As it is promoted as Apache, or generic "Native American," the author's lack of involvement in the culture goes to credibility. The author is no longer living, AFAIK, so I'm not sure why you think this is so controversial. - CorbieV^☊☼ 17:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong to impugn an author based on his ethnic background. It would be strange to write: " The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, written by non-Japanese anthropologist Ruth Benedict, ...". But I'll let other editors chime in....

I am not sure what you mean by "community standards in Indian Country". But whatever.

About the "internet meme", there is certainly lots of junk circulating on the Web, including stereotypical noble savages and all that nonsense, just as there are coffee mugs and posters and plaques with this silly poem (and many other silly poems). I see no reason to believe that this particular piece of nonsense is any more (or less) stereotypical or copyright-infringing than a lot of other pieces of nonsense. Just doing a Google search and eyeballing the results is just original research. --Macrakis (talk) 01:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's only "impugning" if you think there's something wrong with being a non-Native. I see it merely as a statement of fact, that is relevant in this instance due to the poem being repeatedly misrepresented as coming from a Native culture. May I gently suggest that if you don't know what "community standards in Indian Country" means, maybe you're not the best person to be making calls on this stuff in Indian-related articles. - CorbieV^☊☼ 21:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]