Selective outrage: demon babes ruffle feathers.

Here we go again.  Another politically correct outrage, the only kind worthy of news coverage.

It’s a grain of sand on the beach of media bias, for sure, but some grains do sparkle more than others.  This one has that touch of glamour connected with lingerie supermodels: it has a hook that attracts readers naturally.  If properly examined, this story reveals that the news media has a list of acceptable “injustices” in which native Americans rank high, as do some other historically abused minorities.  The same holds true for all religions, except Christianity.

This is not to say that the outrage felt by Native Americans is unjustified.  Not at all: they do have a valid point.  A sacred object was improperly used.   But if Victoria’s Secret had chosen crucifixes and images of the Virgin Mary as props and Christians complained, would the outrage of devout Christians would get the same kind of coverage?   Of course not.  Such a story would probably never get covered, or, if it did, the resulting articles would most probably poke fun at the outrage (as happened with the piss Christ and manure Mary incidents).

Also: can you imagine what kind of coverage the outrage of Cuban exiles would get if we were to complain about an offensive cartoon printed by hundreds of newspapers, including the Washington Post?   Or our outrage over merchandise stamped with images of Che Guevara and worn by celebrities?   Can you imagine anyone apologizing or imagine a news article that covers the apologies?   Yeah… just try to imagine that, difficult as it is to stretch the imagination so, so much.

Victoria’s Secret apologizes after use of Native American headdress in fashion show draws outrage

FLAGSTAFF, Arizona – Victoria’s Secret has apologized for putting a Native American-style headdress on a model for its annual fashion show, after the outfit was criticized as a display of ignorance toward tribal culture and history.

The company responded to the complaints over the weekend by saying it was sorry to have upset anyone and that it wouldn’t include the outfit in the show’s television broadcast next month, or in any marketing materials.

“We sincerely apologize as we absolutely had no intention to offend anyone,” the company said.

Historically, headdresses are a symbol of respect, worn by Native American war chiefs and warriors. For Great Plains tribes, for instance, each feather placed on a headdress has significance and had to be earned through an act of compassion or bravery. Some modern-day Native American leaders have received war bonnets in ceremonies accompanied by prayers and songs.

“When you see a Lakota chief wearing a full headdress, you know that he was a very honorable man. He was a leader. He did a lot of honorable things for his people,” said Michelle Spotted Elk, a Santa Cruz, California, woman of mixed heritage whose husband is Lakota. “It also has religious significance. With them, there’s not a division between spirituality and their leadership.”

Victoria’s Secret model Karlie Kloss walked onto the runway last week wearing the floor-length feathered headdress, leopard-print underwear and high heels. She also was adorned with fringes and turquoise jewelry during a segment meant to represent the 12 months of the year — fireworks in July, rain gear for April and a headdress for November.

Kloss herself posted on Twitter that she was “deeply sorry if what I wore during the VS Show offended anyone.”

continue reading here

or…. spend some time meditating on the images below, and the way in which our outrage was covered.



7 thoughts on “Selective outrage: demon babes ruffle feathers.

  1. Those newspapers that ran that vile Oliphant calumny will apologize any day now, just as soon as people like the Saralegui cow apologize (not to Cubans, but to the USA) for promoting Obama’s re-election. In other words, don’t hold your breath.

  2. This charming wedding photo is for Humberto, in case he hasn’t seen it:

    Note Mariela Castro’s lovely parents at the front left, and also note the expression of boundless joy in Mrs. Guevara, who looks like she’s been around the block quite a few times despite her presumably young age. With people like these in charge of Cuba, what could possibly go wrong?

  3. Yes, there’s a terrible double standard when it comes to Cuban Americans. We are the one group [along with heterosexual, non-Hispanic white men and Catholics] that it is politically correct to attack. And it doesn’t end there. Have you noticed how everyone is celebrating the alleged “Latino” empowerment that–it is said–voted in Obama? Yet, eight years earlier when Cuban Americans were instrumental in voting in Bush II, the overwhelming consensus was that we were too powerful, and corrupt. We were accused of stealing the elections [hanging chads] and were basically derided as a foreign entity that did not have our adopted nation’s interest in mind. The hope was that our power base could be destroyed. And during this election, more than one blog and article has celebrated the much exaggerated and misrepresented change in Miami voting patterns.

  4. Very simple: whoever helps Dems is praised; whoever doesn’t is derided. The leftist establishment doesn’t care about “Latinos” any more than it cares about blacks, except insofar as they can be used to advantage. Since they are eminently usable, and Cuban exiles (as opposed to immigrants) have not been, we get the usual, customary, indeed mandatory double-standard. Any black or Hispanic who dares to go off the plantation and refuses to be a reliable Dem “client” will be treated more or less as Cuban exiles are. This has NOTHING to do with trying to help or do right by minorities for its own sake, and EVERYTHING to do with controlling them, specifically, getting their vote.

Comments are closed.