Posted on 06/16/2005 11:42:33 AM PDT by JZelle
Don't step out of that groupthink. Your brain might explode if you had to ponder why a young man has a right to wear a damn tie even if the principal has some petty dress code
What an out-of-touch Eastern wanker. In the west, Bolo ties are acceptable as at least "reasonably formal" and have been for a pretty long time. My husband has worn lovely bolo ties (not the garish ugly ones, but nice classy ones) for decades in business settings, and been perfectly well received. This superintendend quoted here reminds me of the arrogant Eastern racetrack owner in "Seabiscuit" who considered Western-bred racehorses "cowponies." Then Seabiscuit so soundly thrashed his high-toned Eastern racehorse (was it War Admiral?) that the defeated horse never raced again.
Wow, I'm sorry you so dislike the other 15/16ths of your heritage to the point that you'd wish to trade it in for the proud bolo wearing heritage of the keychain toting Cherokee peoples.
BTW, I never objected to his complaint that he should wear the tie he likes. I specifically highlighted his ridiculous claim that denying him the right to wear a bolo tie insults his heritage and peoples.
I still maintain that that claim is asinine in the extreme, but your disagreement with that is noted. Maybe if I knew more about the significance of the bolo tie to the history of the Cherokee nation, I'd see your point. But I don't think it's really that significant a symbol. It's a friggin bolo tie. And he's attaching a symbolic importance to it solely to tug on the multicultural appeasing heartstrings of dopey liberals in the media.
If the code prohibits bolo ties and the boy wore it anyway, then he needs to sit down, shut up and take his diploma and his punishment for not being a good little public school 'droid.
If the code does not prohibit bolo ties then the principal needs to be called out and taken down a notch for being a tin-plated dictator.
By the way, you'd get a kick out of my niece's wedding pics that show a wonderful blending of her father's fifth-generation American Western, ranch heritage on one side, and first-generation Scottish on the other -- brothers are wearing family tartan Kilts, and cowboy hats! We sent the pic to a cousin in Scotland, who got a huge kick out of it!
"So, he did as the school instructed him to to without making a fuss about it. But underneath his robe, he was wearing his full dress uniform."
When I graduated, in the early 70's, rebellion was part of the norm (is that an oxymoron?) so people went to great efforts to dress as strangely as possible while still meeting the dress code.
One guy had a pair of slacks cut off and wore only the lower legs taped to his knees below his gown. Not me of course, I would never do such a thing.
I don't dislike it. I honor it as well. It does not apply however to the argument at hand. Unless I suppose you need to insult the Scotch, Irish, and the French from early 18th century North Carolina. I will ignore the rest of your statement
BTW, I never objected to his complaint that he should wear the tie he likes. I specifically highlighted his ridiculous claim that denying him the right to wear a bolo tie insults his heritage and peoples.
So in essence you are ridiculing the complaint that you say you didn't supposedly object to. That's so much better.
Maybe if I knew more about the significance of the bolo tie to the history of the Cherokee nation, I'd see your point. But I don't think it's really that significant a symbol. It's a friggin bolo tie. And he's attaching a symbolic importance to it solely to tug on the multicultural appeasing heartstrings of dopey liberals in the media.
So you admit ignorance of the possible symbolism and instead ridicule it. That's what's become of 'conservative' thought? Just yell out the first snide remark before researching the possibility that it may actually hold some symbolism for him. It's not like he was wearing a 4 foot Dumbo mask painted blue, green, and yellow. No one on stage would have known.
Oh but we can't let these kids think just because they're graduating they can actually express themselves. Hell, they may just become unblinded by government thought. What next?!?
And I seriously doubt when he put that tie on, the first thought through his head was how it would 'tug on the multicultural appeasing heartstrings of dopey liberals in the media.' No teenager thinks that far ahead..
But carry on. It seems so many on this thread agree with you. How comforting for the 'conservative' movement...
Conservatives are always ready to support petty displays of authority by minor officials.
Very lame, actually. :)
I don't know part of your heritage gave you the blockheaded inability to read, but as I've said repeatedly, I only objected to his claim that the policy insults his heritage.
It doesn't. There is no cultural significance to the bolo tie amongst the Cherokee people. None. If you have evidence that proves me wrong, share it. But you don't.
Personally, I don't care if he wears a Cher wig and swim flippers to his graduation. I clearly highlighted the silly "heritage" argument and that is the only part I objected to. Yet, you continually wish to assign a 'pro big government' aspect to my argument that I've never made. It's easier than disputing anything I've actually said.
You can bet if it was a transvestite that wanted to cross dress for graduation or a couple of homosexuals that wanted some special leeway it would have been given. The American Indian more persecuted than Blacks, Homosexuals or Jews!
Republicans and Democrats two shades of the same color
The fact that you see it as a 'silly heritage argument' instead of standing up for the young man's right to express himself conservatively against a high school principle is in and of itself a pro-government response
"Oh good, stereotypes to boot. Anybody want to offer actual arguments about the issue of the young man's natural rights being infringed upon instead of making snide comments about the young man's heritage?"
The young man didn't argue the issue in terms of natural rights. He pulled the race card right off the bat and used the lame "heritage" argument. That doesn't get you much sympathy in this forum.
As a long time non-conformer, I think the bolo rule is stupid, but if you want to openly defy the school don't demand an apology if you get caught. Finding clever ways around stupid rules is an art form.
What gets me is the way some people feel it's so important to them to display an ancient Roman execution device.
Bolo: The Tie That Won the West
The bolo, or bola, tie is so common in the west today that many people are surprised to find that it is relatively new.
In the late 1940s, a silversmith named Victor Cedarstaff went riding with friends in the Bradshaw Mountains outside Wickenburg, Arizona. When the wind blew his hat off, Cedarstaff removed the hatband, which had a silver buckle he did not want to lose, and put it around his neck.
When his friends complemented him on the new apparel, Cedarstaff returned home, and wove a leather string. He added silver balls to the ends and ran it through a turquoise buckle.
Cedarstaff later patented the new neckwear, which was called the bolo because it resembled the lengths of rope used by Argentine gauchos to catch game or cattle.
But he's a lame ass and pulled the race card right off the bat. That's what I objected to. That and his absurd historical inaccuracy.
If he wanted to whinge about the importance of his heritage, the least he could have done was know it.
OK, how about these arguments:
a) You implied in an earlier post that this violated his 1st Amendment rights. Unless the ceremony dress code was established via a law passed by congress, that statement is absurd and highlights your ignorance of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
b) Unless you can demonstrate that the dress code either was not enforced or reasonably wouldn't have been enforced in the same situation involving a white student, then the racial argument is de facto invalid.
c) A claim that an item (in this case a bolo tie) is a symbol of one's heritage is not sufficient cause to demand relief from the norms and conventions required by decorum. One must be able to demonstrate not only that his claim is factual but also that being denied the privilege of wearing the item forces the individual to sustain actual harm. To my knowledge, nothing in Cherokee heritage supports the bolo tie as being a historical talisman that is required for their well-being.
d) Familiarity in the form of past use of an item does not have any bearing on the dress code of a special event. Therefore, just because he was allowed to wear the bolo in the past under other circumstances is an argument without logical basis.
Are those arguments more to your liking?
Google search Cherokee, turquoise, bolo
I'd say the kid's got a point. Especially considering he wore it regularly to other functions. And for you to say it's historical inaccuracy, I don't remember him saying a specific date. Anything before 1985 to him was historical. Does that also mean we shouldn't remember WWII victories yet because they're not historical enough?
Well actually that's not true. As the school system receives federal funding, it is a part of the federal government thereby required to follow the Constitution and not state law. To see the precedent for this, back in the 60s there were two kids that wore black armbands to school to protest the war (I believe). SCOTUS found in favor of the students that the school was violating their First Amendment rights.
b) Unless you can demonstrate that the dress code either was not enforced or reasonably wouldn't have been enforced in the same situation involving a white student, then the racial argument is de facto invalid.
I brought up the heritage factor more importantly. He should have the right to express his heritage as he sees fit. As a proud Southerner, I have to deal with that very concern on a daily basis. It has nothing to do with race
c) A claim that an item (in this case a bolo tie) is a symbol of one's heritage is not sufficient cause to demand relief from the norms and conventions required by decorum. One must be able to demonstrate not only that his claim is factual but also that being denied the privilege of wearing the item forces the individual to sustain actual harm. To my knowledge, nothing in Cherokee heritage supports the bolo tie as being a historical talisman that is required for their well-being.
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. You statists will do anything to support and official won't you? Actual harm?!? It has nothing to do with actual harm, it has to do with his natural, not received by the government, rights! Locke anyone?
d) Familiarity in the form of past use of an item does not have any bearing on the dress code of a special event. Therefore, just because he was allowed to wear the bolo in the past under other circumstances is an argument without logical basis.
Well because he was allowed to wear the bolo at other school sponsored events the school has acceded to his right to wear it. But your argument is that the school can change its rules at any given time with no forewarning.
You know, screw it. It's really not worth it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.