Skip to main content

Body Art: Your Tattoos Are Problematic


Liz. Wolfe, in her article “Your tattoos are problematic” published in Reason Foundation on March 10, 2018, discusses why she thinks tattoos are problematic from different aspects of this issue.

Wolfe discusses the history and origins of tattooing, it relates with many cultures.  Asia was one of the first regions where tattooing was common.  In Japan Tattoos were associated with criminals and certain types of merchants, it was outlawed for many years but was made legal again in 1948.  In Mexico tattoos were used to honor a relative who died. “About 90% of sailors in the 19th century sported tattoos” says Wolfe. Most were nautical in theme, but some sailors adorned themselves with Hula girls or “pin up girls to remind them of ladies back home.”  Sailors traveling around the world was one method the art of tattooing spread. Some societies honored them while some societies shunned tattoos. Twenty years ago, body art became more acceptable in America.  In 1993 the magazine Playboy debuted its first tattoo on one of its playmates.  Even the toy company Mattel “released an “inked” Barbie Doll in 2011.”  Wolfe said that body art comes in many shapes, sizes, and colors.  People sometimes wait for long periods of time before deciding what tattoo to have because they do not want risk regretting their decision.  One person received a Tasmanian Devil tattoo to honor the death of his father, who years before also had a Tasmanian Devil tattoo to honor his father.  
Wolfe also discusses some of the political issues about tattoos. Many activists expressed opposition to tattoos that “steal” images from native cultures.  Wolfe calls this “Cultural appropriation.”  She says that “Some popular tattoos have historical lineages so tangled it’s hard to tell who is appropriating whose heritage.” Quoting Salman Rusdie who said, “The idea of the sacred … seeks to turn other ideas … into crimes.” Wolfe argues that prohibiting replicating an idea misses the mark.  She states activists fail to see that replicating art from other cultures preserves it for the future. She suggests that tattoos are art and should be protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects the right of free speech.  She is concerned the courts may rule on what can be tattooed and what cannot be tattooed, and whether tattoos are art and thereby considered a free speech protected by the first amendment.  
Tattoos like any art form are subject to the likes and dislikes of the individual.  I personally do not like tattoos. In my opinion and from articles I have read, tattoos are sometimes associated with bad people and criminals.  But while I am personally opposed to tattoos I know people who do get them and who are not bad people or a criminal.  And like any piece of art, some I like and some I do not like.  It just like any other artist, a tattoo artist should be required to tattoo someone or something he or she finds against her beliefs.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Native American Boarding School: DESTROYING a Culture

Bickford-Duane, Pauline , in his article “ DESTROYING a Culture ” published in the magazine Cobblestone on Jan 2015, discusses about how US Government took land and broke treaties with Native Americans.  Then they tried to make them like white people, But later US Government learned that was a bad idea.  So, they gave Native Americans back a lot of rights such as the ability to governed themselves, attend their own schools, and learn their language. Photographs from the Carlisle Indian School show a group of Sioux boys shortly after their arrival at the school (ABOVE) and a group of “assimilated” Sioux students (OPPOSITE). The author first wrote a short history of how the United States government tried to take over Native American culture. She said the government had tried for almost 100 years and over 400 agreements to find a “solution” to the Native American “problem”. But most of them were not successful. then in the late 1800s, Senator Dawes prop...
1 comment
Read more

Microhome Assignment – Unflattening Heroism

Microhome Assignment – Unflattening Heroism Zeno Franco and Philip Zimbardo in their article “A Prisoner in the House” show how we are all capable of everyday heroism. They argued many heroes are like evildoers.   They acted that way because of the situation they were in.   They explain different way to show what is heroism; what makes a hero and how to nurture the heroic imagination. The prison and student-teacher experiments showed how a situation can change peoples’ behaviors, Thesis that some people believe is that people act “good” only because they have never been coerced or seduced to do “bad”. What about the observers of evil but who do nothing to stop it. We focus on the evil doers, and not on the silent majority who observe or who are aware of the evil. heroism could have the same theory. That it is the situation, and not the person, that creates the hero.   And like the silent majority to evil, there is a silent majority to heroism, since they assume oth...
Post a Comment
Read more

Genocide: "Genocide" Taboo Why We're Afraid of the G-Word

          Alice Hu, in her article “ 'Genocide' Taboo Why We're Afraid of the G-Word ” published in the magazine Harvard International Review on Summer 2016, discusses the United Nations definition and origin of the word “genocide” and how it is different than simply mass violence. And she also hope the International law helps protect people from genocide.           The author first talk about the term genocide is based on Greek prefix for “race” and the Latin suffix for “killing”.   It was first used by Raphael Lemkin in 1944.   Hu said that in Raphael’s view, genocide is “a premeditated crime with clearly defined goals, rather than just an aberration.”   Raphael told this view to the new formed United Nations in 1948 and made the first genocide international law and to prevent and punish when someone or some government does genocide. Since then genocide has been discussed...
1 comment
Read more