A ritual dance is physical intimidation? I suppose you’d say having aggressive body language (looking angry) is physical intimidation too.
We should put all government officials on valium so they don’t accidentally get too emotionally invested in what they’re discussing, lest they accidentally physically intimidate someone with an angry face.
Obviously ministers with resting-bitch-face will have to be permanently barred from attending parliament, for the safety of their colleagues. We wouldn’t want such blatant physical intimidation on the day to day after all.
The point being, if you think a native ritual dance is the same as being physically intimidated, rather than seeing it as their culture’s way of expressing their feelings on some important matters, then you’re entirely missing the point and showing a lack of understanding of your own nation’s culture at a basic level, and probably shouldn’t be representing those same citizens at the government level.
I imagine politicians that clueless would just say “Oh my, the natives have gone feral! Look at that display of raw physical intimidation! Jeeves, fetch my musket and don’t fire till you see the whites of their eyes!”
If you feel physically intimidated by what is essentially some well known and well respected people in a debating hall being angry about the current topic of discussion and telling you they’re angry in a recognised and common cultural manner, then I can’t help you.
Its root is in physical intimidation before battle yes, but on the floor of parliament it’s clearly intended as an act of cultural display of resistance, not one of “do as we say or we will hurt you”.
The modern suit comes from military uniforms. Hell, they have a guy with a mace when parliament is in session. This military imagery has come to the authority of the democratic process and appears at least throughout the anglosphere, but it’s using military imagery to do so.
Just as the colonizer uses military imagery to represent the authority and tradition of institutions, the colonized may use their own military imagery to represent opposition to colonial acts.
Yes there’s lots of ceremonial aspects to parliament and if they wanted to include more maori tradition into it, I’d be all in favour.
This is akin to randomly bellowing out the national anthem in the middle of a voting session but with more bite. I’d expect somebody doing that to be sanctioned too.
A ritual dance is physical intimidation? I suppose you’d say having aggressive body language (looking angry) is physical intimidation too.
We should put all government officials on valium so they don’t accidentally get too emotionally invested in what they’re discussing, lest they accidentally physically intimidate someone with an angry face.
Obviously ministers with resting-bitch-face will have to be permanently barred from attending parliament, for the safety of their colleagues. We wouldn’t want such blatant physical intimidation on the day to day after all.
The point being, if you think a native ritual dance is the same as being physically intimidated, rather than seeing it as their culture’s way of expressing their feelings on some important matters, then you’re entirely missing the point and showing a lack of understanding of your own nation’s culture at a basic level, and probably shouldn’t be representing those same citizens at the government level.
I imagine politicians that clueless would just say “Oh my, the natives have gone feral! Look at that display of raw physical intimidation! Jeeves, fetch my musket and don’t fire till you see the whites of their eyes!”
If you feel physically intimidated by what is essentially some well known and well respected people in a debating hall being angry about the current topic of discussion and telling you they’re angry in a recognised and common cultural manner, then I can’t help you.
Yes
Yes (but just looking angry is not body language. It’s a facial expression. Screaming at someone with your arms flailing is aggressive body language)
Do you even know the history of the Haka? It’s a warrior’s dance to intimidate their foes. Modern haka can have many meanings, but that’s it’s root.
Its root is in physical intimidation before battle yes, but on the floor of parliament it’s clearly intended as an act of cultural display of resistance, not one of “do as we say or we will hurt you”.
The modern suit comes from military uniforms. Hell, they have a guy with a mace when parliament is in session. This military imagery has come to the authority of the democratic process and appears at least throughout the anglosphere, but it’s using military imagery to do so.
Just as the colonizer uses military imagery to represent the authority and tradition of institutions, the colonized may use their own military imagery to represent opposition to colonial acts.
Yes there’s lots of ceremonial aspects to parliament and if they wanted to include more maori tradition into it, I’d be all in favour.
This is akin to randomly bellowing out the national anthem in the middle of a voting session but with more bite. I’d expect somebody doing that to be sanctioned too.
Hey hey now, what’s with this intimidating post? Sounds like I may need my gun.
Did you see the video? The arm stuff looks like jazz hands.