Headdresses okay if they're "controversial"?

In Cooke Defends Medals, Headdresses I compared wearing a chief's headdress to wearing a soldier's medals. Both people consider it an honor and both don't like being mocked.

Michael Cooke couldn't refute this argument so he mostly ignored it. But he did address one of my claims:I'd never arguing for burning plastic headdresses in costume stores. I would argue for educating people to realize such headdresses are morally wrong.Mike's response:Morally wrong? Explain the immorality please. Seriously.

Because if I dress like a soldier with fake medals and pantomime the killing of women and children--it can and will offend people that support the military. But it is not immoral, it is expressing a controversial idea. There is a real distinction. Offending is not nice--but it sometimes it might be a good thing! The right thing!So much foolishness here.

First, there's no necessary distinction between an act's being morally wrong and expressing a controversial idea. An act can be or do both. Examples: Screaming profanities at children because you think they deserve punishment. Publishing false reports about presidents because you believe they're a menace to society. Blowing up buildings to protest what you consider an unjust government policy.

Second, I didn't say the hypothetical headdress or medal wearer was expressing a controversial idea. He might or might not be. Suppose the medal wearer exposes himself or urinates in public view. He might do this because he likes insulting soldiers. Or because he genuinely thinks it's funny. Or because he sincerely believes that's what real soldiers do. Not because he has a controversial idea in mind.

So your "controversial idea" defense is as invalid as your other made-up defenses. I don't need to refute it because wearing headdresses or medals isn't about expressing controversial ideas. Try again.

As for why non-Natives wearing headdresses is morally wrong, I thought that was obvious. By stereotyping Indians you're presenting false or misleading information about them. Depending on what you say or do, it's an implicit or explicit lie.

Moreover, this practice offends some people's beliefs, same as pissing on a Jesus figure or publishing a Muhammad cartoon might. If you had a damn good reason for offending people, such as expressing an important "controversial idea," you might be able to justify it. But I just dismissed that as a valid excuse. Few if any headdress wearers have a message beyond the stereotype.

So you're spreading misinformation and offending people for no good reason. If you don't understand why that's wrong, I'm not wasting more time explaining what "wrong" means. I'll accept that you're too dumb to understand it.

If you don't like the term "morally wrong," try "intellectually wrong," since that's also true. Or just "wrong," period.

More idiocy from CookeSpeaking personally I assume any headdress worn by anyone non Indian is a fake.And yet you previously wrote, "Only Native Americans ... know for a fact the headdresses worn by entertainment performers are poor fakes." Are you admitting you were mistaken?And almost always they LOOK fake, with tell tale industrial plastics.I've told you several times that Kesha's headdress didn't look fake. Either you're too stupid or too cowardly to address the point--I don't know which.

Besides, how real or fake it looks doesn't change the stereotypical effect. People believe headdress-wearing chiefs represent all Indians because they see them over and over. Real chiefs, fake chiefs...it doesn't matter. The quantity counts much more than the quality.

In fact, you could argue that fake headdresses have more of an effect than real headdresses. If headdresses are so ubiquitous that you can find them in costume shops, they must represent Native culture, right? At least, that's what many people may think.So the question is if they are poking fun at Indians in a racist way, or is it simply cultural appropriation?Another false dichotomy. Again, it can be both.The idea that appropriation = racism is silly.The idea that cultural appropriation can't be racist is asinine. Try dressing up like this to make a fashion statement and see how it goes:

Ke$ha wore the headdress to make a gender bending suggestion and because a designer thought it could be cool (and with Lady Gaga in the business, you got to try something). The 'message' was all about Ke$ha--and how 'cool' she is. Cultural appropriation? Yes. Stereotyping or racism? No.You don't have a clue what Kesha intended, so I'm not wasting time with that guessing game. And see Indian Wannabes = Celebrity Wannabes to learn how stereotyping and "being cool" go hand in hand.

If you think a chief's headdress taken out of context isn't a stereotype, you don't know what a stereotype is. I'm not wasting time alleviating your ignorance of basic words and concepts. Try a dictionary.

For more of Cooke's failed arguments about Kesha, see Headdresses = Fedoras? and Stereotypes in Cultural Commons?

America appropriates everything?If it is simply cultural appropriation, that's not a moral issue either. That's a function of second class citizen status engendering resentment. And it's easier to remedy the second class status than to stop cultural appropriation because that's what the machine of American culture does, it appropriates EVERYTHING.Not quite. We used to appropriate cultural characteristics and regurgitate them as racist depictions of blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jews, and so forth. But minorities criticized that practice and it mostly stopped. Now we're doing the same with racist Indian depictions--the last bastion of stereotyping.

With your "America appropriates EVERYTHING" claim, you're back to your cultural commons idea. Which means you're back to explaining why minstrel shows and Polish jokes were okay but aren't any longer. Why don't you stop ducking the question and start answering it?

As for the class issue, I addressed that in Is Racism Really Classism? Short answer is that racism and classism are interrelated and battling one helps battle the other.Now I do respect the fact that cultural appropriation feels immoral and is deeply offensive to the exploited culture. But I can't help but notice that the only cultures jealously possessive enough of their culture that 'appropriation' is even possible, are always cultures oppressed in other ways as well.Native cultures aren't "jealously possessive" of their cultures. They're possessive, yes, but not because of jealousy. Rather, they're acting on the same impulse as writers or artists who want to protect their work. Controlling your words and images is a smart management policy, not a childish emotional response. Which is why tribes have sought intellectual property rights over their cultural beliefs and practices.

Finally, Cooke says something that almost makes sense:The appropriation is wrong due to context: if you won't respect us as people how dare you find pleasure in our culture!

I see the moral issue being one of respect and dignity. Where second class status is not real, almost always culture is shared gladly and happily and the pain of appropriation evaporates.So we started with my saying wearing headdresses was wrong, and now Cooke agrees that "the appropriation is wrong." In other words, Cooke is a time-wasting idiot who has lost another debate. Better luck next time, Mike.

For more on the subject, see The "Honor" of a Plains Chief and Is Cultural Appropriation Okay?

Below:  America appropriated Chinese culture to create Charlie Chan, so he can't be racist, according to racism apologist Michael Cooke.

Kesha goes tribal at Bamboozle

Adrienne Keene of Native Appropriations notes that pop-star Kesha has gone tribal once again:

Not Again, Ke$ha.Our favorite warbonnet-wearing-hot-mess of a musician sported another headdress at The Bamboozle (a big music festival). The photographer calls her get up a "psuedo-patriotic costume of a feather headdress, aviator sunglasses, and the American flag." Right.

Kesha is also wearing a headdress in her new video for Your Love is My Drug--the song she sang on Saturday Night Live. Keene continues:We've discussed it before with her American Idol performance. Girl, get your act together. Cultural appropriation isn't cool.Some reactions on Facebook:Hmmm...that last pic reminds me of that picture of the gals from the Stanford powwow on your blog. People think that "dressing like native people" is a fantastical Halloween journey or something and they don't stop to wonder how their behavior appropriates the identity of Native people, but hey from their point of view "they're just having fun, right?"

P.S. My thought is that Kesha is appropriating several indigenous identities and combining them into some ambiguous "All-Native Monster" that seeks to appropriate all indigenous peoples' identities into one. Kinda weird! Kesha my girl, find your identify elsewhere.

[Y]our PS is a really good point; she's combining North American, South American, and African Indigenous cultures all in one messed up image. Equal opportunity appropriation. Grrr.Comment:  For more on the subject, see Why Hipster Headdresses Aren't Okay and What's So Wrong About Kesha?

Stereotypes okay in "cultural commons"?

After the Kesha in Headdress and Warpaint controversy, I explained What's So Wrong About Kesha to Facebook friend Michael Cooke. Naturally he didn't get it or buy it.

After Adrienne Keene of the Native Appropriations blog explained Why Hipster Headdresses Aren't Okay, I sent the link to this fellow. He expanded on his previous position and came up with a novel claim. Tribal headdresses have entered America's "cultural commons" now, so they belong to everyone, not just Indians. Therefore, wannabes aren't doing anything wrong when they wear headdresses. They're merely expressing an aspect of the joint culture we all share.

Note that the guy in question, Mike, is a fortysomething gay man. Mike had this to say about Adrienne's posting:It doesn't address the issue of the cultural commons, of which the 'western' genre of 'Cowboys and Indians' is part.

I get the political correctness of it, but the appropriation has already happened, both of us were born in to it. Likely both of us played 'Cowboys and Indians' growing up. And there's also a blamelessness to playing 'Indian' all grown up because legitimately or not, our culture is what it is that we're born into.The author [Adrienne] gives several reasons why the headdress practice is wrong. Who cares if she didn't explicitly address your argument? You haven't explicitly addressed her arguments, and her arguments are better than yours. I'd say she wins the debate easily.

The cultural appropriation involved in blackface happened 150 years ago and was part of our heritage when we were born. So what? Society has decided it's wrong regardless of how acceptable it was at one point. It was wrong 150 years ago, it was wrong when we were born, and it will remain wrong for the foreseeable future.

There's no time limit that makes stereotyping socially acceptable. If there were, it would be okay to stereotype women as emotional whirlpools good only in the kitchen and bedroom. It would be okay to stereotype gay men as weak, effeminate pansies. Like the Indian chief, both stereotypes are longstanding items in your mythical "cultural commons."

So you're okay with discrimination toward gays because it's been around a long time? You're okay with being a permanent second-class citizen because it's the cultural norm? I look forward to your answer, pansy.

Post your comments to the author's blog if you want to learn her response. I suspect she'll rip your argument that black, gay, and Native stereotypes become acceptable after enough time passes. A stereotype can exit the "cultural commons" as easily as it enters it, and many stereotypes have exited it.

Mike changes the subjectWell, let's look at being gay and wanting to move the culture towards acceptance. What's so is that homosexuality is socially acceptable to be against, to believe sinful and disgusting--that's a powerful cultural meme.

And I can confront every young kid that uses the phrase 'that's gay' as a insult for their homophobia, confront every homophobic Christian, confront everyone with a past in Boy Scouts with the homophobia of that organization, confront supporters of OBAMA with evidence of his homophobic venom--there's no end to the wrong I can make people. And I'd be RIGHT, right?

The problem is that homophobia is something we're born into and it's as fundamental as the culture. I can always be right correcting everyone on their homophobia--but I can't do that and not be an asshole. Because people that say "that's so Gay"--they aren't even aware what they're saying is homophobic. Eminem calls people faggot to emasculate straight macho guys, it never occurred to him that he was being anti-gay.

Changing the culture to accept homosexuality is very black and white conceptually--but in practice it's all shades of grey because people are also blameless victims of cultural conditioning--make them wrong and they'll only find a reason to be right about it.

And that's homosexuality, many of not most people know actual Gay people, have them in their family. American Indians also have an issue with Anglo culture, cultural appropriation and discrimination--but it's much harder. To be honest, I've never known an American Indian, and met one maybe twice. And like any subject, when you make someone one wrong, even if they are wrong--they will find a way to argue for being right--if just to save face.

I'm not debating, I'm clarifying the reality of the situation.

How do you feel about White people doing Rap? Buffy Saint Marie doing Anglo folk music? Japanese getting eye surgery to have 'caucasian' eyes? African People bleaching their skin to look white. White people listening to and performing Rock n Roll?

We are at the point where if you eliminated every bit of culture that has been appropriated, there might be nothing left.

So why is any culture so much better than any other that it's wrong to appropriate it?You're not debating, you're dodging. <g>

Sounds to me like you've basically punted on your own "cultural commons" defense. You didn't address the fact that many stereotypes--of blacks, women, and gays--have become socially unacceptable despite being in the "commons" once. I'm still waiting for your answers on that point.

Again, why should we give the "chief" stereotype a pass when we don't give any of these other stereotypes a pass? Conceptually they're the same thing.

Music = headdresses?

To answer your questions about rap, folk music, etc.: okay, okay, not okay, not okay, okay. I mean "not okay" in the sense that the actions send a negative racial message. I don't mean that there's anything illegal or immoral about people defacing themselves if they choose.

Let's focus on the three cases of appropriating music: rap, folk, and rock 'n' roll. For starters, the only case where a racial group can plausibly claim ownership of a genre is rap. Folk music and rock 'n' roll had many cultural roots and quickly spread beyond their initial proponents. You'd have a hard time making the case that one ethnicity ever "owned" them.

Rap is different since it originally "belonged" to the urban black subculture. I believe whites who rapped originally drew a lot of criticism. Rappers like Eminem had to prove their bonafides before audiences would take them seriously. I don't know if that's changed, but I suspect rap fans still diss phonies who haven't earned the proper "street cred."

So non-black rappers were criticized for (mis)appropriating black culture. And that somehow suggests that non-Indians shouldn't be criticized for (mis)appropriating Indian culture? Sorry, that's illogical. It does not compute.

The more important point is that music is different from headdresses. Headdresses are revered if not sacred, as I explained. Music isn't. Headdresses belong to a well-defined subset of one ethnic group (Plains Indians). Music doesn't. Headdresses have contributed to 150 years of racial stereotyping with negative consequences. Music hasn't.

A chief's headdress is comparable to, I dunno, a specific kind of weaving or tattooing or hair-braiding in a region of Nigeria. It's much more specific than a broad genre of music. In contrast, a genre of music is comparable to a genre of painting or architecture. No one is saying it's wrong to appropriate Impressionist paintings or Greek-style architecture because they once belonged to a particular culture.

Apparently you think we're talking about appropriating any aspect of Native culture, not just headdresses. Wrong. No one's complaining when non-Indians wear moccasins, turquoise jewelry, or beaded necklaces. These things 1) aren't revered or sacred and 2) aren't a factor in centuries of harmful racial stereotyping. Headdresses are.

Winning hearts and minds

As for the rest of your argument, we're talking about two different things. 1) Whether something is stereotypical and thus wrong, and 2) whether it's helpful to point out something is stereotypical and thus wrong. Adrienne and I didn't confront Kesha or the hipsters and tell them they were wrong. We simply made the case against them.

Whether we use our winning arguments to change someone's behavior is, again, a separate issue. Regardless of what we do with our arguments, people who stereotype Indians are wrong.

Your new position seems to be that it's pointless to criticize people because they won't change their minds. Well, that may be true of individuals. But on the societal level, Americans have abandoned many racist or stereotypical beliefs. These days few people think it's okay to dress up in blackface, portray women as ditzy airheads, or call homosexuals "faggots." We've seen a sea change on almost every racist and sexist practice--everything except portraying Indians as headdress-wearing savages.

How does this happen if individuals won't change their minds? That's relatively easy to explain. Kids with open minds grow up learning that the previous generation's beliefs are wrong. A few adults with open minds learn this also.

Those who hold stereotypical beliefs don't change their minds, but social pressure cows them into submission. They still think women and minorities are inferior, but they keep their bigotry to themselves. They know society will slam them if they express their prejudices openly.

So they stay quiet and stew while they grow old and die. Whereupon the newer, less prejudiced generation takes over. So we have lots of young people who are comfortable voting for Obama, working for women, and having gays as friends. Change happens slowly, but it happens.

Any questions? If not, I conclude 1) wearing headdresses is wrong if you're not an Indian, and 2) societal pressure against this practice will end it eventually. QED.

For more on the subject, see Indian Headdresses at Coachella and Coyote Headdresses and Other Tribal Fashions.

Below:  A typical Halloween costume that's wrong for the reasons stated above.

Kesha goes tribal in Saturday Night Live

Last time we saw Kesha, she wore a Plains chief's headdress. This time she's wearing an Amazon Indian costume.

What On Earth Was Ke$ha Wearing On SNL?

By Verena von PfettenI have no idea what Ke$ha or her costume designer was thinking when they put together this glow-in-the-dark, neon paintsuit made up of nothing but stereotypical tribal markings—paired, of course, with a halo of feathers—but the result was painful to watch.









Comment:  The headband, rings around the eyes, dots under the eyes, strips on the cheeks, and feathers on the shoulders strongly suggest an Amazon Indian. The rest of the tribal markings are just an abstraction.

Note that Kesha is wearing a black mask over her face. So she's literally as well as figuratively appearing in blackface.

Fortunately, there's nothing "tribal" about Kesha's song or performance. Apparently she just likes to dress up in colorful costumes.

In fact, her singing sounds mediocre unless it's electronically enhanced. One could argue that her performances are all about the spectacle of her costumed routines. Because they don't seem to be about her musical talent.

Indeed, I thought this costume was the most interesting thing about her two performances. If she had fashioned it without imitating an Indian, I might've approved. As it is, I consider it an interesting failure.

The problem with Kesha's costume is the usual one, of course. It positions Natives as primitive people of the past--wearing facepaint and feathers while everyone else is wearing suits, jeans, or dresses. Kesha probably doesn't know it, but many Amazon Indians wear Western clothes and hold Western jobs these days. Some even surf the Net and watch videos like the one below.

For more on Kesha, see What's So Wrong About Kesha? and Outrage Over Kesha's Performance. For more on SNL, see Indian Curse in Saturday Night Live and Cobell Skit in Saturday Night Live.

What's so wrong about Kesha?

In response to Outrage Over Kesha's Performance and Kesha in Headdress and Warpaint, someone on Facebook wrote:Thing is, I didn't know who Kesha is, don't watch American Idol--and my introduction is this political action.

I don't get the insult, as the pop star clearly was appropriating a cultural archetype for purposes of costume fashion and wasn't projecting any message beyond that. It's stupid, because the ideas invoked with the costume are non-sequitur to the song. It's not a statement about anyone but the lame pop star.

Is it that such a headdress is a 'sacred' thing and therefore using it in a costume for a pop performance is 'blasphemous' or culturally insensitive?My response:

I don't watch American Idol either. About all I know about Kesha is that she's some pop star. I may have seen her on Conan O'Brien's show once, but I immediately forgot her.

Whether people feel insulted or offended is their personal response. My claim is that the headdress is stereotypical regardless of how you feel about it. It contributes to the pervasive view that all Indians are equivalent to the Plains Indians of the 19th century. In short, that they're primitive people of the past.

The nature of headdresses

I wouldn't say a headdress is "sacred," exactly. More like "honored" or "revered" because of its feathers. A feather is an honor bestowed only on someone who has done something noteworthy. A headdress of feathers goes only on someone--usually a man--who has achieved great things. A young woman wearing a headdress as a stage prop mocks the whole concept.

So the nature of the headdress is an additional problem. The main problem is the wrongness of appropriating someone's culture and using it for no good reason. If Kesha had dressed as a sexy Indian maiden without the headdress, I think people would be just as upset. It's wrong because it's stereotypical...period.

If this still isn't clear, imagine someone dressing as a stereotypical African of the 19th century. Grass skirt, spear in hand, bone through the nose, etc. Would this strike you as offensive, or at least objectionable? The headdress is the same idea--a 150-year-old stereotype--and it's wrong for the same reason.

Kesha makes a statement

What's your counterargument...that Kesha is making a fashion statement? Okay, if you say so. She's making a fashion statement...in a racist or stereotypical way.

FYI, the choice isn't "fashion statement" or "racist stereotyping." It can be--and in this case is--both.

What she's really making a statement about is her view of Indians. The statement is she doesn't consider Indians to be full-fledged people worthy of dignity and respect. To her they're merely objects to exploit.

She may not have intended to make this statement. She may not even be aware she's making it. Many racists and stereotypers are oblivious to the messages they send. But they send the messages anyway.

How ignorant is she?

I doubt Kesha even realizes Indians still live. If she does, she probably thinks they're uncivilized people who dress in funny outfits and do funny dances. That they're like the Indians in old cartoons: wild, crazy, barely-human creatures. In other words, savages.

The usual counterargument is that she's "honoring" Indians for being great warriors. Really? The Zulus who fought half-naked with spears were great warriors also. Why don't we take off our clothes, put on black shoe polish, and "honor" them too?

I trust this analogy makes the problem obvious. Most Indians didn't wear headdresses 150 years ago and they definitely don't today. They're doctors, lawyers, and teachers, not dancing clowns. They prefer to be known for their intelligence, compassion, or wit, not for their killer instinct. Stereotyping them as spear-chucking savages is no honor.

The politics of stereotyping

I went into what people are saying when they dress up as stereotypical Indians in No Politics in Chasco's Stereotypes? That lesson applies here, too. Read and learn.

Still not convinced stereotypes carry a political message? I wrote a long essay explaining how Americans have used Native stereotypes for political purposes. Again, read and learn.

Below:  Why didn't Kesha dress up like this and honor Africans? What would the reaction have been if she did?

Outrage over Kesha's performance

Outrage is mounting over Kesha's stereotypical performance on Wednesday night's American Idol:

Ke$ha’s Lame Fashion Fail Stigmatizes Native Racism

By Neyom FridayI’ve had it up to my eyeballs with the pure incessant disrespect Native people endure. From situations like this to wannabe ‘holyman’ who want to smoke me with their cedar and take cash donations from the inside of his tipi/deathlodge. Enough is enough people. What more can I say or point out. Pride, honor and respect for our culture should be reason enough for us to stand together and let out voices be heard.

Letting time pass on this issue and being silent does nothing for our people. Or future generations. This bugs me. I am livid. Or better yet, I want to make this one of the nastiest messes she will ever find herself in. My first stop is her websites Ke$ha US and Ke$ha Canada. Then I’m sending American Idol an email. And lastly contacting Fox Broadcasting Company, 10201 W. Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90035, Phone: 310-369-1000, Fax:310-369-1283, Viewer Comment Line: 310-369-3066.FOX phone rep says they are "tired hearing about the plight of Native Americans"

By AIM Santa BarbaraWe got feed back from someone that had called FOX, where the customer service person stated that "they were tired hearing about the plight of Native Americans"--so obviously, we need to keep calling them!

Thank you to EVERYONE that has gone out of their way to make their voice HEARD--if you get a chance you can read some of the postings on her FB page--it is quite entertaining, to say the least--there is a lot of valuable information there from relatives from all over--again thank you!

Please take 5 minutes, to piss someone off while doing a good deed!

american idol production phone #818-748-1100
public relations email: manfred.westphal@fremantlemedia.com

idol.web@fox. com.Some response to the AIM posting:Well, that is just too bad that FOX "is tired of hearing about the plight of Native Americans"....If FOX had not allowed "American Idol" and KeSha to show so much disrespect, then the network, series, and KeSha wouldn't be in so much hot water. This continued disrespect of Native American culture and Peoples by the network media will not be tolerated! To think that this garbage is till going on in 2010 is just sickening.

LOL...they're tired? They ARE TIRED? Well...I'd rather be tired of hearing about it...then frickin' exhausted from LIVING IT!

It's classic, though. Racists always try to turn it around and ignorantly accuse those who call them on their racism of being... racist. Or "mean." Whatever. Keep calling.Comment:  I added the following thought to the discussion:

Have you read about the protest of the King Philip's War game taking place in Rhode Island Saturday?

Protesting King Philip's War game

If you get reporters and bloggers to cover the event, you can send a real message. Not "Stop picking on us poor Indians" but "We're here, we're strong, and we aren't stereotypical chiefs!" In other words, use Kesha's faux pas as a springboard to educate people about today's Indians.

Kesha in headdress and warpaint

Kesha appeared on American Idol last night (3/17/10). At the 2:30 mark of this video, she goes offstage and returns wearing a chief's headdress and warpaint.

Some comments on YouTube:Kesha, sweetie....Are we suppose to take you you serious with that stupid headdress on? I mean come on...REALLY...SERIOUSLY?!!

Ok that was just painful!!!!!!! I hate the changed words and she really can't sing and what was with the Native American headdress????????

Ok what the fck woman you need to stop being a damn blonde and show respect to other ethnic group. Wearing a fake Native American headdress is very disrespectful to us and other Natives Americans. I don't know if you wanted to dress up like that, but you should think about it before you act.

Why'd she put on the Indian hat????????
It looks badd.And on Racialicious:I'm not Native American or Indigenous, but man, that annoyed the fuck outta me. I don't know why or how. It's like seeing a white chick dancing and singing onstage in a saree or burqa for no fucking reason, except to look sooo "kool, lulz, omg how edggyyy."

Her performance was terrible and terribly offensive. All I saw was some ridiculous woman flopping around onstage mumbling "blah blah blah" while wearing a headdress and face paint. My feeling was that there was no real point to any of it except that the headdress and the tv-head dancers were all to detract attention from her formidable lack of talent. American Idol producers should be fired. What next? Juliette Lewis jumping around the AI stage in blackface?

The headdress was just. ... I have no idea. I think it's definitely using the idea of "Oh, this is so WACKY!" and completely ignoring the fact that she is appropriating someone's history and culture. :\Comment:  The headdress is stereotypical, it's pointless, and it mocks the revered place of the feather in Native cultures. Congratulations, Kesha...you failed miserably. Three strikes and you're out.

For more stereotypical music videos, see:

Italian "Dance of the Indians"
MC Mong's Indian Boy video
Girl chief in Lady GaGa video
OutKast dances in fringed, feathered outfits at Grammys