Content warning: violence, genocide

Related posts:

In the ethnography and history of tattoo traditions, it is very common to see a story like this:

  • For a long time, a certain group of people have had a tattoo tradition that has some important meaning or value to them.
  • Some empire or colonial ruler entered the region and sought to subjugate the existing people.
  • As part of this subjugation, the empire banned the existing tattoo practice. This restriction can be achieved via an outright legal ban, punishment of the people involved, and/or the cultural stigmatisation of tattooed people.
  • This subjugation may or may not have been successful.
  • In the modern day, people who belong to that group of people are now seeking to reclaim and restore the tattoo tradition as part of their heritage and identity.

There are countless examples of this happening from all over the world. Here are just a couple:

  • Rome. Mordechay Lewy (2023) writes: “As early Christianity spread through the Middle East, it began to reach populations with ancient tattooing traditions. The desire to remain distinct from the pagans, as well as to enable missionary efforts to convert them, contributed to the development of an ambivalent and pragmatic approach toward tattooing in early Christianity. When Christianity was elevated to the official state religion of the late Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine promulgated an edict in 316 CE that substantially limited Caligula’s practice by disallowing the tattooing of the faces of condemned persons.”
  • Native American nations. Pauline Alvarez (2019) writes about how the European colonisers of North America not only banned tattoos, but also physically removed tattoos from people’s bodies and sought to erase knowledge about tattoos from people’s minds: “Colonial discourse frames Indigenous tattoos as ‘savage’ and ‘uncivilized’. […] various institutions were involved in the physical unmarking of Indigenous skin. Yet, through the examination and careful consideration of the long and often overlooked history of Indigenous tattooing in North America, the process of unmarking Indigenous skin is not only physical but also decidedly metaphorical.” However, there is a significant Indigenous tattoo revitalisation movement: “Despite attempts to unmark Indigenous skin, Indigenous peoples persistently participate in the practice of (re)inscription.”
  • The Atayal people, indigenous to Taiwan. Krutak (2024) writes: “Japanese authorities immediately took strict measures to stop these activities, and they threatened tattoo artists and parents with fines, lashings, servitude (i.e., hard labor), confiscation of tattooing tools, or imprisonment if they allowed tattooing to continue. Once a newly tattooed boy or girl returned home from their secret tattooing session in the mountains, they were immediately admonished […] Eventually, around 1935, the Atayal and other northern tribes were forced to give up these ancient practices for good. Some men and women (i.e., those with forehead tattoos) were made to feel ashamed of their tattoos and had them surgically removed.”
  • The Li people, indigenous to Hainan Island. Krutak (2024) writes: “In AD 75, the governor of Jiaozhou, an imperial Chinese province encompassing Hainan, learned of the facial tattooing practices of the Li and advised his people not to promulgate these practices. He, along with later Han rulers, attempted to implement policies banning tattooing across the Li District, because for hun- dreds of years in China tattoos had been associated with “barbarism” and criminality. […] Despite the tattooing bans, Li tattooing persisted.”

One way that governments express their power, or at least attempt to do so, is by regulating people’s bodies. In the early Turkish Republic in the 1930s, the government banned women from wearing the hijab in government buildings, universities, and events as part of a trend towards secularism. This partial hijab ban “demonstrated how the state had the power to regulate clothing. By dictating something as personal as clothing, the government proved its ability to shape its citizens” (Al-Marashi and Goldschmidt Jr 2025). In contrast, when Iran began to enforce veiling in 1981, “the hijab was not solely enforced for religion’s sake, but also for a profane rationale of projecting the state’s power into society. […] While the veil or the hijab seemed like a religious matter in Iran, it is also served secular policy. Women serve as the ‘billboard’ of the state’s power” (Al-Marashi and Goldschmidt Jr 2025).

Of course, while tattoo practices can be a valuable and profound component of cultural heritage and identity, we need to be careful not to glorify every aspect of these tattoo practices. For example, it is very common for tattoo practices to be closely associated with warfare and especially headhunting. There are records of young girls being forcibly tattooed and even physically restrained for this purpose (Krutak 2024).

Likewise, not every tattoo tradition forms an important part of the heritage or identity of every person who belongs to the associated cultural or ethnic group. Krutak (2019) writes about a neo-Naga tattoo revival in Nagaland (today a state of India): “Mo Naga suggested that even if he offered free Naga-styled tattoos to Naga youth, tattoos that are part of their cultural history and identity, they would probably not choose them right now because they are perceived as being somehow backward.”

Lastly, there is a subtle but interesting parallel with modern-day tattoos in the industrialised Western world. In a previous blog article, I examined the common hesitant attitude among many young people in the West who might like to receive a tattoo but are concerned about negative implications for employment and job opportunities. I want to be very careful here: there are major significant differences between tattoo practices in the modern, industrialised Western world and those practices that belong to various cultural and ethnic groups around the world (not to mention the differences within the latter across time and space). These are not the same thing, and to carelessly equate the two does a disservice to both.

However, it is possible to see an echo of colonial attitudes in people’s hesitancy to get tattooed due to job opportunities in 21st century industrial society—this society, after all, has many colonial and imperial characteristics (Bagchi 2021). Due to the culture that is promoted by neoliberal society, people are hesitant to mark their body. You could argue that this hesitancy is a manifestation of the 21st century industrial empire’s power to govern people’s bodies. Again, I want to be very clear that there are major differences—most people in today’s developed countries aren’t being actively genocide-d (though some people are) and most people aren’t having their skin flayed from their body to remove tattoos (though some people may be). But this subtle parallel is interesting.