|
Baron Porkface posted:At the risk of sounding redditathiest that how religon works. The elder has no more right to monopolize use of the medicine wheel than the pope has to dictate communion. Religion works like the rest of culture does. You can completely culturally appropriate via religion, too. If you're talking about theological validity, I don't give a poo poo. If you're talking about legal right, then sure. But religion isn't just religion, it's also culture. Completely secular Jews are going to react badly to the Star of David being used for some random new religion a guy starts, because religious symbols are also cultural symbols. I guess that yeah, you were pretty redditathiest there. I'm a complete atheist, but i think that means recognizing religion is just another part of culture and not giving it special status. unlimited shrimp posted:I don't see a difference between a neo-pagan child, born and raised with their neo-pagan beliefs, and a Japanese-American child born and raised with a strong sense of Japanese identity, no. This is getting pretty close to 'why is culture important to people at all/are people dumb for valuing their culture'. So can I ask you, do you think culture has value? Do you think someone who continues to uphold cultural practices and traditions (stipulating these aren't of the beat your women kind) are just dumb, and there's no point in doing that vs. adopting entirely new traditions? Ah, I see your edits: quote:Are you scoffing because the neo-pagan doesn't have Indigenous blood in their body, or because the causal chain of of the neo-pagan consciously adopting certain cultural practices is much clearer? Or is a culture only legitimate when time has forgotten where the current practice was appropriated from? Or does it need to reach a critical mass in population? I'm curious. I think that a neopagan who knows their culture, and knows it was invented by someone one generation ago, is going to have a very different association with it. In general, ad hoc invented cultures like this tend to stay very small and typically within families, and it's more about a family association than a cultural one. Obviously there's no clean answer to 'what is a culture' nor is there any dividing line, it depends on your definition. You can make an argument for American Indian culture that includes distaff stuff like neo-pagans, but in any explanation of it it will include that, on the one hand, this guy had his traditions passed down to him by people who actively participated in them with others for generations, and this guy over here had it passed down by Mr. Stevens who decided it was cool and inspirational back in 1957. That latter origin story is, really, not as compelling to people. This is why new cultures often start with new religions, because religion is a very strong and transformative cultural element. It also can happen with strong levels of oppression, both because the original cultural ties get more fractured and because holding onto cultural ties becomes more important. If what you're saying is "But to the son of the guy who invented the religion, it's going to be super-important" then that's true, but it would be important to him no matter what his dad did. The way humans operate is that we have a thing called culture and we do draw a distinction between cultural traditions that were just grabbed up at some random point by someone who thought they were cool, and ones that were either passed down or came through cultural exchange. Lots of things are highly significant parts of cultures despite being gained through exchange, which again, is different than appropriation. It helps if you think about culture the way that people think about it, and not as an abstraction. Think about the way that culture actually operates and matters to people. You can call it irrational that people get attached to cultural traditions and think that because ancestors and their friends and family did stuff it's important, but humans actually do. That is universal to all cultures, though some are more tradition-bound and others are less--though this tends to vary highly, with cultures going through periods where they become more or less flexible. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Mar 30, 2015 |
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:03 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:Religion works like the rest of culture does. You can completely culturally appropriate via religion, too. If you're talking about theological validity, I don't give a poo poo. If you're talking about legal right, then sure. But religion isn't just religion, it's also culture. Completely secular Jews are going to react badly to the Star of David being used for some random new religion a guy starts, because religious symbols are also cultural symbols. Star of David is complicated by Israel and by its use by Nazis during the holocaust. The tattoo example is more like completely secular Westernized Jews getting upset at Hebrew tattoos or saying God's name.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Completely secular Jews are going to react badly to the Star of David being used for some random new religion a guy starts, because religious symbols are also cultural symbols. That would be unadulterated bigotry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:39
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:That would be unadulterated bigotry. Bigotry? Sorry, I think this is actually an example where it'd be cultural appropration without being clearly bigoted. What's the bigoted belief or effect here? Anyway, to clarify for the objection that it's a special case: A secular Sikh could be annoyed at someone doing the dagger-in-the-hair thing as a fashion accessory. Most secular sikhs still wear the 'religious' symbols of their faith because they are, in fact, cultural symbols, because religion is just culture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Bigotry? Sorry, I think this is actually an example where it'd be cultural appropration without being clearly bigoted. What's the bigoted belief or effect here? Demanding that other people obey your perceived religious exclusivity in ritual is putting your religion above others. There's no way I can reduce that fact more simply. Obdicut posted:because religion is just culture. And I thought I was being redditathiest. This does exemplify the attitude of the people baying about appropriation: Culture is something created in the mists of time, does not change, and is exclusive to certain bloodgroups. Religion is not primarily a (evolving) relationship with the divine but rather some rituals done while the National Geographic cameras are rolling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Demanding that other people obey your perceived religious exclusivity in ritual is putting your religion above others. There's no way I can reduce that fact more simply. It's not a religious exclusivity, it's a cultural one. It's 'don't use that, it's part of my culture'. quote:This does exemplify the attitude of the people baying about appropriation: Culture is something created in the mists of time, does not change, and is exclusive to certain bloodgroups. Religion is not primarily a (evolving) relationship with the divine but rather some rituals done while the National Geographic cameras are rolling. If you read my posts, I'm clearly talking about culture that's evolving--thus the whole bit about how Japanese-American culture is different from Japanese culture, and my big post above about the way culture changes. So what the hell are you talking about? Who are the people you're talking about who are baying about appropriation? And no, religion isn't an evolving relationship with the divine, because there's no reason to believe the divine exists. In all ways, though, religion acts like culture; there is no way religion operates that is not like culture. Also, not all religions have a concept of the divine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
"Hey, what if someone complained about appropriation of Japanese culture without meeting my, a white person's, arbitrary threshold of commitment to Japanese heritage? That would suck, so I guess we'll just have to not let anyone complain about it, and furthermore not even let Japanese-Americans have any connection to their heritage at all, just to ensure that I, white person, am never ever inconvenienced again" - Literally like 3 posters ITT
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:"Hey, what if someone complained about appropriation of Japanese culture without meeting my, a white person's, arbitrary threshold of commitment to Japanese heritage? That would suck, so I guess we'll just have to not let anyone complain about it, and furthermore not even let Japanese-Americans have any connection to their heritage at all, just to ensure that I, white person, am never ever inconvenienced again" Cool, good to know I can roll my eyes and correct the next person who says I'm not "really" German, when I - a 10th generation German-Canadian on my father's side who has never set foot in Germany - complain about Oktoberfest being a caricature of my proud heritage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:If you read my posts, I'm clearly talking about culture that's evolving--thus the whole bit about how Japanese-American culture is different from Japanese culture, and my big post above about the way culture changes. So what the hell are you talking about? Who are the people you're talking about who are baying about appropriation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Well, you seem to be claiming that a neo-pagan's culture is somehow illegitimate but a Japanese-American's culture is, with the only denominator being the bloodline. So you're not talking only about culture that's evolving, you're talking about perceptions of legitimacy too. No, as I explained (at length) the denominator is not the bloodline. unlimited shrimp posted:Cool, good to know I can roll my eyes and correct the next person who says I'm not "really" German, when I - a 10th generation German-Canadian on my father's side who has never set foot in Germany - complain about Oktoberfest being a caricature of my proud heritage. Just to make it clear, you'd be lying if you said you felt this way, right? Because you don't really feel you have a connection to your German heritage? Or do you feel like you have a connection? Also we're not arguing about who is 'really' German, and I'm not sure why you think we are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
My family is pretty goddamn assimilated. About the only tradition we have from The Old Country is lebkuchen. If I saw someone dump nutmeg on sugar cookies and call 'em lebkuchen, I'd be appalled. For multiple people in this thread, this reaction makes me an SJW sunuvabitch or something.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:My family is pretty goddamn assimilated. About the only tradition we have from The Old Country is lebkuchen. If I saw someone dump nutmeg on sugar cookies and call 'em lebkuchen, I'd be appalled. For multiple people in this thread, this reaction makes me an SJW sunuvabitch or something. Yes, it would make you an insufferable rear end.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Just to make it clear, you'd be lying if you said you felt this way, right? Because you don't really feel you have a connection to your German heritage? Or do you feel like you have a connection? quote:Also we're not arguing about who is 'really' German, and I'm not sure why you think we are. You asked, "Why does it matter that Japanese-Japanese aren't offended, if Japanese-Americans (who have their own culture) are?" I replied, "For the same reason I'd be more interested in what an Elder has to say about using the Medicine Wheel than some new age neo-pagan. It gets to the question of whether or not a grievance is legitimate." You replied, "A neo-pagan has no actual connection to the medicine wheel. At all. They're just making up a connection." Implying that a Japanese-American has a legitimate claim to Japanese culture in a way that a neo-pagan does not. So we're talking about whose complaints should 'really' be taken seriously. Why is the Japanese American's claim to Japanese culture stronger than the neopagan's claim to Indigenous beliefs/culture? Neither have any direct connection to the source of that 'culture', only received knowledge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Does it matter? Why? Yes, whether or not you're lying about whether you're affected by something matters, because if you are lying about it then it doesn't matter, because you're not actually affected by it. Not sure why you needed to ask that question. quote:No, we're talking about who 'really' has a right to a grievance. I'm not. I don't think that sentence really makes any sense. I think maybe you skipped reading the edits to my post in response to the post you heavily edited? because you're asking a bunch of questions repeatedly that I already addressed, at length. quote:Neither have any direct connection to the source of that 'culture', only received knowledge. Also really unsure what you think is the 'source' of a culture. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:26
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, it would make you an insufferable rear end. Why? I said I'd be appalled, a mental state. Are you with the thought police, Jarmak?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I think maybe you skipped reading the edits to my post in response to the post you heavily edited? because you're asking a bunch of questions repeatedly that I already addressed, at length.  quote:It helps if you think about culture the way that people think about it, and not as an abstraction. Think about the way that culture actually operates and matters to people. You can call it irrational that people get attached to cultural traditions and think that because ancestors and their friends and family did stuff it's important, but humans actually do. That is universal to all cultures, though some are more tradition-bound and others are less--though this tends to vary highly, with cultures going through periods where they become more or less flexible. Because if we're supposed to respect a particular grievance based on how earnestly someone believes X, which is what "You can call it irrational that people get attached to cultural traditions and think that because ancestors and their friends and family did stuff it's important, but humans actually do," implies, then that seems like a good way to treat the symptoms without ever actually treating the cause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:30
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:So I did! What are you talking about with treating symptoms and disease? I'm lost in this analogy. What's getting treated? Medical edit: Also, you treat a lot of diseases by treating the symptoms, which has always annoyed me about that analogy. That's not what confused me though, I really don't get what's being treated here. What does it mean to 'respect a grievance'? Like, to acknowledge that rock and roll come from black forms of music, and that the modern form evolved because black performers were suppressed from playing? Or do you think it means that people are saying white people shouldn't play rock and roll anymore? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What are you talking about with treating symptoms and disease? I'm lost in this analogy. What's getting treated? My analogy was bad, but what I'm trying to get at is that if we simply take as a given that any one group's grievance is legitimate until proven otherwise, then we'll waste a lot of effort trying to make everyone feel good subjectively without making an objectively better system. The differentiation between cultural appropriation and cultural exchange has already been made in this thread. If the only required proof of cultural appropriation is that someone feels something earnestly, then we'll never get to an accurate definition of appropriation. In that case, the "solution" will always begin with the default that the accused is guilty. You yourself have drawn a distinction between my neopagan example and a Japanese American. Of course, that implies my differentiation between a legitimate and an illegitimate grievance is accurate. If it's inaccurate, and there is no such thing as an illegitimate claim of cultural appropriation, then I guess I'm done with this thread. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What are you talking about with treating symptoms and disease? I'm lost in this analogy. What's getting treated? That's the problem with talking about CA. There is a reasonable understanding and definition of Cultural Appropriation as a thing that happens and needs to be addressed. Idiots online quickly turn "Led Zeppelin copied black musicians and found success their sources never could because of racism in American and Europe" into "You're a racist because you like Stairway." People rightfully think the later is idiotic, but people continue to defend the former without realizing the exact definition of CA has been changed in the context of the debate. While not as bad as most internet debates on the topic, the exact definition and nature of CA has been fluid enough in this thread to cause confusion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:If a grievance is legitimate, that implies something should be done to redress it, whether it means reparations or a cessation of some action or whatever. If a grievance is unfounded, that implies that it should be disregarded. What effort will be wasted? Can you name some claim of cultural appropriation that was invalid, that is actually something being requested of someone rather than something popping up on tumblr? LIke, my examples of various complaints and remedies: Complaint--using 'redskins' as the name of a football team, having fans dress up in "Indian" outfits. Solution- (realistic)--change the name, have the team discourage people who do that poo poo/have the players ask the fans not to do it. Solution- (unrealistic)-change the name and all fans of the team actually learn about American Indian culture. Problem--many histories of rock and roll whitewash or don't talk about the suppression of black musicians during the blues/jazz era and continuing into the rock and roll era. Solution--update that poo poo. Lots of this has been done already. Can you cite me some actual complaint you'd like to nominate as an invalid grievance and the suggested solution? quote:The differentiation between cultural appropriation and cultural exchange has already been made in this thread. If the only required proof of cultural appropriation is that someone feels something earnestly, then we'll never get to an accurate definition of appropriation. You yourself have drawn a distinction between my neopagan example and a Japanese American. It's not that someone feels something earnestly. There is no one 'accurate' definition of appropriation. There is something that happens, which I'm saying right now is this: a majority culture takes stuff from a minority culture and in doing so both misuses it and helps to erase that original minority culture and makes people from that minority culture feel emotions apparently common to all humans no matter what culture, which is kind of pissed off/annoyed/like outsiders. Now, that's my working definition. someone else may argue that another definition is better that has something else in it. That's fine. Just like we can use pretty much any term whatsoever without immediately bogging down into 'but what do you mean', the important thing is we recognize the actually thing occurs, which most people do. quote:Of course, that implies my differentiation between a legitimate and an illegitimate grievance is accurate. If it's inaccurate, and there is no such thing as an illegitimate claim of cultural appropriation, then I guess I'm done with this thread. Well, I guess I'd feel it would be invalid if you were lying about what you were feeling, but like your neo-pagan kid example, I think he really feels the emotion he feels but there's not a lot we can do about it. No matter how hard we try nobody is going to convince themselves that his connection to a culture is the same as someone whose got the connection through their heritage. It's not because of blood, it's because that's something that's held by the vast majority of humans no matter what culture. If someone was raised to believe something really strongly by their dad, though, we understand that it's really important to them and we'll try not to be assholes about it, but we aren't going to treat it the same, and most would argue it isn't actually the same. Let us English posted:That's the problem with talking about CA. There is a reasonable understanding and definition of Cultural Appropriation as a thing that happens and needs to be addressed. Idiots online quickly turn "Led Zeppelin copied black musicians and found success their sources never could because of racism in American and Europe" into "You're a racist because you like Stairway." There is no exact definition of cultural appropriation. There is no exact definition of pretty much anything interesting. There's no exact definition of culture. It's a fun world. I think a lot of people's problem goes beyond just confusing the latter for the former, since nobody in this thread has said anything remotely like the latter, and yet there's still been a lot of argument against the idea. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, it would make you an insufferable rear end. Take the state of scientific knowledge in the novel A Canticle for Leibowitz. They have a lot of it, but they don't understand it. They go through the motions, but the meaning and significance of all the intricacies of science are completely lost. Why do we do experiments? Because that's how they seemed to do it. Now imagine if those scientists were alive and watching everyone look at their work and imitate them without any understanding of why they're doing what they're doing. They would be appalled and upset, right? Justifiably so, in my mind. Now imagine that we're talking about cultural knowledge and not scientific knowledge. Do you at least see why someone might get upset now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What effort will be wasted? Can you name some claim of cultural appropriation that was invalid, that is actually something being requested of someone rather than something popping up on tumblr? LIke, my examples of various complaints and remedies: Complaint--using 'redskins' as the name of a football team, having fans dress up in "Indian" outfits. Solution- (realistic)--change the name, have the team discourage people who do that poo poo/have the players ask the fans not to do it. Solution- (unrealistic)-change the name and all fans of the team actually learn about American Indian culture. Problem--many histories of rock and roll whitewash or don't talk about the suppression of black musicians during the blues/jazz era and continuing into the rock and roll era. Solution--update that poo poo. Lots of this has been done already. Yes. The example in the op -- Palash Ghosh being upset that non-Indians are wearing saris. To support his grievance he writes, quote:the sari was originally intended to keep teenaged girls and women both comfortable in the heat and to look ”modest.” I grew up in a huge South Asian community and while I observed Indian women wearing them because it was modest or their definition of normal, I also saw them wear elaborate saris to special functions. My best friend was a first generation Hindu Indian and I went on shopping trips with him and his family to buy luxurious saris for these occasions. I guess it's telling he puts "modest" in quotes because oftentimes, when these otherwise Westernized Indian women wore saris, it was for the same sort of extravagant effect for which he maligns non-Indians wearing them. It was about looking beautiful and wealthy, not keeping cool or looking modest. He goes on to claim that "You can wear the sari only if you are willing to fully embrace Indian culture, even the parts that you as a white Westerner would normally find offensive or even appalling." Well if that's the case with saris then why isn't it the case with Indian food? Should I only be able to enjoy a curry dish if I embrace the parts of Indian culture a white Westerner would find appalling? If I use principles of Indian cooking in my home, am I appropriating their culture (implying I'm harming it in some way)? If not, why is the sari different? quote:and most would argue it isn't actually the same. To your point that "the important thing is we recognize the actually thing occurs," I'm not convinced that cultural appropriation actually occurs in large enough numbers for it to be considered a systemic problem or even something to be worried about. You can cite a few examples of bona fide appropriation, but the majority of the examples I've seen, whether it's white girls wearing saris or non-black people wearing dreadlocks, or white people with tattoos of Asian characters, seem far more benign than harmful. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Yes. The example in the op -- Palash Ghosh being upset that non-Indians are wearing saris. Yeah, that remedy doesn't make any sense. That he feels that way is probably true. I haven't heard any other Indian-American talk about this, though I have heard some Pakistani girls complain about western women wearing some 'hosed-up' saris that look 'lovely', but these are incredibly judgemental 19 year olds, so their remedy is telling those women that their saris are 'hosed up' and 'look lovely'. I don't think they'd really want those women to participate fully in Pakistani culture. I'll ask them if you like. I think a western woman wearing a sari is probably mildly pissing off a variety of cultures by doing so. If I wore that kind of long-shirt thing Indian guys wore, I'd expect indians to go "Why are you wearing that" and if I went "I think it looks cool" I still expect some of them would be kind of miffed. I can call them idiots for feeling miffed but they would actually be miffed and I'd rather not miff people just to wear something when I can just not wear the thing. Maybe it's 'wrong' for them to be miffed but I don't really care about that evaluation, it bores me. quote:I don't care what most would argue, I care about whether or not it is the same. If it's not the same because of "heritage"/blood/their own culture's history of appropriation being lost to time, then that seems like a huge problem to me. You dismissed it, but it goes back to how earnestly someone believes something. I could earnestly believe that some kid down the street stole my mail, but that doesn't mean they should be convicted for it. If you don't care what others think, then you're not really going to make any headway nor convince anyone that they shouldn't actually feel this connection to their culture. quote:To your point that "the important thing is we recognize the actually thing occurs," I'm not convinced that cultural appropriation actually occurs in large enough numbers for it to be considered a systemic problem or even something to be worried about. Okay, well, cool for you. Are you being asked to do/not do anything because it's cultural appropriation? You can always do the thing anyway and probably the worst that's going to happen is people are going to criticize your decision and explain why. quote:You can cite a few examples of bona fide appropriation, but the majority of the examples I've seen, whether it's white girls wearing saris or non-black people wearing dreadlocks, or white people with tattoos of Asian characters, seem far more benign than harmful. What about the examples of jazz, rock and roll, and to some extent hip-hop and rap being appropriated from black America--with the note that a lot of the musicians legitimately got into the culture and weren't appropriating, and that something can be appropriated and still be great art? And what about the examples of people wearing Native American headdresses at football games?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:What about the examples of jazz, rock and roll, and to some extent hip-hop and rap being appropriated from black America--with the note that a lot of the musicians legitimately got into the culture and weren't appropriating, and that something can be appropriated and still be great art?  Dave Brubeck posted:Duke and I were on tour together across the country and this night, we were in Denver. ... And at seven o'clock in the morning, there was a knock on my door, and I opened the door, and there's Duke, and he said, 'You're on the cover of Time.' And he handed me Time magazine. It was the worst and the best moment possible, all mixed up, because I didn't want to have my story come first. I was so hoping that they would do Duke first, because I idolized him. He was so much more important than I was ... he deserved to be first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Can you cite me some actual complaint you'd like to nominate as an invalid grievance and the suggested solution? Bitching about Kanji tattoos. I mean, people shouldn't get them because they're dumb, but they're not a threat to Asian Americans anymore than Engrish T-shirts are a threat to English speakers living in Asia. Most of the examples in this thread point out issues that don't need the label "Cultural Appropriation" to recognize as problematic and fix. Dressing up in an Indian costume at a football game or on Halloween reduces a living culture to a stereotype and conflates all native cultures. Erasure of the contributions of black musicians has been a problem and writing histories that point this issue out is good, but erasure of historical contributions by marginalized groups is an issue that goes far beyond cultural appropriation. Most of this thread agrees that specific issues are problematic and need to be addressed, but I've yet to see why Cultural Appropriation is an effective or useful label to group these grievances under.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Bitching about Kanji tattoos. I mean, people shouldn't get them because they're dumb, but they're not a threat to Asian Americans anymore than Engrish T-shirts are a threat to English speakers living in Asia. You just bitched about them. It seems okay to bitch about them. What's the harm in bitching about them? What negative effect happens? quote:Most of the examples in this thread point out issues that don't need the label "Cultural Appropriation" to recognize as problematic and fix. Why is this an objection to the term? You don't need to label lots of stuff to fix it. You can call stuff 'the troubles' and fix it. quote:Dressing up in an Indian costume at a football game or on Halloween reduces a living culture to a stereotype and conflates all native cultures. Erasure of the contributions of black musicians has been a problem and writing histories that point this issue out is good, but erasure of historical contributions by marginalized groups is an issue that goes far beyond cultural appropriation. Yes, there other problems that have to do with making GBS threads on minority groups that are not covered by 'cultural appropriation'. How is this an objection? If you guys don't find the term useful, don't use it. If you say "It's loving racist as poo poo that black americans had their work stolen and monetized and they didn't see a dime for it", nobody is going to cough and say "I believe you mean that was cultural appropriation". Likewise, if you say "I think kanji tattoos are dumb', someone might respond to that with, 'yeah, that's lovely cultural appropriation', and if you really want you can say 'no it's not' to them, but then they may ask 'wait, why do you think it's dumb?' and I'd be interested in hearing your response to that. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Here's a really good example of that, for the sake of concreteness. Ironic that happened to Brubeck since he was a big fighter against segregated audiences, wouldn't play for black-excluded audiences, and insisted his black bass player be allowed to both play on stage and share the same hotel facilities. This meant he couldn't play most of the South. He did play some only-black places. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:If you don't care what others think, then you're not really going to make any headway nor convince anyone that they shouldn't actually feel this connection to their culture. quote:What about the examples of jazz, rock and roll, and to some extent hip-hop and rap being appropriated from black America--with the note that a lot of the musicians legitimately got into the culture and weren't appropriating, and that something can be appropriated and still be great art? Saying white people appropriated jazz and rock & roll presupposes that, had white people not intervened, then black people would have been recognized for those accomplishments. Nevermind that they have been retroactively, the fact of the matter is that the entire system of White American culture precluded Black Americans from ever breaking through with jazz or whatever on their own merits. The fact that only whites could take those artforms and make them popular tells us that there was/is some other, bigger problem in society.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:That's not the point. Let's establish some principles, we can develop the strategies later. Sorry, it is the point to me. I like actually achieving things, I find it fun. quote:"Appropriation" implies that white people utilizing those forms of expression did/does some damage. I would argue that they're only symptomatic of the real problem, and that the "appropriation" itself was harmless in comparison. Yep, the main reason cultural appropriation happens is because of racism. If white people hadn't 'intervened'--that is, if the white people who perpetuated racism in the US hadn't done so--black people would have been recognized for those accomplishments and would probably still be participating in rock and roll in large numbers today, instead of having been ostracized from it. Not sure what your point is with the first sentences in this part of your post, I can't understand them. You seem to be saying "Yep, cultural appropriation happened here because of racism", and yet you're confused as to why people want to talk about it. Again, a lot of musicians didn't appropriate, but participated--like Brubeck. This seems like a 'this is covered elsewhere' objection, but that objection is kinda silly because lots of stuff has overlap when you're talking about concepts. If you don't find it useful, just don't use it. And again, I really don't feel like you're reading my posts. You keep being majorly off. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Talking about supposed "appropriation" of European cultures is irrelevant because they are the ones doing the appropriating, ravenously, for all of history, unless we are talking about the Basques or something. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Why does this make you an insufferable rear end? I simply don't understand: if someone gets upset (like Obdicut's grandfather at Swedish Christmas cookies sold at stores), what is illegitimate about their being upset? Why are they wrong to be upset? Commodified food examples strike me as really clear-cut cases of appropriation, actually. I really just don't understand, like with my cinnamon roll example: it seems obvious to me that you'd be justified in being upset, since it's a clear violation of my culture's norms, taking stuff out of my culture without any of the context, and given food's centrality to our lives, it's sometimes one's closest contact with the culture of their ancestors or even with other cultures. When it gets bought and sold, or stripped of what made it significant in the first place, it's a bad thing (which doesn't mean that you can't eat delicious food from other cultures, because you should eat delicious food from all cultures). It's pretty silly to be upset because you think someone doesn't have sufficiently refined taste in food. People can eat what they like and call it what they like, and so can you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:30
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It's pretty silly to be upset because you think someone doesn't have sufficiently refined taste in food. People can eat what they like and call it what they like, and so can you. I see we're branching out into new areas of hilarity with "You shouldn't have any standards for anything".
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Sorry, it is the point to me. I like actually achieving things, I find it fun. Which is why you're talking about social issues on a comedy website.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I see we're branching out into new areas of hilarity with "You shouldn't have any standards for anything". You don't have to eat it but being annoyed/depressed about other people's eating habits is just snobbery/retarded, I don't see why I should have patience for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Which is why you're talking about social issues on a comedy website. Any response to the stuff I answered your questions with? Or just this? I really am genuinely interested in this bit: If you say "I think kanji tattoos are dumb', someone might respond to that with, 'yeah, that's lovely cultural appropriation', and if you really want you can say 'no it's not' to them, but then they may ask 'wait, why do you think it's dumb?' and I'd be interested in hearing your response to that. Why do you think kanji tattoos are dumb?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:40
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You don't have to eat it but being annoyed/depressed about other people's eating habits is just snobbery/retarded, I don't see why I should have patience for it. *eating meatloaf sandwich* This bibimbap is delicious!
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Why does this make you an insufferable rear end? I simply don't understand: if someone gets upset (like Obdicut's grandfather at Swedish Christmas cookies sold at stores), what is illegitimate about their being upset? Why are they wrong to be upset? Commodified food examples strike me as really clear-cut cases of appropriation, actually. I really just don't understand, like with my cinnamon roll example: it seems obvious to me that you'd be justified in being upset, since it's a clear violation of my culture's norms, taking stuff out of my culture without any of the context, and given food's centrality to our lives, it's sometimes one's closest contact with the culture of their ancestors or even with other cultures. When it gets bought and sold, or stripped of what made it significant in the first place, it's a bad thing (which doesn't mean that you can't eat delicious food from other cultures, because you should eat delicious food from all cultures). Yes, people who are purists for the sake of being purists are insufferable asses. If you make your BBQ on a gas grill I'm going to think you don't make very good BBQ, but if I got actually upset with you for tarnishing the name of good BBQ with your inferior creation then I'd be a grade A rear end in a top hat. There is some exception to this for certain things of religious or sacrosanct nature, cinnamon rolls do not fall under this. Effectronica posted:Why? I said I'd be appalled, a mental state. Are you with the thought police, Jarmak? Seriously? are you 5?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Any response to the stuff I answered your questions with? Or just this? Had work to do, didn't have time for a full reply. Kanji tattoos are dumb because they're tacky and look like poo poo. Most people who get them simply pull out a dictionary and find the first entry for "strength" or whatever, but it never translates right. I used to work at a summer camp where we'd go to the local pool. An ex-marine counselor from another camp would always bet there and you could see he had 兄弟 on his back. I assume he wanted it to say "brotherhood" but he just got the word "siblings" instead. These tattoos are dumb but they're no more offensive than the ways people adorn their bodies with English clothing in East Asia. As dumb as it is, it doesn't take away from anyone else's cultural experience. When people rush to call such tattoos racist, the inevitably turn a simple writing system into mystical and mysterious runes of power, thus engaging in the very Orientalism they came to decry. This outrage is made worse by the fact that's almost always 100% ignorant of how English is commodified on a much grander scale in Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and China. The use of English in East Asia is not racist or problematic, but it's pretty stupid, just like Kanji tattoos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:*eating meatloaf sandwich* This bibimbap is delicious! How is this related at all to the point he was making at all. I see you mentioned food, but beyond that 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
I make BBQ in a slow cooker  Let us English posted:Had work to do, didn't have time for a full reply. Pretty much. Asian shirts: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 11:03 |
|
Let us English posted:How is this related at all to the point he was making at all. I see you mentioned food, but beyond that He said that what you call food doesn't matter. I decided to illustrate this, with exactly as much intellectualism as his original statement had.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2015 04:46
|
|