|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so why aren't you bombing the German heritage festivals you can find all around the country? Or at least writing stern letters to the editor about this resistance to assimilation? Little lily around the ol' liver? Face it. People don't always fall in with conformity, and you should be glad of it, because otherwise you'll be constantly in a state of ignorance and misery.  because it's not worth giving a poo poo about either way (unless germanic heritage festivals somehow attack everyone else) 
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:51
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:I don't know what the hell you're talking about, but it suggests you're fairly uninformed about these issues. Your second paragraph confirms it, because the reason buckskin fringe became popular was because counterculture people wore it as a sign of solidarity with the AIM and other Native movements, and the reason it was abandoned by those people was because Native activists, most of whom had been the target of cultural extermination in their childhoods, wanted to reserve traditional clothing for their own use to maintain and revive Native cultures. Your story is utterly inane because the Navajo do not and never had a monopoly on the use of deer hide for clothing. Sorry, I thought you were talking about the modern revival. The Navajo do have a legal monopoly on making Navajo clothes. In the 70s, the economic factors were an attempted rejection of cultural consumerism. I didn't say that economics are the only thing that were important to me, but they are what shapes society and everything it produces.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:52
|
|
blowfish posted:
Okay, so you've realized that your position is incredibly stupid, but you're not willing to admit it, so you start off on the whole "care" thing. Which applies to why you're posting about how bad this thread is just as much. I guess that promoting assimilation is less important to you than whining, which is good, but it would be better if you didn't care about whining as well. Miltank posted:Sorry, I thought you were talking about the modern revival. The Navajo do have a legal monopoly on making Navajo clothes. In the 70s, the economic factors were an attempted rejection of cultural consumerism. The Navajo are not the only culture that used deerhide for clothes. Furthermore, your entire thought-process, by your standards, is about how everything comes back to this singular phenomenon, which means that you are, by definition, incapable of even approaching objectivity. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 18:56 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:54
|
|
because it's not worth giving a poo poo about either way (unless germanic heritage festivals somehow attack everyone else)
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so you've realized that your position is incredibly stupid, but you're not willing to admit it, so you start off on the whole "care" thing. Which applies to why you're posting about how bad this thread is just as much. I guess that promoting assimilation is less important to you than whining, which is good, but it would be better if you didn't care about whining as well. "prepare to be assimilated in all ways that might end up harming people apart from that it's a free country" who gives a gently caress if the average wapanese-american three generations down the line is not a carbon copy of the average redneck culturally, but neither is that difference worth defending just because it exists
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 18:59
|
|
blowfish posted:
The next step is to start pretending that you really meant FGM, or human sacrifice, or whatever, I see. Does this come with a side of implicit accusations or is it a la carte? blowfish posted:who gives a gently caress if the average wapanese-american three generations down the line is not a carbon copy of the average redneck culturally, but neither is that difference worth defending just because it exists In other words, you have read that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, but you managed to misunderstand it.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The next step is to start pretending that you really meant FGM, or human sacrifice, or whatever, I see. Does this come with a side of implicit accusations or is it a la carte? what the gently caress are you even talking about Effectronica posted:In other words, you have read that the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, but you managed to misunderstand it. seriously, what the gently caress are you even talking about
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The Navajo are not the only culture that used deerhide for clothes. Furthermore, your entire thought-process, by your standards, is about how everything comes back to this singular phenomenon, which means that you are, by definition, incapable of even approaching objectivity. The 'phenomenon' of who has access to what resources? Yes. E: it is extremely important. Miltank fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:02
|
|
blowfish posted:what the gently caress are you even talking about So what did you mean? Maybe if you decided to communicate instead of being snide, you'd be able to have people understand you for the first time in your life, and you could move on to things like having people get your order right at restaurants. Or you could see my edit. Miltank posted:The 'phenomenon' of who has access to what resources? Yes. Okay, thank you for admitting you're not interested in reality. I will use this for all interactions with you going forward. blowfish posted:seriously, what the gently caress are you even talking about If someone does something harmless, and they want to do it, and someone else wants to stop them from doing it, is the second person good, bad, or neither for wishing to force other people to abide by their will?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
You are an retard.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:05
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So what did you mean? Maybe if you decided to communicate instead of being snide, you'd be able to have people understand you for the first time in your life, and you could move on to things like having people get your order right at restaurants. Or you could see my edit.  because letting them happen does not actually cause meaningful problemsEffectronica posted:If someone does something harmless, and they want to do it, and someone else wants to stop them from doing it, is the second person good, bad, or neither for wishing to force other people to abide by their will? it's a good thing we're talking about cultural appropriation which does not prevent the first guy doing stuff then
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:06
|
|
Miltank posted:You are an retard. LMAO blowfish posted:
Is diversity a good thing, in your view? Or, conversely, is lack of diversity a bad thing?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:LMAO quote:Is diversity a good thing, in your view? Or, conversely, is lack of diversity a bad thing? diversity is a good thing because it allows cultures to shamelessly 
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is diversity a good thing, in your view? Or, conversely, is lack of diversity a bad thing? Diversity is false ('inauthentic,' as you would put it) if it is mandated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:10
|
|
blowfish posted:diversity is a good thing because it allows cultures to shamelessly Okay, so the extermination of said cultures would be a bad thing, right? TheImmigrant posted:Diversity is false ('inauthentic,' as you would put it) if it is mandated. Well, sure, if you make poo poo up you can say just about anything, even though I'm not making up the fact that you murder someone and eat their heart and lungs every September.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so the extermination of said cultures would be a bad thing, right? you, too, can become a good roman and we're happy to learn your superior sword making and floor decorating skills  edit of ness:
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:16
|
|
blowfish posted:you, too, can become a good roman and we're happy to learn your superior sword making and floor decorating skills Ah, instinctively sensing the trap, you carefully retreat.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
like, cultures appropriating cool stuff from each other will trend towards being more similar but with an increasing proportion of cool stuff vs. uncool stuff (or circle the drain together if you're a cultural pessimist) but just conserving cultures like a museum exhibit gets silly
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:So then we have two paragraphs wherein you gabble about things that are irrelevant to my position, followed by a final relevant paragraph where you argue that rock-n-roll was exchanged. Exchanged for what, you couldn't tell, but whatever, I'm not going to turn everything into a demand that you use terms more appropriately. Instead I'm going to point out that the reasons black artists were unable to make and sell rock-n-roll records had very little to do with economic inequality, except in third-order effects. It had a lot more to do with racism from record companies and white parents that refused to record black artists and who would only accept rock-n-roll when it was safely white, respectively. Rock and Roll was part of an ongoing cultural exchange between blacks and whites and I have no idea how you could think otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:19
|
|
blowfish posted:like, cultures appropriating cool stuff from each other will trend towards being more similar but with an increasing proportion of cool stuff vs. uncool stuff (or circle the drain together if you're a cultural pessimist) but just conserving cultures like a museum exhibit gets silly Who's saying anything about conserving cultures? You're acting like cultures inevitably collapse into a monoculture without strict boundaries despite the weight of history against you. Miltank posted:Rock and Roll was part of an ongoing cultural exchange between blacks and whites and I have no idea how you could think otherwise. However, rock-n-roll was not itself exchanged for anything, it was ripped out over the course of the 1950s and 60s. I know that people like you, with your hatred of both academia and ordinary people, have major difficulties with terms, but do try to keep up.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Okay, so the extermination of said cultures would be a bad thing, right? No.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
You think cultural exchange is like a technology trade on Civ I'm assuming? E: like you think that people are actually obligated to give something back in exchange for adopting aspects of a culture exchange which they are already a part of? E2: the racism is what is hosed up about what happened with rock- not cultural exchange. Miltank fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Is it that reducing diversity is good, or is it that you view subcultures as food, something for you to devour? Miltank posted:You think cultural exchange is like a technology trade on Civ I'm assuming? Look, I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a precocious teenager with a lot of angst, buddy, but the process of exchange ended with rock-n-roll and doesn't really resume until rap and hip-hop take off. In between, you have brief borrowings with blue-eyed soul and white soul bands, but there's very little interaction between musical cultures. Effectronica fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is it that reducing diversity is good, or is it that you view subcultures as food, something for you to devour? yes
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is it that reducing diversity is good, or is it that you view subcultures as food, something for you to devour? New cultural distinctions develop from blending of borders and mutual assimilation, like new species grow from a limited gene pool. There's no inherent values in the standing cultural categories. Maintaining diversity by force as something static and composed of discrete categories reduces diversity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Who's saying anything about conserving cultures? You're acting like cultures inevitably collapse into a monoculture without strict boundaries despite the weight of history against you. then, as the weight of history dictates, cultural appropriation is by definition insufficient to force uniformity so why should we do anything about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Look, I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not a precocious teenager with a lot of angst, buddy, but the process of exchange ended with rock-n-roll and doesn't really resume until rap and hip-hop take off. In between, you have brief borrowings with blue-eyed soul and white soul bands, but there's very little interaction between musical cultures. Yes. That is because of the development of market sectionalism and consumer culture with a heaping helping of racism scooped on top. It is a bad thing. Tell me what it has to do with cultural appropriation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:32
|
|
steinrokkan posted:New cultural distinctions develop from blending of borders and mutual assimilation, like new species grow from a limited gene pool. There's no inherent values in the standing cultural categories. No they don't. Would you please stop using words you just learned last week? Furthermore, people should be allowed to decide and develop for themselves, instead of having things imposed on them by others. A lot of this really seems to be refusing to think about cultures in terms of concrete practices, because otherwise you'd think people would say "Jewish people should decide what is Jewish themselves" instead of "It's OK if Christians and atheists determine what constitutes Judaism because that's the only way new religions evolve", like you're doing now. blowfish posted:then, as the weight of history dictates, cultural appropriation is by definition insufficient to force uniformity so why should we do anything about it This level of fatalism is usually a symptom of major depression. The whole point is that cultures dying or being assimilated is a consequence of human will. Miltank posted:Yes. That is because of the development of market sectionalism and consumer culture with a heaping helping of racism scooped on top. It is a bad thing. Tell me what it has to do with cultural appropriation. Are you familiar with the term "race music"? If you Google it, I will know.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No they don't. The wight of history, as you like to say, claims otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:38
|
|
steinrokkan posted:The wight of history, as you like to say, claims otherwise. Do you know what the word "assimilation" means in the context of cultures?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Are you familiar with the term "race music"? If you Google it, I will know. Throw some knowledge down on me mama.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:This level of fatalism is usually a symptom of major depression. The whole point is that cultures dying or being assimilated is a consequence of human will. fatalism noun fa·tal·ism \-tə-ˌli-zəm\ : the belief that what will happen has already been decided and cannot be changed as opposed to: what will happen is of little consequence and does not need to be changed even if it can be cultures dying is ok as long as new cultural innovations appear at a sufficient rate to offset that also cultures can change (e.g. by appropriating cool stuff from other cultures) and may end up being dissimilar to whatever the ~original~ culture was edit: the former not being a necessary consequence of cultural appropriation which leads to the latter btw
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Do you know what the word "assimilation" means in the context of cultures? Yes. I was responding to a question whether ther's value in maintaining cultural distinctions, not to a question about appropriation and how it differs from assimilation. I guess you meant extermination in a literal sense, while I read it more loosely.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is it that reducing diversity is good, or is it that you view subcultures as food, something for you to devour? also i can't believe i missed the opportunity to call for the preservation of silicon valley techie libertarian subculture in the face of angry bay area residents united by their hate of gentrification and glassholes (who may yet appropriate sv techie lolbertarian subculture in the form of home entertainment virtual reality technology, a cheap imitation of the authentic cyborg lifestyle favoured by the captains of suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Who's saying anything about conserving cultures?You're acting like cultures inevitably collapse into a monoculture without strict boundaries despite the weight of history against you. Aren't you? Effectronica posted:Most Native American cultures in the USA are in pretty precarious positions and mass media depictions do have a lot of influence on them. Clearly, these labor aristocrats should have their cultures annihilated rather than white people not talk about spirit animals or wear buckskin or go "how". Effectronica posted:People are using appropriation to refer to (a class of) destructive cultural interactions, because those are the only ones they consider to be bad. Nobody thinks that Americans eating schnitzel is bad, because it doesn't impinge on the cultures that originally produced schnitzel at all. People think that white Americans wearing kimono as a fashion statement is bad because they believe it impinges on Japanese-American (and the broader Asian-American) cultures and damages them. People that are informed generally agree that "spirit animals" is a bad thing because it damages Native religions and cultures. Effectronica posted:A lot of people are taking the position that any and all interaction with a culture not your own is appropriation. This would say a lot about their mindset, but I'm guessing most of 'em don't even try to parse what "cultural appropriation" would mean. Cultural appropriation is an interaction that damages the culture's ability to define itself by ripping parts of it out. Effectronica posted:Well, yes, you're really stupid. But let me try this again- cultural appropriation is when you take something from another culture and damage or destroy their ability to use it for themselves. This differs from other forms of cultural change because it is done to a culture rather than by it, and because the cultural component is then used by the culture that stole it. Effectronica posted:People are using appropriation to refer to (a class of) destructive cultural interactions, because those are the only ones they consider to be bad. Nobody thinks that Americans eating schnitzel is bad, because it doesn't impinge on the cultures that originally produced schnitzel at all. People think that white Americans wearing kimono as a fashion statement is bad because they believe it impinges on Japanese-American (and the broader Asian-American) cultures and damages them. People that are informed generally agree that "spirit animals" is a bad thing because it damages Native religions and cultures. If conserving cultures from the monoculture isn't what you are talking about then I have no idea what it is. e: why is it so central that cultures be able to control how others define them within the monoculture?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:57
|
|
Miltank posted:Throw some knowledge down on me mama. Before they called rock "rock-n-roll", it was called "race music", because the market was already segmented racially. You had black music and white music and crossovers like jazz would then spawn versions that were more acceptable for white audiences. Rock didn't undergo this. You could argue that this was because of the rise of youth culture and the fears about moral corruption that were happening at the same time, but the consequence was that black artists were pushed out, because not only was rock popular, the sanitized versions weren't popular. So the best compromise was to sign "blacker" artists like Elvis, and the overall consequence was that rock was taken almost wholly into white culture and black culture instead ended up filling the gap with soul, funk, and Motown, because black acts couldn't get booked as rock or get rock records sold, with exceptions of course. blowfish posted:fatalism You're the one arguing in terms of absolutes, but I see that you're playing the game where you use different definitions. I guess that I'll redefine "btw" to refer to a confession of complicity in the Rwandan genocide. steinrokkan posted:Yes. I was responding to a question whether ther's value in maintaining cultural distinctions, not to a question about appropriation and how it differs from assimilation. I guess you meant extermination in a literal sense, while I read it more loosely. Do you think that the distinction between cultures disappears automatically without segregation, or are you just saying that cultures should be exterminated as often as possible because there's no value in maintaining them. blowfish posted:also i can't believe i missed the opportunity to call for the preservation of silicon valley techie libertarian subculture in the face of angry bay area residents united by their hate of gentrification and glassholes (who may yet appropriate sv techie lolbertarian subculture in the form of home entertainment virtual reality technology, a cheap imitation of the authentic cyborg lifestyle favoured by the captains of Well, I guess diversity is bad then because some people are assholes.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 19:58
|
|
Miltank posted:Aren't you? You're really bad at using basic forums features, Christ. But all this relies on the assumption that allowing people to define their own cultures is "conserving cultures", which is a good example of a disingenuous definition.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:00
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Aren't you?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:01
|
|
effectronica would have posted:
blowfish posted:that is literally the merriam webster definition I have outlined the definition I am using multiple times, and the reasoning why at least twice. I will even write it out again if reading the thread is such a painful experience for your little head. Why are you assuming that all cultural change would be banned if we acknowledged this class of interactions as bad? Is it because you feel vaguely threatened, or are you just naturally paranoid?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:You're really bad at using basic forums features, Christ. But all this relies on the assumption that allowing people to define their own cultures is "conserving cultures", which is a good example of a disingenuous definition. Why is it so central that cultures be able to control how others define them within the monoculture?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:Do you think that the distinction between cultures disappears automatically without segregation, or are you just saying that cultures should be exterminated as often as possible because there's no value in maintaining them. The former. I live in a region that has been the nexus of many different Germanic and Slavic cultures for centuries (Bohemia), and throughout this entire history cultures would be periodically melded together into unique syncretic forms, only for new cultural identities to emerge in the same space, spend some time opposing each other politically, then collapse into another singularity - the process repeated itself regardless of being enforced violently or occurring peacefully, and despite the continuous, radical transformation of identities it never led to a loss of cultural agency of the involved peoples, or to cultural impoverishment. If anything it had an opposite, enriching effect and enabled new distinctions to emerge when a need for them was needed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:05
|
|