|
Effectronica posted: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. quote: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? idk, if i dress in a kimono and look like a dork because i have no taste, do i get called out for my bad taste or for appropriating the identity of nth generation japanese immigrants
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:07
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:41 |
|
Miltank posted:Why is it so central that cultures be able to control how others define them within the monoculture? If you're going to put it to a choice between "zero control over yourself" and "total control over others", I'd have to choose punching you in the face. steinrokkan posted: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. Funnily enough, this hasn't happened with Germany and France, or between Brittany and the rest of France, or with Wales and England
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
I endorse exterminating whichever culture is responsible for Effetronica's smugness. though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If you're going to put it to a choice between "zero control over yourself" and "total control over others", I'd have to choose punching you in the face. brioche and croissants are tasty though also can i buy a basque cap or will that start the next german-french war
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:09
|
|
blowfish posted:it is, please do~ Okay, the definition is right in the Miltank post you quoted, so you read it already and it wasn't too painful, and the justification is to focus on the thing that people consider negative rather than using a lot of extraneous language to do so. What happens is that you get called a racist for whining about blood purity, and then you probably get crucified or impaled or something in SJW hell.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Funnily enough, this hasn't happened with Germany and France, or between Brittany and the rest of France, or with Wales and England I don't agree with it not happening in Germany at the very least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:10
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I don't agree with it not happening in Germany at the very least. steinrokkan posted:I endorse exterminating whichever culture is responsible for Effetronica's smugness. though. Smugness is worse than illiteracy to you? Holy loving poo poo. Are you a freakin' time traveler?
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If you're going to put it to a choice between "zero control over yourself" and "total control over others", I'd have to choose punching you in the face. I have no idea what you mean by this. You think that cultural groups should have the power to control the way that the monoculture defines them right? Why would an actual, healthy culture give a poo poo about what American consumers think of them??
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:12
|
|
Miltank posted:I have no idea what you mean by this. You think that cultural groups should have the power to control the way that the monoculture defines them right? No, I think that they should have the power to define themselves, rather than the primary culture (not monoculture) defining it. You're saying that Jewishness should only be defined by non-Jews.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, I think that they should have the power to define themselves, rather than the primary culture (not monoculture) defining it. You're saying that Jewishness should only be defined by non-Jews. Ok yeah, but if they themselves don't already define their own culture for themselves then the battle is already lost right? How could a culture not define itself? I am not saying that Jewishness should only be defined by non-Jews at all. I am saying that Jews have an internal definition for what it means to be a Jew which is separate from what the primary culture defines them as. Miltank fucked around with this message at 20:20 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Smugness is worse than illiteracy to you? Holy loving poo poo. Are you a freakin' time traveler? I guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:18
|
|
Miltank posted:Ok yeah, but if they themselves don't already define their own culture for themselves then the battle is already lost right? How could a culture not define itself? By the primary culture imposing its definitions on the minority culture! Jesus! This should not be hard. Appropriation is one means by which these definitions can be imposed, by subtracting elements. There are others!
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
I am not saying that Jewishness should only be defined by non-Jews at all. I am saying that Jews have an internal definition for what it means to be a Jew which is separate from what the primary culture defines them as. How does the primary culture impose definitions on the minority culture?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:By the primary culture imposing its definitions on the minority culture! Jesus! This should not be hard. Appropriation is one means by which these definitions can be imposed, by subtracting elements. There are others! ok 1) how am in infringing on japanese culture and self image by wearing a lovely made in china kimono 2) why should i care about japanese immigrant culture more than about silicon valley startup culture
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:21
|
|
blowfish posted:ok 1) how am in infringing on japanese culture and self image by wearing a lovely made in china kimono 2) why should i care about japanese immigrant culture more than about silicon valley startup culture If kimono are redefined by the majority culture as a culture-neutral garment, then they have had their Japanese origin erased and can no longer serve as an signifier of Japanese identity. You should probably care more about the culture that's under siege by people who brag about assimilation, which is not Google culture. Assuming you have a moral compass.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
If your internal perceptions of your 'culture' are contingent on the primary culture, then I'm pretty sure that your culture is actually the primary culture, unfortunately.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I am not saying that Jewishness should only be defined by non-Jews at all. I am saying that Jews have an internal definition for what it means to be a Jew which is separate from what the primary culture defines them as. How does the primary culture impose definitions on the minority culture? Specifically in the Jewish case it should be pretty obvious. And I'm not talking only about the Holocaust. Communist countries led numerous show trials against Jewish metropolitanists simply because the leading ideological dogma defined the Jewish people as metropolitan diversants who were incompatible with the internationalist ideal. In that case the Jewish identity was suppressed by the external definition created by the dominant group. It didn't matter how the Jews saw themselves, as long as somebody could be labeled as "citizen of Jewish origin", he was treated differently and forced to act upon the imposed definition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:26
|
|
Miltank posted:If your internal perceptions of your 'culture' are contingent on the primary culture, then I'm pretty sure that your culture is the primary culture, unfortunately. Culture also involves practices, dumbass. If the majority culture declares that Passover is unacceptable and persecutes those who practice it, no matter how powerful your internal perceptions are, your ability to practice a definition of Jewishness that includes celebrating Passover is constrained.
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Specifically in the Jewish case it should be pretty obvious. And I'm not talking only about the Holocaust. Communist countries led numerous show trials against Jewish metropolitanists simply because the leading ideological dogma defined the Jewish people as metropolitan diversants who were incompatible with the internationalist ideal. In that case the Jewish identity was suppressed by the external definition created by the dominant group. It didn't matter how the Jews saw themselves, as long as somebody could be labeled as "citizen of Jewish origin", he was treated differently. Effectronica posted:Culture also involves practices, dumbass. If the majority culture declares that Passover is unacceptable and persecutes those who practice it, no matter how powerful your internal perceptions are, your ability to practice a definition of Jewishness that includes celebrating Passover is constrained. Neither of these have anything to do with cultural appropriation or internal cultural identification which is what effectronica was talking about. A better example would be if the majority culture decided to start celebrating Passover- in which case, nothing would change. If Jews couldn't celebrate Passover, their internal narrative would be "we can't celebrate Passover" which is actually a major difference from simply abandoning the practice. Same thing with Communist repression, the internal narrative about what is or isn't Jewishness will never be the same as that of mainstream- because Jews are a separate culture. Miltank fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Neither of these have anything to do with cultural appropriation or internal cultural identification which is what effectronica was talking about. A better example would be if the majority culture decided to start celebrating Passover- in which case, nothing would change. I think it's appropriation, only of the opposite form. Instead of embracing a facet of a culture, the dominant culture decides to erase the same facets from the official definition, and perhaps replaces them with something new. Either way the dominant culture takes ownership of how the culture is perceived. Ultimately the difference may be smaller than it may seem, since even the appropriation by adoption leads to alienation (the minority culture can't exercise its own identity freely if the majority culture works to reshae the landscape for them). It also obviously influences internal practices by changing the meaning or even possibility of participating on them, and in repressive causes forces the culture to adopt new, non-authentic practices. steinrokkan fucked around with this message at 20:44 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I think it's appropriation, only of the opposite form. Instead of embracing a facet of a culture, the dominant culture decides to erase the same facets from the official definition, and perhaps replaces them with something new. Either way the dominant culture takes ownership of how the culture is perceived. Ultimately the difference may be smaller than it may seem, since even the appropriation by adoption leads to alienation. The dominant culture takes ownership of how the culture is perceived within itself. Jews and gentiles have never defined themselves and each other by the same terms. e: "authentic" is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Miltank posted:The dominant culture takes ownership of how the culture is perceived within itself. Jews and gentiles have never defined themselves and each other by the same terms. Policies and social changes hit the minorities as well, and reduce their ability to express themselves in an unrestrained fashion. Only if cultures were perfectly segregated, it wouldn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
For instance in the case of Jews in Communist countries, rabbis were placed under authority of attaches selected by Cultural Ministries, which were obviously part of the dominant consensus re. Jewishness. Which led to pressure on changing the internal life of Jewish communities. The externally formed idea of Jewish identity became implanted into the Jewish community itself. That's a phenomenon related to appropriation, I would say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Policies and social changes hit the minorities as well, and reduce their ability to express themselves in an unrestrained fashion. Only if cultures were perfectly segregated, it wouldn't matter. Effectronica posted:If you're going to put it to a choice between "zero control over yourself" and "total control over others", I'd have to choose punching you in the face. So effectronica how are you not arguing for cultural conservation again?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Culture also involves practices, dumbass. If the majority culture declares that Passover is unacceptable and persecutes those who practice it, no matter how powerful your internal perceptions are, your ability to practice a definition of Jewishness that includes celebrating Passover is constrained. Banning people from peacefully celebrating is bad quite regardless of whether it's for cultural or other reasons, so shouting "cultural appropriation bad  " changes nothingsteinrokkan posted:Specifically in the Jewish case it should be pretty obvious. And I'm not talking only about the Holocaust. Communist countries led numerous show trials against Jewish metropolitanists simply because the leading ideological dogma defined the Jewish people as metropolitan diversants who were incompatible with the internationalist ideal. In that case the Jewish identity was suppressed by the external definition created by the dominant group. It didn't matter how the Jews saw themselves, as long as somebody could be labeled as "citizen of Jewish origin", he was treated differently and forced to act upon the imposed definition. Discrimination is bad quite regardless of whether it's for cultural or other reasons, so see above
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:For instance in the case of Jews in Communist countries, rabbis were placed under authority of attaches selected by Cultural Ministries, which were obviously part of the dominant consensus re. Jewishness. Which led to pressure on changing the internal life of Jewish communities. The externally formed idea of Jewish identity became implanted into the Jewish community itself. That's a phenomenon related to appropriation, I would say. "appropriation" = "i take something that is yours and make it mine" "appropriation" != "i break your stuff"
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Miltank posted:You'll have to elaborate because I don't understand what point you are trying to make w/r/t this thread. That the powerful can reshape a culture despite the wishes of its own members?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
blowfish posted:"appropriation" = "i take something that is yours and make it mine" Those two things are, if the appropriation theory is right, inseparable. If appropriation merely meant dissemination of ideas and symbols, it would hardly be a problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
but all the examples of appropriation doing bad things (to individuals, not diluting cultural purity) are already bad because of much more clearly defined and less esoteric reasons so focusing on cultural appropriation is redundant
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:For instance in the case of Jews in Communist countries, rabbis were placed under authority of attaches selected by Cultural Ministries, which were obviously part of the dominant consensus re. Jewishness. Which led to pressure on changing the internal life of Jewish communities. The externally formed idea of Jewish identity became implanted into the Jewish community itself. That's a phenomenon related to appropriation, I would say. As interesting as this is, you will have to connect the dots for me between a majority culture's perceptions of a minority culture clashing with the minority culture's perception of itself, and an orchestrated propaganda campaign with the intent of manipulate a group's internal identity. steinrokkan posted:That the powerful can reshape a culture despite the wishes of its own members? I don't disagree.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
blowfish posted:but all the examples of appropriation doing bad things (to individuals, not diluting cultural purity) are already bad because of much more clearly defined and less esoteric reasons so focusing on cultural appropriation is redundant It's possible. Maybe c.a. should be seen as a cross-disciplinary area of interest than a thing of its own.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Miltank posted:As interesting as this is, you will have to connect the dots for me between a majority culture's perceptions of a minority culture clashing with the minority culture's perception of itself, and an orchestrated propaganda campaign with the intent of manipulate a group's internal identity. In that case I don't really see how to reply. I think that appropriation isn't an issue if it isn't tied to policy-making, maybe that's where we are missing each other?
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:06
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If kimono are redefined by the majority culture as a culture-neutral garment, then they have had their Japanese origin erased and can no longer serve as an signifier of Japanese identity. You should probably care more about the culture that's under siege by people who brag about assimilation, which is not Google culture. Assuming you have a moral compass. #NotAllHipsters steinrokkan posted:It's possible. Maybe c.a. should be seen as a cross-disciplinary area of interest than a thing of its own. This sounds reasonable enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:In that case I don't really see how to reply. I think that appropriation isn't an issue if it isn't tied to policy-making, maybe that's where we are missing each other? You responded to my question, "How does the primary culture impose internal definitions on a minority culture?" and answered it well. The point that I was making was that it doesn't happen through simple cultural diffusion the way that effectronica claims it does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:39
|
|
|
Miltank posted:You responded to my question, "How does the primary culture impose internal definitions on a minority culture?" and answered it well. The point that I was making was that it doesn't happen through simple cultural diffusion the way that effectronica claims it does. Oh, in that case we aren't in opposition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Funnily enough, this hasn't happened with Germany and France, or between Brittany and the rest of France, or with Wales and England It sort of did with Germany and France.
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If kimono are redefined by the majority culture as a culture-neutral garment, then they have had their Japanese origin erased and can no longer serve as an signifier of Japanese identity. You should probably care more about the culture that's under siege by people who brag about assimilation, which is not Google culture. Assuming you have a moral compass. Kimono weren't redefined as a neutral garment. They are a neutral garment. The're just a traditional form of dress worn on special occasions. There's no deeper cultural meaning to wearing Kimono to child's graduation ceremony than a suit. The Japanese government invests a ton of money each year in traditional kimono makers and promoting the sale of kimono to foreigners. Meanwhile, morally crusading white Americans fight against this, attempting to defend the honor of a garment whose most popular use it wear while getting drunk and watching fireworks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Outrage at cultural appropriation is either outrage at something irrelevant to the cultural appropriation (which may itself either be appropriate - economic inequality should always be fought) or outrage at a manufacture harm. For example, you manufacture the harm of some element not being a signifier of a specific culture, but that is part of the process of full assimilation into another culture. Outrage at this is outrage at process itself, a demand to end any cultural exchange more meaningful than a tourist trip. The other reasons you label as 'irrelevant' is what other people ITT have called the dividing factor. That you consider them irrelevant is not my concern - I am also addressing the rest of the thread, as well as you specifically, nor do I have any desire to divine your beliefs. I also never said that cultural appropriation was caused by inequality (so that each inequality must give rise to an appropriation), just that what people such as yourself label as appropriation (and bad) is any cultural exchange in the context of an already existing inequality. Technically, black rockers were economically oppressed in this case (denied a livelihood/sales because of racism) and that was a part of my argument (the act of appropriation itself did not create the inequality, and it's the inequality that is causing problems). That you think cultural exchange must be a transaction of equal value between cultures is nothing but insane. rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
For those reading: note the similarities here with the language of tolerance. Tolerating involves creating a distance between you and the Other to reduce conflict, but it has a dual effect: no meaningful interaction can take place at that distance. 'Cultural appropriation' is closing that distance with the Other culture, and it is vital that this occurs. For example, approaching someone you love is a dangerous act - you open yourself up to harm and burden the other with responding. To never approach is to be perfectly tolerant. Yet that is a dismal existence, because positive change can only occur when tolerance is violated. All tolerance is functionally identical. Tolerance out of fear or tolerance in order to keep the Other 'authentic', the difference is meaningless: neither can confront or resolve the differences between the self and the Other. That people who consider themselves progressive would gladly embrace this kind of language, shows how far we have yet to go. Yet I think the people who most embrace this language are the minority groups themselves, and I have a video to help explain why I think this occurs. Watch this video, and note the disparity between the younger and older chinese. The adolescents say the food is inauthentic and also bad. The elder's view is more mixed and more accepting, often calling it similar. Why? Insecurity. The adolescents speak perfect American English, and this is a clue: they're insecure about the 'authenticity' of their cultural identity, and so try and prove it to others by creating distance between their own identity and what is presented (a chinese-inspired american franchise). The elders, having no such insecurity, simply speak their mind. This kind of insecurity is, I believe, the psychological motivator behind attacking cultural appropriation. The outwards attack is the result of an inner conflict. The desire to remain distinct exists only because they know they are already similar, and irreversibly so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
I see no evidence of the disparity you are claiming in that video. The young fit guy talked a lot about American perceptions of Chinese food, but so did one of the older women. Nobody else really talked about it. But reading through some of the comments, it looks like a good number of people have decided that young American-born Chinese are too uppity and concerned with cultural appropriation. That says more about them than it does about anybody in the video. And I think the old dude was like "sweet more free food? Yes, I like this." 
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2015 04:10
|
|