|
JeffersonClay posted:Cultural appropriation: the fraudulent adaptation of the cultural identity of an oppressed person for profit. Thoughts? Bullshit. Who defines 'oppressed person'? poo poo, I'm a Sephardi Jew oppressed by DirkaDirka types here (look at my bannage), so respect me or else antisemitism. Then again, you could indict me for having stolen Moroccan traditions, because I speak Darija with my grandparents.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Who is the minority here who wants to talk about it? There's Vanilla Ice and his gun, and what I assume to be mostly Americans who don't even own passports. What's so ridiculous about his conversation is that it's a bunch of America-centric theoryheads with no life experience prescribing experience and Correct Thought for the people they fetishize. Well this is the reason I've steered clear of the topic of stuffed manicotti or whatever: I have a hard time figuring out who is being harmed in this situation so I haven't commented on it ever since Obdicut set me straight about this issue with, "Don't be a dick. Think about what you're doing: are you being a dick? Then stop. If not, then okay." I think cultural exchange is good, in a context of equality and mutual respect. If one group is getting hosed over, that's bad. In the case of cultural appropriation, that happens when a dominant group sees something creative and interesting invented by people who are despised and ignored, but rather than appreciating it, prefers to buy it when its repackaged and sold by the right kind of person. It's more of a comment on society. It's not that Iggy Azalea is a bad person for making hip hop, it's that Americans would rather see a pretty white woman up on stage. She has some catchy hits and some cool videos, nothing wrong with liking that. But if you like that and you're buying her music then, hey, maybe look into who her influences were, what artists came before that weren't promoted as heavily, maybe you'll find something there you like and support those artists too, you know? TheImmigrant posted:I actually appreciate you, because you are often thoughtful. What I really deplore is the tendency of the cultural left to eschew any criticism of anyone who strikes a leftist posture. Give me a break - this oval office Efflux is a racially-determinist supremacist; a total primitive. I'm not defending E's shitposts and tiresome, distracting insults. It's just, well, if you want to have a serious conversation, you'll talk to someone who is being serious. If you want to set up a strawman and dismiss the whole issue, you'll talk to some goofball in a Guy Fawkes mask.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:
This seems like an even more problematic definition. To keep that Buddhist example running, imagine some white Americans were to take an unbalanced sample of Tibetan writings and traditions and integrate it in a superficial new wave movement. Bad, as it is unidirectional, no exchange happen. So how should we structure this to make it mutual? Should we force some Tibetans to learn the bible? Is that better? Who should be keeping track of what has been given and received to make sure it's fair? It also a definition that repeats the same Panglossian fallacy that runs through this thread. "Mutual" exchange can only happen when you assume away general ignorance and existing social and economic inequalities. Because these inequalities exist a "mutual" exchange of culture is simply not possible. Should we then prefer cultural segregation? Because these are the two choices. quote:poo poo, I'm a Sephardi Jew oppressed by DirkaDirka types here (look at my bannage), so respect me or else antisemitism. CarrKnight fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:This seems like an even more problematic definition. I think you're missing the point of that article. The author talks about white women wearing saris as a fashion statement, as a dress-up occasion. But if an Indian woman wears one to her office job, that's considered unprofessional and she's judged for it. A white celebrity wears one and "oh she's so interesting and cosmopolitan, good for her" but people actually from that culture are looked down upon and even penalized for wearing it. If the prejudice against foreigners and foreign dress and customs in America didn't exist, and these things were commonly done without comment or stigma, then a white woman wearing a sari would be as unremarkable as wearing an Italian suit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Should then a white woman not wear a sari (or perform any other kind of cultural exchange) until she solves the social injustice that prevents the Indian lady for bringing it to her office? And would the social stigma be more easily done away with if we ban anybody but Indian women from wearing Indian clothes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:Should then a white woman not wear a sari (or perform any other kind of cultural exchange) until she solves the social injustice that prevents the Indian lady for bringing it to her office? And would the social stigma be more easily done away with if we ban anybody but Indian women from wearing Indian clothes? Wouldn't a white woman wearing a sari to her office also be considered unprofessional, or am I missing something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Well let's see: should I, as a man, refuse any raise until I solve the gender pay gap first? Should we ban men from getting promoted until all inequality is solved forever?wateroverfire posted:Wouldn't a white woman wearing a sari to her office also be considered unprofessional, or am I missing something? Well that's kind of the problem right? I can go to India and wear a suit and be taken seriously. An Indian woman who gets a job here and wears clothes from her culture is seen as clinging to some absurd costume.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:But it doesn't have to be just profit though. Simply using something outside of it's cultural context or without permission can be considered as appropriation. No those things shouldn't be considered cultural appropriation because it's not fraudulent. TheImmigrant posted:Bullshit. Who defines 'oppressed person'? poo poo, I'm a Sephardi Jew oppressed by DirkaDirka types here (look at my bannage), so respect me or else antisemitism. Then again, you could indict me for having stolen Moroccan traditions, because I speak Darija with my grandparents. yawn
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
quote:Well let's see: should I, as a man, refuse any raise until I solve the gender pay gap first? Should we ban men from getting promoted until all inequality is solved forever? Take the raise, wear the Sari, eat the Cannoli.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:Exactly. Right, but talk about the problems and oppose injustice regardless of whether you benefit from it or not. E: And if someone says "Hey that's a sacred item to me, would you mind maybe not wearing a cheap plastic version and painting your face like an idiot mockery of me for your ball game", perhaps you think to yourself "hmm, what's more important, my sportsball spirit or not pointlessly being an rear end in a top hat" VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:51 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:45
|
|
|
Sure but the problem is not that you have been given a raise. Or worn a sari. The problem is that there are existing injustices and by the power of privilege your actions becomes guilty by association. Cultural appropriation takes this to the extreme where any form of self-expression that isn't what your kin taught you is morally dubious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Taking a second to think about whether your actions are hurting other people before you do something isn't some totalitarian Stalinist oppression, it's basic manners taught in kindergarten.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Taking a second to think about whether your actions are hurting other people before you do something isn't some totalitarian Stalinist oppression, it's basic manners taught in kindergarten.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:55
|
|
VitalSigns posted:How can you say treating women differently from men is bad? I opened a door for a woman today because she's a woman. Am I sexist? Am I a horrible chauvinist wife-beating piggy sexist? I must be, how shall I mutilate myself to atone for my sins of being a man and opening a door, what suitably horrific torture would be enough to satisfy you, god you liberals are so shrill. effectronica's giant tantrums have been the heart and soul of this thread and it's nice of you to pick up the slack now s/he's in cat jail but idk man it just isn't the same 
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Oh effectronica. Well you're probated, but I hope you'll keep talking. If you do, please don't pull this again. Here is your original quote, for context:quote:I already wrote exactly why they "must" adopt- because they are in constant contact with people who have the new meaning, which they must temporarily adopt in order to effectively communicate, because they are immersed in the outer culture and the new meaning will be taught/known to anyone entering the culture (via birth, marriage, etc.) and they can't just wave their hands and obliterate it from the minds of their children or people that are marrying in.
But I think now I have good idea of where you're coming from. My friend, you cannot impose meaning. We can, socially, impose values on one another and call it law. That's necessary to regulate human behavior, to create society. But you can't force meaning, that is dystopic. You can't do it because, spoiler alert, there is no meaning. People may choose or create their meaning, but it's wrong to place on others the expectation that they adopt your own. That's what you're arguing, because someone is 'Indian' they must adopt 'Indian' meaning. That is incredibly useful to the power structures within that society, but it's not right. Are ordinary minorities dupes? Never, their view is understandable. "We are denied jobs, healthcare, education. Everything is taken from us, and now our beliefs are as well". That's a natural perspective they would come to, but I don't think it's right. rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:This seems like an even more problematic definition. The point of the article was what Obdicut said. Don't be an rear end in a top hat and know your audience. There are plenty of people who don't care about you wearing a Sari, while there are others that do. CarrKnight posted:Sure but the problem is not that you have been given a raise. Or worn a sari. How is taking something that someone else came up with and doing it for yourself "self-expression"? I think this gets at part of the problem. For some people it is their culture and their way of life. For others, it simply is a fashion statement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
Mormon Star Wars posted:Appropriation doesn't lead to a diversity of thought, it impedes it. When the majority culture appropriates a thing it just reshapes it to fit into the already-existing molds that everything in the culture already fits into. Cultural appropriation of Buddhist meditation doesn't lead to a new take on it, it just slaps "TOTALLY BUDDHIST YA'LL" on The Secret, in the same way that new age white "sufi" Don't believe in tawhid and deny the Shahada because they are dippy crystal healers who are identical to every white new age fakir, guru, bodhisattva, etc in their beliefs and practices.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:04
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:effectronica's giant tantrums have been the heart and soul of this thread and it's nice of you to pick up the slack now s/he's in cat jail but idk man it just isn't the same Kill you're parents
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The author talks about white women wearing saris as a fashion statement, as a dress-up occasion. But if an Indian woman wears one to her office job, that's considered unprofessional and she's judged for it. A white celebrity wears one and "oh she's so interesting and cosmopolitan, good for her" but people actually from that culture are looked down upon and even penalized for wearing it. If the prejudice against foreigners and foreign dress and customs in America didn't exist, and these things were commonly done without comment or stigma, then a white woman wearing a sari would be as unremarkable as wearing an Italian suit. This is pretty stupid and totally ignores context. You are making it sound like the same people who criticize the Indian turn around and compliment the white woman for wearing the same thing. Furthermore, you are ignoring the context of dressing up for work versus wearing whatever on your own time. It's like you are chomping at the bit to be morally outraged at something. This is almost as dumb as your claim earlier in the thread that Iggy Azalea is the richest rapper ever because she is white. You are manipulating facts to fit your dumb theses. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 05:10 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Ah, but there's an assumption there: that the 'new wave' is of less value than the original. What the gently caress is Christianity but 'New Age' Judaism? All culture is imitation. Like I said before, if there were some unobtainable core, some 'essense', then the imposition would fail so long as it wasn't basically by force. That it can still happen I think suggest the opposite, there is no value in some specific meaning. And this talk over 'white mans shamans' or 'cultural sellouts', I can't regard that with any more respect than I do with the idea of 'race traitors'. Christianity is kind of a weird example, because one of the main aspects of 2,000 years of Christianity is, after taking a sect of the Jewish religion and making it into the state religion of the Roman Empire, turning around and forcing Jews to assimilate and punishing those who don't with an endless series of pogroms and ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:This is pretty stupid and totally ignores context. You are making it sound like the same people who criticize the Indian turn around and compliment the white women for wearing the same thing. Furthermore, you are ignoring the context of dressing up for work versus wearing whatever on your own time. It's like you are chomping at the bit to be morally outraged at something. I was explaining the author's opinion in the article to someone who wasn't engaging with the point of the article. And isn't this the exact problem? Everyday attire from other countries is seen as a silly costume that should be confined to something you do on your own time, like Halloween get-up, or celebrity balls where you can pose and look cool and worldly. But if a woman from that culture wears it to work, well why are you wearing such an absurd party costume, this isn't dress-up playtime! It's at least a little bit of a dick move to fetishize someone else's culture to look hip while the people in question are penalized socially for wearing it themselves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Christianity is kind of a weird example, because one of the main aspects of 2,000 years of Christianity is, after taking a sect of the Jewish religion and making it into the state religion of the Roman Empire, turning around and forcing Jews to assimilate and punishing those who don't with an endless series of pogroms and ethnic cleansing. rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:27
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But was the original 'theft' from judaism at all similar to the pogroms? Was it simply a 'less bad' version? Because that's what I've seen, it's what effectronica did when he complained that there was no middle ground, that the people arguing against cultural appropriation were refusing to recognize appropriation as some kind of crime. Well no, I don't think that Joe Antoninus converting to Christianity is bad, it's that overall instead of this being a cultural exchange between equals, it was one group taking what they liked from another culture while demonizing the inventors and forcing them to assimilate (either militarily like the Romans did or 20th century and earlier US did, or through the pressure that wealth allows one group to exert on the livelihoods of another group that America uses now). If there's equality and mutual respect then it's not appropriation. But establishment of Christianity was not done with equality and mutual respect: it was "here is what your traditions mean and this is the right way to do them, and if you don't conform to our version and cling to your old traditions, you will be stomped"
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
But are the new-age-shamanists doing that, dictating to others? If you want to fight that, I will be there helping. The contention is that, because of inequality, the minority may find it easier to just adopt that outside meaning, and that's the harm. But isn't that just demanding that no exchange take place if there's some kind of power inequality? That segregation is justified without perfect equality? Why? That preserves the cultures we have, in stone, for all time, but is that a good thing?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 05:50
|
|
|
Well no, the existence of power inequality doesn't mean we should support segregation. Just that we should think about the effects of what we do. Are you showing respect for people's traditions, or are you treating them like a costume to be adopted for some brief fun and applause, but to be put away when it's time for Serious Things and thereby contributing to the perception of other people's culture as something of a lark, while those people are regarded with suspicion or disdain if they don't go back to assimilating when it's time to get down to business. Probably no one cares if you learn a native prayer and go out in the woods and chant because you feel it gives you a spiritual connection or something. Dressing up and chanting on the street corners, turning their culture and traditions into a spectacle is probs not a very respectful or nice thing to do though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:But it doesn't have to be just profit though. Simply using something outside of it's cultural context or without permission can be considered as appropriation. And you think there's an authority that grants permission? The reason people bring piddly bullshit is because they show that any definition of appropriation can be applied to inane crap and thus is not a useful and/or valid definition if you want to discuss it as something inherently harmful. Combining that with the myopic Amero-centrism in this thread is a recipe for comedy gold. How else would you get clowns like Efftronica dictating what is "authentic" Chinese culture to people who live in loving China. VitalSigns posted:E: And if someone says "Hey that's a sacred item to me, would you mind maybe not wearing a cheap plastic version and painting your face like an idiot mockery of me for your ball game", perhaps you think to yourself "hmm, what's more important, my sportsball spirit or not pointlessly being an rear end in a top hat" But we've seen plenty of people in this thread laying claim to poo poo that is not sacred like Hanzi, Kimonos, and "Chinese" cooking. I've yet to see those who think CA is bullshit claim that the Redskins are OK, well not in the back half of the thread at least, there were one or two assholes at the beginning. Let us English fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 06:15
|
|
|
Maybe here's an example from my own life (WARNING: Boring personal story ahead, skip post if you don't give a poo poo). I'm living in Malaysia right now, and a few months ago after I first arrived I went with this guy I met here to see the big procession for a Tamil holiday (Thaipusam). As we walked down the street packed with people, we came to a Hindu temple and he wanted to go in, so I followed him and just kind of did what he did, circling the temple, bowing to the statues of gods along the perimeter. When we got to the middle, there was a collection box so I put in some money, and the man next to it put some ash on my forehead and gave me a little red string to tie around my wrist. I had no idea what it meant, so when we left I asked my friend to explain it, and he did. The ash sweated off my forehead pretty quickly, and I left the string on my wrist, wore it to work, whatever, for a few weeks until it fell off which is what my friend told me to do. I'm not Hindu, I'm a white boy, I was partaking in a culture that's not my own. Hopefully I wasn't being a dick about it. If my friend had said "you're not Hindu so it would be disrespectful to come in or wear this" then I would have accepted that, not got huffy about "my freedoms" or called him an anti-white racist or a segregationist or whatever. But just because I wore a little string, that doesn't suddenly make me a part of that culture. I'm not going to go back to the US in a few years and tie red strings on people and make a spectacle of their religion to show everyone how cool I am, that'd be a dick thing to do. I probably am going to make tandoori chicken and fish curries though because that's loving delicious. Let us English posted:But we've seen plenty of people in this thread laying claim to poo poo that is not sacred like Hanzi, Kimonos, and "Chinese" cooking. Yeah but I don't agree with those people. However, if something you're doing is disrespectful and insulting, it's probably worth a listen if someone tells you that. Something like "hey, could you stop treating my traditional dress as your fashion statement when it's already hard enough getting people to take me seriously if I wear anything but pantsuit?" At the very least you should think "hm, what's more important, my trendy image at this media event, or the disdain real people encounter because popular media has made their look and clothing into a symbol of self-aggrandizement or exotic primitivism or something". VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Let us English posted:And you think there's an authority that grants permission? The reason people bring piddly bullshit is because they show that any definition of appropriation can be applied to inane crap and thus is not a useful and/or valid definition if you want to discuss it as something inherently harmful. Combining that with the myopic Amero-centrism in this thread is a recipe for comedy gold. How else would you get clowns like Efftronica dictating what is "authentic" Chinese culture to people who live in loving China. I knew someone was going to bring up some poo poo about authority and what not. Like I said before, know your audience. And no, people bring piddly bullshit to anything they simply don't want to talk about. The racism threads always end up the same way to the point where people are asking, "Is it really racist if this happens?" Death by a thousand scenarios basically. As for the Amero-centrism, I will only speak about what I know, which is why I used the example of Iggy Azalea. But as I keep saying before, don't be a dick. Yet the thing I am seeing in this thread is that because the definition is nebulous, nobody wants to make any effort to actually critically think about stuff and instead people are just saying CA is bullshit and therefore we have free reign to piss all over other people's cultures because if we didn't then it would be cultural segregation or some poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I knew someone was going to bring up some poo poo about authority and what not. .
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
Zachack posted:Then why did you mention permission, which pretty much by definition implies authority? Did you ever consider that your examples may be really lovely? Because different people of a specific cultures may think or believe different things.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Because different people of a specific cultures may think or believe different things. Yes, and who are we going to give primacy and believe when it comes to CA? People have came up with lots of examples where a 2nd generation or higher immigrant decries cultural appropriation over something, while the people from the original country said "no, it's okay." Even in that Lakota spirituality example there's an apparent disagreement within the community because it seems some Lakota holy men saw it fit to share their teachings with outsiders for profit. Why do we have to give deference to people who wrote that declaration? Who gives them the right to police Lakota spirituality? This isn't piddly bullshit just because you say so. We have to have something more than just CA to pass a judgment. It shows any discussion of CA must include things that are outside of the cultural dimension.You have to talk about subjects of power, authority, property rights and material conditions. You simply can't have a coherent, rational position on CA without making some judgments on all of these. As a bonus point, these other issues affect peoples' lives much more directly and concretely anyway. But people who tout the CA horn are content on sticking to cultural ephemera and symbols. Because it is exactly this incoherency that allows them to go on witch hunts and declare outsiders in order to gain social credit in their narrow environments. If you don't come up with concrete principles then The Enemy can't pin down your argument, and you're flexible to accuse everyone and anyone of being insensitive and ignorant shitbags, depending on your need. fspades fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
Because "well my black friend" is not and never has been a good defense for being a dick to people. Try it out, go around telling women their place is barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, and if they get offended just point out that Phyllis Schafly is a woman who says the same thing so it can't be offensive. It'll work for you like a magic totem! Those Lakota people asked that outsiders respect their traditions. You can decide you don't give a poo poo what they think, that's your right. But "Oh well this other Lakota dude says it's fine so you can't feel insulted now" is lame. Just say you're gonna paint your face in bright acrylic colors and wear plastic feathers to the redskins game and you don't give a poo poo, it's fine. Native Americans have to put up with a lot of stupid bullshit, one more white man shaking a rainstick probably won't make much difference anyway. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 09:19 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 09:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Because "well my black friend" is not and never has been a good defense for being a dick to people.  If you base your political opinions on what a given group of people thinks then what you have is not an ideology but just reflexive conformism to get by in your social environment. You grant a lot of authority to an imagined majority when that is a very dangerous way to do progressive politics. The oppressed can be collaborators in their own oppression. For the longest time in the Western world, (as it is today in elsewhere) a great amount of women opposed feminism and women's liberation much in the same way Phyllis Schafly do today. Of course, that wasn't an threat to feminists' conscience because their position had concrete principles and a coherent worldview based on a historical perspective. This was exactly my point. Reflexive outrage is not enough; you must have a reference to a real injustice to make sense of it. This idea that if you're offending someone then you are on the wrong is asinine, baseless and harmful to actual social justice. It obfuscates oppression rather than confronting it. And it gives the idea if everyone stopped "being a dick" we would solve racism, sexism etc. No, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 10:29
|
|
|
Respecting someone's traditions isn't a political opinion anymore than saying "please" and "thank you" is a political opinion. You have a constitutional right to be an rear end to people, but getting butthurt that they respond negatively when you do so is just childish.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 10:58
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I knew someone was going to bring up some poo poo about authority and what not. Like I said before, know your audience. And no, people bring piddly bullshit to anything they simply don't want to talk about. The racism threads always end up the same way to the point where people are asking, "Is it really racist if this happens?" Death by a thousand scenarios basically. Knowing your audience won't save one from accusations of CA. One need only at the case of Avril Lavigne, who made a music video for Japanese audiences, about Japan, in Japan, under the direction of Japanese directors and producers, yet still had accusations of appropriation thrown at her. The only country in the world where she's popular anymore is Japan, yet she's not supposed to make music for them simply because she's not Japanese-Canadian? People bring up these kinds of scenarios because they help clarify what CA actually is. We can all agree that black face and wearing headdresses is not cool, but if the over-arching concept you use to indict such practices can be so easily misapplied maybe it's not a terribly useful concept for anything more than internet outrage contests. As fort Iggy Azalea, she's is the perfect model for the Amero-centrism in this thread. Expecting a non-American to weigh in on American race relations because said foreigner produces hip-hop music is as Amero-centric as it gets. One might as well expect Psy or G-Dragon to make similar comments. You say don't be a dick, but then you define being a dick as not conforming to the wishes of anyone who happens to belong to a minority group. If some ABC kid asks me not to go to a lovely chain restaurant, I'm not "a dick" if I go anyway. We should listen to and consider the viewpoints of those who belong to marginalized groups, but we're not obligated to agree with them lest the terrifying lablel "dick" be applied to us. All of the specific practices that have been condemned by people in this thread can be judged as harmful without using appropriation as a crutch. VitalSigns posted:Respecting someone's traditions isn't a political opinion anymore than saying "please" and "thank you" is a political opinion. Not all accusations of cultural appropriation deal with people's traditions. Most of the people who are disagreeing with you in this thread would probably agree with you 100% on what actions are socially acceptable and which are not. We can all agree that calling a team "Redskins" isn't appropriate or helpful to anyone. The disagreement is over why instances such as these are wrong, not whether they are OK in the first place. I think cultural appropriation is such a vague concept as to be entirely useless for anything except generating outrage. I also think wearing a plains-tribe headdress to Halloween party makes one a douchebag. Let us English fucked around with this message at 11:06 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Respecting someone's traditions isn't a political opinion anymore than saying "please" and "thank you" is a political opinion. No, gently caress that. If someone's tradition results in suffering and inequality I'll be the first in line to disrespect it. Tradition is a bullshit category anyway. It's inherently political. fspades fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 11:01
|
|
|
fspades posted:No, gently caress that. If someone's tradition results in suffering and inequality I'll be the first in line to disrespect it. Tradition is a bullshit category anyway. Sorry I thought you were complaining that some Lakota people would rather you not adopt their rituals as a self-aggrandizing showpiece and treat their religion as some silly game. You seem to have moved the goalposts to something else: opposing traditions that cause suffering such as burning crosses on black people's lawns. I agree, we should not respect traditions that result in suffering, I thought that was obvious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 11:04
|
|
|
Let us English posted:We can all agree that black face and wearing headdresses is not cool, but if the over-arching concept you use to indict such practices can be so easily misapplied maybe it's not a terribly useful concept for anything more than internet outrage contests. And the over-arching concept of sexism can be easily misapplied to innocuous things like opening a door for a woman by people who are determined to muddy the issue and excuse the actually lovely things they want to do, that doesn't mean it's not a useful concept. E: Let us English posted:Not all accusations of cultural appropriation deal with people's traditions. Most of the people who are disagreeing with you in this thread would probably agree with you 100% on what actions are socially acceptable and which are not. We can all agree that calling a team "Redskins" isn't appropriate or helpful to anyone. The disagreement is over why instances such as these are wrong, not whether they are OK in the first place. I think cultural appropriation is such a vague concept as to be entirely useless for anything except generating outrage. I also think wearing a plains-tribe headdress to Halloween party makes one a douchebag. But why exactly does it make them a douchebag? What do we say when they ask us what they've done wrong. Maybe we could come up with a name for this concept to describe turning something sacred and meaningful to a people and turning it, and by extension them, into a joke and a party game. What do you think, what could we call this? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:10 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 11:06
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Knowing your audience won't save one from accusations of CA. One need only at the case of Avril Lavigne, who made a music video for Japanese audiences, about Japan, in Japan, under the direction of Japanese directors and producers, yet still had accusations of appropriation thrown at her. The only country in the world where she's popular anymore is Japan, yet she's not supposed to make music for them simply because she's not Japanese-Canadian? People bring up these kinds of scenarios because they help clarify what CA actually is. We can all agree that black face and wearing headdresses is not cool, but if the over-arching concept you use to indict such practices can be so easily misapplied maybe it's not a terribly useful concept for anything more than internet outrage contests. First of all, get your arguments right. I never brought up PF Changs are whatever stupid tangent you are on about with Westernized Chinese food. 2nd of all, I never brought up any non-American weighing in on American race relations. What I did bring up is that Iggy Azalea came over here, appropriated a culture and then proceeded to poo poo all over the very people she was attempting to emulate. Third, you make it seem like it is the worst thing in the world to be called a dick. Your argument basically makes it sound like you are ok with respecting other people's stuff until it is inconvenient for you and then if that is the case, gently caress them. I think it really ties into the whole racism and privilege debate. There are a gently caress ton of things that minorities basically are not allowed to do in society so we limit ourselves in order to keep ourselves safe. But when you tell other people that they shouldn't do something or it wouldn't be wise to do something, they flip the gently caress out and start talking about rights and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 21:49 |
|
|
Regarding PF Changs, the only person talking about that is Effectronica. Yall keep asking me why I'm not confronting Ef, and it's because I know better than to get an a slap-fight with them. The first argument I had with Effectronica was a few months back when they were defending the US invasion of Iraq and accusing leftists of being Saddam-lovers, and now Ef's fighting the good fight against oppressive symbol of American imperialism PF Changs. Ef is pretty obvious troll who stakes out some extreme position on whatever and spews insults, I don't know why you're engaging or trying to attribute Ef's pretend opinions to anyone trying to post in good faith. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 11:23 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2015 11:21
|
|