|
VitalSigns posted:You could ask the question: "do you think my special stuffed manicotti recipe qualifies as appropriation, VitalSigns" and I could say "No, what you choose to eat doesn't hurt anyone and the burden it would place on you to put your cooking into various oppression categories is not worth any conceivable benefit." And then you could say "well how is what the Lakota want different", and I could say "well, not dressing up as them is an insignificant imposition on your life, but doing it anyway contributes in some small way to the otherization that they face every day from our society, so there's really no reason for you not to respect their wishes beyond obstinance, why not just be polite". You might say that classifying manicotti as oppressive isn't worth the benefit, but there are many who might disagree and how we come down on these issues has an impact. For example, among the young professional Anglophone post-grads at least showing up to a Halloween party in a headdress is a giant faux paus. I saw it this past year at a party when some clueless white kid from Saskatchawan of all places was effectively ostracized for doing just that. I think this is probably a good thing. Wearing of the headdress as a Halloween costume of all things is disrespectful and one doesn't have to be all that socially aware to understand it's not accepted at this point and time. It's not all that different from wearing blackface to a party. That being the case, most of these edge cases that have been brought up don't just spring from the imaginations of nay-sayers or the pages of Tumblr, they come from the kind of hand-wringing think-pieces in outlets like the Atlantic, Salon, or Slate. This writing has an impact on its target audience and has the power to change social convention, at least within a specific socio-economic group. It's helped move discussion of privilege out of academia and into the general populations vocabulary. It's changing the way people view going for Halloween as "an Indian." I think that, on the whole, this kind of writing is a net good for society. But when well meaning but idiotic liberals start writing hand-wringing pieces about wearing Kimono, practicing meditation, and the horrors of fusion cuisine it has the potential to change the way these things are viewed. I don't believe classifying fish-free kimchi in the same category as blackface helps anyone, but it's not hard to find arguments like these. When frivolous issues are brought up like this it weakens the power of the argument when applied other places. I understand that you've been quite reserved in defining and ascribing CA to specific practices, but the argument applied in the wild doesn't usually work like that. Let us English fucked around with this message at 10:45 on Apr 19, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
But this is not what it does, it only weakens the power of the term for people who wouldn't give a poo poo anyways because people say the same thing in discussions of racism with the race card. I mean at the end of the day of someone is offended then they are offended. I mean poo poo, I get offended at Key and Peele and plenty of people probably think they are harmless but I think their show is pretty racist. Let's not forget fthat CA really wasn't a thing until minorities complained and wgat is accepted now as CA or racist wasn't in the past. Now I don't know or really care about manicotti as I don't make or eat it. But if somebody approached me about it seriously, then I would at least consider what they had to say.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 11:10
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:But this is not what it does, it only weakens the power of the term for people who wouldn't give a poo poo anyways because people say the same thing in discussions of racism with the race card. It seems that you view "consider what the have to say" as synonymous with "agree with what they have to say."
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 11:17
|
|
|
Sure of course you're right that there are always going to be attention-seekers handwringing about ridiculous bullshit, especially on the opinion pages of online publications making their money from content and clicks and eyeballs. But we shouldn't just take the most insane opinion we can find to strawman the whole issue and do away with it, throwing up our hands because it's too complicated and obscure and arbitrary. There is no cause so noble that you can't find one fool following it, after all. Now I don't think you're doing that in your conversation with me, which I appreciate. That's why I propose we look at issues like this in terms of tradeoff of harm vs benefit. If someone can show me a harm, like the Native Americans have regarding use of their ceremonial symbols, and the benefit to me of appropriating them is insignificant, then I will defer to them. If there's no appreciable harm and the burden is ridiculous, like checking tumblr for a list of Approved Burrito Toppings for my skin tone then probably not. Of course, we should still be open-minded. If someone says "hey by patronizing this corporate chain, you're taking away money that could be spent in local immigrant-owned restaurants in your town, maybe check out some of these places I think you'll find the food is better anyway" then that's worth considering, although it doesn't obligate me to do it all the time. This also I think addresses rudatron's concern about what happens when we take things to their reductio ad absurdum logical conclusions. Because in the real world tradeoffs exist with almost everything, and saying "we either go 100% or nothing, regardless of circumstance" is generally the most illogical thing. The logical conclusion of respecting others' cultures and religion is...harmful practices are discouraged and harmless ones continue, not "less exchange is always better, segregate all cultures and send out the SJWs to measure eye shapes and yell at any round-eye eating sushi". Kinda like how the logical conclusion of "there should be safe spaces for women" is safe spaces existing for women...not "more safe spaces is better than, turn the whole world into safe spaces, total segregation of the sexes". The drawback of course is that there are going to be gray areas, but that's also life, so we can formulate some rules to go by or we can say "well if you can't tell me the precise wavelength that red becomes orange then stop talking to me about color, it doesn't exist"
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
I'm not sure the politeness framing actually makes things any easier, because implicit in it is that everyone shares the same standard as to what is fair or not. If I ask you to do something that doesn't fit that standard, then I'm being unreasonable. So what the standard should be now becomes that matter of debate - the framing hasn't solved anything, you've just moved the problem. So what should a reasonable standard be? I'm not sure, but whatever it is I don't think it can include CA, I think you can get by without it. So you can't have people 'selling' membership into Lakota culture for $50 or whatever, that's dumb. But there are good reasons why, and none of it includes the words CA (you can't force your way into a community like that). But If someone wants to take Lakota, druid and neo-pagan stuff, throw it into a box and shake it, that's totally appropriative, and I can't care. Am I being unreasonable? No, they deserve fulfillment, to be secure from abuse and comfortable in their living. That they're often not is an injustice, but I can believe that without agreeing to their perspective. Eg- Take that movie star that linked hairstyles to Ferguson: I cannot treat that assocation of issues with any level of seriousness, it's absurd. To me, that's just a way to discuss trivial bullshit and try and impart upon it the halo of progressive reform, the advancement of the human condition 1 retweet at a time. So rather than saying 'well, we can look at it case by case, examine harm/benefit, determine whether the CA actually matters here', well, when does it really matter, and matter exclusively? Can you describe to me a situation which is harmful, but which that harm can only be explained through Cultural Appropriation? Is that harm reasonable? rudatron fucked around with this message at 12:00 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 11:53
|
|
|
I don't think the framing solves the problem, no, but it does remove one way that the issue is muddied. I don't see why the fact that you can't take some hand-wringing seriously should be a problem. I can't take trans-faerie-dragon-kin seriously but there are trans issues I can take seriously like transgenderism. That some people choose to self-identify in stupid ways doesn't change the fact that real actual harms occur when we ignore important ways that people self-identify. That some people are policing hairstyles in some leftist Race to The Sea to outflank each other doesn't change the fact that real harms occur when someone perpetuates the view of native american culture as some cheesy joke by slapping it on a lunchbox and selling it for a buck. If you think you have something valuable to say in your art and you're being respectful of the Lakota then okay do it. But if you're just selling knock-offs of their poo poo, you shouldn't be surprised when they don't love you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 12:04
|
|
|
Let us English posted:It seems that you view "consider what the have to say" as synonymous with "agree with what they have to say." No, it seems that you're deathly afraid that considering what minorities have to say means that you'll be accused of agreeing with them. Was there a country club you were trying to get into or something? Don't worry, those guys don't go on the Internet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 13:55
|
|
|
Let us English posted:It seems that you view "consider what the have to say" as synonymous with "agree with what they have to say." No, I said consider. blackguy32 fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, it seems that you're deathly afraid that considering what minorities have to say means that you'll be accused of agreeing with them. Was there a country club you were trying to get into or something? Don't worry, those guys don't go on the Internet. Don't ever change SedanChair  blackguy32 posted:No, I said consider. I am trying to have a reasonable discussion and you keep putting words in my mouth. Every time someone deems a specific claim silly, you accuse them of policing how minorities are allowed to feel. Just because people think a claim is specious doesn't mean they haven't considered it. Regardless of their stance it seems that most people in this thread have considered the Lakota/headdress issue and found it to be a legitimate complaint. Other claims are stupid and calling the such doesn't mean that things weren't considered. Now, if you want to say that there's a history of papering over grievances with accusations of being too sensitive, I will agree with you. That history does not obligate one to buy into every argument made by anyone who belongs to a historically oppressed group. I'm not policing whether people can be offended or not. Offend away, please. I'm saying that people consider the argument when things like this happen, and then they decide that it's dumb. Considered the argument and seemed valid: http://apihtawikosisan.com/hall-of-shame/an-open-letter-to-non-natives-in-headdresses/ Considered the argument and it seemed stupid: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/25/avril-lavigne-s-dumb-hello-kitty-video-is-rife-with-cultural-appropriation.html Let us English fucked around with this message at 14:53 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Jesus what the gently caress happened to Avril Lavine, did she touch the phylactery of the arch-lich of bubblegum pop and get her soul sucked out, leaving only the reanimated undead form of her body shambling in time to recycled music?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
quote:Considered the argument and seemed valid: http://apihtawikosisan.com/hall-of-...in-headdresses/ The argument seems to rely on weakly defined "restricted symbols" which can easily be extended to anything. Here let me try. Dante Alighieri is a cultural icon, the real founding father of Italy. To turn his poetry and image into a Japanese console game is insulting. To make matters worse, the game is famous. Italian children will be exposed primarily to this Japanese caricature before being able to read the real thing. See? Devil Man Cry crosses all the boxes (except I suppose the POC angle), should we ban it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This also I think addresses rudatron's concern about what happens when we take things to their reductio ad absurdum logical conclusions. Because in the real world tradeoffs exist with almost everything, and saying "we either go 100% or nothing, regardless of circumstance" is generally the most illogical thing. The logical conclusion of respecting others' cultures and religion is...harmful practices are discouraged and harmless ones continue, not "less exchange is always better, segregate all cultures and send out the SJWs to measure eye shapes and yell at any round-eye eating sushi". Kinda like how the logical conclusion of "there should be safe spaces for women" is safe spaces existing for women...not "more safe spaces is better than, turn the whole world into safe spaces, total segregation of the sexes". Except that isn't the logical conclusion of wanting safe spaces and I've never seen anyone make that argument. The problem is that this stupid crap about sari's and ethnic food is the logical conclusion of arguments made for CA and people are making them. Pointing out that there hasn't been a way of defining CA that doesn't include white girls in kimonos isn't some sort of off topic derailing topic, its a direct criticism of the theory. The criticism that's been leveled again and again in this thread is that every instance of "legitimate" cultural appropriation that's been brought up in this thread is bad for a distinctly separate and articulate reason, which makes me question whether its even a bad thing and why you'd want to obfuscate those distinct and much worse reasons. The only good definition of CA this thread seems to have come up with has "when for some other reason we consider it bad" attached to the end of it; in any other discipline other then sociology this would be an instant red flag that the theory is poo poo. Beyond that I'm just failing to see the benefit of using CA as a framework to examine these topics with. How are the Lakota better served by framing their oppression with language that equally applies to the creation of stuffed manicotti instead of looking at the history of racism and genocide. What separates the situation with the Lakota as an instance of "real" CA from white girls in saris other then that history of racism, genocide and suffering? If the answer is nothing then it really makes you wonder what the utility of creating this category of negative behaviors serves besides letting idiots on the internet leverage the emotional cache of real instances of oppression in their blog posts about lovely pop music videos. edit: wow typo Jarmak fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
No, whinging about manicotti is not the logical conclusion of respecting other people's cultures, just as self-identifying as trans-unicorn-pixie isn't the logical conclusion of respecting trans people's identity. It's something that attention whores hand-wring about and something that anyone who doesn't want to address the issue strawmans about to dismiss what minorities are saying by lumping them in with idiots. And there are people who claim that the logical conclusion of safe spaces is to make the whole world a safe space and ban masculinist thought, because yelling about absurd situations is easier than engaging the topic.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
But there are times I think a CA framework can get to the heart of issues that aren't obvious when you try to describe the harm in other ways. Take: dressing up like a Lakota shaman at a costume party. The person doing it might say "Well how is this hurting anyone. I'm showing how much I respect their culture by choosing to dress as a shaman, they should see it as an honor. Why are you giving me a hard time: if I dressed as a Catholic priest, you wouldn't say anything. How is this any different?" How might you explain to your friend why he shouldn't do this...or do you think it's fine and he should.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
"Attention whore" is misogynistic, please use the term "attention seeker," it is more accurate as well as not being needlessly insulting to women.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Men can be whores too, stop imprisoning people in the patriarchy's traditional gender roles 
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But there are times I think a CA framework can get to the heart of issues that aren't obvious when you try to describe the harm in other ways. It comes down to whether you belive that something is wrong only because it harms someone else, or whether harmless things that don't injure any people can be wrong. You could say that even if a catholic priest was present, he wouldn't be harmed by somone wearing his costume in jest, because the Catholic Church is strong in our society and isn't harmed by that sort of thing, but that the Lakota are weak and have no power or privilege, and could be injured by it. But, this still assumes that wrongdoing consists in harming a person in some way. Consider this- you take a piece of paper and write hateful awful things on it about others, then you burn it. Or, alternatively you open up a word processor on your computer and type hateful awful things, then delete it. Is this different from saying the things in front of people who don't care, and won't repeat them to people they would degrade or upset? Somone dressing up as an Indian at a costume party where he has good reason to believe there won't be any Indians isn't different from the thought experiment. He might be boorish for doing it, but unless we believe that writing something hurtful on a piece of paper which you don't let anyone see, and destroy, is wrong, then it's hard to argue that the boorish partygoer has done anything wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Men can be whores too, stop imprisoning people in the patriarchy's traditional gender roles Whore is a slur on women, claiming that men can be equally as deserving of your hate as women doesn't erase the slur, it reaffirms it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:48
|
|
|
Is your standard really "anything goes as long as no one is there who might be hurt?" That kind of sounds like the only moral wrong that racist OU frat did was let someone record their lynch chant. That can't be right. You describe the guest as boorish but then you say he did nothing wrong. Well is he boorish, or not? Also, he rejects your accusation that he's wearing the costume in jest. He's done a lot of research into it and it's an accurate costume, he says if a Lakota were at the party that it would be wrong of the Lakota to criticize him and the man should feel honored instead, and if he doesn't then the man is a racist who is demanding that clothes be restricted to certain privileged non-white races. hakimashou posted:Whore is a slur on women, claiming that men can be equally as deserving of your hate as women doesn't erase the slur, it reaffirms it. Unless you can tell me who the representative spokeswomen of All Women are then it's not wrong. Maybe there's a woman out there who isn't offended, how do you know she's not the true authority? 
VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 18:53
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Take: dressing up like a Lakota shaman at a costume party. The person doing it might say "Well how is this hurting anyone. I'm showing how much I respect their culture by choosing to dress as a shaman, they should see it as an honor. Why are you giving me a hard time: if I dressed as a Catholic priest, you wouldn't say anything. How is this any different?" How might you explain to your friend why he shouldn't do this...or do you think it's fine and he should. Halloween costumes are inherently mocking. Punch up not down.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
Why is it inherently mocking? I've done my research and it's the exact same clothes they wear. I'm honoring them. Would you tell a Lakota shaman who decided to come to Bobby's party dressed that way that he's mocking himself? That's absurd. But I wear the exact same thing and you're telling me it's mockery? It sounds like your definition of mockery depends on the color of the people involved, and not on the clothes or the actions. That's racist. You're being racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Yes I'm sure the hypothetical friend you're portreying would have an eminently reasonable response to the concept of cultural appropriation, as well. You asked how we could distinguish between an offensive native costume and an inoffensive catholic costume without the concept of cultural appropriation. I have shown it is trivial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
But you haven't explained why a costume is inherently mocking if I'm intending to honor the Lakota by wearing it, and I'm not acting silly or wearing outrageous Hollywood exaggerations. You just asserted it, and someone who doesn't already agree isn't going to be convinced by that. Liberalism assumes that if legal inequalities are removed then there's no more oppression, because the only way people can be oppressed is with force. Someone wearing identical clothes who isn't acting silly or pointing and laughing or making jokes at your expense doesn't appear to be doing any harm as far as liberalism is concerned. Yeah it doesn't mean the same thing at a party as at a religious service, but the liberals itt have been adamant that no one should expect a monopoly on meaning, and outsiders wearing their clothes with a different meaning isn't taking anything away from them. So what's the problem? I think CA does bring something to the table here. If you wear a Catholic costume it doesn't matter: the public image of the Catholic church is controlled by them and nothing outsiders do affects how Catholics are perceived (that's not to say that the church's image is always what the church would like, for example being known for covering up pedophilia. But that's still something the church had control over; it was something the church actually did). But Native Americans have huge problems with public image, and that image contributes to the mocking or stereotypical or outright discriminatory treatment against them. Their public image is defined by how white people have chosen to portray their culture and not by the Native Americans themselves. So when you fetishize it, and dress up as them, you contribute to this image that their culture is some idiosyncrasy or weird thing they do, but are expected to put aside when it's time to be serious. So just wearing the trappings of that contributes in some small way to that otherization of them, even if it's not your intention, even if you're doing your best to honor them. Because ultimately, you're not from their culture, it is just a costume for you, and it reinforces the perception that what they wear is a costume, distinct from "normal clothes" that they're expected to wear if they want to be taken seriously. And this is where food differs. You sit down and eat sushi because it tastes good and it provides calories (although I suppose the opposite can be true, if you're like "let's go have sushi like a wacky Japanese it'll be fun"). But there's no real parallel for wearing shaman's attire. People don't put that on because it's a better way of keeping the rain off (but white people did adopt ponchos for that purpose and I'd say that rain ponchos are not appropriation because it's copying a practical idea and doesn't contribute to otherizing perceptions of South Americans) VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
quote:Beyond that I'm just failing to see the benefit of using CA as a framework to examine these topics with. How are the Lakota better served by framing their oppression with language that equally applies to the creation of stuffed manicotti instead of looking at the history of racism and genocide.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
It doesn't equally apply to manicottis any more than self-identification equally applies to transgendered people and trans-Japanese-dragons. Saying it equally applies and then ignoring any and all distinctions that are explained is just a lazy way of avoiding the whole subject and lumping legitimate complaints from actual Native Americans in with clickbait op-eds on slate magazine.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Saying it equally applies and then ignoring any and all distinctions that are explained is just a lazy way of avoiding the whole subject and lumping legitimate complaints from actual Native Americans in with clickbait op-eds on slate magazine. Let's go through this one more time then. Because so far the only difference that has been brought forward has been emotional appeal. Which works initially (gut-feeling says it's true) but it is so broad that it becomes meaningless when examined in depth. What is the difference between the Lakota Headdress letter and the the Cornrow braids video?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
You said the Lakota letter is indistinguishable from a 14-year-old kid on tumblr telling you manicotti is imperialism so let's start there. Maybe read that post I just made like four posts ago explaining my opinion and how they differ, and tell me what you think of that?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It doesn't equally apply to manicottis any more than self-identification equally applies to transgendered people and trans-Japanese-dragons. Yes you're right, using the framework of CA is a lazy way of avoiding the context of any given negative cultural exchange and genericizing the problem to the point where legitimate complaints can be lumped in with lovely clickbait op-eds trying to co-opt outrage over real oppression. That's the loving point, that's what we've been complaining about the whole loving time, we're bitching about CA's vagueness as a framework because that is exactly what using a lovely vague framework accomplishes. You're literally arguing at this point "what you're saying can't be true because if it was I'd be wrong" edit: VitalSigns posted:You said the Lakota letter is indistinguishable from a 14-year-old kid on tumblr telling you manicotti is imperialism so let's start there. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:But you haven't explained why a costume is inherently mocking if I'm intending to honor the Lakota by wearing it, and I'm not acting silly or wearing outrageous Hollywood exaggerations. You just asserted it, and someone who doesn't already agree isn't going to be convinced by that. Liberalism assumes that if legal inequalities are removed then there's no more oppression, because the only way people can be oppressed is with force. Someone wearing identical clothes who isn't acting silly or pointing and laughing or making jokes at your expense doesn't appear to be doing any harm as far as liberalism is concerned. Yeah it doesn't mean the same thing at a party as at a religious service, but the liberals itt have been adamant that no one should expect a monopoly on meaning, and outsiders wearing their clothes with a different meaning isn't taking anything away from them. So what's the problem? Placing an authentic native shaman costume in the same milleau as sexy vampire and legolas is inherently mocking, whatever the intent. If I saw a Native American wearing traditional garb to a Halloween party I would wonder if they were aware they were engaging in self-mockery.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:30
|
|
|
i disagree/agree rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No one is arguing about manicotti because we think the Lakota thing isn't a real issue and we're trying compare the two, people are bringing up poo poo like manicotti to highlight the fact that if the framework you use to describe the oppression of the Lakota also applies to manicotti its probably not a good framework. I've explained why I think it's different, but rather than engaging you're just ignoring what I've said and repeating the same thing. It's not very conducive to conversation. "There's no exact point that you can say red becomes orange, and no exact point when orange becomes yellow either, therefore they're all the same and so are green and blue and violet" -this thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You said the Lakota letter is indistinguishable from a 14-year-old kid on tumblr telling you manicotti is imperialism so let's start there. Regarding your example, I think you are referring to this, but do tell me if I am wrong: VitalSigns posted:Native Americans have huge problems with public image, and that image contributes to the mocking or stereotypical or outright discriminatory treatment against them. Their public image is defined by how white people have chosen to portray their culture and not by the Native Americans themselves. So when you fetishize it, and dress up as them, you contribute to this image that their culture is some idiosyncrasy or weird thing they do, but are expected to put aside when it's time to be serious. So just wearing the trappings of that contributes in some small way to that otherization of them, even if it's not your intention, even if you're doing your best to honor them. Because ultimately, you're not from their culture, it is just a costume for you, and it reinforces the perception that what they wear is a costume, distinct from "normal clothes" that they're expected to wear if they want to be taken seriously. Your argument here is: if we let people wear native american clothes as costumes, people will think native american clothes are costumes. Which makes no sense at all. What really you ought to say is: people are racists and an obvious symptom of it is how they mock cultural symbols of the native americans. It is racism that spawns cultural exchanges that are demeaning and shallow (or at least, more so).
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Who is a Native American Halloween costume 'normal clothes' for? You realize that Native American's don't actually live that way anymore right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I've explained why I think it's different, but rather than engaging you're just ignoring what I've said and repeating the same thing. It's not very conducive to conversation. You've explained why one is a legitimate issue and why one is stupid, you've never explained why one is CA and one isn't CA other then "its not CA because that's just a person being dumb on the internet".
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Who is a Native American Halloween costume 'normal clothes' for? You realize that Native American's don't actually live that way anymore right? Are you asking me? Just two weeks ago I was at the Ho Chunk Pow-wow here in Madison, WI. They dressed precisely "that way". And it was pretty awesome too. It was clearly an important dress code for an important occasion. No different from a black-tie event.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Who is a Native American Halloween costume 'normal clothes' for? You realize that Native American's don't actually live that way anymore right? Shamans still dress that way during their religious services. Hence the whole Lakota letter asking other people not to dress that way and use their religion as a tool of their own self-indulgence. You don't have to give a poo poo about what some silly feather-wearers think though, if you don't want to. Aren't feathers a silly thing that kids wear when they're trying to seem cool and different, probably not worth taking anyone who wears them seriously. If they were worth listening to, they'd wear normal clothes like normal people do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
ceremonial garb and clothes only for special events (which describes black tie, unless you're James bond) isn't what I would consider "normal clothes" At least not in the context Miltank was clearly using.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:Are you asking me? They are dressing up for a special occasion is the point, those aren't their normal clothes. please do not put your farts in my mouth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:ceremonial garb and clothes only for special events (which describes black tie, unless you're James bond) isn't what I would consider "normal clothes" But special clothes are probably what people are more touchy about. quote:They are dressing up for a special occasion is the point, those aren't their normal clothes. To me non-normal cultural clothes would be something like Pulcinella's mask or Ninja outfits or whatever. It's such a minor point, who cares
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
I'd also point out that the fact they aren't normal clothes is a big part of the reason its disrespectful to dress up in them for Haloween edit: beaten
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:01
|
|