|
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? How can it be?
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
CarrKnight posted:I said that within the logic of Cultural Appropriation they are equivalent. Yes. Which is the problem we are pointing at. CarrKnight posted:And we sort of pointed this out already too. The problem here is racism. Well yes, racism is part of it, but I don't think it's the whole story. I think they have a legitimate complaint that it makes it harder for them to fight racism when people's perception of their dress is as a funny idiosyncrasy rather than something serious. Christianity doesn't have that problem: a Lady Gaga video isn't going to redefine what crucifixes and habits mean, and even her videos are playing on the meaning of those symbols, it's not done accidentally or thoughtlessly.  On the other hand  This has nothing to do with the culture involved, it just, I don't know looks cool or sexy or something. But it seems hard to fit into the category of "racism", there are no natives here, nothing explicitly negative is being said about them. I'm not convinced that racism is the only way to talk about this. It doesn't really capture why this is disrespectful or why native americans have a valid complaint. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted: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 Why. I'm wearing the same thing they are, it's equal. Are you saying they can dictate to the whole world what some piece of clothing has to mean because they have the approved skin color? That sounds racist.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Miltank posted:They are dressing up for a special occasion is the point, those aren't their normal clothes. It's what they normally wear at religious occasions. Like how blazers or dresses are normal clothes for going to church. Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No they're not. Eating manicotti doesn't redefine anyone, it doesn't contribute to any popular perception, it's just a good cheese-stuffed noodle. It doesn't exploit people.. Cultural exchange is different from appropriation. No one for whom had their definition of what those headdresses mean cultural defined by people like that idiot ever understood the real meaning, its not redefining anything its just spreading into dominant culture sans context. That headdress photo doesn't do anything regarding cultural exchange that manicotti doesn't, the difference is that when the headdress diffused into the dominant culture the context it acquired was directly disrespectful to the context it had in its originating culture(especially in context of the history of genocide), and manicotti isn't. edit: nevermind you're just shitposting now, "those are normal clothes in the context of a special occasion!" well no poo poo, wearing a loving space suit is "normal clothes" for an astronaut in space, are really you just totally loving to blind social context or what? Jarmak fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No one for whom had their definition of what those headdresses mean cultural defined by people like that idiot ever understood the real meaning, its not redefining anything its just spreading into dominant culture sans context. That headdress photo doesn't do anything regarding cultural exchange that manicotti doesn't, the difference is that when the headdress diffused into the dominant culture the context it acquired was directly disrespectful to the context it had in its originating culture(especially in context of the history of genocide), and manicotti isn't. That's a great way of putting it. I think you've really gotten to the heart of how taking something from another culture, severing it from its roots and stripping it of all meaning, and placing it in a different context that trivializes and disrespects the culture that created it is harmful and adds yet another layer to the load of bullshit that people in that culture already have to deal with in their day-to-day lives just to survive among the dominant group.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:edit: nevermind you're just shitposting now, "those are normal clothes in the context of a special occasion!" well no poo poo, wearing a loving space suit is "normal clothes" for an astronaut in space, are really you just totally loving to blind social context or what? Untwist your panties. Miltank was nitpicking about the definition of normal to score points by implying that other people think all Lakota wear feathers and beads to go to the corner store or something. I probably should have ignored it though, he's just making GBS threads up the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why. I'm wearing the same thing they are, it's equal. Are you saying they can dictate to the whole world what some piece of clothing has to mean because they have the approved skin color? That sounds racist. That wasn't what he meant. Jesus, calm down people. quote:I think you've really gotten to the heart of how taking something from another culture, severing it from its roots and stripping it of all meaning, and placing it in a different context that trivializes and disrespects the culture that created it is harmful and adds yet another layer to the load of bullshit that people in that culture already have to deal with in their day-to-day lives just to survive among the dominant group. To me it seems like "taking something from another culture, severing it from its roots and stripping it of all meaning, and placing it in a different context that trivializes " is pretty much how any cultural exchange occurs. You could say the same thing about manicotti, if you just try a little. The bullshit layer is something we see because of exogenous economic oppression within which this exchange takes place. It's something I think we all agree at the very least being bad taste. And yet it isn't "the fault" of the cultural exchange taking place, but of its enviroment which is the real issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:That wasn't what he meant. Jesus, calm down people. That wasn't a gotcha on my part. I was asking how it falls under the definition of racism (using the argument that a liberal might make against it) because wearing the same clothes without intentionally mocking them doesn't easily fall into the definition of racism. Wearing someone else's "special occasion" clothes isn't obviously racism, but it does take away the meaning and put it into a different (and to the Lakota, disrespectful) context. It seems like you're using the framing of cultural appropriation, because it actually is good at covering things racism doesn't cover, but fighting against the term. But why? Is it just too tainted by SJWs complaining about sushi? That's understandable but I don't think we should let the nuttiest people poison the term. CarrKnight posted:I think the key word there is "another layer". I agree. What do you think we should call this phenomenon in which an environment of inequality and economic exploitation turns cultural exchange from a positive thing into another slight on a disempowered group? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:That's a great way of putting it. There's no overarching abstracted principle that connects this example with all other examples of "legitimate" complaints of cultural appropriation more granular then "cultural diffusion which is bad". It obfuscates the actual problem which is the context of the diffusion by trying to be overly abstract and by giving people the impression that the problem is with cultural diffusion because its the one thing all these complaints do share.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I agree. What do you think we should call this phenomenon in which an environment of inequality and economic exploitation turns cultural exchange from a positive thing into another slight on a disempowered group? The headdress example is not an example of negative cultural exchange because of the history of inequality, its negative because its disrespectful and offensive. Yes that history contributes to the context which makes it offensive but its not the root cause, If the Lakota started wearing Medals of Honor to sporting events that would also be negative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What do you think we should call this phenomenon in which an environment of inequality and economic exploitation turns cultural exchange from a positive thing into another slight on a disempowered group? Maybe it's easier to take this quote as where we (mildly) disagree. I don't think that cultural exchange is ever a bad thing. Even in this situation. I think the reason we don't like, from an emotional standpoint, some kind of cultural exchange is the climate of economic explotation in which they take place. But it is the economic exploitation, not anything else, that I dislike. And the existence of economic injustice is not a good reason to stop any cultural exchange, regardless of how terrible it seems.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's no overarching abstracted principle that connects this example with all other examples of "legitimate" complaints of cultural appropriation more granular then "cultural diffusion which is bad". It obfuscates the actual problem which is the context of the diffusion by trying to be overly abstract and by giving people the impression that the problem is with cultural diffusion because its the one thing all these complaints do share. I've probably said this before, but I like your posts, they're usually thought-provoking. Anyway. What those other complaints don't share is the power imbalance or the economic domination, the context which I agree is the important part. But that's what the idea of cultural exchange vs cultural appropriation does: calls attention to the context. Like "hey before you engage in this thing, take a second and think about the context, is it disrespectful? Is there a better way that makes it a mutually beneficial exchange or at least not a harmful one?" Yeah it can be misunderstood, but so can any academic language if people are determined enough (see: evolution, only a theory!). Now that doesn't mean we should just name things slapdash and not care about public perception, but I forumsposter VitalSigns don't have the clout to go write to sociology departments and get them to change their definitions. But I can think about appropriation in my own life, and help explain it if someone asks. CarrKnight posted:Maybe it's easier to take this quote as where we (mildly) disagree. Yeah it's a bit of a weird conversation because we agree on a lot of the underlying issues. I'm not quite sure I understand your last sentence though, do you mean we should just ignore the Lakota and dress like them for Halloween? Or does wearing feathers in mockery cease to become cultural exchange somehow, or what? It still kind of seems like an exchange, albeit a terrible one... VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Or does wearing feathers in mockery cease to become cultural exchange somehow, or what? I think wearing Lakota feathers should never be illegal. Even when it obviously comes from a place of hatred and ignorance. I realize I punted a bit here by bringing in the law, but I wonder if we agree on this first.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Nah, when we violate the first amendment with speech and dress codes, it should be for important things like making sure no one sees a booby or hears a bad word on TV. I don't think we should pass a law to ban feathers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's what they normally wear at religious occasions. You know, "normal" clothes. "Normal." You know? Like when their religious ceremonies end, and they go dressing like "normal people" again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Nah, when we violate the first amendment with speech and dress codes, it should be for important things like making sure no one sees a booby or hears a bad word on TV. VitalSigns posted:I don't think we should pass a law to ban feathers. Okay, since the law is out I suppose what's left is moral suasion. Imagine our objective is to have outsiders stop wearing feathers. Do you think, from a purely strategic perspective, it is a good idea to frame our argument in CA terms? Notice here that throughout the thread whenever we asked people CA examples, most of them were trivial bullshit (Katy Perry, PF Changs, Japanese Tea Cerimonies). You argued that it's unfair to have SJWs poison the term for us, but it clearly carry a lot of baggage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Does moral persuasion somehow not qualify as trying to stop cultural exchange? Because I thought we should never discourage that no matter how terrible it seems. Isn't the Lakota letter just moral persuasion? It certainly doesn't have the force of law, nor are they trying to make it a law. I'm not trying to make this a gotcha, I'm honestly unclear about what exactly you meant.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm not trying to make this a gotcha, I'm honestly unclear about what exactly you meant. Yes, yes, this is not so much my position as a what-if/even-if. Even if we want to stop this from happening, should we structure our rethoric and our discussion around cultural appropriation lines? I don't think so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
I went to a Hindu temple today and saw a white lady wearing a sari; I got really offended and told her that she's terrible and is mocking both my culture and my faith for not only wearing it but also converting to a religion that she has no tangible connection with other than the horrible self help books about yoga and "spirituality" Or I just went there, did my thing, said hello to her and other people and we both left peacefully and happy with a stomach full of great food. Sociology is a bunch of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
CarrKnight posted:Yes, yes, this is not so much my position as a what-if/even-if. Even if we want to stop this from happening, should we structure our rethoric and our discussion around cultural appropriation lines? I don't think so. Idk, I guess that depends on the audience and what you're trying to accomplish. dk2m posted:Or I just went there, did my thing, said hello to her and other people and we both left peacefully and happy with a stomach full of great food. Cool story bro, I ate a dragonfruit today because I finally got to the market early enough in the morning to snag one before they were all gone. I also had curry puffs but I always do that because they're out cooking them up on the street all day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Idk, I guess that depends on the audience and what you're trying to accomplish. My point is that Marxist thought has come to dominate even simple social interactions where individual choices and actions are pitted against macro forces like economics and social theory. To these people, the individual is a product of these these invisible movements and idealist theories like "cultural appropriation" are derivatives (IE: representations) of their subjective understanding of the world. A white girl wearing a sari is an objective fact with no inherent positive or negative value - but somehow, to certain people, this is a very real and tangible attack on billions of people. Instead, there are actual and credible attacks on the very same group of people. I just don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
And we're back full-circle to pretending Native Americans saying "hey would you mind not taking a big old dump all over our religion, just be respectful" is actually an evil plot to do...something. Don't turn your back dude, they'll find a way to get offended about something imaginary and then scalp you! That's what these types do, can't be too careful.
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Is it better to hide beneath a veneer of decency and decorum or confront the issue itself? Native Americans deserve much more than a telling a drunk tail-gater than he shouldn't wear feathers. No, I think cultural appropriation is a convenient tool used to condemn an admittedly flawed system behind the safety of milquetoast progressivism. It is inherently insane because of its massive subjectivity - no one can even agree whether it exists or not, and if it does, what the line is. White girl wearing a sari....ehh that's OK. White guy wearing feathers...hosed up! I am also a minority - do I have more credibility now? Who the gently caress knows! It's a very loose term with even looser end goals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
No you don't really have credibility since you're showing zero interest in posting in good faith and you sound like Rush Limbaugh. Controversy exists and people disagree therefore just assume it's all bullshit? Creationists are a downtrodden group bro, don't appropriate their arguments, you're robbing their culture. Apparently the country can only do one thing at a time too? So we either stop wearing plastic feathers to our sportsball games or we address other problems Native Americans face. Pick wisely, natives, you only get one. You don't want to waste it on feathers or tomahawks or a racist team name while your schools are underfunded!
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
quote:And we're back full-circle to pretending Native Americans saying "hey would you mind not taking a big old dump all over our religion, just be respectful" is actually an evil plot to do...somethin
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
Oh come on, be a sport and close the loop on that so you and I agree again: that given the existing oppression, we shouldn't contribute to it unnecessarily by wearing plastic feathers and pretending to be a Cherokee, we should go home and enjoy a deep dish Hawaiian pizza washed down with a cool mango lassi instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
I'm just pointing out that cultural appropriation is an idealistic theory that is not an objective fact. How can you defend something like that? It's a distraction from more pressing issues - systematic racism, overt prejudice, economic inequality. These are all things that no one can deny because they are based on reality, on statistics and evidence. Again, the dominant/subordinate group ideology is prevalent in Sociology. In terms of power relations, cultural appropriation is supposed to further subjugate the subordinate group. If you buy into the idea that you can view the entire structure of society in terms of competing groups with a currency based on power, then you can make an argument that a subjugated group is exoticized in a manner that trivializes legitimate claims. Perhaps this is considered cultural appropriation. Let's look at this further. Assuming that the dominant group does indeed subjugate a subordinate group based on race, we can ostensibly classify that as systematic racism. There is no counter argument to that. Even if you disagree with the idea of power and classes, there is tangible evidence through statistics and history to prove the point that a group of people are not part of the national narrative in a meaningful way. If that group is then exoticized on an individual basis, that is prejudice. If they are exoticized en-masse through media, entertainment, social relations - that is still systematic racism. Those people are now reduced to a status of trivialization - they do not have political power, nor do they have cultural cache. They are targets of humiliation and prejudice, both in a macro and micro setting. This again sounds like institutional/systematic racism and personal prejudice to me. Where does cultural appropriation take place here? It's a smoke screen that is directing valuable attention away from the larger issue of racism. Not only that, but it alienates people who do not share a world-view consistent with Marxist thought. Why would you do that? There are no statistics to prove it exists, there are no guidelines or external signs of them. It's easy to confuse it with actual systematic racism and you have to analyze events on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they meet the definition of cultural appropriation or not. It seems like a pretty useless and subjective tool to me. The fact that it derives it's entire value on subjective interpretations of the world is its downfall for me. I'd honestly like to hear a counter argument to this - perhaps I'm completely wrong and there is some worth to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 00:59
|
|
|
Okay, that's an interesting perspective. One question comes to mind, perhaps you could clarify for me. How can one reject the ideas of entrenched power and class yet believe in systemic racism? Once you reject economic coercion by the upper classes, it seems to me you're embracing a liberal framework in which abolishing the codified legal inequalities eliminates institutionalized racism. You're still left with individual racists sure, but if class and economic clout are not regarded as effective ways of exercising power over weaker groups, then that doesn't matter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay, that's an interesting perspective. I agree with you in that you cannot reject class and still accept that systematic racism exists. I deal with many hard-core right wing types that will claim that it's fundamental human nature (IE: blacks are just lazy!) and the libertarian types, who, after intense probing, usually just admit to some sort of indirect social contract that has codified racism, if not a class based system, at the very least. The only reason I brought that up is because to help convince these people that there is a serious problem with class-based racism, I just have to frame it appropriately. And, because I have the power of facts on my side, it's not very difficult. If I start busting out very left-leaning derivative theories like cultural appropriation to them, it's an automatic signal to tune me out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Oh sure, know your audience and all that. If someone doesn't even believe racism exists, you'll have a much bigger impact if you start with the most obvious evidence. But that goes for anything. If you're talking to someone who thinks the EPA is a big government scheme to break the noble brow of the Randian supermen who made the world, you don't start out trying to convince them that saving the spotted owl is worth forgoing this quarter's profits. You bring up that time a polluted river in Ohio literally caught fire and destroyed millions of dollars of infrastructure. But I don't know that "will right-wing blowhards listen to more than ten words of this" is really the academic standard we want to apply generally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
But if you're using CA as a 'call to context', then it's not really a moral aversion anymore, it's a mnemonic. If you'd just said 'You're mocking them, they don't deserve it and they have other poo poo to deal with', it'd be pretty hard to misapply that idea. You introduce CA and you've implicitly created this web of subtle assumptions that's easily abused, which leads to the click-bait.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:30 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
rudatron posted:But if you're using CA as a 'call to context', then it's not really a moral principle anymore, it's a mnemonic. If you'd just said 'You're mocking them, they don't deserve it and they have other poo poo to deal with', it'd be pretty hard to misapply that idea. You introduce a term like CA, and you've implicitly created these kind of web of subtle assumptions that's easily abused, which leads to the click-bait. No, people intent on arguing in bad faith won't even agree that it's mockery. Look at the Redskins debate. People aren't even getting into appropriation, they're still arguing that it is respectful, with a smirk on their faces. Might as well say the whole truth, not some version self-censored to appease a bigot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Is there some reason I should worry about that beyond the "look what these crazy manhating feminists are saying now" click-bait? That's just a basic tactic of conservatism. Find someone on the left saying insane poo poo and then marketing blitz "this is what a feminist is, you're not a crazy witch like this are you, good ladies?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Look at the Redskins debate. People aren't even getting into appropriation, they're still arguing that it is respectful, with a smirk on their faces. Or look at that Duck Dynasty guy. You can reminisce about the good old days of Jim Crow when blacks sang in the fields and never talked back in a magazine interview, and conservatives are all "now I don't think that's racist, blacks were happier in the fields, that's a fact jack. But the liberal thought police are forcing A&E to fire him, freedom of speech is under attack."
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
I think moral ideas should as few, simple and precise as possible. You can't stop people intentionally misrepresenting, but if something should guide human behavior, then should guide it as best as possible. You can't just have a morality for the sensitive + sympathetic, you need one for the pig-headed and oblivious as well.SedanChair posted:No, people intent on arguing in bad faith won't even agree that it's mockery. Look at the Redskins debate. People aren't even getting into appropriation, they're still arguing that it is respectful, with a smirk on their faces. Might as well say the whole truth, not some version self-censored to appease a bigot.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
i think ideas should be as few and simple as possible
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I think moral ideas should as few, simple and precise as possible. You can't stop people intentionally misrepresenting, but if something should guide human behavior, then should guide it as best as possible. You can't just have a morality for the sensitive + sympathetic, you need one for the pig-headed and oblivious as well. Correct, it doesn't matter what you say. So there's no sense in tailoring your message to the pig-headed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Can't we discuss issues and ideas in more depth and complexity than it takes to explain to a football fan that his indian war chants are really insulting? When we try to convince someone that anti-abortion laws hurt women, do we drag out our undergrad textbooks and launch into a discussion of virtue ethics and how they compare to utilitarianism as a framework for the legal system, and ask him to defend the repugnant conclusion in light of his pro-life stance? No, those terms aren't much use in arguing with picketers outside a clinic, are they good for anything then? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 03:34 |
|
|
quote:When we try to convince someone that anti-abortion laws hurt women, do we drag out our undergrad textbooks and launch into a discussion of virtue ethics and how they compare to utilitarianism as a framework for the legal system, and ask him to defend the repugnant conclusion in light of his pro-life stance? No, those terms aren't much use in arguing with picketers outside a clinic, are they good for anything then? To stop the war chants you really need to stop the people chanting it (since everybody else is already convinced) quote:we shouldn't contribute to it unnecessarily by wearing plastic feathers and pretending to be a Cherokee, we should go home and enjoy a deep dish Hawaiian pizza washed down with a cool mango lassi instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 03:18
|
|