|
Exclamation Marx posted:The replacement of a dominant culture is an inherently violent thing. It's not a matter of a conquering group watering down their culture to make it more palatable and then ingratiating themselves into the already existing one; rather an intentional suppression of the 'victim' culture (banning cultural practices, language ban, actual murder etc.) until it becomes damaged to the point of being unable to become a dominant culture again. Some residual elements of that culture might later become absorbed into the dominant one, like your Roman god and Christian festival examples, but those are fairly meaningless concessions in the wider scheme of things. In fact, cultural appropriation is the only way for two distinct cultures to actually mix: Each approach of one culture against 'The Other' must by definition be misinformed (they would not be 'Others' were it not). Elements are removed from context, some are kept and others are thrown away. This is normal. The fight against cultural appropriation is the fight for strict boundaries of cultural identity and, therefore, segregation.
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:I actually took out a paragraph saying that I didn't think this type of change is cultural appropriation, because upon reflection I wasn't sure one way or another — the suppression and then adoption/bastardisation of the pagan festivals we now call Easter or Christmas isn't that far removed from playing dress-up in a war bonnet. I think that in general there is a view that the "lesser" cultures are unable to evolve by themselves, so you see this kind of "look at the poor savages, thank goodness that they were forcibly civilised" attitude. Effectronica posted:No, it isn't. Like, you can't just blithely ignore all the other terms sociology has developed to understand cultural interactions (transculturation, syncretism, cultural exchange, etc.) in order to declare everything appropriation because you, personally, are unwilling to distinguish between Thai takeout and New Age "vision quests". Furthermore, what you're really saying is that cultures must inevitably destroy one another in a pseudo-Darwinian conflict, when you say appropriation is the only way for cultures to mix, but that does not happen. People who read Finnish-language newspapers today should not exist under this model. There should not be any sort of regional subcultures. Alternatively, you're responding to someone who defines appropriation as "inherently damaging cultural borrowing" with "appropriation is all cultural borrowing". The first is, as I said, misguided, but it's also somewhat elitist. The two acts are, in this case, not different in kind but in degree, and the distinction between them seems arbitrary (most likely based on what the original author regards as as their own knowledge on the subject). But engagement of individuals from one culture with elements of another culture will always exist on a spectrum on information/ignorance (and the distribution will probably be Gaussian) - to regard everything to the left of some arbitrary point as 'bad' is to place a barrier of engagement for the less informed that, functionally, only serves to reduce cultural mixing. "You Must Be This Informed To Partake In Cultural Exchange". In its enforcement, it also places very hard boundaries on cultural identity. This is adequately a part of This Culture and this is not. That's not normal, and it leads inevitably to segregation. But one of the first few pages in this thread says the difference is based on conspicuous consumption, which is ludicrous: All culture is used as conspicuous consumption, even within itself. Elements of cultures are already commodities as soon as they are distributed, either by status or price. Kimonos aren't cheap, and not everyone is allowed to wear the headdresses. Signalling to others your own level of acculturation has always been intertwined with status, wealth and class. Economic oppression is the most obviously least associated with the appropriation itself - black rockers were suppressed, but them being suppressed had nothing to do with the cultural exchange of rock music in the first place. The Rolling Stones might still exist absent that suppression (but who knows, butterfly theory and all - maybe they become landscape artists). Quinoa being priced out of the locals is again a function of an already existing economic inequality between the locals and the wider economy. In this sense, demanding an end to cultural appropriation here is literally arguing for segregation until the economic inequality is over - as long as that economic inequality exists, any cultural exchange will produce a 'gentrification' effect, simply based on the buying-power disparity. But the buying-power disparity cannot be a result of of the chronologically-later cultural appropriation. rudatron fucked around with this message at 15:41 on Apr 9, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2015 15:38
|
|
|
Outrage at cultural appropriation is either outrage at something irrelevant to the cultural appropriation (which may itself either be appropriate - economic inequality should always be fought) or outrage at a manufacture harm. For example, you manufacture the harm of some element not being a signifier of a specific culture, but that is part of the process of full assimilation into another culture. Outrage at this is outrage at process itself, a demand to end any cultural exchange more meaningful than a tourist trip. The other reasons you label as 'irrelevant' is what other people ITT have called the dividing factor. That you consider them irrelevant is not my concern - I am also addressing the rest of the thread, as well as you specifically, nor do I have any desire to divine your beliefs. I also never said that cultural appropriation was caused by inequality (so that each inequality must give rise to an appropriation), just that what people such as yourself label as appropriation (and bad) is any cultural exchange in the context of an already existing inequality. Technically, black rockers were economically oppressed in this case (denied a livelihood/sales because of racism) and that was a part of my argument (the act of appropriation itself did not create the inequality, and it's the inequality that is causing problems). That you think cultural exchange must be a transaction of equal value between cultures is nothing but insane. rudatron fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
For those reading: note the similarities here with the language of tolerance. Tolerating involves creating a distance between you and the Other to reduce conflict, but it has a dual effect: no meaningful interaction can take place at that distance. 'Cultural appropriation' is closing that distance with the Other culture, and it is vital that this occurs. For example, approaching someone you love is a dangerous act - you open yourself up to harm and burden the other with responding. To never approach is to be perfectly tolerant. Yet that is a dismal existence, because positive change can only occur when tolerance is violated. All tolerance is functionally identical. Tolerance out of fear or tolerance in order to keep the Other 'authentic', the difference is meaningless: neither can confront or resolve the differences between the self and the Other. That people who consider themselves progressive would gladly embrace this kind of language, shows how far we have yet to go. Yet I think the people who most embrace this language are the minority groups themselves, and I have a video to help explain why I think this occurs. Watch this video, and note the disparity between the younger and older chinese. The adolescents say the food is inauthentic and also bad. The elder's view is more mixed and more accepting, often calling it similar. Why? Insecurity. The adolescents speak perfect American English, and this is a clue: they're insecure about the 'authenticity' of their cultural identity, and so try and prove it to others by creating distance between their own identity and what is presented (a chinese-inspired american franchise). The elders, having no such insecurity, simply speak their mind. This kind of insecurity is, I believe, the psychological motivator behind attacking cultural appropriation. The outwards attack is the result of an inner conflict. The desire to remain distinct exists only because they know they are already similar, and irreversibly so.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Is your process of debate simply ascribing opinions to people that they themselves have never said? Quote where I said anything resembling 'a death march towards a single monotonous culture'. You will fail. You implied that cultural exchange has to be for equal value ("exchange for what"), I said that is farcical. How exactly would you bureaucratically account such exchanges? If some exchange is unidirectional, should it be forced to be bidirectional? It's absurd. This kind of exchange is improvised, and most definitely should not be quantified like that. I also don't believe that cultural exchange/appropriation should only be one way, and have never said such a thing. This is, again, you manufacturing opinions to defeat. I would rather take the view that they not be interfered with, for any end. And then we come to 'dictating authenticity', where you miss the point. Here's the secret: Nothing is authentic. Neither the young nor old are 'authentic'. I was talking about what they believed about themselves. You can see the dynamic at play, in the video. In one instance, the same food that is lambasted by one group is agreed to be 'authentic' by the other. Why? What caused that difference? What motivated that choice? The young speak perfect American English because they had to have been raised in America, subject to that culture. People being a product of their environment, they must have taken in exactly what they are railing against. They aren't inauthentic by my standards. They are inauthentic by their own. rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
So, you've failed to substantiate any of your claims of my position. Rather than reconsider, you double down. When did I ever say their opinions where 'inauthentic'? I have argued they're motivated by different things, something which, too you, the mere suggestion of is proof that I'm dehumanizing them. Were you to interact with other people, you would notice that many things motivate people - shame, guilt, hope, etc. People are not honest and can sometimes not be aware of what motivates them, and that is normal. That does not make anyone sub-human, it's just part of being alive, something we all deal with. One kind of motivation does not make someone inherently worse than another, they're all part of the package of being human. But from your language, it seems you don't want to engage anymore. If you want to resume, I will be here. If you don't, I can't force you to do anything. edit: Rodatose posted:I'd think of "playing" in the context of playing a part in the social script. Being aware of a social role makes one have to choose whether to continue to play that part or go by other parts in social script(s) or make up your own. By being made aware that such a practice is not something of a specific local tradition, but instead, a wider definition made by the hegemonic culture (Indian, which lumps many unlike local cultures into one culture), you are suddenly faced with a choice of whether or not and in what ways to represent all of that definition put upon you to that hegemony whenever you interact with. Basically someone throws a second script at you and you have to choose whether to humor those writers or not in addition to doing everything the first script told you to do. rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:21 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 06:13
|
|
|
Effectronica, I don't seek conflict. I don't like hurting others. I do seek resolution. But if you wish to continue, then okay. Again, I will ask you to substantiate your previous claims, which you've failed to do 3 times now. I will also ask you to, additionally, quote where I (specifically no less) claimed that that people who disagree with me are obviously insecure. As for tolerance, you simply disagreed. What is there to defend? Where is your actual argument? Let us English posted:I find in interesting that 95% of the thread agrees on what is or is not socially acceptable behavior, but emotions still manage to get out of control when talking about how to frame particular issues. Most of us agree that wearing a war bonnet is a douchey thing to do but the sticking point seems to be whether cultural appropriation is the best way to talk about the issue. rudatron fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Apr 10, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
I don't believe it's possible to take a single example and extrapolate a curve from that, effectronica. In the abstract, I agree that it's possible that my accusations of insecurity conform to whether some other subject conforms to my beliefs, because I am a human being, and confirmation bias is something that affects all humans. I do not, however, (specifically) believe that non-agreement with my own beliefs implies insecurity, or anything like that. That's obvious nonsense. How you came to that conclusion, I do not know. I came to the conclusion I did because I believe it is the best way to explain their behavior and, in general, I believe it to be the best way to explain the behavior I have seen on this subject. And to the contrary, arguing about the motivations of groups and individuals is a staple of DnD. What is the aims of the whitehouse in saying this or pushing that? Why is this country saying that but doing that? My goal here is not to invalidate, but resolve. To feel part of a group, part of something that will protect your interests when you're not able, to find belonging, these are powerful motivators for any person. I don't want to deny that kind of fulfillment to anyone. What I want to attack is the search for or protection of authenticity, which I have exactly 0% respect for. As for tolerance, exactly what proof are you looking for? If you want direct causal proof of the ideology of tolerance on inter-group estrangement, or whether they are both created by a hidden factor (or not, and they're just unrelated), that's not something either I or anyone else in the world could provide to you. We cannot see things as they are, if anyone could this discussion (and indeed, all political discussions) would be superfluous - it's be 'proven' and settled. There are, however, suggestive points to consider. First, de facto residential segregation is prevalent everywhere, even in cities where you would expect the population to be progressive (new york for example). In spite of society adopting this norm of tolerance, metrics on racism have barely changed over the last decade, sometimes going backwards slightly. There are 2 possible explanations: the advancement of 'tolerance' has halted, or that this is the end-state of tolerance as practiced. The first is an insufficient explanation, for even if you assume that there is an Other opposing it, isn't the point of 'tolerance' to overcome such barriers? It's not as if it hasn't been applied with zeal, it has. It can go no further. If it is unable to, then that means it is insufficient. We are left with the 2nd conclusion: this is the end-state of tolerance. This environment we have, with the sharp boundaries, is as far it will take us. People will tolerant the Other, but they will always remain foreign. As for your claims, I have no idea. I am riding the arguments as they appear. I think you want to protect people you see as vulnerable, which is fine. But I'm neither threatening nor advocating any threats to the respect or welfare of any minority. Everyone deserves to live a fulfilling life. rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2015 03:39
|
|
|
You're missing the point: tolerance as a policy is only as good as its results, and this is its results. That people oppose it is no reason to say that it has 'not been done enough', otherwise you may as well take the position that X-cannot-fail-only-be-failed. The same American conservatives that you describe have themselves adopted the rhetoric of tolerance: opposing prayer in school is automatically labelled as 'intolerance' or some such similar nonsense. Why? If the idea of tolerance had not become so widespread as I claim, and it is as you claim, that it is marginalized, why would they bother? Remember, they're trying to appeal to the rest of society. It's because they have my view in their mind, as does everyone else, and as do you. You are being intolerant if you are 'intruding' on this space. You simply believe that this will make racism go away, and from racism's continued existence, conclude it hasn't gone far enough eg- people don't value it highly enough. But how can I say you have this view as well? You've denied it, and it's rude of me to double-guess that, right? But now we return to the kimono: you said it was bad when it is no longer a signifier of a that culture. Why? Because you're not simply saying that members of a group are allowed to decide what is important to them, you're decided they must also be allowed to declare something as unique to them, ie: impose a constraint on every other group they interact with. When you generalize it, you immediately see the problem: that is a desire to remain distinct from the Other, to create distance. Why? To reduce the chance of harm. This is misguided. Of course, as with all interactions, all relationships between people, harm should be mitigated and malice punished. But resolution is impossible without risk.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
You haven't actually dealt with the point I put up: If tolerance is not a social norm, then why is everyone trying to appeal to it? Again, you're acting as if tolerance cannot fail, only be failed: if you simply believe it in enough, it will work. Do you ever stop to think what actually motivates opposition, and why you cannot demotivate them? Is your answer simply "they're wrong and dumb"? Because if it is, that's so incredibly simplistic and stupid, but it also defeats the point of advocating it: intrinsic qualities like that cannot be overcome. We are again left with this being the end state. This however: Effectronica posted:The Other is everything that is outside the Self, and the continued existence of human consciousness keeps Self and Other distinct. Why? That seems harsh, right? But like I said, I have 0% respect for authenticity, the only culture that exists are the ones that currently exist in reality: to create an 'authentic' version to is magic some mythical past that cannot be true, some idealized form that exists only in your loving head. Existence precedes essence, so I do not respect any attempt to keep something 'authentic'. The 'Western' culture we share, effectronica, is not 'authentic'. It is what it is (I'm assuming, though I honestly don't know much about you. Are you actually transsexual, for example? Whatever gender or sexual orientation you are, and whatever you identify as, I want you to know I fully respect that choice). rudatron fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
Effectronica, please stop addressing phantoms. If something I have said is unclear to you, please ask for my meaning - I will not think less of you for doing so. You have said many hateful things to me, that you do not like me is clear. I have no such dislike for you. In fact, I actually like you as a person, I enjoy your way of thinking. I am not engaging in this discussion because I want to 'trap' you with words, or embarrass or shame you. You said you think I view this as a conflict: I do not. What I want is resolution, understanding. I do not believe that cultures may only change through exchange. I do not believe that cultural exchange is the only way for one culture to change another - one culture may violently impose conditions on another, and I believe that is wrong, in general (It can be justified, but is often not. I can count the number of reasons on my hand where it is justified, but usually imposition is driven by a superiority complex. I should only be done when practicality demands, and even then it's still regrettable). I believe that what you and others have called appropriation is cultural exchange with an already existing problem/inequality, that causes harm to the members of minority cultures. In this case, I oppose any attempt at stopping cultural appropriation, because I believe cultures should never be segregated, but fervently push for the existing problems/inequalities to be solved. My definition of the Other is not distinct. You have accused me of using semantics to avoid debate, but I am not interested in a fight over the meaning of words. I'm only interested in the concepts behind the meanings. 'Other' can refer to your meaning, but it can also refer the social definition. The use of the word 'Other' would be impossible in the social context, were what you say true. But I would not have labored on this point, had you not used this as you did, to summon more phantoms. I have stated my opposition to imposition - "it is good that people have the right to define their own culture". What you have not addressed is how sovereignty over one culture must necessarily extend to all connecting cultures. If the original culture is unable to remain distinct through normal means ('normal' here meaning 'without imposition') without this inter-culture sovereignty, was it ever really distinct in the first place? If one culture C1 contains elements {A}, and another C2, through appropriation, contains {A,B}, how is C1 destroyed by C2? C1 is already different from C2: No B. If C1, in the presence of C2, must inevitably contain B (and therefore become C2), without there being any imposition of that (it occurs through normal cultural diffusion), why does it matter? Why should I care? Those questions are not rhetorical. I also asked you another question, which I wanted you to answer: "Do you ever stop to think what actually motivates opposition, and why you cannot demotivate them? Is your answer simply "they're wrong and dumb"?". You cannot simply blame a mysterious evil that is somehow insurmountable for the failures of policy. If the policy cannot deal with the people we have today, then it is worse then garbage - garbage can at least be recycled. You work with the people you have, not with the people you want. The later has a name: Utopianism. rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
I also ask that you do not bring other people's views into your arguments. I have no idea what TheImmigrant's beliefs are here, but I would strongly prefer he explain them himself. TheImmigrant, and indeed other readers, feel free to state your disagreements, or point out contradictions if you see them.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Effectronica, do you believe that cultures must, by their nature, have no elements in common? Because the example you have to me, of C2 gaining C must imply that C1 loses C, only works under that assumption. If so, I do not know how that assumption can hold up under reality. If not, then your definition is wrong. Under your definition, none of the examples given are cultural appropriation, not even your example of plastic shamans: the loss of C from C1 is separate from the gain of C by C2. The answer you've given to others suggests that you don't believe that this is so, but that you believe that any interacting cultures must eventually share no elements in common. Is that correct? Firstly, when I asked you why does it matter, why should I care, I mean it in this sense: I couldn't give 2 shits about cultures as 'things'. Whether they live or die, they are just tools people use. What I care about is making sure people are happy, able to be passionate about things, able to find self-actualization. If, for some, they want to be passionate about preserving their own culture, then that is fine. They should do that. But the culture will live so long as they live and practice it. If a culture can die in the way you describe, without it being imposed by force, then it must have been by choice. I do not care about that. Secondly, there is an inequality here: you are assuming that the loss is an eventuality that cannot be countered, but the gain is something that can be countered, by fighting against the CA as you see it. Why do you see one as unstoppable, and the one you do not attack, and one as preventable? Without that inequality, either they should both be preventable, and then you just attack the loss (because that is what is actually 'destroying' the culture), or neither are preventable, and you are just swimming upstream. My point on sovereignty is that the obligation you want is already there: I expect everyone to have the obligation to respect that a culture must be able to define itself. Why is the right to define others part of the right to define the self? You define yourself how you want, how is that constrained by how others define themselves? That is what you must elaborate on. On tolerance, if a policy cannot achieve its stated goals it be abandoned for one that can. Maybe you are one of those people who thinks that war would be avoided if people could just 'get along', "Imagine if they declared a war, and no one showed up?". This is the shift of blame from policy to people: the people were not 'pure' enough to implement some policy, an 'evil' has countered it. I'm not interested in policy for pure people, or other fantastical creatures, I want something that can be used here in the real world. Do you see where I'm going with this? Those external factors you blame, unless you have direct control over them, simply assigning blame to them is pointless. Either it can defeat them, or it cannot.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
I enjoy debating and discussing. I guess you could say I'm really hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
So, based on this quote:Effectronica posted:Or to generalize, one example of interactions that appropriate are ones that import the concept while altering the meaning, either completely preserving the trappings like in this case, or preserving enough of the trappings to be confused with the original by lay persons, and all this must happen in an environment where the culture being appropriated from is contiguous to and in an inferior position with regards to the appropriating culture in terms of power And what if someone thinks their culture is important to them? I admitted just such a case in your literal quote of me: "If, for some, they want to be passionate about preserving their own culture, then that is fine. They should do that. But the culture will live so long as they live and practice it.". Just because someone is passionate about something, does not mean everyone must immediately also become passionate about that. They have a space to practice that passion, their own actions, and that is respected. Despite your repeated attempts at claiming I have ever supported extermination or imposition, you will not find a quote supporting that. How many more times must I repeat myself? Will you ever substantiate these claims? Will you ever engage in what I actually said, "If a culture can die in the way you describe, without it being imposed by force, then it must have been by choice. I do not care about that" ? I have also never, not even once, done any of the following: called SedanChair white, doubted the authorship of the Lakota Declaration of War or accused the Native Americans or any minority of not finding their culture important to them. What have I said that made you believe that minorities, or indeed anyone else, must have the same values as myself? I have specifically attacked a value I do not share, but something I believe some have, 'authenticity'. And as for tolerance, I have already described how tolerance works and why it was created, in the first post I mentioned it no less. You are saying that it is wrong: you must back that up. I will not try to counter something you have not provided yet - a counter argument. The closest you came was when you said "people did not value it highly enough!/there was opposition!" which shifts the blame from material factors onto the 'evil' nature of 'some' people. It's the most worthless kind of objection you can raise, because such opposition will always exist. Either it overcomes that, or it cannot. If it cannot, why not? Is it missing something? So far, the reasons you've presented have just been elitist: people are too dumb, and were Bad, etc. rudatron fucked around with this message at 10:10 on Apr 13, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
The minority culture does not and should not need to 'adopt' any ritual, that's a clear case of imposition that you can rightfully and morally oppose. Why? It's immediately effecting the welfare of some minority member for no real reason. So if your worry is that CA must lead to something bad, and it therefore should be opposed, what is the reason for not just opposing The Bad in the first place? If it's because you think that that imposition cannot be opposed, then why is opposing CA any easier? I don't want to 'force' a loss of diversity, but I do not see the value in cultural diversity. Analogies here are usually made with biological diversity, but the environment is different: You have horizontal transfer of any cultural elements (through exchange), elements are products of the mind and so can be created and recreated at will, and a 'culture' is not alive in the same way a living thing is, so it's life has no value other than what people may find in it. Does this 'narrow the human mind'? Not really, I don't think that human thought is constrained in that way (strong sapir-whorf is wrong, which isn't itself proof, but I think it is suggestive). That and sub-cultures will always spontaneously form, divide and then die. So whether there is any loss in diversity at all is debatable, it may just be a different kind of diversity. I'd much rather let things roll out as they would naturally, because there's nothing to gain in a particular kind of cultural environment. But why can't you apply that logic generally to racism or other isms? Because it's not an abstract thing being hurt in those cases, it's real people, whose lives and welfare have value. Everyone should be able to recognize that difference. I don't think you'll find any person who isn't already a racist that, when shown proof that unconscious racism is a thing (which hard scientific proof exists for), would argue against mitigating it. As for tolerance, I have no idea where you're getting this idea that tolerance is only marginally applied to race, 'racial tolerance' is a thing . But okay, let's go with your assumption that it was never 'meant' to be anything more than what it is today. Would that no imply, as I've been saying, that it has to be replaced? This isn't 'vulgar marxism', or indeed, anything to do with marxism. It's anti-moralism. It's intellectually lazy to blame Bad Things on the Bad Character of Bad People. Either you take it into account and deal with it, or you don't, and all you can then do is complain about it endlessly. Moralism is a device designed for self-pity. rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
If the ritual can have it's context changed without imposition, without harm being inflicted, then that means that that ritual bastardization is simply a normal result of how cultures interact and change over time. Or, in other words, the smaller culture can never preserve its integrity (even under the ideal conditions of 'no imposition') without great effort being expended to maintain it, constant political intervention and monitoring by people such as yourself. Why do that? Moralism is pointless if you want to change anything. Anyone can be moralistic, it's the easiest thing to do. But if you want real world solutions, you must discard it. If moralism were correct, a theocracy would be the best kind of government. That they are trash speaks to the uselessness of moralisms with respect to politics. Define 'constrain'.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Meaningfulness is arbitrary, and you were arguing that simple association is enough to change the meaning of some ritual. So if that is the case, then the only way that can happen is if, during the association process, either the person stops valuing the original meaning, or people who never understood the original meaning simply adopt the new meaning. That this can happen without anyone being forced to do anything is disproof that someone's value must be violated: either the value must change, or the value never existed in the first place. If some subject is worried that other people in their own culture may have the ritual lose their meaning (or rather, his meaning), and places value in that, then I have no respect for that value. The subject has no claim to demand that from others. Are the people today less racist/sexist/Bad because they are More Moral, Good People? No, the people today are the same kind of people that existed back then, it's just easier to do today what most people end up doing. When you start moralizing to other people, they're just as likely to reject you outright and ignore your proclamation. What are you going to do then, moralize more? They'll just reject you more. You want to make progress over time? You need to get over moralizing. You don't yell at water to make it move, you have to dig a ditch. So rather than saying that this things is good, but not accepted because of Bad people, you look at what is motivating them in the first place, and that's what you go after. I wouldn't consider 'guidance' the same as 'constraint' simply by what they imply, but that doesn't really matter here. Sure, a culture creates a perspective that makes certain assumptions or whatever easier than others. But is that a 'narrowing'? And careful what you say there, because you know where your Jew/Catholic logic leads you when you use it on poor minorities and things like crime, right? Here's much better logic: what you're saying is racist trash, people generally share similar goals on what they can get to, but have different communal resources/authority figures/opportunities within cultures, and so are constrained in these ways. Not because, what, the culture doesn't place value in achievement, that's dumb. rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:32 on Apr 15, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
Refusing to engage? I did engage, I pointed out that you're linking, without justification, the act of cultural appropriation with imposition. I've made this point several times now, each time you've dodged it. If they are necessarily linked, I want you to explain why. The logic you've provided so far have relied on this assumption. You handwave it around with words like 'confusion', but there's not enough explanation there to satisfy me. Now, naturalness: Natural is always a bad word to use because it has subjective qualifiers attached to it, but doesn't disclose them that easily. I've preferred to use the word 'normal' because that's very obviously a subjective word. I and most people would recognize imposition as a violent action - it should be avoided when possible. You've continually linked appropriation with imposition, and I've been attacking that link each time, to show how bad it is. But I have seen before attempts to show how important cultural diversity itself is, as a goal, with analogies to biological diversity, to show why cultural diversity should be a priori valued. Now perhaps you don't believe in that, that you have other reasons for valuing it in and of itself, such that any action that may lead to a loss is automatically bad. But the bio-analogy is very common. But then we come to your example. I dunno effectronica, is banning a cultural practice at all like cultural appropriation? It's clear imposition, you're stopping people from what they want to do without just cause. If, on the other hand, a culture can die without it being imposed to die, then it means its practitioners have abandoned it. Their values have changed. Obviously there's no 'ethereal plane' action here, but cultures definitely aren't people. I said it before, they're tools. If nobody wants a tool, it has no value. Now apply that to your crossing-the-street example. Black people are not a 'thing', their welfare matters (and it is definitely not abstract), so you can consequentialist your way into saying 'that's bad'. And now, for tolerance: you have asked to me to do a great many things that you have not done. Where is your justification? You say tolerance is not an social ideal, where is your proof? If you don't agree, you don't agree. I don't have iron-clad proof, but neither do you. Neither does anyone else, or racism would already be over. And as for misattribution, again, the closest you have come to any kind of counter-argument is accusing society of not valuing it high enough. How is that not moralizing? X has failed because people didn't believe in it enough: is that kind of logic convincing to you? rudatron fucked around with this message at 03:11 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Effectronica, I'm not trying to 'win' anything here. Do you think I care about pettiness? New ideas, ways of thinking, that is my crack-cocaine. You said they 'must' adopt, I challenged that, and challenged the reasoning that CA must be opposed because of that. That's not because I'm trying to spit in your face, I want more, more stuff, more words. I'm not asking for proof, I want the hidden assumptions, the rhetoric, the emotional investment, etc. Is the 'adoption' a matter of values simply changing, or values being imposed? Is there value inherent to diversity, or is that value derived from elsewhere? If from the value other subjects place in it, what are the limits of that value? And if you want to be figurative, fine, but please make it relevant. In my mind, if a culture can die without it being forced on them, at some point the people who did value it stopped valuing it. Values can and do change over time, they aren't eternal. The values today should be respected, but not projected onto the future. You get me? So it's kind of important that you don't implicitly equivocate between the two, when I'm trying to push the difference between the two. So don't go pretending you're somehow more enlightened than everyone else. Neither of us can see things 'as they really are'. We're both down here, you and me, stumbling in the dark and chasing shadows. I'm not going to give up my claims for the same reason you're not going to give up yours, it's all we have. You've never admitted you can support your claims, and you can't, otherwise you would have just done it. So come on then, discuss. Now, for your two other points: Is this libetarianism? Nope, you protect the commons or collectivize something because of the real benefits you'd get from that, to real people, today. Not for, what, protecting the sanctity of something abstract. As for harm: can you measure harm? Who the gently caress knows! Does it matter? Not really, as long as you can make some kind of comparison you should be good to go.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Ok, let's try something. quote:7. We urge all our Indian brothers and sisters to act decisively and boldly in our present campaign to end the destruction of our sacred traditions, keeping in mind our highest duty as Indian people: to preserve the purity of our precious traditions for our future generations, so that our children and our children's children will survive and prosper in the sacred manner intended for each of our respective peoples by our Creator. So, to answer your question, it's not 'C' because minorities aren't dumb and obviously this is of value to them (they wouldn't have made the declaration otherwise), and it's not A, because it's not the appropriation that's really motivating these kinds of declarations, it's the internal threat. B isn't right either, so I have to answer 'D. none of the above'. rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Apr 16, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
I don't agree that they do have to temporarily adopt any ritual. Assume you celebrate Christmas, would you alienate someone because they didn't, or because it was different? I wouldn't, and if someone did they're doing a bad thing, which the majority of people will recognize. You'd gain allies if that was the hill you fought on. But if, by exposition, they unconsciously adopt, then there's no solution for what you want here. Suppose that adoption was unconscious, would that only apply to appropriated practices? No, it wouldn't, it would happen at every interaction. Your logic relied on the 'need to communicate' after all. In view of that, aren't you just advocating a kind of 'limited segregation'? Where interaction is limited to some level you, personally, feel comfortable about? I'd rather be consistent: all walls must come down. But now we come to the real issue, rarely spoken but often implied: "the new meaning will be taught to anyone entering the culture". Why is that a problem? Neither you nor I have the right to demand that someone else adopt our own meaningfulness. They make up their own mind, children especially are not their parent's property. Why does that results in dismantling? Assume there is value in the meanings of the smaller culture, that cannot be found elsewhere. Wouldn't that value-in-meaning always protect it? Alternatively, if meaning is arbitrary, then there is nothing special about one culture over another, so people will just go for the most exposed. So which is more likely? But okay, we can escape that if there's some value in cultural diversity itself. You argue an analogy to intellectual diversity, but take an interesting perspective on that. The point of intellectual diversity is that differences are always opposed, then perhaps they resolve and new ones surface. Intellectual diversity doesn't exist because there are two people who have different opinions, who exist but who may never meet. The value in the diversity only exists in the interaction. Your demand that cultures not appropriate itself reduces the value from culture diversity, because you're reducing that interaction! What is the value in diversity of cultures if that diversity isn't experienced by anyone? If one culture swallows the other, that's not actually a big deal. New oppositions will always arise so long as the synthesis is still somehow incomplete. To demand that the cultural 'landscape' we have to day stays in place, forever, is to demand stasis. So rather that creating diversity in human thought, you're created a bunch of bubbles that just bounce off each other. At some point you have to let go. Having a 'little' bit of segregation isn't right, even if the power brokers in the minority culture might want that. So no, I don't place any value in the cultural environment we have. Suppose Paradise Lost hadn't been written because some other culture had absorbed europe (say, the mongols - it's just an example). Would the world be culturally poorer? Assuming the same population/art expenditure, not really, because new things will always be produced. The world would be just as culturally rich, but different. The cultures we have today? Arbitrary. So why should value be placed in keeping them as they are? Sure, being part of a culture is a huge part of being a person, expressing yourself and so on. But there's no 'correct' culture, for any one person. Let people do what they want with culture, it's just a thing. rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:23 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
VitalSigns, I get where your coming from. No one should be able to mock another culture free of judgment. It's fine to reject that, dancing around in a caricature on Halloween is insulting (As are the 'Redskins' team). But take that Lakota Declaration. Is 'shamanism' doing that? No, it's taking something else and spinning it. It's really easy to make fun of (I mean, Really loving Easy), but it's no more or less valid than any other culture formation you'll find historically. They're just more modern version of Greco-Roman 'Mystery Cults' (There are literal roman statues of the Egyptian God Isis for example). Now they cannot say that it's something it's not, they have to take ownership of it, they've got to spin it. They can't find-replace some set of words with another set either, no one's falling for that. But I think that what many people have called appropriation is absolutely essential to help inspire more creativity, push more perspectives, more more more. The big example here is art, but I do think society as a whole is improved by this kind of process, and in particular when it comes to things like cultural values. rudatron fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
I've never done that, this isn't helldump and no, they're not. Has Easter and Christmas been appropriated from their true meanings? It's been argued that they have, it's also been argued, by video, that certain hairstyles 'types' are verboten for the majority. I can't see that kind of talk as anything but ridiculous. I do think this kind of talk of appropriation really does hamper new and interesting creations. But of course, mockery isn't acceptable, and I've always maintained that, and neither is lying.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Apr 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
I didn't call anyone segregationist or jim crow lovers vital signs, I took your logic and I turned it on itself, took it to its conclusion. I don't believe that you think segregation is good or whatever, in fact that's the point, I'm showing what that same kind of logic would justify, to convince you away from it. You don't want segregation, and that's what I'm trying to appeal to. So you can drop that disingenuous outrage schtick.steinrokkan posted:It's pretty undeniable that Xmas and Easter have been appropriated by business interests.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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? Like it's strange that you would claim CA is both this kind of context-probe, this generally useful device, and then claim it's too deep or complex for the lowest common denominator. rudatron fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Apr 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
That only happens if you're unhappy and have a different ideology to the dominant culture, you can otherwise ignore it. Conquer them before they win a culture victory and you're fine.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
But more seriously, you have a valid point about straw man or fringe groups, but remember what you said before: it was too deep or complex for the lowest common denominator. But take your example:VitalSigns posted:"What if being born into a poor black family is random and not a punishment from God for your future laziness" is a bit too complex. So you're valid in saying that CA shouldn't be judged by its outliers, but it absolutely can be judged by the average. Let's even take the Lakota declaration as a 'fair' implementation. Take note of this statement: "Lakota posted:WHEREAS individuals and groups involved in "the New Age Movement," in "the men's movement," in "neo-paganism" cults and in "shamanism" workshops all have exploited the spiritual traditions of our Lakota people by imitating our ceremonial ways and by mixing such imitation rituals with non-Indian occult practices in an offensive and harmful pseudo-religious hodgepodge; and VitalSigns posted:Sure sure I get what you're saying too, cultural exchange has created great art and humanity benefits from that, and as a practical matter if something is a good idea, people are going to see it and emulate it and bring it back home. Mimicry is basic human nature, hell basic primate nature, apes learn by watching too. My very first posts in this thread were me asking questions about what forms of exchange are and aren't appropriation.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 08:54
|
|
|
I can 100% agree with this, I feel the reason it's been raised to prominence is because of conservative undertones in minority communities. So, as an example, ultra-conservative rabbis or whatever would love nothing more than to just wall themselves off, to 'protect' their kids from the outside (ie maintain their power in that community). I don't want to give that a milligram of respect. But it's impossible to, as a white person, say to a minority "I know about racism better than you" without coming off as arrogant and overbearing. The choice that creates the less conflict is to then simply over-value minority subjectivity - if they don't like it, it's bad, and bad in the ways they say. The problem is that every community has a power struggle going on within it, already existing power structures and people interested in maintaining that structure. The ideology that supports that structure is the one that will dominate minority experience, which may not be progressive. There's no greater example of this then that quote from the Lakota declaration: quote:7. We urge all our Indian brothers and sisters to act decisively and boldly in our present campaign to end the destruction of our sacred traditions, keeping in mind our highest duty as Indian people: to preserve the purity of our precious traditions for our future generations, so that our children and our children's children will survive and prosper in the sacred manner intended for each of our respective peoples by our Creator.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Rodatose posted:I think it's not as similar as the matches in certain words(with purity, preserve, for our children) makes it out to be. The importance is placed on preserving customs for the benefit of future generations' wellbeing, not on race/genetic/ethnic purity.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 07:21 |
|
|
I think there's a difference between the wellbeing of future generations, and the 'purity' of the traditions of future generations. It's one thing to plant a seed, it's quite another to project your own traditions and customs onto future generations, for them to bear like a stone. These things just change, and future generations can bloody well make up their own minds.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 09:42
|
|