|
quote:ppropriation 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. A new, superficial, "new age", Buddhist-like subculture has just emerged. You imply that's a bad thing, but why? It is not authentic but that's a neutral characteristic. You might think so, but that's about that. Were these hippies you like to punch to take up completely authentic Buddhism, what would be the added value to diversity? None. quote:There is nobody saying that cultural appropriation may be somewhat positive and somewhat negative, only people saying it's purely good. Cultural appropriation is a mechanism, no different from gravity, of how different cultures interact and share artifacts. It is "good" only in the sense that more cultural appropriation means more sharing and more diversity (the shallow, superficial kind expressed above). It is "bad" only in as much as it is affected pre-existing and exogenous economic and political inequalities. The view from here is that rudatron thinks that you can only stop cultural appropriation by dividing and segregating cultures (a terrible thing) while you think the "quality" of cultural appropriation can be improved. But I am not convinced you made that point convincing.
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:I am defining cultural appropriation differently from you, and using it specifically to refer to a certain set of interactions, rather than all interactions that involve incorporating something from another culture. But that's exactly my point. To you there is a subset of lower-quality interactions that need to be removed. But the burden of proof you have is that you need to show this subset of interactions: 1- Are actually bad 2- Can be halted without affecting every other kind of interactions 3- Can be halted given that real inequalities exist and will not change for a long time.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
quote:Actually, the second requires proof of a negative the way you've phrased it, and the third requires justification from you, but maybe you could actually respond to what was concretely said and explain what it is you don't find convincing? I can rewrite it, quote it, whatever. Okay, let's try this. Can you go through 3 examples of "bad" cultural appropriation (you can dig previously posted examples obviously) explaining who are the victims, why, and how should the exchange be shaped differently without altering the existing social inequalities and without assuming away people general ignorance of what they are appropriating?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
quote:This is pretty much a rigged game, since you're demanding that people being informed not be part of the solution. But cultural exchange will happen in this world, with existing inequalities and with real people who tend to be ignorant. In fact, when it comes to other cultures, you are by definition ignorant about them. Assume ignorance. I really think it's the right setup to ask the question. quote:But here's one example- upscale ethnic-cuisine restaurants like PF Chang's that are owned by white people are considered more authentic than downscale restaurants that are owned by people from the actual culture in question. This is appropriating because it involves defining what real ethnic food is for the people of that culture. I can add to this. As you can tell from my grammar, I am a foreigner. Italian actually. So in Rome from time to time you do hear American tourists complain. Say, when they ask why there is no meat in their parmiggiana, waiters know nothing of marinara or alfredo sauce, baristas bring you milk when you order latte and so on. Clearly in some tourists there is a wrong, appropriated, idea of italian cuisine which just isn't true (luckily in this case since Rome's greatest contribution to Italian food is probably tripe and lard). But should we really expect them to know as much as I do about Italian culture and food before they are allowed to eat? It's weird to say it but that attitude would be intolerably ethnocentric towards the poor dominant Americans. And so Italy has its authenticity and you guys keep your Chicago stuffed pizza (which I actually confess being a family favorite). CarrKnight fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, I can't tell from your grammar, actually.  Effectronica posted:
It's just that American customers like American taste. It's why you guys put origano in your tomato sauce. Why should people pay the same to have something that has been tuned for a foreign market? Nobody is forcing people who prefer authentic food not to have it (and the US is blessed with authentic restaurants) but if they are too few as a customer base they need to do it on their own. It's a step-down from just walking down the street and buying it to go, sure, but only because there aren't enough people to keep that business going. quote:Furthermore, you cut out the part where I said that the solution is to stop promoting "authenticity". In the US Parmiggiana is chicken + some knockoff parmesan. In Italy nowadays Parmiggiana is fried eggplant + parmiggiano reggiano. But if you ask my grandmother Parmiggiana is actually baked eggplant + mozzarella, which was what people in the south thought people in Parma would eat. So who has the claim of authenticity? Parmiggiano does taste better than just mozzarella with eggplant, which is why it is prevalent now. But you could argue that it isn't authentic either. And probably you can go further back and find a more authentic recipe still. Is there really a point in claiming somebody is not authentic at this point? CarrKnight fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Apr 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:There isn't. Authenticity is a trap and one that is often complicit in racial and ethnic oppression, so the solution is to get people to stop calling things that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:
This seems like an even more problematic definition. To keep that Buddhist example running, imagine some white Americans were to take an unbalanced sample of Tibetan writings and traditions and integrate it in a superficial new wave movement. Bad, as it is unidirectional, no exchange happen. So how should we structure this to make it mutual? Should we force some Tibetans to learn the bible? Is that better? Who should be keeping track of what has been given and received to make sure it's fair? It also a definition that repeats the same Panglossian fallacy that runs through this thread. "Mutual" exchange can only happen when you assume away general ignorance and existing social and economic inequalities. Because these inequalities exist a "mutual" exchange of culture is simply not possible. Should we then prefer cultural segregation? Because these are the two choices. quote:poo poo, I'm a Sephardi Jew oppressed by DirkaDirka types here (look at my bannage), so respect me or else antisemitism. CarrKnight fucked around with this message at 04:22 on Apr 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
Should then a white woman not wear a sari (or perform any other kind of cultural exchange) until she solves the social injustice that prevents the Indian lady for bringing it to her office? And would the social stigma be more easily done away with if we ban anybody but Indian women from wearing Indian clothes?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
quote:Well let's see: should I, as a man, refuse any raise until I solve the gender pay gap first? Should we ban men from getting promoted until all inequality is solved forever? Take the raise, wear the Sari, eat the Cannoli.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Sure but the problem is not that you have been given a raise. Or worn a sari. The problem is that there are existing injustices and by the power of privilege your actions becomes guilty by association. Cultural appropriation takes this to the extreme where any form of self-expression that isn't what your kin taught you is morally dubious.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Taking a second to think about whether your actions are hurting other people before you do something isn't some totalitarian Stalinist oppression, it's basic manners taught in kindergarten.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I'm pretty sure only white people have ever been offended by appropriation of anything, people from other races have better things to worry about, like getting shot by police or heating the reservation or that kind of thing. Explain it to the cornrows lady. Or this random dude on tumblr  (or pretty much anything on TumblrInAction)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:Some people like to laugh at stupid people who say speaking more than one language is cultural appropriation. It is absolutely entertaining.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No this is what happens when you find the most insane parody view possible to validate your persecution complex and crow "I knew it, the feminists/injuns/negras/mexicans/scary folk want to kill white Christian men! Yeah, one should not read too much into it. It's has entertainment value but one should not look at those corner cases as representative of anything. CarrKnight fucked around with this message at 04:09 on Apr 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 04:06
|
|
"
|
quote:Namely that whitey bad and anything that a white american uses that may have originated in another culture is CA and also It's kind of like people watching Rambo II and thinking that's a fair representation of what war looks like.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
quote:If this is what's happening, it seems pretty straightforward to say "Oh yeah, those guys are idiots, here's how to distinguish us from them." Is there anything besides a smell test to tell the silly CA from the non-silly apart? quote:You're right, I should respect the leading voices raising awareness about Cultural Appropriation and never associate them with the teeming hordes of tumblerinas and Professional Outrageists complaining about Gwen Stefani and the take out Chinese place
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
So basically CA adds nothing of value in any meaningful way to any discussion about anything.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I find it useful for talking about cultural appropriation, but if you don't want to talk about cultural appropriation it's probably not that useful. No. Every example about CA brought forward turned out to be about something else. CA is terrible precisely because it is deployed so poorly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
Pauline Kael posted:CA, within the context discussed in this thread, and the times I've encountered it in the wild, is nothing more than a bludgeon for intemperate Tumblerinas to yell at their dads and other assorted miscreants to try to force their half baked ideas on others. The supposed victims of CA, like the previously mentioned take out Chinese restaurant owner, want nothing to do with the driving philosophy of so many overweight white teenage other kin Not everybody who disagrees with you (and me) has dyed hair and signs herself with #killallmen. Get over it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
quote:Take stereotyping. It's bad because of the effects of racism, but it doesn't make sense to say "stereotype is a meaningless term, you're just talking about racism". Stereotyping is bad only because of the context. Much like CA. Sure. Take Russell Peters. He's a bore, but his stereotyping isn't there to psuh a racist agenda. Again, it's bad or good according to the context so that we agree on that. I just go one step ahead: we only have to look at the context.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
But if we agree on everything, why do we still disagree?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 21:16 |
|
|
it is a pretty disgusting quote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 03:13
|
|