|
Mandy Thompson posted:Here is an example of it going in the other direction One might argue that it is somewhat preferable to seeing the uniforms as something which commands respect and reverence.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
I do have a bit of trouble grasping a couple of things that seem fairly integral to the discussion of cultural appropriation. Firstly, I don't understand the concept of cultural ownership. As in, I don't understand how people can feel as though they have possession or creative control over a culture. To me it is like a monarch butterfly claiming ownership of the shape of its swarm. Culture isn't a thing we own or control, it is the sum, almost gestalt presence of our shared ideas and experiences, but it isn't a thing in and of itself, that one can point to and claim ownership of, because everything you do changes it. It's like the numbers in an equation getting protective of the solution, it's an expression of its component members, not an independent entity. Following on from that, I don't understand the feeling that culture must be preserved, because preserving it is antithetical to its nature. Even by deciding to preserve it, you change it, because you create a cultural shift towards conservatism/preservation. The only culture which can be preserved is arguably tautological conservatism, which is to say a culture built around preserving itself. So the argument must surely be instead, not against the modification of cultures, but the modification of cultures by people you don't like, in some way or another. Which then brings me to the problem that occurs when people do object to the modification of their culture by people they perceive as not part of it: How do you get to decide that? Certainly on an individual level I can understand and entirely support people objecting to the behavior of others for more or less any reason. If you don't like someone doing something that's entirely your prerogative, but I would have difficulty jumping from that to the idea of an appeal to a higher power, some external, omnipresent Culture which is more important than any person, and which needs to be preserved, and which therefore needs the object of your ire excluding from it. I dunno, it feels weirdly religious or something, like Culture is some kind of weird god and you get to be its prophet or something. Again the possessiveness throughout the whole idea and its strangely segregationist overtones just... make it really difficult for me to understand. It seems like it has all the same problems of people complaining about immigrants not respecting their culture by not speaking English all the time, or people throwing a shitfit about spelling or new words because they are the prophets of the One True Language and everything else since then is stupid. You don't get to decide on culture for everyone, culture is the sum of its parts, and we are increasingly less separated from each other so, yeah, cultures are going to change because of that. All of them. It works on a personal level, I can entirely understand people not liking the way other people treat things which are important to them, but when it draws in the appeals to authority and stuff I just lose the thread a bit. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 02:17 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Cultural appropriation is an interaction that damages the culture's ability to define itself by ripping parts of it out. I'm still having difficulty making a distinction between that and simply "change".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:One of them is done to the culture and the other by the culture. This shouldn't be hard. If you're going to argue that only internal influences are permissible you're going to have to illegitimise a vast swathe of existing cultures. Living in the UK, almost everything we have came from somewhere else. Aside from possibly feudal Japan, I'm not sure anywhere on the planet could claim that it hasn't had massive amounts of cultural modification by outside sources.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 14:10
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's not what's being argued. That's just the basic mistake you're making. This also isn't a historical thing to delegitimize existing cultures, or whatever you're terrified of. Then I'm having trouble seeing what is being argued because all cultures are involutarily changed all the time. Technological progress has completely changed how things work over the past century or so, destroying a lot of old traditions across the world, but I'm not sure it makes sense to complain about it very much, as it's hardly likely to stop it from happening in the future. You're going to have to demonstrate the difference because I'm having trouble seeing it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 14:15
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Because their ability to say that "this is the meaning of this" in relation to their culture is destroyed. There's always the appropriated stuff with its meanings, itself more powerful than anything the tribe can do. If "spirit animals" are thought of as New Age bullshit, then Native religion becomes bullshit as well, because young people attempting to become part of the religion will still have the New Age nonsense in the back of their heads. If headdresses have no symbolic meaning than "is Indian", then the customs surrounding them become meaningless because "is Indian" outweighs those customs. I don't really see why that is the case. Between people who share the significance of an item or practice, the meaning is preserved, between people who do not share the significance, the meaning was never there to begin with. I don't expect you to understand the meaning of everything with sentimental value to me, and when I die it'll all get either thrown out or sold to people who are completely incapable of appreciating its meaning, but that has absolutely no bearing on how I choose to view it. Unless you expect everyone to share everyone else's ideas of what is meaningful, I don't see how it's supposed to work.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:It's kind of amazing how many people have posted ITT "I don't understand this thing, and that's your fault" like since when has it been a thing to be loud and proud about ignorance as a debate technique? Don't get it. Since people started being very angry about people not understanding things. Burden of proof and all that. Space Gopher posted:Sure there is. Go ahead and try to put your own spin on Star Wars, Mickey Mouse, or the Coca-Cola logo out there, for your own profit. See how far you get before the lawyers slap you down. Do you have a suggestion about how one might realistically enforce laws if "I don't recognise the validity of your legal system" was an acceptable defence? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:So you accuse other people of being angry, which is what causes you to openly admit multiple times that you simply don't understand the topic of this thread I'm saying that if you put forward an argument, it's not unreasonable for people to ask you to defend it. If you don't defend it very well, I don't think that makes it the fault of the person who doesn't agree with the argument. The burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion, generally speaking.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
Vaginapocalypse posted:It's like trying to explain evolution to a creationist
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:You literally said you don't understand how people feel like they can belong to a culture. Well, that is rather an odd idea too but it's understandable at least. But what I said was that I don't understand how people feel like a culture can belong to them, which is quite different. To object to the participation in and modification of something by others, is to feel possessive of it. Culture very, very definitely to my mind is a one way thing. You can identify as part of one, be affected by one, but you can't claim creative control over one, not meaningfully anyway. Even the strongest cults of personality or ideological movements rapidly degenerate into a variety of subgroups which all borrow from other sources and ideas. To claim that you should, or can realistically have ownership over a set of shared ideas is nonsense, even intellectual property cannot stop people from making derivative works. You can't control the contents of other people's heads. Popular Thug Drink posted:That person wasn't agreeing with you. I know they weren't, but that is exactly what it feels like from my perspective at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:I have a feeling that some politicians would disagree with you. And they're bloody daft as well. I know plenty of people try to do that sort of thing but you can't realistically do it with accuracy. Popular Thug Drink posted:Is there a difference between group belonging as identity formation and actual ownership of a tangible concept in your mind? Do you think that you actually own your group of close friends? No, of course I don't own them, which is why I don't tell them what to do? vvvv paranoid randroid posted:Why on earth not? Culture doesn't just happen irrespective of people. It doesn't happen irrespective of people but it does happen irrespective of individual people. Culture is the net expression of a lot of people's ideas and thoughts, as you introduce more people, the net expression changes as a result. The only way you can avoid that is by being completely isolationist? And even then, that also changes the culture because now isolationism is a component of it. How can you possibly exist in communication with others and not have either them, or you, or both, be changed as a result? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 17:18 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:So you interpret crticism of bad behavior as "telling someone what to do"? Well that is sort of literally what criticism is but certainly the person being criticized is at liberty to ignore it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, this isn't the case. Criticism doesn't mean that. What does it mean then? Because I'm not sure I believe that people point out things they disagree with without hoping the person being criticised will change as a result. It would be rather a waste of words otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Criticism doesn't require you to propose an alternative in order to do it, duder. Then would "telling people what not to do" satisfy your definition?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:It is a corrective measure for sure, but it is hardly "telling someone what to do." Criticism usually involves what was done wrong and then the receiver of the critique can either try something different, not do the same thing, or just ignore the critique. I'm not sure I see a meaningful difference, but I appreciate the explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:I think the major difference between what people call CA and cultural exchange & mutation is that CA is taking place in the context of the modern commodification of everything. People arguing against CA are reacting to what they perceive as having bits and pieces of what makes them them hoovered up and turned into cute little accouterments to be sold at a premium. I think that is a better criticism of cultural identity than commodification. We have a lot of people over here who get real mad about people not speaking English all the time, or wearing clothing that isn't traditionally british, or having places of worship that don't use church bells. While not related to commodification, I think that's fairly stupid because your personal identity probably shouldn't be tied up in your culture, such that attacks or changes on that culture are viewed as attacks or changes to you. Because there is no reason why they should be. You exist as an independent entity and changes to the ambient ideas around you don't need to change yours if you don't want them to. Culture and people aren't the same thing, and a person is not entirely a vessel for their culture, or at least I would hope not. It would be selling them rather short if that were so. Culture changes, always. Planting your identity in it is probably a bad idea if you want something enduring to define yourself. If you're looking for that I think it's going to have to be a conscious decision on your part to stick to the ideas you like, regardless of outside influences.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:"Everything dies. Family, friends, your ideals, everything you love - it dies. It's foolish to even try to define yourself in the face of a hostile, entropic world. Be free of all obligations to self." -A goon who deeply understands people Close, but more that it's foolish to pick something extremely mutable to borrow your self definition from. Absolutely define yourself if you want to, go nuts with it, but if you want something that lasts, you're going to have to spend some work internalising everything and making it your own. Or embrace change or something, whatevs works for you. Wanting permanence but relying on outside definitions of yourself is probably going to suck though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:I think you're confusing the presence of thousands year old cultures with people acutely, in the present moment, being a fool. It's an easy mistake to make, so I understand your confusion. Such is modern life. I can understand depending on your culture once upon a time, when information from around the world wasn't shoved down your throat 24/7 but I wouldn't put much faith in it now. We aren't as isolated as we used to be, so we change more.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:One would think that if information was so free flowing, that some of these people would research whatever the hell they were getting into instead of just going by dumb stereotypes. Information could be pouring in in torrents but I don't think it would much help the human attention span. We're not especially well suited to dealing with the volume of information we have access to, so you're probably going to be stuck with crappy knock offs for the foreseeable future. At least until everyone ends up part of some weird homogenous porridge culture made up of poorly understood and bastardised ideas from all over the place.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:So basically, the people appropriating are just lazy. Got it. I mean Katy Perry had people put together an elaborate show but they didn't have the time to look and see that stereotypes aren't the way to appreciate Japanese culture. If you're getting paid a fortune for it and/or enjoy doing it, it isn't work. It is actually harder to do things you have no material reason to give a poo poo about and probably don't like doing, which is why people don't do them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:You do know that people actually do things that they have no material reason to give a poo poo about and don't like doing because they need money? Needing money would seem to be almost the platonic ideal of a material reason? Essentially, Katy Perry isn't paid to give a drat about other cultures and probably isn't very inclined to do so out of the goodness of her heart, so she doesn't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:So basically she is the very definition of cultural appropriation. "Hey this stuff looks cool, and if anyone gets mad about me taking it out of context or promoting stereotypes? gently caress them." I guess? Though I imagine she and most other famous people do that about almost everything, not just other cultures. What I'm saying is eat the rich.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:No, I am pretty sure that there are plenty of artists out there that don't stupid poo poo like Katy Perry does. Irregardless, might doesn't make it right. I will grant you both that there are few performers more vapid and idiotic than Katy Perry, and that it isn't a good thing that it happens, but I would probably also define it more as a class problem than a specifically cultural or racial one.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
forbidden lesbian posted:you should stop listening to the beatles because they make bad music This is the most offensive thing in the thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:This is a very beautiful and poignant idea, but it doesn't have much bearing on the idea of pancakes and bacon being just "food" while a taco is "Mexican food", as though it is a distinct and fundamentally different unit that is advertised, presented, and consumed as such. It is possible to argue that individually, any given person within what is considered a unified cultural brand, will probably find a great deal of novelty even within that culture. We don't all consume all aspects of what might be called our own culture, so that isn't apparently a requirement for the labeling of a cohesive culture.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:if you feel scapegoated by discussion that does not mention you as an individual in any way thats on you, friend I can't imagine what might give an impression to the contrary.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Bourgeois appropriation of working class culture is no less valid a form of appropriation than one based on ethnicity. I wasn't really thinking of that as much as being rich and famous probably doesn't encourage you to be a very good or considerate person. Popular Thug Drink posted:Oh cool and now we're complaining about tone arguments. "It's not my fault if you get offended by blanket insults directed at your ethnicity" is an interesting line that I will have to try next time I feel like complaining about black people. Because obviously it wasn't directed at you particularly. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Mar 25, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Also the whole "elitism" business and genre hairsplitting in heavy metal fandom is really about trying to prevent their form of music from being appropriated and commodified by bourgeois society because having your culture turned into a token for rich people to use to compete based on leisure tastes is bad but most metalheads are neither well educated nor articulate, and thus rant at "posers" and "hipsters" or engage in rank misogyny or racism. Which I really don't get because they mostly whinge at each other. I don't think anybody else really gives a buggery about metal or its subgenres.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Why Can't I Use The N Word: The Musical Not entirely sure that is all this thread is about.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:you were being whiny before one random goon said something mean about whites My concern about the concept of cultural appropriation is mostly based in the idea that I don't see it as being distinct from just general kyriarchy by people with money and power, and also that it seems functionally impossible to do anything about because it relies on people having possession of ideas to the point that they can rightly complain about how other people dress, speak, or sing. Which seems objectionable to me. I mean obviously it doesn't practically affect me being whiter than snow, and functionally ruling the universe as a result, but it's not something I would generally consider appropriate to inflict on others.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:What is this object? What is it for, and what does it signify? Suppose I ask you the same question about this?  What would your answer be?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Catholics don't worship Mary or statues. This is what I was talking about earlier when I said people are ignorant of Catholic beliefs. I suspect Martin Luther might disagree with you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Okay, so a genocidal anti-semite from 500 years ago is the ultimate authority on Catholic doctrine? Part of the point of the Protestant Reformation was that quite a lot of people did and do view the Catholic fondness for iconography and the accumulation of wealth, and the veneration of the saints to be somewhat too close to idolatry, or at least decidedly unfounded in the core Christian tenets. So there may be some room for debate?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:It's not a new issue. One of the fun things when dealing with sola scriptora sects is watching them It's not really the most convincing defence, in fairness, so I can see why people might not buy it. "No dear I wasn't jacking off to this picture of your sister, I was thinking about you at the time, the picture is just there to remind me of you."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
My impression was that the objection stems from that bit where god tells you not to make any images of anything, more or less, and don't bow to them, so I can understand the rationale. He's very fussy.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 06:58
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Why does this make you an insufferable rear end? I simply don't understand: if someone gets upset (like Obdicut's grandfather at Swedish Christmas cookies sold at stores), what is illegitimate about their being upset? Why are they wrong to be upset? Commodified food examples strike me as really clear-cut cases of appropriation, actually. I really just don't understand, like with my cinnamon roll example: it seems obvious to me that you'd be justified in being upset, since it's a clear violation of my culture's norms, taking stuff out of my culture without any of the context, and given food's centrality to our lives, it's sometimes one's closest contact with the culture of their ancestors or even with other cultures. When it gets bought and sold, or stripped of what made it significant in the first place, it's a bad thing (which doesn't mean that you can't eat delicious food from other cultures, because you should eat delicious food from all cultures). It's pretty silly to be upset because you think someone doesn't have sufficiently refined taste in food. People can eat what they like and call it what they like, and so can you.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I see we're branching out into new areas of hilarity with "You shouldn't have any standards for anything". You don't have to eat it but being annoyed/depressed about other people's eating habits is just snobbery/retarded, I don't see why I should have patience for it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:He said that what you call food doesn't matter. I decided to illustrate this, with exactly as much intellectualism as his original statement had. I think you are being deliberately disingenuous, there is a difference between inaccurate but commincative labeling and gibberish. You are also not attacking the argument, but rather the way it is phrased, if you would like to attempt to attack the argument, please feel free.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:No, I'm attacking the argument you actually made: You know the difference, you're still being deliberately obtuse. Calling a grilled cheese sandwich pizza isn't communicative, because nobody else in the world does that. Calling milk with flavored powder in it "milkshake" is communicative because people actually do that even if it isn't strictly accurate.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 07:39 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:You know, this whole thing comes down to "you shouldn't care!" and I'm giving your idea far more respect than it deserves by pretending you've put any actual thought in it. But in any case, people don't generally control their involuntary responses, such as to bastardizations of particular foods, and I have no inclination to try to suppress something so minor and inconsequential. If you aren't capable of voluntarily controlling your response to something as inoffensive as someone else's taste in food, that says more about you than it does the person doing the eating. This extends across the vast majority of this subject. What meaning or lack thereof somebody assigns to your actions and beliefs, does not in any way affect your ability to assign meaning to them. Expecting everybody else to respect and share your idea of what is important just because you think it's important, is extremely juvenile. You can believe whatever you like by yourself, but when you expect other people to respect ideas that don't make any sense to them, that's frankly silly. Unless you want to argue that cultural beliefs have inherent value simply because people believe them, there is no reason why anyone else should treat them as sacrosanct. You may elect to be respectful to a person, and very reasonably so, but that does not extend to their ideas, not simply because they have them. And if the person requires you to respect their ideas as well as them, that is a failing of the person. We expect people to separate themselves from their ideas sufficiently that they do not perceive an attack on their ideas, as a personal attack. That is the basis of all debate. If someone can't do that, it is not generally considered necessary to pander to their inability to do so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 05:32
|
|