|
Mandy Thompson posted:Its possible to care about both things. Yeah, we should definitely listen to marginalized people when they express frustration with the relationship between their culture and the dominant one. Problem is, a lot of those marginalized people (like anybody else) are totally ignorant and worthless. Attention world: everything you have done is for me to use. If I want to do burnouts in a three-wheeled Korean lorry covered in eagle feathers, then jump out and play a sitar, will I not? Watch me.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:That's just fitting in the appropriate context. If you were a white European person running around in saris and a bindi all the time talking about how much you totally love yoga and the Bhagava Gita and the deep ancient wisdom of India you'd be appropriating. It's the superficial treatment of someone else's culture which is the offense, versus respectfully participating in a different culture like wearing more culturally standard clothing to a wedding. To me what is ridiculous is not any "appropriation" but the half-assed adopting of pop forms of it, as above. You're not hurting anybody, you are just making yourself ridiculous, and your stunted teenage rebellion against your own whiteness is crying out to anyone who sees it. And yet despite all this, the Rolling Stones made good music and they fit this description to a T. The bottom line is, the interests and artistic tastes of most people are not worth even the slightest regard; only creative types who analyze and synthesize matter at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:A perfect example of cultural appropriation is Iggy Azalea. Someone who adopts "hood" culture as there own while not being from the hood, and at times doing and saying things that are actually harmful to people that are from there. Is it harmful? Like, what are white people feeling as they apply ghetto stereotypes to black people, fueled in part by "Fancy" or whatever? Is she inciting them to greater heights of racism?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:Define "harmful". Because some of the poo poo she has tweeted has been pretty incendiary. Ha, I had never seen any of her tweets. Yeah she's an ignorant racist yokel to be sure, and the poo poo she says is insulting. I guess I would consider them "hurtful" but not "harmful" in the sense that they make it harder for people to live. Other than just contributing to the overall culture's perception of minorities, so yeah I'll go ahead and call that harmful. I guess I was thinking mostly of her music, not her ignorant personal life or opinions. New Division posted:I've only ever seen Iggy in the video for "Fancy" which was basically a tribue to "Clueless". It'd be interesting to know the horrible things she has apparently done, because that song and video seemed utterly harmless. She raps like a "thug". All "thugged" out with the..."thug" dialect. Pardon me sir I believe you'll find that the word "thug" is a reference to the thugee cult of India, and consequently cannot be used out of such a base motive as the one you seem to be alluding to 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:
Ahaha oh boy I wonder what her explanation was for that. Or does she bother?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
quote:This is a metaphoric take on an originally literal lyric She doesn't even understand the Kendrick Lamar lyric 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
Jakcson posted:I don't know the answer to any of these questions, and that makes me sad. No you know the answers, and you know your purpose in asking those questions. And we know as well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
In any case why do people rail against "appropriation" and not against "bigoted mockery"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 11:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:They do rail against bigoted mockery. Probably because there seem to be some people who think that appropriation in and of itself is bad. It's not bad to steal art. My point is that "appropriation" is a concept that does not get at the harms perpetuated, at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Slur or not, I'm still not going to be upset nor crusade to change it. I guess people just can't handle others freedom of speech. "Some of the people on the correct side of the issue have views I do not endorse. That means I will throw away the entire issue, and in fact fully participate in actions I know to be wrong. What a thrill it is to be racist!"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:I assume you aren't familiar with Guan Yu? Because only people who aren't familiar with him would ascribe racism to dressing up like him, which was exactly the point I was making by specifically choosing him to dress up as, even going so far as to explicitly exclude "yellow-face" which would be racist. I wasnt making reference to that and don't care. What I was making reference to was your eagerness not to care about an NFL team being called the equivalent of "The Darkies." Because SJW.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Really, hardly anyone (in the world) is suggesting that some sort of legal action be taken to account for cultural appropriation or even derogatory speech. (Please, now post examples of people demanding laws to control speech, so that I can point out how marginal and irrelevant they are.) What is happening is that minorities are talking about their own experiences, which is free speech. But free speech used to be a right extended to whites alone, with the understanding that the speech of minorities would be controlled by extrajudicial means (terrorism). Minorities having the ability to speak about their own experiences has proven to be quite intolerable to certain types. As for the Redskins and cultural appropriation, the fact that it has been raised is absurd and damning of those types because they view challenging even the most overt racism as absurd and giving into the forces of political correctness.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 23:57
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Suppose your family has some really special and unique holiday (say, Christmas) tradition. Maybe you all bake cinnamon rolls with your great grandmother's special recipe, and you've resolved to do it only once a year and never share them with people outside your family. It's your family's special thing, and it's very important to you that this be part of your family...but now look! Oh no! the recipe got outside your family! The rolls are delicious, so that's not too bad, but look! They're selling them year round and ignoring all the tradition that goes along with it! You complain, but everyone ignores you, because they're too busy eating cinnamon rolls. And then the next time you go to the supermarket to buy dough ingredients, in the flour aisle instead of your favorite all-purpose flour there's a white settler wearing a floppy-brimmed hat, seated in a hunch on the shelf, and he shoots your son in the chest with a pistol ball. Your family is rounded up and put in concentration camps, and for five generations, any time your descendants dare to whisper the words "cinnamon roll" a schoolmarm smacks them across the mouth.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Cole posted:what if the term 'redskins' meant a football team? you kind of take away the power of the word as a slur in that sense. That's a great point. Maybe if we rename espresso "liquid friend of the family" it will take away the power of the word as a slur.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Cole posted:i'm glad you agree that constant use of a word robs it of its power. so we can stop talking about the redskins needing to change their name then? No but I've got an idea. Let's get a black NFL player to go to a press conference and say "I find it difficult to relate to white people." If he doesn't get fined, and doesn't get any death threats, the Redskins can keep their name. Deal?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
fspades posted:This thread has failed to bring a coherent and clear definition for cultural appropriation. Ultimately all you claim is "I know it, when I see it." It's very easy (and satisfying, I bet) to throw empty platitudes about cultural sensitivity and not being a dick, but if you can't even define a problem how are you expecting to solve it? By "failing to bring a coherent and clear definition" you seem to mean "lots of morons pretend not to know what it means, and I avidly pounce on their professed ignorance as somehow being an indictment of those who do know what it means."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
See if you can distinguish the difference in intent in these two photographs!   Metal dudes in Botswana  Ted Danson
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
Talking about supposed "appropriation" of European cultures is irrelevant because they are the ones doing the appropriating, ravenously, for all of history, unless we are talking about the Basques or something. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Right. To consider 'cultural appropriation' a uselessly nebulous concept is per se racism. It's all about who is doing the considering.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:Question for the thread (and I swear to god I'm genuinely curious and not concern-trolling): what, exactly, is the harm of cultural appropriation? Aren't cultures constantly shifting and evolving and interchanging anyways, meaning that if some group's unique thing becomes a "white people thing" they'll most likely just come up with a new unique thing? How do you fight cultural appropriation without causing the opposite problem of cultural stagnation? We're not exactly talking about dubstep here, but cultural traditions that took thousands of years to develop. I'm not sure what good it is to say "well, white people have taken our folkways and seamlessly replaced our faces with their own, but it's no problem! We'll just come up with new stuff."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Another fascinating position insinuated in this thread is that culture and ethnicity/blood/race are coextensive. This is a truly pernicious idea. Culture is by definition behavior, and as such voluntary, whereas the later grouping is immutable. I don't know about you all, but I have a serious issue with assigning behavioral expectations based on someone's skin color or eye shape. *beats American Indian child with belt* "Race and ethnicity aren't co-extensive young man. And your culture is 'white' now so act like it!" *crack*
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:No one would call this cultural appropriation though. People arguing in bad faith might!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
I think that all anybody important has ever asked about cultural appropriation is that the people who were not aware of it become aware of it, and if they have naïvely consumed whitened forms of their traditions, to seek out the original forms. If they seem angry or talk about "stealing," don't get upset or fixated on it. Just be aware of culturally appropriated forms and seek out the originals. That's it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:"You look like a poseur twat" is good enough. Why do they have to be labeled racist too? You could label them racist, or as I said you could encourage them to increase the awareness of the culture from which they have appropriated forms.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think anybody is talking about somebody like George Harrison, who really took the time to learn about Indian classical music and put his teacher, Ravi Shankar, in the spotlight. He didn't just buy one of those Danelectro sitar guitars and start trying to play fake poo poo. But even diligent students and archivists of art forms can engage in forms of cultural appropriation. It's what happened with Alan Lomax and Leadbelly. Nobody can take away from the enormity of Lomax's accomplishments for the Library of Congress in recording both traditional black music and developing trends. If not for his work, much of the history of blues and jazz would be unknown. But ultimately he selected and promoted artists through his own bias, and the way he used Leadbelly's hard upbringing and criminal past to make him exemplify a "blues musician" was shameful. No white artist needed to take on the forms in order for white culture to shape and redefine black art. Whites saw what they wanted to see. At the same time, Lomax deplored gospel, which he saw as too refined and a sharp departure from the "field music" he had spent so long archiving. Truth be told, he saw field music as the kind it was blacks' place to sing. That's cultural appropriation; taking what you want, that which reinforces your existing prejudices. You enjoy the "exotic" flavor of the art, and when it's brought to your attention that many of those people are suffering, you think "well, suffering makes for great art!" It's a power relationship.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Is a non-rastafari black guy appropriating when he wears dreds or does he get a pass because of strategic essentialism? I guess that depends. Has he given a TED talk? quote:Are rastas appropriating Spartan culture? No they're appropriating the nazarites but it's syncretism so that's OK. Come on keep up, man.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:The whole obsession with cultural appropriation is probably the worst thing to come out of the internet left in the past few years and really the only useful thing left about it is to laugh at the 15-year-olds who've managed to take a nominally progressive idea and come out thinking that "white means white" and burritos are racist. What do you think about the Native Americans who talk about it?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No, it's definitely possible for a term to be so widely abused by complete idiots that it becomes useless, you do it all the time. A great example here would be "political correctness", where any sort of potential for the term to add anything to analysis or debate has been completely erased by the fact it's so firmly associated with excusing bigotry. I also have a pet theory that terms that end up getting so easily abused actually weren't great ideas in the first place "Political correctness" was a term created to excuse bigotry in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:No it wasn't, do you really think nobody said the term "politically correct" before Rush Limbaugh? In America? They didn't.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Let us English posted:I don't think it's a wise strategy for the left to pretend that their crazies are only 15 year-olds on tumblr. To be sure, that's a great way to understand a lot of social justice BS on the internet, but there are plenty of idiotic think pieces writting for Salon, The Atlantic, or the The Guardian that rival anything seen on Tumblr. Would you care to post some of these pieces?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Engagement rings are "down payment on a virgin vagina" http://www.salon.com/2013/10/08/engagement_rings_are_barbaric_partner/ I completely agree with this, engagement rings are a legacy of the patriarchy. Do you have a complaint about the piece or is all feminism self-evidently absurd to you? quote:(For the record, all the "villains" on Thomas and Friends are the dirty diesel engines. I'd like to think there was a good environmental message in there, but when the good engines pump out white smoke and the bad engines pump out black smoke – and they are all pumping out smoke – it's not hard to make the leap into the race territory.)"http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/22/thomas-the-tank-engine-children-parents#start-of-comments " We should always be aware when black is used to mean bad and white is used to mean good. Are you saying we shouldn't? Jarmak posted:Maybe my memory is going but when I was younger I remember it being a term used to tactfully tell someone to stop saying bigoted and or inappropriate poo poo for a long time before it became appropriated by the far right. Your memory is going, it was always used in an eye-rolling sense. If you couldn't tell, well that's why they came up with it. Thug Lessons posted:The term was used for decades before the Limbaugh poo poo, mostly in a positive context, that guy's just talking out his rear end. Prove it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
Thug Lessons posted:How about instead of me proving it you type "political correctness origin" into google or wikipedia and look at all the examples. I'm 90% sure you've already done this and are just waiting for me to post links so you can try and tediously poke holes in them so let's save each other some time. And I'm pretty sure you've done it as well, have seen that no, it wasn't used like that, and are trying to cover how you've overextended yourself with snark. It was always used in this country to present racial and gender equality as being absurd, vaguely Orwellian or at least something that is tedious to keep up with.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 14:26
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Because anyone who disagrees with you is some MRA Redditor You've responded to me, but hilariously you've actually cut out my question and failed to respond to it. What in the quoted piece do you disagree with? Are engagement rings not a legacy of women being treated as property?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:Black was frequently linked with the night, which was viewed as evil because humans are diurnal. Also, black smoke is viewed as worse than the white one, because the former is full of carbonized particles and toxic, while the latter consists only of vaporized water particles. Trying to link it to racial relations is beyond stupid. And then those metaphorical concepts were applied to people, and the terms have been racially weighted ever since. I don't know if you've noticed, but people are not black or white, they are different shades of brown, beige and tan.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Please tell me more about the time the west colonized Korea. Somehow this tragic chapter in history has been lost to time. Still dodging my question, I see. You posted an article which points out that engagement rings are a legacy of viewing women as property. You treated it as self evident that the content of the article was objectionable, but offered no specifics. Would you care at this point to distinguish yourself from Sean Hannity by elaborating? It might seem like a tangent, but it's very difficult to take people seriously about an issue such as cultural appropriation when they blindly align themselves with reaction against social justice. Perhaps you are feeling defensive because you gave your wife an engagement ring; that would make sense, but I don't know because you have stayed mute on the subject.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Let us English posted:There are hundreds of practices we engage in every day that have roots in previously abhorrent practices. Yes, let's educate ourselves about them, using means like that article. quote:Most things regarding marriage fall into this category. However, we as a society have changed the meaning of almost everything regarding marriage in the past 100 years. To simply say, well that's because a patriarchy and condemn them is to ignore the real social changes that have occurred. The change of marriage from a property transaction to a whatever the gently caress the married couple views it as is a fantastic change in our society that should be celebrated. It's strange to me that you are characterizing the article as "simply saying 'well that's patriarchy'" let alone "shouting 'patriarchy.'" The article explains the origins and gives insight into the author's distaste for the practice, but it sounds like shouting to you. I wonder why that is? quote:But of course, anyone who raises an eyebrow and this bullshit must be some right-wing reactionary like Sean Hannity. I'm sure that black & white thinking will take you far. Well thanks for taking the time to distinguish yourself from Sean Hannity; you hadn't, until I pressed you. There's a little difference, anyhow. But even though you want to "celebrate" advances in our society, you take offense when a woman tries to explain and educate about those very advances. Maybe you're used to "celebrating" things by not talking about them and complaining when others (especially women and minorities) talk, but how peculiar that is.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Really! The tea party was created because of efforts to police society through political correctness, how incredible. I don't think I've ever heard or seen of a person who thinks such a thing, who does not have some sort of sympathy for extreme right-wing bigotry.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
Let us English posted:I didn't say that. And I didn't say a single thing about political correctness, that's 100% your projection. No of course not, the likes of you has stepped up their game since the 1990s. It'd be too gauche to use a catchphrase. quote:I said that the drive for a specific kind of ideological purity drove conservatives to more extreme positions. Whose striving for ideological purity led to the creation of the tea party? Was it right-wing bigots, or somebody else?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:The article on engagement rings is accurate, but not really saying anything. Yes, it was a form of "down payment" on a virgin wife. It isn't that anymore, at least to most of us. A lot of women still expect an engagement ring, diamond or not, and unless your particular partner says pre-hand that they don't want one, it could be a very poor idea to not get one for the proposal. It's saying exactly the truth, which believe it or not, not every young person is aware of. It needs to be stated repeatedly until everyone is aware of the history, and then if people want to keep doing it we can say they are making an informed decision.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:In this case wouldn't ignorance really be bliss, though? Like if nobody knows what it used to mean, then it doesn't mean that anymore. I guess it depends. Within that ignorance could be some ugly unexpressed expectations.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2015 14:47
|
|