Today's conversation in Open Bar contained a passing comment that spurred this thought:
If your own culture is so full of bad signal that you don't actually WANT it, what do you do next? What if that's the motivation behind a lot of modern-day cultural appropriation... not "oh look, that's neat!" but "GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!"?
What the hell do you do if you find your culture of origin so repugnant that you want nothing more than to repudiate it and walk away?
I ran and ran and ran allllll the way to the recruiter's office. Didn't help, anymore than pretending that I'm something I'm not wouldn't help. I can go grow in dreds. I'd be a goofy-looking, vanilla-ass white boy in dreds. I could have embraced the hip hop culture...The mind recoils in horror. I could have decided that I'm partially descended from Native Americans. I'd be lying, and I'd know it.
So my only recourse was to attack the very underpinnings of my culture, while enjoying its benefits (if I tried to say I didn't benefit from this horrible thing, I'd again be lying). Ergo, I am a Discordian. I don't REJECT my white boy culture, any more than termites reject the joists in your house.
I think Roger has the right of it. I mean, there's some useful stuff in there, buried deep, but not very much. Take that shit and go after the rest.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 06:26:57 PM
I think Roger has the right of it. I mean, there's some useful stuff in there, buried deep, but not very much. Take that shit and go after the rest.
Oh, there's plenty. It's just that we stole it all, on account of being the first people to come up with mass amounts of ocean-going ships. The reliable clock is what allowed all this, not gun powder or any of that shit. Once we could navigate out of sight of land, the world was our fleshlight.
So, yeah, there's LOTS of stuff, lots of ideas, all conveniently gathered in one inappropriate place, just like all the shit in the British Museum. Thing is, we've made it AVAILABLE, and thus BORING, so everyone has to become more and more outre to get any attention.
And that's why white kids run around in Fubu clothing with dreds. We used up all the more familiar cool, long before you were born.
Again, there's a difference between influence and appropriation. When it comes to things like science and, like, law, I don't think can be an issue of appropriation. It's appropriation when stealing other elements of culture, because they have meaning that science and law don't.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 06:19:13 PM
What the hell do you do if you find your culture of origin so repugnant that you want nothing more than to repudiate it and walk away?
You say "fuck it," and you decide to do what makes you, personally, happy.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 06:35:16 PM
Again, there's a difference between influence and appropriation.
Sure. And everything you enjoy or need is at least in one form or another appropriated. Everything. Even your hiking.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 27, 2012, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 06:19:13 PM
What the hell do you do if you find your culture of origin so repugnant that you want nothing more than to repudiate it and walk away?
You say "fuck it," and you decide to do what makes you, personally, happy.
I detect insufficient guilt for the actions of ancestors you've never met. You need some ATONEMENT, boy.
That doesn't even make sense, Roger.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2012, 06:38:33 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 27, 2012, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 06:19:13 PM
What the hell do you do if you find your culture of origin so repugnant that you want nothing more than to repudiate it and walk away?
You say "fuck it," and you decide to do what makes you, personally, happy.
I detect insufficient guilt for the actions of ancestors you've never met. You need some ATONEMENT, boy.
There's a difference between white guilt and respecting the wishes of other cultures.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 06:40:06 PM
That doesn't even make sense, Roger.
Which? Without the quote function, I'm not sure which of my jabberings you might be referring to.
There is a slight problem that a culture is inherently an external thing. You are not part of a culture. Everyone else is.
The result in walking away from a culture is effectively null for the culture, the difference would be more noticeable on a culture you then choose to inhabit.
Net result - you can only change new(ly entered?) cultures?
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 27, 2012, 06:49:34 PM
There is a slight problem that a culture is inherently an external thing. You are not part of a culture. Everyone else is.
You're gonna have to prove that point, Junkenstein.
QuoteThe result in walking away from a culture is effectively null for the culture, the difference would be more noticeable on a culture you then choose to inhabit.
Net result - you can only change new(ly entered?) cultures?
I reject that utterly, on account of Martin Luther King, Gandhi, and Hunter S Thompson.
I suspect American(TM) culture isn't a culture. It's a...thing...that eats cultures. Swallows 'em and shits 'em out already shrinkwrapped and bar coded.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 27, 2012, 06:36:51 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 06:19:13 PM
What the hell do you do if you find your culture of origin so repugnant that you want nothing more than to repudiate it and walk away?
You say "fuck it," and you decide to do what makes you, personally, happy.
I think I need a poster of that.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2012, 06:46:12 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 06:40:06 PM
That doesn't even make sense, Roger.
Which? Without the quote function, I'm not sure which of my jabberings you might be referring to.
The hiking comment. It's fucking
walking. Not a spirit walk or whatever, I'm not on a quest for my totem or whatever it is Cherohonkeys do, I'm walking in the goddamn woods. I'm pretty sure enjoying the outdoors is universally human.
Also, abandoning one's culture is impossible.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on November 27, 2012, 06:56:00 PM
I suspect American(TM) culture isn't a culture. It's a...thing...that eats cultures. Swallows 'em and shits 'em out already shrinkwrapped and bar coded.
So were the Romans. Dominant cultures are that way. It's all how you sell it.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 07:05:20 PM
I'm pretty sure enjoying the outdoors is universally human.
The Yokuts and Monache might disagree. I mean, you're walking on land appropriated from them.
My thinking is something like this: You're you. You're so totally special and you have these opinions. That's totally fucking awesome. Unfortunately, you live next to them. Your neighbours. With their music and their opinions. They suck. In fact your town sucks, the local music scene sucks and you bail. You find a new town. New people. End up living somewhere. But the neighbours suck here too. So you move. And again. Then you find out that the town is just as shitty as the old town. So you move.....
The above is a hypothetical "you", taking culture at the scale of where you live. I'd guess a lot of you have moved at some point, so consider the change on the social circles you are no longer in. While I may be missed in a couple, I suspect life, attitudes and very little really has changed in most.
I guess I'm thinking of trying to avoid the idea where you assume that you are central to these things to the extent that life just wouldn't be them same without X around.
Consider here, no bans, many a flounce and IMMALEAVINGFEREVVER. This kind of thinking puts any culture as external. And I guess when you view yourself as apart from or above something the result is not going to be positive.
Edit - Just remembered the second bit, yeah you've got me there that was the idiot talking. I try to censor him. I occasionally succeed.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 27, 2012, 07:09:09 PM
My thinking is something like this: You're you. You're so totally special and you have these opinions. That's totally fucking awesome. Unfortunately, you live next to them. Your neighbours. With their music and their opinions. They suck. In fact your town sucks, the local music scene sucks and you bail. You find a new town. New people. End up living somewhere. But the neighbours suck here too. So you move. And again. Then you find out that the town is just as shitty as the old town. So you move.....
The above is a hypothetical "you", taking culture at the scale of where you live. I'd guess a lot of you have moved at some point, so consider the change on the social circles you are no longer in. While I may be missed in a couple, I suspect life, attitudes and very little really has changed in most.
I guess I'm thinking of trying to avoid the idea where you assume that you are central to these things to the extent that life just wouldn't be them same without X around.
Consider here, no bans, many a flounce and IMMALEAVINGFEREVVER. This kind of thinking puts any culture as external. And I guess when you view yourself as apart from or above something the result is not going to be positive.
Running from your culture is like running from your legs. You can't do it, because it's part of you.
I don't think I'm getting this out very well.
I kind of have this idea of there essentially being 2 groups of cultures, Your Own(tm pending) and Theirs.
While you can't escape your own, and your own life essentially establishes your personal culture, They have many and you can enter these to various extents with various degrees of effort.
When looking at this second group the impact of a given individual on it (or not) is relatively small. This is what gets me thinking towards the main way to change things would be at creation or soon upon entry into it. Sticking with music as an example, count the number of bands that have "revolutionised music" over the years. No one is revolutionary after a couple of tours though.
Again, bad examples and sweeping generalisations, I'll think about this a bit and either shut up or try and make more sense.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2012, 07:07:53 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 07:05:20 PM
I'm pretty sure enjoying the outdoors is universally human.
The Yokuts and Monache might disagree. I mean, you're walking on land appropriated from them.
The actual, physical process of hiking is not a stolen activity. Yes, it's on stolen land, but I'm not stealing their culture.
I've heard, for really real, that some pre-colonial dwellers of the North American continent (as it is currently called) are indeed offended when the white opressor walks upon their sacred land and, you know, enjoys themselves.
:lulz: I was thinking about the differences between the Western concept of land versus (some? I don't know very much about Native tribes) Native concept of land. Close enough.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 27, 2012, 07:46:24 PM
I've heard, for really real, that some pre-colonial dwellers of the North American continent (as it is currently called) are indeed offended when the white opressor walks upon their sacred land and, you know, enjoys themselves.
You're right. They're all dead now, so it doesn't matter.
"Every fortune begins with a
crime lapsed statute of limitations."
- Voltaire
Basically - and I'm sure I have this wrong - my take on the last few posts was "ethics are important, but don't look directly at me".
We shouldn't wear a war bonnet, but it's okay to take and subsequently use hunting grounds, etc. We shouldn't put our hair in dreds, but it's okay to benefit from slave labor.
It seems so selective.
Where are you getting the "ethics are important, but don't look directly at me" thing? I feel like you're conflating influence/organic change with cultural appropriation, and they're quite different. One is natural and fine, the other is theft. This is really not intended to attack you or anyone here and it seems like you're getting kind of het up about it.
We live in a really fucking shitty world, Roger. I don't have an answer for the land thing, but I know I can refrain from adding insult to injury by not wearing a war bonnet. As for the slave labor, that can be fought (or at least we can do our damnedest). And again, I can refrain from adding insult to injury by not wearing a sign of their resistance to the domination of my race.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 10:00:16 PM
Where are you getting the "ethics are important, but don't look directly at me" thing? I feel like you're conflating influence/organic change with cultural appropriation, and they're quite different. One is natural and fine, the other is theft. This is really not intended to attack you or anyone here and it seems like you're getting kind of het up about it.
Nope. Just on unfamiliar ground.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 10:00:16 PM
We live in a really fucking shitty world, Roger.
You don't say. :lulz:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 10:00:16 PM
I don't have an answer for the land thing, but I know I can refrain from adding insult to injury by not wearing a war bonnet. As for the slave labor, that can be fought (or at least we can do our damnedest). And again, I can refrain from adding insult to injury by not wearing a sign of their resistance to the domination of my race.
So we can attain the form if not the function, so to speak.
An argument could be made that societies/cultures are built around the basis of form creating function.
Not saying this has worked out well though, but it does appear to be the Mammalian way to create a structure and the expect people to adhere to it. It works pretty well. Unfortunately.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 27, 2012, 10:12:31 PM
An argument could be made that societies/cultures are built around the basis of form creating function.
So war bonnets create hunting grounds? I can buy that...Or at least the idea that war bonnets make the hunting ground the exclusive province of one group. That would be the side with the most war bonnets.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2012, 10:07:51 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 10:00:16 PM
Where are you getting the "ethics are important, but don't look directly at me" thing? I feel like you're conflating influence/organic change with cultural appropriation, and they're quite different. One is natural and fine, the other is theft. This is really not intended to attack you or anyone here and it seems like you're getting kind of het up about it.
Nope. Just on unfamiliar ground.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 10:00:16 PM
We live in a really fucking shitty world, Roger.
You don't say. :lulz:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 10:00:16 PM
I don't have an answer for the land thing, but I know I can refrain from adding insult to injury by not wearing a war bonnet. As for the slave labor, that can be fought (or at least we can do our damnedest). And again, I can refrain from adding insult to injury by not wearing a sign of their resistance to the domination of my race.
So we can attain the form if not the function, so to speak.
I guess? It's better than making their cultures into costumes/novelties, I suppose. And also more respectful of them as people.
I have no fucking clue what this whole war bonnets thing is. Just glanced at the open bar thread and seen I've missed half a dozen relevant pages.
All comments above are in total ignorance, will read and re-consider.
I was just thinking about workhouses finding labourers, prisons rarely being short of prisoners etc..., on the form/function front
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 27, 2012, 10:21:14 PM
I have no fucking clue what this whole war bonnets thing is. Just glanced at the open bar thread and seen I've missed half a dozen relevant pages.
All comments above are in total ignorance, will read and re-consider.
I was just thinking about workhouses finding labourers, prisons rarely being short of prisoners etc..., on the form/function front
It's basically a discussion about how wearing dreds is the same as stealing peoples' land and taking all their shit.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2012, 10:22:52 PM
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 27, 2012, 10:21:14 PM
I have no fucking clue what this whole war bonnets thing is. Just glanced at the open bar thread and seen I've missed half a dozen relevant pages.
All comments above are in total ignorance, will read and re-consider.
I was just thinking about workhouses finding labourers, prisons rarely being short of prisoners etc..., on the form/function front
It's basically a discussion about how wearing dreds is the same as stealing peoples' land and taking all their shit.
No. As Nigel said,
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 05:42:17 PM
It's more like the far-reaching after effects of colonization. "Hey, we're gonna take THAT, TOO <yoink>"
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 27, 2012, 09:37:58 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 27, 2012, 07:46:24 PM
I've heard, for really real, that some pre-colonial dwellers of the North American continent (as it is currently called) are indeed offended when the white opressor walks upon their sacred land and, you know, enjoys themselves.
You're right. They're all dead now, so it doesn't matter.
"Every fortune begins with a crime lapsed statute of limitations."
- Voltaire
Who's all dead now?
Cultures are fluid. They change and grow and meld into each other. Some of these meldings are more... unequal, shall we say. Forced, either through aggressive force or economic force. So my main question in whether exploitative appropriation is happening is whether someone is benefiting materially from it.
I know a white guy with dreds. Pretty sure he stole from me.
Sounds legit.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 10:29:00 PM
Cultures are fluid. They change and grow and meld into each other. Some of these meldings are more... unequal, shall we say. Forced, either through aggressive force or economic force. So my main question in whether exploitative appropriation is happening is whether someone is benefiting materially from it.
so, i'm not sure if i'm getting it right or not.
the dreads thing is appropriation by this standard, but not exploitative appropriation since the white guy isn't benefiting materially from it?
what would be an example of exploitative cultural appropriation?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 27, 2012, 10:58:57 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 10:29:00 PM
Cultures are fluid. They change and grow and meld into each other. Some of these meldings are more... unequal, shall we say. Forced, either through aggressive force or economic force. So my main question in whether exploitative appropriation is happening is whether someone is benefiting materially from it.
so, i'm not sure if i'm getting it right or not.
the dreads thing is appropriation by this standard, but not exploitative appropriation since the white guy isn't benefiting materially from it?
what would be an example of exploitative cultural appropriation?
I would say that the Rasta wannabe stuff is appropriation that comes from a colonial legacy, but it's not exploitative. At least not the stuff I know about.
Exploitative cultural appropriation would be like the white "Shaman" who sells tickets to an "authentic Lakota spirit quest sweat lodge experience".
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 11:03:34 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 27, 2012, 10:58:57 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 10:29:00 PM
Cultures are fluid. They change and grow and meld into each other. Some of these meldings are more... unequal, shall we say. Forced, either through aggressive force or economic force. So my main question in whether exploitative appropriation is happening is whether someone is benefiting materially from it.
so, i'm not sure if i'm getting it right or not.
the dreads thing is appropriation by this standard, but not exploitative appropriation since the white guy isn't benefiting materially from it?
what would be an example of exploitative cultural appropriation?
I would say that the Rasta wannabe stuff is appropriation that comes from a colonial legacy, but it's not exploitative. At least not the stuff I know about.
Exploitative cultural appropriation would be like the white "Shaman" who sells tickets to an "authentic Lakota spirit quest sweat lodge experience".
i was just about to post something similar :argh!:
Stripped of the Rasta associations, dreads are just a hairstyle. Lots of people have worn dreadlocks, including the Irish, an image I am loth to dwell on.
Quote from: American Jackal on November 27, 2012, 11:04:26 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 11:03:34 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 27, 2012, 10:58:57 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 10:29:00 PM
Cultures are fluid. They change and grow and meld into each other. Some of these meldings are more... unequal, shall we say. Forced, either through aggressive force or economic force. So my main question in whether exploitative appropriation is happening is whether someone is benefiting materially from it.
so, i'm not sure if i'm getting it right or not.
the dreads thing is appropriation by this standard, but not exploitative appropriation since the white guy isn't benefiting materially from it?
what would be an example of exploitative cultural appropriation?
I would say that the Rasta wannabe stuff is appropriation that comes from a colonial legacy, but it's not exploitative. At least not the stuff I know about.
Exploitative cultural appropriation would be like the white "Shaman" who sells tickets to an "authentic Lakota spirit quest sweat lodge experience".
i was just about to post something similar :argh!:
IT WILL BRING YOU CLOSER TO THE GREAT SPIRIT, GRASSHOPPER.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 11:06:44 PM
Stripped of the Rasta associations, dreads are just a hairstyle. Lots of people have worn dreadlocks, including the Irish, an image I am loth to dwell on.
I could have gone the rest of my life without knowing that. :argh!:
THE DREDDED GINGER!
gotcha.
so it doesn't exploit those that the culture was appropriated from, necessarily. in this case, it is exploiting the cherohonkies that pay for the experience, right?
hmm, is the current mayan 2012 craze exploitative? i guess that is to say, do the people whose culture was appropriated have to still be around?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 28, 2012, 12:00:10 AM
gotcha.
so it doesn't exploit those that the culture was appropriated from, necessarily. in this case, it is exploiting the cherohonkies that pay for the experience, right?
hmm, is the current mayan 2012 craze exploitative? i guess that is to say, do the people whose culture was appropriated have to still be around?
In the case of the Fakota Sweatlodge Shaman, it exploits aspects of the culture (the sweatlodge, the romantic notion of the indian Shaman) and it exploits the wishful thinking and gullibility of those who fall for it. It damages the reputation of genuine Lakota/Nakota/Dakota religious ceremonies and customs (in which accepting payment for spiritual ceremony is strictly taboo and is considered to strip it of anything sacred), as well as all other Native American customs by association, and it probably does some minor psychological harm to the Cherohonkies as well as defrauding them of money.
The idea that charging money for something strips its sacred nature is very prevalent in Native culture, actually, which makes all these hippie drum shops with "Native American ceremonial drums" and sage and sweetgrass and all that shit that much more laughable.
Back to Europe...find ye your roots.
No, I only read the initial top of this thread...
I think the american white man gets confused, lacking connection to the mother countries. I certainly feel this way and am just drawn to Europe for reasons I can't exactly name other than a pull to reconnect with my roots..
I think when anything gets out of hands it's good to get back to square one and remember who you are...
roots...cuz we all have them :)
obviously, return to the islands if that's your heritage...so on and so forth.
Quote from: McMegaDeff on November 28, 2012, 06:26:57 AM
roots...cuz we all have them :)
Nope.
Or if everyone did, I'm willing to bet a lot of people discovered them severed, never to be regrown ever ever ever. Like tumbleweeds, only they aren't dead people.
that's stupid. You've missed the point.
Quote from: McMegaDeff on November 28, 2012, 06:37:49 AM
that's stupid. You've missed the point.
Erm. I don't think that you have any idea what the topic at hand is, friend. So... uh. I suggest you carefully go back and read all of the related posts, without making up your mind what the question is supposed based solely on the thread's title. Because uh, Freeky's point is much more accurate than whatever point you were making to the current discussion. Contemporary American culture is so far removed from the ancestral European customs (and since a large majority of Americans are many generations removed from immigration, the contemporary cultures don't necessarily match up to the "roots", so to speak), that it is not as simple as all that, since there isn't nearly as much of a connection between an American of Polish descent and an actual Polish citizen as one would like to think. In fact, most of the time when Americans attempt to go back to their ethnic roots, they end up with a horribly bastardized version of the culture they try to claim. (See: 90% of "Irish" Americans).
Quote from: McMegaDeff on November 28, 2012, 06:09:12 AM
Back to Europe...find ye your roots.
Europe's not great.
I mean I have a lot to be thankful for. if it wasn't for public policy on grants I wouldn't have been able to go to college band now I'm on a high paying job. Ireland has excellent health care education etc and is a really safe place to live but the culture is composed of two polar opposites, the old catholic rigor and the young homogenized youth who are fed American media which they lap up.
it's sad, it's a nation that has been free for less then 100 years and it hasn't yet found its direction or shaken off the church.
I find this thread verry interresting.
All of it, and in particular this claim:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 07:05:20 PM
Also, abandoning one's culture is impossible.
I'm not so sure.
I think there is a way in which it is trivially true: it is not possible to undo what has already happened, the childhood encounter with one's culture and some variety of enculturation into that culture.
There is also a way in which it is trivially false: people have switched cultures a lot, especially in the last several hundred years. This guy became an honorary Inuit and the first representative of Inuit people in the Canadian parliament, despite the fact that he was born and raised a Scotsman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Pryde.
This guy:
http://static.polityka.pl/_resource/res/path/ea/12/ea127c69-97ab-41ae-89f4-5888b062e6c0_260x (http://static.polityka.pl/_resource/res/path/ea/12/ea127c69-97ab-41ae-89f4-5888b062e6c0_260x)
Was born in Canada to a Native American chief father and Polish mother (who was drawn there by a gold rush). He spent his first 10 years or so as a Native American tribeschild. Then his mother got homesick and went home to Poland, taking him, the only fair-haired, blue-eyed one among her three half-Shawnee kids. They got home for WWII. He spent a lifetime being Polish, but writing books about his Shawnee childhood - which culture is his one? When, much later, having become a sailor, he visited his tribe, they shunned him - because he, already a man with a name, had abandoned the tribe. And I am sure that while most people don't go very far from the culture they are raised in, many do.
Is there a sense in which it is non-trivially true?
It certainly seems to be the case that it is impossible to abandon one's language. I don't mean it is not possible to take a vow of silence and keep it: but as long as you keep thinking like a human being, indeed keep making sense of the world around you as a human being, I think you can't but use the linguistic competencies and habits that you acquired when you first learned to speak. And language, after all, is a cultural construct, so in that sense, yes, as long as you remain a human being, you remain a user of cultural competencies and habits.
My only worry there is the status of enlightened people who sit in deep meditation for years, without a thought: have they abandoned language? Are they still human?
And the other question here is, are there other cultural traits that are essential constituents of being human, or at least being a particular human person? Was Duncan Pryde the honorary Inuit and representative of his people the same Duncan Pryde that, at the tender age of 18, responded to a newspaper ad for trading reps in Canada? He would probably have said yes.
It reminds me of the old philosophical conundrum about the ship which sails for decades, and every single piece of wood and iron and canvas that composes it is replaced, bit by bit, as it suffers damage and is repaired. Is it still the same ship?
And the answer, of course, as it often is, is: "depends how you look at it".
My two cents and all that.
What I think I'm hearing a lot of in this thread sounds similar to, "If I'm offended, it's offensive." Which sounds like a tautology, I know. But there seems to be some adoption of cultures that's tolerable, and others that's intolerable.
If it's only appropriation when the one being taken from is on the low side of a power imbalance, and only if the one being taken from is offended by it, then does it only take one offended oppressed person to invalidate the whole thing, or does it take a certain consensus before a particular act, mode of dress, or phrase becomes offensive?
Quote from: McMegaDeff on November 28, 2012, 06:37:49 AM
that's stupid. You've missed the point.
SHE HAZ LOW BLUD SUGAH.
NEEDS POTARZ
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 06:58:00 AM
Quote from: McMegaDeff on November 28, 2012, 06:37:49 AM
that's stupid. You've missed the point.
Erm. I don't think that you have any idea what the topic at hand is, friend. So... uh. I suggest you carefully go back and read all of the related posts, without making up your mind what the question is supposed based solely on the thread's title.
That's not what he's here for, Phox.
You know that.
Holist, go read up on enculturation, you mouth breathing moron. And then go read the BIP.
McMegaDeff, Americans who've been here for a long time - generationally - can't go back. There might be bits that stick around, but by far, most if our "ancestral" culture has been subsituted by the core culture here and that there's no going back. I don't think there's anything wrong with being interested in said culture(s), but many Americans, particularly white Americans can't go back without being Plastic Paddies.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 01:38:22 PM
What I think I'm hearing a lot of in this thread sounds similar to, "If I'm offended, it's offensive." Which sounds like a tautology, I know. But there seems to be some adoption of cultures that's tolerable, and others that's intolerable.
If it's only appropriation when the one being taken from is on the low side of a power imbalance, and only if the one being taken from is offended by it, then does it only take one offended oppressed person to invalidate the whole thing, or does it take a certain consensus before a particular act, mode of dress, or phrase becomes offensive?
Well, I'd definitely want to go with a definition of "offensive" that allows me to say a particular event, act, etc. can be offensive even if nobody is offended by it (successful mega-villain scenario: evil maniac bent on world domination builds super-lazor that eradicates all living things in a flash, apart from him: as he cackles with glee, his act is still... offensive, no?). Which implies that someone being offended by something is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for that thing being offensive.
Of course, it also depends on the act concerned.
Taking a shit in the middle of the street: possibly not offensive if there is noone else in the street and you clean up afterwards.
Slowly torturing a dog to death: I'd say offensive, even if you do it in private.
Making money off the symbols, customs, art of a culture that's dead: I don't see how whether you are descended from members of that now defunct culture can make much of a difference. All we can say is, it would have been offensive to the members of that culture.
Making money off a culture that is not dead: I think there's no general rule here, entirely depends on how you go about it.
Using elements of a culture that's not really your own, but not for financial gain, only for entertainment, self-validation, whatever, personal, private purposes: while members of the culture may find it offensive, I definitely prefer to live in a culture that is more forgiving of that kind of behaviour. If I don't want Monthy Python persecuted for taking the piss out of Christ, I can't be (don't want to be) hypocritical about it.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 02:07:02 PM
Holist, go read up on enculturation, you mouth breathing moron. And then go read the BIP.
People generally tend to opt for insults when they don't wish to invest enough of their energy/intellect for an actual counterargument.
There are several possible reasons for that, one being they couldn't if they wanted to, another that they enjoy insulting other people for no good reason, a third one that, being pack animals, they follow the general concensus.
You may choose to explain what elicited your contempt, or you may choose to insult me more. Either would be fine.
But I would like to assure you that I have read more about enculturation than you have, and that I have read the BIP more attentively than you have. You impolite, cocky git.
I think it's amazing when otherwise intelligent people (Garbo, etc), spend that much time responding to obvious trolls and/or damage cases (MacDeff, Holist, etc). You KNOW you aren't going to have any meaningful conversation or exchange of ideas, it's plain as fucking day. It's not why they're here. And yet here you are, doing it again.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 02:18:21 PM
I think it's amazing when otherwise intelligent people (Garbo, etc), spend that much time responding to obvious trolls and/or damage cases (MacDeff, Holist, etc). You KNOW you aren't going to have any meaningful conversation or exchange of ideas, it's plain as fucking day. It's not why they're here. And yet here you are, doing it again.
I think you are wrong. I also think you have made it very clear that this is your opinion, which makes it quite difficult to interpret the above as anything but the exercise of peer pressure. To say the least.
Quote from: McMegaDeff on November 28, 2012, 06:26:57 AM
No, I only read the initial top of this thread...
I think the american white man gets confused, lacking connection to the mother countries. I certainly feel this way and am just drawn to Europe for reasons I can't exactly name other than a pull to reconnect with my roots..
I think when anything gets out of hands it's good to get back to square one and remember who you are...
roots...cuz we all have them :)
Oh, I see your point. But that is the kind of thing that leads to Pacific Northwesterners in kilts (COYOTE I AM LOOKING AT YOU! :argh!:).
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 08:20:34 AM
I find this thread verry interresting.
All of it, and in particular this claim:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 27, 2012, 07:05:20 PM
Also, abandoning one's culture is impossible.
I'm not so sure.
I think there is a way in which it is trivially true: it is not possible to undo what has already happened, the childhood encounter with one's culture and some variety of enculturation into that culture.
There is also a way in which it is trivially false: people have switched cultures a lot, especially in the last several hundred years. This guy became an honorary Inuit and the first representative of Inuit people in the Canadian parliament, despite the fact that he was born and raised a Scotsman: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duncan_Pryde.
This guy:
http://static.polityka.pl/_resource/res/path/ea/12/ea127c69-97ab-41ae-89f4-5888b062e6c0_260x (http://static.polityka.pl/_resource/res/path/ea/12/ea127c69-97ab-41ae-89f4-5888b062e6c0_260x)
Was born in Canada to a Native American chief father and Polish mother (who was drawn there by a gold rush). He spent his first 10 years or so as a Native American tribeschild. Then his mother got homesick and went home to Poland, taking him, the only fair-haired, blue-eyed one among her three half-Shawnee kids. They got home for WWII. He spent a lifetime being Polish, but writing books about his Shawnee childhood - which culture is his one? When, much later, having become a sailor, he visited his tribe, they shunned him - because he, already a man with a name, had abandoned the tribe. And I am sure that while most people don't go very far from the culture they are raised in, many do.
Is there a sense in which it is non-trivially true?
It certainly seems to be the case that it is impossible to abandon one's language. I don't mean it is not possible to take a vow of silence and keep it: but as long as you keep thinking like a human being, indeed keep making sense of the world around you as a human being, I think you can't but use the linguistic competencies and habits that you acquired when you first learned to speak. And language, after all, is a cultural construct, so in that sense, yes, as long as you remain a human being, you remain a user of cultural competencies and habits.
My only worry there is the status of enlightened people who sit in deep meditation for years, without a thought: have they abandoned language? Are they still human?
And the other question here is, are there other cultural traits that are essential constituents of being human, or at least being a particular human person? Was Duncan Pryde the honorary Inuit and representative of his people the same Duncan Pryde that, at the tender age of 18, responded to a newspaper ad for trading reps in Canada? He would probably have said yes.
It reminds me of the old philosophical conundrum about the ship which sails for decades, and every single piece of wood and iron and canvas that composes it is replaced, bit by bit, as it suffers damage and is repaired. Is it still the same ship?
And the answer, of course, as it often is, is: "depends how you look at it".
My two cents and all that.
Are familiar with the concept of "socialization"? Culture is, by definition, encoded into our early socialization. You can move physically away from your culture of origin, and yes, it is possible to be adopted into another culture, but it is impossible to abandon your culture of origin while remaining physically embedded in it.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 28, 2012, 02:52:26 PM
Quote from: McMegaDeff on November 28, 2012, 06:26:57 AM
No, I only read the initial top of this thread...
I think the american white man gets confused, lacking connection to the mother countries. I certainly feel this way and am just drawn to Europe for reasons I can't exactly name other than a pull to reconnect with my roots..
I think when anything gets out of hands it's good to get back to square one and remember who you are...
roots...cuz we all have them :)
Oh, I see your point. But that is the kind of thing that leads to Pacific Northwesterners in kilts (COYOTE I AM LOOKING AT YOU! :argh!:).
Dude, my kilt has pockets, is not plaid, the pleats are sewn instead of being pressed, and is worn at the hips instead of the waist, in no way am I trying to pretend I am participating in one of my ancestral cultures. :lulz:
And part of my reason for wearing it because it messes with people who are into the whole, "what clan are you fro...wait why is there no tartan?"
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 02:18:21 PM
I think it's amazing when otherwise intelligent people (Garbo, etc), spend that much time responding to obvious trolls and/or damage cases (MacDeff, Holist, etc). You KNOW you aren't going to have any meaningful conversation or exchange of ideas, it's plain as fucking day. It's not why they're here. And yet here you are, doing it again.
Because I had been awake for about five minutes and my judgement at that time of day for me is questionable. I really shouldn't post until I've been awake for about an hour.
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 02:09:30 PMIf I don't want Monthy Python persecuted for taking the piss out of Christ, I can't be (don't want to be) hypocritical about it.
As much as it pains me to admit it, the troll raises a very good point here.
People can make fun of their own culture and similar ones, whether or not they subscribe to the part they're making fun of. Cultures steeped in wider memes, like Christianity, can make fun of those memes, again, whether or not that person subscribes to them.
Or at least that's what makes sense to me.
We may as well just say the whole thing is arbitrary and subjective, and there's no good way to draw a line that will apply to any particular culture in any particular era.
I'm gonna go with "I can make fun of whatever the fuck I feel like making fun of".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 05:13:54 PM
We may as well just say the whole thing is arbitrary and subjective, and there's no good way to draw a line that will apply to any particular culture in any particular era.
I can roll with that, I suppose. I think it's important to listen to the culture*, though, and be careful of what and how something is used.
*To jump back to "how many people have to be offended?", I don't have an answer, but if a lot of people are expressing offense, stopping is probably a good idea.
And that's really why this whole thing is ridiculous. Who the fuck is anyone here to tell anyone else here what is or isn't culturally appropriate for them?
trying to codify acceptability in context of cultural affectation seems silly to me, and trying to enforce it (by social means) seems unlikely to accomplish anything.
people bent out of shape about it could perhaps better change the situation and be better adjusted by simply making fun of the appropriators rather than getting their war bonnets ruffled...
ECH, will you humor me for a minute, please? I want to answer that, or try, and I'd appreciate it if you would.
Or, from another angle: If we as a society stopped treating certain cultures and groups like absolute shit and treated them as full equals, would anyone give two ratfucks if white people wore war bonnets? So this is really just a distraction from the real issues, but since it's easy to make noise about and all you have to do to be on the right moral side of the issue is to NOT do things, it's a really easy way for well-to-do white people to feel better about themselves.
LOOK HERE, OLD CHAP! I'M NOT WEARING A WAR BONNET AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE EITHER!
\
:lord:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 28, 2012, 05:30:02 PM
trying to codify acceptability in context of cultural affectation seems silly to me, and trying to enforce it (by social means) seems unlikely to accomplish anything.
people bent out of shape about it could perhaps better change the situation and be better adjusted by simply making fun of the appropriators rather than getting their war bonnets ruffled...
People generally don't respond well to having important parts of their culture absconded with and disrespectfully portrayed by others. Making fun of them is something I've observed, too, but frankly I understand why someone might get angry.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:10:46 PM
People can make fun of their own culture and similar ones, whether or not they subscribe to the part they're making fun of. Cultures steeped in wider memes, like Christianity, can make fun of those memes, again, whether or not that person subscribes to them.
Or at least that's what makes sense to me.
I can make fun of whatever I find to be silly, no matter what size or cultural background is involved.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Or, from another angle: If we as a society stopped treating certain cultures and groups like absolute shit and treated them as full equals, would anyone give two ratfucks if white people wore war bonnets? So this is really just a distraction from the real issues, but since it's easy to make noise about and all you have to do to be on the right moral side of the issue is to NOT do things, it's a really easy way for well-to-do white people to feel better about themselves.
LOOK HERE, OLD CHAP! I'M NOT WEARING A WAR BONNET AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE EITHER!
\
:lord:
THIS.
RIGHT HERE.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 05:28:40 PM
And that's really why this whole thing is ridiculous. Who the fuck is anyone here to tell anyone else here what is or isn't culturally appropriate for them?
It is a religious and cultural requirement for me to take the piss on anything and everything.
And if You People can't handle that, then you're being damned insensitive about my culture.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Or, from another angle: If we as a society stopped treating certain cultures and groups like absolute shit and treated them as full equals, would anyone give two ratfucks if white people wore war bonnets? So this is really just a distraction from the real issues, but since it's easy to make noise about and all you have to do to be on the right moral side of the issue is to NOT do things, it's a really easy way for well-to-do white people to feel better about themselves.
LOOK HERE, OLD CHAP! I'M NOT WEARING A WAR BONNET AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE EITHER!
\
:lord:
I tend to think that if we weren't treating them like shit, like their culture was a novelty, no white person would probably think about wearing a war bonnet or putting Shiva on their shorts. Not treating people like shit requires respecting their culture.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 05:38:02 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:10:46 PM
People can make fun of their own culture and similar ones, whether or not they subscribe to the part they're making fun of. Cultures steeped in wider memes, like Christianity, can make fun of those memes, again, whether or not that person subscribes to them.
Or at least that's what makes sense to me.
I can make fun of whatever I find to be silly, no matter what size or cultural background is involved.
I almost said something to that effect, but I'm still not sure. IF a person is doing it accurately and with the understanding of the context in which said silly thing exists, maybe? Probably?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 05:39:50 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 05:28:40 PM
And that's really why this whole thing is ridiculous. Who the fuck is anyone here to tell anyone else here what is or isn't culturally appropriate for them?
It is a religious and cultural requirement for me to take the piss on anything and everything.
And if You People can't handle that, then you're being damned insensitive about my culture.
I'm for making fun of things accurately and not in ways that express bigotry (NOT accusing you of that, but people in general do that a lot). General human nature that applies across cultures is open season.
I can't put Shiva in my shorts?
YOU'VE GONE TOO FAR--
Oh, you said on my shorts. Still, it's a stretch to call that disrespectful, isn't it?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:34:36 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 28, 2012, 05:30:02 PM
trying to codify acceptability in context of cultural affectation seems silly to me, and trying to enforce it (by social means) seems unlikely to accomplish anything.
people bent out of shape about it could perhaps better change the situation and be better adjusted by simply making fun of the appropriators rather than getting their war bonnets ruffled...
People generally don't respond well to having important parts of their culture absconded with and disrespectfully portrayed by others. Making fun of them is something I've observed, too, but frankly I understand why someone might get angry.
of course nobody likes to be disrespected. some people might get violent (i.e. Mohammed cartoon response), some might get angry (crucifix in peejar response). i can understand the latter, but it's really a personal problem unless they're causing material harm, no?
as far as having culture absconded with, i don't get that at all. nobody is
taking anything from you. they're imitating. if they're making an effort to do it well, that's flattery. if they're not, then it's laughable. so laugh.
A person with Shiva-shorts is a) exploiting Hindu culture commercially and b) putting their ass on one of the most important deities in the religion. It's stripping the meaning off Shiva because he kind of looks cool, which is kind of an asshole move, imo.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 28, 2012, 06:02:01 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:34:36 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 28, 2012, 05:30:02 PM
trying to codify acceptability in context of cultural affectation seems silly to me, and trying to enforce it (by social means) seems unlikely to accomplish anything.
people bent out of shape about it could perhaps better change the situation and be better adjusted by simply making fun of the appropriators rather than getting their war bonnets ruffled...
People generally don't respond well to having important parts of their culture absconded with and disrespectfully portrayed by others. Making fun of them is something I've observed, too, but frankly I understand why someone might get angry.
of course nobody likes to be disrespected. some people might get violent (i.e. Mohammed cartoon response), some might get angry (crucifix in peejar response). i can understand the latter, but it's really a personal problem unless they're causing material harm, no?
as far as having culture absconded with, i don't get that at all. nobody is taking anything from you. they're imitating. if they're making an effort to do it well, that's flattery. if they're not, then it's laughable. so laugh.
I think Nigel put it well. To paraphase her, it's an affect-effect of colonization. "Oh hey, here's another thing I can take! *yoink*"
except nothing is taken.
Except something is. It's not tangible, but it's taking meaning.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Or, from another angle: If we as a society stopped treating certain cultures and groups like absolute shit and treated them as full equals, would anyone give two ratfucks if white people wore war bonnets? So this is really just a distraction from the real issues, but since it's easy to make noise about and all you have to do to be on the right moral side of the issue is to NOT do things, it's a really easy way for well-to-do white people to feel better about themselves.
LOOK HERE, OLD CHAP! I'M NOT WEARING A WAR BONNET AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE EITHER!
\
:lord:
I tend to think that if we weren't treating them like shit, like their culture was a novelty, no white person would probably think about wearing a war bonnet or putting Shiva on their shorts. Not treating people like shit requires respecting their culture.
Absolute horseshit. I can think of numerous cultures I don't have even a tiny shred of respect for, yet if I encounter someone who is a part of that culture I still treat them decently, like they're another human being. Not treating people like shit just requires not treating people like shit
regardless of what you think about their culture or other ultimately superficial aspects of them.
i don't buy that.
any meaning is not tied to their monopoly on some behavior that represents it.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 28, 2012, 06:02:01 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:34:36 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 28, 2012, 05:30:02 PM
trying to codify acceptability in context of cultural affectation seems silly to me, and trying to enforce it (by social means) seems unlikely to accomplish anything.
people bent out of shape about it could perhaps better change the situation and be better adjusted by simply making fun of the appropriators rather than getting their war bonnets ruffled...
People generally don't respond well to having important parts of their culture absconded with and disrespectfully portrayed by others. Making fun of them is something I've observed, too, but frankly I understand why someone might get angry.
of course nobody likes to be disrespected. some people might get violent (i.e. Mohammed cartoon response), some might get angry (crucifix in peejar response). i can understand the latter, but it's really a personal problem unless they're causing material harm, no?
as far as having culture absconded with, i don't get that at all. nobody is taking anything from you. they're imitating. if they're making an effort to do it well, that's flattery. if they're not, then it's laughable. so laugh.
This, especially the second paragraph.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
A person with Shiva-shorts is a) exploiting Hindu culture commercially and b) putting their ass on one of the most important deities in the religion. It's stripping the meaning off Shiva because he kind of looks cool, which is kind of an asshole move, imo.
If anything it's a bit silly, but an asshole move, really? No-one seems to be getting their panties in a twist about all the Jesus Dildo's and Buddy Christ's or giant gold crosses the size of your face worn as a sign of "bling" rather than any religious connotations.
If someone is so wrapped up in a
symbol that it ruins their life because someone's wearing it
the wrong way well, I don't know. Have a hard time feeling sorry though.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:11:18 PM
Except something is. It's not tangible, but it's taking meaning.
Does a person who actually worships and venerates Shiva stop doing so because someone else is wearing shorts with Shiva on them?
Also, that's a poor example since who the fuck gives a crap about respecting religions?
Hell, we might as well all just be split back up into communities by heritage, race and religion so that we don't accidentally rub up against anyone else's culture or anything.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
A person with Shiva-shorts is a) exploiting Hindu culture commercially and b) putting their ass on one of the most important deities in the religion. It's stripping the meaning off Shiva because he kind of looks cool, which is kind of an asshole move, imo.
All this is really starting to rub up against my dislike of religion in general. I don't want to be told that I must be respectful of anyone's superstitions.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 06:13:01 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Or, from another angle: If we as a society stopped treating certain cultures and groups like absolute shit and treated them as full equals, would anyone give two ratfucks if white people wore war bonnets? So this is really just a distraction from the real issues, but since it's easy to make noise about and all you have to do to be on the right moral side of the issue is to NOT do things, it's a really easy way for well-to-do white people to feel better about themselves.
LOOK HERE, OLD CHAP! I'M NOT WEARING A WAR BONNET AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE EITHER!
\
:lord:
I tend to think that if we weren't treating them like shit, like their culture was a novelty, no white person would probably think about wearing a war bonnet or putting Shiva on their shorts. Not treating people like shit requires respecting their culture.
Absolute horseshit. I can think of numerous cultures I don't have even a tiny shred of respect for, yet if I encounter someone who is a part of that culture I still treat them decently, like they're another human being. Not treating people like shit just requires not treating people like shit regardless of what you think about their culture or other ultimately superficial aspects of them.
This, I feel is really the heart of it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 06:18:42 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
A person with Shiva-shorts is a) exploiting Hindu culture commercially and b) putting their ass on one of the most important deities in the religion. It's stripping the meaning off Shiva because he kind of looks cool, which is kind of an asshole move, imo.
All this is really starting to rub up against my dislike of religion in general. I don't want to be told that I must be respectful of anyone's superstitions.
More broadly, I don't like being TOLD that I should be respectful of ANYTHING. I'll choose what I want to respect based on whether or not I think it's respectable, not based on whether or not it might hurt somebody's wittle fee-fees.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
A person with Shiva-shorts is a) exploiting Hindu culture commercially and b) putting their ass on one of the most important deities in the religion. It's stripping the meaning off Shiva because he kind of looks cool, which is kind of an asshole move, imo.
Okay, I want all Eris tee shirts recalled. And no more Buddy Jesus.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
Not treating people like shit requires respecting their culture.
Balls. I like Twid, and I respect Twid, but I have precisely zero respect for Catholicism or the culture it engenders.
Likewise, LMNO has an extreme distaste for my personal religion and its effect on my culture, yet I do not believe that he is treating me like shit.
ECH, on the other hand, makes fun of me for being a recovering Canadian, is disrespectful as hell...To the point of mailing me Beothuk bones with mocking cartoons etched in them and dirty photoshops of Pierre Trudeau and a circus midget. He is a bad person, and he does bad things, and it gives me the weeps. Something should be done.
I mean, Nigel/Texas Fairies is welcome to correct and/or holler at me, but I don't really see how it's ("it" being Shiva-shorts) too much different than white people selling Native American drums and such (which, as Nigel has mentioned, is completely wrong, because taking money for sacred things strips the sacredness in many Native cultures).
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 06:13:01 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Or, from another angle: If we as a society stopped treating certain cultures and groups like absolute shit and treated them as full equals, would anyone give two ratfucks if white people wore war bonnets? So this is really just a distraction from the real issues, but since it's easy to make noise about and all you have to do to be on the right moral side of the issue is to NOT do things, it's a really easy way for well-to-do white people to feel better about themselves.
LOOK HERE, OLD CHAP! I'M NOT WEARING A WAR BONNET AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE EITHER!
\
:lord:
I tend to think that if we weren't treating them like shit, like their culture was a novelty, no white person would probably think about wearing a war bonnet or putting Shiva on their shorts. Not treating people like shit requires respecting their culture.
Absolute horseshit. I can think of numerous cultures I don't have even a tiny shred of respect for, yet if I encounter someone who is a part of that culture I still treat them decently, like they're another human being. Not treating people like shit just requires not treating people like shit regardless of what you think about their culture or other ultimately superficial aspects of them.
When I say "respect their culture", I don't mean "you can't detest it or parts of it", or even that a person can't actively help change it (AS LONG as the outsider helps people WITHIN the culture who want to change it*). I mean "understand that certain things are special/have meaning to them and try not to be an asshole about those things".
*ie, providing funding to in-culture groups who want to end FGM, helping to keep them safe if there's backlash, etc.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 06:18:42 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
A person with Shiva-shorts is a) exploiting Hindu culture commercially and b) putting their ass on one of the most important deities in the religion. It's stripping the meaning off Shiva because he kind of looks cool, which is kind of an asshole move, imo.
All this is really starting to rub up against my dislike of religion in general. I don't want to be told that I must be respectful of anyone's superstitions.
I feel pretty much the same way about religion, but I respect that people have attached meaning to that superstition, no matter ho stupid and useless I think it is, and I try not to do things that strip the meaning from it.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 06:16:07 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:11:18 PM
Except something is. It's not tangible, but it's taking meaning.
Does a person who actually worships and venerates Shiva stop doing so because someone else is wearing shorts with Shiva on them?
Also, that's a poor example since who the fuck gives a crap about respecting religions?
No, but it's a jackass move.
Okay, fine. Want to go back to war bonnets? I'm kind of tired of using them as an example, which is why I switched up, but we can go back to that. War bonnets have serious meaning to many Native cultures and non-Natives who are not part of any tribe wearing them is kind of douchey because all non-Natives in the the US and Canada benefit from the ethnic cleansing of Native tribes.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on November 28, 2012, 06:18:35 PM
Hell, we might as well all just be split back up into communities by heritage, race and religion so that we don't accidentally rub up against anyone else's culture or anything.
Did you miss yesterday's conversation about influence versus appropriation? Because influence is fine and natural, but appropriation is kind of an asshole move.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on November 28, 2012, 06:14:53 PM
If anything it's a bit silly, but an asshole move, really? No-one seems to be getting their panties in a twist about all the Jesus Dildo's and Buddy Christ's or giant gold crosses the size of your face worn as a sign of "bling" rather than any religious connotations.
If someone is so wrapped up in a symbol that it ruins their life because someone's wearing it the wrong way well, I don't know. Have a hard time feeling sorry though.
I'm sure there are people butthurt about that, but at any rate the people doing that are generally members of a culture with a strong influence of Christianity.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 28, 2012, 06:14:08 PM
i don't buy that.
any meaning is not tied to their monopoly on some behavior that represents it.
Explain that further, please?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 06:23:26 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
A person with Shiva-shorts is a) exploiting Hindu culture commercially and b) putting their ass on one of the most important deities in the religion. It's stripping the meaning off Shiva because he kind of looks cool, which is kind of an asshole move, imo.
Okay, I want all Eris tee shirts recalled. And no more Buddy Jesus.
Who's wearing the Eris t-shirts? Anyone in a culture suffused with Christianity is fully allowed to make fun of it (and, imo, anyone who isn't, who can make fun of it in an accurate way, is welcome to do so).
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:31:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 06:23:26 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
A person with Shiva-shorts is a) exploiting Hindu culture commercially and b) putting their ass on one of the most important deities in the religion. It's stripping the meaning off Shiva because he kind of looks cool, which is kind of an asshole move, imo.
Okay, I want all Eris tee shirts recalled. And no more Buddy Jesus.
Who's wearing the Eris t-shirts? Anyone in a culture suffused with Christianity is fully allowed to make fun of it (and, imo, anyone who isn't, who can make fun of it in an accurate way, is welcome to do so).
Turns out that I'm fully allowed to make fun of whatever I please. This may have social consequences, and I have to decide if it's worth it, but the short & skinny is that I can do as I please. I am not bound by other peoples' decisions on this sort of thing.
Also - and this is what turns me off of activism entirely - there seems to be a rather selective standard going on here on more or less a regular basis. Privileged White Boys need to go the fuck home. Cis Man Tears (not trying to single you out here, just one example). Faithfools. I could go on, but what's the point? The fact is, some cultures are apparently more equal than others when it comes to who gets respected and who doesn't.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:29:41 PM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 28, 2012, 06:14:08 PM
i don't buy that.
any meaning is not tied to their monopoly on some behavior that represents it.
Explain that further, please?
i mean that meaning is not taken from someone whose cultural behavior is being imitated.
perhaps i'm overlooking some circumstance where this would be the case?
hm. actually, i guess it
would be if the meaning is "we're not you because we do this", but if that's the only meaning, then i don't really care anyways.
Black Bisexual Libertarians for Jesus definitely need more mocking.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:29:41 PM
taking money for sacred things strips the sacredness in many Native cultures.
If I don't believe I'm stripping the sacredness* of Christianity when I use holy water to wash my crotch, why should I believe I'm stripping the sacredness from the Sioux if I buy a tribal drum?
*And what the fuck does
that mean? A fetishistic attachment to an inanimate object?
This whole argument is starting to absolutely REEK of white guilt.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 06:28:11 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
Not treating people like shit requires respecting their culture.
Balls. I like Twid, and I respect Twid, but I have precisely zero respect for Catholicism or the culture it engenders.
Likewise, LMNO has an extreme distaste for my personal religion and its effect on my culture, yet I do not believe that he is treating me like shit.
ECH, on the other hand, makes fun of me for being a recovering Canadian, is disrespectful as hell...To the point of mailing me Beothuk bones with mocking cartoons etched in them and dirty photoshops of Pierre Trudeau and a circus midget. He is a bad person, and he does bad things, and it gives me the weeps. Something should be done.
"Respect" means understanding that Mary, etc. have meaning to Catholic people. That doesn't mean a person can't think it or the culture it creates is stupid or whatever (I do, too, actually, but I'm an ex-Catholic*). And I tend to think there's an open season on it if a person's accurate (because accuracy is much funnier than bullshit).
Give him the weeps back!
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 06:38:48 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:31:58 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 06:23:26 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
A person with Shiva-shorts is a) exploiting Hindu culture commercially and b) putting their ass on one of the most important deities in the religion. It's stripping the meaning off Shiva because he kind of looks cool, which is kind of an asshole move, imo.
Okay, I want all Eris tee shirts recalled. And no more Buddy Jesus.
Who's wearing the Eris t-shirts? Anyone in a culture suffused with Christianity is fully allowed to make fun of it (and, imo, anyone who isn't, who can make fun of it in an accurate way, is welcome to do so).
Turns out that I'm fully allowed to make fun of whatever I please. This may have social consequences, and I have to decide if it's worth it, but the short & skinny is that I can do as I please. I am not bound by other peoples' decisions on this sort of thing.
Also - and this is what turns me off of activism entirely - there seems to be a rather selective standard going on here on more or less a regular basis. Privileged White Boys need to go the fuck home. Cis Man Tears (not trying to single you out here, just one example). Faithfools. I could go on, but what's the point? The fact is, some cultures are apparently more equal than others when it comes to who gets respected and who doesn't.
Sure you can. I still think it's an asshole move often enough, but I'm not going to stop you (or anyone else).
A lot of that is supposed to make fun of behaviors of people within a specific demographic, not the whole group without respect to context. "Privileged white boys" is the guy who lectured Pixie. It's a behavior, not all white men.
"Faithfools" is just asshole atheists.
QuoteThe fact is, some cultures are apparently more equal than others when it comes to who gets respected and who doesn't.
No, there isn't. I'm not sure where you're getting that.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 06:47:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:29:41 PM
taking money for sacred things strips the sacredness in many Native cultures.
If I don't believe I'm stripping the sacredness* of Christianity when I use holy water to wash my crotch, why should I believe I'm stripping the sacredness from the Sioux if I buy a tribal drum?
*And what the fuck does that mean? A fetishistic attachment to an inanimate object?
You belong to a culture dripping with Christian influences. As I have said, that's different. Talk to Nigel about the drums.
No, it's what the object/whatever represents. When people get butthurt about burning American flags, it's not the actual flag they're mad about, it's what the flag represents.
Agh, this is a tangled issue I will come back to after class.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 06:52:08 PM
This whole argument is starting to absolutely REEK of white guilt.
It can, but not necessarily (and I personally don't feel guilty about that). It's not like PoC or whatever can't steal bits from other PoC.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:54:37 PM
"Respect" means understanding that Mary, etc. have meaning to Catholic people.
Nope. "Respect" means that I treat Twid the way I'd want to be treated, not because I have to or should, but because he's the kind of person I WANT to treat that way.
This is running headlong into MyDiscordia™ and its reluctance to adapt my behaviors according to someone else's nonsensical beliefs, regardless of them being cultural opressors or not.
Let's abandon war bonnets, and christianity.
LETS TALK ABOUT PAGANS. Should I care whether EBS is offended if I use his athame as a letter opener?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:54:37 PM
A lot of that is supposed to make fun of behaviors of people within a specific demographic, not the whole group without respect to context.
[/quote]
As a member of that demographic, I can't see ANY difference between that and any other broad-brush slur.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 07:04:47 PM
This is running headlong into MyDiscordia™ and its reluctance to adapt my behaviors according to someone else's nonsensical beliefs, regardless of them being cultural opressors or not.
Stop oppressing the queen, LMNO. She cries when you do that.
Sorry.
'UR-PRESSERS"
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 07:04:47 PM
This is running headlong into MyDiscordia™ and its reluctance to adapt my behaviors according to someone else's nonsensical beliefs, regardless of them being cultural opressors or not.
Let's abandon war bonnets, and christianity.
LETS TALK ABOUT PAGANS. Should I care whether EBS is offended if I use his athame as a letter opener?
No, because EBS is an idiot.
If other Pagans want to get offended, they can do. But then they're also labelling themselves as idiots in the process.
Quote from: Cain on November 28, 2012, 07:18:31 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 07:04:47 PM
This is running headlong into MyDiscordia™ and its reluctance to adapt my behaviors according to someone else's nonsensical beliefs, regardless of them being cultural opressors or not.
Let's abandon war bonnets, and christianity.
LETS TALK ABOUT PAGANS. Should I care whether EBS is offended if I use his athame as a letter opener?
No, because EBS is an idiot.
If other Pagans want to get offended, they can do. But then they're also labelling themselves as idiots in the process.
Also, good luck opening a letter with a disposable plastic knife.
It does make stabbing himself to death while in the depths of a meth burnout that much harder, though.
Sadly.
Quote from: Cain on November 28, 2012, 07:24:19 PM
It does make stabbing himself to death while in the depths of a meth burnout that much harder, though.
Sadly.
We should chip in and send him some Cutco or something.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 04:57:53 PM
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 02:09:30 PMIf I don't want Monthy Python persecuted for taking the piss out of Christ, I can't be (don't want to be) hypocritical about it.
As much as it pains me to admit it, the troll raises a very good point here.
I
command commend thee as an honest man.*
* Now that's a mistake I made because I'm foreign. Caught it, though.
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 07:34:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 04:57:53 PM
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 02:09:30 PMIf I don't want Monthy Python persecuted for taking the piss out of Christ, I can't be (don't want to be) hypocritical about it.
As much as it pains me to admit it, the troll raises a very good point here.
I command thee as an honest man.
Oh, this should be good. You COMMAND ECH?
:lol:
:popcorn:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 07:35:52 PM
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 07:34:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 04:57:53 PM
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 02:09:30 PMIf I don't want Monthy Python persecuted for taking the piss out of Christ, I can't be (don't want to be) hypocritical about it.
As much as it pains me to admit it, the troll raises a very good point here.
I command thee as an honest man.
Oh, this should be good. You COMMAND ECH?
:lol:
:popcorn:
Good lord, for one who is not listening, you listen hard! :lulz:
Corrected. I stand corrected.
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 07:36:49 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 07:35:52 PM
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 07:34:43 PM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 04:57:53 PM
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 02:09:30 PMIf I don't want Monthy Python persecuted for taking the piss out of Christ, I can't be (don't want to be) hypocritical about it.
As much as it pains me to admit it, the troll raises a very good point here.
I command thee as an honest man.
Oh, this should be good. You COMMAND ECH?
:lol:
:popcorn:
Good lord, for one who is not listening, you listen hard! :lulz:
Corrected. I stand corrected.
I see all.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 28, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
Are familiar with the concept of "socialization"? Culture is, by definition, encoded into our early socialization. You can move physically away from your culture of origin, and yes, it is possible to be adopted into another culture, but it is impossible to abandon your culture of origin while remaining physically embedded in it.
Yes. Quite familiar. Your constant put-downs are somewhat tedious, Nigel.
However, I'm afraid, I disagree. And I think on reflection you will also disagree with your own statement.
I posit that it is possible (though hard) to shed/transcend/optionalise your culture while remaining physically in it (i.e. while continuing to live in a neighbourhood inhabited by people who belong to the same or similar cultures).
Furthermore, I posit that that is the way out of the Predicament
TM that the fair-to-middling pamphlet entitled Black Iron Prison offers its readers.
Refute that. Without insults, if possible, but with insults will also do.
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 07:40:33 PM
Yes. Quite familiar. Your constant put-downs are somewhat tedious, Nigel.
:winner:
6 pages later and I still don't know what a fucking war bonnet is or where the white rasta who stole my shit went.
Fucking Wednesdays.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:10:46 PM
People can make fun of their own culture and similar ones, whether or not they subscribe to the part they're making fun of. Cultures steeped in wider memes, like Christianity, can make fun of those memes, again, whether or not that person subscribes to them.
Or at least that's what makes sense to me.
Well the first sentence makes sense to me, too, although it seems an entirely arbitrary restriction. I reckon everyone is permitted to make fun of anything they find funny. Maybe they will find that the people laughing along with them are the wrong sort of crowd, maybe they'll find that nobody else is laughing... but why take away anyone's funny?
The second sentence, try as I might, doesn't make much sense. What is it like when a culture makes fun of a meme? Not seen that one, can't really see it happen either.
Would you mind explaining to the mouth-breather? :lulz:
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 07:40:33 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 28, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
Are familiar with the concept of "socialization"? Culture is, by definition, encoded into our early socialization. You can move physically away from your culture of origin, and yes, it is possible to be adopted into another culture, but it is impossible to abandon your culture of origin while remaining physically embedded in it.
Yes. Quite familiar. Your constant put-downs are somewhat tedious, Nigel.
However, I'm afraid, I disagree. And I think on reflection you will also disagree with your own statement.
I posit that it is possible (though hard) to shed/transcend/optionalise your culture while remaining physically in it (i.e. while continuing to live in a neighbourhood inhabited by people who belong to the same or similar cultures).
Furthermore, I posit that that is the way out of the PredicamentTM that the fair-to-middling pamphlet entitled Black Iron Prison offers its readers.
Refute that. Without insults, if possible, but with insults will also do.
I refute it thus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson):
(http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/5134/5gdkd.jpg)
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:54:37 PM
No, it's what the object/whatever represents. When people get butthurt about burning American flags, it's not the actual flag they're mad about, it's what the flag represents.
But "the flag" is just a piece of cloth. Some jackass burning it isn't going to destroy everything it stands for (the people are doing that just fine).
If I know a bit about the Yin and Yang, like what it represents and choose to wear it on an article of clothing or jewelry or whatever, because I like a reminder of it's influence in my life, etc., am I stomping all over the Chinese because I'm not otherwise immersed in Chinese culture or tradition?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 05:13:54 PM
We may as well just say the whole thing is arbitrary and subjective, and there's no good way to draw a line that will apply to any particular culture in any particular era.
That is something I've noticed getting said on PD an awful lot. More often than justified, actually.
I suspect.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:26:31 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 05:13:54 PM
We may as well just say the whole thing is arbitrary and subjective, and there's no good way to draw a line that will apply to any particular culture in any particular era.
I can roll with that, I suppose.
Of course you can roll with that, it's an intellectual cop-out. And you like those.
Certainly easier than actually trying to cogitate about a question you don't immediately have an opinion about.
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 07:47:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:26:31 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 05:13:54 PM
We may as well just say the whole thing is arbitrary and subjective, and there's no good way to draw a line that will apply to any particular culture in any particular era.
I can roll with that, I suppose.
Of course you can roll with that, it's an intellectual cop-out. And you like those.
Certainly easier than actually trying to cogitate about a question you don't immediately have an opinion about.
(http://sidoxia.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/pot-kettle-black.jpg)
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 05:32:27 PM
Or, from another angle: If we as a society stopped treating certain cultures and groups like absolute shit and treated them as full equals, would anyone give two ratfucks if white people wore war bonnets? So this is really just a distraction from the real issues, but since it's easy to make noise about and all you have to do to be on the right moral side of the issue is to NOT do things, it's a really easy way for well-to-do white people to feel better about themselves.
LOOK HERE, OLD CHAP! I'M NOT WEARING A WAR BONNET AND YOU SHOULDN'T BE EITHER!
\
:lord:
I am holist and I concur entirely. I predict that I will get accused of (or perhaps have already been accused of?) sucking up to this man, but that's just an optical illusion. He just happens to be right.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 06:56:14 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:54:37 PM
"Respect" means understanding that Mary, etc. have meaning to Catholic people.
Nope. "Respect" means that I treat Twid the way I'd want to be treated, not because I have to or should, but because he's the kind of person I WANT to treat that way.
Right. I'm not going to respect someone
because they're white, black, gay, straight, male, female, Catholic, Chinese, or a hippy. I'm going to respect them (or not) based upon how I would like to be treated, how they treat me and/or how I see them treat others,
regardless of any of any other signifiers or labels
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 05:38:02 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:10:46 PM
People can make fun of their own culture and similar ones, whether or not they subscribe to the part they're making fun of. Cultures steeped in wider memes, like Christianity, can make fun of those memes, again, whether or not that person subscribes to them.
Or at least that's what makes sense to me.
I can make fun of whatever I find to be silly, no matter what size or cultural background is involved.
Even stranger, I find myself in complete agreement with this specific utterance of this man, too. :lulz:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
Not treating people like shit requires respecting their culture.
:lulz: I advise you to recall that sentiment next time a Jehova's witness or, better still, a Scientologist knocks on your door for a chat.
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
Not treating people like shit requires respecting their culture.
:lulz: I advise you to recall that sentiment next time a Jehova's witness or, better still, a Scientologist knocks on your door for a chat.
:lulz:
Wait.
:argh!:
STOP THAT SHIT.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:54:37 PM
When people get butthurt about burning American flags, it's not the actual flag they're mad about, it's what the flag represents.
Agh, this is a tangled issue I will come back to after class.
Would that be like what we call secondary school over here?
I actually think people get butthurt over that flag being burnt because they have been hypnotized into a ridiculous and entirely untenable state of mind usually called "patriotism".
The origin, evolution and history of that self-perpetuating hypnosis is deep and interesting, not trivial. A "tangled issue" as you so succinctly put it.
Quote from: Cain on November 28, 2012, 07:49:59 PM
(http://sidoxia.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/pot-kettle-black.jpg)
If that's not a veiled invitation to discuss homeopathy again, then what is it?
:lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 08:02:49 PM
STOP THAT SHIT.
Sorry. I can't do that. Because I don't want to.
:lulz:
We appear to have reached the part of this kind of thread where I repeat myself a million times because what I've said has been ignored. Jesus.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 08:02:49 PM
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:44:25 PM
Not treating people like shit requires respecting their culture.
:lulz: I advise you to recall that sentiment next time a Jehova's witness or, better still, a Scientologist knocks on your door for a chat.
:lulz:
Wait.
:argh!:
STOP THAT SHIT.
I think I already said something about what "respect" means in this case. And also how as a member of Western culture, I'm totally allowed to make fun of it anyway.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 07:07:39 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:54:37 PM
A lot of that is supposed to make fun of behaviors of people within a specific demographic, not the whole group without respect to context.
As a member of that demographic, I can't see ANY difference between that and any other broad-brush slur.
[/quote]
Since when does individual = whole? Because I dunno about you, but I'm not offended by "white tears" ("whhaaa! If there's a Black history month, and a Latino history month, and an Asian history month, why can't we have a WHITE history month?" <-- white tears) because I don't shed them.
Quote from: Junkenstein on November 28, 2012, 07:43:13 PM
6 pages later and I still don't know what a fucking war bonnet is or where the white rasta who stole my shit went.
Fucking Wednesdays.
War bonnet. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bonnet) I don't know about the rasta. Check your nearest head shop.
Quote from: Cain on November 28, 2012, 07:49:59 PM
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 07:47:59 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 05:26:31 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 05:13:54 PM
We may as well just say the whole thing is arbitrary and subjective, and there's no good way to draw a line that will apply to any particular culture in any particular era.
I can roll with that, I suppose.
Of course you can roll with that, it's an intellectual cop-out. And you like those.
Certainly easier than actually trying to cogitate about a question you don't immediately have an opinion about.
(http://sidoxia.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/pot-kettle-black.jpg)
Gee, thanks Cain.
And Holist, I've already articulated my opinion and I can agree, at least to some extent, with the sentiment because each case is very dependent on the context involved. The only hard and fast rule I can think of is that accuracy is important if you're gonna make fun of something and that the borrowee ought to listen to the requests of borrowed if borrowee is taking certain kinds of things (in the name of fashion or in media when not intending to make fun of them or whatever).
I don't see why this is an issue.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on November 28, 2012, 07:46:18 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:54:37 PM
No, it's what the object/whatever represents. When people get butthurt about burning American flags, it's not the actual flag they're mad about, it's what the flag represents.
But "the flag" is just a piece of cloth. Some jackass burning it isn't going to destroy everything it stands for (the people are doing that just fine).
If I know a bit about the Yin and Yang, like what it represents and choose to wear it on an article of clothing or jewelry or whatever, because I like a reminder of it's influence in my life, etc., am I stomping all over the Chinese because I'm not otherwise immersed in Chinese culture or tradition?
Yes, it's just a piece of cloth, but it's a good example of feelings being attached to an object.
No, I don't think so. But I'm also very white and not necessarily a good person to ask (because, as I have said before, it's probably the best to leave that to the group it originates from).
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 08:44:33 PM
And Holist, I've already articulated my opinion
About what? I said something, you told me to read up on something trivial I have already read up on a great deal (more than you, I suspect) and then called me a mouth-breater. You did not explain why my opinion provoked such easy-handed contempt in you.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 08:44:33 PM
and I can agree, at least to some extent, with the sentiment because each case is very dependent on the context involved.
er... what are you on about?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 08:44:33 PM
The only hard and fast rule I can think of is that accuracy is important if you're gonna make fun of something and that the borrowee ought to listen to the requests of borrowed if borrowee is taking certain kinds of things (in the name of fashion or in media when not intending to make fun of them or whatever).
Sorry to be a harbringer of bad news.
That concept of accuracy you introduced is going to be found wanting.
Long story short: who decides what constitutes an accurate, as opposed to an inaccurate piece of humour?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 08:44:33 PM
I don't see why this is an issue.
Perhaps try looking harder.
Quote from: Cain on November 28, 2012, 07:45:28 PM
I refute it thus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Johnson):
(http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/5134/5gdkd.jpg)
Actually, I think the analogy fails.
Seriously. I'm done. Done trying to talk about this shit because the inevitable conclusion is that I say something, important parts of what I said get ignored when someone makes the SAME FUCKING ARGUMENT from three pages ago, I say it again, am ignored again, and the cycle starts again. Goddamn. It's like no one fucking reads my posts all the way through.
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 09:05:47 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 08:44:33 PM
And Holist, I've already articulated my opinion
About what? I said something, you told me to read up on something trivial I have already read up on a great deal (more than you, I suspect) and then called me a mouth-breater. You did not explain why my opinion provoked such easy-handed contempt in you.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 08:44:33 PM
and I can agree, at least to some extent, with the sentiment because each case is very dependent on the context involved.
er... what are you on about?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 08:44:33 PM
The only hard and fast rule I can think of is that accuracy is important if you're gonna make fun of something and that the borrowee ought to listen to the requests of borrowed if borrowee is taking certain kinds of things (in the name of fashion or in media when not intending to make fun of them or whatever).
Sorry to be a harbringer of bad news.
That concept of accuracy you introduced is going to be found wanting.
Long story short: who decides what constitutes an accurate, as opposed to an inaccurate piece of humour?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 08:44:33 PM
I don't see why this is an issue.
Perhaps try looking harder.
You have earned my contempt by your past behavior, and frankly, this post of yours I am responding to (after which, I am for really reals pledging your derpy ass). If you understood enculturation and socialization, you'd understand why your argument is fucking stupid. You can't escape your culture because it MADE you. You can and should reject the bad signal, but you can't escape how it shaped you (because, if nothing else, your rejection of the bad signal shapes who you are). You can't escape your past and you can't escape the culture in which you live (
especially if you're Western. We're like a fucking virus). That is why you can't escape your culture.
Re-read the post in question.
It's "harbinger" and research is not actually that difficult. JFC.
And also, I don't understand why not being an asshole is so fucking hard.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
And also, I don't understand why not being an asshole is so fucking hard.
Yeah, but you should try anyway.
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:18:56 PM
You have earned my contempt by your past behavior, and frankly, this post of yours I am responding to (after which, I am for really reals pledging your derpy ass). If you understood enculturation and socialization, you'd understand why your argument is fucking stupid. You can't escape your culture because it MADE you. You can and should reject the bad signal, but you can't escape how it shaped you (because, if nothing else, your rejection of the bad signal shapes who you are). You can't escape your past and you can't escape the culture in which you live (especially if you're Western. We're like a fucking virus). That is why you can't escape your culture.
Re-read the post in question.
It's "harbinger" and research is not actually that difficult. JFC.
WOW,
grammarnazi CORRECTING SPELLING MISTAKES IN AN ATTEMPT TO BITE BACK ITT!
However, I think you'll find...
that your heated paragraph above, which is naught but hot air, was covered in the post on whose strength I earned that lovely accostation from you. It was my 1st interpretation. Indeed, you cannot make it so that your past didn't happen. True. Trivial. And yet I would say there are people (as I have shown you, because I wanted to give you empirical evidence, of course, it was pearls before swine) of whom it would be fair to say they abandoned their culture. As, I suspect, it would be fair to say so of most accomplished discordians as well (except the lucky few who had the good fortune to be born into a discordian family).
I predict you are going to embarrass yourself further.
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 09:22:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
And also, I don't understand why not being an asshole is so fucking hard.
Yeah, but you should try anyway.
:lulz:
I mean... that's a mean thing to say! Respect Garbo's culture more, please!
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
And also, I don't understand why not being an asshole is so fucking hard.
How long have you known me? :lol:
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 09:32:29 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 09:22:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
And also, I don't understand why not being an asshole is so fucking hard.
Yeah, but you should try anyway.
:lulz:
I mean... that's a mean thing to say! Respect Garbo's culture more, please!
It was only a joke. The only thing I can fault her on is the fact that you are really dopey and the fact that she got so frustrated with you is like someone shaking a smelly fully grown baby.
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 28, 2012, 09:35:27 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:19:47 PM
And also, I don't understand why not being an asshole is so fucking hard.
How long have you known me? :lol:
Long enough I should know by now, lol. Different variety of asshole, I guess. The kind who wears "sexy squaw" outfits.
I don't think people should use machinery or ideology that would constitute cultural appropriation or propagating any other cultural absorption/integration.
Speaking as a Greek representative I need to politely All those of using democracy or mathematics or feta cheese to please cease doing so immediately.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
So iffen I lived in similar climate I would be guilty of appropriating another culture, even if their cultural clothing was more suitable for the climate I find myself in?
"Nope sorry whitey, you got to suffer wearing the clothes of your culture despite their dubious suitablity for the climate you find yourself in. Furthermore McPaleface, move on back to Scandirishland. Your kind doesn't even belong in a desert."
As for the whole bloody warbonnet thing. My understanding is the majority of complaints about it isn't cultural appropriating, but fetishizing the female segment of a minority group that is drastically more likely to be raped by a white man than a man of their ethnicity.
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 09:44:49 PM
I don't think people should use machinery or ideology that would constitute cultural appropriation or propagating any other cultural absorption/integration.
Speaking as a Greek representative I need to politely All those of using democracy or mathematics or feta cheese to please cease doing so immediately.
Fuck, next thing we know all the South American ethnic groups are going to demand we no longer eat potatoes.
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 09:44:49 PM
I don't think people should use machinery or ideology that would constitute cultural appropriation or propagating any other cultural absorption/integration.
Speaking as a Greek representative I need to politely All those of using democracy or mathematics or feta cheese to please cease doing so immediately.
Dammit, I like feta!
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
So iffen I lived in similar climate I would be guilty of appropriating another culture, even if their cultural clothing was more suitable for the climate I find myself in?
"Nope sorry whitey, you got to suffer wearing the clothes of your culture despite their dubious suitablity for the climate you find yourself in. Furthermore McPaleface, move on back to Scandirishland. Your kind doesn't even belong in a desert."
As for the whole bloody warbonnet thing. My understanding is the majority of complaints about it isn't cultural appropriating, but fetishizing the female segment of a minority group that is drastically more likely to be raped by a white man than a man of their ethnicity.
I have no idea, but I imagine that cultures in the area there have clothing that does the job, too.
What.
Oh, that's certainly part of it (and was, with the Victoria Secret incident). But I've heard the cultural appropriation in general argument a lot.
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 09:44:49 PM
I don't think people should use machinery or ideology that would constitute cultural appropriation or propagating any other cultural absorption/integration.
Speaking as a Greek representative I need to politely All those of using democracy or mathematics or feta cheese to please cease doing so immediately.
:aww:
Although on a serious note, I don't think that's really the same as taking other parts of culture and commercializing, etc. them. Legal systems/science isn't quite the same as taking sacred things and turning them into novelties.
ok, how about religion. an icon of my countries religious history has been misappropriated. you have one Eris. please return her immediately.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about, Garbo. It makes no sense. If I walk around in a hijab because I like them, feel comfortable in them, or wish to show my various Muslim friends that I appreciate their culture through adoption, then it's wrong. Unless I'm in a predominately Muslim country. What if I'm visiting a predominately Muslim neighborhood?
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 10:17:15 PM
ok, how about religion. an icon of my countries religious history has been misappropriated. you have one Eris. please return her immediately.
I was wondering when that would come up. :lulz: The answer I want to give is that Western culture has some pretty solid Greek influences, but that might just be excuses. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about, Garbo. It makes no sense. If I walk around in a hijab because I like them, feel comfortable in them, or wish to show my various Muslim friends that I appreciate their culture through adoption, then it's wrong. Unless I'm in a predominately Muslim country. What if I'm visiting a predominately Muslim neighborhood?
I don't understand why it doesn't make sense. Perhaps I'm a little slow on the uptake and will facepalm later, but would you explain that to me?
I don't know how much of the hijab is attached explicitly to Islam, so I'm not going to say anything on the first one (although I do know that a friend who started wearing one eventually converted, partly, I think, because she felt she was appropriating it. I'll ask her). The country part - some of that is mandated by law, in some countries IIRC. As for when you're visiting a predominantly Muslim, IDK. Maybe? Might depend on the make up of the neighborhood.
TBH, I'm not real comfortable making these kind of comments because I don't belong to those cultures and don't know enough off hand to say anything for sure.
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about, Garbo. It makes no sense. If I walk around in a hijab because I like them, feel comfortable in them, or wish to show my various Muslim friends that I appreciate their culture through adoption, then it's wrong. Unless I'm in a predominately Muslim country. What if I'm visiting a predominately Muslim neighborhood?
Or because I live in a miserably hot arid climate and don't like my nuts and ass crack to be soggy.
The real reason Coyote wears a kilt, but it applies to wearing a
thawb, jellabiya, abaya, any other clothing traditionally worn by men/women in Arabia and other similar climates.
I think I might be getting hung up on your insistence on the word "sacred", and that I should respect whatever thing someone claims it to be.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:18:56 PM
Seriously. I'm done. Done trying to talk about this shit because the inevitable conclusion is that I say something, important parts of what I said get ignored when someone makes the SAME FUCKING ARGUMENT from three pages ago, I say it again, am ignored again, and the cycle starts again. Goddamn. It's like no one fucking reads my posts all the way through.
not to put too fine a point on it, but it may be that we've read your posts all the way through and concluded that you have your head lodged firmly up your ass in regards to this issue.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 10:29:40 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 10:17:15 PM
ok, how about religion. an icon of my countries religious history has been misappropriated. you have one Eris. please return her immediately.
I was wondering when that would come up. :lulz: The answer I want to give is that Western culture has some pretty solid Greek influences, but that might just be excuses. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about, Garbo. It makes no sense. If I walk around in a hijab because I like them, feel comfortable in them, or wish to show my various Muslim friends that I appreciate their culture through adoption, then it's wrong. Unless I'm in a predominately Muslim country. What if I'm visiting a predominately Muslim neighborhood?
I don't understand why it doesn't make sense. Perhaps I'm a little slow on the uptake and will facepalm later, but would you explain that to me?
I don't know how much of the hijab is attached explicitly to Islam, so I'm not going to say anything on the first one (although I do know that a friend who started wearing one eventually converted, partly, I think, because she felt she was appropriating it. I'll ask her). The country part - some of that is mandated by law, in some countries IIRC. As for when you're visiting a predominantly Muslim, IDK. Maybe? Might depend on the make up of the neighborhood.
TBH, I'm not real comfortable making these kind of comments because I don't belong to those cultures and don't know enough off hand to say anything for sure.
On a similar note.
What if for whatever reason I, a stereotypical white male, find myself unable to shear my hair or wash it for extended periods of time? Am I forbidden from placing my hair into dreadlocks? Regardless of how retarded they look on white folk.
And on THAT note.
Would it be acceptable to mock a western white man for wearing the clothes of an Arab man or woman, or a Japanese man or woman? What if I felt like wearing a dashiki, for similar reasons to wearing Arab dress, only more colors?
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 10:39:12 PM
On a similar note.
What if for whatever reason I, a stereotypical white male....
SNIP
HA! couldn't read past that part...
:lol:
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 10:31:45 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about, Garbo. It makes no sense. If I walk around in a hijab because I like them, feel comfortable in them, or wish to show my various Muslim friends that I appreciate their culture through adoption, then it's wrong. Unless I'm in a predominately Muslim country. What if I'm visiting a predominately Muslim neighborhood?
Or because I live in a miserably hot arid climate and don't like my nuts and ass crack to be soggy.
The real reason Coyote wears a kilt, but it applies to wearing a thawb, jellabiya, abaya, any other clothing traditionally worn by men/women in Arabia and other similar climates.
*shrug* I'm possibly being over cautious. The only real furor I've ever seen over Arab clothing/Islamic ladies' covering had to do with Lady Gaga wearing a filmy burqua, which was not well received.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 10:37:40 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:18:56 PM
Seriously. I'm done. Done trying to talk about this shit because the inevitable conclusion is that I say something, important parts of what I said get ignored when someone makes the SAME FUCKING ARGUMENT from three pages ago, I say it again, am ignored again, and the cycle starts again. Goddamn. It's like no one fucking reads my posts all the way through.
not to put too fine a point on it, but it may be that we've read your posts all the way through and concluded that you have your head lodged firmly up your ass in regards to this issue.
Then address my points instead of regurtiating the same motherfucking argument, almost word for word. I should hope you get why that would be frustrating for me.
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 10:39:12 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 10:29:40 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 10:17:15 PM
ok, how about religion. an icon of my countries religious history has been misappropriated. you have one Eris. please return her immediately.
I was wondering when that would come up. :lulz: The answer I want to give is that Western culture has some pretty solid Greek influences, but that might just be excuses. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about, Garbo. It makes no sense. If I walk around in a hijab because I like them, feel comfortable in them, or wish to show my various Muslim friends that I appreciate their culture through adoption, then it's wrong. Unless I'm in a predominately Muslim country. What if I'm visiting a predominately Muslim neighborhood?
I don't understand why it doesn't make sense. Perhaps I'm a little slow on the uptake and will facepalm later, but would you explain that to me?
I don't know how much of the hijab is attached explicitly to Islam, so I'm not going to say anything on the first one (although I do know that a friend who started wearing one eventually converted, partly, I think, because she felt she was appropriating it. I'll ask her). The country part - some of that is mandated by law, in some countries IIRC. As for when you're visiting a predominantly Muslim, IDK. Maybe? Might depend on the make up of the neighborhood.
TBH, I'm not real comfortable making these kind of comments because I don't belong to those cultures and don't know enough off hand to say anything for sure.
On a similar note.
What if for whatever reason I, a stereotypical white male, find myself unable to shear my hair or wash it for extended periods of time? Am I forbidden from placing my hair into dreadlocks? Regardless of how retarded they look on white folk.
And on THAT note.
Would it be acceptable to mock a western white man for wearing the clothes of an Arab man or woman, or a Japanese man or woman? What if I felt like wearing a dashiki, for similar reasons to wearing Arab dress, only more colors?
I'm not sure why putting it in a pony tail and finger combing it is too hard. Or why waiting the two weeks for your hair to stop being greasy and icky is impossible.
I have generally observed nothing but mockery and contempt for Westerners who do that and I would probably give you funny looks, regardless.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
I think I might be getting hung up on your insistence on the word "sacred", and that I should respect whatever thing someone claims it to be.
Okay, I can understand that. When I use the word, I'm talking about seriously important, key parts of a people's identity or traditions. I'll find a less religious replacement on my way home. Gotta skedaddle right now though.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 10:36:05 PM
I think I might be getting hung up on your insistence on the word "sacred", and that I should respect whatever thing someone claims it to be.
Coincidentally the mere use of the word "sacred" generally causes the complete opposite of respect from me. Their sacred cow is my cheeseburger. The angrier this makes them, the less I seem to need extra relish.
:lulz: Okay. I should have known that was the wrong word to here. That's my bad.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 10:29:40 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 10:17:15 PM
ok, how about religion. an icon of my countries religious history has been misappropriated. you have one Eris. please return her immediately.
I was wondering when that would come up. :lulz: The answer I want to give is that Western culture has some pretty solid Greek influences, but that might just be excuses. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about, Garbo. It makes no sense. If I walk around in a hijab because I like them, feel comfortable in them, or wish to show my various Muslim friends that I appreciate their culture through adoption, then it's wrong. Unless I'm in a predominately Muslim country. What if I'm visiting a predominately Muslim neighborhood?
I don't understand why it doesn't make sense. Perhaps I'm a little slow on the uptake and will facepalm later, but would you explain that to me?
I don't know how much of the hijab is attached explicitly to Islam, so I'm not going to say anything on the first one (although I do know that a friend who started wearing one eventually converted, partly, I think, because she felt she was appropriating it. I'll ask her). The country part - some of that is mandated by law, in some countries IIRC. As for when you're visiting a predominantly Muslim, IDK. Maybe? Might depend on the make up of the neighborhood.
TBH, I'm not real comfortable making these kind of comments because I don't belong to those cultures and don't know enough off hand to say anything for sure.
Because it seems like you're saying don't wear things that are culturally appropriated (and now it seems like you're saying there's a difference between religious and regional cultrues?), because you might offend random people. Well, sure, I might offend random people for being a white American, trans, lesbian, etc. So, offending people through my clothing choices are not something I really give a damn about. The people who matter to me wouldn't be offended by me doing so, and I would hazard to guess, that the large majority of the Middle Eastern and African Muslim students wouldn't even look twice at me. As one of my friends so aptly put it after discussing culture shock: "It's America, it's freedom."
I mean, I can fully understand
why Native Americans would get offended by Caucasians adopting and fetishizing their culture. But it's a two way street. Should white people be allowed to get pissed when they see a Native American wearing "traditional" jeans, Western shirts, and cowboy boots? Or Christian symbols? The problem I have, is that it is coming across as we should be sensitive of other people's feelings, even if that means we have to bother about their inane sensibilities. Or, that it's that white people have to behave like "Westerners", or "White People", but any other group can adopt "Western" or "White" culture with no consequence. It's really fucking stupid either way.
Holy crap, this is what happens when I don't log in for a day. Did I miss all of the good parts?
I may be a jerk for saying this (like it's ever stopped me) but this cultural appropriation feels like the polar opposite of the "Speak English or Die" memes that come from the right.
Fuck, I'm all for the human race being one big ass melting pot. I think it's pretty obvious when someone is doing something to mock or poke at a culture. If it's just some stupid asshat adopting garb or hair styles, or whatever, because they think it's hip or cool, who the fuck cares?
It's a hopeless expectation for every primate on this mud rock to have a perfect sensitivity and Cultural IQ. mIf they aren't goong out of there way to poke and lambaste a culture, just let the bastards be. Does it really hurt anyone?
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:57:24 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 10:29:40 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 10:17:15 PM
ok, how about religion. an icon of my countries religious history has been misappropriated. you have one Eris. please return her immediately.
I was wondering when that would come up. :lulz: The answer I want to give is that Western culture has some pretty solid Greek influences, but that might just be excuses. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about, Garbo. It makes no sense. If I walk around in a hijab because I like them, feel comfortable in them, or wish to show my various Muslim friends that I appreciate their culture through adoption, then it's wrong. Unless I'm in a predominately Muslim country. What if I'm visiting a predominately Muslim neighborhood?
I don't understand why it doesn't make sense. Perhaps I'm a little slow on the uptake and will facepalm later, but would you explain that to me?
I don't know how much of the hijab is attached explicitly to Islam, so I'm not going to say anything on the first one (although I do know that a friend who started wearing one eventually converted, partly, I think, because she felt she was appropriating it. I'll ask her). The country part - some of that is mandated by law, in some countries IIRC. As for when you're visiting a predominantly Muslim, IDK. Maybe? Might depend on the make up of the neighborhood.
TBH, I'm not real comfortable making these kind of comments because I don't belong to those cultures and don't know enough off hand to say anything for sure.
Because it seems like you're saying don't wear things that are culturally appropriated (and now it seems like you're saying there's a difference between religious and regional cultrues?), because you might offend random people. Well, sure, I might offend random people for being a white American, trans, lesbian, etc. So, offending people through my clothing choices are not something I really give a damn about. The people who matter to me wouldn't be offended by me doing so, and I would hazard to guess, that the large majority of the Middle Eastern and African Muslim students wouldn't even look twice at me. As one of my friends so aptly put it after discussing culture shock: "It's America, it's freedom."
I mean, I can fully understand why Native Americans would get offended by Caucasians adopting and fetishizing their culture. But it's a two way street. Should white people be allowed to get pissed when they see a Native American wearing "traditional" jeans, Western shirts, and cowboy boots? Or Christian symbols? The problem I have, is that it is coming across as we should be sensitive of other people's feelings, even if that means we have to bother about their inane sensibilities. Or, that it's that white people have to behave like "Westerners", or "White People", but any other group can adopt "Western" or "White" culture with no consequence. It's really fucking stupid either way.
Also to be considered, the clothing styles associated with Islam aren't specifically Muslim, they are clothing specific to the regions ethnic groups regardless of the religion. Saying a burka is a Muslim garment is like saying trousers are a Christian garment.
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 10:39:12 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 10:29:40 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 10:17:15 PM
ok, how about religion. an icon of my countries religious history has been misappropriated. you have one Eris. please return her immediately.
I was wondering when that would come up. :lulz: The answer I want to give is that Western culture has some pretty solid Greek influences, but that might just be excuses. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about, Garbo. It makes no sense. If I walk around in a hijab because I like them, feel comfortable in them, or wish to show my various Muslim friends that I appreciate their culture through adoption, then it's wrong. Unless I'm in a predominately Muslim country. What if I'm visiting a predominately Muslim neighborhood?
I don't understand why it doesn't make sense. Perhaps I'm a little slow on the uptake and will facepalm later, but would you explain that to me?
I don't know how much of the hijab is attached explicitly to Islam, so I'm not going to say anything on the first one (although I do know that a friend who started wearing one eventually converted, partly, I think, because she felt she was appropriating it. I'll ask her). The country part - some of that is mandated by law, in some countries IIRC. As for when you're visiting a predominantly Muslim, IDK. Maybe? Might depend on the make up of the neighborhood.
TBH, I'm not real comfortable making these kind of comments because I don't belong to those cultures and don't know enough off hand to say anything for sure.
On a similar note.
What if for whatever reason I, a stereotypical white male, find myself unable to shear my hair or wash it for extended periods of time? Am I forbidden from placing my hair into dreadlocks? Regardless of how retarded they look on white folk.
And on THAT note.
Would it be acceptable to mock a western white man for wearing the clothes of an Arab man or woman, or a Japanese man or woman? What if I felt like wearing a dashiki, for similar reasons to wearing Arab dress, only more colors?
How dare transgender people steal the culture of the gender they mimic.
How dare there be a gradual spread of ideas and a change of culture over time.
How dare races mix.
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 11:02:55 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 10:39:12 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 10:29:40 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 10:17:15 PM
ok, how about religion. an icon of my countries religious history has been misappropriated. you have one Eris. please return her immediately.
I was wondering when that would come up. :lulz: The answer I want to give is that Western culture has some pretty solid Greek influences, but that might just be excuses. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about, Garbo. It makes no sense. If I walk around in a hijab because I like them, feel comfortable in them, or wish to show my various Muslim friends that I appreciate their culture through adoption, then it's wrong. Unless I'm in a predominately Muslim country. What if I'm visiting a predominately Muslim neighborhood?
I don't understand why it doesn't make sense. Perhaps I'm a little slow on the uptake and will facepalm later, but would you explain that to me?
I don't know how much of the hijab is attached explicitly to Islam, so I'm not going to say anything on the first one (although I do know that a friend who started wearing one eventually converted, partly, I think, because she felt she was appropriating it. I'll ask her). The country part - some of that is mandated by law, in some countries IIRC. As for when you're visiting a predominantly Muslim, IDK. Maybe? Might depend on the make up of the neighborhood.
TBH, I'm not real comfortable making these kind of comments because I don't belong to those cultures and don't know enough off hand to say anything for sure.
On a similar note.
What if for whatever reason I, a stereotypical white male, find myself unable to shear my hair or wash it for extended periods of time? Am I forbidden from placing my hair into dreadlocks? Regardless of how retarded they look on white folk.
And on THAT note.
Would it be acceptable to mock a western white man for wearing the clothes of an Arab man or woman, or a Japanese man or woman? What if I felt like wearing a dashiki, for similar reasons to wearing Arab dress, only more colors?
How dare transgender people steal the culture of the gender they mimic.
How dare there be a gradual spread of ideas and a change of culture over time.
How dare races mix.
Damn right. Women should not be allowed to wear trousers.
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 11:02:21 PM
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:57:24 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 10:29:40 PM
Quote from: Faust on November 28, 2012, 10:17:15 PM
ok, how about religion. an icon of my countries religious history has been misappropriated. you have one Eris. please return her immediately.
I was wondering when that would come up. :lulz: The answer I want to give is that Western culture has some pretty solid Greek influences, but that might just be excuses. :lol:
Quote from: Doktor D. Jennifer Phox on November 28, 2012, 10:22:21 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Quote from: American Jackal on November 28, 2012, 09:27:23 PM
so
if I were to begin wearing traditional Arabian clothing I would be guilty of cultural appropriation?
Here, in the US? Or the West in general? I'd say so. If you're running around there, I don't think so? Especially if you've moved there. Again, you should probably talk to an Arabian.
This is the sort of thing that people are talking about, Garbo. It makes no sense. If I walk around in a hijab because I like them, feel comfortable in them, or wish to show my various Muslim friends that I appreciate their culture through adoption, then it's wrong. Unless I'm in a predominately Muslim country. What if I'm visiting a predominately Muslim neighborhood?
I don't understand why it doesn't make sense. Perhaps I'm a little slow on the uptake and will facepalm later, but would you explain that to me?
I don't know how much of the hijab is attached explicitly to Islam, so I'm not going to say anything on the first one (although I do know that a friend who started wearing one eventually converted, partly, I think, because she felt she was appropriating it. I'll ask her). The country part - some of that is mandated by law, in some countries IIRC. As for when you're visiting a predominantly Muslim, IDK. Maybe? Might depend on the make up of the neighborhood.
TBH, I'm not real comfortable making these kind of comments because I don't belong to those cultures and don't know enough off hand to say anything for sure.
Because it seems like you're saying don't wear things that are culturally appropriated (and now it seems like you're saying there's a difference between religious and regional cultrues?), because you might offend random people. Well, sure, I might offend random people for being a white American, trans, lesbian, etc. So, offending people through my clothing choices are not something I really give a damn about. The people who matter to me wouldn't be offended by me doing so, and I would hazard to guess, that the large majority of the Middle Eastern and African Muslim students wouldn't even look twice at me. As one of my friends so aptly put it after discussing culture shock: "It's America, it's freedom."
I mean, I can fully understand why Native Americans would get offended by Caucasians adopting and fetishizing their culture. But it's a two way street. Should white people be allowed to get pissed when they see a Native American wearing "traditional" jeans, Western shirts, and cowboy boots? Or Christian symbols? The problem I have, is that it is coming across as we should be sensitive of other people's feelings, even if that means we have to bother about their inane sensibilities. Or, that it's that white people have to behave like "Westerners", or "White People", but any other group can adopt "Western" or "White" culture with no consequence. It's really fucking stupid either way.
Also to be considered, the clothing styles associated with Islam aren't specifically Muslim, they are clothing specific to the regions ethnic groups regardless of the religion. Saying a burka is a Muslim garment is like saying trousers are a Christian garment.
Yes, that's what I was getting at when I was implying there isn't really a difference between regional and religious culture. They are pretty well infused, and spread largely as one and the same.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 10:56:16 PM
:lulz: Okay. I should have known that was the wrong word to here. That's my bad.
It's the perfect word. Ascribing some quality to an inanimate object or an arbitrary pattern of movements or sounds that patently isn't there or exists only in the minds of people who give a shit and expecting everyone else to give a shit is pretty much the definition of sacred in my book. Someone dressed up as a nun and gave her husband a blowjob? If someone gets bent about that then fuck them. In my book they deserve it.
Also, because it bugged me for some unknown reason until just now, would be acceptable if the United States legally demanded that everyone dressed as a stereotypical Pilgrim of their birth assigned sex while within its borders? Because dressing in traditional Arabic garb in Middle Eastern countries is acceptable "because its the law" is a fucking piss-poor argument.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 09:38:25 PM
Different variety of asshole, I guess. The kind who wears "sexy squaw" outfits.
You're making an assumption, there.
TGRR,
Has perversions where you didn't even know you had brain meat.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 10:51:54 PM
*shrug* I'm possibly being over cautious. The only real furor I've ever seen over Arab clothing/Islamic ladies' covering had to do with Lady Gaga wearing a filmy burqua, which was not well received.
HELLO. LADY GAGA.
TGRR,
Loves her for a reason.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 06:47:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:29:41 PM
taking money for sacred things strips the sacredness in many Native cultures.
If I don't believe I'm stripping the sacredness* of Christianity when I use holy water to wash my crotch, why should I believe I'm stripping the sacredness from the Sioux if I buy a tribal drum?
*And what the fuck does that mean? A fetishistic attachment to an inanimate object?
OK, I just got home a bit ago and am only halfway through the thread, but I wanted to say that accepting payment for a supposedly sacred object strips
that specific object of its sacredness in many Native American cultures and is therefore considered sacrilegious. ie. someone can make a pipe for you and give it to you and it will be sacred if it was made with sacred intent, but you can't go to a store and buy one and have it be sacred.
Also, I wasn't around to participate so I can't object too much, but this thread couldn't possibly have gone farther off base from what I intended it to be if I'd led it there by the hand. :lol:
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:03:39 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 06:47:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:29:41 PM
taking money for sacred things strips the sacredness in many Native cultures.
If I don't believe I'm stripping the sacredness* of Christianity when I use holy water to wash my crotch, why should I believe I'm stripping the sacredness from the Sioux if I buy a tribal drum?
*And what the fuck does that mean? A fetishistic attachment to an inanimate object?
OK, I just got home a bit ago and am only halfway through the thread, but I wanted to say that accepting payment for a supposedly sacred object strips that specific object of its sacredness in many Native American cultures and is therefore considered sacrilegious. ie. someone can make a pipe for you and give it to you and it will be sacred if it was made with sacred intent, but you can't go to a store and buy one and have it be sacred.
Also, I wasn't around to participate so I can't object too much, but this thread couldn't possibly have gone farther off base from what I intended it to be if I'd led it there by the hand. :lol:
It's a PD trope. Once an argument starts, you cannot stop it until it has been beaten into bloody pulp and everyone has a chance to chew on it.
I kinda dig it at times. Until I get sick of the argument.
Quote from: holist on November 28, 2012, 07:40:33 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 28, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
Are familiar with the concept of "socialization"? Culture is, by definition, encoded into our early socialization. You can move physically away from your culture of origin, and yes, it is possible to be adopted into another culture, but it is impossible to abandon your culture of origin while remaining physically embedded in it.
Yes. Quite familiar. Your constant put-downs are somewhat tedious, Nigel.
However, I'm afraid, I disagree. And I think on reflection you will also disagree with your own statement.
I posit that it is possible (though hard) to shed/transcend/optionalise your culture while remaining physically in it (i.e. while continuing to live in a neighbourhood inhabited by people who belong to the same or similar cultures).
Furthermore, I posit that that is the way out of the PredicamentTM that the fair-to-middling pamphlet entitled Black Iron Prison offers its readers.
Refute that. Without insults, if possible, but with insults will also do.
How in the fuck is that a put-down? :? Most people who haven't taken sociology or psychology aren't particularly familiar with it in the context I used it in, and your reply indicates that you aren't, either.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 03:06:55 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:03:39 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 06:47:22 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:29:41 PM
taking money for sacred things strips the sacredness in many Native cultures.
If I don't believe I'm stripping the sacredness* of Christianity when I use holy water to wash my crotch, why should I believe I'm stripping the sacredness from the Sioux if I buy a tribal drum?
*And what the fuck does that mean? A fetishistic attachment to an inanimate object?
OK, I just got home a bit ago and am only halfway through the thread, but I wanted to say that accepting payment for a supposedly sacred object strips that specific object of its sacredness in many Native American cultures and is therefore considered sacrilegious. ie. someone can make a pipe for you and give it to you and it will be sacred if it was made with sacred intent, but you can't go to a store and buy one and have it be sacred.
Also, I wasn't around to participate so I can't object too much, but this thread couldn't possibly have gone farther off base from what I intended it to be if I'd led it there by the hand. :lol:
It's a PD trope. Once an argument starts, you cannot stop it until it has been beaten into bloody pulp and everyone has a chance to chew on it.
I kinda dig it at times. Until I get sick of the argument.
Yeah, it can be fun. And eventually it might even get hashed out. Maybe.
Still curious about people's thoughts on the topic in the OP, especially when you consider that the culture we are socialized in as children so profoundly shapes our perceptions and thought processes.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 06:19:13 PM
Today's conversation in Open Bar contained a passing comment that spurred this thought:
If your own culture is so full of bad signal that you don't actually WANT it, what do you do next? What if that's the motivation behind a lot of modern-day cultural appropriation... not "oh look, that's neat!" but "GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!"?
What the hell do you do if you find your culture of origin so repugnant that you want nothing more than to repudiate it and walk away?
Short answer: You do just that. You can live in a place with a dominant cultural paradigm without actively participating in that paradigm. Passive participation may be unavoidable, but you don't have to buy into it or perpetuate it. Or you move to a place with a culture that more closely reflects your values if you have the means to do so.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 29, 2012, 03:53:35 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 06:19:13 PM
Today's conversation in Open Bar contained a passing comment that spurred this thought:
If your own culture is so full of bad signal that you don't actually WANT it, what do you do next? What if that's the motivation behind a lot of modern-day cultural appropriation... not "oh look, that's neat!" but "GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!"?
What the hell do you do if you find your culture of origin so repugnant that you want nothing more than to repudiate it and walk away?
Short answer: You do just that. You can live in a place with a dominant cultural paradigm without actively participating in that paradigm. Passive participation may be unavoidable, but you don't have to buy into it or perpetuate it. Or you move to a place with a culture that more closely reflects your values if you have the means to do so.
So after you stand up and say FUCK THIS SHIT I WANT NO PART OF IT, how does that affect and shape your personality? In many ways is it not more appropriate to reach for ideals and standards that you do agree with than to simply reject the ones you don't agree with? What about community? What about finding the others and trying to create a movement large enough to change the destructive elements of the dominant culture?
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:59:51 AM
What about finding the others and trying to create a movement large enough to change the destructive elements of the dominant culture?
Like those Occupy guys?
It would have worked a few decades ago, before future shock drove everyone batshit.
I am going to throw out there that one of the cultural ideals of Western society that I think may be most corrosive and damaging is our emphasis on individualism and independence.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 29, 2012, 04:01:06 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:59:51 AM
What about finding the others and trying to create a movement large enough to change the destructive elements of the dominant culture?
Like those Occupy guys?
It would have worked a few decades ago, before future shock drove everyone batshit.
I don't know if I could say that Occupy was attempting to create a culture movement. A political movement in the form of protest, yes.
Nigel, I think you may have a good idea, individualism and independence being corrosive. It sort of begets the whole "I've got mine, fuck you" thing.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on November 29, 2012, 04:07:51 AM
Nigel, I think you may have a good idea, individualism and independence being corrosive. It sort of begets the whole "I've got mine, fuck you" thing.
Yeah, exactly!
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 04:32:30 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on November 29, 2012, 04:07:51 AM
Nigel, I think you may have a good idea, individualism and independence being corrosive. It sort of begets the whole "I've got mine, fuck you" thing.
Yeah, exactly!
Oh, oh, and then there's the people who want to destroy the social safety net, because that sure as fuck has to be rooted in there..
And the people who think if a person can't get ahead in life then they DESERVE to get crushed beneath their heels, and may actively seek to just fuck these people over time and again. This may be the same thing as above.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:59:51 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 29, 2012, 03:53:35 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 06:19:13 PM
Today's conversation in Open Bar contained a passing comment that spurred this thought:
If your own culture is so full of bad signal that you don't actually WANT it, what do you do next? What if that's the motivation behind a lot of modern-day cultural appropriation... not "oh look, that's neat!" but "GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!"?
What the hell do you do if you find your culture of origin so repugnant that you want nothing more than to repudiate it and walk away?
Short answer: You do just that. You can live in a place with a dominant cultural paradigm without actively participating in that paradigm. Passive participation may be unavoidable, but you don't have to buy into it or perpetuate it. Or you move to a place with a culture that more closely reflects your values if you have the means to do so.
So after you stand up and say FUCK THIS SHIT I WANT NO PART OF IT, how does that affect and shape your personality? In many ways is it not more appropriate to reach for ideals and standards that you do agree with than to simply reject the ones you don't agree with? What about community? What about finding the others and trying to create a movement large enough to change the destructive elements of the dominant culture?
Well I can't speak as someone who hates the culture I was born into, but I can speak as someone who hates the culture I've been living in for most of my life which I imagine leads to much the same place. And that's probably why I'm a misanthropic bastard who has trouble finding people that I actually enjoy hanging out with for more than a few minutes a month and/or when I'm completely sober. In other words, I have no answer to that question that isn't fairly self-destructive, though I really wish I did.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 29, 2012, 05:36:25 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:59:51 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 29, 2012, 03:53:35 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 27, 2012, 06:19:13 PM
Today's conversation in Open Bar contained a passing comment that spurred this thought:
If your own culture is so full of bad signal that you don't actually WANT it, what do you do next? What if that's the motivation behind a lot of modern-day cultural appropriation... not "oh look, that's neat!" but "GET ME THE FUCK OUT OF HERE!"?
What the hell do you do if you find your culture of origin so repugnant that you want nothing more than to repudiate it and walk away?
Short answer: You do just that. You can live in a place with a dominant cultural paradigm without actively participating in that paradigm. Passive participation may be unavoidable, but you don't have to buy into it or perpetuate it. Or you move to a place with a culture that more closely reflects your values if you have the means to do so.
So after you stand up and say FUCK THIS SHIT I WANT NO PART OF IT, how does that affect and shape your personality? In many ways is it not more appropriate to reach for ideals and standards that you do agree with than to simply reject the ones you don't agree with? What about community? What about finding the others and trying to create a movement large enough to change the destructive elements of the dominant culture?
Well I can't speak as someone who hates the culture I was born into, but I can speak as someone who hates the culture I've been living in for most of my life which I imagine leads to much the same place. And that's probably why I'm a misanthropic bastard who has trouble finding people that I actually enjoy hanging out with for more than a few minutes a month and/or when I'm completely sober. In other words, I have no answer to that question that isn't fairly self-destructive, though I really wish I did.
I think that is a better response to my OP than any this thread has received so far.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:07:06 AM
How in the fuck is that a put-down? :? Most people who haven't taken sociology or psychology aren't particularly familiar with it in the context I used it in, and your reply indicates that you aren't, either.
No. My reply indicates that I have different views about it to you. The first question is... well, you know. :lulz:
This is an interesting discussion... as volatile as drugs, anarchy and paganism, but somehow still remaining civil. I like it.
I've read through this thread and there are some things I find out of sorts with my experiences and view.
1. Sacred Object + Money = Object stripped of sacredness/misappropriation/badwrong
Exhibit A: Cherokee, North Carolina. Cherokee is a Native American reservation which was inhabited by the Cherokees that hightailed it into the dense Smokey Mountain forests rather than walking the trail of tears. I was 13 when my parents took us on vacation to the Smokies and we spent a couple days in Cherokee. The inhabitants basically run a giant tourist attraction. There's a Native guy in full costume, including a headdress, he will happily have his picture taken with you for $5 (maybe more now given inflation). There were many shops where you could buy little fake headdresses and tomahawks for your kids. There were high end "art" shops where you could drop several hundred dollars and get a authentic headdress (including war bonnets). You bought them right from a Native American, they were made by Native Americans and they even stick the things on your head so you can look in the mirror and pick the one you want.
You can also pay some money to watch their sacred dances (four shows daily).
Are they guilty of destroying the sacredness of their own culture? Or, are they making a buck, because its a crappy place to live and alcoholism is far more prevalent than employment?
If a white person goes there and buys some authentic something or other and wears it, are they guilty of something bad... since they bought it from the culture that owned it?
2. Culture is to be respected
This seems a bit off to me. Culture, in some sense, are the bits of your BiP, handed down from your ancestors that you're really proud of. I don't think I need to respect someone's attachment to bits of brick and bars.
3. My actions ruin their culture?
If a culture considers something important, special, sacred, or whatever... why is it expected for anyone else, not in that culture, to treat it in the same way? Culture A says war bonnets are sacred, so you gotta respect it. Culture B says their particular deity is sacred and you gotta respect it. Culture C says "heterosexual marriage" is sacred in their culture, so you gotta respect it. I say if its sacred to them, then they should respect it and leave the rest of us out of it.
4. Who's got the beef?
I often wonder if its white privilege that leads some people to find indignation in things like cultural appropriation. Even some of the comments here... "Well, their culture got fucked [by us inferred], so you should respect it". If you travel to India, you'll find Indians selling tourist junk with Shiva on it. If you go to Cherokee, you'll find Native Americans selling 'sacred objects' to white people. They seem more "entrepreneurial" than "indignant". If the Cherokees sell me a war bonnet, who the fuck are you (meant generically) to be pissed off if I wear it?
5. Hail Eris
As has already been mentioned, we appropriate Eris from the Greeks. Is it OK because, we (white people) aren't the ones that fucked the Greeks over? Or is it because most of the Greeks are Orthodox these days so no one cares about a minor deity from a dead culture? If right and wrong here is based on who did what to who, or how long ago it was done... that seems arbitrary and IMO fueled by guilt.
I would probably get behind a movement that was focused on countering alcoholism in reservations... or the horrific prevalence of rape among Native American women. Headdresses and Shiva shorts seem like piffle compared to actual, real problems.
Particularly, from the perspective of My Discordia... the whole concept of cultural misappropriation being badwrong seems absurd to me. The underlying bit of Absurdism is that there is no meaning to life, except the meaning that you choose to give it. If some spag chooses their great-great grandparents culture as the meaning of their life... bully for them. If another spag chooses to upset as many cultural apple carts as possible... bully for them. If some third party gets pissed off and decides that telling the other spag "they're doin it wrong" is their purpose in life... well bully for them but I'm more likely to consider them an asshole.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:59:51 AM
So after you stand up and say FUCK THIS SHIT I WANT NO PART OF IT, how does that affect and shape your personality? In many ways is it not more appropriate to reach for ideals and standards that you do agree with than to simply reject the ones you don't agree with? What about community? What about finding the others and trying to create a movement large enough to change the destructive elements of the dominant culture?
I think you can't life an entirely full life only by saying "NO" to things. Because then all you believe in is an absence, a lack of substance.
From where I'm standing, you have to say "NO" for a while, to give yourself that space, and then you have to do the hard work fo saying "YES" to what you truly want to accept into your life. Like ECH says, there will probably always be engaging is some sort of passive participation, but in your personal sphere, you can try to build something of meaning for yourself, instead of accepting the culture you're living in simply due to geography.
It would be kind of cool if our culture provided a place for dropouts that allowed one the space to not participate but also benefited the society in some way. I'm sort of thinking about the India Sannyasa in the sense that they're 'spritiual dropouts' yet still hold a place in the culture. I'd like to draw the line between the rebel and the dropout in that the rebel is a reaction the cultural norm but the dropout allows a sort space one can stand to look back at the culture as a whole without necessarily being A PART OF the culture.
In our culture I don't think we have anything like that and if we do it's considered all 'rebel.' Our culture doesn't seem to allow someone to drop out...it's like the game is YOU MUST PARTICIPATE! And because there's no alternative, there's a sort of expectation that you will WANT to participate and there you have a double-bind.
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 06:14:56 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:07:06 AM
How in the fuck is that a put-down? :? Most people who haven't taken sociology or psychology aren't particularly familiar with it in the context I used it in, and your reply indicates that you aren't, either.
No. My reply indicates that I have different views about it to you. The first question is... well, you know. :lulz:
I'm talking about the sociological concept, not something I made up, though.
http://www.sociologyguide.com/basic-concepts/Socialization.php
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:53:11 PM
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 06:14:56 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:07:06 AM
How in the fuck is that a put-down? :? Most people who haven't taken sociology or psychology aren't particularly familiar with it in the context I used it in, and your reply indicates that you aren't, either.
No. My reply indicates that I have different views about it to you. The first question is... well, you know. :lulz:
I'm talking about the sociological concept, not something I made up, though.
http://www.sociologyguide.com/basic-concepts/Socialization.php
So you are talking about something that someone else made up. Someone else who didn't only make it up, they decided it should be part of the canon. And you went and believed them.
Despite the fact that most people today grow up in a fragmented, broken, fractal-natured soup of cultural components and end up having to make lots of choices about adopting some and rejecting others quite early on.
But hell, who cares about reality when the textbook says otherwise, hey?
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 10:54:17 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:53:11 PM
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 06:14:56 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:07:06 AM
How in the fuck is that a put-down? :? Most people who haven't taken sociology or psychology aren't particularly familiar with it in the context I used it in, and your reply indicates that you aren't, either.
No. My reply indicates that I have different views about it to you. The first question is... well, you know. :lulz:
I'm talking about the sociological concept, not something I made up, though.
http://www.sociologyguide.com/basic-concepts/Socialization.php
So you are talking about something that someone else made up. Someone else who didn't only make it up, they decided it should be part of the canon. And you went and believed them.
Despite the fact that most people today grow up in a fragmented, broken, fractal-natured soup of cultural components and end up having to make lots of choices about adopting some and rejecting others quite early on.
But hell, who cares about reality when the textbook says otherwise, hey?
I'm talking about a shared concept that has been researched quite a bit and has a fairly firm basis and definition.
But hey man, fight the system or something.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 10:57:33 PM
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 10:54:17 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:53:11 PM
Quote from: holist on November 29, 2012, 06:14:56 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 29, 2012, 03:07:06 AM
How in the fuck is that a put-down? :? Most people who haven't taken sociology or psychology aren't particularly familiar with it in the context I used it in, and your reply indicates that you aren't, either.
No. My reply indicates that I have different views about it to you. The first question is... well, you know. :lulz:
I'm talking about the sociological concept, not something I made up, though.
http://www.sociologyguide.com/basic-concepts/Socialization.php
So you are talking about something that someone else made up. Someone else who didn't only make it up, they decided it should be part of the canon. And you went and believed them.
Despite the fact that most people today grow up in a fragmented, broken, fractal-natured soup of cultural components and end up having to make lots of choices about adopting some and rejecting others quite early on.
But hell, who cares about reality when the textbook says otherwise, hey?
I'm talking about a shared concept that has been researched quite a bit and has a fairly firm basis and definition.
But hey man, fight the system or something.
It's not about fighting the system, I've been through with that for a while. I intend to pick it up again as a hobby but that's still in preparation.
It's simply that I think you are wrong. I would be very surprised to find that there are not competing takes on the concept, process, origins, causal role, etc. of socialisation, both within psychology, experimental psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy of mind, philosophy of psychology... to name only a few fields in which hundreds, nay, possibly thousands of committed, rigorous thinkers, empiricists and rationalists to the last woman/man are toiling away as we idly chat.
SGitR. 'Nuff said.
Yeah, I guess the two things he said that weren't retarded really WERE an anomaly. More's the pity.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 29, 2012, 11:33:51 AMExhibit A: Cherokee, North Carolina. Cherokee is a Native American reservation which was inhabited by the Cherokees that hightailed it into the dense Smokey Mountain forests rather than walking the trail of tears. I was 13 when my parents took us on vacation to the Smokies and we spent a couple days in Cherokee. The inhabitants basically run a giant tourist attraction. There's a Native guy in full costume, including a headdress, he will happily have his picture taken with you for $5 (maybe more now given inflation). There were many shops where you could buy little fake headdresses and tomahawks for your kids. There were high end "art" shops where you could drop several hundred dollars and get a authentic headdress (including war bonnets). You bought them right from a Native American, they were made by Native Americans and they even stick the things on your head so you can look in the mirror and pick the one you want.
You can also pay some money to watch their sacred dances (four shows daily).
Are they guilty of destroying the sacredness of their own culture? Or, are they making a buck, because its a crappy place to live and alcoholism is far more prevalent than employment?
If a white person goes there and buys some authentic something or other and wears it, are they guilty of something bad... since they bought it from the culture that owned it?
I don't mean to be a pedantic asshole, but I think (if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me) that the Cherokee historically didn't wear war bonnets and therefore didn't/don't consider them sacred. I think they were really only used by a handful of Plains Indians. The Plains Indians are where we get a lot of our Native American stereotypes from like the tipi and war bonnets. So I don't think they have a problem with selling war bonnets because it's not their culture. They're not sacred to the Cherokee. They're just playing up the Indian stereotype to make some money. The tribes I grew up around in southern Oklahoma (Choctaw, Chickasaw, etc) do the same thing.
Quote from: Bu☆ns on November 29, 2012, 03:32:10 PM
It would be kind of cool if our culture provided a place for dropouts that allowed one the space to not participate but also benefited the society in some way. I'm sort of thinking about the India Sannyasa in the sense that they're 'spritiual dropouts' yet still hold a place in the culture. I'd like to draw the line between the rebel and the dropout in that the rebel is a reaction the cultural norm but the dropout allows a sort space one can stand to look back at the culture as a whole without necessarily being A PART OF the culture.
In our culture I don't think we have anything like that and if we do it's considered all 'rebel.' Our culture doesn't seem to allow someone to drop out...it's like the game is YOU MUST PARTICIPATE! And because there's no alternative, there's a sort of expectation that you will WANT to participate and there you have a double-bind.
Governments don't like a bunch of unregulated primates running around. Just saying.
Quote from: Running From Ghosts on November 30, 2012, 01:03:58 AM
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on November 29, 2012, 11:33:51 AMExhibit A: Cherokee, North Carolina. Cherokee is a Native American reservation which was inhabited by the Cherokees that hightailed it into the dense Smokey Mountain forests rather than walking the trail of tears. I was 13 when my parents took us on vacation to the Smokies and we spent a couple days in Cherokee. The inhabitants basically run a giant tourist attraction. There's a Native guy in full costume, including a headdress, he will happily have his picture taken with you for $5 (maybe more now given inflation). There were many shops where you could buy little fake headdresses and tomahawks for your kids. There were high end "art" shops where you could drop several hundred dollars and get a authentic headdress (including war bonnets). You bought them right from a Native American, they were made by Native Americans and they even stick the things on your head so you can look in the mirror and pick the one you want.
You can also pay some money to watch their sacred dances (four shows daily).
Are they guilty of destroying the sacredness of their own culture? Or, are they making a buck, because its a crappy place to live and alcoholism is far more prevalent than employment?
If a white person goes there and buys some authentic something or other and wears it, are they guilty of something bad... since they bought it from the culture that owned it?
I don't mean to be a pedantic asshole, but I think (if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me) that the Cherokee historically didn't wear war bonnets and therefore didn't/don't consider them sacred. I think they were really only used by a handful of Plains Indians. The Plains Indians are where we get a lot of our Native American stereotypes from like the tipi and war bonnets. So I don't think they have a problem with selling war bonnets because it's not their culture. They're not sacred to the Cherokee. They're just playing up the Indian stereotype to make some money. The tribes I grew up around in southern Oklahoma (Choctaw, Chickasaw, etc) do the same thing.
Yep. And those "sacred" dances are just some shit their theatrical department came up with.
Also, I believe that Rat totally missed the point of the transfer of money removing the sacredness from the object. It's all about intention. The ramifications are that commerce is not sacred, and that holiness is not for sale. That doesn't mean that arts and crafts and gewgaws can't be for sale. It's not that people can't HAVE sacred indian objects, it's that they can't BUY them.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 03:01:07 AM
Quote from: Bu☆ns on November 29, 2012, 03:32:10 PM
It would be kind of cool if our culture provided a place for dropouts that allowed one the space to not participate but also benefited the society in some way. I'm sort of thinking about the India Sannyasa in the sense that they're 'spritiual dropouts' yet still hold a place in the culture. I'd like to draw the line between the rebel and the dropout in that the rebel is a reaction the cultural norm but the dropout allows a sort space one can stand to look back at the culture as a whole without necessarily being A PART OF the culture.
In our culture I don't think we have anything like that and if we do it's considered all 'rebel.' Our culture doesn't seem to allow someone to drop out...it's like the game is YOU MUST PARTICIPATE! And because there's no alternative, there's a sort of expectation that you will WANT to participate and there you have a double-bind.
Governments don't like a bunch of unregulated primates running around. Just saying.
This is rather true.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 30, 2012, 12:08:42 AM
Yeah, I guess the two things he said that weren't retarded really WERE an anomaly. More's the pity.
There's a pattern here, have you noticed? :)
"holist agrees with me" - hey-ho, he may be a biped after all!
"holist doesn't agree with me and does not shut up about it no matter how rude I get" - hey, he is an asshole after all, what a pity!
Boring.
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 05:57:40 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on November 30, 2012, 05:47:10 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 04:35:14 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on November 30, 2012, 12:03:28 AM
SGitR. 'Nuff said.
Yep. It's unfortunate.
It is! When he isn't being a douche SGitR, he can be insightful.
What's SGitR?
The jackass that is so used to being the Smartest Guy in the Room that he assumes he will continue to be smarter or more educated over a wide variety things regardless of the truth.
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 06:04:55 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 30, 2012, 12:08:42 AM
Yeah, I guess the two things he said that weren't retarded really WERE an anomaly. More's the pity.
There's a pattern here, have you noticed? :)
"holist agrees with me" - hey-ho, he may be a biped after all!
"holist doesn't agree with me and does not shut up about it no matter how rude I get" - hey, he is an asshole after all, what a pity!
Boring.
Nope.
You are a jackass.
It is completely possible to disagree with people here and still be considered a biped, but you would know that if you pulled your blinders off and stopped looking for ways to be offended and insulted.
Quote from: American Jackal on November 30, 2012, 07:01:09 AM
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 05:57:40 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on November 30, 2012, 05:47:10 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 04:35:14 AM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on November 30, 2012, 12:03:28 AM
SGitR. 'Nuff said.
Yep. It's unfortunate.
It is! When he isn't being a douche SGitR, he can be insightful.
What's SGitR?
The jackass that is so used to being the Smartest Guy in the Room that he assumes he will continue to be smarter or more educated over a wide variety things regardless of the truth.
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 06:04:55 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 30, 2012, 12:08:42 AM
Yeah, I guess the two things he said that weren't retarded really WERE an anomaly. More's the pity.
There's a pattern here, have you noticed? :)
"holist agrees with me" - hey-ho, he may be a biped after all!
"holist doesn't agree with me and does not shut up about it no matter how rude I get" - hey, he is an asshole after all, what a pity!
Boring.
Nope.
You are a jackass.
It is completely possible to disagree with people here and still be considered a biped, but you would know that if you pulled your blinders off and stopped looking for ways to be offended and insulted.
Actually, friend, it seems to me that depends to a rather significant degree on what you disagree about. I don't wear blinders and I am not looking for ways to be offended and insulted. The "random insults for laughs" style adopted by some members has at times raised by paranoia to unacceptable levels, but I have my hand on the button, and it tweaks.
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 06:04:55 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 30, 2012, 12:08:42 AM
Yeah, I guess the two things he said that weren't retarded really WERE an anomaly. More's the pity.
There's a pattern here, have you noticed? :)
"holist agrees with me" - hey-ho, he may be a biped after all!
"holist doesn't agree with me and does not shut up about it no matter how rude I get" - hey, he is an asshole after all, what a pity!
Boring.
Actually, holist, it has nothing to do with what you say and everything to do with how you say it.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 30, 2012, 10:51:45 AM
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 06:04:55 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 30, 2012, 12:08:42 AM
Yeah, I guess the two things he said that weren't retarded really WERE an anomaly. More's the pity.
There's a pattern here, have you noticed? :)
"holist agrees with me" - hey-ho, he may be a biped after all!
"holist doesn't agree with me and does not shut up about it no matter how rude I get" - hey, he is an asshole after all, what a pity!
Boring.
Actually, holist, it has nothing to do with what you say and everything to do with how you say it.
Being a smug passive aggressive little fuckwit will never win peoples respect, Holist.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 04:41:36 AM
It's not that people can't HAVE sacred indian objects, it's that they can't BUY them.
But wouldn't you think that the people buying them don't really consider those objects sacred in the first place?
Additionally, I wouldn't think that 'sacredness' is a finite resource. If you have a sacred (to you) drum, and someone buys it, making it no longer sacred (to you), can't you just make another sacred (to you) drum?
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 30, 2012, 10:51:45 AM
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 06:04:55 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 30, 2012, 12:08:42 AM
Yeah, I guess the two things he said that weren't retarded really WERE an anomaly. More's the pity.
There's a pattern here, have you noticed? :)
"holist agrees with me" - hey-ho, he may be a biped after all!
"holist doesn't agree with me and does not shut up about it no matter how rude I get" - hey, he is an asshole after all, what a pity!
Boring.
Actually, holist, it has nothing to do with what you say and everything to do with how you say it.
Well if that is indeed the case, I have a problem with that...
The problem being that with written communication, misreading tone, especially between people of widely different cultural backgrounds, is very frequent. And the way to get around it is to assume that the person is being open, friendly or possibly attempting some freaky-ass humour before jumping to the conclusion that they are being pissy. And what is being said should get and keep centre stage. Unless one is there for drama and playacting, which is, of course, a perfectly respectable motivation.
It would seem to me that sacredness is in the heart of the beholder. It is cultural, but also very individual. A Bible is just a book to me, even though I grew up in a very devout Baptist culture. But to my Mom & Dad, their Bible is completely sacred.
For me, as an individual, my musical instruments are very sacred to me because I have a very spiritual attachment to music, that sacredness COULD be transferrable if the person buying had a similar spirituallness with regards to music, or maybe it's just a thing to them.
So I think there are a lot of variables at play depending on who is selling or buying any kind of cultural artifact or object.
Quote from: Pixie on November 30, 2012, 11:14:12 AM
Actually, holist, it has nothing to do with what you say and everything to do with how you say it.
Being a smug passive aggressive little fuckwit will never win peoples respect, Holist.
I'm not smug, I'm just not insecure.
I'm not passive at all, I don't see where you get that.
Agressive: yes. Wow! An agressive member on PD! Heavens. By PD standards, I'm not even all that aggressive.
(By the way, just in case you feel the inclination to hand out free English lessons, I know what "passive aggressive" means. There is a great deal of that behaviour going on around here, I agree. But it ain't me.)
Little fuckwit: Well, I'm short, if that's what you mean, but quite fat... and no. I am not a fuckwit, nor a mouthbreather, nor an idiot, nor a robot, nor a... whatever. As I said, when I first turned up here, I am a bear about. Try to live with it.
People's respect? Is that a subject you feel you are an expert on?
Your respect? No thanks. Keep puking on me, it just adds to my burnish. :lulz:
Holist? - holist. Puhleeze!
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 06:04:55 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 30, 2012, 12:08:42 AM
Yeah, I guess the two things he said that weren't retarded really WERE an anomaly. More's the pity.
There's a pattern here, have you noticed? :)
"holist agrees with me" - hey-ho, he may be a biped after all!
"holist doesn't agree with me and does not shut up about it no matter how rude I get" - hey, he is an asshole after all, what a pity!
Boring.
Except that nobody said you might be a biped after all. We agreed with you on a couple of things.
Fact is, you're an unpleasant asshole. That can be okay, if you're funny about it.
You aren't.
Thread is now about Holist. Again.
Thread split on request.
Why do people keep responding to him?
because it's part of our sacred culture.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 30, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
because it's part of our sacred culture.
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
Except that nobody said you might be a biped after all.
I think you'll find, oh All-Seeing-One, that somebody did.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
We agreed with you on a couple of things.
Yes.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
Fact is, you're an unpleasant asshole.
Actually, the fact is somewhat different to that.
The fact is that you think I am an unpleasant asshole.
Coming from such an accomplished unpleasant asshole as yourself, I should take that opinion seriously.
But I can't, because I know I am not an unpleasant asshole. I get plenty of feedback, from plenty of people who have not only read a couple of hundred things I've written for a bunch of American nutters, but who actually have known me for years. So I know. You ain't talking me out of it, comprende?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
That can be okay, if you're funny about it.
It can even be okay if you are not funny about it. You yourself are living proof.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
You aren't.
Not your kind of funny.
:lulz:
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 03:15:29 PM
The fact is that you think I am an unpleasant asshole.
Yeah, well, in social situations, perception is everything.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 03:19:49 PM
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 03:15:29 PM
The fact is that you think I am an unpleasant asshole.
Yeah, well, in social situations, perception is everything.
Actually, no. It is important, but far from everything.
Also, this is barely a social situation. Antisocial situation may be a better term.
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 03:23:37 PM
Actually, no. It is important, but far from everything.
Nope. It's the whole enchilada.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 02:50:20 PM
Why do people keep responding to him?
Because there's nothing else going on, and I'm bored.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on November 30, 2012, 03:03:35 PM
because it's part of our sacred culture.
Victory. You has it. :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 03:24:20 PM
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 03:23:37 PM
Actually, no. It is important, but far from everything.
Nope. It's the whole enchilada.
You can go all epistemological about it, in which case I want to be the Cartesian demon.
But otherwise, going that way is quite boring. Thinking that perception is everything in a social situation, however, fits in quite nicely with the extreme bouts of prejudice you are in the habit of suffering.
In actual fact, I think you'll find and all that: a social situation is all about perception, and it is all about being willing to assume and explore the possibility that not everything is what it seems, that some (actually most) things and people cannot be fully known at a single glance... it is also about experience, history, emotion (those of all parties involved). Get my drift? Or keep punching. I no longer care, which is liberating for the time being.
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 03:28:43 PM
and it is all about being willing to assume and explore the possibility that not everything is what it seems,
So, you should act like a callous prick to people like Twid, and we should all sit around trying to figure out what you're really like inside?
:lulz:
Fuck off.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 04:41:36 AM
It's not that people can't HAVE sacred indian objects, it's that they can't BUY them.
But wouldn't you think that the people buying them don't really consider those objects sacred in the first place?
Additionally, I wouldn't think that 'sacredness' is a finite resource. If you have a sacred (to you) drum, and someone buys it, making it no longer sacred (to you), can't you just make another sacred (to you) drum?
I'm clearly not doing a good job of explaining my point. No one thinks that sacredness is finite, and nobody gives a flying fuck about selling drums or pipes or whatever as long as they are not being sold under the lie that they are sacred objects being sold with some kind of approval or sanction from a tribe. The original point I was trying to make about the fake inipi ceremonies is that it is an affront to Native culture when people PRETEND to sell the sacred to gullible and unsuspecting wannabes, because it causes people to believe something false about Natives; that we do commerce in what we consider holy.
People do try to buy Native American sacredness... sacred experiences and sacred objects... all the time. Remember, it isn't far-fetched for many non-natives to believe that they can purchase holiness, because the Catholic Church has been doing commerce in sacred objects and indulgences for a long long time, and now the modern evangelists have picked up the torch on doing it. So when someone misrepresents themselves as a Native American, by blood or adoption, and sells experiences or objects they claim are sacred, they are speaking for, and misrepresenting, Native American culture and beliefs, and that's why many Native Americans find that offensive.
An analogy that might make sense to you is when people who have a PhD are selling their opinions by calling themselves "Dr.", and receive a court injunction to stop calling themselves "Dr.", because they are not allowed to falsely represent themselves as medical doctors when they are not. Except there's no law against falseley representing yourself as a Native American holy person, or any other kind of holy person. Still, maybe that helps explain exactly what is offensive, and why people may find it offensive.
MIND YOU, not all tribes have a problem with selling sacred objects. But oddly, the ones that are sold most typically, do.
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 03:28:43 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 03:24:20 PM
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 03:23:37 PM
Actually, no. It is important, but far from everything.
Nope. It's the whole enchilada.
You can go all epistemological about it, in which case I want to be the Cartesian demon.
But otherwise, going that way is quite boring. Thinking that perception is everything in a social situation, however, fits in quite nicely with the extreme bouts of prejudice you are in the habit of suffering.
In actual fact, I think you'll find and all that: a social situation is all about perception, and it is all about being willing to assume and explore the possibility that not everything is what it seems, that some (actually most) things and people cannot be fully known at a single glance... it is also about experience, history, emotion (those of all parties involved). Get my drift? Or keep punching. I no longer care, which is liberating for the time being.
Attn: People reading this thread. I called Descarte 3 weeks ago. I HAZ POWERZ!!
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 03:45:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 04:41:36 AM
It's not that people can't HAVE sacred indian objects, it's that they can't BUY them.
But wouldn't you think that the people buying them don't really consider those objects sacred in the first place?
Additionally, I wouldn't think that 'sacredness' is a finite resource. If you have a sacred (to you) drum, and someone buys it, making it no longer sacred (to you), can't you just make another sacred (to you) drum?
I'm clearly not doing a good job of explaining my point. No one thinks that sacredness is finite, and nobody gives a flying fuck about selling drums or pipes or whatever as long as they are not being sold under the lie that they are sacred objects being sold with some kind of approval or sanction from a tribe. The original point I was trying to make about the fake inipi ceremonies is that it is an affront to Native culture when people PRETEND to sell the sacred to gullible and unsuspecting wannabes, because it causes people to believe something false about Natives; that we do commerce in what we consider holy.
People do try to buy Native American sacredness... sacred experiences and sacred objects... all the time. Remember, it isn't far-fetched for many non-natives to believe that they can purchase holiness, because the Catholic Church has been doing commerce in sacred objects and indulgences for a long long time, and now the modern evangelists have picked up the torch on doing it. So when someone misrepresents themselves as a Native American, by blood or adoption, and sells experiences or objects they claim are sacred, they are speaking for, and misrepresenting, Native American culture and beliefs, and that's why many Native Americans find that offensive.
An analogy that might make sense to you is when people who have a PhD are selling their opinions by calling themselves "Dr.", and receive a court injunction to stop calling themselves "Dr.", because they are not allowed to falsely represent themselves as medical doctors when they are not. Except there's no law against falseley representing yourself as a Native American holy person, or any other kind of holy person. Still, maybe that helps explain exactly what is offensive, and why people may find it offensive.
MIND YOU, not all tribes have a problem with selling sacred objects. But oddly, the ones that are sold most typically, do.
That actually makes sense to me. If I'm understanding right.
It's not the sacredness of the object being sold that they are upset about, but the fact that the people wearing or using that object is potentially giving a bad message about the culture. So most tribes would like to make sure that the person has respect for the meaning of the drum, just as example, before taking possession of it. Which most who use money to get it typically don't.
I dunno, save for hard-core traditionalists, I've found that many tribes have no problem at all selling sacred symbols of their culture to middle-class white people. There is a tribe in these parts that co-locate their pow-wow with the Moxie festival and sell all kinds of shit. Drums, pipes, etc., But I think most cultures will do this because the thing is, there is a demand for it. Some of it is materialistic hipsterism, but I think there is also a decent amount of sincere interest and fondness for a culture that is different than their own. And on some level I think that's cool. I'd rather have a lot of that instead a lot of "Assimilate or GTFO" attitudes. Some peope may have a clumsy, at best, appreciation and understanding of the article of culture they are buying, but I don't think that needs to be offensive. Some people just don't have the capacity to go that deep, but it's cool that they want to be inclusive and bonding with other cultures even if they can't internally move much further than the superficial.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 03:32:23 PM
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 03:28:43 PM
and it is all about being willing to assume and explore the possibility that not everything is what it seems,
So, you should act like a callous prick to people like Twid, and we should all sit around trying to figure out what you're really like inside?
:lulz:
Fuck off.
You are such a pathetic man, I cannot but feel for you.
See, quite apart from the fact that I don't think I acted like a callous prick to Twid, it also seems that Twid doesn't really seem to think I'm acting like a callous prick towards him, either.
But we should be more careful not to infringe your sensitivies...
You remind me of a grumpy old guard dog, eyesight almost gone, nose not so good anymore, jumping at shadows. And that's the truth.
You also remind me of this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RwjpG4Xh60 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RwjpG4Xh60)
And the really funny thing is you would probably say I remind you of that song.
I could be wrong, though, has been known to happen.
And finally, the problem I perceive with you, big boy:
You are perfectly happy to be who you are.
Which is unjustified, because in fact you could be a great deal better.
You are in the right direction, but not far enough.
Holist, you remind me of this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bINYgVtRVjU
Quote from: holist on November 30, 2012, 03:15:29 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
Except that nobody said you might be a biped after all.
I think you'll find, oh All-Seeing-One, that somebody did.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
We agreed with you on a couple of things.
Yes.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
Fact is, you're an unpleasant asshole.
Actually, the fact is somewhat different to that.
The fact is that you think I am an unpleasant asshole.
Coming from such an accomplished unpleasant asshole as yourself, I should take that opinion seriously.
But I can't, because I know I am not an unpleasant asshole. I get plenty of feedback, from plenty of people who have not only read a couple of hundred things I've written for a bunch of American nutters, but who actually have known me for years. So I know. You ain't talking me out of it, comprende?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
That can be okay, if you're funny about it.
It can even be okay if you are not funny about it. You yourself are living proof.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on November 30, 2012, 02:12:30 PM
You aren't.
Not your kind of funny.
:lulz:
Who the fuck you calling an American, shitheel?
I think it's time for an Unlimited thread for holist, starting with his most recent attention-whoring wankery ITT.
Motion seconded. With the unfortunate absence of Trip, the motion passes. Have at it.
i thought the 'UNLIMITED Homeopathy Appreciation thread" was the bucket for his rubbish.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 30, 2012, 04:08:53 PM
Some of it is materialistic hipsterism, but I think there is also a decent amount of sincere interest and fondness for a culture that is different than their own. And on some level I think that's cool. I'd rather have a lot of that instead a lot of "Assimilate or GTFO" attitudes. Some peope may have a clumsy, at best, appreciation and understanding of the article of culture they are buying, but I don't think that needs to be offensive. Some people just don't have the capacity to go that deep, but it's cool that they want to be inclusive and bonding with other cultures even if they can't internally move much further than the superficial.
This is essentially my take on the matter. While some of it could be seen as a bit silly, I don't see it as patently offensive.
Whereas "Hi, Bob McGinn here. I am a 10th Generation Iroquois Shaman. For $50.00 I will perform great-grandfather's traditional money dance to bring you great wealth. Afterwards, if you want to step into my Gift Teepee (get it!) I have some of my people's wicked authentic "herbal remedy" you can buy", I can see as being pretty offensive.
Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2012, 05:38:06 PM
Holist, you remind me of this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bINYgVtRVjU
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I'd forgotten about that. Sounds about right.
Quote from: trippinprincezz13 on November 30, 2012, 06:45:47 PM
Quote from: Cain on November 30, 2012, 05:38:06 PM
Holist, you remind me of this song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bINYgVtRVjU
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
I'd forgotten about that. Sounds about right.
played that and my wife said she was having an antiorgasm.
and some day I will get that 'singer's' autograph and ya'll will be jealous.
Clicking through the video for shits and giggles and landed on "...and then you look into the eyes of a wolf..."
And then I was enlightened.
Quote from: Sita on November 30, 2012, 03:59:19 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 03:45:34 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 30, 2012, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on November 30, 2012, 04:41:36 AM
It's not that people can't HAVE sacred indian objects, it's that they can't BUY them.
But wouldn't you think that the people buying them don't really consider those objects sacred in the first place?
Additionally, I wouldn't think that 'sacredness' is a finite resource. If you have a sacred (to you) drum, and someone buys it, making it no longer sacred (to you), can't you just make another sacred (to you) drum?
I'm clearly not doing a good job of explaining my point. No one thinks that sacredness is finite, and nobody gives a flying fuck about selling drums or pipes or whatever as long as they are not being sold under the lie that they are sacred objects being sold with some kind of approval or sanction from a tribe. The original point I was trying to make about the fake inipi ceremonies is that it is an affront to Native culture when people PRETEND to sell the sacred to gullible and unsuspecting wannabes, because it causes people to believe something false about Natives; that we do commerce in what we consider holy.
People do try to buy Native American sacredness... sacred experiences and sacred objects... all the time. Remember, it isn't far-fetched for many non-natives to believe that they can purchase holiness, because the Catholic Church has been doing commerce in sacred objects and indulgences for a long long time, and now the modern evangelists have picked up the torch on doing it. So when someone misrepresents themselves as a Native American, by blood or adoption, and sells experiences or objects they claim are sacred, they are speaking for, and misrepresenting, Native American culture and beliefs, and that's why many Native Americans find that offensive.
An analogy that might make sense to you is when people who have a PhD are selling their opinions by calling themselves "Dr.", and receive a court injunction to stop calling themselves "Dr.", because they are not allowed to falsely represent themselves as medical doctors when they are not. Except there's no law against falseley representing yourself as a Native American holy person, or any other kind of holy person. Still, maybe that helps explain exactly what is offensive, and why people may find it offensive.
MIND YOU, not all tribes have a problem with selling sacred objects. But oddly, the ones that are sold most typically, do.
That actually makes sense to me. If I'm understanding right.
It's not the sacredness of the object being sold that they are upset about, but the fact that the people wearing or using that object is potentially giving a bad message about the culture. So most tribes would like to make sure that the person has respect for the meaning of the drum, just as example, before taking possession of it. Which most who use money to get it typically don't.
Well, yes to the first part. But to the last part, it is more that most tribes would like for people selling drums to do it without misrepresenting what they're selling, so that buyers don't come away thinking it's something it isn't, and so others don't end up with the impression that tribal culture is totally all about making a buck on religious artifacts. Something like that.
More like "please don't misrepresent our cultural values" than "please don't sell drums".
Well damn, lol. I think Nigel just said what I spent like half of today writing.
Although to answer Phox's "two way street" comment: Yes, but mostly no
Yes: the dominant group can be fetishized (particularly the lower parts of the group) and it can be dehumanized (I haven't done very much reading on it so I'll leave it at this, but evidently it's called "Occidentalism"), but it's not quite the same, for reasons explained below.
No:
A) colonization and forced assimilation. Need I say more?
B) America specifically exports its culture. Sure, it's in the name of making money, but it's still spreading our culture - our jeans, our music, our restaurants, our movies - everywhere. I also am pretty sure we don't have very much we treat with the same kind of venerance that other cultures have and do. Cowboys are, yeah, a staple in American media, but we don't have special ceremonies where they sit around the fire, their Levis pressed just so, making cowboy coffee according to a prescribed ritual.
Lastly, I think appropriators sneering at the anger of the cultures they're stealing from is an asshole move. The people of the culture get to decide how to interpret their culture because it defines their lives. Does anyone disagree with me when I say that no one else should define other people's lives? And, imo, appropriation has to be looked at through the lens of colonialism. When the sneering appropriator is from the dominant group, it's is re-enforcing their superiority. "We are totally going to take and warp parts of your culture because we think they're neat and you need to stop being a little bitch about it. Never mind the fact that we totally took the rest of your shit."
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on November 30, 2012, 04:08:53 PM
I dunno, save for hard-core traditionalists, I've found that many tribes have no problem at all selling sacred symbols of their culture to middle-class white people. There is a tribe in these parts that co-locate their pow-wow with the Moxie festival and sell all kinds of shit. Drums, pipes, etc., But I think most cultures will do this because the thing is, there is a demand for it. Some of it is materialistic hipsterism, but I think there is also a decent amount of sincere interest and fondness for a culture that is different than their own. And on some level I think that's cool. I'd rather have a lot of that instead a lot of "Assimilate or GTFO" attitudes. Some peope may have a clumsy, at best, appreciation and understanding of the article of culture they are buying, but I don't think that needs to be offensive. Some people just don't have the capacity to go that deep, but it's cool that they want to be inclusive and bonding with other cultures even if they can't internally move much further than the superficial.
I think you may still be missing a fine distinction. Most tribes have no problem with selling things that look similar to their sacred symbology. Like, you go to Hopiland, and you can find a million and one gift shops (some of them indian-owned, even!) selling kachina dolls. These are not "real" Kachina dolls. They may be made by indians, they may be "authentic" in that sense, but scrupulous sellers will tell you that they are similar to real kachina dolls without being the actual thing, because real kachina dolls are not for sale.
Likewise, you can find all kinds of replicas of items like pipes, dream catchers, etc. for sale. Just because they look like what you think a sacred indian object looks like, does not make them sacred objects.
I'm not talking about replicas, I mean yeah, they sell the cheaply made shit to tourists who don't know any better. Pretty much any culture that caters at all to tourists do that. But the tribe I mentioned was selling stuff that was made by the same hands in the same manners as what they would use themselves. In the end, the only difference is who is owning the thing and whether they use words to describe it as sacred.
I'm still hung up on the part where I'm supposed to give a shit about ANYTHING that's "sacred" to ANYONE.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 03:46:59 AM
I'm still hung up on the part where I'm supposed to give a shit about ANYTHING that's "sacred" to ANYONE.
What about replacing "sacred" with "culturally significant/meaningful"?
I don't generally expect people to give two shits about what's culturally significant or meaningful to me. It's meaningful to me because of something in ME and how other people treat it or react to it doesn't change that. Everybody should have the right to their own cultural traditions. Nobody should be able to impede or restrict the cultural traditions of others (obvious exceptions for shit like FGM, etc.) but at the same time nobody should be expected to observe or submit to the cultural traditions of anyone else.
IMO, that's what it means to respect someone else's culture. And trying to put the "cultural tourism" toothpaste back in the tube in the 21st century is an exercise in futility. It's gonna happen. And there's no reason it has to be construed as a negative thing when people are doing it out of curiosity and/or admiration.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 01:31:17 AM
I'm not talking about replicas, I mean yeah, they sell the cheaply made shit to tourists who don't know any better. Pretty much any culture that caters at all to tourists do that. But the tribe I mentioned was selling stuff that was made by the same hands in the same manners as what they would use themselves. In the end, the only difference is who is owning the thing and whether they use words to describe it as sacred.
...
That IS the only difference.
:?
It's like the difference between a cigarette and a sacred cigarette, if you've heard that old saw.
What makes it different?
I'm smoking it sacred.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 05:06:29 AM
I don't generally expect people to give two shits about what's culturally significant or meaningful to me. It's meaningful to me because of something in ME and how other people treat it or react to it doesn't change that. Everybody should have the right to their own cultural traditions. Nobody should be able to impede or restrict the cultural traditions of others (obvious exceptions for shit like FGM, etc.) but at the same time nobody should be expected to observe or submit to the cultural traditions of anyone else.
IMO, that's what it means to respect someone else's culture. And trying to put the "cultural tourism" toothpaste back in the tube in the 21st century is an exercise in futility. It's gonna happen. And there's no reason it has to be construed as a negative thing when people are doing it out of curiosity and/or admiration.
If you think of it as a type of slander, it might make more sense? I don't know. I am getting a very strong impression that white people's concept of sacred is realllly different from NA people's concept of sacred. IMO taking advantage of hopeful white Americans' desire for a taste of non-McDonalds-ized cultural authenticity to sell them an illusion of belonging to a tribe by exploiting a mockery of that tribe's traditions and ritual traditions is both fraud and a type of slander.
Perhaps, but if it inspires them to think more positively about Native Americans (or to think about them at all) isn't that still a positive step no matter how small? I'm just trying to be realistic here. It's not gonna stop. Might as well use it constructively.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 05:06:29 AM
I don't generally expect people to give two shits about what's culturally significant or meaningful to me. It's meaningful to me because of something in ME and how other people treat it or react to it doesn't change that. Everybody should have the right to their own cultural traditions. Nobody should be able to impede or restrict the cultural traditions of others (obvious exceptions for shit like FGM, etc.) but at the same time nobody should be expected to observe or submit to the cultural traditions of anyone else.
IMO, that's what it means to respect someone else's culture. And trying to put the "cultural tourism" toothpaste back in the tube in the 21st century is an exercise in futility. It's gonna happen. And there's no reason it has to be construed as a negative thing when people are doing it out of curiosity and/or admiration.
Aye.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 05:59:56 AM
Perhaps, but if it inspires them to think more positively about Native Americans (or to think about them at all) isn't that still a positive step no matter how small? I'm just trying to be realistic here. It's not gonna stop. Might as well use it constructively.
No, probably not. I mean, if someone sold porn of an ECH lookalike having furry sex, would that be good because at least it was causing people to think about you?
The reason people get into the fake-shaman business is not to raise awareness, it's to capitalize on awareness that already exists. Shysters tend to be opportunistic.
Fake shamans aren't cultural tourism any more than going to Changs Mongolian Grill is cultural tourism. I think we're talking about two different things here.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 06:36:27 AM
Fake shamans aren't cultural tourism any more than going to Changs Mongolian Grill is cultural tourism. I think we're talking about two different things here.
It's quite possible. I don't recall ever mentioning cultural tourism, personally. Possibly someone else brought it in and I missed it.
No, I used the term because it seemed like a decent catch-all term for what several people were objecting to.
But isn't the guy selling Native American Sweat Lodge Spirituality just a snake oil salesman in the vein of a Christian Revivalist selling the healing power of the spirit to rubes? As long as people have been easily tricked by ancient/sacred/secret cures from some mysterious culture they know little about, slick Joe's have been taking their money. Is that cultural appropriation or just scam artistry? To me that seems like a wholly different issue than (for example) some model wearing a war bonnet on a runway.
At the very least I can agree that the runway thing was (IMO) in bad taste and displayed a bit of a 'tin ear' on the part of the company PR and Marketing dept. Having worked with that PR dept and Marketing group I'm not at all surprised.They're pretty out of touch and living in their own world.I think having a Native American head on this pack of Lucky Strikes, or a baseball team or a football team with some caricature of a native person... I can see how that might be offensive...
But the sacredness argument is kinda falling flat for me.
I don't think you understand the point of the "sacredness argument". Maybe because it's occurred across threads. It's just saying, it sucks that people are being duped into thinking they are buying sacred objects, when that's impossible, and it sucks that scam artists are profiting from the sale, because in the process they are disseminating the idea that natives sell sacred objects. And a lot of natives find that objectionable, because they feel it misrepresents their cultural values and gives people the wrong idea about natives.
I don't think any of that is all that complicated.
Although the difficulty of this conversation is certainly reinforcing my insight into the general frustration of the indian community I know with why the hell white people don't get what they're irritated about. I feel like there might be a more or less insurmountable cultural barrier there.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 05:24:48 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 01:31:17 AM
I'm not talking about replicas, I mean yeah, they sell the cheaply made shit to tourists who don't know any better. Pretty much any culture that caters at all to tourists do that. But the tribe I mentioned was selling stuff that was made by the same hands in the same manners as what they would use themselves. In the end, the only difference is who is owning the thing and whether they use words to describe it as sacred.
...
That IS the only difference.
:?
Right, it's like ECH said, the difference is what's within the particular person in question, not the actual object. And since the culture is willingly making and selling "sacred" objects that won't be "sacred" to the person outside of that culture, there is hardly anyone to blame for smeone misappropriating that object. Because they aren't misappropriating it.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 05:31:01 AM
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 05:06:29 AM
I don't generally expect people to give two shits about what's culturally significant or meaningful to me. It's meaningful to me because of something in ME and how other people treat it or react to it doesn't change that. Everybody should have the right to their own cultural traditions. Nobody should be able to impede or restrict the cultural traditions of others (obvious exceptions for shit like FGM, etc.) but at the same time nobody should be expected to observe or submit to the cultural traditions of anyone else.
IMO, that's what it means to respect someone else's culture. And trying to put the "cultural tourism" toothpaste back in the tube in the 21st century is an exercise in futility. It's gonna happen. And there's no reason it has to be construed as a negative thing when people are doing it out of curiosity and/or admiration.
If you think of it as a type of slander, it might make more sense? I don't know. I am getting a very strong impression that white people's concept of sacred is realllly different from NA people's concept of sacred. IMO taking advantage of hopeful white Americans' desire for a taste of non-McDonalds-ized cultural authenticity to sell them an illusion of belonging to a tribe by exploiting a mockery of that tribe's traditions and ritual traditions is both fraud and a type of slander.
Uh, some white dude buying an NA drum isn't because they want to be a part of the tribe, it's because they want the drum because they think it's cool. It isn't slander even remotely. It's just commercialism. Commercialism that the NA are WILLINGLY engaging in.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 08:34:54 AM
Although the difficulty of this conversation is certainly reinforcing my insight into the general frustration of the indian community I know with why the hell white people don't get what they're irritated about. I feel like there might be a more or less insurmountable cultural barrier there.
No, I won't speak for ECH, but I think our understanding is pretty clear, we just don't happen to agree with the objection. My thing is, if the culture is purposefully and willingly selling the sacred objects or symbols, you can hardly be mad at the white guy for buying them. The NA wanted the white guy to buy it and the white guy did. A transaction between two consenting cultures, if you will. Perhaps the beef should be tak en up with the members of the NA culture putting the stuff up for sale to begin with.
You know, I thought I had an understanding of this finally but now I'm all confused again.
Is something being sacred a personal thing or does an object have an inherent sacredness? Think that's the root of my confusion.
Here is how I would break it down.
I think things can have inherent sacredness, however, I feel like once a culture decides they are going to sell those things, or allow/sanction others selling them, then not only do they lose sacredness, I think the culture loses the ability to cry foul when some asshat appropriates those things in a way that is antithetical to the item's sacred origins.
So if a tribe sells their sacred drums, and some idiot buys a drum and uses it in a way that feels in conflict with its traditional cultural use, the tribe or anyone else can hardly complain. If you want to reap financial gains from selling pieces of your culture, you need to be able to deal with the crass commercialism that comes along with it.
Now, if you don't sanction this, and some white middle-class guy starts making replicas, selling them all over the place, disrespecting the cultural and sacred origins of the item, then there is a legitimate beef, IMO. Of course, in the end, unless you have some kind of patent or trademark protections, you are screwed and can't do much about it. But, at least you do have some philosophical ground to stand on in front of the court of public opinion.
Another way to think about it. I buy a Tibetan singing bowl, but I use it not to,play traditional Tibetan music. I use them in some experimental electronic music, which clearly is not the sacred intent, so am I insulting the culture and misappropriating? I would say no because I feel that I would be honoring the culture by wishing to incorporate something from the culture I respect and have admiration for in my own spiritual expression through my music.
Now, maybe if I was using them to cook soup there could be a valid complaint.
Look...Nobody's gonna tell me what to do or not do. There are certain things I certainly won't do, like wear my hair in dreds, not because someone here told me not to...But because I'd look stupid. Why would I look stupid? Because I'm obviously and blatantly trying to bite on another culture, to be something I'm not. Same as the stupid bastards out West here who walk around in those Japanese Lego-block sandals, or the ghouls who rob Indian graves "to get in touch with their heritage".
Me, I'm a White boy. I am in fact a Canadian White boy, meaning I'm so White that my jump has a negative vertical component. My culture's history involves mud farming, piracy, casual murder, and "rough music". And sheep. Lotsa sheep.
Nuff said.
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 02:03:24 PM
You know, I thought I had an understanding of this finally but now I'm all confused again.
Is something being sacred a personal thing or does an object have an inherent sacredness? Think that's the root of my confusion.
It depends.
But the problem I'm having with this conversation is that a whole bunch of people are caught up on the THINGS, when what I'm talking about is the INTENT. That's in the people, not the things.
And anyone who thinks there isn't a significant contingent of white boys (and girls) who buy indian drums because they want to buy into tribal identity has apparently never met one of the people we are so affectionately referring to here as "Cherohonkeys". Who, actually, are in some sense the people this thread is about, because they are the type of disenfranchised people I'm asking about.
There are layers and layers of racism at play in the word "Cherohonkey" itself, and at some point I'd love to discuss blood-quantum law and how horrific and backward it is. But first it might be nice to clear up the distinction between the objects and the people. RWHN doesn't seem to get that just because an object is the same in every material way as one used for sacred purposes, it doesn't make it a sacred object. Does anyone else have that issue? Can we yalk about it and maybe clarify it a little?
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 02:32:58 PM
Another way to think about it. I buy a Tibetan singing bowl, but I use it not to,play traditional Tibetan music. I use them in some experimental electronic music, which clearly is not the sacred intent, so am I insulting the culture and misappropriating? I would say no because I feel that I would be honoring the culture by wishing to incorporate something from the culture I respect and have admiration for in my own spiritual expression through my music.
Now, maybe if I was using them to cook soup there could be a valid complaint.
No, but if the person who sold it to you was selling it as a traditional sacred object blessed by whatever holy person, with inherent sacredness in the object, and you believed that and started calling yourself a Tibetan shaman, and then stared doing faith healings on your friends with that bowl, claiming that it gave you authentic Tibetan healing powers and that you had been adopted into the Tibetan tribe, it would be appropriate to call that a misrepresentation and a misappropriation.
That kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME with Native American objects and culture. It's created a very real problem, too, which ties back into the "Cherohonkey" thing, which is that it has engendered a really unfortunate suspiciousness and hostility in a lot of Native communities toward "outsiders", and that, in my opinion, really hurts the community's ability to allow the descendants of lost children to re-assimilate and bring their skillsets back to the community. Not even to start talking about the blood quantum issues, which are fundamentally racist and genocidal.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 05:24:48 AM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 01:31:17 AM
I'm not talking about replicas, I mean yeah, they sell the cheaply made shit to tourists who don't know any better. Pretty much any culture that caters at all to tourists do that. But the tribe I mentioned was selling stuff that was made by the same hands in the same manners as what they would use themselves. In the end, the only difference is who is owning the thing and whether they use words to describe it as sacred.
...
That IS the only difference.
:?
Right, it's like ECH said, the difference is what's within the particular person in question, not the actual object. And since the culture is willingly making and selling "sacred" objects that won't be "sacred" to the person outside of that culture, there is hardly anyone to blame for smeone misappropriating that object. Because they aren't misappropriating it.
For some reason you seem to be hung up on the idea that the problem here is with the buyer.
The problem here, as I stated in my earliest post on the topic and have restated ever since, is with non-Native (and sometime Native) sellers who pretend that what they're selling is something other than what it is. Selling a drum or a dream-catcher is FINE, and pretty much everyone I'[ve spoken to agrees that it's fine. Selling it under the pretense that it's a sacred object that will convey holy powers onto the buyer is straight-up hucksterism. Historically, many Natives trying to survive have willingly fleeced white tourists, selling them loads of bullshit. Many tribes are trying to reign that in for the sake of tribal dignity. It is an issue even within tribes. It is a whole other issue when white people do it, because they are exploiting both the culture they're "selling" and the unwitting buyers.
I think this thread has become less about "cultural misappropriation" (whatever that may actually be) and more about "I wish idiots would stop being idiots and assholes would stop being assholes". Which, obviously, ain't gonna happen.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 04:50:06 PM
I think this thread has become less about "cultural misappropriation" (whatever that may actually be) and more about "I wish idiots would stop being idiots and assholes would stop being assholes". Which, obviously, ain't gonna happen.
I don't know if you read the OP, but this thread was never meant to be about cultural misappropriation.
Oh, I know. But it keeps turning back to that because we as a forum are incapable of not letting one discussion spag up 3 or 4 threads at a time. :lulz:
Personally I though the concept raised in the OP was more interesting than the one we seem to be actually discussing, but alas, Nigel, I am only one man. And people should be thankful for that.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 05:01:49 PM
Oh, I know. But it keeps turning back to that because we as a forum are incapable of not letting one discussion spag up 3 or 4 threads at a time. :lulz:
Personally I though the concept raised in the OP was more interesting than the one we seem to be actually discussing, but alas, Nigel, I am only one man. And people should be thankful for that.
:lulz: If you were more than one man the world would be AWESOMELY TERRIFYING.
Ok, here is what I understand.
Selling or using things that are tribal or of a tribal style (whether by actual indians or others) = ok
Selling or using things with the intent of trickery = what everyone has a problem with
Sacredness is a secondary (though seemingly important) component of it, which seems to muddle things.
As far as the OP goes, I've never really been in any kind of culture (to my knowledge). So never had anything to get away from.
Uhh, you can't not be part of any culture. It's really not possible unless you were raised by robots in Antarctica.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 06:22:57 PM
Uhh, you can't not be part of any culture. It's really not possible unless you were raised by robots in Antarctica.
:lulz: This.
Even then, you're part of the Antarctica Robot culture.
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 06:20:23 PM
Ok, here is what I understand.
Selling or using things that are tribal or of a tribal style (whether by actual indians or others) = ok
Selling or using things with the intent of trickery = what everyone has a problem with
Sacredness is a secondary (though seemingly important) component of it, which seems to muddle things.
As far as the OP goes, I've never really been in any kind of culture (to my knowledge). So never had anything to get away from.
The sacredness thing was kind of a side note... to say that not only are the fake, exploitative money-grubbing "shamans" doing something that's bullshit and defrauding people in the process, but that even if someone wanted to buy something sacred, they couldn't because the buying part makes it not sacred.
Guess I don't fully understand culture then. Which doesn't surprise me.
How do I find out what culture I'm part of?
Honest question, because I really am quite naive about such things.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 06:26:37 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 06:20:23 PM
Ok, here is what I understand.
Selling or using things that are tribal or of a tribal style (whether by actual indians or others) = ok
Selling or using things with the intent of trickery = what everyone has a problem with
Sacredness is a secondary (though seemingly important) component of it, which seems to muddle things.
As far as the OP goes, I've never really been in any kind of culture (to my knowledge). So never had anything to get away from.
Addendum: Even things that aren't necessarily sacred get approprated.
Buying a Navaho bracelet made by a Navajo trying to make a living = ok
Buying a Franklin Mint plate with a picture of a "Native American" woman with caucasian features in a buckskin miniskirt with a three wolf moon = not ok and DERP.
The sacredness thing was kind of a side note... to say that not only are the fake, exploitative money-grubbing "shamans" doing something that's bullshit and defrauding people in the process, but that even if someone wanted to buy something sacred, they couldn't because the buying part makes it not sacred.
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 06:30:22 PM
Guess I don't fully understand culture then. Which doesn't surprise me.
How do I find out what culture I'm part of?
Honest question, because I really am quite naive about such things.
What culture is your family part of? Who do you hang out with, where do you live? Your culture is that which you are immersed in. It's invisible to you because it's the default, it's your normal.
A polygamous Mormon living in a Mormon township surrounded by other Mormons doesn't see their surroundings and behaviors as "culture", they see them as "normal". Likewise an Irish Catholic in Boston.
Then there's my dad, who is currently in the kitchen passing on our culture's traditional teachings to my son. :lol: To wit: "I don't believe in anything I can't see for myself, everything dies, the only real wealth is that what comes from the ground".
Oh, Dad.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on December 01, 2012, 06:59:31 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 06:26:37 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 06:20:23 PM
Ok, here is what I understand.
Selling or using things that are tribal or of a tribal style (whether by actual indians or others) = ok
Selling or using things with the intent of trickery = what everyone has a problem with
Sacredness is a secondary (though seemingly important) component of it, which seems to muddle things.
As far as the OP goes, I've never really been in any kind of culture (to my knowledge). So never had anything to get away from.
The sacredness thing was kind of a side note... to say that not only are the fake, exploitative money-grubbing "shamans" doing something that's bullshit and defrauding people in the process, but that even if someone wanted to buy something sacred, they couldn't because the buying part makes it not sacred.
Addendum: Even things that aren't necessarily sacred get approprated.
Buying a Navaho bracelet made by a Navajo trying to make a living = ok
Buying a Franklin Mint plate with a picture of a "Native American" woman with caucasian features in a buckskin miniskirt with a three wolf moon = not ok and DERP.
All kinds of DERP, yes. :lol:
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 07:02:56 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 06:30:22 PM
Guess I don't fully understand culture then. Which doesn't surprise me.
How do I find out what culture I'm part of?
Honest question, because I really am quite naive about such things.
What culture is your family part of? Who do you hang out with, where do you live? Your culture is that which you are immersed in. It's invisible to you because it's the default, it's your normal.
A polygamous Mormon living in a Mormon township surrounded by other Mormons doesn't see their surroundings and behaviors as "culture", they see them as "normal". Likewise an Irish Catholic in Boston.
Guess that's part of my problem then.
My family (meaning my parents and I) have pretty much always done our own thing. Parents never had friends over, we didn't do parties or anything like that.
I've been pretty much a loner since I was 12. Never really hanging out with people beyond school. As an adult I have no friends that aren't online, think I might've mentioned that before, and I stay inside all day.
So what culture do I have? A computer one?
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 02:03:24 PM
You know, I thought I had an understanding of this finally but now I'm all confused again.
Is something being sacred a personal thing or does an object have an inherent sacredness? Think that's the root of my confusion.
It depends.
But the problem I'm having with this conversation is that a whole bunch of people are caught up on the THINGS, when what I'm talking about is the INTENT. That's in the people, not the things.
And anyone who thinks there isn't a significant contingent of white boys (and girls) who buy indian drums because they want to buy into tribal identity has apparently never met one of the people we are so affectionately referring to here as "Cherohonkeys". Who, actually, are in some sense the people this thread is about, because they are the type of disenfranchised people I'm asking about.
There are layers and layers of racism at play in the word "Cherohonkey" itself, and at some point I'd love to discuss blood-quantum law and how horrific and backward it is. But first it might be nice to clear up the distinction between the objects and the people. RWHN doesn't seem to get that just because an object is the same in every material way as one used for sacred purposes, it doesn't make it a sacred object. Does anyone else have that issue? Can we yalk about it and maybe clarify it a little?
I get it fine but it's a moot point once the objects are purposefully being sold to people outside of the culture. At that point, yeah, clearly the objects aren't meant for their sacred intent, at which point, it shouldn't matter what the intent of the buyer is, because at that point, it's just a commercial good like any other commercial good.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:37:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 02:32:58 PM
Another way to think about it. I buy a Tibetan singing bowl, but I use it not to,play traditional Tibetan music. I use them in some experimental electronic music, which clearly is not the sacred intent, so am I insulting the culture and misappropriating? I would say no because I feel that I would be honoring the culture by wishing to incorporate something from the culture I respect and have admiration for in my own spiritual expression through my music.
Now, maybe if I was using them to cook soup there could be a valid complaint.
No, but if the person who sold it to you was selling it as a traditional sacred object blessed by whatever holy person, with inherent sacredness in the object, and you believed that and started calling yourself a Tibetan shaman, and then stared doing faith healings on your friends with that bowl, claiming that it gave you authentic Tibetan healing powers and that you had been adopted into the Tibetan tribe, it would be appropriate to call that a misrepresentation and a misappropriation.
That kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME with Native American objects and culture. It's created a very real problem, too, which ties back into the "Cherohonkey" thing, which is that it has engendered a really unfortunate suspiciousness and hostility in a lot of Native communities toward "outsiders", and that, in my opinion, really hurts the community's ability to allow the descendants of lost children to re-assimilate and bring their skillsets back to the community. Not even to start talking about the blood quantum issues, which are fundamentally racist and genocidal.
Then why are they selling it to outsiders in the first place? They can't have a realistic expectation that every person from outside the culture who buys one of these items is going to 100% treat it with the exact respect and manner for which it was intended. Clearly, theintentof the seller is to supply a demand for cultural artifacts and to make money for the culture in question. At that point, the culture/seller kind of loses control over what happens. So if it is that much of an issue or concern, they need to find a different way to make money.
Now,that obviously doesn't speak to the people outside of the culture who make and sell forgeries, replicas, etc., But that's a different issue.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:37:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 02:32:58 PM
Another way to think about it. I buy a Tibetan singing bowl, but I use it not to,play traditional Tibetan music. I use them in some experimental electronic music, which clearly is not the sacred intent, so am I insulting the culture and misappropriating? I would say no because I feel that I would be honoring the culture by wishing to incorporate something from the culture I respect and have admiration for in my own spiritual expression through my music.
Now, maybe if I was using them to cook soup there could be a valid complaint.
No, but if the person who sold it to you was selling it as a traditional sacred object blessed by whatever holy person, with inherent sacredness in the object, and you believed that and started calling yourself a Tibetan shaman, and then stared doing faith healings on your friends with that bowl, claiming that it gave you authentic Tibetan healing powers and that you had been adopted into the Tibetan tribe, it would be appropriate to call that a misrepresentation and a misappropriation.
That kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME with Native American objects and culture. It's created a very real problem, too, which ties back into the "Cherohonkey" thing, which is that it has engendered a really unfortunate suspiciousness and hostility in a lot of Native communities toward "outsiders", and that, in my opinion, really hurts the community's ability to allow the descendants of lost children to re-assimilate and bring their skillsets back to the community. Not even to start talking about the blood quantum issues, which are fundamentally racist and genocidal.
Then why are they selling it to outsiders in the first place? They can't have a realistic expectation that every person from outside the culture who buys one of these items is going to 100% treat it with the exact respect and manner for which it was intended. Clearly, theintentof the seller is to supply a demand for cultural artifacts and to make money for the culture in question. At that point, the culture/seller kind of loses control over what happens. So if it is that much of an issue or concern, they need to find a different way to make money.
Now,that obviously doesn't speak to the people outside of the culture who make and sell forgeries, replicas, etc., But that's a different issue.
Yes, and poor people who live in ghettos should just snap out of it.
I don't know, if you knew how to make things and you knew people wanted to buy them, and you didn't have a lot of options in terms of feeding your family, what would you do?
I can't help having the feeling that you are wilfully missing the point, because I've restated the same thing in a number of different ways and you're still hung up on the idea that Native Americans have a problem with the selling of THINGS, or the use of THINGS, rather than a problem with the misrepresentation of their religious practice as something that is for sale.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 07:45:09 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 02:03:24 PM
You know, I thought I had an understanding of this finally but now I'm all confused again.
Is something being sacred a personal thing or does an object have an inherent sacredness? Think that's the root of my confusion.
It depends.
But the problem I'm having with this conversation is that a whole bunch of people are caught up on the THINGS, when what I'm talking about is the INTENT. That's in the people, not the things.
And anyone who thinks there isn't a significant contingent of white boys (and girls) who buy indian drums because they want to buy into tribal identity has apparently never met one of the people we are so affectionately referring to here as "Cherohonkeys". Who, actually, are in some sense the people this thread is about, because they are the type of disenfranchised people I'm asking about.
There are layers and layers of racism at play in the word "Cherohonkey" itself, and at some point I'd love to discuss blood-quantum law and how horrific and backward it is. But first it might be nice to clear up the distinction between the objects and the people. RWHN doesn't seem to get that just because an object is the same in every material way as one used for sacred purposes, it doesn't make it a sacred object. Does anyone else have that issue? Can we yalk about it and maybe clarify it a little?
I get it fine but it's a moot point once the objects are purposefully being sold to people outside of the culture. At that point, yeah, clearly the objects aren't meant for their sacred intent, at which point, it shouldn't matter what the intent of the buyer is, because at that point, it's just a commercial good like any other commercial good.
Why are you still hung up on the completely erroneous notion that the area of contention is the intent of the buyer, when I have repeatedly stated that it isn't?
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 08:01:51 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:37:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 02:32:58 PM
Another way to think about it. I buy a Tibetan singing bowl, but I use it not to,play traditional Tibetan music. I use them in some experimental electronic music, which clearly is not the sacred intent, so am I insulting the culture and misappropriating? I would say no because I feel that I would be honoring the culture by wishing to incorporate something from the culture I respect and have admiration for in my own spiritual expression through my music.
Now, maybe if I was using them to cook soup there could be a valid complaint.
No, but if the person who sold it to you was selling it as a traditional sacred object blessed by whatever holy person, with inherent sacredness in the object, and you believed that and started calling yourself a Tibetan shaman, and then stared doing faith healings on your friends with that bowl, claiming that it gave you authentic Tibetan healing powers and that you had been adopted into the Tibetan tribe, it would be appropriate to call that a misrepresentation and a misappropriation.
That kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME with Native American objects and culture. It's created a very real problem, too, which ties back into the "Cherohonkey" thing, which is that it has engendered a really unfortunate suspiciousness and hostility in a lot of Native communities toward "outsiders", and that, in my opinion, really hurts the community's ability to allow the descendants of lost children to re-assimilate and bring their skillsets back to the community. Not even to start talking about the blood quantum issues, which are fundamentally racist and genocidal.
Then why are they selling it to outsiders in the first place? They can't have a realistic expectation that every person from outside the culture who buys one of these items is going to 100% treat it with the exact respect and manner for which it was intended. Clearly, theintentof the seller is to supply a demand for cultural artifacts and to make money for the culture in question. At that point, the culture/seller kind of loses control over what happens. So if it is that much of an issue or concern, they need to find a different way to make money.
Now,that obviously doesn't speak to the people outside of the culture who make and sell forgeries, replicas, etc., But that's a different issue.
Yes, and poor people who live in ghettos should just snap out of it.
I don't know, if you knew how to make things and you knew people wanted to buy them, and you didn't have a lot of options in terms of feeding your family, what would you do?
I can't help having the feeling that you are wilfully missing the point, because I've restated the same thing in a number of different ways and you're still hung up on the idea that Native Americans have a problem with the selling of THINGS, or the use of THINGS, rather than a problem with the misrepresentation of their religious practice as something that is for sale.
No, but what I'm telling you is that there cannot be a reasonable expectation for that to be controlled once the items are sold. Yeah, it sucks that some white guys are buying your shit and acting like morons pretending to be Shamans, but that's gonna happen if you give idiots the ability to buy your shit.
However, I tend to think the majority of people who buy cultural items tend to treat them pretty respectfully and buy themout of a sincere interest and respect for the culture. But there is fuck all you can do about the morons other than to stop selling your stuff all together.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 07:45:09 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 02:03:24 PM
You know, I thought I had an understanding of this finally but now I'm all confused again.
Is something being sacred a personal thing or does an object have an inherent sacredness? Think that's the root of my confusion.
It depends.
But the problem I'm having with this conversation is that a whole bunch of people are caught up on the THINGS, when what I'm talking about is the INTENT. That's in the people, not the things.
And anyone who thinks there isn't a significant contingent of white boys (and girls) who buy indian drums because they want to buy into tribal identity has apparently never met one of the people we are so affectionately referring to here as "Cherohonkeys". Who, actually, are in some sense the people this thread is about, because they are the type of disenfranchised people I'm asking about.
There are layers and layers of racism at play in the word "Cherohonkey" itself, and at some point I'd love to discuss blood-quantum law and how horrific and backward it is. But first it might be nice to clear up the distinction between the objects and the people. RWHN doesn't seem to get that just because an object is the same in every material way as one used for sacred purposes, it doesn't make it a sacred object. Does anyone else have that issue? Can we yalk about it and maybe clarify it a little?
I get it fine but it's a moot point once the objects are purposefully being sold to people outside of the culture. At that point, yeah, clearly the objects aren't meant for their sacred intent, at which point, it shouldn't matter what the intent of the buyer is, because at that point, it's just a commercial good like any other commercial good.
Why are you still hung up on the completely erroneous notion that the area of contention is the intent of the buyer, when I have repeatedly stated that it isn't?
Because you keep talking about it, the misappropriation, that would be the buyer doing the misappropriating, yes? I mean, that's the crux of it otherwise there wouldn't be a problem to discuss.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:37:46 AM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 08:34:54 AM
Although the difficulty of this conversation is certainly reinforcing my insight into the general frustration of the indian community I know with why the hell white people don't get what they're irritated about. I feel like there might be a more or less insurmountable cultural barrier there.
No, I won't speak for ECH, but I think our understanding is pretty clear, we just don't happen to agree with the objection. My thing is, if the culture is purposefully and willingly selling the sacred objects or symbols, you can hardly be mad at the white guy for buying them. The NA wanted the white guy to buy it and the white guy did. A transaction between two consenting cultures, if you will. Perhaps the beef should be tak en up with the members of the NA culture putting the stuff up for sale to begin with.
:lol: It's not the culture selling the items, it's outsiders. As Nigel has said, Natives DO sell items that *look* like their sacred stuff, but they'll never tell you that the item you're buying is a sacred Kachina doll. You're buying a doll that *looks* like one. It's not sold with the same intent.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 08:01:51 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 07:50:39 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:37:54 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 02:32:58 PM
Another way to think about it. I buy a Tibetan singing bowl, but I use it not to,play traditional Tibetan music. I use them in some experimental electronic music, which clearly is not the sacred intent, so am I insulting the culture and misappropriating? I would say no because I feel that I would be honoring the culture by wishing to incorporate something from the culture I respect and have admiration for in my own spiritual expression through my music.
Now, maybe if I was using them to cook soup there could be a valid complaint.
No, but if the person who sold it to you was selling it as a traditional sacred object blessed by whatever holy person, with inherent sacredness in the object, and you believed that and started calling yourself a Tibetan shaman, and then stared doing faith healings on your friends with that bowl, claiming that it gave you authentic Tibetan healing powers and that you had been adopted into the Tibetan tribe, it would be appropriate to call that a misrepresentation and a misappropriation.
That kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME with Native American objects and culture. It's created a very real problem, too, which ties back into the "Cherohonkey" thing, which is that it has engendered a really unfortunate suspiciousness and hostility in a lot of Native communities toward "outsiders", and that, in my opinion, really hurts the community's ability to allow the descendants of lost children to re-assimilate and bring their skillsets back to the community. Not even to start talking about the blood quantum issues, which are fundamentally racist and genocidal.
Then why are they selling it to outsiders in the first place? They can't have a realistic expectation that every person from outside the culture who buys one of these items is going to 100% treat it with the exact respect and manner for which it was intended. Clearly, theintentof the seller is to supply a demand for cultural artifacts and to make money for the culture in question. At that point, the culture/seller kind of loses control over what happens. So if it is that much of an issue or concern, they need to find a different way to make money.
Now,that obviously doesn't speak to the people outside of the culture who make and sell forgeries, replicas, etc., But that's a different issue.
Yes, and poor people who live in ghettos should just snap out of it.
I don't know, if you knew how to make things and you knew people wanted to buy them, and you didn't have a lot of options in terms of feeding your family, what would you do?
I can't help having the feeling that you are wilfully missing the point, because I've restated the same thing in a number of different ways and you're still hung up on the idea that Native Americans have a problem with the selling of THINGS, or the use of THINGS, rather than a problem with the misrepresentation of their religious practice as something that is for sale.
No, but what I'm telling you is that there cannot be a reasonable expectation for that to be controlled once the items are sold. Yeah, it sucks that some white guys are buying your shit and acting like morons pretending to be Shamans, but that's gonna happen if you give idiots the ability to buy your shit.
However, I tend to think the majority of people who buy cultural items tend to treat them pretty respectfully and buy themout of a sincere interest and respect for the culture. But there is fuck all you can do about the morons other than to stop selling your stuff all together.
:lol: you do realize our culture still depends on oppressing and marginalizing these people, right? Or portraying them in ways we want to see them?
Whether that's true or not, my point still stands, once you put something into the market, you cannot have any reasonable expectation to be able to control how it is used. And you are kidding yourself if you think only outsiders are sellong these cultural items, they are not. Plenty of NA tribes willingly andpurposefully sell their stuff to outsiders to make money. It's like any other culture in any other part of the world selling traditional items to rich tourists. Once you put it out there, it's out there.
Yes, but they aren't selling them as sacred objects. It's a drum or a doll or a pipe. It's not a sacred drum, a Kachina doll, or a sacred pipe.
Doesn't matter. Once it's on the market, it's no longer up to you, or your culture, how the items are used. Seller beware. That's how the marketplace works, and there is fuck all that can be done about it, other, than to not sell the stuff in the first place.
:lulz: You still have white people selling Native stuff as "sacred", either willfully because they want money, or thinking that if it *looks* like a sacred drum, it must be a sacred drum. I would hazard a guess that white people are the ones selling most of the stuff, tbh.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on December 01, 2012, 04:50:06 PM
I think this thread has become less about "cultural misappropriation" (whatever that may actually be) and more about "I wish idiots would stop being idiots and assholes would stop being assholes". Which, obviously, ain't gonna happen.
I think the basic issue is that some people, like me and possibly you, are of the opinion that "cultural misappropriation", while looking like a concept to the casual observer, is actually an academic cash-cow dressed up to look like a concept, while others take it seriously because they are... naive.
The specific situations in which someone holds a grudge against someone else for selling something that they think they shouldn't be selling are various and when cultural artifacts are involved, there is usually also a power inequality involved. What it boils down to is that someone who feels they are entitled to represent one culture, which is the underdog culture that was often rather unfairly pressed into that situation, takes offence at people (whether of the same culture or of the dominant culture) commercialising their culture. "We are reduced to this". They say. "They took our land (and raped it) and our way of life (and offered something that seems... somehow less satisfying) and our children (and shaped them in their own image), and now they wish us to make them trinkets that are superficially similar to the ones we used to make, and we comply, because we can't think of a better way to make money, ultimately to stay alive. Largely, of course, because in addition to the underprivilege that results from our blighted history, they are still treating us, the remnants, the descendants, like dirt."
And that's sad enough. But it's not sad because of the "cultural misappropriation" thing that people have doubtless got social sciences research grants to investigate.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 08:54:35 PM
Whether that's true or not, my point still stands, once you put something into the market, you cannot have any reasonable expectation to be able to control how it is used. And you are kidding yourself if you think only outsiders are sellong these cultural items, they are not. Plenty of NA tribes willingly andpurposefully sell their stuff to outsiders to make money. It's like any other culture in any other part of the world selling traditional items to rich tourists. Once you put it out there, it's out there.
:lulz: I don't think I'm "kidding myself" so much as you're "not actually reading what I wrote". You can misrepresent what I actually said as many times as you want, but repeating it doesn't make it true. I'm done explaining, because you're either misunderstanding wilfully or you're misunderstanding because you have a cognitive problem, and either way it's a waste of my time to keep trying to clarify for you.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 09:08:49 PM
:lulz: You still have white people selling Native stuff as "sacred", either willfully because they want money, or thinking that if it *looks* like a sacred drum, it must be a sacred drum. I would hazard a guess that white people are the ones selling most of the stuff, tbh.
Prove it.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 08:30:09 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 07:45:09 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 02:03:24 PM
You know, I thought I had an understanding of this finally but now I'm all confused again.
Is something being sacred a personal thing or does an object have an inherent sacredness? Think that's the root of my confusion.
It depends.
But the problem I'm having with this conversation is that a whole bunch of people are caught up on the THINGS, when what I'm talking about is the INTENT. That's in the people, not the things.
And anyone who thinks there isn't a significant contingent of white boys (and girls) who buy indian drums because they want to buy into tribal identity has apparently never met one of the people we are so affectionately referring to here as "Cherohonkeys". Who, actually, are in some sense the people this thread is about, because they are the type of disenfranchised people I'm asking about.
There are layers and layers of racism at play in the word "Cherohonkey" itself, and at some point I'd love to discuss blood-quantum law and how horrific and backward it is. But first it might be nice to clear up the distinction between the objects and the people. RWHN doesn't seem to get that just because an object is the same in every material way as one used for sacred purposes, it doesn't make it a sacred object. Does anyone else have that issue? Can we yalk about it and maybe clarify it a little?
I get it fine but it's a moot point once the objects are purposefully being sold to people outside of the culture. At that point, yeah, clearly the objects aren't meant for their sacred intent, at which point, it shouldn't matter what the intent of the buyer is, because at that point, it's just a commercial good like any other commercial good.
Why are you still hung up on the completely erroneous notion that the area of contention is the intent of the buyer, when I have repeatedly stated that it isn't?
Because you keep talking about it, the misappropriation, that would be the buyer doing the misappropriating, yes? I mean, that's the crux of it otherwise there wouldn't be a problem to discuss.
OK. ONE more attempt:
It's the person profiting who is misappropriating the culture and using it to market their snake oil, which is why my original example was about fake shamans selling entry to fake inipi ceremonies.
Fuck it, you're going back on ignore.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 09:24:34 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 08:30:09 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 08:03:53 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 07:45:09 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 04:30:36 PM
Quote from: Sita on December 01, 2012, 02:03:24 PM
You know, I thought I had an understanding of this finally but now I'm all confused again.
Is something being sacred a personal thing or does an object have an inherent sacredness? Think that's the root of my confusion.
It depends.
But the problem I'm having with this conversation is that a whole bunch of people are caught up on the THINGS, when what I'm talking about is the INTENT. That's in the people, not the things.
And anyone who thinks there isn't a significant contingent of white boys (and girls) who buy indian drums because they want to buy into tribal identity has apparently never met one of the people we are so affectionately referring to here as "Cherohonkeys". Who, actually, are in some sense the people this thread is about, because they are the type of disenfranchised people I'm asking about.
There are layers and layers of racism at play in the word "Cherohonkey" itself, and at some point I'd love to discuss blood-quantum law and how horrific and backward it is. But first it might be nice to clear up the distinction between the objects and the people. RWHN doesn't seem to get that just because an object is the same in every material way as one used for sacred purposes, it doesn't make it a sacred object. Does anyone else have that issue? Can we yalk about it and maybe clarify it a little?
I get it fine but it's a moot point once the objects are purposefully being sold to people outside of the culture. At that point, yeah, clearly the objects aren't meant for their sacred intent, at which point, it shouldn't matter what the intent of the buyer is, because at that point, it's just a commercial good like any other commercial good.
Why are you still hung up on the completely erroneous notion that the area of contention is the intent of the buyer, when I have repeatedly stated that it isn't?
Because you keep talking about it, the misappropriation, that would be the buyer doing the misappropriating, yes? I mean, that's the crux of it otherwise there wouldn't be a problem to discuss.
OK. ONE more attempt:
It's the person profiting who is misappropriating the culture and using it to market their snake oil, which is why my original example was about fake shamans selling entry to fake inipi ceremonies.
Okay, fine, but what about the Natives who are selling to the very same white people?
I think maybe MY point is getting lost by you. I obviously get the beef with the people outside of the Native culture misappropriating and selling copies, replicas, etc., of Native culture items. I've stipulated that a couple of times now. However, as I said, I know that Natives also sell their actual cultural items to outsiders. And in both cases, the outsiders have the same motivations to buy.
I have brought this point up because,maybe not by you, but some in this thread have brought up the issue of how the buyer behaves with these purchased items. So my point to that is that the Natives would have to also look to themselves because they would be contributing to that issue by putting their cultural items on the marketplace.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 09:35:08 PM
I think maybe MY point is getting lost by you. I obviously get the beef with the people outside of the Native culture misappropriating and selling copies, replicas, etc., of Native culture items. I've stipulated that a couple of times now. However, as I said, I know that Natives also sell their actual cultural items to outsiders. And in both cases, the outsiders have the same motivations to buy.
I have brought this point up because,maybe not by you, but some in this thread have brought up the issue of how the buyer behaves with these purchased items. So my point to that is that the Natives would have to also look to themselves because they would be contributing to that issue by putting their cultural items on the marketplace.
But the fact that it's a cultural item doesn't make it a sacred item. Does that make any sense to you? It can be identical in workmanship and design, but that doesn't make it sacred. A guy can make rawhide drums all day long and sell them in a shop, and those drums are not sacred. The same guy can make an identical rawhide drum, say that it's sacred, and give it to his friend, and that drum is sacred. Regardless of the race of the friend. That friend can then say to her daughter, here's a sacred drum given to me by a dear friend, and give it to her, and the drum is sacred. The daughter's junkie boyfriend steals the drum and sells it to some random guy, now it isn't sacred anymore. Say the guy happens to know the girl it was stolen from and gives it back to her, now the drum's sanctity has been restored. Yes, it's illogical; it's religion.
Further, indians who DO purport to sell the sacredness and the religious ceremonies (SELL, mind you, not share) are very often considered traitors, and are often ostracized or disowned. It creates huge, drawn-out dramas in the Native community.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 09:22:58 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 09:08:49 PM
:lulz: You still have white people selling Native stuff as "sacred", either willfully because they want money, or thinking that if it *looks* like a sacred drum, it must be a sacred drum. I would hazard a guess that white people are the ones selling most of the stuff, tbh.
Prove it.
Uh, a lot of that shit is sold as Native American, in my observation, sold as "sacred". I'm pretty sure most Native sellers aren't going to
sell sacred objects (excluding the traitors Nigel mentioned). A lot of it is inaccurate - a mishmash of tribes that resembles the stereotype of Natives that we have (and rather than specifically say which tribe, it just says "Indian" or "Native American", unless it's something the tribe is famous for, like Navajo pots). A lot of "Native American" stuff is sold by retailers, like Forever 21 and Urban Outfitters, or shit like food or makeup. You can also tell when the women (because it's most often women depicted, unless it's an Indian head and then it's usually men) look like white girls in Native garb.
Also,
What's in a Name? Can Native Americans Control Outsiders' Use of their Tribal Names? (http://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/united-states/whats-name-can-native-americans-control-outsi)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-kane/forever-21-columbus-day_b_1000788.html
http://beyondbuckskin.blogspot.com/2012/02/etsy-is-breeding-ground-for.html
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 09:35:08 PM
I think maybe MY point is getting lost by you. I obviously get the beef with the people outside of the Native culture misappropriating and selling copies, replicas, etc., of Native culture items. I've stipulated that a couple of times now. However, as I said, I know that Natives also sell their actual cultural items to outsiders. And in both cases, the outsiders have the same motivations to buy.
I have brought this point up because,maybe not by you, but some in this thread have brought up the issue of how the buyer behaves with these purchased items. So my point to that is that the Natives would have to also look to themselves because they would be contributing to that issue by putting their cultural items on the marketplace.
Appropriation on the part of the buyer - and assuming the pipe you just bought from the tourist trap down the way is sacred IS such
IMO - is still appropriation. It's tacking an idea about the seller's culture onto the item because the buyer wants to feel like they bought something *~special~*, regardless of what the seller told them.
It's presumptuous, if nothing else.
So, back to the original scenario I was talking about: the reason many Native Americans object to non-Natives (and, as I've said about four times now, Natives as well) SELLING what are misrepresented as sacred ceremonies and objects, usually under the guise of being sanctioned by some tribe or tribal elder, is because they feel that it is a sort of cultural slander. It's a type of impersonation, like impersonating a doctor or a lawyer, only there are no laws against it.
Imagine, for a moment, that there is a man in your town purporting to do what you do, only he goes into schools and teaches some really, really fucked-up stuff. He's getting paid for it, making total bank, and he's really popular, but he's disseminating total misinformation, using your agency's name.
For the record, although I'm sure there are people out there, neither I nor any indians I know have ANY problem with selling Native American arts and crafts, or Native American-inspired arts and crafts. That's a non-issue. Outright misrepresentation, racist packaging, and etc. are what's offensive. Being offended by something isn't the same thing as trying to control other people's behavior, and trying to explain that it's offensive, and why, is also not trying to control other people's behavior; it's operating under the assumption, perhaps misguided, that most people are decent human beings who would rather not behave offensively, and would rather be aware of things that give offense than to unwittingly go around offending people.
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 09:58:46 PM
So, back to the original scenario I was talking about: the reason many Native Americans object to non-Natives (and, as I've said about four times now, Natives as well) SELLING what are misrepresented as sacred ceremonies and objects, usually under the guise of being sanctioned by some tribe or tribal elder, is because they feel that it is a sort of cultural slander. It's a type of impersonation, like impersonating a doctor or a lawyer, only there are no laws against it.
Imagine, for a moment, that there is a man in your town purporting to do what you do, only he goes into schools and teaches some really, really fucked-up stuff. He's getting paid for it, making total bank, and he's really popular, but he's disseminating total misinformation, using your agency's name.
Like I said, I get the argument about the phonies selling phonies. But it really felt like in a few places in this thread, or maybe it was one of the other ones, that people were getting mad at the buyers, and my thing with that is you don't know the intention of the buyer. Many peole I know who like to have Native American things like to have them out of a deep respect for the culture. It isn't to be some pretentious hipster dipshit. So I get your argument, I just think it is important to not be too cynical and assume every personbuying this stuff is aninsensitive idiot.
I think most people don't realize they're being insensitive.
Jeezus, give the unquestioning cynicism a rest. Is your glass ever half-full?
I also have to add that an incredible percentage of the white population seem to have this absolutely bizarre notion that everything Native American is in some way sacred or ceremonial. Hair clips, socks, window decorations, whatever. If people in a reservation gift shop are making that assumption, that's really not the seller's problem. I've never been in a reservation gift shop that didn't have little informative cards or pamphlets explaining that the crafts are not ceremonial items, but for some reason it seems like a large percentage of the population REALLY REALLY want that dreamcatcher to actually be sacred, and no amount of explaining that it's JUST ORNAMENTAL can't dissuade them.
At least there is some cultural curiousity there, even if it is naive. It's a fuck ton better than isolationists.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 10:10:52 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 09:58:46 PM
So, back to the original scenario I was talking about: the reason many Native Americans object to non-Natives (and, as I've said about four times now, Natives as well) SELLING what are misrepresented as sacred ceremonies and objects, usually under the guise of being sanctioned by some tribe or tribal elder, is because they feel that it is a sort of cultural slander. It's a type of impersonation, like impersonating a doctor or a lawyer, only there are no laws against it.
Imagine, for a moment, that there is a man in your town purporting to do what you do, only he goes into schools and teaches some really, really fucked-up stuff. He's getting paid for it, making total bank, and he's really popular, but he's disseminating total misinformation, using your agency's name.
Like I said, I get the argument about the phonies selling phonies. But it really felt like in a few places in this thread, or maybe it was one of the other ones, that people were getting mad at the buyers, and my thing with that is you don't know the intention of the buyer. Many peole I know who like to have Native American things like to have them out of a deep respect for the culture. It isn't to be some pretentious hipster dipshit. So I get your argument, I just think it is important to not be too cynical and assume every personbuying this stuff is aninsensitive idiot.
That's actually the whole point of this thread. Right there. So I guess we're on the same page.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 10:18:55 PM
Jeezus, give the unquestioning cynicism a rest. Is your glass ever half-full?
Actually, I'm giving people the benefit of the doubt. I generally assume that people don't mean to be insensitive because they don't realize how offensive whatever it is is.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 10:27:32 PM
At least there is some cultural curiousity there, even if it is naive. It's a fuck ton better than isolationists.
What
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 10:18:55 PM
Jeezus, give the unquestioning cynicism a rest. Is your glass ever half-full?
What on earth is cynical about thinking that most people would rather not be offensive, and only do it out of a lack of awareness? :?
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 10:30:39 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 10:18:55 PM
Jeezus, give the unquestioning cynicism a rest. Is your glass ever half-full?
What on earth is cynical about thinking that most people would rather not be offensive, and only do it out of a lack of awareness? :?
The cynical bit is assuming everyone has buried prejudice that they have to struggle to control or work against.
We live in a society full of prejudice. Little things we don't even question because they're "normal".
Ugh, sorry, your cynicism is just too thick, it's nauseating frankly.
Right, and your insistence that YOUR experience with people you work with (who, if I may note, are probably the kind of people aware of subtle biases) is universally applicable, whereas there's scads and scads of literature that disagrees with you, is fucking obnoxious.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 10:36:35 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 10:30:39 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 10:18:55 PM
Jeezus, give the unquestioning cynicism a rest. Is your glass ever half-full?
What on earth is cynical about thinking that most people would rather not be offensive, and only do it out of a lack of awareness? :?
The cynical bit is assuming everyone has buried prejudice that they have to struggle to control or work against.
Well, the available evidence shows that everyone who grows up in a culture that is full of embedded prejudices does absorb those prejudices to some extent, some moreso than others. This includes the people who are the victims of prejudice, and that has negative consequences for their self-image. You have heard of stereotype threat? That is only one example of a type of negative consequence.
Stereotype threat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html?_r=0
Internalized racism:
http://jbs.sagepub.com/content/42/4/690.abstract
Some explorations on implicit (unconscious) prejudice and racism:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-implicit-prejudice
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980930082237.htm
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201204/studies-unconscious-bias-suggest-racism-not-necessarily-perpetrated-ra
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/unconscious-racial-bias-shapes-trust-money/story?id=13437350#.ULqLxYU_1Gc
http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/19/inside-the-racist-mind/
http://newamericamedia.org/2012/05/scholars-say-unconscious-bias-leads-to-discrimination.php
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/07.17/15-prejudice.html
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 10:55:46 PM
Ugh, sorry, your cynicism is just too thick, it's nauseating frankly.
U trollin'? :lulz:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 10:59:35 PM
Right, and your insistence that YOUR experience with people you work with (who, if I may note, are probably the kind of people aware of subtle biases) is universally applicable, whereas there's scads and scads of literature that disagrees with you, is fucking obnoxious.
I've never claimed any kind of universality at all, my whole point is to counter the universality YOU have applied to everyone. My point isn't that everyone is free of latent or buried prejudice. My point is that not everyone is burdened with latent or buried prejudice.
Oh FFS.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:05:52 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 10:59:35 PM
Right, and your insistence that YOUR experience with people you work with (who, if I may note, are probably the kind of people aware of subtle biases) is universally applicable, whereas there's scads and scads of literature that disagrees with you, is fucking obnoxious.
I've never claimed any kind of universality at all, my whole point is to counter the universality YOU have applied to everyone. My point isn't that everyone is free of latent or buried prejudice. My point is that not everyone is burdened with latent or buried prejudice.
Well, the available evidence shows that everyone who grows up in a culture that is full of embedded prejudices does absorb those prejudices to some extent, some moreso than others. This includes the people who are the victims of prejudice, and that has negative consequences for their self-image. You have heard of stereotype threat? That is only one example of a type of negative consequence.
Stereotype threat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html?_r=0
Internalized racism:
http://jbs.sagepub.com/content/42/4/690.abstract
Some explorations on implicit (unconscious) prejudice and racism:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-implicit-prejudice
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980930082237.htm
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201204/studies-unconscious-bias-suggest-racism-not-necessarily-perpetrated-ra
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/unconscious-racial-bias-shapes-trust-money/story?id=13437350#.ULqLxYU_1Gc
http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/19/inside-the-racist-mind/
http://newamericamedia.org/2012/05/scholars-say-unconscious-bias-leads-to-discrimination.php
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/07.17/15-prejudice.html
You made the argument, don't grumble at me. If you don't believe it is a universal say so. Do you believe it is a universal in all people in our society, yes or no?
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 11:15:55 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:05:52 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 10:59:35 PM
Right, and your insistence that YOUR experience with people you work with (who, if I may note, are probably the kind of people aware of subtle biases) is universally applicable, whereas there's scads and scads of literature that disagrees with you, is fucking obnoxious.
I've never claimed any kind of universality at all, my whole point is to counter the universality YOU have applied to everyone. My point isn't that everyone is free of latent or buried prejudice. My point is that not everyone is burdened with latent or buried prejudice.
Well, the available evidence shows that everyone who grows up in a culture that is full of embedded prejudices does absorb those prejudices to some extent, some moreso than others. This includes the people who are the victims of prejudice, and that has negative consequences for their self-image. You have heard of stereotype threat? That is only one example of a type of negative consequence.
Stereotype threat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html?_r=0)
Internalized racism:
http://jbs.sagepub.com/content/42/4/690.abstract (http://jbs.sagepub.com/content/42/4/690.abstract)
Some explorations on implicit (unconscious) prejudice and racism:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-implicit-prejudice (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-implicit-prejudice)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980930082237.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980930082237.htm)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201204/studies-unconscious-bias-suggest-racism-not-necessarily-perpetrated-ra (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201204/studies-unconscious-bias-suggest-racism-not-necessarily-perpetrated-ra)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/unconscious-racial-bias-shapes-trust-money/story?id=13437350#.ULqLxYU_1Gc (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/unconscious-racial-bias-shapes-trust-money/story?id=13437350#.ULqLxYU_1Gc)
http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/19/inside-the-racist-mind/ (http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/19/inside-the-racist-mind/)
http://newamericamedia.org/2012/05/scholars-say-unconscious-bias-leads-to-discrimination.php (http://newamericamedia.org/2012/05/scholars-say-unconscious-bias-leads-to-discrimination.php)
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/07.17/15-prejudice.html (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/07.17/15-prejudice.html)
Hey, guess what, I'm not a speed-reading robot.
Also, just so you know, the internalized racism one is an abstract, it would be more helpful if you posted the whole article, which I'm assuming you have read since you are offering it as evidence.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:16:45 PM
You made the argument, don't grumble at me. If you don't believe it is a universal say so. Do you believe it is a universal in all people in our society, yes or no?
I sure do. Varying degrees between various people, but yes, I think everyone has some subtle biases they ought to root out.
I also don't buy the idea that you're somehow 100% free of all biases.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 11:25:39 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:16:45 PM
You made the argument, don't grumble at me. If you don't believe it is a universal say so. Do you believe it is a universal in all people in our society, yes or no?
I sure do. Varying degrees between various people, but yes, I think everyone has some subtle biases they ought to root out.
I also don't buy the idea that you're somehow 100% free of all biases.
I'm sure you don't. That deficit-orientation is going to do wonders for you. Go change the world!
Mocking people is my sacred tradition, so this thread makes me sad :cry:
Quote from: Cain on December 01, 2012, 11:30:26 PM
Mocking people is my sacred tradition, so this thread makes me sad :cry:
Be nice to the white boys! They only want to be loved.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:20:20 PM
Quote from: FROTISTED FUDGE CAK on December 01, 2012, 11:15:55 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on December 01, 2012, 11:05:52 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on December 01, 2012, 10:59:35 PM
Right, and your insistence that YOUR experience with people you work with (who, if I may note, are probably the kind of people aware of subtle biases) is universally applicable, whereas there's scads and scads of literature that disagrees with you, is fucking obnoxious.
I've never claimed any kind of universality at all, my whole point is to counter the universality YOU have applied to everyone. My point isn't that everyone is free of latent or buried prejudice. My point is that not everyone is burdened with latent or buried prejudice.
Well, the available evidence shows that everyone who grows up in a culture that is full of embedded prejudices does absorb those prejudices to some extent, some moreso than others. This includes the people who are the victims of prejudice, and that has negative consequences for their self-image. You have heard of stereotype threat? That is only one example of a type of negative consequence.
Stereotype threat:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/intelligence-and-the-stereotype-threat.html?_r=0)
Internalized racism:
http://jbs.sagepub.com/content/42/4/690.abstract (http://jbs.sagepub.com/content/42/4/690.abstract)
Some explorations on implicit (unconscious) prejudice and racism:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-implicit-prejudice (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-implicit-prejudice)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980930082237.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/09/980930082237.htm)
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201204/studies-unconscious-bias-suggest-racism-not-necessarily-perpetrated-ra (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-the-lines/201204/studies-unconscious-bias-suggest-racism-not-necessarily-perpetrated-ra)
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/unconscious-racial-bias-shapes-trust-money/story?id=13437350#.ULqLxYU_1Gc (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/unconscious-racial-bias-shapes-trust-money/story?id=13437350#.ULqLxYU_1Gc)
http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/19/inside-the-racist-mind/ (http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/19/inside-the-racist-mind/)
http://newamericamedia.org/2012/05/scholars-say-unconscious-bias-leads-to-discrimination.php (http://newamericamedia.org/2012/05/scholars-say-unconscious-bias-leads-to-discrimination.php)
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/07.17/15-prejudice.html (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/07.17/15-prejudice.html)
Hey, guess what, I'm not a speed-reading robot.
Also, just so you know, the internalized racism one is an abstract, it would be more helpful if you posted the whole article, which I'm assuming you have read since you are offering it as evidence.
That would be against copyright law, but the abstract outlines the study's conclusions. I assume that because you work for a government agency you have access to JSTOR and other engines if you want to read the whole thing.
Here are some other interesting articles on internalized prejudice:
http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1172.aspx
http://her.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/1/97.full
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/ihpitems.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/internalized-racism
http://revelandriot.com/resources/internalized-homophobia
http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/2012/apr/04/internalized-racism/
http://www.culturalbridgestojustice.org/programs/sexism/internalized-sexism/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wade-davis-jr/reflections-on-self-hatred-and-relationships_b_1431996.html
http://crackingthecodes.org/hugh-vasquez-internalized-racism/
You have a daughter, right? So you are probably interested in how things like internalized sexism can affect adolescent girls. I know there are some really good books on that subject available, including a lot of new ones since I was reading about it when my girls were little. I'll look some up and see if I can get back to you with titles.
Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 28, 2012, 06:22:02 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on November 28, 2012, 06:18:42 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on November 28, 2012, 06:05:18 PM
A person with Shiva-shorts is a) exploiting Hindu culture commercially and b) putting their ass on one of the most important deities in the religion. It's stripping the meaning off Shiva because he kind of looks cool, which is kind of an asshole move, imo.
All this is really starting to rub up against my dislike of religion in general. I don't want to be told that I must be respectful of anyone's superstitions.
More broadly, I don't like being TOLD that I should be respectful of ANYTHING. I'll choose what I want to respect based on whether or not I think it's respectable, not based on whether or not it might hurt somebody's wittle fee-fees.
ECH, if you happen to be wandering through, this is the post upon which I based the JJ Principle.