Originally posted by Lews
I don't really think he's as much an individualist as you think, actually. Bannon et al. are very community focused - just, you know, the right sort of community.
This article completely reinforces your statement. Tends to lean as fascism, but not as we (used to) know it.
Originally posted by Lews
I don't really think he's as much an individualist as you think, actually. Bannon et al. are very community focused - just, you know, the right sort of community.
Is it a Bannon thing, or has he given signs he's more community-oriented now? His cabinet is a mess, ideologically, as far as I remember (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), with nutcases lumped together with ordinary generals and CEO, so I may have missed a more "community"-oriented turn.
quote:
Originally posted by Paradox Lost
I think the expression has value in that it lends itself to a more developed, nuanced understanding of some of the more insidious socio-ethno attitudes that would otherwise be meaninglessly blanketed up as 'racism.' I wouldn't even say that acts of cultural appropriation are necessarily racist or supremacist, but just speaks toward the way that people of an often privileged majority extract and superficially adorn their lives with the otherwise deep rooted features of another culture just because it appears novel them.
I get the last bit and its good intentions, but I also find it troubling. To what extent can a member of a culture say that someone from another culture is(n't) eligible to adopt something?
Case in point, I'm Brazilian. We dress white clothes for New Year's Eve. This is, to the best of my knowledge, a tradition that comes from Candomblé, an Afro-Brazilian religion. So there you have something (1) with religious undertones and (2) specifically from my culture. Now, if I see a foreigner dressed in white clothes for NYE because they think it looks good and they're inspired by what they saw in Rio, is it my right to "protect" my culture? Or, as someone from a Catholic family, should I be insulted by the cathedral-shaped love hotels I saw in Japan?
I find it would be pretty prejudicial of me to complain about either case... But maybe I'm missing the point. (Am I?)
quote:
Originally posted by Paradox Lost
I would also be hesitant to lump the two terms together because I sense that calling it 'racist' jumps the gun on the whole 'value judgement' process. I'm sure there's value judgements to be made, but beginning our discussion with them prevents us from more thoughtfully and empathetically understanding what's actually happening when we see streets full of drunk white people in their sugar skull makeup on Dia de los Muertos , or dreadlocked stoners draped in Rastafarian aesthetic.
It's that I don't get what could be wrong about it. Does it really matter what another person is wearing if they're not out to harm anyone? :conf:
quote:
Originally posted by DJ RANN
This article completely reinforces your statement. Tends to lean as fascism, but not as we (used to) know it.
So should the word really be used?
My point, however, is that even if you grant that Trump is borderline fascist (which he doesn't seem to be unless you stretch the meaning of the word), it's often used by the left to refer to anyone they don't like, even Clinton. The overused to such an extent that if an actual fascist ever shows up, no one will care about the warnings any longer.
ziptnf
quote:
Originally posted by Paradox Lost
I think the expression has value in that it lends itself to a more developed, nuanced understanding of some of the more insidious socio-ethno attitudes that would otherwise be meaninglessly blanketed up as 'racism.' I wouldn't even say that acts of cultural appropriation are necessarily racist or supremacist, but just speaks toward the way that people of an often privileged majority extract and superficially adorn their lives with the otherwise deep rooted features of another culture just because it appears novel them.
I would also be hesitant to lump the two terms together because I sense that calling it 'racist' jumps the gun on the whole 'value judgement' process. I'm sure there's value judgements to be made, but beginning our discussion with them prevents us from more thoughtfully and empathetically understanding what's actually happening when we see streets full of drunk white people in their sugar skull makeup on Dia de los Muertos , or dreadlocked stoners draped in Rastafarian aesthetic.
Agree with everything you said. Also don't forget the white girls at music festivals wearing Native American headdresses.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by ziptnf
Agree with everything you said. Also don't forget the white girls at music festivals wearing Native American headdresses.
I'd appreciate if you could tell me what I'm missing then. Maybe it's the different backgrounds, but I really don't get it :conf:
ziptnf
Your example of wearing white during NYE, while it is clearly a cultural tradition, is far too broad of a tradition to be remotely considered appropriation. Everyone owns white clothes, so that doesn't really apply. Plus it's a rather obscure tradition, if I'm being honest.
White people (Americans, for the most part) are especially notorious of borrowing more deeply-rooted traditions and borrowing them for their own. See my example on Native American headdresses. It "looks cute" and makes white girls "feel more in touch with their natural surroundings" while simultaneously ting on everything that a traditional Native American headdress stands for. It's a fine line, certainly, but in my example, the cultural tradition is unique to that culture, and white girls borrowing it for novelty cheapens and insults it.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by ziptnf
I want to agree with you, but here's the problem I keep going back to:
You say that the adoption of an ornament, for example, from another culture, without borrowing its meaning within that culture, would be an insult (e.g. wearing a headband but failing to grasp what it stands for). However, this means I'd have to side with conservatives when we ourselves want to borrow something from a broader culture, but removing the traditional constraints, doesn't it? Not sure switching from an object to a ritual distorts the argument, but this is the first thing I could think of:
For example, the Japanese often have mock Christian weddings as part of a larger ceremony, in which they hire a white person for the sake of looking Christian (even if they aren't). If you're deeply religious, you may find that insulting for all the obvious reasons, but is it an argument against these mock weddings?
What if two men, rather than a yippie Japanese couple, do the same? Would it be okay for pious Christians to be against it? My libertarian streak finds it a bit problematic to say "no", because the two men should have the ceremony they want, just as the Asian couple.
So, if I grant that "you shouldn't do X because it's an insult to the culture it belongs to", I'm afraid that would make me a conservative only when it suits my prejudices... Wouldn't it?
ziptnf
The point you are missing is that I am applying cultural appropriation to instances where the person who is "borrowing" the cultural tradition is doing so from a standpoint of historical advantages. Generally white Americans have not been marginalized to the extent which Native Americans have, so attempting to borrow parts of their culture is obviously insulting since they have never been through the struggles where they can apply those same traditions and practices. Do you want to know why Eminem was never accused of appropriation by black people? Because he grew up in the white trash slums and streets of Detroit with a drug addicted mother and a ed up childhood. He had his street cred, so there was no appropriation when he began to adopt the hip-hop culture.
DJ RANN
quote:
Originally posted by ziptnf
Your example of wearing white during NYE, while it is clearly a cultural tradition, is far too broad of a tradition to be remotely considered appropriation. Everyone owns white clothes, so that doesn't really apply. Plus it's a rather obscure tradition, if I'm being honest.
White people (Americans, for the most part) are especially notorious of borrowing more deeply-rooted traditions and borrowing them for their own. See my example on Native American headdresses. It "looks cute" and makes white girls "feel more in touch with their natural surroundings" while simultaneously ting on everything that a traditional Native American headdress stands for. It's a fine line, certainly, but in my example, the cultural tradition is unique to that culture, and white girls borrowing it for novelty cheapens and insults it.
While I get what you're trying to say here regarding the difference between broad cultural traditions and ethnic appropriations, you're getting in to the pseudo-political correctness territory which I detest and is something that Trump really channeled well, and won't apologize for it.....
On point; pilgrims/natives included.
ziptnf
I watched that Bill Maher episode last week, and I agree with him too. But I'm not running for office, nor am I expecting white people to apologize for being white. If you notice, I mentioned there being a fine line between appropriation and non-offense. I never felt like the Washington Redskins had to change their names (although the Washington Americans would be a much better team name imo) but I understand the points from both sides of the issue. Liberals certainly need to back off the PC base policy that they are trying to push, because they can't force the world to hold hands and sing kumbaya. It's obvious that it didn't work due to the fact that a majority of Americans voted for an obviously despicable man. So I'm with you. But by the same token, I'm not going to praise the white girl at Bonnaroo for "getting in touch with her cultural side" by donning some Indian feathers.
SYSTEM-J
quote:
Originally posted by ziptnf
The point you are missing is that I am applying cultural appropriation to instances where the person who is "borrowing" the cultural tradition is doing so from a standpoint of historical advantages.
That's the only difference between "cultural appropriation" and regular globalisation. I generally feel that "cultural appropriation" is often just a load of angry bollocks, wielded by people who are irate about white privilege and don't like white people doing what every culture does to every other culture in the 21st century.
There are arguably more subtle distinctions though; for example, what Edward Said dubbed "Orientalism". The West has a way of viewing the entirety of Asian culture as some interchangeable Eastern exoticism, squashing countless distinct cultures down into simplistic and insulting notions of mysticisim and spirituality. Although Said wrote this specifically about Asia, in practise it can apply to anything percieved "non-Western", from African to Aborigean to Native American cultural artefacts.
All this can overlap at times with cultural appropriation, but I would consider it distinct because the offence is not the appropriation so much as the attitude towards another culture. What is charged as cultural appropriation is very often just ignorance; cultural flotsam washing up on distant shores and being picked up by locals who have no real idea or interest in what it originally constituted. That's not racist as such, whereas the ideological flattening of cultural depth to fit with lingering colonial preconceptions very arguably is.
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by ziptnf
The point you are missing is that I am applying cultural appropriation to instances where the person who is "borrowing" the cultural tradition is doing so from a standpoint of historical advantages.
Okay, I think I see your point now, and I understand why the Japanese example doesn't work.
quote:
Originally posted by ziptnf
Generally white Americans have not been marginalized to the extent which Native Americans have, so attempting to borrow parts of their culture is obviously insulting since they have never been through the struggles where they can apply those same traditions and practices. Do you want to know why Eminem was never accused of appropriation by black people? Because he grew up in the white trash slums and streets of Detroit with a drug addicted mother and a ed up childhood. He had his street cred, so there was no appropriation when he began to adopt the hip-hop culture.
I see. I get the good intention behind the concept, I just find it a bit complicated because...
quote:
Originally posted by ziptnf
Liberals certainly need to back off the PC base policy that they are trying to push, because they can't force the world to hold hands and sing kumbaya. It's obvious that it didn't work due to the fact that a majority of Americans voted for an obviously despicable man. So I'm with you. But by the same token, I'm not going to praise the white girl at Bonnaroo for "getting in touch with her cultural side" by donning some Indian feathers.
... it's this anger you mentioned that puts me off and makes me wonder if jettisoning the expression altogether wouldn't be best (my poor grasp of the concept is probably a result of seeing it being preached mostly by angry people almost speaking angrish and misunderstanding it a bit).
I still find it a bit complicated to be applied consistently, but I guess that's because I need to have a think first :)
wotyzoid
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
Or are you talking about something else?
I don't know. When he says "they're bringing drugs, they're rapists," or "we have to find out what's going on with these people," to me, that's fascism. Even if it's just election talk and he doesn't mean it.
