|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 22 2016 20:24 Incognoto wrote: I heard about the prison strikes. They really do treat prisoners like crap in the USA, you can watch John Oliver's take on that on youtube.
The issue with prisons in the USA is that they're essentially for profit. So they don't want people to get fixed they just want them to come back and serve more time.
This has apparently been going on ever since they "ended" slavery. There was a clause that said that prisoners could be used as slaves, and so some of the black people who were freed were promptly arrested for whatever reason that could be found and put back to work in the for-profit prisons (which were conveniently built on plantations). And it seems to have gotten worse over the past few decades, unless I'm interpreting this chart wrong:
+ Show Spoiler +
There's a little improvement towards the end there, at least.
But yeah, for-profit prisons seems like the most ridiculous thing. Especially since I can only imagine that the prisons are also being paid by the government for every prisoner they keep.
|
You can be sure that racial issues in the USA didn't merely evaporate when slavery ended. It would be naive to think that way.
It's a bad issue which is basically still there because of loopholes in place which are exploited. Put racial tensions on top of that, media feasting upon it and feeding back into it for more profit, you have a nasty all-round situation.
You should read this piece, it's a good read and puts things into perspective: http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/October-2016/Chicago-Gangs/
The good thing is that now more than ever the core issues are coming out in the light and being discussed. It's not pretty obviously but it's progress.
|
Archeologists and museum directors have denounced the “destruction” of Native American artifacts during the construction of a contentious oil pipeline in North Dakota, as the affected tribe condemned the project in an address to the United Nations.
The $3.8bn Dakota Access pipeline, which will funnel oil from the Bakken oil fields to Illinois, will run next to the Standing Rock Sioux reservation. The tribe has mounted a legal challenge to stop the project and claimed that several sacred sites were bulldozed by Energy Transfer, the company behind the pipeline, on 3 September.
A coalition of more than 1,200 archeologists, museum directors and historians from institutions including the Smithsonian and the Association of Academic Museums and Galleries has written to the Obama administration to criticize the bulldozing, which Energy Transfer claims did not disturb any artifacts.
The letter states that the construction work destroyed “ancient burial sites, places of prayer and other significant cultural artifacts sacred to the Lakota and Dakota people”.
It adds: “The destruction of these sacred sites adds yet another injury to the Lakota, Dakota, and other Indigenous Peoples who bear the impacts of fossil fuel extraction and transportation. If constructed, this pipeline will continue to encourage oil consumption that causes climate change, all the while harming those populations who contributed little to this crisis.”
The Obama administration has halted construction of the 1,170-mile pipeline that occurs on federal land while it reassesses the initial decision by the Army Corps of Engineers to allow the project to proceed. The approval sparked furious protests at a camp near the North Dakota construction site but Energy Transfer has vowed to push ahead after a federal judge sided with the company.
“What the Standing Rock Sioux are going through is just one example of a systemic and historical truth around how extractive and polluting infrastructure is forced upon Native communities,” said James Powell, former president and director of the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum.
Source
|
Y'all really ought to watch Ken Burns' Civil War documentary; it'd help to explain our issues of racism for those unfamiliar with just how deeply embedded it is in our national fabric.
|
MIAMI — Mike Fernandez, the billionaire heavyweight Republican donor who says he’s voting for Democrat Hillary Clinton because he loathes Donald Trump, says he’s ready to spend as much as $2 million to an unspecified nonprofit to help register new Hispanic voters in Florida and turn them out in the election.
In giving the money, Fernandez doesn’t have to support the Democrat directly. But he knows that, for every 10 new Latinos registered to vote, at least six will probably vote against Trump. If polling trends hold and black and Latino voters turnout relative to their current registration numbers, strategists say, Clinton is likely to win Florida and therefore the White House.
“As a lifelong Republican, I cannot support a Party I no longer recognize,” Fernandez wrote in an email, saying he could not understand how the GOP “could not distance itself from a man who has taken such liberties with the facts that calling him a liar would not suffice.”
Fernandez — who backed Gov. Jeb Bush’s presidential bid this cycle with his own millions and has supported comprehensive immigration reform plans that Trump has trashed — said that he has never met Hillary Clinton.
“She is far from perfect but benign in comparison to Trump,” said Fernandez. “I specially call on all Latinos to reject a man who encourages violence against you [as] he has done in Iowa and other places.”
While Fernandez has not specified whom he’ll give the money to, a coalition of Latino-outreach groups operating primarily in Central Florida say they’ll take all the help they can get. The groups — National Council of La Raza, Mi Familia Vota and the Hispanic Federation — say they together have helped register about 70,000 new Latino voters in Florida and want to sign up at least 30,000 more.
Source
|
Oh my God, La Raza? Must be a hispanic racial takeover.
|
On September 22 2016 21:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +MIAMI — Mike Fernandez, the billionaire heavyweight Republican donor who says he’s voting for Democrat Hillary Clinton because he loathes Donald Trump, says he’s ready to spend as much as $2 million to an unspecified nonprofit to help register new Hispanic voters in Florida and turn them out in the election.
In giving the money, Fernandez doesn’t have to support the Democrat directly. But he knows that, for every 10 new Latinos registered to vote, at least six will probably vote against Trump. If polling trends hold and black and Latino voters turnout relative to their current registration numbers, strategists say, Clinton is likely to win Florida and therefore the White House.
“As a lifelong Republican, I cannot support a Party I no longer recognize,” Fernandez wrote in an email, saying he could not understand how the GOP “could not distance itself from a man who has taken such liberties with the facts that calling him a liar would not suffice.”
Fernandez — who backed Gov. Jeb Bush’s presidential bid this cycle with his own millions and has supported comprehensive immigration reform plans that Trump has trashed — said that he has never met Hillary Clinton.
“She is far from perfect but benign in comparison to Trump,” said Fernandez. “I specially call on all Latinos to reject a man who encourages violence against you [as] he has done in Iowa and other places.”
While Fernandez has not specified whom he’ll give the money to, a coalition of Latino-outreach groups operating primarily in Central Florida say they’ll take all the help they can get. The groups — National Council of La Raza, Mi Familia Vota and the Hispanic Federation — say they together have helped register about 70,000 new Latino voters in Florida and want to sign up at least 30,000 more. Source This man has the plan. I don’t know if it will translate to turn out, but I appreciate how straight he is with his reasoning.
|
Okay, I just saw this:
![[image loading]](http://www.hercampus.com/sites/default/files/2015/10/19/culture%252Bnot%252Ba%252Bcostume.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bz3rO6qIEAE7ptn.jpg)
This has gone beyond stupid. While some of those costumes are just plain stupid (wtf is with that babymomma outfit in the second set?!) you don't get to be offended. If Jay-Z is allowed to dress as a gangsta rappa, then your white neighbours' 10-year-old daughter is allowed to as well. As for the belly dancers and suicide bombers, all I have to say is: "really?! That's your mainstream culture?"
|
I don't care for the imposition of categorical rules like those suggested by the above ad campaign, but "you don't get to be offended" is a stupid thing to say. You don't get to tell others what they can or cannot be offended by, and referencing Hova doesn't change that lol
|
I continue to be baffled by people willing to take modeling jobs like that lol. A job is a job I suppose.
And its not their mainstream culture is what the point is, I think. The costumes are allegedly downgrading their culture to that specific costume (which is largely bullshit, as its just a costume). We have American costumes here: wifebeaters with fat built-in along with a beer hat and plastic burger (ie. a normal mcdonalds burger). Does that mean that... well, I guess I see their point.
Still, I'm not offended by references to wooden shoes and windmills. Why bother being offended by such benign things?
|
On September 22 2016 22:20 farvacola wrote: I don't care for the imposition of categorical rules like those suggested by the above ad campaign, but "you don't get to be offended" is a stupid thing to say. You don't get to tell others what they can or cannot be offended by, and referencing Hova doesn't change that lol Fine. Everybody has the right to be offended. I just don't have the obligation to give a shit if you get offended by just about anything.
I got onto this topic mainly after going down the rabbit hole of this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/09/20/brown-skin-is-not-a-costume-disney-takes-heat-for-moana-halloween-costume/
The costume is that of Maui, a demigod in Polynesian mythology who has been animated and voiced by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as a character in Disney’s upcoming “Moana.” Although Disney has featured brown-skinned people in its films before — “Pocahontas” comes to mind — it has not released a costume in which said brown skin itself is depicted as part of the outfit. The costume’s description reads, “Your little one will set off on adventures in this Maui Costume featuring the demigod’s signature tattoos, rope necklace and island-style skirt. Plus, padded arms and legs for mighty stature!” Accompanying the description is a photograph of a young boy, who has brown skin, wearing the costume. Take a look: ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CswmFFaWYAAPPkn.jpg) Predictably, almost immediately outrage spread across social media from people decrying the idea of skin color being used as a costume. “As a Poly I support our folk involved in #MOANA. But this? NO. Our Brown Skin/Ink’s NOT a costume,” one user tweeted. “Many people are Rightfully upset about this new piece of #Moana merch. Cultures are NOT costumes,” tweeted another. “Hey heads up, I’ve seen that Moana costume, and I seriously don’t want to see it again. It sickens me, please don’t ask me to talk about it,” tweeted a third. “This might be the creepiest thing Disney has ever done. ‘Wear another culture’s skin!’ ” yet another person tweeted. One user compared the costume to the suit made from literal human skin in “Silence of the Lambs.” “We are not a costume,” tweeted one user.
Predictably, the costume got pulled from the Disney store, and all the thin-skinned people were happy in their myopic knowledge that they had barred little kids from wearing a costume of a Polynesian demigod.
This isn't a Hawaiian costume (PS. I have done that at primary school, and it was great fun). This is specifically a "Maui" costume, a character from their Moana movie, which Polynesians actually support and encourage as portraying their culture in a positive light.
|
That's a very different proposition, and I think a member of a group being implicated by a costume would fight your invocation of "just about anything."
The particular merits of specific instances of cultural appropriation are not very interesting to me; yes, the hubbub surrounding the polynesian costume seems silly, but given that I'm not a polynesian nor someone familiar with that culture or its place in society, I feel inclined to bow out of that one.
|
On September 22 2016 22:26 farvacola wrote: That's a very different proposition, and I think a member of a group being implicated by a costume would fight your invocation of "just about anything." Fairly certain that if you're offended by little kids walking around in a gypsy dress, you'll get offended by virtually anything that references your culture. It's almost like you're embarrassed for your culture if that offends you.
|
On September 22 2016 22:14 Acrofales wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Okay, I just saw this: ![[image loading]](http://www.hercampus.com/sites/default/files/2015/10/19/culture%252Bnot%252Ba%252Bcostume.jpg) ![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bz3rO6qIEAE7ptn.jpg) This has gone beyond stupid. While some of those costumes are just plain stupid (wtf is with that babymomma outfit in the second set?!) you don't get to be offended. If Jay-Z is allowed to dress as a gangsta rappa, then your white neighbours' 10-year-old daughter is allowed to as well. As for the belly dancers and suicide bombers, all I have to say is: "really?! That's your mainstream culture?" I'm a big fan of the "fuck your feelings" approach to the type of person shown in that graphic. Completely absurd.
|
On September 22 2016 22:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 22:26 farvacola wrote: That's a very different proposition, and I think a member of a group being implicated by a costume would fight your invocation of "just about anything." Fairly certain that if you're offended by little kids walking around in a gypsy dress, you'll get offended by virtually anything that references your culture. It's almost like you're embarrassed for your culture if that offends you. Look, it isn't hard to toss the concerns of others when you color them in the least appealing shade possible, but then again, being offended by someone else being offended speaks for itself.
At least xDaunt is honest about his disregard and doesn't resort to cherry picking.
|
Canada11279 Posts
Wait. Why would a suicide bomber be considered cultural appropriation?
|
Remember the uproar about the Yale professor who wrote a letter that explained why they didn't ban Halloween costumes?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 22 2016 22:41 Falling wrote: Wait. Why would a suicide bomber be considered cultural appropriation? You've identified the problem with lumping all of these acts together; yes, they are all costumes, but not all implicate the same dynamics. How an arab-american goes about identifying with the culture represented by a suicide bomber is beyond me.
|
On September 22 2016 22:39 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 22:37 Acrofales wrote:On September 22 2016 22:26 farvacola wrote: That's a very different proposition, and I think a member of a group being implicated by a costume would fight your invocation of "just about anything." Fairly certain that if you're offended by little kids walking around in a gypsy dress, you'll get offended by virtually anything that references your culture. It's almost like you're embarrassed for your culture if that offends you. Look, it isn't hard to toss the concerns of others when you color them in the least appealing shade possible, but then again, being offended by someone else being offended speaks for itself. At least xDaunt is honest about his disregard and doesn't resort to cherry picking. I'm not offended by people being offended. That would imply I feel insulted by their feelings. I don't. I am however annoyed that they think they can tell others what is and what isn't a valid costume.
Imho, people can walk around in a Nazi costume. I don't think I'd give them candy, and they may not find the whole ordeal particularly pleasant, but I support their right to do that.
|
On September 22 2016 22:44 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2016 22:39 farvacola wrote:On September 22 2016 22:37 Acrofales wrote:On September 22 2016 22:26 farvacola wrote: That's a very different proposition, and I think a member of a group being implicated by a costume would fight your invocation of "just about anything." Fairly certain that if you're offended by little kids walking around in a gypsy dress, you'll get offended by virtually anything that references your culture. It's almost like you're embarrassed for your culture if that offends you. Look, it isn't hard to toss the concerns of others when you color them in the least appealing shade possible, but then again, being offended by someone else being offended speaks for itself. At least xDaunt is honest about his disregard and doesn't resort to cherry picking. I'm not offended by people being offended. That would imply I feel insulted by their feelings. I don't. I am however annoyed that they think they can tell others what is and what isn't a valid costume. Imho, people can walk around in a Nazi costume. I don't think I'd give them candy, and they may not find the whole ordeal particularly pleasant, but I support their right to do that. Don't you think a holocaust survivor would feel differently? Fuck their feelings, right?
|
|
|
|