US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7893

On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote:
culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl.

On June 19 2017 09:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:


That's exactly what the cultural appropriation we're talking about is, though. The proposed UN regulation specifically looks at indigenous people/native cultures. That is one of the scenarios where the view of it as segregation falls apart, and dismissing all claims of cultural appropriation marginalizes cases like this.

Edit: To be clear, this is part of why I think the Portland list and other things do a grave disservice to a legitimate concept. When people start to think of cultural appropriation as "white people doing South American things" it makes it easier to dismiss cases where there really is people profiting off of culture that the users of that culture have a right to not have shared.

On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote:
culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl.

On June 19 2017 09:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:


I'm 100% black American. Should I tell you about cultural appropriation?

Culture is meant to be appreciated and shared to those who wish to learn more about said culture. It doesn't need to spread outside of the culture it originated from if they don't intend for it. Cultural appropriation is magnified because you see 10 wealthy white people profiting largely from underrepresented populations such as indigenous tribes and minorities. If that culture is protected by law, then what's the harm?

On June 19 2017 10:20 Wegandi wrote:


Perhaps using appropriate language would be a start. Regardless, no one owns culture - it's nebulous and ever-changing. Also, again, that profit word. Are you really proposing it should be illegal to use your own property to sell Indian Cigar store merchandise if you're not a part of the tribe (just one example)? What about making and selling replica Amazonion tribe merchandise? Dogon stuff? Where does it end? We should be celebrating the fact that people want to experience these cultures and are willing to hand their money over to do so. The fact you overlook this and focus on "profit" reeks. The biggest offense to tribes in this country is the Government - not some joe schmoes selling a peace pipe or headdresses.

I suppose it would be better if no one gave a shit and those cultures were fossilized and put into some museum in the middle of no-where. As someone who has a Cherokee Nations flag in my room right now, I'd be ecstatic if more people decided to delve into the culture regardless if some white people were the ones selling the shit. Combine white people hate and capitalism hate into one and ride the moral high ground. Boom, cultural appropriation.

On June 19 2017 10:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:


What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option

On June 19 2017 10:20 Nyxisto wrote:


But "fishbowl culturalism" is a racist or at least essentialist view of culture. It is what makes people argue that one group has 'their land' and we have 'our land'. It is the weapon of both anti-imperialists who will argue on behalf of some population as if they have no agency, and nativists who want to purge foreigners from their own country. Are you endorsing this?

Shattering 'the fishbowl' isn't bad. Cultures conflict, merge some new culture is produced, nothing bad about it. I don't see why the engine "commodification" in this case is particularly offensive.

On June 19 2017 10:26 Zambrah wrote:
God I hate the cultural appropriation argument. What I consider cultural appropriation is basically taking from another culture without any even mild effort to understand any facet of that culture.

As an artist, I try not to culturally appropriate, its really not hard because to make good work you HAVE to research it, Ive spent a few years studying ancient mesoamerican language systems, mythology, and their general culture. Generally I think its really, really easy to take a culture and treat it with respect, if you like some aspect of it you're already like 90% of the way to not culturally appropriating, you're just missing some mild wikipedia'ing and you can get some context as to whatever it is you're planning. Like you'll probably be considered pretty tasteless if you (100% hypothetically with nothing particular in my head) wear a traditional ancient funerary garment to someone of that culture's wedding. Its just kinda weird and makes you look a little ignorant.

I wish we could put away the thought of creating laws about this sort of thing, its so fucking grey and weird. I'm not Mexican, but I'm Puerto Rican. Under these laws can I continue to draw from ancient mesoamerican culture? I mean I'm not from any part of where the ancient Mayans lived, but one of the metrics that defines "ancient mesoamerican" culture is whether or not that area had the "ball game" concept that most people have some vague familiarity with, and Puerto Rico technically falls under that umbrella. But I'm not Mayan and anyone who has any experience with ancient mesoamerican culture would understand that Mayan culture was different from Mixtec culture was different from Olmec was different from Aztec. Mixtec, Mayan, and Aztec culture was also obviously heavily affected by those good 'ol spaniards. So would anyone from Mexico be allowed to use ancient Mayan culture for example? Or only those few who still practice more traditional cultural lifestyles?

What about interpreting the culture? Giving it unique twists, or taking specific aspects from it and applying them in some way outside of the specifics of the cultural origin?

I've seen what strict adherence to the idea that one should only ever draw from one's own ancestral culture is like and my god is it bland.

EDIT: 'cause I read KwarK's post, and while I think a measure of that can be solved by just making sure to be generally thorough in one's research into a culture (and I can tell you that Disney actually is REALLY REALLY thorough, like if they make a movie about a culture, they hire cultural experts, they send their people to the area that culture is from, and they typically get the whole nine yards done when it comes to their artists actually getting to know about the culture's they're working from), but yeah the active cultural genocide thing is a problem, and if a culture is specifically under threat in a way such as the Tibet thing its probably best to kind of put some work into making that like, not under threat anymore. Although I think I'd prefer to separate that from cultural appropriation and specifically label it cultural genocide, but I'm not really a scholar on this subject so I can only really speak from my experiences with the meaning of cultural appropriaton, and not it's actual scholarly use.

On June 19 2017 10:40 IgnE wrote:


so you are using capital to prop up a culture that would otherwise be wiped out for what? for curiosity's sake? that's the liberal fish bowl and is of course a rationale beyond propertizing "culture." my argument is that this is self-defeating. see above.

On June 19 2017 10:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:


Is the motivation that the individuals within the culture themselves may prefer it not to be wiped out or subsumed and valuing their preferences just another chain in this fish bowl? There is no inherent compulsion for them to keep it crystallized and frozen or even preserve the spectral fish for others, after all

On June 19 2017 10:56 IgnE wrote:


Explain to me how you can have a "living culture" property right? Are you familiar with copyright, trademark, or patent claims? You necessarily "freeze" or "crystallize" property claims. The "culture" has become a costume that you wear after you get home from your office job maybe a few weekends a year. They aren't out planting squash under corn anymore, and the rain dance ceremonies have no connection except as spectacle. This is what I meant when I said that talking of a "disney culture" is a nostalgic fantasy for that which is absent.

On June 19 2017 11:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:


I think I still don't get you. Property rights don't prevent change by the owner of the property. Mickey Mouse is an IP but he's not frozen or crystallized. The Mickey today and the Mickey 50 or even 10 years ago are not one and the same but they're covered by the same IP. Nor is the Luke Skywalker of 1979 the same as the Luke Skywalker of 2015.

On June 19 2017 11:05 Zambrah wrote:


I have almost no idea what it is you are saying, break it down in normal words for me

On June 19 2017 11:08 IgnE wrote:


Mickey Mouse and Luke Skywalker aren't culture. They aren't "forms of life." They are abstract concepts. Abstraction kills culture. That is my whole point. What is the difference between a white person imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee and a person of Cherokee genetic stock who was adopted by a white family imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee? What does it mean to "own" a culture that doesn't exist (is no longer practiced, is no longer a mode of moving or becoming in the world)? It's a simple commoditization/disneyfication of something that might once have been a culture. It is the adaptation for sale of a culture.

On June 19 2017 11:21 TheTenthDoc wrote:


But you just said you need to freeze things to have property claims? That's obviously false. Neither of those things are frozen despite being "owned" entities.

I also don't understand why you think genetics are involved here, because (at least to me) there is generally no difference in a cultural sense between a Caucasian adopted by a reservation family growing up there and someone from "Cherokee genetic stock" who was born there.

I also think there are plenty of people descended from indigenous people who view their heritage as a mode of moving or becoming in the world. Should we ignore them when they want to go to "war" in this sense?

On June 19 2017 11:27 IgnE wrote:


"Mickey Mouse" the noumenal entity is frozen. I mean are you arguing that "Mickey Mouse in Outer Space" is somehow a new being? Or is it the same "person" just in a different environment? Property claims are directed to things that are the same no matter where you place them. Can we talk of a "culture" that is the same no matter where you place it? How can we talk about a "culture" without respect to its lived-in-ness? Culture is a process, not a thing. Abstracting it kills it by untethering it from this mode of living.

As for the rest, it of course depends on what exactly their "mode of moving" in the world is. How many Cherokee do you know hunting buffalo on horseback anymore?

I used "genetics" because that presumably will be how these IP rights are distributed. Do you think if I moved to a reservation with a white wife and white children that they would be allowed to do whatever they wanted with the "culture" there in this hypothetical scenario? If you do, you are imagining a different hypothetical than the one I am imagining (given that many benefits given to native peoples in this country are based on claiming descent) but mutatis mutandis the argument would be the same.

edit in response to your cross-outs: ok cool

On June 19 2017 11:37 Nevuk wrote:

The Cherokee culture was never about hunting buffalo on horseback. Wrong part of the country. They were mostly farmers in the eastern/southeastern US before Andrew Jackson unlawfully moved them. To a large degree they'd adopted American society and culture before the trail of tears, with their own newspapers and written language. I'm eastern band and have only ever visited Cherokee in NC so I can't really say too much about the western Cherokee's culture after the Trail.

Preserving a culture is more along the lines of keeping the spoken/written language alive.