|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland24666 Posts
On July 01 2020 04:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 03:35 Simberto wrote:On July 01 2020 03:16 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2020 02:26 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 01 2020 02:03 Danglars wrote:On July 01 2020 01:36 Wombat_NI wrote:
That’s quite a lot to unpack at once Mr Danglars. ‘I never fully understand the whole he's-stupid about face to he-read-understood-did-it-intentionally, but I'm not going to puzzle for hours trying to understand.’
I’m not really seeing an about-face, at least within here. Trump can behave incredibly stupidly, i.e. some of his ludicrous pronouncements around corona, and be fully aware of what he’s doing in other spheres, i.e. dogwhistling.
One doesn’t have to be the sharpest tool in the shed to know that ‘white power’ has extremely negative connotations and history attached to it over and above other more plausibly loaded framings like ‘all lives matter’.
Biden’s not saying a whole lot on a whole lot these days, especially stuff the ostensible left feels are important issues, that he’s not commenting on statue defacement isn’t much of a priority, but yes he should have some position on that and be asked about it too.
As per the religious liberty ruling I’ll have to do more reading on what the case was about and return with my thoughts then. I do see the “obvious dogwhistling” and “obviously oblivious” as mainly a matter of special pleading. Trump’s tweeted all manner of idiotic stuff, and he likes all kind of counter protesters to the woke iconoclasts of the moment. It fits with retweeting it for the meta point of response (and Trump’s big about punching back in whatever stupid way he can), and taking it down once someone points out the white power words. So I’ll agree to disagree with you there. Biden is still running for president, and his campaigns silence on all kinds of matters of the day is self defeating. He has a heavy lift to prove himself mentally able to string sentences together into a point, and hiding from the public eye except for small, select appearances aids that narrative. And reporters praise his genius just laying low, if anybody was wondering how the media would respond to 4-8 years of Biden. What are you disagreeing with? It fits entirely with my criticism of how Trump uses Twitter as a form of ‘owning the libs’ regardless of what villainry it emboldens. Specifically the second point, you can do the former without retweeting guys shouting ‘white power’, be it careless or calculating the inclusion of such rhetoric in the Twitter output is just generally a bad move, both for general decency but increasingly in terms of self-interested political aggrandisement. Even centrist types who’ve previously given Trump the benefit of the doubt re dogwhistling are changing their tune. I haven’t altered my arguments or put them forth more convincingly, he’s just throwing so much of it out that he’s doing it to himself. The question is the usefulness of retweets like that to support arguments that Trump is a racist/supports such and such policies because he is a racist. You can read back ten or twenty pages to see arguments in that forum. You personally observe some centrists changing their mind on Trump and dogwhistling, so it shows you're aware of it. What you're transitioning to, that Trump's careless speech and disregard for social customs about how to talk ends up giving cover to actual racists and white supremacists, is quite another thing. I've said the same about Democrats that called McCain and Romney racists. They don't actually intend to further causes they don't support, but they actually advance them and degrade the discourse such that somebody like Trump is necessary to show the fruits of their tireless labor. The example of Trump, and hopefully the re-election of Trump, may roll back the "educated class" liberal use of racist/sexist and political correctness norms, seeing what the backlash and rejection of such norms will take. Maybe I'm digressing a little bit with that comment. Even take the video. Protesters in The Village are facing counter-protesters and are jeering at the Trump supporters by calling them racist. What to do when people call you racist for supporting President Trump? Well, one reaction is to heighten the meaninglessness of that term "Oh yeah? You're gonna go with that? Ok, White Power, f***ers." Highlight absurdity by being even more absurd. Using more modern language, you may call it rejecting the entire system of shouting racist at stuff you don't like. The presidential retweet should never have happened, and was rightly taken down, but it's no more actual support for white supremacy than defund the police is actual police reform. I can get behind your general decency argument, which is why I couldn't support Trump in the only presidential primary that mattered. It should also hurt Trump as it probably has. It's just the people that go one step further that I have a problem with, and really want to play special pleader with Trump to go from stupid to planned whenever it fits their conclusions. The conclusion is known, and the evidence is picked such to fit the conclusion. And, as if Biden's team reads this thread, Biden took questions on the statues and actually made the distinction between confederate statues and founding fathers and columbus. That's the kind of move he needs to get in the habit of making if he wants to defeat Trump. It would be stronger if he outright condemned the lawless teardowns, but I think people will accept what he said today. Hillary had a higher lead over Trump at this point of the election season than Biden has over Trump. And contrary to last time, Biden doesn't have such a large disgust reaction as Hillary, and Trump has eroded support in suburbs and evangelicals. I really hate that argument. This is coming from the people who "call a spade a spade", "tell it like it is", and who hate all the "snowflakes" who need "save spaces". Yet if you call someone tweeting racist stuff and saying racist stuff a racist, that is suddenly really problematic. I think the group of people who get angry about you calling Trump a racist, and who thus change who they vote for to Trump consists of roughly zero people. It is a sad state of affairs, and i generally dislike the hightened level of partisanship. But Trump really is just that bad. And i cannot understand people voting for him. It is just absurd. I can understand people voting for our German conservative party. I do not agree with them, but i can understand them, and i am pretty sure that i can have a reasonable conversation with them despite political differences. Probably not with our far-right AfD guys, though. But Trump...i just don't get it. I don't understand how you can view him, and honestly come to the conclusion that he is not everything people say about him. He doesn't hide it. He openly says, does and tweets racist stuff. He openly says, does and tweets corrupt stuff. He openly says, does and tweets incompetent stuff. And at this point, i simply do not see that mystical person who would stop voting for Trump if people just stopped being mean to him for voting for Trump, which Danglars claims to be a relevant amount of people. The people who are willing to vote for Trump right now, after everything we have seen, will not change that, no matter how nice you are to them, how careful you are to tiptoe around their sensibilities. This whole "Oh no, now you did it, you called me a racist, i totally would have listened to you, but now i won't and i will vote for Trump" thing is just smokes and mirrors. Anyone saying that would have voted for Trump, no matter what you say to them. We can just hope that there are not enough of them in the few states that matter. I do not think that we should go around and call everyone voting for Trump a racist. A reasonably large group of them probably are, but some might not be. You should absolutely say that Trump is a racist. Because he doesn't really hide that, at all. And Trumpists don't really show a lot of willingness to compromise, or to talk about issues. As much as this talks about the meta argument, and cites nothing, and treats dismissively and derisively the explanation that “racist” has been purged of all meaning, having been used for all Republicans candidates for the last three presidential elections, I’d say you had better start liking the argument or staying ignorant about right-of-center American politics. History doesn’t begin with Trump. I can only feel so much sympathy for your “I just don’t get it” if your posture remains as described in this post. And I’m doubly glad that I responded to Wombat’s post to hear precisely the reaction I wagered. Thankfully, this is a free country, so anyone here can call whatever national trend as “mythical” or “I just don’t get it” and vote on whatever they believe to be true. It must be some act of divine providence that the immediate post following leads with “Every Trump voter did a racist thing voting for Trump..” hmm so strange about citizens rebelled against unfair and capricious slurs in ways I don’t approve of. So strange.
Racism hasn’t been purged of all meaning, people are just more aware of the forms it can take, the bar previously being something akin to if you’re not caught on tape calling someone the n word then you’re not racist.
As to whether it’s been unfairly applied to people or not in the past, why does that necessitate a doubling down when the glove absolutely does fit in this particular PotUS’ case.
How is it a meta argument to fight against overreaching claims of racism until you’re defending actual racist behaviour to ‘own the libs’ and, conservatives will subsequently claim that the left are unfair and don’t want to try to understand them?
It’s a version of the boy who cried wolf, except the villagers came running every time and helped him slay the wolf. There is no comeuppance here for crying wolf if your political opponents double down to such an extent that even the skeptical centre have serious qualms.
|
When people say "racism has been purged of all meaning" I read "the meaning of racism includes my actions and I'd rather complain about the meaning than change my actions".
Same story with sexist/sexual harassment. Same story with any marginalized group with a term to describe the unjustified mistreatment of them based on some aspect of their identity.
This eventually leads to claims that not-racist republicans (and democrats) are such a group, I hope I don't have to explain why that is ridiculous, but I probably will.
EDIT: The cake makers and florists being the poor oppressed workers being strong-armed by the big bad state to *checks notes* offer their services to gay couples comes to mind.
|
On July 01 2020 05:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
When people say "racism has been purged of all meaning" I read "the meaning of racism includes my actions and I'd rather complain about the meaning than change my actions".
Same story with sexist/sexual harassment. Same story with any marginalized group with a term to describe the unjustified mistreatment of them based on some aspect of their identity.
This eventually leads to claims that not-racist republicans (and democrats) are such a group, I hope I don't have to explain why that is ridiculous, but I probably will.
EDIT: The cake makers and florists being the poor oppressed workers being strong-armed by the big bad state to *checks notes* offer their services to gay couples comes to mind.
Ah yes but religious freedom etc. etc. Slightly different set of arguments there (though I'm pretty sure you and I have the same conclusion to their validity).
|
On June 29 2020 23:45 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2020 22:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 29 2020 21:52 EnDeR_ wrote:
I feel that food and art should be very different categories when talking about cultural appropriation. Taking somebody else's work, repackaging it for profit and not giving credit is clear cut. Re-inventing a dish because your customers have different tastes seems like plain common sense to me.
I'm always appalled as to what British people call 'traditional Spanish food', but not because I think it's cultural appropriation, but because it just tastes bad -- 'Pollo al ajillo' should most definitely not have barbeque sauce slathered all over it, but the brits like it, so you just have to avoid it. I think taking someone else's music (that's plagiarism - and has nothing to do with cultural appropriation) and borrowing elements from other cultures' music for example are two radically different things. I mean, obviously, if I perform a song by The Beatles and pretend it's mine, I am just stealing them. But is Igor Stravinsky using African rhythm in the Rite of Spring cultural appropriation? And Claude Debussy in his string quartet imitating Javanese gamelans? And Anton Dvorak using negro spirituals in his twelvth quartet? Or Ravel writing a blues in his violin sonata? I won't even start with Brahms, or Beethoven writing Polonaises, or movements "Alla Zingarese" borrowing from gipsy tunes. I mean the whole of music history is made of composers taking folk songs, rhythm, harmonies from diverse cultures, and mixing them together. Again, it seems to me like a huge misunderstanding about how culture works. Folk songs belong to humanity. That's what is great about art. So would you say that plagiarism is exactly the same when its a white band stealing songs from white people, as it is when white people steal songs made by black people specifically as a reaction to their enslavement by white people? Because personally I think that's plagiarism with a little something extra, no?
Sorry to come back on that, was busy with my life and had no time to answer that specific question, and I wanted to. We can continue by PM if the discussion has moved on and it is no longer relevant.
There are two things to distinguish here. Plagiarism is when you steal someone's intellectual property. Once the author has been dead 70 years, it is public domain.
So, if I play a song by the Beatles and pretend it's mine, it's just a theft. But if white people sing a sing written a hundred years ago by black people it is absolutely not a theft. You are free to use it, incorporate it in your own music, perform it as such, reinvent it, whatever you want.
And no, an ethnic or cultural group doesn't "own" all its cultural heritage the way we own comodities. And that's a good thing because if things worked that way, art would be compartimented and stuck into as many fossilized way as there are groups of people.
Again, I think it's a huge misunderstanding about what culture is. We can leave to xenophobes the notion that culture is an immobile heritage - or commodity in that case - to be defended from outsiders, and that is threatened when it is borrowed, mixed or shared.
I don't like at all the concept of cultural appropriation, because I think it is a very broad concept meant to apply to extremely specific examples. And the moment you stop cherry picking examples, it leads to one completely absurd conclusion after another. There are much better way to attack racism and fight for cultural diversity than such intellectually shaky and dangerous notions, imo.
|
I guess it needs to be reiterated that opposing cultural appropriation isn't opposition of sharing between cultures. Any effort to paint it as such undermines efforts to address the problem it characterizes.
|
On July 01 2020 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess it needs to be reiterated that opposing cultural appropriation isn't opposition of sharing between cultures. Any effort to paint it as such undermines the problem it characterizes.
The problem is, what is the difference between sharing and stealing, and who decides.
I am open to be convinced, but I really need a good definition of what the difference is.
EDIT : Sorry for bad sentences and broken grammar, I am tired and my english is what it is...
|
On July 01 2020 06:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess it needs to be reiterated that opposing cultural appropriation isn't opposition of sharing between cultures. Any effort to paint it as such undermines the problem it characterizes. The problem is, who decide what is sharing and what is stealing, and who decides.
The problem is that the people who have been deciding (white people) think looting graves and decorating mansions with the spoils is "appreciation". Which is to say the people deciding need to be quiet and listen to the people they're sharing/stealing with/from.
EDIT: I'm reminded of this post:
On June 29 2020 20:04 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2020 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2020 19:41 Uldridge wrote:
So GH, I think I understand what you're trying you say, but maybe we should understand the rules of the game a bit better in general so we don't all talk over each other because of misunderstandings.
At what point does cultural adoption/appreciation become appropriation? I would say it's sorta like asking "when does a race joke become a racist joke?" There isn't a exactly a crab gauge for racism where you can just pick something up out of a bucket and measure it with your pocket racist gauge and separate things into keep or release piles (this applies to things like the rash of popular gaming figures facing sexual misconduct/racism allegations too btw). I know a lot of people who normally don't have to deal with this stuff (except when obnoxious sjw's like me or whatever bring it up) want a simple strainer they can just dump everything into and then strictly drink the righteous juice of not perpetuating racism/sexism/homophobia/etc, but that's not how it works. Gotta do a lot of critical thinking informed by victim experiences, relevant scholarship, etc and it's hard damn work we don't really want to do except when we remember we don't have to be better people that treat each other better, we want to. When we think we're "good enough" or that we've arrived at a centrist nirvana we start dying (in the Freirean sense). This stuff is a never ending process, not a simple rehab detox (which can be quite harrowing on it's own). Good post, thank you. I was struggling to formulate something like the last sentence of your penultimate paragraph for a while now. Social interaction is not engineering with its caluations and generally / everywhere in the same manor valid rules. Asking for specific rules always reminds me of incels and companies prying to find a way around regulations.
EDIT2: and the one it was responding to (from me about this).
|
On July 01 2020 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 06:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 01 2020 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess it needs to be reiterated that opposing cultural appropriation isn't opposition of sharing between cultures. Any effort to paint it as such undermines the problem it characterizes. The problem is, who decide what is sharing and what is stealing, and who decides. The problem is that the people who have been deciding (white people) think looting graves and decorating mansions with the spoils is "appreciation". Which is to say the people deciding need to be quiet and listen to the people they're sharing/stealing with/from
Ok GH, but that is not an answer.
I want to understand why Shostakovich using jewish tunes is not doing cultural appropriation and why I am not guilty of cultural appropriation when I play kletzmer music for a profit.
If it's about looting graves or stealing artifacts to decorate a mansion, I think we really don't need the concept of cultural appropriation at all. That's just looting, it's wrong for a zillion reasons.
|
Artisreal post makes no sense. I ask for clarity over the concept and I get accused of being disinginuous and trying to find a way around it. That's a totally unfair and unnecessary attack.
And I get compared to fucking incels.
That makes no sense AND it's insulting.
|
On July 01 2020 05:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 05:12 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2020 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2020 04:35 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2020 04:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2020 04:04 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2020 02:52 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2020 00:22 IgnE wrote:On June 30 2020 12:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 30 2020 08:57 Wombat_NI wrote:[quote] Most of GH’s positions are lifted verbatim from my YouTube channel, alas I have just realised I have had my uploads to all be set to unlisted. Probably explains the difficulty in sourcing them. + Show Spoiler +I’m quite fond of the left tube content I consume, would like to consume some right equivalents that aren’t trash. I know it’s out there somewhere, just haven’t been directed there either by individuals or by YouTube shepherding me there.
There may be an occasional maddening lack of a robust structural plan for hypothesised alternative societies, I don’t particularly see that being the point in much such content.
In a crude sense what’s the point in working within the confines of a hegemonic system and the flaws within without making people aware that said system isn’t a neutral or natural state of affairs?
In general what I see is yes, not often particularly diplomatic but it does seem to be content created to punch through those kind of barriers first, sort the nitty gritty later.
I’m not personally a vegan (yet), although I do intercede in heated discussions on the topic a fair amount. Not necessarily the best analogy, although the best I can pull from my arse at this hour.
Aside from the ‘I love my steaks’ crowd, most pushback I get tends to be couched in practical concerns like converting the world’s food economy radically to accommodate it.
My position is that it’s largely irrelevant, humanity by and large is morally fine with consuming animal flesh, and will indulge in crazy mental gymnastics because it’s so normalised in society. if that general consensus radically shifted, humanity would pretty easily figure a way out to make it workable.
We can do pretty remarkable things if the collective will is there.
Under no circumstances are you to share those videos. They'll be onto me and my legion. Sharing those videos will result in an immediate demotion to tier 3 minion and 5 battles in the thunderdome. + Show Spoiler +I've already said too much In all seriousness though I don't even know any you tubers with my politics. Closest that comes to mind is that Inuuendo studios video that Neb and IgnE referred to but one look at who he follows on twitter told me all I needed to know about why his video on the protests ended like it did. Why did his video on the protests end like it did? He almost exclusively follows white people. Which indicates (along with the analysis in the video) to me that's who he reads and talks with too. Is he offering real solutions or taking blows from truncheons himself? Idk man I see a lot of retweets from black people in his twitter timeline. I scrolled down quite a bit and my cursory counting puts 30-40% of his retweets as retweets from BIPOC people or BIPOC-oriented organizations. I can’t see what he follows because I don’t have a twitter account (at least I don’t think I can). I presume your last question is rhetorical but just out of curiosity have you taken truncheon blows? His timeline is overwhelmingly just him but I'll give him credit for not mostly retweeting the almost exclusively white people he follows. In the literal sense? Yes. In the metaphorical sense? Every day. You? No I’ve never been hit with a truncheon and would rather not be. I prefer the pen to the sword. Let's hear the plan then, or this performance is going to get eviscerated by the reviewers. Plan concerning what? What reviewers? Did you watch the end of the video? Show nested quote +If they're not offering real solutions and they're not taking the blows, then they aren't after justice. They're after a performance, and I don't think that qualifies them to speak on the subject + Show Spoiler + For reference, the video we're discussing: So if you're not penning solutions, I'm saying the performance is less than captivating. Particularly disappointing because you're certainly among the most capable among us. I mentioned the heavy lifting, but it usually seems you can't even be bothered to trim the hedges.
I’m not a pacifist though. I’ve never said that nonviolence is the only acceptable solution to oppression. So I’m not part of the antecedent to “they” (those who criticize any violence).
I’m also not going to pretend that demonstrations are wholly good or wholly bad, or that everyone at a demonstration is either good or bad, or that any particular action is either wholly good or bad. I also won’t pretend that “ACAB” is some kind of transparent truth that operates outside language and isn’t subject to the same play of signification that every other utterance is. I understand the sentiment, sure, and even viscerally feel it at at times, in particular symbolic registers, as a denotation of a particular systematic reification, as an emotive expression of frustration and contempt. But there are other registers, others significations, where it’s obviously not true, or not wholly true. The key is to keep these differences straight. To be consistent, rather than letting the slipperiness of language lose touch with the truth.
I endorse a dramatic reduction in prison sentences and think that we can already see how profoundly cruel the carceral system is, such that the future will look back on us and wonder why it persisted for so long. I endorse the commutation of prison sentences for many non-violent and minimally-violent crimes. I endorse the demilitarization of police and the replacement of armed police with unarmed mediators. There are many more specific things I may endorse if presented with a proposal and if I spent some time figuring out the local situation to which it was addressed.
But I admit I am rather nonplussed at a demand that I pen a “solution” here. To what? You rarely bother yourself with details so why are you indicting me for not writing a treatise on anti-racism to be read by frequenters of the TL politics megathread? What are you even indicting me for? Perceived cryptoracist attacks on identity politics? I don’t know what “works” as political strategy. I mostly concern myself here with figuring out what’s true and try to convince others that the truth matters.
|
On July 01 2020 06:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess it needs to be reiterated that opposing cultural appropriation isn't opposition of sharing between cultures. Any effort to paint it as such undermines the problem it characterizes. The problem is, what is the difference between sharing and stealing, and who decides. I am open to be convinced, but I really need a good definition of what the difference is.
Agreed on this. We have had some of this discussion before, and it is really hard to talk about words without a good definition, because that leads to everyone filling those words with whatever they want, so while using the same words, people are not talking about the same things, which makes the discussions very confusing and mostly pointless.
There are a bunch of clear-cut cases when we are talking about actual physical objects. European people stealing art from other cultures during colonisation is clearly not acceptable.
But it gets confusing when it talking about things which are not really removed, but reproduced or simply immaterial to start with, like art or clothing styles or food recipes. Especially when talking about people iterating upon something another culture created.
So it would be really helpful to get a good definition, or at least some rough idea of what you mean when saying "cultural appropriation", and where the borders to sharing of culture, or to someone positively iterating on cultural stuff are.
|
Norway28614 Posts
ya GH this is a non-answer. The answer 'it's difficult to determine' is fine, but that doesn't go together with 'white people need to be quiet', especially not when white people are actively asking (trying to educate themselves).
|
On July 01 2020 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 06:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 01 2020 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess it needs to be reiterated that opposing cultural appropriation isn't opposition of sharing between cultures. Any effort to paint it as such undermines the problem it characterizes. The problem is, who decide what is sharing and what is stealing, and who decides. The problem is that the people who have been deciding (white people) think looting graves and decorating mansions with the spoils is "appreciation". Which is to say the people deciding need to be quiet and listen to the people they're sharing/stealing with/from. I'm reminded of this post: Show nested quote +On June 29 2020 20:04 Artisreal wrote:On June 29 2020 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2020 19:41 Uldridge wrote:
So GH, I think I understand what you're trying you say, but maybe we should understand the rules of the game a bit better in general so we don't all talk over each other because of misunderstandings.
At what point does cultural adoption/appreciation become appropriation? I would say it's sorta like asking "when does a race joke become a racist joke?" There isn't a exactly a crab gauge for racism where you can just pick something up out of a bucket and measure it with your pocket racist gauge and separate things into keep or release piles (this applies to things like the rash of popular gaming figures facing sexual misconduct/racism allegations too btw). I know a lot of people who normally don't have to deal with this stuff (except when obnoxious sjw's like me or whatever bring it up) want a simple strainer they can just dump everything into and then strictly drink the righteous juice of not perpetuating racism/sexism/homophobia/etc, but that's not how it works. Gotta do a lot of critical thinking informed by victim experiences, relevant scholarship, etc and it's hard damn work we don't really want to do except when we remember we don't have to be better people that treat each other better, we want to. When we think we're "good enough" or that we've arrived at a centrist nirvana we start dying (in the Freirean sense). This stuff is a never ending process, not a simple rehab detox (which can be quite harrowing on it's own). Good post, thank you. I was struggling to formulate something like the last sentence of your penultimate paragraph for a while now. Social interaction is not engineering with its caluations and generally / everywhere in the same manor valid rules. Asking for specific rules always reminds me of incels and companies prying to find a way around regulations.
I had some uninformed thoughts (my only kind!) on the subject talking to IgnE the other day I’d be interested in your opinion on.
A selection for convenience:
I wonder if it would be more useful to focus on “sincerity” rather than “authenticity”? Often “appropriation” is called out for its use as a prop in some other irrelevant context, rather than as an appreciation of the thing in itself. When Axl Rose shouted ”Gimme some Reggae” I imagine the purpose was to show off the breadth of talent of the band, or to pander to fans that like reggae music, or something similar. What it wasn’t was an earnest attempt to understand, appreciate, and reproduce reggae music in an interesting new context. That the product sucked shouldn’t be surprising considering so little effort was made to understand and engage with the source material. Then that product (probably inadvertently) becomes an insult to the culture you’re mimicking, since you’re serving up dogshit while mouthing “this is you!”
Considering that kind of barely-thought-through cross-cultural imitation impolite or gauche seems like an attempt to understand how an action will be perceived negatively by others and forego it as a rule, which is usually what manners are for. I probably agree with you that a lot of accusations of “cultural appropriation” are ill-considered and tend to obfuscate rather than clarify the dynamics of cross-cultural dialogue, but I also think it’s a mistake to entirely discard this kind of consideration.
In short, approaching and borrowing from an unfamiliar cultural product (especially historically exploited cultures, I’d add) should be approached with humility and a sincere desire to comprehend and appreciate the source material. Treat it as a prop, and you’ll probably make something terrible and inadvertently insult the culture you’re borrowing from.
|
I mean my problem with the concept being totally vague is that it opens the door to the most ridiculous excesses.
I play in a big symphony orchestra for a living. I sincerely fail to see how what we are doing (playing music from all around the world) is different from a white band playing music written by black people to express their suffering. And if that's not ok, I don't see how it is ok for me to play, say, a symphony written by Shostakovich to express the suffering of the Russian folks during the siege of Leningrad.
Worse than that, I fail to see why a composer using folk tunes from other cultures is ok under the concept of cultural appropriation. If Shostakovich uses a jewish tune for his Symphony and he becomes famous for it, how is that fundamentally different than a white band using black music?
I know that the concept of cultural appropriation was not design to attack symphony orchestras playing Shostakovich. But it seems to me that the concept is so shaky that if we want to follow the reasoning it leads inevitably to such ludicrous conclusions.
And if I am missing something, I am open to hear it. Especially if I am not compared to incels.
|
On July 01 2020 06:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
ya GH this is a non-answer. The answer 'it's difficult to determine' is fine, but that doesn't go together with 'white people need to be quiet', especially not when white people are actively asking (trying to educate themselves).
We shouldn't pretend people haven't detailed the differences then should we? What people are asking for aren't guidelines about how to be better about not contributing to cultural appropriation (or racism, or sexual misconduct, etc) what they are prodding for is a specific line to dispute.
Attribution, fluency in cultural practices, placing things in context, listening to people when they say you're wrong even if they can't articulate to your satisfaction the justification, just to name a handful.
It's difficult to discuss though when the objections to a politics opposing cultural appropriation range from "they shouldn't complain", to "I have complaints about not specific examples", to "in this very specific case I want a hard and fast ruling (as if it was even my place to make such a ruling).
On July 01 2020 06:44 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2020 06:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 01 2020 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess it needs to be reiterated that opposing cultural appropriation isn't opposition of sharing between cultures. Any effort to paint it as such undermines the problem it characterizes. The problem is, who decide what is sharing and what is stealing, and who decides. The problem is that the people who have been deciding (white people) think looting graves and decorating mansions with the spoils is "appreciation". Which is to say the people deciding need to be quiet and listen to the people they're sharing/stealing with/from. I'm reminded of this post: On June 29 2020 20:04 Artisreal wrote:On June 29 2020 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2020 19:41 Uldridge wrote:
So GH, I think I understand what you're trying you say, but maybe we should understand the rules of the game a bit better in general so we don't all talk over each other because of misunderstandings.
At what point does cultural adoption/appreciation become appropriation? I would say it's sorta like asking "when does a race joke become a racist joke?" There isn't a exactly a crab gauge for racism where you can just pick something up out of a bucket and measure it with your pocket racist gauge and separate things into keep or release piles (this applies to things like the rash of popular gaming figures facing sexual misconduct/racism allegations too btw). I know a lot of people who normally don't have to deal with this stuff (except when obnoxious sjw's like me or whatever bring it up) want a simple strainer they can just dump everything into and then strictly drink the righteous juice of not perpetuating racism/sexism/homophobia/etc, but that's not how it works. Gotta do a lot of critical thinking informed by victim experiences, relevant scholarship, etc and it's hard damn work we don't really want to do except when we remember we don't have to be better people that treat each other better, we want to. When we think we're "good enough" or that we've arrived at a centrist nirvana we start dying (in the Freirean sense). This stuff is a never ending process, not a simple rehab detox (which can be quite harrowing on it's own). Good post, thank you. I was struggling to formulate something like the last sentence of your penultimate paragraph for a while now. Social interaction is not engineering with its caluations and generally / everywhere in the same manor valid rules. Asking for specific rules always reminds me of incels and companies prying to find a way around regulations. I had some uninformed thoughts (my only kind!) on the subject talking to IgnE the other day I’d be interested in your opinion on. A selection for convenience: Show nested quote +I wonder if it would be more useful to focus on “sincerity” rather than “authenticity”? Often “appropriation” is called out for its use as a prop in some other irrelevant context, rather than as an appreciation of the thing in itself. When Axl Rose shouted ”Gimme some Reggae” I imagine the purpose was to show off the breadth of talent of the band, or to pander to fans that like reggae music, or something similar. What it wasn’t was an earnest attempt to understand, appreciate, and reproduce reggae music in an interesting new context. That the product sucked shouldn’t be surprising considering so little effort was made to understand and engage with the source material. Then that product (probably inadvertently) becomes an insult to the culture you’re mimicking, since you’re serving up dogshit while mouthing “this is you!”
Considering that kind of barely-thought-through cross-cultural imitation impolite or gauche seems like an attempt to understand how an action will be perceived negatively by others and forego it as a rule, which is usually what manners are for. I probably agree with you that a lot of accusations of “cultural appropriation” are ill-considered and tend to obfuscate rather than clarify the dynamics of cross-cultural dialogue, but I also think it’s a mistake to entirely discard this kind of consideration. In short, approaching and borrowing from an unfamiliar cultural product (especially historically exploited cultures, I’d add) should be approached with humility and a sincere desire to comprehend and appreciate the source material. Treat it as a prop, and you’ll probably make something terrible and inadvertently insult the culture you’re borrowing from.
Yes. I don't understand how you arrived here (a sensible conclusion based on the discussion) and these other people are ready to chuck me in the river.
|
On July 01 2020 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 06:40 Liquid`Drone wrote:
ya GH this is a non-answer. The answer 'it's difficult to determine' is fine, but that doesn't go together with 'white people need to be quiet', especially not when white people are actively asking (trying to educate themselves). We shouldn't pretend people haven't detailed the differences then should we? What people are asking for aren't guidelines about how to be better about not contributing to cultural appropriation (or racism, or sexual misconduct, etc) what they are prodding for is a specific line to dispute. Attribution, fluency in cultural practices, placing things in context, listening to people when they say you're wrong even if they can't articulate to your satisfaction the justification, just to name a handful. It's difficult to discuss though when the objections to a politics opposing cultural appropriation range from "they shouldn't complain", to "I have complaints about not specific examples", to "in this very specific case I want a hard and fast ruling (as if it was even my place to make such a ruling).
I am sorry to say that I think you are one more time dodging a real answer and using that usual argument of authority that "people" have detailed the difference.
If people have detailed the difference, why don't you tell us what they are. That's what I am asking.
And if you don't know or can't explain, just say you don't know. There is no shame to that.
|
Norway28614 Posts
Treat the culture you are borrowing from with respect certainly seems like a valid take - but one that is still almost entirely subjective imo. Which is fine, these aren't quantifiable matters and thus we're aiming for intersubjectivity rather than objectivity, but consequently it's one that also demands a good faith interpretation of intentions. (e.g. ask questions rather than make allegations. )
|
On July 01 2020 06:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 06:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 01 2020 06:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
I guess it needs to be reiterated that opposing cultural appropriation isn't opposition of sharing between cultures. Any effort to paint it as such undermines the problem it characterizes. The problem is, who decide what is sharing and what is stealing, and who decides. The problem is that the people who have been deciding (white people) think looting graves and decorating mansions with the spoils is "appreciation". Which is to say the people deciding need to be quiet and listen to the people they're sharing/stealing with/from. EDIT: I'm reminded of this post: Show nested quote +On June 29 2020 20:04 Artisreal wrote:On June 29 2020 19:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 29 2020 19:41 Uldridge wrote:
So GH, I think I understand what you're trying you say, but maybe we should understand the rules of the game a bit better in general so we don't all talk over each other because of misunderstandings.
At what point does cultural adoption/appreciation become appropriation? I would say it's sorta like asking "when does a race joke become a racist joke?" There isn't a exactly a crab gauge for racism where you can just pick something up out of a bucket and measure it with your pocket racist gauge and separate things into keep or release piles (this applies to things like the rash of popular gaming figures facing sexual misconduct/racism allegations too btw). I know a lot of people who normally don't have to deal with this stuff (except when obnoxious sjw's like me or whatever bring it up) want a simple strainer they can just dump everything into and then strictly drink the righteous juice of not perpetuating racism/sexism/homophobia/etc, but that's not how it works. Gotta do a lot of critical thinking informed by victim experiences, relevant scholarship, etc and it's hard damn work we don't really want to do except when we remember we don't have to be better people that treat each other better, we want to. When we think we're "good enough" or that we've arrived at a centrist nirvana we start dying (in the Freirean sense). This stuff is a never ending process, not a simple rehab detox (which can be quite harrowing on it's own). Good post, thank you. I was struggling to formulate something like the last sentence of your penultimate paragraph for a while now. Social interaction is not engineering with its caluations and generally / everywhere in the same manor valid rules. Asking for specific rules always reminds me of incels and companies prying to find a way around regulations. EDIT2: and the one it was responding to (from me about this). Another wonderful post encapsulating everything wrong with trying to have an actual discussion with you.
You make a valid point that approriation is bad but appreciation is good and get asked a serious followup question about when appreciation turns into appropriation and jump strait to 'lol white folk are ok with robbing graves'.
You can't have a discussion like this.
|
On July 01 2020 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Treat the culture you are borrowing from with respect certainly seems like a valid take - but one that is still almost entirely subjective imo. Which is fine, these aren't quantifiable matters and thus we're aiming for intersubjectivity rather than objectivity, but consequently it's one that also demands a good faith interpretation of intentions. (e.g. ask questions rather than make allegations. )
To be honest, in the field of music, we are constantly confronted to composers who make a horrible use of foreign material.
But usually we say that their music is rubbish, or of bad taste, or kitsch. Because that's what happens when you borrow material that you don't understand and don't respect : the result is terrible. It works for food too: the problem with making a pizza with ketchup is not that it's culturally insensitive, it's that it's shit.
|
On July 01 2020 06:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Treat the culture you are borrowing from with respect certainly seems like a valid take - but one that is still almost entirely subjective imo. Which is fine, these aren't quantifiable matters and thus we're aiming for intersubjectivity rather than objectivity, but consequently it's one that also demands a good faith interpretation of intentions. (e.g. ask questions rather than make allegations. )
As I mentioned, it's hard to discuss when some people are making allegations about cultural appropriation and some people are asking good-faith questions or purportedly trying to after first making allegations.
Christians was someone clearly engaging in good faith and landed at a reasonable conclusion based on the discussion, Biff was not and did not imo.
I see his argument as a very elaborate "racism cultural appropriation has been purged of all meaning". There's also something to be said about the offensive state of what is accepted as the status quo. It's not as obvious as the "n***er jokes", but there's little appreciation for how offensive things the community in general thinks are harmless thoughts/posts can actually be.
It took years and countless people to explain the "n***er" thing to people here. It pains me to think how long and hard it will be do get the more subtle stuff to be recognized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
