The LiquidLegends Lounge - Page 683

I agree with you here. Historical art productions definitely reflect historical views. It is also important to note that our current social situation is intrinsically based on that history, and many aspects of that history are still prevalent in our current social situation. I think these pieces are worth preserving and such. However, because they represent a specific aspect of history they have the power to reaffirm and recreate that history when we use them as (parts of) a display.

This can be done well! For example, consider an exhibit that display orientalist works in a way that explains the history that went into their production, alongside some explanation of contemporary issues, or that somehow gives back to the communities currently feeling the remaining effects of the history.

It can also be done poorly. For example, last year I was part of a group of Japanese Canadians who wrote to the Canadian Opera Company regarding their production of the show Madame Butterfly (a famous orientalist work). Our concern was that based on their track record of the show's productions, they probably had no intention of engaging in issues surrounding the well-known controversy of the show. Additionally, many aspects of their production reflected a lack of care towards the issues at hand (for example, an all-white cast many of whom were in yellowface). We asked them if they would be willing to work with us on creating meaningful dialogue about the issues, such as in the way of us providing a written resource to print on the back of the show program, to which their response was "no but you can buy tickets here [link]". Then they made lots of money from the show and a bunch of old rich people came out thinking themselves experts in barbaric cultures such as Japan, an idea which was then reflected onto us as conservative ultra-nationalists much like one character from the play.



Ok. I understand your example now, but it's not really a case of orientalism specifically. There's still a large number of social constructs that go into the creation of the situation though (such as race, which you mention), many of which are much more tackle-able a problem than say general ignorance.

See, you say this, but then you make basic broad and uninformed claims like:
"that's what culture does, it fucks people over to adapt to the rich and powerful, that has been the way for eternity"
"It's only "orientalism" now because people love to attach labels to everything they can when in fact it's no different from any other form of discrimination."
"Culture is basically capitalism in the truest sense."
"It's the course of social nature."
"This is the basis of culture. People get fucked and the culture evolves to a new form."

These show that you have no idea what you're talking about. Or rather, you understand what you're saying, but you're applying it over too broad a spectrum of things such that it's simply not true. Just because I'm currently drinking lychee black tea doesn't mean that everybody also is, or that all teas are lychee black tea, or anything else, it simply means that what is true in one case (I am drinking lychee black tea) is true in that case but not necessarily in other cases.

In any case, you evidently have no experience in the social sciences other than maybe psych or economics, and certainly nothing interdisciplinary. This isn't a problem and you're not a bad person for not having done those things, but you have no formal education in them, and you're clearly making no effort to obtain an informal education in them, and yet you're still declaring yourself an expert in them.

Furthermore, I'm not saying that the notion that "culture is constantly changing" is wrong. In fact, I agreed with it, and then noted it's irrelevancy to a moral discussion. The notion I'm disagreeing with is that culture is a uniform/homogenous entity that necessarily meets your descriptions in all cases.



Uh yeah that's a pretty decent description of how some people can profit off of cultural appropriation, sure. But this is just a breakdown of one form of profiteering off of someone's culture. This definitely happens, but this isn't a universal truth in any sense.



Uh, no, I did not say that is there is one that is agreed upon. Furthermore, you're the one proposing a singular model of culture, not me.

There are cultures outside of capitalism, and pre-capitalist cultures existed. Capitalism is not an inevitable truth of the world or of human existence. But yes, those are two possibles models of the relationship between culture and economics.



Psychology is a social science, at least in the way I use the term.

But this is a non-sequitur.

Let me rephrase your argument:
1: There is an exploitative process that happens if someone wants to exploit someone
2: People are intrinsically lazy and greedy
3: Therefore the bad process happens in 100% of cases and is inevitable

The conditions "people are intrinsically lazy and greedy" aren't the same as the conditions "someone wants to exploit someone". There are numerous social factors that make this unfeasible in many contexts. For example, without a capitalist system than people can't be exploited through capitalism (duh). Not all forms of exploitation / discrimination are the same (despite your claim to the contrary), and they have many varied factors they're contingent upon in order to exist. These conditions can be changed, as they're social constructs, although they're very difficult to change.

As such, in many cases, movements that seek to end various form of oppression and exploitation take a very broad stance on what needs to change. For example, abolishing global capitalism, decolonization and respect of indigeneity, and thoroughly queering our notions of gender/sexuality. These aim to make "the inevitable" not actually inevitable at all, because it's not, and there are many cases supporting this claim (especially at the small scale).

These movements are not intrinsically morally futile merely because you believe a new oppressive regime will necessarily rise up in it's place. Similarly, self-defense is not morally futile merely because I'm going to die eventually anyway, not murdering people is not morally futile merely because they will die eventually anyway, and aiding another is not morally futile merely because they may hurt someone else one day.