Even our shoes are racist. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15194637
XogGyux wrote:So then exactly what constitutes cultural appropriation in your view?


The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society.

There are many examples.

The OP is a decent example.

Can you explain why the OP is not one? Or do you agree that it is?
#15194651
Pants-of-dog wrote:The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc.

Read what you just wrote.
Under this paradigm inappropriately performing a practice = cultural appropriation. A jew that refuses to circumcise his/her kid would be committing cultural appropriation under this paradigm. A chef that puts a non-traditional item on a pizza is doing cultural appropriation (fuck Hawaiian pizza). Bands such as Trans-Siberian orchestra that mixes classics such as Beethoven with rock = cultural appropriation. A Mexican restaurant that has a kid's menu that includes pizza is cultural appropriation. This is ridiculous.

of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society.

At the end of the day, this is what it comes down to be from your perspective. From all you have said, I believe that your point is "if white people do something that is traditionally done by blacks or natives that's cultural appropriation, but if the opposite takes place, and a native person or a black individual does something that is traditionally done by white people, then this is OK". This is disingenuous and a bit racist as well.

I have been on reservations, you go to a gift shop, and the tribal people are selling items that appear to be cultural items... you grab the item, look on the back and a sticker "made in china". Let's not lose track of the issue here, 99% of the time it is about money. I recognize that these people's ancestors were robbed of their continent. But I am not a supporter of some sort of wishy-washy "reparations" for this thing.
#15194696
XogGyux wrote:Read what you just wrote.
Under this paradigm inappropriately performing a practice = cultural appropriation. A jew that refuses to circumcise his/her kid would be committing cultural appropriation under this paradigm. A chef that puts a non-traditional item on a pizza is doing cultural appropriation (fuck Hawaiian pizza). Bands such as Trans-Siberian orchestra that mixes classics such as Beethoven with rock = cultural appropriation. A Mexican restaurant that has a kid's menu that includes pizza is cultural appropriation. This is ridiculous.


No. While the definition I randomly chose from the dictionary is not perfect, it is a strawman to argue that cultural appropriation means all these ridiculous things.

At best, you are pointing out that this particular definition is not well worded.

At the end of the day, this is what it comes down to be from your perspective. From all you have said, I believe that your point is "if white people do something that is traditionally done by blacks or natives that's cultural appropriation, but if the opposite takes place, and a native person or a black individual does something that is traditionally done by white people, then this is OK". This is disingenuous and a bit racist as well.


No, this is a strawman as well. You brought up race before and I explicitly denied that race was the issue.

I have been on reservations, you go to a gift shop, and the tribal people are selling items that appear to be cultural items... you grab the item, look on the back and a sticker "made in china". Let's not lose track of the issue here, 99% of the time it is about money. I recognize that these people's ancestors were robbed of their continent. But I am not a supporter of some sort of wishy-washy "reparations" for this thing.


I never argued for reparations.
#15194698
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. While the definition I randomly chose from the dictionary is not perfect, it is a strawman to argue that cultural appropriation means all these ridiculous things.

At best, you are pointing out that this particular definition is not well worded.



No, this is a strawman as well. You brought up race before and I explicitly denied that race was the issue.



I never argued for reparations.


Then, please tell me exactly what constitutes cultural appropriation to your eyes. Because it seems to me, that if you are having trouble wording it, or making it apply only to certain situations, there is a component of race/ethnicity that is being slapped into it.
#15194700
XogGyux wrote:Then, please tell me exactly what constitutes cultural appropriation to your eyes. Because it seems to me, that if you are having trouble wording it, or making it apply only to certain situations, there is a component of race/ethnicity that is being slapped into it.


I provided a definition from a dictionary. You can also look it up if you need further clarification.

The OP is also a case of cultural appropriation. Can you explain why the OP is not?
#15194703
Pants-of-dog wrote:I provided a definition from a dictionary. You can also look it up if you need further clarification.

The OP is also a case of cultural appropriation. Can you explain why the OP is not?

Well, that definition is not good. You don't seem to to like the conclusions that it leads to.

The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc.

What is "inappropriate adoption of customs, practices"? This seems to imply that if you get a pizza, which is part of italian culture/customs and a mexican chef start putting ingredients that are not traditional and/or part of italian cussine tradition... this would be an act of cultural appropriation. Those people that wear a bolo tie with a suit are also committing cultural appropriation because the custom is to use a necktie instead. Don't get me started with eating Chinese food with western utensils, "chinese restaurants" that offer western utensils are committing cultural appropriation by not observing the custom/practices of eating with 2 sticks.

I'll offer you this. If you don't like where your definition leads, it is probably because the definition is not good.

The OP is also a case of cultural appropriation. Can you explain why the OP is not?


Actually, the opposite is true. You are making a claim that it is, the burden of proof is on you. The null hypothesis is not that "everything is cultural appropriation" and you have to prove which ones are not.
#15194704
XogGyux wrote:Well, that definition is not good. You don't seem to to like the conclusions that it leads to.

What is "inappropriate adoption of customs, practices"? This seems to imply that if you get a pizza, which is part of italian culture/customs and a mexican chef start putting ingredients that are not traditional and/or part of italian cussine tradition... this would be an act of cultural appropriation.

Those people that wear a bolo tie with a suit are also committing cultural appropriation because the custom is to use a necktie instead. Don't get me started with eating Chinese food with western utensils, "chinese restaurants" that offer western utensils are committing cultural appropriation by not observing the custom/practices of eating with 2 sticks.

I'll offer you this. If you don't like where your definition leads, it is probably because the definition is not good.


Like I said, I just randomly grabbed one. I do not care about the quality of a particular definition.

Actually, the opposite is true. You are making a claim that it is, the burden of proof is on you. The null hypothesis is not that "everything is cultural appropriation" and you have to prove which ones are not.


I already explained why.

I discussed three issues.

You even quoted it.
#15194705
Pants-of-dog wrote:Like I said, I just randomly grabbed one. I do not care about the quality of a particular definition.



I already explained why.

I discussed three issues.

You even quoted it.


So let me get this straight. For a day, several posts, I asked to exactly what qualifies as the cultural appropriation to your eyes. You post something that you claim comes from a dictionary.. When I post the ridiculous conclusions that we can arrive at using such a definition, then you claim... well perhaps the dictionary didn't word it perfectly, and now you say you don't really care for a definition?
Then.... if you don't know what you are looking for, when do you know you have found it?

I already explained why.

Can you remind us then? I suspect that if I quoted it as you said I did, I must have addressed it as well, but just for the sake of clarity, can you remind us why the OP constitutes cultural appropriation to your eyes?
#15194706
XogGyux wrote:So let me get this straight. For a day, several posts, I asked to exactly what qualifies as the cultural appropriation to your eyes. You post something that you claim comes from a dictionary.. When I post the ridiculous conclusions that we can arrive at using such a definition, then you claim... well perhaps the dictionary didn't word it perfectly, and now you say you don't really care for a definition?
Then.... if you don't know what you are looking for, when do you know you have found it?


Please note that I have asked you to discuss the OP at least four times now.

Can you remind us then? I suspect that if I quoted it as you said I did, I must have addressed it as well, but just for the sake of clarity, can you remind us why the OP constitutes cultural appropriation to your eyes?


    ……….

    On that note, I am going to pontificate on the OP, so if cultural appropriation is not an interesting subject for you, please ignore the rest of the post.

    There seems to be three separate issues here:

    1. Moccasins as cultural appropriation.

    2. Making money by representing one’s products as the products of another culture.

    3. US law.

    Dealing with US law first:

    Interestingly, the US actually has a law against non-Indigenous people making money by dishonestly claiming they are selling Indigenous arts or crafts: the Indian Arts and Crafts Act of 1990 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_ ... ct_of_1990). So the company in the OP may be running afoul of that, or are trying to evade being charged under that law.

    Making money off misrepresentation of your stuff as belonging to culture x can be treated very seriously, like the use of the term ”champagne”, which is illegal in most of the world. This part is interesting because we tend to respect it when France does it, but not when people with less societal power do so.

    Finally, wearing moccasins is not considered cultural appropriation because they are not restricted. They are just shoes, and everyone wears shoes. Much like jeans or pizza, everyone can have some. What is considered cultural appropriation is when we use restricted symbols such as a headdress or a Maori ta moko. This is because these things are restricted; you have to earn the right to wear one in the appropriate culture, and when we wear these things without earning them, we dishonour and cheapen the thing. We do this is western cultures too, by making it illegal to impersonate cops or claiming to have some sort f education or training that they do not.

You replied here:
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=181102#p15194619
#15194709
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that I have asked you to discuss the OP at least four times now.

Oh. I don't think you have.

1. Moccasins as cultural appropriation.

Oh wow. Sherlock, isen't that a circular argument. The OP is cultural appropriations because of Moccasins as cultural appropriation... Makes no sense, please try again.

2. Making money by representing one’s products as the products of another culture.

This can be interpretted in 2 ways. One is that you are flat-out misrepresenting your product. This is bad because it is a lie, and it has NOTHING to do with cultural appropriation. If I start advertising my practice with a bunch of logos of Hardvard School of medicine... well I am doing something wrong, possibly illegal, but it has NOTHING to do with cultural appropriation. If a company says "this is handcrafted by skilled leatherworkers" and it turns out that a robot in china is making the shit, it is also bad because it is a lie. But, let me be clear, it has NOTHING to do with cultural appropriation. So again, this does not answer your claim that the OP is cultural appropriation.

3. US law.

Consult a lawyer for that. This does not seem to be an issue in this case.

Finally, wearing moccasins is not considered cultural appropriation because they are not restricted. They are just shoes, and everyone wears shoes. Much like jeans or pizza, everyone can have some.

Wait a minute...You don't even think this is cultural appropriation after 2 pages worth of back and forth? :lol: :knife:
#15194711
XogGyux wrote:This can be interpretted in 2 ways. One is that you are flat-out misrepresenting your product. This is bad because it is a lie, and it has NOTHING to do with cultural appropriation. If I start advertising my practice with a bunch of logos of Hardvard School of medicine... well I am doing something wrong, possibly illegal, but it has NOTHING to do with cultural appropriation. If a company says "this is handcrafted by skilled leatherworkers" and it turns out that a robot in china is making the shit, it is also bad because it is a lie. But, let me be clear, it has NOTHING to do with cultural appropriation. So again, this does not answer your claim that the OP is cultural appropriation.


Actually, defrauding the customer with a lie like this is cultural appropriation when the lie is that the art or craft is made by and in a specific culture when it is not.

And again, we do think this is a Bad Thing in modern law, which is why the term “champagne” is legally reserved for the sparkling wine of a particular region. If Indigenous groups had the same power as the French government, there would be similar laws all over the world.

From an economic perspective, this has real and measurable negative impacts for Indigenous artisans and artists. For many communities, it is the number one source of revenue. And they are then losing out on all the money spent on the people lying about being Indigenous.

Indigenous communities are already marginalised and disproportionately dealing with poverty and lack of access to resources. Laws like the US law protect these communities from further economic loss.
#15194724
Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, defrauding the customer with a lie like this is cultural appropriation when the lie is that the art or craft is made by and in a specific culture when it is not.

Defrauding the customer is wrong in all contexts, you don't need a special scenario for when brown and black people are involved.
A company advertising that their shoes are made by aborigines by hand with the finest deer hide when they are actually made with cow leather in china is not much different than me telling my patients that I graduated 1st of Harvard school of medicine or that vitamin D will cure their cancer.
Lying is bad, misrepresenting your products is bad. This is completely independent of claiming some sort of bizarre cultural appropriation BS.

And again, we do think this is a Bad Thing in modern law, which is why the term “champagne” is legally reserved for the sparkling wine of a particular region. If Indigenous groups had the same power as the French government, there would be similar laws all over the world.

Oh please. This is branding. Now, my particular views is that this should not exist.
Do you have sibblings? How often were you able to use the excuse "because my brother/slash sister did it too" to get away for doing something your parents didn't want you to use.
Furthermore, you think a company making mocassins is cultural appropriation because france is protecting their sparking wines under the name champagne? Are you suggesting that the US/Canada should put together a law saying that the word mocassin can only be used for products produced within native American reservations and created by native american people?
Indigenous communities are already marginalised and disproportionately dealing with poverty and lack of access to resources. Laws like the US law protect these communities from further economic loss.

So your plan is to throw them a bone, we stole your country, so in return, we will give you exclusive use of the word "moccasin" so you can make shiton of money-making shoes. Seriously I don't think that plan stands a chance of working. :lol:
On a more serious nature. Ideally, the continent would not have been stripped from their native people like it was, unfortunately, history is history and we cannot go back in time and we have to play with the cards we are being delt. I am not opposed to allocating a large portion (state-sized) land area, with natural resources, freshwater resources, coastal access and "gift it back" (and I know, it sounds ugly) to their original owners and have them decide if they wish to make an independent nation, if they wish to make a new state and join the federation, or if they wish to sell the land to chinese investors and use the money to retire to Monaco. This is however unrealistic.

Again. I still don't understand what exactly constitutes "cultural appropriation" to your views.
#15194725
XogGyux wrote:Defrauding the customer is wrong in all contexts, you don't need a special scenario for when brown and black people are involved.
A company advertising that their shoes are made by aborigines by hand with the finest deer hide when they are actually made with cow leather in china is not much different than me telling my patients that I graduated 1st of Harvard school of medicine or that vitamin D will cure their cancer.
Lying is bad, misrepresenting your products is bad. This is completely independent of claiming some sort of bizarre cultural appropriation BS.


Yes, fraud is bad even when it has nothing to do with cultural appropriation.

That does not mean that fraud through cultural appropriation is not also a thing.

Oh please. This is branding. Now, my particular views is that this should not exist.
Do you have sibblings? How often were you able to use the excuse "because my brother/slash sister did it too" to get away for doing something your parents didn't want you to use.
Furthermore, you think a company making mocassins is cultural appropriation because france is protecting their sparking wines under the name champagne? Are you suggesting that the US/Canada should put together a law saying that the word mocassin can only be used for products produced within native American reservations and created by native american people?


Why would that be a bad thing?

The company in the OP could still sell soft soled leather slip on shoes.

[code]
So your plan is to throw them a bone, we stole your country, so in return, we will give you exclusive use of the word "moccasin" so you can make shiton of money-making shoes. Seriously I don't think that plan stands a chance of working. :lol:
[/quote]

No, one can simultaneously want companies to stop engaging in cultural appropriation while still wanting Canada and the USA to be dismantled and have all the land returned to its rightful owners, but the latter is outside the scope of this thread and you would probably disagree with me on that too.

On a more serious nature. Ideally, the continent would not have been stripped from their native people like it was, unfortunately, history is history and we cannot go back in time and we have to play with the cards we are being delt. I am not opposed to allocating a large portion (state-sized) land area, with natural resources, freshwater resources, coastal access and "gift it back" (and I know, it sounds ugly) to their original owners and have them decide if they wish to make an independent nation, if they wish to make a new state and join the federation, or if they wish to sell the land to chinese investors and use the money to retire to Monaco. This is however unrealistic.

Again. I still don't understand what exactly constitutes "cultural appropriation" to your views.


None of this addresses my points.
#15194727
Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, fraud is bad even when it has nothing to do with cultural appropriation.

That does not mean that fraud through cultural appropriation is not also a thing.

We agree on this.

No, one can simultaneously want companies to stop engaging in cultural appropriation

Again, what specifically qualifies as cultural appropriation in the OP and in general. You gotta first define the parameters to have a meaningful discussion, you posted a possible definition and when you saw where it lead which you did not like all of the sudden "it is poorly worded" and that was the end of the discussion. A meaningful debate cannot occur if the terms are not well understood by both parties. What exactly is cultural appropriation, what is the definition that you are happy with, and how this company in your view violated it.

Canada and the USA to be dismantled and have all the land returned to its rightful owners, but the latter is outside the scope of this thread and you would probably disagree with me on that too.

The "rightful owners" died centuries ago. Of course, I will disagree with you too. You want to ship black people back to africa as well? Perhaps before we disolve US and Canada we should deport all these american blacks and send them to the African continent. For good or for bad, we are all the product of the history that we share, we should aim to create a better history for our children, but we cannot fix the history of our fathers. This white guilt is neither helpful nor welcomed.

None of this addresses my points.

I am not surprised. Probably it has something to do with the fact that you have not made your points clear.
#15194729
XogGyux wrote:We agree on this.


Again, what specifically qualifies as cultural appropriation in the OP and in general. You gotta first define the parameters to have a meaningful discussion, you posted a possible definition and when you saw where it lead which you did not like all of the sudden "it is poorly worded" and that was the end of the discussion. A meaningful debate cannot occur if the terms are not well understood by both parties. What exactly is cultural appropriation, what is the definition that you are happy with, and how this company in your view violated it.


Here is the Wikipedia definition:

    Cultural appropriation[1][2] is the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity.[3][4][5] This can be controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from minority cultures.[6][1][7]

Feel free to critiicse this one too.

I am not here to debate semantics.

The "rightful owners" died centuries ago.


No. Indigenous people are still here.

Of course, I will disagree with you too. You want to ship black people back to africa as well? Perhaps before we disolve US and Canada we should deport all these american blacks and send them to the African continent. For good or for bad, we are all the product of the history that we share, we should aim to create a better history for our children, but we cannot fix the history of our fathers. This white guilt is neither helpful nor welcomed.

I am not surprised. Probably it has something to do with the fact that you have not made your points clear.


None of this addresses my points.
#15194731
Pants-of-dog wrote:Here is the Wikipedia definition:

    Cultural appropriation[1][2] is the unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of an element or elements of one culture or identity by members of another culture or identity.[3][4][5] This can be controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from minority cultures.[6][1][7]

Do you realize the unilateral characteristics of this?? "Dominant culture appropriate from a minority".
This is how you end up with a bunch of angry idiots complaining why the blonde lady is wearing deadlocks but nobody says shit when the black lady straights up their hair.
Cultural appropriation:
Image
Not Cultural appropriation:
Image
This is utter nonsense :lol:

Not to mention, that you still have not identified the specifics of the OP that in your eyes makes it cultural appropriation.

None of this addresses my points.

Then make a point.
#15194733
XogGyux wrote:Do you realize the unilateral characteristics of this?? "Dominant culture appropriate from a minority".
This is how you end up with a bunch of angry idiots complaining why the blonde lady is wearing deadlocks but nobody says shit when the black lady straights up their hair.
Cultural appropriation:
Image
Not Cultural appropriation:
Image
This is utter nonsense :lol:


I am not discussing dreadlocks.

Not to mention, that you still have not identified the specifics of the OP that in your eyes makes it cultural appropriation.


Then make a point.


Again, the point is that this type of cultural appropriation that we see in the OP ends up costing Indigenous communities lots of money and that this loss of revenue is significant and impacts these communities in a negative manner.

Laws such as the ones protecting the term “champagne” or the Arts and Crafts law of the USA help stop this fraud.
#15194737
Pants-of-dog wrote:I am not discussing dreadlocks.

Of course not 8) :lol: ;)


Again, the point is that this type of cultural appropriation that we see in the OP ends up costing Indigenous communities lots of money and that this loss of revenue is significant and impacts these communities in a negative manner.

Just to be clear that I got your point correctly.
So you think only indigenous people should create these kinds of shoes?
Is that it?
#15194739
XogGyux wrote:Just to be clear that I got your point correctly.
So you think only indigenous people should create these kinds of shoes?
Is that it?


No.

I explicitly said earlier that the company in the OP can always sell soft soled leather slip on shoes.

What it should not be able to do is market these shoes as being made by Indigenous people or use Indigenous designs.

And this is actually the law in the USA, and it should be the law elsewhere as well. Canada is definitely lagging behind in this regard.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10

@snapdragon What about a guy who doesn't show […]

"Whether we like it or not"

@Truth To Power I understand it's more complic[…]

Is Boris Johnson on the ropes?

@JohnRawls I haven't seen democracies wage war[…]

How Has Brexit Been Going https://www.youtube.com[…]