Even our shoes are racist. - Page 3 - 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.
#15194744
The definition from Wikipedia is pretty damn broad, and would definitely include dreadlocks.

A denomination of origin seems to be far narrower as it seems to be limited to a naming issue. For instance, champagne is simply sparkling wine from the Champagne region in France using some specific types of grape, but other countries can still produce exactly the same thing and just label it as "sparkling wine".

These shoes could be marketed simply as "soft leather shoes" and would respect a denomination of origin if that's the issue.
#15194747
Pants-of-dog wrote:What it should not be able to do is market these shoes as being made by Indigenous people...


Did they do this? Did they advertise or market the shoes as being made by indigenous people?
Maybe they did, I don't know and I don't care. But if they did, it is wrong for lying and/or false advertisement, it has nothing to do with any wishy-washy cultural appropriation nonsense.

...or use Indigenous designs.

So a mexican chef can put all the ingredients together, put some bread base, some tomato sauce, some cheese, but the end product cannot look like a pizza otherwise he is committing cultural appropriation for stealing the design of the Italians and their income?
This reminds me of Harley trying to patent the hideous noise of their bikes.

I don't know what to tell you, I certainly disagree with your points and the logical conclusion that they lead to if applied broadly.
#15194748
These shoes could be marketed simply as "soft leather shoes" and would respect a denomination of origin if that's the issue.

Well, the question is... is that really what is bothering him? That the shoes are called Moccasins?

I think it is an odd place to make the last stand. The reality is, they can strip the name "Mocassins" from the advertisement and the general public will continue to call them as such.
#15194750
XogGyux wrote:Well, the question is... is that really what is bothering him? That the shoes are called Moccasins?

I think it is an odd place to make the last stand. The reality is, they can strip the name "Mocassins" from the advertisement and the general public will continue to call them as such.


Well, he did talk about the example of champagne... I'm just clarifying that this would then just be a branding issue.

And indeed, people would still call them moccasins, just as sparkling wine made outside of France is still normally called "sparkling wine". But the indigenous producers could still say theirs are "true" moccasins and sell them at a higher price, just as with French sparkling wine producers with champagne.
#15194753
XogGyux wrote:Did they do this? Did they advertise or market the shoes as being made by indigenous people?
Maybe they did, I don't know and I don't care. But if they did, it is wrong for lying and/or false advertisement, it has nothing to do with any wishy-washy cultural appropriation nonsense.


If they did, they would be misrepresenting their products as the cultural products of another marginalised and poorer culture.

So a mexican chef can put all the ingredients together, put some bread base, some tomato sauce, some cheese, but the end product cannot look like a pizza otherwise he is committing cultural appropriation for stealing the design of the Italians and their income?


Why do you think the two situations are comparable?

This reminds me of Harley trying to patent the hideous noise of their bikes.

I don't know what to tell you, I certainly disagree with your points and the logical conclusion that they lead to if applied broadly.


I am not applying them broadly.
#15194755
Pants-of-dog wrote:If they did, they would be misrepresenting their products as the cultural products of another marginalised and poorer culture.


Wait a minute. What do you mean "If". You are not sure if they are doing this? :lol:

Why do you think the two situations are comparable?

What makes you think the two situations are NOT comparable? I'm using the standard that you have provided me and applied it. You said it has something to do with one culture appropriating the design of another. Ok, so Mexicans should not be appropriating the design of a pizza? It is ok if they use the same ingredients, but they cannot call it a pizza nor have a pizza design, it should be called the "tomato and cheese burrito".
Yes. it is ridiculous. And this is my point.

I am not applying them broadly.

The question is then, why not?
#15194758
wat0n wrote:Well, he did talk about the example of champagne... I'm just clarifying that this would then just be a branding issue.

And indeed, people would still call them moccasins, just as sparkling wine made outside of France is still normally called "sparkling wine". But the indigenous producers could still say theirs are "true" moccasins and sell them at a higher price, just as with French sparkling wine producers with champagne.

Well, maybe. But branding is not the same as cultural appropriation.
In the more general term, minorities have significant problems. I don't think that having natives own the world Mocassin, black people own dreadlocks and Mexicans own mariachis = social justice/fairness.
I don't want to talk for them, but I do suspect that blacks would prefer that police stop killing them for traffic violations, that native Americans would prefer that we stop contaminating their water, using their territories and desecrating their mountains rather than how we call a pair of shoes or whether blondy gets to use some dreadlocks. This smells to me like a silly culture war crusade, and it is not even a good one.
#15194760
XogGyux wrote:What makes you think the two situations are NOT comparable? I'm using the standard that you have provided me and applied it. You said it has something to do with one culture appropriating the design of another. Ok, so Mexicans should not be appropriating the design of a pizza? It is ok if they use the same ingredients, but they cannot call it a pizza nor have a pizza design, it should be called the "tomato and cheese burrito".
Yes. it is ridiculous. And this is my point.


If your only point is that you feel it is ridiculous, then you have no argument.

But yes, there are many differences between pizzas and moccasins.

I would argue that the relationship between the two cultures is important; Italy is not under some sort of settler colonialism relationship with Mexico. So is the fact that most pizza recipes we use are not Italian. The economic impact is obviously a major difference. The lack of deception is another one. There are many others.

So, why do you think the two are comparable other than the fact that one culture is doing something that is normally associated with another culture? Do you think all examples of one culture doing something that is normally associated with another culture are examples of cultural appropriation?
#15194762
XogGyux wrote:Well, maybe. But branding is not the same as cultural appropriation.
In the more general term, minorities have significant problems. I don't think that having natives own the world Mocassin, black people own dreadlocks and Mexicans own mariachis = social justice/fairness.
I don't want to talk for them, but I do suspect that blacks would prefer that police stop killing them for traffic violations, that native Americans would prefer that we stop contaminating their water, using their territories and desecrating their mountains rather than how we call a pair of shoes or whether blondy gets to use some dreadlocks. This smells to me like a silly culture war crusade, and it is not even a good one.


It depends on how cultural appropriation is framed or defined. If it's just like DOs then it's simply about money. If it's something broader like the Wiki definition, then it is indeed a culture war trash. One only anglos happen to be obsessed about, for now.
#15194772
Pants-of-dog wrote:If your only point is that you feel it is ridiculous, then you have no argument.

How about this. You focus on making your arguments and let me decide how I feel.

But yes, there are many differences between pizzas and moccasins.

And I have been awaiting for you to state what makes the situations different and why.

Italy is not under some sort of settler colonialism relationship with Mexico.

Then you are arguing two different points. The solution to colonialism is not to give exclusive use of a word to the colonized people. Imagine that shit, I go to you house, I take over your stuff, and tell you... no worries, you still get to name your baby and I promise I won't use that name to refer to anything else. That is fucked up. If you genuinely think that native Americans are being abused of in a quasi-colonial matter, then address this issue, rather than finding some weird token excuse such as "cultural appropriation". Again, I have quite a bit of confidence that black Americans would rather have the police stop shooting first and asking question later instead of having some sort of monopoly over rap music. At the end of the day, this excuse of "cultural appropriation" seems to be a white knight racism complex.

Do you think all examples of one culture doing something that is normally associated with another culture are examples of cultural appropriation?

No. I am not convinced that cultural appropriation even exists. That's my point. I have not been shown any good examples of a working definition and examples of this which does not also applies to some ridiculous example such as the mexican pizza.

wat0n wrote:It depends on how cultural appropriation is framed or defined.

Sure. And that is my whole point for asking for the definition. But remember, the definitions that I have been offered also applies to quite ridiculous scenarios that nobody is willing to accept as "cultural appropriation".

If it's just like DOs then it's simply about money.

We have a name for that, it is called branding and marketing. It can be used at various levels of success, Bayer was unable to keep Aspirin name, Harley Davison apparently cannot protect their stupid noise and Dupont don't have Nylon brand. Whether Natives can keep exclusive rights to the use of the word Mocassin, it truly does not bother, or matter to me one bit. I am more interested about the wider implications and definitions of this "cultural appropriation thing". Let me be clear, I don't really care one way or another if they get to use the word exclusively like POD's suggestion of champagne. I just don't think it would be any sort of cultural appropriation nor do I think it would play any role in advancing the rights/quality of life/independence/etc of natives. I think this is a distraction. I think this is a child of culture wars. And I think this has the potential to open up racial wounds and to be a divisive force.

If it's something broader like the Wiki definition, then it is indeed a culture war trash. One only anglos happen to be obsessed about, for now.

I think this is more or less my point.
I am less interested about the specifics, more interested about the whole movement.
Last edited by XogGyux on 17 Oct 2021 21:07, edited 1 time in total.
#15194773
XogGyux wrote:
And I have been awaiting for you to state what makes the situations different and why.


You made the claim, so I am waiting for you to support it.

Are you now saying that you are not going to support your claim and we must assume it is 100% correct and it is up to me to disprove it?

Then you are arguing two different points. The solution to colonialism is not to give exclusive use of a word to the colonized people.


Strawman. Dealing with cultural appropriation is not the answer to colonialism, nor did I argue that it is. While cultural appropriation helps support settler colonialism, it would be more correct to think of cultural appropriation as an effect of colonialism. You do not treat a disease by curing the symptoms.

No. I am not convinced that cultural appropriation even exists. That's my point. I have not been shown any good examples of a working definition and examples of this which does not also applies to some ridiculous example such as the mexican pizza.


…except the OP.

Can you explain why the OP is not cultural appropriation if they did advertise the products as Indigenous?

Sure. And that is my whole point for asking for the definition. But remember, the definitions that I have been offered also applies to quite ridiculous scenarios that nobody is willing to accept as "cultural appropriation".


Any definition can be misapplied. This does not mean that definitions are not useful guides.

But please answer the question:

Do you think cultural appropriation includes all instances of one culture using or doing something that is normally associated with another culture? Yes or no?

Because you seem to be arguing that this is the case.
#15194775
Pants-of-dog wrote:You made the claim, so I am waiting for you to support it.

I am just following the logical conclusions of the definitions that you have provided.

"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."
Inappropriate adoption of an element or elements of one culture by members of another culture or identity.
This refers to a blonde wearing dreadlocks (a member of caucasian identity, appropriating elements of another culture or identity, -blacks). And it is not just me saying this, the very article that you pulled this crap from has the example"
There is debate about non-black people wearing dreadlocks – a hairstyle most associate with African and African diaspora cultures such as Jamaican Rastafari – and whether them doing so is cultural appropriation.[104] In 2016 a viral video was published of a young black student arguing with a white student and accusing him of cultural appropriation.[105] In 2018, white actor Zac Efron was accused of cultural appropriation when he posted a picture of himself in dreadlocks.[106]


This is copy and paste from the very article where you got the definition that you quoted me.


While cultural appropriation helps support settler colonialism, it would be more correct to think of cultural appropriation as an effect of colonialism. You do not treat a disease by curing the symptoms.

Do you realize the irony of this quote? Let's assume that you are right... cultural appropriation is an effect of colonialism, in other words, cultural appropriation is the symptom of colonialism (the disease). But now you are telling me, you do not treat the disease (colonialism) by curing the symptom (cultural appropriation).... Do you realize the nonsense?


Strawman.


OK, so you don't want to give exclusive use of the word mocassin to natives. What exactly is what you want? At this point you seem to only be rambling.

…except the OP.

Can you explain why the OP is not cultural appropriation if they did advertise the products as Indigenous?

Sure. I don't think cultural appropriation is a thing.
Done./

Any definition can be misapplied. This does not mean that definitions are not useful guides.

So the problem is not the definition that is super broad and leads to conclusions that are absurd... the problem is the people using the definition as stated... Understood.

Do you think cultural appropriation includes all instances of one culture using or doing something that is normally associated with another culture? Yes or no?

Well, it depends. I don't think cultural appropriation is a thing, to begin with. So my answer would be No.
However, if we entertain that it IS a thing and that we are operating under the paradigm of the definition that you offered, then the answer has to be yes, because it is precisely what the definition ensures.

Because you seem to be arguing that this is the case.

I am not arguing that this is the case. The definition is defining it to be the case:
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.
#15194778
late wrote:Jeans were invented in America, although they are so different from what we call jeans today, you could say we appropriated ourselves. :p


Yes but jeans are made in Asia too. I heard about a town in China where the water is indigo because of all the blue dye from the jeans.
#15194781
XogGyux wrote:I am just following the logical conclusions of the definitions that you have provided.

"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."
Inappropriate adoption of an element or elements of one culture by members of another culture or identity.
This refers to a blonde wearing dreadlocks (a member of caucasian identity, appropriating elements of another culture or identity, -blacks). And it is not just me saying this, the very article that you pulled this crap from has the example"


You are confused about your own arguments.

Before you were arguing that pizza was exactly like moccasins. Now you seem to be bringing up dreadlocks again.

If dreadlocks are not part of your argument as to why pizza and moccasins are the same, then perhaps you could clarify.

This is copy and paste from the very article where you got the definition that you quoted me.


Okay.

How does this inform the argument you are making?

Do you realize the irony of this quote? Let's assume that you are right... cultural appropriation is an effect of colonialism, in other words, cultural appropriation is the symptom of colonialism (the disease). But now you are telling me, you do not treat the disease (colonialism) by curing the symptom (cultural appropriation).... Do you realize the nonsense?


Ask any doctor and they will tell you that it makes more sense to treat the underlying disease rather than simply dealing with the symptoms.

OK, so you don't want to give exclusive use of the word mocassin to natives. What exactly is what you want? At this point you seem to only be rambling.


Actually, I have said that such a law would be a good idea.

Sure. I don't think cultural appropriation is a thing.
Done./


Are you saying that no one ever lies and says that their products are authentic Indigenous arts and crafts when they are not?

Because this happens all the time.

So the problem is not the definition that is super broad and leads to conclusions that are absurd... the problem is the people using the definition as stated... Understood.


If you want to describe it that way, feel free.

Well, it depends. I don't think cultural appropriation is a thing, to begin with. So my answer would be No.
However, if we entertain that it IS a thing and that we are operating under the paradigm of the definition that you offered, then the answer has to be yes, because it is precisely what the definition ensures.


Then you have misread the definition.

I am not arguing that this is the case. The definition is defining it to be the case:


No. You are ignoring several key aspects of the definition.
#15194786
Pants-of-dog wrote:You are confused about your own arguments.

Before you were arguing that pizza was exactly like moccasins. Now you seem to be bringing up dreadlocks again.

If dreadlocks are not part of your argument as to why pizza and moccasins are the same, then perhaps you could clarify.


It is just an example. Pizza is part of Italian culture, it is associated with italy. Yet it is a ubiquitous food item that has spread over the world and just about everyone, of all cultures, all races, makes, sells and customizes it to their taste (and culture). I used it as an example precisely to point out that you are blind to this sort of "cultural appropriation" when the "victims" are the perceived "dominant culture".
It is not different than the white girl using dreadlocks, the perceived "dominant" culture, transgressing into something that it is perceived as being part of African American/African-Caribbean culture, dreadlocks, however, nobody seems to care when the black girl straightens her hair making it look similar in texture and feel to that of the blonde girl.
It is a clear double standard.
I don't like double standards. I support maternity leave, just as much as I support paternity leave. I support gays in the military just as much as I support straight women just as much as I support straight man (ideally I support no military, but baby steps :lol: ). I support black girls using dreadlocks or straight hair just as much as I support white girls using dreadlocks and straight hair. I support white people making mocassins just as much as I support native Americans making mocassins.

Okay.

How does this inform the argument you are making?

I told you.

Ask any doctor and they will tell you that it makes more sense to treat the underlying disease rather than simply dealing with the symptoms.

In your analogy... what you perceive as the symptoms of colonialism (the disease) is cultural appropriation (the symptoms). Following the logic of your analogy we should focus on the disease rather than on the symptoms. In other word, we should worry less about cultural appropriation.
That is why your statement is ironic, and why I pointed it out. Silly thing to say when you are trying to argue to opposite point, but whatever. I am glad that we both agree that we should focus less on the symptoms (cultural appropriation), in my opinion, we shouldn't be wasting any time at all worrying about this nonsense, but that's just me.


Actually, I have said that such a law would be a good idea.

So you want a law that says that the word mocassin should only be available for use by native Americans?
Do you support another law that states that the word Kimono can only be used by asians?
The word Fedora can only be used by businesses of caucasian origens?
Perhaps we can ban Africans from calling their sport footwear sneakers?

I think this is a massive waste of time. You want to help native Americans? Do so, respect their lands, their customs, influence your governments into restoring their independence, oppose oil drilling on their lands and/or transport of such over it, etc.
Giving them the exclusive right of using a word seems like a very childish token. And I certainly not see using the word as cultural appropriation.


Are you saying that no one ever lies and says that their products are authentic Indigenous arts and crafts when they are not?

Because this happens all the time.

No. I am saying that when this happens it is bad because they are lying, plain and simple. It is not bad because they are "culturally appropriating something" it is bad because they are lying. If I advertise my clinic saying that I am a Harvard graduate, im not culturally appropriating anything, yet i am lying, it is bad. How hard is for you to understand that something can be good or bad for many multiple reasons, and not all reasons have to do with the oppression of vulnerable people's culture.

Then you have misread the definition.

Or you did.

No. You are ignoring several key aspects of the definition.

What is the "key aspect" that you talk about?
#15194792
XogGyux wrote:It is just an example. Pizza is part of Italian culture, it is associated with italy. Yet it is a ubiquitous food item that has spread over the world and just about everyone, of all cultures, all races, makes, sells and customizes it to their taste (and culture). I used it as an example precisely to point out that you are blind to this sort of "cultural appropriation" when the "victims" are the perceived "dominant culture".
It is not different than the white girl using dreadlocks, the perceived "dominant" culture, transgressing into something that it is perceived as being part of African American/African-Caribbean culture, dreadlocks, however, nobody seems to care when the black girl straightens her hair making it look similar in texture and feel to that of the blonde girl.
It is a clear double standard.
I don't like double standards. I support maternity leave, just as much as I support paternity leave. I support gays in the military just as much as I support straight women just as much as I support straight man (ideally I support no military, but baby steps :lol: ). I support black girls using dreadlocks or straight hair just as much as I support white girls using dreadlocks and straight hair. I support white people making mocassins just as much as I support native Americans making mocassins.

I agree 100%. Nobody "owns" culture, there's no IP patent on it, I think diffusion between cultures is fine and natural and has been happening since the beginning of human civilization. People are free to do their hair the way they wish or cook or sell whatever dishes they wish.
#15194796
XogGyux wrote:It is just an example. Pizza is part of Italian culture, it is associated with italy. Yet it is a ubiquitous food item that has spread over the world and just about everyone, of all cultures, all races, makes, sells and customizes it to their taste (and culture). I used it as an example precisely to point out that you are blind to this sort of "cultural appropriation" when the "victims" are the perceived "dominant culture".
It is not different than the white girl using dreadlocks, the perceived "dominant" culture, transgressing into something that it is perceived as being part of African American/African-Caribbean culture, dreadlocks, however, nobody seems to care when the black girl straightens her hair making it look similar in texture and feel to that of the blonde girl.
It is a clear double standard.
I don't like double standards. I support maternity leave, just as much as I support paternity leave. I support gays in the military just as much as I support straight women just as much as I support straight man (ideally I support no military, but baby steps :lol: ). I support black girls using dreadlocks or straight hair just as much as I support white girls using dreadlocks and straight hair. I support white people making mocassins just as much as I support native Americans making mocassins.


This is only a double standard if you ignore colonialism, racism, the history of the Americas, and the existing double standard where cultural restrictions are supported for western cultures but hot for non-western cultures.

I told you.


Yes, you seem to think that pizza, moccasins, and dreadlocks are all exactly the same, which can only make sense if we ignore history, context, and the actual definition of cultural appropriation.

I disagree.

In your analogy... what you perceive as the symptoms of colonialism (the disease) is cultural appropriation (the symptoms). Following the logic of your analogy we should focus on the disease rather than on the symptoms. In other word, we should worry less about cultural appropriation.


Yes.

That is why your statement is ironic, and why I pointed it out. Silly thing to say when you are trying to argue to opposite point, but whatever. I am glad that we both agree that we should focus less on the symptoms (cultural appropriation), in my opinion, we shouldn't be wasting any time at all worrying about this nonsense, but that's just me.


Yet here you are, trying to convince me that this is a waste of time while not addressing what cultural appropriation is and how it does things like support settler colonialism. You are not doing a good job of convincing me.

So you want a law that says that the word mocassin should only be available for use by native Americans?
Do you support another law that states that the word Kimono can only be used by asians?
The word Fedora can only be used by businesses of caucasian origens?
Perhaps we can ban Africans from calling their sport footwear sneakers?


Strawmen. Ignored.

I think this is a massive waste of time. You want to help native Americans? Do so, respect their lands, their customs, influence your governments into restoring their independence, oppose oil drilling on their lands and/or transport of such over it, etc.
Giving them the exclusive right of using a word seems like a very childish token. And I certainly not see using the word as cultural appropriation.


You do not seem to understand cultural appropriation.

No. I am saying that when this happens it is bad because they are lying, plain and simple. It is not bad because they are "culturally appropriating something" it is bad because they are lying. If I advertise my clinic saying that I am a Harvard graduate, im not culturally appropriating anything, yet i am lying, it is bad. How hard is for you to understand that something can be good or bad for many multiple reasons, and not all reasons have to do with the oppression of vulnerable people's culture.


So cultural appropriation happens, but you want to see it solely as fraud because ignoring the racist and colonial components is somehow more cirrect?

Or you did.

What is the "key aspect" that you talk about?


You tend to ignore the “unacknowledged and inappropriate” part.
#15194802
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is only a double standard if you ignore colonialism, racism, the history of the Americas, and the existing double standard where cultural restrictions are supported for western cultures but hot for non-western cultures.

Of course, it is a double standard. If you treat blacks and whites differently despite both behaving the same, you are engaging on a double standard. In this case you might find it pallatable because you perceive one as being the victim. There is a say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and although I don't believe in hell, I think there is a lot of wisdom on that say. Stop trying to tip the balance one way or another, just get rid of the stupid balance altogether.

Yes, you seem to think that pizza, moccasins, and dreadlocks are all exactly the same, which can only make sense if we ignore history, context, and the actual definition of cultural appropriation.

They are all products/expressions of their own cultural paradigm. In this context, they are equivalent.

I disagree.

Ok.
I said:
"In your analogy... what you perceive as the symptoms of colonialism (the disease) is cultural appropriation (the symptoms). Following the logic of your analogy we should focus on the disease rather than on the symptoms. In other word, we should worry less about cultural appropriation."
You said:
Yes.

Ok so then you agree that we shouldn't be wasting so much energy on this cultural appropriation nonsense.
It is a pitty that took 2 days and 3 pages of discussion to arrive the the same conclusion that this is mostly BS, but I welcome it. :excited:

Yet here you are, trying to convince me that this is a waste of time while not addressing what cultural appropriation is and how it does things like support settler colonialism.

You just said yes... omg.


I said:
"So you want a law that says that the word mocassin should only be available for use by native Americans?
Do you support another law that states that the word Kimono can only be used by asians?
The word Fedora can only be used by businesses of caucasian origens?
Perhaps we can ban Africans from calling their sport footwear sneakers?"
in response to you saying: "Actually, I have said that such a law would be a good idea."
Then you say:
Strawmen. Ignored.

It is not a strawman. The first sentence basically states the very position that you already said "such law would be a good idea"
The others are just showing parallel, analogous situations to the one that you are proposing.
It is not a strawman, a strawman is when I argue a different weaker argument, instead of yours. But you already said "such a law would be a good idea". I am not misrepresenting your point at all. It seems every time you put yourself in a corner you start screaming "strawman, strawman". You don't even seem to know how to properly point out a real strawman.

You do not seem to understand cultural appropriation.

No, I don't, enlighten me. How can I possibly understand something that I don't think exists.

So cultural appropriation happens, but you want to see it solely as fraud because ignoring the racist and colonial components is somehow more cirrect?

No. If white guy cuts off a white guy on the road... is that "cultural appropriation"? No! Is this guy being a fucking ass? Yes! (assuming it was done on purpose rather than an accident.) Not everything that is bad = cultural appropriation. If you say your T-shirts are 100% cotton, but it turns out they are a blend of 70% cotton and 30% polyester, you are misrepresenting your merchandise, you are lying to the costumer. There is no "cultural appropriation". Likewise, if you say your t-shirt was hand woven by the most fertile 19-year-old native American woman in the Appalachian but it turns out it was made in a factory in china, you are also misrepresenting your merchandise, you are lying to the customer. THere is no "cultural appropriation". I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.

You tend to ignore the “unacknowledged and inappropriate” part.

Ok... then, what makes something "inappropriate" and what makes it "unacknowledged"? Who gets to decide what makes something inappropriate? I don't like pineapple on my pizza, do I get to call that inappropriate? Frankly, I spent 10 years training for my job and I take my job very seriously and my actions can literally be life/death, so do I get to say a 10-year-old kid dressed up like a doctor for holloween is "inappropriate"? Is it the white girl wearing the dreadlocks that decides if doing so is inappropriate or is it the black girl that decides so? Perhaps what is appropriate vs inappropriate is codified in some divine document? or at least on some important historical document, maybe the constitution? No... This is just a wishy washy arbitrary thing.
Funny you should think this clarifies your position, but it is rather what makes the definition that you are using ambiguous, useless.
#15194812
XogGyux wrote:Of course, it is a double standard. If you treat blacks and whites differently despite both behaving the same, you are engaging on a double standard. In this case you might find it pallatable because you perceive one as being the victim. There is a say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and although I don't believe in hell, I think there is a lot of wisdom on that say. Stop trying to tip the balance one way or another, just get rid of the stupid balance altogether.

They are all products/expressions of their own cultural paradigm. In this context, they are equivalent.

Ok.
I said:
"In your analogy... what you perceive as the symptoms of colonialism (the disease) is cultural appropriation (the symptoms). Following the logic of your analogy we should focus on the disease rather than on the symptoms. In other word, we should worry less about cultural appropriation."
You said:

Ok so then you agree that we shouldn't be wasting so much energy on this cultural appropriation nonsense.
It is a pitty that took 2 days and 3 pages of discussion to arrive the the same conclusion that this is mostly BS, but I welcome it. :excited:


You just said yes... omg.


I said:
"So you want a law that says that the word mocassin should only be available for use by native Americans?
Do you support another law that states that the word Kimono can only be used by asians?
The word Fedora can only be used by businesses of caucasian origens?
Perhaps we can ban Africans from calling their sport footwear sneakers?"
in response to you saying: "Actually, I have said that such a law would be a good idea."
Then you say:

It is not a strawman. The first sentence basically states the very position that you already said "such law would be a good idea"
The others are just showing parallel, analogous situations to the one that you are proposing.
It is not a strawman, a strawman is when I argue a different weaker argument, instead of yours. But you already said "such a law would be a good idea". I am not misrepresenting your point at all. It seems every time you put yourself in a corner you start screaming "strawman, strawman". You don't even seem to know how to properly point out a real strawman.


No, I don't, enlighten me. How can I possibly understand something that I don't think exists.


No. If white guy cuts off a white guy on the road... is that "cultural appropriation"? No! Is this guy being a fucking ass? Yes! (assuming it was done on purpose rather than an accident.) Not everything that is bad = cultural appropriation. If you say your T-shirts are 100% cotton, but it turns out they are a blend of 70% cotton and 30% polyester, you are misrepresenting your merchandise, you are lying to the costumer. There is no "cultural appropriation". Likewise, if you say your t-shirt was hand woven by the most fertile 19-year-old native American woman in the Appalachian but it turns out it was made in a factory in china, you are also misrepresenting your merchandise, you are lying to the customer. THere is no "cultural appropriation". I don't know why this is so hard to grasp.


Ok... then, what makes something "inappropriate" and what makes it "unacknowledged"? Who gets to decide what makes something inappropriate? I don't like pineapple on my pizza, do I get to call that inappropriate? Frankly, I spent 10 years training for my job and I take my job very seriously and my actions can literally be life/death, so do I get to say a 10-year-old kid dressed up like a doctor for holloween is "inappropriate"? Is it the white girl wearing the dreadlocks that decides if doing so is inappropriate or is it the black girl that decides so? Perhaps what is appropriate vs inappropriate is codified in some divine document? or at least on some important historical document, maybe the constitution? No... This is just a wishy washy arbitrary thing.
Funny you should think this clarifies your position, but it is rather what makes the definition that you are using ambiguous, useless.


This is getting long and vague.

Most of it seems to based on you misreading my posts.

If you do not think cultural appropriation exists, that is your opinion, and I am not here to force you to be educated against your will.

You have not shown any convincing argument as to why anyone would agree with you.

If you have a good argument, please let me know.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10

What I like about crypto is that it enables preda[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

Omicron will fuck the mudbloods harder than the pu[…]

Is Boris Johnson on the ropes?

Maybe, I could see China funding and installing a[…]

freemasonry and its goals

The last sentence sounds like assumption, exactly […]