Even our shoes are racist. - Page 4 - 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.
#15194861
Lol, cool tantrum. I agree to end this discussion as you have shown to be oblivious to what is obvious. Fanatism is hard to combat. The circularity of your arguments was getting tedious as well. Have a nice one.
#15194873
So one of the things that people seem to not understand is that cultural appropriation can take many forms.

Even the dreadlock example is clearly different from the moccasin example. The company in the OP was using misrepresentation as way of defrauding customers and making financial gain. This type of economic activity is clearly a problem and even my critics in this thread can see it. And it also obvious that this economic activity is not happening in the situation with the dreadlocks.

An interesting aspect of this debate is the fact that people seem to ignore racism and settler colonialism and how this interacts with this economic activity. They agree that defrauding customers is a problem, but refuse to look at the racist and colonialist context that makes this particular defrauding possible.

So when it comes to looking at something like wearing dreadlocks or headdresses or Maori facial tattoos, there is no clear economic problem, so I assume many people would not see any of this as a problem at all. Or more correctly, they themselves would not see the problem and probably assume there is not one.
#15194908
Pants-of-dog wrote:So one of the things that people seem to not understand is that cultural appropriation can take many forms.

How could they? You assert that there is cultural appropriation then you struggle to define what constitutes cultural appropriation and/or provide a method by which we can reliably identify what constitutes cultural approriation. You keep saying "white girl wearing dreadlocks is just not the same" yet the very article that you link as a source puts forth as an example.

Even the dreadlock example is clearly different from the moccasin example.

So in your eyes, a white girl/boy wearing dreadlocks is NOT an example of cultural appropriation? You haven't been very clear on this. Other people claim it is...
This is when a solid definition would come in handy, rather than some nebulous wimp of a crusader with the delirium of a very bizarre interpretation of liberalism.

The company in the OP was using misrepresentation as way of defrauding customers and making financial gain. This type of economic activity is clearly a problem and even my critics in this thread can see it.

Again. This is a totally different problem. Lying is bad on itself. You don't need to throw another layer of racism to make it look more wrong. It is so weird that you still don't get this.
Why do you link this only to economic activity? This seems rather odd to me. So you telling me because there is merchandise involved there is cultural appropriation? So if a white guy makes his own mocassins and don't exchange money without anyone then this is OK under your eyes? What happens if this white guy now draws a red dot on his forehead and dresses up like a hindu? This is still OK with you?
An interesting aspect of this debate is the fact that people seem to ignore racism and settler colonialism and how this interacts with this economic activity.

You know what's interesting? These minorities have 1000+ bigger problems than this nonsensical cultural appropriation shit.
So when it comes to looking at something like wearing dreadlocks or headdresses or Maori facial tattoos, there is no clear economic problem, so I assume many people would not see any of this as a problem at all. Or more correctly, they themselves would not see the problem and probably assume there is not one.

Do you see? Now you are dancing. The definition you provided does not make any reference whatsoever for the need of an economic motive for cultural appropriation.
This is ridiculous.
#15194936
@XogGyux

That entire post seems based in your misunderstandings. I have already tried to point out all the places and ways you have misunderstood, but you seem to be making the same errors of understanding.

Until you start to address your own confusion, it seems unproductive to try to clarify all your mistakes again.

—————————

Back on topic:

It is not clear if white people using dreadlocks is an example of cultural appropriation.

For one thing, we cannot point to a specific culture from which dreadlocks are being appropriated. With the moccasins, a person could look at the shoe and see which specific Indigenous culture is being copied, or look at the words of the company themselves if they made a claim like “authentic Native American”.

I would not argue that dreadlocks are part of the culture of most black US citizens, since most do not and would not wear dreadlocks because of the stigma associated with untidy hair on black people.
#15194937
Elisa Sobo, Michael C. Lambert and Valerie Lambert wrote:American Indian identity is a political identity based on citizenship in an Indigenous nation whose sovereignty has been acknowledged by the U.S. government. Sovereign Indigenous nations, and only these nations have the authority to determine who is and is not a citizen, and hence who is and is not an American Indian or Alaska Native.

Notice how these Amerindians demand total and absolute subjection and obedience to the US Federal government, when its suits them. Notice how in the leftie world mean and women, gender is a just a social construct, with no biological basis in reality, yet race is immutable.
#15194938
Rich wrote:
Notice how these Amerindians demand total and absolute subjection and obedience to the US Federal government, when its suits them. Notice how in the leftie world mean and women, gender is a just a social construct, with no biological basis in reality, yet race is immutable.



Perhaps life is not a cartoon...
#15194943
late wrote:Jeans were invented in America...


Stop spreading lies wrote:
Denim fabric has its origins in France. This nation, as you may know, is considered to be one of the fashion capitals of the world, so it’s no surprise that one of the most significant clothing trends of the past century came from there.

Initially, denim began life as a fabric known as "serge de Nimes." As keen-eyed readers will notice, ‘de Nimes’ bears a resemblance to denim, which is what this fabric would eventually come to be known as. It was created to be a long-lasting and robust fabric that was initially conceived in Italy. This material was known as ‘jean’ or ‘jeane,’ and it became the initial blueprint for Levi jeans.


ImageNimes, France

Is it "racist" to think that John Wayne and Clint Eastwood invented everything in world history?

...---...

Pants-of-dog wrote:An interesting aspect of this debate is the fact that people seem to ignore racism and settler colonialism and how this interacts with this economic activity.

Yeah, talking about *shopping* as if it were the most important manifestation of our culture, and then finding setter-colonialism in inappropriate purchases, is deep and meaninful analysisTM.

You are obviously NOT an airhead trying to find the meaning of life at a mall.
#15194949
QatzelOk wrote:
Denim fabric has its origins in France.



Levi Straus developed really tough jeans. They were tougher than nails, thanks to it's heavy, coarse fabric held together with rivets.. No one from Paris wore them while Levi was alive... For one thing they were ugly.

Interesting sidenote, a cotton/wool blend (Virginia cloth) had been popular for work clothes. But Levis were cheaper and tougher.
#15194986
Pants-of-dog wrote:@XogGyux

That entire post seems based in your misunderstandings. I have already tried to point out all the places and ways you have misunderstood, but you seem to be making the same errors of understanding.

Until you start to address your own confusion, it seems unproductive to try to clarify all your mistakes again.


What a coincidence. I think the same thing about you! Your entire posts seem to be based on your misunderstandings. I have tried to point out the points that you have misunderstood, and I will continue to point them out since you seem to make the same errors.

It is not clear if white people using dreadlocks is an example of cultural appropriation.

But why is it not clear? I wonder why....

With the moccasins, a person could look at the shoe and see which specific Indigenous culture is being copied, or look at the words of the company themselves if they made a claim like “authentic Native American”.

So if instead, they were advertising "made with authentic unicorn hide" you think this would be more acceptable? If they are lying, the problem is with the act of lying itself, not with the specific content of such lie. I don't really care so much about what they are lying, what I care is that they are lying at all.

I would not argue that dreadlocks are part of the culture of most black US citizens, since most do not and would not wear dreadlocks because of the stigma associated with untidy hair on black people.

O wow. Let's combat racism with moar racism :lol:

Here is the thing. The very first post you made in this thread, and you were the first person to reply, is to brag about buying your footwear from https://www.manitobah.ca/.
Pants-of-dog wrote:Not mine.

I get my mocs from here:
https://www.manitobah.ca/


You seem so proud about doing so, surely this company is impeccable. I am sure the founder or CEO is a native american and that they produce everything within native american reservations and that they sell a lot of their products to native americans.
Quick search later, the CEO and founder is a guy called McCormick (not a very native American name), they produce a portion (don't know what % but suspect is not insignificant) in vietnam and other asian countries. And who are the famous people wearing this? Native Americas? It seems the very Native American celebrities are cindy crawford, jeniffer love hewit, Kate Moss , Megan fox.
For someone so obsessed with colonialism like you are, liking a company founded and lead by a white guy, employing marginalized people/poor people, producing an exotic product for the benefit of other rich and powerful white people seems to draw a damn exquisite parallel to white plantation owners having slaves work tobacco/cotton/etc for the benefit of other white patrons.
The fact that you willfully are oblivious to this rather disturbing picture, while at the same time, trying to lecture us about what constitutes and not constitute "cultural appropriation" seems rather odd.

Let me be clear before you go into a rambling of nonsense. I don't have much problem with the arrangement that I described above. If the workers for the company are treated fairly, they are given a decent salary (and I am sure they are because it is Canada, not a third world country such as the US :lol: ) and they are enjoying sharing their craft with the world, I would welcome it, even if people of other ethnicities and/or races also benefit from this. Stop with the virtue signaling please (and believe me, it hurts me to utter that term out loud, but I think it does apply in this case).
#15194988
@XogGyux

After the first few paragraphs being off topic or things I already addressed, I stopped reading your post.

If you have an argument, please write it out in one or two simple and clear sentences. Thank you.

———————-

For those who think cultural appropriation does not exist, how would you describe the different names for athletic teams that have recently been ditched?
#15194990
Pants-of-dog wrote:@XogGyux
Please write it out in one or two simple and clear sentences. Thank you.

No. I'll use as many words as I see necessary to describe my points and arguments. I will not target my answers to people with low attention spawn or a propensity to not digest the information that I have provided. Unlike you, regurgitating shit is not my MO.
#15194991
@XogGyux

That post was completely off topic. Please let me know if you have an argument. Thanks.

Also, the CEO and founder of Manitobah Mukluks is Indigenous.
#15194995
XogGyux wrote:Really? What’s his name?


I assume you know his name since you already mentioned it.

Now, how does his name support of contradict his claim of being Indigenous?
#15195011
Pants-of-dog wrote:I assume you know his name since you already mentioned it.

Now, how does his name support of contradict his claim of being Indigenous?

You mean the blue eyed white guy that might catch skin cancer if exposed to moonlight without useing sunscreen whose first name is Sean and last name is MacCormick? I would be surprised if this guy has more native American DNA than Elizabeth warren.

Look who is interested now in having offtopic conversations... You made a post around 9am, I read it at noon (my time), I have been thinking how to reply the whole afternoon during my off time at work. Finally, at 8pm, I am done working, so I sit down after dinner and I reasearch a little bit, takes me about 30mins to do some searches and to post my reply.

Less than 15 mins later (11 mins total) you make a very rude post, reinforcing the same shit that you have been saying all along, ignoring my points and overall condescending. You don't seem to be interested in having a legitimate discussion.
I didn't know anything about this company that you like so much. I don't know anything about fashion, the cloth I buy, is kirkland branded from costco and whatever is not from there have been stuff that family and friend have gifted me. I didn't know shit about this brand, all I know is what I googled in the last couple of hours. It is certainly not my intention to attack the company, nor its leadership. As I have said before, I do not subscribe to a "cultural apppropriation nonsense". However, the very first page that popup up on my search is from this article:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba ... -1.3197893

Now... look at the pictures of this article:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Do you see a trend? The only white people pictured are the owner and rich white people using the product. The only pictured people doing manual labor are brown people of (presumably) native American descent.
If this does not conjure pictures of plantation owner taking advantage of the sweat and work of slaves for the benefit of other rich white people...

Like I have said earlier. Don't take this any sort of disapproval by me of this company. I admit I know little to nothing about this company. Just showing you how easy is to paint a narrative with a little bit of googling. This is the company that you endorsed on your first post. How can I trust your judgment in what constitutes (or not) cultural appropriation?
#15195012
Pants-of-dog wrote:For those who think cultural appropriation does not exist, how would you describe the different names for athletic teams that have recently been ditched?


I thought that was because plenty were offensive ("Washington redskins" rings a bell here). But anyway, they were ditched because of those who bitched loudly enough to turn it into an issue.
#15195052
XogGyux wrote:You mean the blue eyed white guy that might catch skin cancer if exposed to moonlight without useing sunscreen whose first name is Sean and last name is MacCormick? I would be surprised if this guy has more native American DNA than Elizabeth warren.


So your argument is that this person does not look like your stereotypical idea of what an Indigenous person should look like.

Since your argument is a stereotype, this is risible.

Look who is interested now in having offtopic conversations... You made a post around 9am, I read it at noon (my time), I have been thinking how to reply the whole afternoon during my off time at work. Finally, at 8pm, I am done working, so I sit down after dinner and I reasearch a little bit, takes me about 30mins to do some searches and to post my reply.

Less than 15 mins later (11 mins total) you make a very rude post, reinforcing the same shit that you have been saying all along, ignoring my points and overall condescending. You don't seem to be interested in having a legitimate discussion.
I didn't know anything about this company that you like so much. I don't know anything about fashion, the cloth I buy, is kirkland branded from costco and whatever is not from there have been stuff that family and friend have gifted me. I didn't know shit about this brand, all I know is what I googled in the last couple of hours. It is certainly not my intention to attack the company, nor its leadership. As I have said before, I do not subscribe to a "cultural apppropriation nonsense". However, the very first page that popup up on my search is from this article:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba ... -1.3197893

Now... look at the pictures of this article:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Do you see a trend? The only white people pictured are the owner and rich white people using the product. The only pictured people doing manual labor are brown people of (presumably) native American descent.
If this does not conjure pictures of plantation owner taking advantage of the sweat and work of slaves for the benefit of other rich white people...

Like I have said earlier. Don't take this any sort of disapproval by me of this company. I admit I know little to nothing about this company. Just showing you how easy is to paint a narrative with a little bit of googling. This is the company that you endorsed on your first post. How can I trust your judgment in what constitutes (or not) cultural appropriation?


Again, you are operating off stereotypes.

—————

So how is the name Washington Redskins not cultural appropriation?

Yes, it is also offensive, but something can be offensive and also be cultural appropriation.

So if no one can explain why it is not cultural appropriation, it seems to fit the definition.
#15195056
XogGyux wrote:Now you are just trolling.


I pointed out that your argument about the CEO’s name and skin colour (i.e. that he is not Indigenous) is baed entirely on your stereotypical ideas about what Indigenous people look like and what names they use.

Is that trolling?

I also pointed out that names like the Washington Redskins are also cultural appropriation, albeit in a far more insulting way.
#15195062
Pants-of-dog wrote:So how is the name Washington Redskins not cultural appropriation?

Yes, it is also offensive, but something can be offensive and also be cultural appropriation.

So if no one can explain why it is not cultural appropriation, it seems to fit the definition.


How is it? Do any indigenous call themselves redskins?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 10

It sounds like what it was specifically designe[…]

@snapdragon And unfortunately, nine men out ten[…]

Did You Get Vaccinated?

Raptors are highly intelligent and adaptive. And[…]

So what are they saying now. that its OK for Apple[…]