Even our shoes are racist. - Page 5 - 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.
#15195066
wat0n wrote:How is it? Do any indigenous call themselves redskins?


No, but in this case, it is an imposed identity. This is how racism works, by the dominant race imposing a racial identity on another group, and then using that identity as part of a system of oppression.

So, we see athletic teams taking this historically imposed identity, reinforcing the racism of these names, and simultaneously making money off it.
#15195071
Pants-of-dog wrote:No, but in this case, it is an imposed identity. This is how racism works, by the dominant race imposing a racial identity on another group, and then using that identity as part of a system of oppression.

So, we see athletic teams taking this historically imposed identity, reinforcing the racism of these names, and simultaneously making money off it.


Imposed identity on whom? It's a football team name.

At least you are not saying it's cultural appropriation.

Continuing with that idea, here in Chicago we'll have a Christkindlmarket this year (thankfully). Is that cultural appropriation? It's, after all, a German traditional Christmas market.

Is it cultural appropriation for a BIPOC to go and enjoy something? Is it cultural appropriation for a BIPOC to sell German-style Christmas food in Chicago?
#15195075
wat0n wrote:Imposed identity on whom?


The term Redskins imposes a racial identity on Indigenous people.

If you thought I was saying that racism imposes identities on football teams, you misread.

At least you are not saying it's cultural appropriation.


Again, you misread, It is cultural appropriation.

Continuing with that idea, here in Chicago we'll have a Christkindlmarket this year (thankfully). Is that cultural appropriation? It's, after all, a German traditional Christmas market.


Does it fit the given definition? If so, how?

Is it cultural appropriation for a BIPOC to go and enjoy something?


Does it fit the given definition? If so, how?

Is it cultural appropriation for a BIPOC to sell German-style Christmas food in Chicago?


Does it fit the given definition? If so, how?
#15195077
Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you misread, It is cultural appropriation.


How?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Does it fit the given definition? If so, how?


State yours. As I mentioned, you proposed two definitions that are not really the same.
#15195080
wat0n wrote:How?

State yours. As I mentioned, you proposed two definitions that are not really the same.


How are the two definitions not the same?

And how does the team names issue not meet the definition?
#15195082
Pants-of-dog wrote:How are the two definitions not the same?


Denominations of origin are simply about authorship, they don't have anything to do with the appropriateness of the consumption of the product with a denominated origin.

Pants-of-dog wrote:And how does the team names issue not meet the definition?


Correct me if I'm wrong, but "redskin" is a term alluding to the perception of indigenous peoples by American whites and as such it's actually a white thing, and not part of indigenous culture. I understand why it's offensive, but I don't see how it's cultural appropriation. You could have a better luck with their logo, but even then it's not all that clear it's inappropriate either (clearly, there is no appropriation in terms of authorship since it's clear who it refers to) although I guess you could make the case - from the perspective of not offending anyone - that the team should share some of its proceeds with, or have some ownership shared with, indigenous communities if it wanted to keep the logo.

As for the Christkindlmarket, it has no issues with authorship (it's clear it's a German custom), but is it appropriate for non-Germans like BIPOC to take part in it as sellers or as costumers? Is it appropriate for a non-indigenous to wear or sell moccasins even if denomination of origin is acknowledged (and to keep the comparison the same, by labeling their product as "moccasin, a leather shoe invented by North American indigenous peoples")?

It seems like applying concepts of cultural appropriation to the letter would likely hurt minorities more than anything else. After all, it's precisely through things like the Christkindlmarket and moccasins that the existence and worth of cultures can be acknowledged by others, through practical examples. Denominations of origin make more sense, but that's because they are not all that restrictive in practice as it's literally a branding issue ("champagne" vs "sparkling wine", or "moccasins" vs "leather shoes" if a new DO arises) and it imposes no other penalty on their consumption (no shaming, for starters) AND people fully understand what they are consuming regardless of how the products are labeled.
#15195084
wat0n wrote:Denominations of origin are simply about authorship, they don't have anything to do with the appropriateness of the consumption of the product with a denominated origin.


How does this relate to whether or not the two definitions are the same?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "redskin" is a term alluding to the perception of indigenous peoples by American whites and as such it's actually a white thing, and not part of indigenous culture.


Yes, that is exactly what I said.

I talked about how racism imposes an identity on people targeted by racism. This is an example.

I understand why it's offensive, but I don't see how it's cultural appropriation. You could have a better luck with their logo, but even then it's not all that clear it's inappropriate either (clearly, there is no appropriation in terms of authorship since it's clear who it refers to) although I guess you could make the case - from the perspective of not offending anyone - that the team should share some of its proceeds with, or have some ownership shared with, indigenous communities if it wanted to keep the logo.


So you think it is not cultural appropriation because the offensive term is not part of any Indigenous culture. I can see the logic behind that, but the fact that this is an imposed identity means that white people have historically seen (and to a degree, continue to see) Indigenous people that way.

Sow white people are appropriating that which they perceive as Indigenous traits, such as savagery.

As for the Christkindlmarket, it has no issues with authorship (it's clear it's a German custom), but is it appropriate for non-Germans like BIPOC to take part in it as sellers or as costumers? Is it appropriate for a non-indigenous to wear or sell moccasins even if denomination of origin is acknowledged (and to keep the comparison the same, by labeling their product as "moccasin, a leather shoe invented by North American indigenous peoples")?


Is it appropriate? Why or why not?

It seems like applying concepts of cultural appropriation to the letter would likely hurt minorities more than anything else. After all, it's precisely through things like the Christkindlmarket and moccasins that the existence and worth of cultures can be acknowledged by others, through practical examples. Denominations of origin make more sense, but that's because they are not all that restrictive in practice as it's literally a branding issue ("champagne" vs "sparkling wine", or "moccasins" vs "leather shoes" if a new DO arises) and it imposes no other penalty on their consumption (no shaming, for starters) AND people fully understand what they are consuming regardless of how the products are labeled.


Please clarify which definition of cultural appropriation you are using here. Thank you.

Also, please note that cultural appropriation is not solely about branding or labelling products. This is merely one facet of cultural appropriation.
#15195085
Pants-of-dog wrote:How does this relate to whether or not the two definitions are the same?


You mentioned DOs as defining cultural appropriation, but then posted a Wikipedia definition that's broader than that.

Pants-of-dog wrote:So you think it is not cultural appropriation because the offensive term is not part of any Indigenous culture. I can see the logic behind that, but the fact that this is an imposed identity means that white people have historically seen (and to a degree, continue to see) Indigenous people that way.

Sow white people are appropriating that which they perceive as Indigenous traits, such as savagery.


But their perceptions are not reality. Savagery is not a particularly indigenous trait.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Is it appropriate? Why or why not?


I don't see why not. What's wrong with having a warm German style hot chocolate and pretzel on winter or wearing comfy leather shoes invented by indigenous peoples from North America on summer? Why is it wrong for anyone to sell those?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please clarify which definition of cultural appropriation you are using here. Thank you.

Also, please note that cultural appropriation is not solely about branding or labelling products. This is merely one facet of cultural appropriation.


So you are using the broader one from Wikipedia? I'm using that one, by the way.

Would it be cultural appropriation to sell moccasins without branding the shoes as such?
#15195087
Wouldn't a better example be the names taken by the American military?

Apache helicopters

Black Hawks

Tomahawk missiles

They are clearly meant to represent fearsome names in order to sell this merchandise. The perceived warlike savage that was beaten and conquered by the superior and godly culture after massive battles. These battles were a fantasy as well but history is not written by the butchered.
#15195089
wat0n wrote:You mentioned DOs as defining cultural appropriation, but then posted a Wikipedia definition that's broader than that.


Denominations of origin are simply one example of cultural appropriation. It is not a definition.

But their perceptions are not reality. Savagery is not a particularly indigenous trait.


Exactly. A lot of cultural appropriation ends up peddling myths about these cultures that are not actually true. I assume Orientalist works do not actually depict Arabian cultures accurately, to use another example.

I don't see why not. What's wrong with having a warm German style hot chocolate and pretzel on winter or wearing comfy leather shoes invented by indigenous peoples from North America on summer? Why is it wrong for anyone to sell those?


Are you arguing that there is no significant qualitative difference between the OP and this German thing?

So you are using the broader one from Wikipedia? I'm using that one, by the way.

Would it be cultural appropriation to sell moccasins without branding the shoes as such?


Are you arguing that it is not cultural appropriation to sell moccasins without branding the shoes as such?
#15195099
Pants-of-dog wrote:Exactly. A lot of cultural appropriation ends up peddling myths about these cultures that are not actually true. I assume Orientalist works do not actually depict Arabian cultures accurately, to use another example.


That's not what the definition says, though. It speaks of actual cultural traits, not perceived ones.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you arguing that there is no significant qualitative difference between the OP and this German thing?


Yes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you arguing that it is not cultural appropriation to sell moccasins without branding the shoes as such?


Is it? Are we appropriating French culture when drinking sparkling wine? German culture when eating a burger? American culture when having apple pie?
#15195100
wat0n wrote:That's not what the definition says, though. It speaks of actual cultural traits, not perceived ones.


You probably misread.

I doubt the definition makes any distinction between the two.

Yes.


Do you think there are no differences, or is it possible that you simply do not perceive them?

Is it? Are we appropriating French culture when drinking sparkling wine? German culture when eating a burger? American culture when having apple pie?


Do all of these fit the definition?

Because it seems like you are using any examples whatsoever of one culture using things traditionally associated with another culture and asking if this fits the definition of cultural appropriation.
#15195103
Pants-of-dog wrote:You probably misread.

I doubt the definition makes any distinction between the two.


Would you quote from it saying there's no distinction between both?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Do you think there are no differences, or is it possible that you simply do not perceive them?


Pants-of-dog wrote:Do all of these fit the definition?

Because it seems like you are using any examples whatsoever of one culture using things traditionally associated with another culture and asking if this fits the definition of cultural appropriation.


I don't see why not.

Germans are not a majority of the US population the last time I checked. Furthermore, it turns out there has been widespread discrimination against ethnic Germans at some point and, specifically, in Chicago one of the first ethnic riots in the city's history was about... Germans. Since there's this history of systemic discrimination, I don't see why wouldn't it count. The same can be said about French, Italian, Irish, Jews, Hispanics (both from America and Spain itself), etc.
#15195104
wat0n wrote:Would you quote from it saying there's no distinction between both?

I don't see why not.

Germans are not a majority of the US population the last time I checked. Furthermore, it turns out there has been widespread discrimination against ethnic Germans at some point and, specifically, in Chicago one of the first ethnic riots in the city's history was about... Germans. Since there's this history of systemic discrimination, I don't see why wouldn't it count. The same can be said about French, Italian, Irish, Jews, Hispanics (both from America and Spain itself), etc.


So you think that the history and current social context of Germans is exactly like those of Indigenous people in the Americas.

This seems incorrect.
#15195106
Pants-of-dog wrote:So you think that the history and current social context of Germans is exactly like those of Indigenous people in the Americas.

This seems incorrect.


Oh, so what you are saying then is that we shouldn't use history to make claims about who is currently being discriminated against?

By the way, would have any of these groups have been able to stop suffering from discrimination had some people suddenly started to shame others for doing things such as eating their cuisine or dressing like they traditionally do? In fact, now that I think about it, that did in fact happen but it was not framed as being a show of respect for them but as a completely different thing.
#15195109
wat0n wrote:Oh, so what you are saying then is that we shouldn't use history to make claims about who is currently being discriminated against?


No. In fact, I am agreeing with you that we should use history as a criteria for discrimination.

Since I just mentioned that history is one way of determining discrimination, and you argued that Germans and Indigenous people suffer similar levels of discrimination, it is only logical to assume that you think Germans and Indigenous people have similar histories.

Since you agree that history is one of the criteria, you logically are also arguing that Germans and Indigenous people have similar histories.

By the way, would have any of these groups have been able to stop suffering from discrimination had some people suddenly started to shame others for doing things such as eating their cuisine or dressing like they traditionally do? In fact, now that I think about it, that did in fact happen but it was not framed as being a show of respect for them but as a completely different thing.


Are you making an argument here? It is unclear.
#15195114
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. In fact, I am agreeing with you that we should use history as a criteria for discrimination.

Since I just mentioned that history is one way of determining discrimination, and you argued that Germans and Indigenous people suffer similar levels of discrimination, it is only logical to assume that you think Germans and Indigenous people have similar histories.

Since you agree that history is one of the criteria, you logically are also arguing that Germans and Indigenous people have similar histories.


As far as both having faced discrimination goes, I'd say yes.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you making an argument here? It is unclear.


Yes. In practice, shaming people from enjoying the good things about other cultures can in fact end up driving discrimination, and be a form of discrimination itself.
#15195122
wat0n wrote:As far as both having faced discrimination goes, I'd say yes.


If you are arguing that both have similar enough histories that their situations were and are the same, then that is incorrect.

Yes. In practice, shaming people from enjoying the good things about other cultures can in fact end up driving discrimination, and be a form of discrimination itself.


Is this happening anywhere in the world right now?
#15195127
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you are arguing that both have similar enough histories that their situations were and are the same, then that is incorrect.


They don't need to be the same for the analogy to apply.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Is this happening anywhere in the world right now?


I don't know, you tell me. Why aren't both examples the same? Isn't it actually racist to say someone can't eat, wear or sell something because of his or her race?
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 10

Well, the cop did tell him not to go into the s[…]

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i[…]

@MistyTiger I absolutely agree with you too. W[…]

Key Rasmussen Polls

Here's this weekend's round-up of polls . Anyon[…]