Even our shoes are racist. - Page 6 - 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.
#15195133
wat0n wrote:They don't need to be the same for the analogy to apply.


Really?

You seem to be arguing that Germans are currently as economically marginalised as Indigenous people today and so the context is the same. I think this is incorrect.

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?


Again, you seem to ignore the given definition, and instead 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.
#15195137
Pants-of-dog wrote:Really?

You seem to be arguing that Germans are currently as economically marginalised as Indigenous people today and so the context is the same. I think this is incorrect.


No, I'm not. I'm saying they have been subject to discrimination in the past, and as someone who cares so much about that type of history I'd believe you'd care about it and go on about how that means there is a level of discrimination against it even today. According to you bias is an unconscious process so how do you know Americans are not biased against Germans given the history?

Pants-of-dog wrote:Again, you seem to ignore the given definition, and instead 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.


Really? This is what you quoted:

Wiki wrote: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]


Is German culture majority, or dominant, in the US?
#15195142
wat0n wrote:No, I'm not. I'm saying they have been subject to discrimination in the past, and as someone who cares so much about that type of history I'd believe you'd care about it and go on about how that means there is a level of discrimination against it even today. According to you bias is an unconscious process so how do you know Americans are not biased against Germans given the history?


The topic is DOs as cultural appropriation.

You argued that the situation was the same for both, since they both have a history of being targets of discrimination.

So I am pointing out that the situation can only be the same for both if both had the same levels and quality of discrimination, which they have not.

In fact, the different histories and different modern contexts are so different that it creates two very different contexts when it comes to comparing the relative market power and economic marginalisation of German and Indigenous communities.

Really? This is what you quoted:

Is German culture majority, or dominant, in the US?


European settler communities are dominant in the USA. The Germans are among those communities. In terms of having access to defending their culture, accessing economic resources, creating intergenerational wealth, and the economic behaviours that the dominant group gets to make, protecting cultural wealth from looters, they are part of the dominant cultures, yes.
#15195147
Pants-of-dog wrote:The topic is DOs as cultural appropriation.

You argued that the situation was the same for both, since they both have a history of being targets of discrimination.

So I am pointing out that the situation can only be the same for both if both had the same levels and quality of discrimination, which they have not.

In fact, the different histories and different modern contexts are so different that it creates two very different contexts when it comes to comparing the relative market power and economic marginalisation of German and Indigenous communities.


No, my only claim is that DOs are far narrower than your definition of cultural appropriation. And honestly, they don't exist because someone believes cultures can be appropriated, according to their proponents DOs exist as a seal of quality that the product being sold is what is in fact being advertised.

As for the rest, Blacks and indigenous peoples have different histories too yet cultural appropriation seems to apply to both. Care to explain why shouldn't the same apply to Germans and will you explain why shouldn't we believe they are not discriminated against given the history and the (according to you) unconscious nature of bias?

Pants-of-dog wrote:European settler communities are dominant in the USA. The Germans are among those communities. In terms of having access to defending their culture, accessing economic resources, creating intergenerational wealth, and the economic behaviours that the dominant group gets to make, protecting cultural wealth from looters, they are part of the dominant cultures, yes.


Hold on. Are you trying to claim that all European cultures are the same simply because of the skin tone of European populations? Are Black and indigenous cultures the same too?
#15195149
Pants-of-dog wrote: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?

Yes. You are being disingenuous.
"Stereotype" is not inherently bad.
We routinely send pregnancy tests to all women of childbearing age that are going to go to a radiation study (such as CT scan) and/or will be getting medications administered to them.
Is it a stereotype that we don't send pregnancy tests to male patients? Yes, is it wrong? No. Show me a pregnant male patient and then we can talk. Is it a stereotype that we don't send a pregnancy test for a 70-year-old woman that is going for a CT angiogram? Yes, is it wrong? Stereotypes are not necessarily bad or indicate any sort of disdain, prejudice, etc. Certainly, that seems that it is what you are implying. I am plenty comfortable with my values.
I am quite confident that a white guy with blue eyes and more recessive genes that I could care to count with a last name of Irish Origen is very unlikely to have any significant native American heritage.
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.

This is faulty logic. You have similar outcomes despite dealing with 2 widely different processes. For instance, you can have the outcome "being in paris" despite having 2 different processes (flying directly non-stop from newyork) vs (taking a car trip from alabama to los-angeles, boarding a 7 day cruise to hawaii, taking a plane to turkey and taking a train to paris. Two widely different histories can end up with the exact same outcome.
#15195170
wat0n wrote:No, my only claim is that DOs are far narrower than your definition of cultural appropriation.


Then you are agreeing with my point that DOs are just one example of cultural appropriation.

And honestly, they don't exist because someone believes cultures can be appropriated, according to their proponents DOs exist as a seal of quality that the product being sold is what is in fact being advertised.


Yes, that is also true, but that does not mean that cultural appropriation never happens.

As for the rest, Blacks and indigenous peoples have different histories too yet cultural appropriation seems to apply to both. Care to explain why shouldn't the same apply to Germans and will you explain why shouldn't we believe they are not discriminated against given the history and the (according to you) unconscious nature of bias?


Are you asking me a question or are you implying some sort of argument?

Hold on. Are you trying to claim that all European cultures are the same simply because of the skin tone of European populations? Are Black and indigenous cultures the same too?


No. You misread.

You asked me if Germans were dominant. I pointed out that when compared to Indigenous communities, Germans are part of the set of communities that make up part of the settler group, and are therefore part of the dominant group.

This is an economic group based on their relationship with the state in terms of respecting property rights, and has nothing to do with skin colour.

———————

@XogGyux

Do you refuse painkillers to anyone who looks Indigenous because of the stereotype that they are drug abusers? If you support stereotypes, then I will assume that you not only do this, but assume it is a good practice.

And yes, two different paths can lead to similar circumstances. Black people in the USA and Indigenous people in the USA have very different histories but similar problems today.Would you argue that Germans currently enjoy similar circumstances?
#15195171
Pants-of-dog wrote:
Do you refuse painkillers to anyone who looks Indigenous because of the stereotype that they are drug abusers? If you support stereotypes, then I will assume that you not only do this, but assume it is a good practice.

This is what you have lowered yourself to? You didn't like what I have to say to you, you didn't like that I exposed the irony of your posts and now you are going for the cheap personal attacks, perhaps suggesting that I provide sub-par care to some people based on how they look? I reckon this exposes more about your character defects than it does mines.
This is offtopic but no.
Actually I don't refuse to prescribe painkillers to known drug addicts either, let alone someone that *might* be one. When I prescribe pain killers I try to prescribe from less side effect bunch first, so topicals -> tylenol -> NSAIDs -> opiods generally. My decision to prescribe pain killers is based on whether I have good reason to believe the patient is on pain, even drug addicts get pain and when they do, I attempt to treat their pain no different that any other patient. In fact, drug addicts tend to get themselves in situations that can cause injuries (passing out, falling, etc) or they can infect themselves and have abscesses, bone infections, etc... all of which is a good reason to have pain.
If you support stereotypes,

Its not a matter of supporting or not supporting stereotypes. We all do it, and I dare the smug ass claim otherwise. The real thing is how to see past the stereotype, how to be aware that it is, and not let it drive your decisions.
but assume it is a good practice.

It wouldn't be good practice to blanket refuse pain killers to people who look indigenous, it wouldn't be good practice to blanket refuse pain killer to actual, known drug addicts.
#15195173
Pants-of-dog wrote:Then you are agreeing with my point that DOs are just one example of cultural appropriation.


Sure.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Yes, that is also true, but that does not mean that cultural appropriation never happens.


Maybe, but that doesn't seem to be a major reason for their existence... According to their proponents.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you asking me a question or are you implying some sort of argument?


Both. You are the one saying it's possible to prove a negative, so there you have an example for you.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. You misread.

You asked me if Germans were dominant. I pointed out that when compared to Indigenous communities, Germans are part of the set of communities that make up part of the settler group, and are therefore part of the dominant group.

This is an economic group based on their relationship with the state in terms of respecting property rights, and has nothing to do with skin colour.


It's interesting how the "dominant" and "minority" groups are defined can be changed based on convenience. German Americans are not a "dominant" group from a cultural or demographic perspective, just like Black and indigenous peoples are not the same either. Hell, even saying the Creek are the same as the Cherokee simply because "they are all Indians" would likely be labeled as a form of racism by some. Merely sharing skin tone is not enough to sustain that sort of claim. Weird, I would think someone as conscious about how race is socially constructed would not disagree with this idea at all.
#15195224
@XogGyux

Okay.

So we agree that stereotypes are not necessarily good or useful.

Which is why it is not necessarily a good idea to assume someone is not Indigenous just because they do not conform to a stereotype about how Indigenous people look.

——————-

@wat0n

Germans are dominant from an economic perspective, which is the proper perspective when looking at economic issues like DOs and how different groups can or cannot exercise these cultural rights depending on their economic power or role in society.

When looking at settler colonialism, which is the context under which Indigenous people have to deal with cultural appropriation, it makes sense to look at. which communities benefit from settler colonialism and which are negatively impacted by it.

In this case, German immigrant communities benefited from settler colonialism while Indigenous communities suffered.

This is an economic group based on their relationship with the state in terms of respecting property rights, and has nothing to do with skin colour.
#15195229
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Germans are dominant from an economic perspective, which is the proper perspective when looking at economic issues like DOs and how different groups can or cannot exercise these cultural rights depending on their economic power or role in society.


Please prove this. What percentage of US wealth is owned by ethnic Germans, and what percentage of income do they earn?

Pants-of-dog wrote:When looking at settler colonialism, which is the context under which Indigenous people have to deal with cultural appropriation, it makes sense to look at. which communities benefit from settler colonialism and which are negatively impacted by it.


Why? Is that part of the definition of "cultural appropriation" you posted yourself or it's just your opinion?

Pants-of-dog wrote:In this case, German immigrant communities benefited from settler colonialism while Indigenous communities suffered.


Did they? It seems to me it's far better, from a material perspective, to be indigenous today than it was in 1491. I'll be happy to be proven wrong, however. It's hard to comment as to whether they are better off in other realms, however, but economically they seem to be doing far better than back then.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is an economic group based on their relationship with the state in terms of respecting property rights, and has nothing to do with skin colour.


Is culture a form of property? Normally it's regarded as a public good, since it's non-excludable and non-rival and it would at best become a club good. I find it ironic to see communists trying to privatize culture, by the way.
#15195233
@wat0n

1. Are you arguing that German immigrant communities did not benefit from the Canadian state taking land and resources from Indigenous people and using it as an economic resource base for non-Indigenous Canadians including German immigrants?

2. It is neither opinion nor part of the definition to point out that settler colonialism is the overriding economic paradigm for relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in the Americas. It is simply a historical fact.

Much like it is a historical fact that Indigenous people were dispossessed of their land and resources, and that this has been a huge economic problem.
#15195239
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

1. Are you arguing that German immigrant communities did not benefit from the Canadian state taking land and resources from Indigenous people and using it as an economic resource base for non-Indigenous Canadians including German immigrants?


Sure they did, and plenty of others benefitted as well. For instance, Black Canadians and African Americans benefitted too from a narrow material point of view.

What's your point?

Pants-of-dog wrote:2. It is neither opinion nor part of the definition to point out that settler colonialism is the overriding economic paradigm for relationships between Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities in the Americas. It is simply a historical fact.

Much like it is a historical fact that Indigenous people were dispossessed of their land and resources, and that this has been a huge economic problem.


It is also a fact that the living standards for everyone, including indigenous peoples, are far higher than in 1491. Could the latter live even better? Probably yes, but closing off to other cultures would be unlikely to help, as one can attest by studying indigenous peoples that did not contact outsiders (including non-European outsiders, by the way) that largely live like in 1491. Technological catch up and transfer cannot happen without interacting with other cultures, even if it happens in bad terms.

I also don't see what does anything of this have to do with the definition of cultural appropriation you posted from Wikipedia. It most definitely does not suggest that there needs to be a relationship based on oppression for it to happen, it only states some people find it controversial when this is the case. And quite frankly it's not automatic to see why, as if anything plenty of people may actually find it flattering to see people from other cultures showing interest in your own and not oppressive. And yes that does include BIPOC. In reality, you're getting offended about what you perceive as slights against others, without giving them a chance to complain themselves - as if they somehow needed you to do this to protect their hyper fragile feelings (when in reality they are not the ones suffering from emotional fragility here). I find it ironic because it also ignores their standpoint, another postmodern meme "epistemology".
#15195241
wat0n wrote:Sure they did, and plenty of others benefitted as well. For instance, Black Canadians and African Americans benefitted too from a narrow material point of view.

What's your point?


My point is that it is incorrect to claim that Germans and Indigenous people are on the same side of the economic oppression and marginalisation occurring in the Americas today.

It is also a fact that the living standards for everyone, including indigenous peoples, are far higher than in 1491. Could the latter live even better? Probably yes, but closing off to other cultures would be unlikely to help, as one can attest by studying indigenous peoples that did not contact outsiders (including non-European outsiders, by the way) that largely live like in 1491. Technological catch up and transfer cannot happen without interacting with other cultures, even if it happens in bad terms.

I also don't see what does anything of this have to do with the definition of cultural appropriation you posted from Wikipedia. It most definitely does not suggest that there needs to be a relationship based on oppression for it to happen, it only states some people find it controversial when this is the case. And quite frankly it's not automatic to see why, as if anything plenty of people may actually find it flattering to see people from other cultures showing interest in your own and not oppressive. And yes that does include BIPOC. In reality, you're getting offended about what you perceive as slights against others, without giving them a chance to complain themselves - as if they somehow needed you to do this to protect their hyper fragile feelings (when in reality they are not the ones suffering from emotional fragility here). I find it ironic because it also ignores their standpoint, another postmodern meme "epistemology".


As far as I can tell, none of this is on topic.
#15195261
Pants-of-dog wrote:My point is that it is incorrect to claim that Germans and Indigenous people are on the same side of the economic oppression and marginalisation occurring in the Americas today.

I think that's true. But does this mean it's not ok for German-Americans to sell moccasins? Is it ok for indigenous people to sell hamburgers and frankfurter sausages?
#15195263
Unthinking Majority wrote:I think that's true. But does this mean it's not ok for German-Americans to sell moccasins? Is it ok for indigenous people to sell hamburgers and frankfurter sausages?


Does it mean that?

Is it okay?

Why or why not?
#15195265
@Unthinking Majority

Okay.

Please note that these questions have already been answered in this thread.

But I will repeat myself:

It is sometimes not ok for German-Americans to sell moccasins, and sometimes it is ok. It is ok for indigenous people to sell hamburgers and frankfurter sausages.
#15195266
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Unthinking Majority

Okay.

Please note that these questions have already been answered in this thread.

But I will repeat myself:

It is sometimes not ok for German-Americans to sell moccasins, and sometimes it is ok. It is ok for indigenous people to sell hamburgers and frankfurter sausages.

Ok thanks. Why is this the case?

I can't find where you may have answered this question, at least going back the last page.
#15195270
Pants-of-dog wrote:@XogGyux
Which is why it is not necessarily a good idea to assume someone is not Indigenous just because they do not conform to a stereotype about how Indigenous people look.

Go ahead, share with us the extensive native American heritage of this guy.

@wat0n

Germans are dominant from an economic perspective, which is the proper perspective when looking at economic issues like DOs and how different groups can or cannot exercise these cultural rights depending on their economic power or role in society.

When looking at settler colonialism, which is the context under which Indigenous people have to deal with cultural appropriation, it makes sense to look at. which communities benefit from settler colonialism and which are negatively impacted by it.

In this case, German immigrant communities benefited from settler colonialism while Indigenous communities suffered.

This is an economic group based on their relationship with the state in terms of respecting property rights, and has nothing to do with skin colour.

Seems to me that you are arbitrarily pulling rules out of the ass.
#15195273
Unthinking Majority wrote:Ok thanks. Why is this the case?

I can't find where you may have answered this question, at least going back the last page.


The OP seems to be an example of a non-Indigenous company making money off a product that they claimed was designed by and made by Indigenous people when this was not the case.

This is a corporate practice that takes advantage of the fact that Indigenous people and communities are already marginalised and find it harder to protect their cultural rights and identity from appropriation.

Germans are not in a similar position of marginalisation, do not have their cultural rights or identity threatened, and can exert their rights if they feel their cutlural rights and identity are being threatened. I believe they have a couple times in the last century or so.

——————

@XogGyux

If you have clear evidence that the guy behind Manitobah Mukluks is faking his Indigenous identity, please present said evidence. Thanks.

And if you think that a history of colonialism is not relevant. please explain why.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 10

His career. Well his career was deemed successf[…]

Ghislaine Maxwell Trial

Clinton would be in worse trouble first. So proba[…]

Yada, Yada, Yada, Yada,.... Look folks. Let us […]

I read a nice comment on CBC news that suggested […]