Even our shoes are racist. - Page 7 - 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.
#15195275
I can't think of any stronger protection for indigenous communities to defend their cultures than having a strong territorial autonomy, as they do in the US. Seriously, what the hell? :?:
#15195289
Pants-of-dog wrote:@XogGyux

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

You drop more circles than a dog trying to lay down on the floor. Such disingenuous approach to a discussion.
I don't fucking care what you call it, call it stereotype, call it an educated guess on statistics, call it an informed assessment based the genetic/phenotyping assessment, call racism, I could care less what you think of me. Canada has less than 5% indigenous population, on a randomized controlled trial the indigenous population would not be considered significant. Not knowing this guy's name or overall appearance already puts him at a 20 to 1 odds of not having indigenous heritage. Statistics, Science. But then we add the fact that the guy has a bunch of recessive genes, and a very irish last name (btw Irish descendants 3:1 outnumber indigenous) and I am feeling that my odds at convincing a court of my peers over your silly dodgings are quite good.
I can also play the "prove me the OP company is not indigenous". For that matter, prove to me that the earth is not flat, that the sun is not a ball of fire and that we don't live in the matrix. Fucking childish arguments.
Since the start, all you do is dodge and make accusations, remember when you posted a definition? Remember when you later claimed that it was just a poorly written definition? Remember when later you claimed that the definition hinged on the words "inappropriate" but then you couldn't tell me what exactly is inappropriate on this context? Remember when all of a sudden cultural appropriation only applies when there are economic conflicts? Apparently, Manitoba's production of products on china/vietnam does not seem to bother you so much.

And if you think that a history of colonialism is not relevant. please explain why.

Depends on what you mean of history being relevant. History is always relevant, if there was no bigbang, there is no universe, no solar system, no planet earth, no first cell organism, no first animal, no first mammal, no first human, no human civilization, no christopher colombus, no canada, no you. So clearly it is relevant. On the other hand, we cannot change our history (unless you have some inside information on the availability of time machines, let me know and hook me up with one, I want to know the lottery tickets). You are still angry about colonization? But you are not angry when britain got invaded by romans? Humanity evolved in Africa, we are an invasive species in all other continents... So lets all blame it on African people right?
#15195296
XogGyux wrote:You drop more circles than a dog trying to lay down on the floor. Such disingenuous approach to a discussion.
I don't fucking care what you call it, call it stereotype, call it an educated guess on statistics, call it an informed assessment based the genetic/phenotyping assessment, call racism, I could care less what you think of me. Canada has less than 5% indigenous population, on a randomized controlled trial the indigenous population would not be considered significant. Not knowing this guy's name or overall appearance already puts him at a 20 to 1 odds of not having indigenous heritage. Statistics, Science. But then we add the fact that the guy has a bunch of recessive genes, and a very irish last name (btw Irish descendants 3:1 outnumber indigenous) and I am feeling that my odds at convincing a court of my peers over your silly dodgings are quite good.
I can also play the "prove me the OP company is not indigenous". For that matter, prove to me that the earth is not flat, that the sun is not a ball of fire and that we don't live in the matrix. Fucking childish arguments.
Since the start, all you do is dodge and make accusations, remember when you posted a definition? Remember when you later claimed that it was just a poorly written definition? Remember when later you claimed that the definition hinged on the words "inappropriate" but then you couldn't tell me what exactly is inappropriate on this context? Remember when all of a sudden cultural appropriation only applies when there are economic conflicts? Apparently, Manitoba's production of products on china/vietnam does not seem to bother you so much.


Since you have no evidence, I am not going to address this argument any longer.

You are accusing a man of lying about his heritage without any evidence, in order to support a stereotype about how you think Indigenous people should look.

Depends on what you mean of history being relevant. History is always relevant, if there was no bigbang, there is no universe, no solar system, no planet earth, no first cell organism, no first animal, no first mammal, no first human, no human civilization, no christopher colombus, no canada, no you. So clearly it is relevant. On the other hand, we cannot change our history (unless you have some inside information on the availability of time machines, let me know and hook me up with one, I want to know the lottery tickets). You are still angry about colonization? But you are not angry when britain got invaded by romans? Humanity evolved in Africa, we are an invasive species in all other continents... So lets all blame it on African people right?


I see.

You now seem to no longer be arguing that cultural appropriation does not exist.

Now you are arguing that all critics of colonialism are wrong because we do mainly look at ongoing colonialism and do not give equal weight to colonial projects that no longer exist.
#15195298
Pants-of-dog wrote: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.


What are "cultural rights" that you refer to?

I think in certain cases it may be perceived as rude and not socially proper to appropriate marginalized cultures. On the other hand, legally people have the right to wear or sell whatever they want as long as someone else doesn't own the IP.

To sell mocs if you're not indigenous...well, I wouldn't do it. On the other hand, who cares if some white dude is wearing dreadlocks. Maybe it's different if someone if profiting off it.

On the other hand, it's annoying to have all these people trying to control what others do, wear, sell etc.
#15195300
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since you have no evidence, I am not going to address this argument any longer.

You are accusing a man of lying about his heritage without any evidence, in order to support a stereotype about how you think Indigenous people should look.

What heritage? Did he claim that he is native American? or you are the one assuming that he claiming this?
Evidence?, I provided plenty that goes against this.
You show me evidence that he is.


You now seem to no longer be arguing that cultural appropriation does not exist.

I am perfectly capable of entertaining an idea for the sake of argument. I am certainly not convinced that it exists and you have not provided any evidence for it.

Now you are arguing that all critics of colonialism are wrong because we do mainly look at ongoing colonialism and do not give equal weight to colonial projects that no longer exist.

I am simply pointing the flaw in the argument.
This is typical of people that have a mindset and then they look for justifications that validate the mindset.
#15195303
Unthinking Majority wrote:What are "cultural rights" that you refer to?


In terms of cultural appropriation, we are talking about the right of a cultural community to decide what is part of their culture and what is not.

And the right to decide what is depicted and marketed as part of their culture and what is not.

There is also the right to decide who gets to make money off of it.

I think in certain cases it may be perceived as rude and not socially proper to appropriate marginalized cultures. On the other hand, legally people have the right to wear or sell whatever they want as long as someone else doesn't own the IP.


Not necessarily.

It is illegal to offer or display for sale, or sell any art or craft product in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian or Indian Tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization, resident within the United States.

To sell mocs if you're not indigenous...well, I wouldn't do it. On the other hand, who cares if some white dude is wearing dreadlocks. Maybe it's different if someone if profiting off it.

On the other hand, it's annoying to have all these people trying to control what others do, wear, sell etc.


Cultural appropriation takes many forms. But not all examples of one culture doing something traditionally associated with another culture are cultural appropriation.
#15195305
XogGyux wrote:What heritage? Did he claim that he is native American? or you are the one assuming that he claiming this?
Evidence?, I provided plenty that goes against this.
You show me evidence that he is.


Please provide the link to your evidence about him again. I will then quote the relevant text from your link. Thank you.

I am perfectly capable of entertaining an idea for the sake of argument. I am certainly not convinced that it exists and you have not provided any evidence for it.


What would convince you that cultural appropriation exists?

I am simply pointing the flaw in the argument.
This is typical of people that have a mindset and then they look for justifications that validate the mindset.


No.

You are attempting to accuse all critics of colonialism as hypocrites who ignore some colonial projects while condemning others.

This is a type of ad hominem fallacy.

There are two major flaws with this thinking of yours: first of all, it is not a flaw in an argument. Hypocrites can still be right. A critic of English colonialism can make correct and intelligent criticisms about English colonialism regardless of how much he blatantly ignores Spanish colonialism.

Secondly, it makes sense to focus on ongoing colonial projects since we are at a moment in history when we can actually do something about it.
#15195308
What ongoing colonial project exactly? Surely not letting the indigenous have autonomy like in the US or Canada, even more so since such autonomy allows them to protect their cultures as they see fit in practice.

Also, will you stop changing the goalposts? You provided a definition of "cultural appropriation", I just applied it.
#15195309
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide the link to your evidence about him again. I will then quote the relevant text from your link. Thank you.

I am not playing games with you. You clearly just want to play ping pong and try to avoid having a serious discussion. You troll me, I'll troll you back.

What would convince you that cultural appropriation exists?

A good argument might be a good start.

You are attempting to accuse all critics of colonialism as hypocrites who ignore some colonial projects while condemning others.

No. I am pointing out the futilism of endlessly lamenting the calamities of the past. This toxic self-hate s

Secondly, it makes sense to focus on ongoing colonial projects since we are at a moment in history when we can actually do something about it.

Sure, and your solution is to give exclusive rights of the word "mocassins" to a handful of companies so they can make indigenous $$... brilliant plan! Bravo!
#15195316
Pants-of-dog wrote:In terms of cultural appropriation, we are talking about the right of a cultural community to decide what is part of their culture and what is not.

And the right to decide what is depicted and marketed as part of their culture and what is not.

There is also the right to decide who gets to make money off of it.

Is this a concept you created or is this a concept someone else thought of?

I don't see how a "cultural community" can "decide" anything. Do they get to vote? How do they decide who is a member of what culture?

Usually what happens is some members of a cultural community get upset at cultural appropriation, but they don't speak for all members of that culture. Some members may be fine with it, or just not care.

Not necessarily.

It is illegal to offer or display for sale, or sell any art or craft product in a manner that falsely suggests it is Indian produced, an Indian product, or the product of a particular Indian or Indian Tribe or Indian arts and crafts organization, resident within the United States.

This has more to do with false advertising.

Cultural appropriation takes many forms. But not all examples of one culture doing something traditionally associated with another culture are cultural appropriation.

Why not?

Some is more offensive than others, that's all I see. Personally I can see how "Washington Redskins" or "Cleveland Indians" might be offensive to some. I don't really see how "Chicago Blackhawks" or "Apache helicopters" are offensive, they seem to be using indigenous imagery in complementary way (showing natives are tough warriors).
#15195348
I don't know if this counts as cultural appropriation but I'm offended by the use of Angkor's name and symbol by commercial companies in Cambodia. The cheapest nastiest brands will usurp the name of the largest pre-industrial settlement in human history and place it on their beer, their cigarettes and their airliners. The national gov't takes great offense to those overseas who copy the architectural style of Angkor Wat in newly built temples let alone hotels and restaurants but are fine with it's name being desecrated by those selling canned rat piss.

Also there's a casino in Phnom Penh named after a deity where all the staff disingenuously dress up in traditional garb for the tourists.

XogGyux wrote:The redskin issue is more to do with racism than with cultural appropriation. Frankly, it's tasteless. It's like calling your bar "The N*****'s pub". You are not culturally appropriating anything, you are just being a racist turd. There is a huge difference.

If you'd like to use a real world example look up the name of Rick Perry's ranch.
Naming your weapons of war after people you've genocided seems pretty crass to me. It's kinda funny that sports teams get more flak than the US Army but I guess Tomahawks and Apaches aren't mentioned in the news as often.

I saw you mention a Mexican cooking pizza as a potential false example of cultural appropriation. Fun fact: tomatoes originated in Mexico. Make of that what you will.

I only read the first page before posting.

Also, @Pants-of-dog
Is your moniker an example of cultural appropriation? Have you captured and killed any dogs in order to earn the use of that name?
#15195362
wat0n wrote:What ongoing colonial project exactly? Surely not letting the indigenous have autonomy like in the US or Canada, even more so since such autonomy allows them to protect their cultures as they see fit in practice.

Also, will you stop changing the goalposts? You provided a definition of "cultural appropriation", I just applied it.


Are you talking to me?

XogGyux wrote:I am not playing games with you. You clearly just want to play ping pong and try to avoid having a serious discussion. You troll me, I'll troll you back.

A good argument might be a good start.

No. I am pointing out the futilism of endlessly lamenting the calamities of the past. This toxic self-hate s

Sure, and your solution is to give exclusive rights of the word "mocassins" to a handful of companies so they can make indigenous $$... brilliant plan! Bravo!


What argument would convince you that cultural appropriation exists?

Do you agree or not that colonialism is an ongoing problem?

Unthinking Majority wrote:Is this a concept you created or is this a concept someone else thought of?


Someone else, I guess. It has been a right for many groups in modern history.

I don't see how a "cultural community" can "decide" anything. Do they get to vote? How do they decide who is a member of what culture?


Different Indigenous communities have different criteria.

Much the same way western societies do.

For example, I lived in Quebec for decades but no Quebecois would consider me one of their cutlure.

Usually what happens is some members of a cultural community get upset at cultural appropriation, but they don't speak for all members of that culture. Some members may be fine with it, or just not care.


Yes.

This has more to do with false advertising.


I am not going to make guesses about the intent of the law.

Why not?


Because not all examples of one culture doing things traditionally associated with another culture fit the given definition.

Some is more offensive than others, that's all I see. Personally I can see how "Washington Redskins" or "Cleveland Indians" might be offensive to some. I don't really see how "Chicago Blackhawks" or "Apache helicopters" are offensive, they seem to be using indigenous imagery in complementary way (showing natives are tough warriors).


Once, a member of the comedy troupe “The 1491s” went to a football game to talk about team names.

The conservatives there did two th8ngs:

1, Claimed to be honouring Indigenous people, and….
2. Threatened to violently assault him.

So, I am not sure that they actually want to honour Indigenous people, or simply think they can use Indigenous names whenever they wish and can exert power against marginalised people who disagree.

———————

@AFAIK

It is almost certainly illegal to hunt dogs in Edmonton.

Also, I am such a poor hunter that it is indeed possible that I do not deserve even my insulting moniker.
#15195373
Pants-of-dog wrote:Are you unaware of the ongoing colonialism?


Make your case. Don't indigenous communities enjoy a very high degree of autonomy in the US and Canada that allows them to protect their culture as they wish?
#15195378
wat0n wrote:Make your case. Don't indigenous communities enjoy a very high degree of autonomy in the US and Canada that allows them to protect their culture as they wish?


The answer is “no”.

But if you want to argue that colonialism is no longer happening, and because of this @XogGyux is correct that critics of colonialism are hypocrites, it still does not disprove any arguments by such critics.
Last edited by Pants-of-dog on 22 Oct 2021 20:54, edited 1 time in total.
#15195384
Pants-of-dog wrote:Once, a member of the comedy troupe “The 1491s” went to a football game to talk about team names.

The conservatives there did two th8ngs:

1, Claimed to be honouring Indigenous people, and….
2. Threatened to violently assault him.

So, I am not sure that they actually want to honour Indigenous people, or simply think they can use Indigenous names whenever they wish and can exert power against marginalised people who disagree.

I think intent matters. I don't think the US military uses names like "tomahawk missile" or "blackhawk helicopter" as an attempt to exert power of indigenous peoples. I think they use those names because indigenous warriors are seen as tough badass warriors so they want their weapons to be seen as tough badass warriors, hence there are no "Pink Princess Pony helicopters" in the US military.
#15195389
Unthinking Majority wrote:I think intent matters. I don't think the US military uses names like "tomahawk missile" or "blackhawk helicopter" as an attempt to exert power of indigenous peoples. I think they use those names because indigenous warriors are seen as tough badass warriors so they want their weapons to be seen as tough badass warriors, hence there are no "Pink Princess Pony helicopters" in the US military.


If you wish to argue that the US military honours Indigenous people this way, please provide evidence for this claim.
#15195395
Pants-of-dog wrote:The answer is “no”.

But if you want to argue that colonialism is no longer happening, and because of this @XogGyux is correct that critics of colonialism are hypocrites, it still does not disprove and arguments by such critics.


Why not?
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 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[…]