Even our shoes are racist. - Page 8 - 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.
#15195399
Unthinking Majority wrote:"Pink Princess Pony helicopters"
:D

and yea, Tomahawk missle and appache helicoptors are and sound badass.

I'm waiting for the Aztec Jaguar assault vehicles. Hell yea!
#15195403
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to argue that the US military honours Indigenous people this way, please provide evidence for this claim.

I wouldn't say they're "honouring" them", I just mean the intent is one of admiration/respect/mirroring than of something disparaging or enforcing domination over their culture. I think that's pretty clear.
#15195418
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n

Please clarify what you are asking. Thank you.


Why are you speaking of an ongoing colonialism regarding the US and Canada when both give broad autonomy to indigenous communities?
#15195425
AFAIK wrote: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.

Do you find these names to be offensive? I mean, Tomahawks and Apaches? Should we also assume that when the Navy names the carrier Ronald Reagan or Nimitz, or JFK it is meant as a derogatory to those people?
Is naming your space rocket Apollo cultural appropriation of Greek Culture?
I think the problem is, trying to judge everything in the past with eyes gifted with foresight. The real characters of Einstein, Nightingale, Newton, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Socrates, Blackwell, Gallileo, Davinci, Hemingway, MLK, and thousands of others that have shaped our history, are deeply flawed characters that were shaped by their social norms, not unlike ourselves. Yes, some of them are racists, some of them might have been homophobic, etc. There will be a future, in which our progeny will think we are primitive assholes, perhaps they will criticize our effects on climate and/or our consumption of animals, but they will also criticize a billion other things that nobody today believes is wrong or even controversial, and they will still be appalled that we did them.
I think it is prudent to have context in mind, I think it is prudent to be aware of our history as to avoid repeating it. I don't think self-loathing for what someone did 400 years ago is beneficial and/or practical.

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.

According to @Pants-of-dog cultural appropriation is anything that is adopted by another culture/identity that is "inappropriate" and/or unacknowledged (whatever that means).
I think this is a useless definition. The definition itself, assures that whatever happens to fall within the category of "cultural appropriation" is bad, because by definition, it is something that is "inappropriate".
So... if we already know something is inappropriate, why do we need to label it with yet another term that also implies a negative quality? What constitutes an appropriate adoption of elements of another culture? what constitunes an inapropriate adoption? This is a weasel term that allows people to "interpret" whatever they feel as "cultural appropriation". If I die my hair like a rainbow, there is going to be a pissed off individual that is angry that I am not gay but decided to put seven colors in my hair. Presumably @Pants-of-dog may throw a fit if I name my next kid Adahy because it is a native american name and I am not native American :lol: (although technically I was born in the American continent....)
The best culture is that which is shared. Terms such as cultural appropriation threaten to have fake culture police like POD making up terms, and finding new scandals to be upset about.
#15195453
XogGyux wrote:Do you find these names to be offensive? I mean, Tomahawks and Apaches? Should we also assume that when the Navy names the carrier Ronald Reagan or Nimitz, or JFK it is meant as a derogatory to those people?

If the Nazis had won WWII and gone on to name their weapons "Jew" and "Gypsy" would you find that offensive? Can you recognise the difference between using the names of peoples you've genocided and using the names of people you've venerated?

XogGyux wrote:I think the problem is, trying to judge everything in the past with eyes gifted with foresight.

I never suggested judging people outside the standards of their time.

XogGyux wrote:I think it is prudent to have context in mind, I think it is prudent to be aware of our history as to avoid repeating it. I don't think self-loathing for what someone did 400 years ago is beneficial and/or practical.

I agree.

XogGyux wrote:According to @Pants-of-dog cultural appropriation is anything that is adopted by another culture/identity that is "inappropriate" and/or unacknowledged (whatever that means).

Hence why I didn't read past the first page. Discussions with Pants are rarely productive.

XogGyux wrote:If I die my hair like a rainbow, there is going to be a pissed off individual that is angry that I am not gay but decided to put seven colors in my hair.

Check out the Buddhist flag. Maybe gays shouldn't be allowed to use one so similar.

XogGyux wrote: Presumably @Pants-of-dog may throw a fit if I name my next kid Adahy because it is a native american name and I am not native American

If I have another daughter I'd like to use the name of the first woman who traveled into space. I wonder if that would cause offense since neither my wife nor myself are Russian.

XogGyux wrote:The best culture is that which is shared. Terms such as cultural appropriation threaten to have fake culture police like POD making up terms, and finding new scandals to be upset about.

I'd make a distinction between culture that is shared and culture that is plagiarised. Elvis passed off other musicians' contributions as his own. I wouldn't accuse Eminem of doing so.
#15195467
wat0n wrote:Why are you speaking of an ongoing colonialism regarding the US and Canada when both give broad autonomy to indigenous communities?


Since neither country gives autonomy to the Indigenous communities living there, this question seems to be based on incorrect premises.

————————

@XogGyux

It is not my definition, so if you have a problem with it, please do not blame me.

The thing about cultural appropriation is that not all examples of one culture using things traditionally associated with another culture are cultural appropriation.

You may not like having the words “inappropriate” and “unacknowledged” but they are there to differentiate cultural appropriation from benign examples of one culture using things traditionally associated with another culture are cultural appropriation.

And in order to determine if something is inappropriate and unacknowledged, we need to understand the context and history of the example.

Innthe case of the moccasins, we would need to know about settler colonialism and how it has impacted Indigenous access to markets and other factors, in order to understand why it is cultural appropriation and not some sort of benevolent sharing.

I invite you to learn about these things.
#15195487
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since neither country gives autonomy to the Indigenous communities living there, this question seems to be based on incorrect premises.


So the US' Indian Reservations are not autonomous? That's clearly not true, they are, and their autonomy has been affirmed several times by US courts. IIRC the same happens in Canada.

And yes, they do provide options for the different indigenous communities to defend their cultures and they in fact do. For instance, it's not particularly easy to move to one of the reservations if you aren't recognized as belonging to one of the communities that compose it, and indeed that has something to do with their relative lack of economic development - immigration is often a driver for economic growth in the long run and the reservations are consciously choosing not to take advantage of it.
#15195489
wat0n wrote:So the US' Indian Reservations are not autonomous? That's clearly not true, they are, and their autonomy has been affirmed several times by US courts. IIRC the same happens in Canada.


If you wish to provide evidence of the exact nature of this autonomy and show how it ended the colonialist relationship, I would love to read it.

And yes, they do provide options for the different indigenous communities to defend their cultures and they in fact do. For instance, it's not particularly easy to move to one of the reservations if you aren't recognized as belonging to one of the communities that compose it, and indeed that has something to do with their relative lack of economic development - immigration is often a driver for economic growth in the long run and the reservations are consciously choosing not to take advantage of it.


You seem to be arguing that Indigenous communities are consciously choosing to stop people from living there, while hordes of white people are wishing to move to reservations for some reason.

I do not think this is true.
#15195490
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to provide evidence of the exact nature of this autonomy and show how it ended the colonialist relationship, I would love to read it.


Define "colonialist relationship" in a precise way. I can't decide if it ended something that's unclear.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to be arguing that Indigenous communities are consciously choosing to stop people from living there, while hordes of white people are wishing to move to reservations for some reason.

I do not think this is true.


Can I move to a reservation if I want to?
#15195491
wat0n wrote:Define "colonialist relationship" in a precise way. I can't decide if it ended something that's unclear.


    Colonialism is a practice or policy of control by one people or power over other people or areas,[1][2][3] often by establishing colonies[4] and generally with the aim of economic dominance.[5] In the process of colonisation, colonisers may impose their religion, language, economics, and other cultural practices. The foreign administrators rule the territory in pursuit of their interests, seeking to benefit from the colonised region's people and resources.[6] It is associated with but distinct from imperialism.[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism

Can I move to a reservation if I want to?


You seem to be arguing that you can not.
#15195498
Pants-of-dog wrote:
    Colonialism is a practice or policy of control by one people or power over other people or areas,[1][2][3] often by establishing colonies[4] and generally with the aim of economic dominance.[5] In the process of colonisation, colonisers may impose their religion, language, economics, and other cultural practices. The foreign administrators rule the territory in pursuit of their interests, seeking to benefit from the colonised region's people and resources.[6] It is associated with but distinct from imperialism.[1]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism


There's hardly economic dominance over the reservations when they have broad powers to decide who can reside there.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You seem to be arguing that you can not.


Exactly.
#15195499
wat0n wrote:There's hardly economic dominance over the reservations when they have broad powers to decide who can reside there.


Please note that the USA and Canada exert economic dominance over all Indigenous lands regardless of whether or not these lands are currently designated as reservations.

Exactly.


Please provide evidence for this claim.
#15195503
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that the USA and Canada exert economic dominance over all Indigenous lands regardless of whether or not these lands are currently designated as reservations.


...Except when the courts recognize tribes have jurisdiction over the lands at hand.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for this claim.


The idea that tribes have broad jurisdiction over the reservations is not particularly controversial. Often tribes that do allow non-members to reside, do so on specific parts of the reservation for fee since the land is leased (and they have no obligation to renew the lease).
#15195508
wat0n wrote:...Except when the courts recognize tribes have jurisdiction over the lands at hand.


If you wish to provide evidence of the exact nature of this autonomy and show how it ended the colonialist relationship, I would love to read it.

The idea that tribes have broad jurisdiction over the reservations is not particularly controversial. Often tribes that do allow non-members to reside, do so on specific parts of the reservation for fee since the land is leased (and they have no obligation to renew the lease).


This is not evidence.

Please provide evidence for this claim.
#15195514
Pants-of-dog wrote:If you wish to provide evidence of the exact nature of this autonomy and show how it ended the colonialist relationship, I would love to read it.


Go on

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is not evidence.


Yes it is.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Please provide evidence for this claim.


I already did. I find it funny since you'd be the first one to whine if any other level of government decided to impose fees on residence based on ancestry.
#15195515
wat0n wrote:Go on


A single link to a Wikipedia article is not evidence.

Please read the linked article, quote the relevant text that works as evidence (i.e. supports your claim) and then show how this autonomy ended colonialism.

Yes it is.

I already did. I find it funny since you'd be the first one to whine if any other level of government decided to impose fees on residence based on ancestry.


No, you did not provide evidence.
#15195516
Pants-of-dog wrote:A single link to a Wikipedia article is not evidence.

Please read the linked article, quote the relevant text that works as evidence (i.e. supports your claim) and then show how this autonomy ended colonialism.


All of it is relevant in one way or another, as it delineates the extend of tribal sovereignty at the present time. Maybe you could explain how the current extent of tribal sovereignty is an exploitative relationship, particularly since it's particularly extensive when it comes to economic matters.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, you did not provide evidence.


Yes I did, it's not my fault if you don't like it for no reason.
#15195519
@wat0n The USA continues to occupy Lakota land and denies them independence despite signing a treaty that promised them such in 1868. To add insult to injury they vandalised a mountain and carved the faces of their colonial overlords into the rock.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10

Stealing the language of feminists is quite delibe[…]

I predicted Crimea, and my prediction for rest o[…]

"Whether we like it or not"

The paleo record shows no significant difference […]

Bullshit. https://www.coronavirus.vic.gov.au/inf[…]