Even our shoes are racist. - Page 9 - 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.
#15195521
AFAIK wrote:@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.


The treaty did not give the Lakota independence, it actually set up a reservation. Furthermore, the SCOTUS recognized the Lakota claim over the Black Hills in 1980 and awarded the Lakota a settlement that is still waiting to be accepted.
#15195528
wat0n wrote: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.

Yes I did, it's not my fault if you don't like it for no reason.


Since you are not presenting any evidence for your claims, there is nothing for me to comment on.

Have a good one.
#15195530
Ah, the usual @Pants-of-dog of making claims, providing zero evidence to back them up and when someone does provide counterevidence that he does not like, he claims no such counterevidence was provided.
#15195531
wat0n wrote:Ah, the usual @Pants-of-dog of making claims, providing zero evidence to back them up and when someone does provide counterevidence that he does not like, he claims no such counterevidence was provided.


Please note that you claimed that colonialism was ended when the US and Canada granted autonomy to Indigenous groups. The only evidence you presented was a link, with no quote.

You also made the claim that non-Indigenous people cannot live on a reservation. You provided no evidence at all for this claim.

Please let me know when you intend to provide support for these claims.
#15195532
wat0n wrote:Ah, the usual @Pants-of-dog of making claims, providing zero evidence to back them up and when someone does provide counterevidence that he does not like, he claims no such counterevidence was provided.

Somehow, the shoes in the OP are the cause of the last 400 years of First Nation marginalization. If only they had been given this particular footwear patent, First Nations would be as rich as Bill Gates by now, and Pants would be happy.

Today I wrapped a headband around my hoodie to keep my hood up while biking, and I looked sort of Arabic. If Pants of Dog had seen me, he would mention how horrific the treatment of Palestinians is, and how many unjust wars Canada has gotten involved in near the Middle East so how dare I wear my hoodie that way.

Fashion has consequences you know!


Image
#15195533
Pants-of-dog wrote:Please note that you claimed that colonialism was ended when the US and Canada granted autonomy to Indigenous groups. The only evidence you presented was a link, with no quote.

You also made the claim that non-Indigenous people cannot live on a reservation. You provided no evidence at all for this claim.

Please let me know when you intend to provide support for these claims.


You can read the link, it contains all the necessary information. I have no obligation to quote something you can read on your own.

As for the second claim, let me qualify it: Depending on the reservation, you may indeed not be allowed to live there if you're not a member of one of the tribes there if they do not lease me land to use. And yes they can do it because I'm not indigenous, there's nothing illegal about it.

Yet if I want to move to another city or another State, I can do it without asking for permission from the local or federal governments. At most, I need to report where I currently live for immigration purposes.
#15195535
wat0n wrote:You can read the link, it contains all the necessary information. I have no obligation to quote something you can read on your own.


You can also read the link.

You can quote the necessary information.

You have an obligation to support your claims.

You have no reason to assume I will do your work for you.

And you also have the obligation to explain how this ended colonialism.

As for the second claim, let me qualify it: Depending on the reservation, you may indeed not be allowed to live there if you're not a member of one of the tribes there if they do not lease me land to use. And yes they can do it because I'm not indigenous, there's nothing illegal about it.

Yet if I want to move to another city or another State, I can do it without asking for permission from the local or federal governments. At most, I need to report where I currently live for immigration purposes.


You made the claim that non-Indigenous people cannot live on a reservation. You provided no evidence at all for this claim.

Please let me know when you intend to provide support for these claims.
#15195536
Pants-of-dog wrote:You can also read the link.

You can quote the necessary information.

You have an obligation to support your claims.

You have no reason to assume I will do your work for you.

And you also have the obligation to explain how this ended colonialism.


Already done, in all fronts.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You made the claim that non-Indigenous people cannot live on a reservation. You provided no evidence at all for this claim.

Please let me know when you intend to provide support for these claims.


Also done, they cannot live there if the Tribal government refuses to lease them land. It's up to the Tribal government to decide so.

How about you back your claims up, for once? Or will you change the goalposts as you did with the very definition of cultural appropriation you posted, which makes no mention at all about colonialism?
#15195538
AFAIK wrote: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?


Here is the thing, if that name of the helicopters had originated out of some sort of hatred/racism/etc, I would have no problem with them being renamed to something else. Likewise if the name, for some reason is causing significant pain/suffering/discomfort to a bunch of people (obviously weapons cause pain and suffering, that is a completely different topic, I mean the naming e.i the helicopter still exists, we just now call it daddy pony instead of apache ot tomahawk, etc) I don't have much issue changing it either.
I just don't think we need to make up yet another term to find offense on shit.

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

Good, we agree then, no issues.

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.

Oh shit, POD wont invite you to his next birthday party :lol:

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.

Well, this is very difficult. The distinction between plagiarism and inspiration is quite narrow and subjective.

Pants-of-dog wrote:It is not my definition, so if you have a problem with it, please do not blame me.

Your big defense it is "semantics"? Fine "The definition that Pants-of-dog linked and presumably endorses" happy now?

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

And you seem to be the expert on it, yet apparently, you cannot commit to saying wether you think a white man/woman wearing deadlocks constitutes cultural appropriation :lol:

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.

The question is... if you are already bunching something into the realm of "inappropriate" behavior.... why do you need to add a secondary layer of "cultural" baggage to the issue?

This lends itself to elevating menial cultural dynamics into taboos and social disapproval, while also potentially shielding more egregious offenses into something less problematic. The ambiguity and consequences of this term make it useless if not dangerous.

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.

Silly, the moccasin crusade is what is going to lift Native Americans into greatness from the ashes of a colonial past....

I invite you to learn about these things.

:lol:
The same way you wanted to teach me about what goes in Cuba right? Because you are the expert on everything :lol: .
Tell you what, I come from a country with deep "colonial heritage". This has always been hot topic from where I come from, it is part of my birth country's history, its politics and even its tourism. I am quite content with my working knowledge of the topic, and certainly don't find your comment indicative of a deficiency. I invite you to use your brain more.
#15195539
QatzelOk wrote:Somehow, the shoes in the OP are the cause of the last 400 years of First Nation marginalization. If only they had been given this particular footwear patent, First Nations would be as rich as Bill Gates by now, and Pants would be happy.

Today I wrapped a headband around my hoodie to keep my hood up while biking, and I looked sort of Arabic. If Pants of Dog had seen me, he would mention how horrific the treatment of Palestinians is, and how many unjust wars Canada has gotten involved in near the Middle East so how dare I wear my hoodie that way.

Fashion has consequences you know!


Image


I cannot believe it, but finally, we agree on something. :up:
#15195544
wat0n wrote:Already done, in all fronts.



Also done, they cannot live there if the Tribal government refuses to lease them land. It's up to the Tribal government to decide so.

How about you back your claims up, for once? Or will you change the goalposts as you did with the very definition of cultural appropriation you posted, which makes no mention at all about colonialism?


You have not shown that Indigenous communities are autonomous.

You are objectively incorrect that it is impossible for non-Indigenous people to move to a reservation.

Neither of these deal with cultural appropriation.

——————

@XogGyux

None of that is an argument.

Do you have a claim to make about cultural appropriation?
#15195546
Did Elvis culturally appropriate black culture? Led Zeppelin? Is much of rock and roll racist now? Is Eminem to be cancelled? Can everyone just STFU and enjoy life and do whatever the eff they want unless they're intent is to purposely insult/disrespect another culture? Intent matters.

White people are perfectly free to sell moccasins and aboriginals are perfectly free to sell pizzas and tacos and automobiles.
#15195547
@XogGyux

None of that is an argument.

Do you have a claim to make about cultural appropriation?


@Pants-of-dog
None of this is an argument.
Do you have a claim to make about "cultural appropriation" and the significance of this and/or why do you feel we need this nonsense term?

I deflect your deflection and raise you 10 :lol: .
#15195548
@XogGyux

Cultural appropriation can only exist in a framework where one or more cultures exerts dominance over another. This can be done through settler colonialism. It can be done through racism. It is almost always accompanied by a significant difference in economic power between the culture being exploited and the culture doing the exploiting.

Let me know if you disagree with any of this.
#15195549
Pants-of-dog wrote:@XogGyux

Cultural appropriation can only exist in a framework where one or more cultures exerts dominance over another. This can be done through settler colonialism. It can be done through racism. It is almost always accompanied by a significant difference in economic power between the culture being exploited and the culture doing the exploiting.

Let me know if you disagree with any of this.

I do.
It is nonsense.
Check... the wiki page, full of "examples" of cultural appropriation, depicting white people of wearing other people's traditional clothes.
I wonder if you would be so quick to accuse a black man wearing a kimono as "culturally appropriation"?
Image
Such a disgusting individual....
Comments?
#15195550
Pants-of-dog wrote:You have not shown that Indigenous communities are autonomous.


Yes, I did.

Pants-of-dog wrote:You are objectively incorrect that it is impossible for non-Indigenous people to move to a reservation.


It is if the tribal government doesn't lease me land.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Neither of these deal with cultural appropriation.


Your silly claims about colonialism have nothing to do with cultural appropriation either. Again, under the definition you posted my examples of German culture are adequate.
#15195552
XogGyux wrote:I do.


Then explain exactly how those claims are wrong.

It is nonsense.
Check... the wiki page, full of "examples" of cultural appropriation, depicting white people of wearing other people's traditional clothes.
I wonder if you would be so quick to accuse a black man wearing a kimono as "culturally appropriation"?
Image
Such a disgusting individual....
Comments?


I literally just commented on this.

Cultural appropriation can only exist in a framework where one or more cultures exerts dominance over another. Do black people exert dominance over Japanese people? This dominance can be done through settler colonialism. It can be done through racism. Do black people have settler colonialism in Japan? It is almost always accompanied by a significant difference in economic power between the culture being exploited and the culture doing the exploiting. Are black people significantly richer than Japanese people?

No. So, according to a logical understanding of my comments, this question of yours has already been answered, and this is another example of taking any instance of one culture using things traditionally associated with another culture and incorrectly treating that as cultural appropriation even though they clearly do not fit the definition or the arguments being made.

————————

wat0n wrote:Yes, I did.

It is if the tribal government doesn't lease me land.

Your silly claims about colonialism have nothing to do with cultural appropriation either. Again, under the definition you posted my examples of German culture are adequate.


Cultural appropriation can only exist in a framework where one or more cultures exerts dominance over another. This can be done through settler colonialism. It can be done through racism. It is almost always accompanied by a significant difference in economic power between the culture being exploited and the culture doing the exploiting.

In the case of Indigenous people in North America, the framework is one of settler colonialism.

Indigenous communities do not have autonomy. In certain limited respects, there is some legal recognition of the fact that Indigenous nations are separate nations, but they are not allowed to, for example, create laws independently of the USA. This is mentioned in your evidence, by the way. They cannot change economic laws at all. They cannot, for example, decide how to elect their own representatives and leaders.

Indigenous communities “lack the inherent authority to arrest, try and convict non-Natives who commit crimes on their lands” according to your link.
#15195557
Pants-of-dog wrote:Cultural appropriation can only exist in a framework where one or more cultures exerts dominance over another. This can be done through settler colonialism. It can be done through racism. It is almost always accompanied by a significant difference in economic power between the culture being exploited and the culture doing the exploiting.

In the case of Indigenous people in North America, the framework is one of settler colonialism.


The definition you posted yourself makes no mention of any of this. In fact, it only says it is controversial to some people if there is a context of oppression, not that it can't happen if there's none.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Indigenous communities do not have autonomy. In certain limited respects, there is some legal recognition of the fact that Indigenous nations are separate nations, but they are not allowed to, for example, create laws independently of the USA. This is mentioned in your evidence, by the way. They cannot change economic laws at all. They cannot, for example, decide how to elect their own representatives and leaders.


That's clearly not true, and indeed there are tribal elections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections ... _elections

And you can even check some official results, voter registries, etc. Here's one website for the Choctaw nation for example:

https://www.choctawnation.com/elections

Tribal territories can and do pass their own laws and, as stated by the very source I posted, and that you read, tribal governments enjoy sovereign immunity in several dimensions, including economic ones.

They can and many do have written Constitutions to organize their communities. Here's yet another example from the Choctaw nation:

https://www.choctawnation.com/history-c ... GOh82wWsxk

And there are of course more resources, e.g. https://nnigovernance.arizona.edu/crc

Pants-of-dog wrote:Indigenous communities “lack the inherent authority to arrest, try and convict non-Natives who commit crimes on their lands” according to your link.


Yet it's only for criminal law, and only for non natives. Members of the tribe tried by tribal courts (and sometimes by federal courts, when the crime is serious enough), even if the victim is an outsider. They also have their own law enforcement bodies. For economic matters, as far as I'm aware, tribal courts have a far broader jurisdiction too.

Their autonomy seems to be at least as strong as that of the states, if not stronger. And no one would say the states are not autonomous in the US, being the country that invented the federal system.
#15195560
Pants-of-dog wrote:I literally just commented on this.

I am painfully aware. It has not escaped my attention the circularity of this discussion. It takes 2 to tango, I still have plenty of energies on me.

Cultural appropriation can only exist in a framework where one or more cultures exerts dominance over another. Do black people exert dominance over Japanese people?

There is so much wrong with this statement, I might have to quote it multiple times to address multiple points.
Let's focus first on the "exerts dominance over another" part of this statement.
You are suggesting, that in order for society to deal with "cultural dominance over one another" a reasonable solution is to create a label, that allows cultural minorities to label "cultural dominant people" in an undesirable way, and by doing so shame them into so sort of cultural compliance? This seems like a very comboluted, idiotic and useless way to deal with a problem.
You should deal with the "dominance" rather than allow it to happen and then shame people. What you suggest is "titanic is sinking, there is a huge hole in the hull, quickly, everyone spit your gum into a bucket and lets send someone to patch the hole with gum".

Cultural appropriation can only exist in a framework where one or more cultures exerts dominance over another. Do black people exert dominance over Japanese people?

Under this paradigm that you are proposing. Black people are not dominant over any other culture, so black people get to wear kimonos and mocassins, and suits, and sombreros, they get to make pizzas, play jazz and rock, they get to dance ballet. Im hispanic, I don't think hispanics are dominant over anyone else... I guess I can also do all of that fun stuff. I have a friend that is white... I guess he cannot enjoy the same freedoms that I have... unless he is white and jew? Do you think white jews can get a honorary exception since jews are not culturally dominant?
#15195561
wat0n wrote:The definition you posted yourself makes no mention of any of this. In fact, it only says it is controversial to some people if there is a context of oppression, not that it can't happen if there's none.


You are correct that it is not mentioned in the definition.

That's clearly not true, and indeed there are tribal elections:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections ... _elections

And you can even check some official results, voter registries, etc. Here's one website for the Choctaw nation for example:

https://www.choctawnation.com/elections


No. You misunderstood.

I did not claim they could not elect their leaders. I claimed they cannot choose the method by which their leaders are chosen.

Please address my actual claim.

Tribal territories can and do pass their own laws and, as stated by the very source I posted, and that you read, tribal governments enjoy sovereign immunity in several dimensions, including economic ones.


No. They cannot use their limited judicial powers to change economic laws. For example, they cannot set a system if contract law that does not incorporate capitalism as the USA does it.

They can and many do have written Constitutions to organize their communities. Here's yet another example from the Choctaw nation:

https://www.choctawnation.com/history-c ... GOh82wWsxk


Having a constitution does not mean that the nation enjoys sovereignty or autonomy.

And there are of course more resources, e.g. https://nnigovernance.arizona.edu/crc


Then please quote from them, like I did.

Please note that the quote from your link directly contradicts your claim.

Yet it's only for criminal law,and only for non natives. Members of the tribe tried by tribal courts (and sometimes by federal courts, when the crime is serious enough), even if the victim is an outsider. They also have their own law enforcement bodies. For economic matters, as far as I'm aware, tribal courts have a far broader jurisdiction too.

Their autonomy seems to be at least as strong as that of the states, if not stronger. And no one would say the states are not autonomous in the US, being the country that invented the federal system.


You obviously misread the article.

Please quote the bits that you think support this and I will explain them to you.

—————

@XogGyux

No, I was not saying that addressing cultural appropriation will magically make colonialism go away. This is the second time I correct you on this strawman.

If you think Latinos do not extert dominance over Indigenous cultures, then you are not aware of the problems Indigenous people face in Latin America, nor do you understand how immigrants and people of colour can benefit from settler colonialism.

Please educate yourslef about these things. Thanks.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
Did You Get Vaccinated?

That's like saying homo Erectus didn't go extinct[…]

Key Rasmussen Polls

It is sad, but for context, I live a mere 20 minu[…]

CBD vs sars'cov'2

... more and more studies ... when will authoriti[…]

Why is it insulting to tell a woman there’s no st[…]