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
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
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.
The same way you wanted to teach me about what goes in Cuba right? Because you are the expert on everything
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.