Not your property. I can’t laugh in a church, either. That doesn’t mean I’ve lost my freedom of speech or religion; just that someone else owns the property and can make rules for behavior there.
You have the legal right to smoke a cigarette…but not in my living room.
So white people have no business playing rock & roll, the English shouldn’t be making curry sauces, and every time I eat at Taco Bell I’m committing a hate crime.
Got it.
Those Disney people are racists, because they don’t have any princesses that are not white!
Except when they do, and then they are racists for appropriating culture from non-whites!
I love to watch this stuff unravel.
…which bit are you disagreeing with? If (as in the scenario I laid out) you fully understood that doing something was going to be offensive, but you chose to do the offensive thing anyway, that isn’t being tacky. Most people would consider that being disrepectful.
If I choose to take a piss on the Tomb of the Unknown Solider that isn’t being tacky either. Most people would consider that disrespectful.
Yeah you can. “Bacon and Egg Pie is sacred and I demand others avoid it.” See? I just did what you said can’t be done.
Which is exactly what I’ve said. Did you not read my post? Did you not understand what I said?
Both missing the point of my analogy, and agreeing with what I’ve been saying.
Which again: agrees with my point…All rules and laws are “arbitrarily decided by someone.” People arbitrarily decided that a church was someones property. They decided that legally your living room is “your living room.”
Well, I like to be as thorough and accurate as possible and feasible. Copyright/trademark law is a field where one can get legal support to stop someone from using a symbol, and Plains Indians have as much access to as it anyone else living in the U.S. or Canada as the case may be. Thus, I felt compelled to mention it because if I’d said they had no legal recourse, that would not be entirely correct - there are limited circumstances where they (and anyone else) can get the law on their side.
Sure, I have no problem with you claiming that, nor do I have any means to stop you from doing so, nor am I seeking any means to stop you from doing so, even if I was (hypothetically) massively offended by you doing so.
Well, in fairness, his gun is probably not loaded. Anyway, so you get yelled at. Possibly if you kept laughing, somebody would call the cops and you might get cited or arrested for “disturbing the peace”. I admit that this may seem inconsistent, but I can’t say I feel very disturbed by it. I’m mildly curious about an ambiguity in your hypothetical - are you supposedly laughing about the Unknowns or the perceived silliness of them having a tomb or something similar, or are you just laughing in the vicinity of the Unknowns, i.e. you watched an entirely unrelated and comical youtube vid on your phone while walking near the Tomb and started to laugh?
This is my personal curiosity only - it will have no effect on my views of the issue.
I absolutely live in a society where one or more Plains Indians can tell me that. I just don’t live in a society where the police or courts will get involved. I potentially did, until 2013 when Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed. There had been a handful of controversial cases that seemed to value someone taking offense over someone having freedom of expression.
I have no problem whatsoever with the former, so long as the latter remains in effect.
Fine. I stand by my assessment of “bullshit”.
Cool, but that doesn’t answer my question. If a Chinese person claims that I’m disrespecting his culture with regards to food, does it carry the same weight as a Plains Indian claiming I’m disrespecting his culture with regards to feathered war bonnets? If not, why not?
And in any case, I’ve agreed to your first “baby step” and waiting for your next baby step toward what I assume is your conclusion. Otherwise, what was the point?
…nothing is unraveling: except for your strawman of course.
I’m Maori/Samoan. Taika Waititi, a fellow Kiwi, wrote the original draft for the film and I’m really looking forward to it and it looks like it is going to be a winner.
The fat-suit though described in the OP was just plain stupid. And it would have been stupid no matter what colour it was and whether or not it had tattoos.
A stupid Hallowe’en costume?! Clearly we’re in the end times, here.
Well, it’s a crime of some sort, that’s for sure. The food there is pretty awful!
I disagree with this conclusion. You can declare anything you want to be offensive. That doesn’t mean I agree with the validity of the premise.
My uncle was gored by a bull. Every time you eat beef, you’re dishonoring my uncle. I’m deeply offended.
And most people would not consider wearing a plains-style feathered bonnet to be anywhere near comparable to pissing on a tomb.
Meanwhile, millions are offended by the swastika: does that mean that every time it appears in Nepalese art, the artist is flipping the middle finger at Jews and other victims of the Nazis?
That’s pretty much supporting my viewpoint, and not your own. Show of hands: anyone going to stop eating bacon and egg pie just because Banquet Beat has declared it sacred? I’m betting there are few takers.
I disagree with what you said. Playing the “you don’t understand” card won’t get you far around here.
So what the hell is your point? You have arbitrarily decided that you’re going to be offended when someone wears a feathered bonnet in an advertisement? I’m (pretending) to be offended when you eat beef, and you’re (pretending) to be offended when I have egg and bacon pie. (I’ve actually never heard of this; is it akin to an omelette?)
Where you’re wrong is that you’re “flipping the middle finger” at me when you have beef, or that I’m “flipping the middle finger” at you when I have eggs and bacon. You’re also wrong that I’m “flipping the middle finger” when I use a feathered bonnet in an advertisement.
You’re trying to tell me what my actions mean, and you’re wrong there. You don’t have the power to read minds.
How’s this supposed to work? If there’s a disagreement, half want to share Polynesian tattoos and half don’t, who wins? What if it’s 60%-40% in favor of sharing? or 99% fine with me wearing a Polynesian Halloween costume and 1% offended. Is it fair to say ‘they decided to share’ or does that 1% have veto power over the other 99%?
I’ve never even heard of bacon and egg pie, but now I want some.
Does that include, in this specific case, the Polynesians who are part of the cast and crew of this movie?
Cite?
…well I’m glad you got that off your chest!
And you are again proving my point. “Your society” controls “their society.” They have to use “your” tools/laws/rules to attempt to make some sort of resolution. I’m not disagreeing with you. If we want to live in a society with freedom of expression then ultimately yes, IMHO it would be wrong to make laws making it illegal to wear a Plains Indian Headdress.
So when the Plains Indians make a polite case for “please don’t use our headdresses for your photoshoot, and this is why” ignoring them is really saying “fuck you.” Because they don’t really have any other redress. Boycott? The Washington Redskins still exist. Copyright? Trademark? Expensive, time consuming, and unlikely to succeed.
Well isn’t that sweet.
“All rules and laws are “arbitrarily decided by someone.” I can’t go and laugh at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier without some guy with a gun yelling at me.”
My sole point was that all rules and laws are arbitrarily decided by someone. I don’t have a clue what the rest of your rant has to do with what I said.
Well: they can literally say those words: but as you point out they can’t actually enforce those words. So I was correct.
And the latter will stay in effect. You don’t have to worry about that.
I’ve demonstrated that your assessment of “bullshit” was “bullshit.”
Of course: considering your assessment only consisted of the word “bullshit” rebutting that was remarkably easy to do.
If that was the question you intended to ask: then ask that fucking question. This is what you wrote:
“Is it offensive for me, with no Chinese ancestry, to enjoy Chinese food? Should I have to care if the food I get in my local Chinese buffet restaurant is markedly different from the fare one would actually find in China itself, i.e. the food is a Western-tainted approximation of Chinese cuisine? Am I being offensive if I use a fork instead of chopsticks? Have I committed a social sin if I eat Chinese food for the meal and have a western-style desert (say, lemon meringue pie a la mode)? If a Chinese person declares my actions to be offensive to his culture and must stop, am I obliged to care?”
There isn’t anything there at all about “weighing up” differences between this person’s complaint and any complaints mad by the Plains Indian’s. But if you were reading my responses carefully you would know the answer. I haven’t applied any “weighting” at all to the feelings and the thoughts of the Plains Indians. I’ve merely pointed out that those feelings and those thoughts exist.
The question wasn’t addressed to you. It was addressed to Ranchoth: and I am awaiting his reply. You are welcome to answer the question. It is Great Debates after all. But I am under no obligation to reach any sort of “conclusion” with you. And it isn’t as if you don’t seem to be lacking an opinion on anything I’ve been saying. Don’t we have enough to discuss?
Chelsie Hunan Fairchild is a jackass and an idiot and the idea of cultural appropriation is stupid, IMO.
Wait a sec, them raising an objection is “polite” and my declining is a “fuck you”? What if their request is in the form of “Hey you fucking white-eyed devil, get your shitstained hands off of our culture” and my response is in the form of “I’ve considered your request and I must decline it. I do not agree that I’m harming your culture or interfering with your ability to practice same.”
It’s the reality of the situation. If you want to argue for a change in laws, make your case. That someone is hypothetically offended and their culture historically oppressed is not enough.
Well, that’s a rather generous use of the word “rant”, but no matter. Yes, the laws are arbitrary but they’re not entirely arbitrary, in the sense that they’re just random sentences stuck together. There are underlying principles which the laws, at least in theory, try to adhere to. One of those principles is that it is important for people to be able to freely express themselves, and thus the laws (again, in theory) try to respect this. In contrast, deciding that something is offensive to one’s culture is entirely arbitrary, and I gather you’re avoiding the Chinese food analogy on that basis. Does the claim of a Plains Indian regarding war bonnets carry more weight than that of a Chinese person regarding food? If so, how so? Because the Plains Indians were (are?) oppressed in North America and the Chinese are not?
Does your argument contain an element of “we should be particularly careful to avoid co-opting elements of cultures that we as a culture have oppressed” ? I’m only curious and it’s not, in any case, an argument I’m prepared to take seriously. If it were, I’d be happy to list off any number of atrocities suffered by members of my ethnic group and demanding protection/compensation as a result, meaning nobody would ever be allowed to do something that I (as a member of a particular and historically oppressed ethnicity) find offensive, and you’re not allowed to question what I consider to be offensive. In fact, even asking why I find something offensive is itself offensive.
Well, you were hypothetically wrong up until 2013, but no big deal.
To some extent, I do have to worry about that. Maintaining my freedoms requires eternal vigilance and all, and I can see several ways that those freedoms could be eroded away, including what you seem to be arguing for (though it’s hard to tell since you’re light on specifics).
I do not believe you have.
You can of course claim success on this matter as you see fit. I’m waiting for a solid argument.
To clarify, of course, anyone can claim anything, but there are limited opportunities to get a claim supported by force of law where someone else’s freedom of expression is concerned. Trademark/Copyright is one. Slander/libel is another. Laughing in the vicinity of (let alone urinating on) the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier is yet another.
It was a baby step. First I wanted to see whether of not you agreed that the Chinese person had a valid claim that his culture was being offended:
Of course they (probably) exist, or at least a Plains Indian can say they exist and I have no immediate reason to doubt him. The question is what can he do with those feelings and can he get law enforcement and/or the courts to act based on those feelings (or more accurately, his claims that he has those feelings, because we don’t yet have mind-reading technology to prove that the feelings actually exist).
Of course you aren’t. I should point out in the interests of parity that my “Bullshit.” was not addressed to you, it was addressed to BigT. I take for granted that neither of us is under any obligation to respond to the other. Nevertheless, I’ll repeat my question, which you are free to ignore:
Let’s assume for the sake of argument that blackface is indeed racist. Then what? What is the next “baby step” in your argument?
…you don’t have to agree with the “validity” of the premise. I don’t believe in god. I don’t stand outside a church yelling slurs and burning effigies of christ.
I don’t believe your uncle was actually gored by a bull. I think you invented that story for the purposes of debate so you could paint a “gotcha scenario”. I don’t really think that when I eat beef you are deeply offended.
But if this were to happen in real life, I wouldn’t be a prick about it. If my mate told me this, I’d listen. We’d talk. We would eventually come to some sort of arrangement where I would be able to eat beef without offending him. I can’t do that with you in this thread because you are not being sincere. (I am, of course, not accusing you of lying.)
Why not? Why is one more offensive than the other? My piss has good nutrient value. The old soldiers could use a good pick-me-up.
If the Nepalese artist was making art that involved a “stylised Hitler”, and he received a letter from the Anti-Defamation League asking him to reconsider what he was doing and he proceeded to do so anyway, then yes he is flipping the middle finger at Jews and other victims of Nazi’s. Context, of course is everything, don’t you agree? Not every decision by every person is offensive. Sometimes offence cannot be avoided. But that doesn’t mean the offended shouldn’t speak up if they feel they must.
You said I couldn’t say something. But I could, and I did.
I’ve been “here” two months longer than you. I think I’ve got a handle on how this place works.
I’m one of the very few indigenous minorities that participate on these boards. I could well be the only Maori/Samoan on these boards. I’m used to being shouted down here on issues of culture. Its par for the course. I even had a “left-wing-liberal moderator” (in the pit) accuse me of being a “computer program” that spat out “Maori words.”
I could easily leave this thread be. It would make things easier for me. It isn’t nice to be in the minority, arguing with people I traditionally agree with. I could let the “echo chamber” continue to agree with itself and noone would know any different.
But if you want to have a discussion: lets have at it. Stop trying to “debunk me” (and failing miserably because you are missing the context of my replies). Try actually listening.
So what the hell is my point? My point is that indigenous peoples have it fucking hard. They are at the bottom of nearly every single socio-economic indicator, are over-represented in prisons, they have worse health outcomes. So when indigenous people point out that the Maui costume is “pretty fucking stupid” there is no reason to loose your shit over that opinion. We aren’t coming to take away your “free speech.” Just stop doing stupid stuff. Please.
And you don’t have the power to tell someone how they are supposed to feel.
Absolutely not. I decide what I want to wear, the art style I like, the food I eat. There’s no copyright on culture, and I can pretty much borrow whatever I want. And fortunately so. As several people already pointed out, if it weren’t the case, jazz music and all its derivative (which probably make up 80% of the music you listen to on radio and TV) would be strictly reserved to black Americans. And of course, no Flamenco, no Klezmer music, no Oud, no Quenas should be played by your average American. That’s utterly ridiculous.
Absolutely not. If anything rather the contrary. It means that I like something in their culture enough to adopt it myself.
I read a lot about it, and the more I read about it, the more nonsentical it appears.
Absolutely not. They don’t have any right to prevent people from wearing Polynesian-inspired tatoos anymore than Bretons have a right to prevent the sale of Celtic-inspired jewels or Napolitans of Pizza-inspired food.
As far as I can tell, you’re begging the question here, and didn’t provide any reason why cultural appropriation is wrong. You’re just stating so.
The issue with blackface and the like is an American cultural issue, created by a specific American cultural artefact (minstrel shows and such), and isn’t some universal self-evident truism. “Pretending to be another race is insensitive and wrong” is just ex post-facto justification, trying to find a theoretical reason explaining why it’s unacceptable in the USA to do so. There’s nothing objectively wrong with wearing a blackface or a piece of cloth that is supposed to make you appear Polynesian.
It shouldn’t. The earlier, the better.
No every new idea is correct. Not every new liberal idea is correct. Not every new liberal social warrior’s idea is correct. Not every new American liberal social warrior’s idea is correct. Once again, the concept you’re supporting isn’t even very remotely universal. There’s only a very small socio-cultural group in as far as I can tell essentially only two countries supporting it. I for one don’t intend to culturally appropriate it, if it can reassure you.
I definitely get the sense that many see cultural appropriation as a single brick in a larger wall of racism - a single symptom, if you will. I get the sense that if nobody was siccing dogs on Native Americans protesting a pipeline across their sacred land and that it at least looked like those in power were concerned about police brutality against minorities, the people complaining wouldn’t mind quite so much that white people were getting praise and money for clothes and fashion their minority originators are mocked and criticized over, or that people were wearing sacred war bonnets as if they were just silly costumes, or perpetuating stereotypes and mockery.
IOW, I think many of those criticizing cultural appropriation know it’s relatively minor, but see it as just ONE MORE WAY whites oppress and make fun of the things important to them, so they get pissed off.
(If someone with a stake in this thinks I’m wrong, feel free to correct me.)
IMHO, any belief that forbids little girls of all races from dressing as Mulan is *a priori *wrong.
Heck, the British Invasion would’ve never got past Customs.