Quote from: Lynn;1092990That's why cultural appropriation is so much nonsense.

My bulgogi taco says cultural appropriation is delicious!!
https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/korean-bulgogi-taco-recipe-2346079

Quote from: Spinachcat;1093017That's an area of study that will never get funded!

I would guess all human culture is influenced by human biology, but I don't believe there is enough biological differences between ethnic groups for that aspect of our biology (hair, eye, skin color) to determine culture.

But who knows. Only an AI would have the lack of human bias necessary to examine such a question.

None, or is so diminute it makes no difference, otherwise you couldn't adopt a different culture than that of your race, and Black people from different countries in Africa prove it wrong, also if compared to Black people in USA, Caribbean, Europe, different cultures.

Culture is informed and limited by geography not by biology, I recommend you to read Germs & Steel.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1093018My bulgogi taco says cultural appropriation is delicious!!
https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/korean-bulgogi-taco-recipe-2346079

That's what you get when you dine at the Melting Pot and avoid the Salad Bar :cool:

The thing people forget is that cultures are not static monoliths, they flow with ideas, clothes, music, food all moving about and mixing together splitting up, combining in new and unexpected ways in the melting pot. So, we have chicken tikka masala as the national dish of GB. Was that cultural apropriation?

Were we appropriating American culture when our youth started wearing baseball caps?

Quote from: Altheus;1093062The thing people forget is that cultures are not static monoliths, they flow with ideas, clothes, music, food all moving about and mixing together splitting up, combining in new and unexpected ways in the melting pot. So, we have chicken tikka masala as the national dish of GB. Was that cultural apropriation?

Were we appropriating American culture when our youth started wearing baseball caps?

The issue of "cultural appropriation" is more complicated than either side makes it out to be. Not everybody is offended by the same thing. Human cultures are complicated like that. Context is extremely important.

While in the abstract social justice is an admirable cause, in practice it is easily taken too far. Not every instance of so-called "cultural appropriation" is actively harmful nor criticized by members of the culture appropriated. Again, context! Cultures don't exist in a vacuum.

When a white girl wore a qipao to prom, she was criticized by Americans but not by Chinese citizens. When Cyberpunk 2077 featured Haitians in a demo, it was praised by Haitians (because representation is an issue) but criticized by Americans. These are clearly overreactions.

When J.K. Rowling wrote about how skinwalkers, which are the Navajo equivalent of Malleus Maleficarum-style satanic witches, are really a persecuted minority in the Potterverse (and also conflated all first nations people into a monolithic block)... she was rightly criticized for it. What she did was completely unnecessary.

Skinwalkers, like a number of concepts from first nations religions, have been subject to extensive appropriation to the point that most modern people who hear about them won't know about their native origins, context or native culture in general. No exaggeration: there are more people who have heard of skinwalkers as creeypasta fodder than know the navajo people even exist. It isn't enough for First Nations peoples to still lack sovereignty and be second-class citizens, Euro-Americans have to exploit their culture for entertainment. Did you know that native religions were banned in many places until very recently? Until the indigenous tribes are out of poverty and have their sovereignty back, this will always be cultural appropriation.

By contrast, China is a growing superpower with aspirations to conquer the world. Obviously a Utah girl wearing a qipao to prom isn't going to be seen as offensive in China. Chinese women wear qipao in cigarette ads.

Quote from: Altheus;1093062The thing people forget is that cultures are not static monoliths, they flow with ideas, clothes, music, food all moving about and mixing together splitting up, combining in new and unexpected ways in the melting pot. So, we have chicken tikka masala as the national dish of GB. Was that cultural apropriation?

Were we appropriating American culture when our youth started wearing baseball caps?

Chicken tikka masala is also the national dish of this south Florida house. I once posited an RPG scenario based on the film "The Hundred-Yard Journey" about an Indian cook learning to be a French chef. For the life of me, I could not think of that as a positive progression. That is probably cultural prejudice on my part.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1093068The issue of "cultural appropriation" is more complicated than either side makes it out to be.

No it isn't, it's very simple, it's the left racists ways to keep cultures "pure", cultural segregation, but instead of claiming it dilutes and makes impure "white" culture they claim the inverse. In practice the same shit.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1093068Not everybody is offended by the same thing. Human cultures are complicated like that. Context is extremely important.

"If someone tells me that I've hurt their feelings, I say, "I'm still waiting to hear what your point is."
In this country, I've been told, "That's offensive" as if those two words constitute an argument or a comment. Not to me they don't.
And I'm not running for anything, so I don't have to pretend to like people when I don't."

Christopher Hitchens

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1093068While in the abstract social justice is an admirable cause, in practice it is easily taken too far.

In the abstract it's written to appeal to people's emotions, in the real world it will always end up "taken too far". This is by design and the only end possible.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1093068Not every instance of so-called "cultural appropriation" is actively harmful nor criticized by members of the culture appropriated. Again, context! Cultures don't exist in a vacuum.

Please cite one instance when actual harm was inflicted by "culturally appropriating" anything. Hurt fee fees and offense don't count.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1093068When a white girl wore a qipao to prom, she was criticized by Americans but not by Chinese citizens. When Cyberpunk 2077 featured Haitians in a demo, it was praised by Haitians (because representation is an issue) but criticized by Americans. These are clearly overreactions.

Thus proving my point that this is a BS term invented by white supremacists with a guilty conscience to enforce cultural segregation, just as they are pushing (and getting) actual racial segregation.

QuoteWhen J.K. Rowling wrote about how skin-walkers, which are the Navajo equivalent of Malleus Maleficarum-style satanic witches, are really a persecuted minority in the Potterverse (and also conflated all first nations people into a monolithic block)... she was rightly criticized for it. What she did was completely unnecessary.

"rightly criticized for" a depiction of a fictional thing in a fictional universe. Only rightful criticism would be to complain it breaks canon, except it doesn't since it's an entirely new fictional universe of her creation.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1093068Skin-walkers, like a number of concepts from first nations religions, have been subject to extensive appropriation to the point that most modern people who hear about them won't know about their native origins, context or native culture in general. No exaggeration: there are more people who have heard of skin-walkers as creeypasta fodder than know the Navajo people even exist. It isn't enough for First Nations peoples to still lack sovereignty and be second-class citizens, Euro-Americans have to exploit their culture for entertainment. Did you know that native religions were banned in many places until very recently? Until the indigenous tribes are out of poverty and have their sovereignty back, this will always be cultural appropriation.

appropriation noun
the act of taking something for your own use, usually without permission:
The author objected to the appropriation of his story by an amateur filmmaker.

Notice how it has to do with transgressing someone's rights? But it just so happens that any religion the "Native Americans" held is in the public domain, there's no copyright holder ergo there's no one that is being hurt by using any parts of it even in a disrespectful manner.

The second part reveals the Marxist origins of this BS term, it's all about power politics, it's all about the oppressor vs the oppressed, but since the "Native Americans" can write their own stories depicting their culture as they want there's no oppression going on about using their culture. This second part is also inserted as a loophole to allow the "oppressed" to "appropriate" the "oppressor" culture because power politics need to be addressed. And the oppressor can't be the oppressed even if their postmodernist Marxist BS says it can, and even if they always go around crying about offensive shit. In short is a way for them to be hypocritical and have a way to excuse their hypocrisy.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1093068By contrast, China is a growing superpower with aspirations to conquer the world. Obviously a Utah girl wearing a qipao to prom isn't going to be seen as offensive in China. Chinese women wear qipao in cigarette ads.

No, it's not about being a superpower, this is more power politics BS, it's about being unhinged lunatics or not.

By using and enjoying the other's culture we grow closer and come to appreciate what we have in common more than what we don't. This is something that doesn't align with the Marxists behind grievance studies interests. They need to divide us by race, gender, sexuality and to pit us one against the other to be able to control us.

That said greetings, be happy if you can.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1093086appropriation noun
the act of taking something for your own use, usually without permission:
The author objected to the appropriation of his story by an amateur filmmaker.

Notice how it has to do with transgressing someone's rights? But it just so happens that any religion the "Native Americans" held is in the public domain, there's no copyright holder ergo there's no one that is being hurt by using any parts of it even in a disrespectful manner.

The second part reveals the Marxist origins of this BS term, it's all about power politics, it's all about the oppressor vs the oppressed, but since the "Native Americans" can write their own stories depicting their culture as they want there's no oppression going on about using their culture. This second part is also inserted as a loophole to allow the "oppressed" to "appropriate" the "oppressor" culture because power politics need to be addressed. And the oppressor can't be the oppressed even if their postmodernist Marxist BS says it can, and even if they always go around crying about offensive shit. In short is a way for them to be hypocritical and have a way to excuse their hypocrisy.



No, it's not about being a superpower, this is more power politics BS, it's about being unhinged lunatics or not.

By using and enjoying the other's culture we grow closer and come to appreciate what we have in common more than what we don't. This is something that doesn't align with the Marxists behind grievance studies interests. They need to divide us by race, gender, sexuality and to pit us one against the other to be able to control us.

That said greetings, be happy if you can.

How much do you actually know about this topic? I've done a lot of research for papers and it's quite horrifying. This isn't some marxist ploy. Power dynamics are very real and it does hurt people a lot.

Appropriating elements of native religions and mutilating them until unrecognizable, as is typically the case, doesn't remotely make you appreciate their culture. That's like saying that depicting Santa Claus being crucified, or depicting Mary Magdalene as a robot in the far future, or the short film "Fist of Jesus", or porn stars dressing as priests in pornography, etc makes you more appreciative of Christianity. It clearly doesn't. Even if it's not intended to be offensive and not found offensive, it isn't helpful to the cause of uniting people.

Cultural appropriation does hurt people. I just explained that was the reason that native tribes were banned from practicing their own religion for a century. They were banned from their own religions. Children were taken from their families, sent to reeducation camps and horribly abused. That's the most extreme form of cultural appropriation. Along with the genocides and rapes and such, that's why they don't like being appropriated. It causes them nothing but harm. They were subject to holocaust horrors and still haven't been apologized to or compensated. Did you not know about that?

Please provide me evidence that J.K. Rowling's or Algernon Blackwood's appropriations made people more appreciative of native tribes and by extension had a positive effect on the appalling conditions in which they currently live. Provide me evidence that burning the torah makes people more appreciative of jews. Provide me evidence that tearing down Confederate statues makes people more appreciative of the South.

Near as I can see, being disrespectful of people's beliefs breeds contempt for those people. That's why politics have become so viciously polarized. Ignoring the horrors of our past only means we'll repeat those horrors in the future.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1093113Cultural appropriation does hurt people. I just explained that was the reason that native tribes were banned from practicing their own religion for a century. They were banned from their own religions. Children were taken from their families, sent to reeducation camps and horribly abused. That's the most extreme form of cultural appropriation. Along with the genocides and rapes and such, that's why they don't like being appropriated. It causes them nothing but harm. They were subject to holocaust horrors and still haven't been apologized to or compensated. Did you not know about that?

How is any of that Cultural Appropriation?  Its like saying the Trail of Tears is Cultural Appropriation.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1093113Please provide me evidence that J.K. Rowling's or Algernon Blackwood's appropriations made people more appreciative of native tribes and by extension had a positive effect on the appalling conditions in which they currently live. Provide me evidence that burning the torah makes people more appreciative of jews. Provide me evidence that tearing down Confederate statues makes people more appreciative of the South.

Well, they've got you yapping about it, so, ultimately, I'm less appreciative of native tribes because of your leftist babble.  Not because I'm disrespectful of their beliefs, but because I'm sick of having shitheeels harp on the idea that cultural appropriation is a thing, and that it's bad.  Native tribes are not your shield.

Aren't you appropriating their right to be offended on their own behalf?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1093113How much do you actually know about this topic? I've done a lot of research for papers and it's quite horrifying. This isn't some marxist ploy. Power dynamics are very real and it does hurt people a lot.

So you're an ideologue from some grievance studies field, gotcha.

QuoteAppropriating elements of native religions and mutilating them until unrecognizable, as is typically the case, doesn't remotely make you appreciate their culture. That's like saying that depicting Santa Claus being crucified, or depicting Mary Magdalene as a robot in the far future, or the short film "Fist of Jesus", or porn stars dressing as priests in pornography, etc makes you more appreciative of Christianity. It clearly doesn't. Even if it's not intended to be offensive and not found offensive, it isn't helpful to the cause of uniting people.

Why should anything I or somebody else do with Christian beliefs (or any other for that matter) have to make people appreciate it? Nice way of trying to sneak in some BS restriction on freedom of speech. As for the second part, do I really need to quote Hitchens on "that's offensive!" again?

QuoteCultural appropriation does hurt people. I just explained that was the reason that native tribes were banned from practicing their own religion for a century. They were banned from their own religions. Children were taken from their families, sent to reeducation camps and horribly abused. That's the most extreme form of cultural appropriation. Along with the genocides and rapes and such, that's why they don't like being appropriated. It causes them nothing but harm. They were subject to holocaust horrors and still haven't been apologized to or compensated. Did you not know about that?

Lets see, cultural appropriation was the cause the native Americans were banned from practicing their religions. So the European settlers were practicing them and didn't want the Natives to be able to? You sure it wasn't because of their idea that they were worshiping the devil and needed to be converted to Christianity and thus saved? How is it cultural appropriation any of that? It just doesn't follow from your own premises, but of course, you're an ideologue from some grievance studies BS.

You haven't proven that a) that was cultural appropriation or b) that your BS term hurts anybody.

QuotePlease provide me evidence that J.K. Rowling's or Algernon Blackwood's appropriations made people more appreciative of native tribes and by extension had a positive effect on the appalling conditions in which they currently live. Provide me evidence that burning the torah makes people more appreciative of jews. Provide me evidence that tearing down Confederate statues makes people more appreciative of the South.

From back to front, destroying a cultural artifact or prohibiting a cultural expression isn't you taking it for your use. Next, I haven't had to explain this since my days arguing with Young Earth Creationists but: The burden of proof isn't in me that doesn't believe your BS claims but on you making the BS claim.

QuoteNear as I can see, being disrespectful of people's beliefs breeds contempt for those people. That's why politics have become so viciously polarized. Ignoring the horrors of our past only means we'll repeat those horrors in the future.

Well you can't see very well, any idea is open for criticism and ridicule, and any religion too. This includes using it in ways the people that believe in it might think of as disrespectful or offensive. And no, being able to criticize anything doesn't mean we're just like the Nazis (thought you could sneak that one past me did you?).