Cultural Appropriation

[Aegon]

You're saying that the differences between the 3,000 different sects of Christianity and the differences in the beliefs of every individual Christian and how many different things a Christian could believe from their own religion and how it could or could not affect their opinions on other matters is less complex than this topic? No. A blanket statement about Christians is almost always bound to be incorrect. Yet I see it all the time here. But nobody calls anyone out for it. Perhaps because they agree with the poster.

Here is a blanket statement about Christians that is true: They believe in the God of Abraham. Here's another one: They believe that without accepting Jesus Christ as your Saviour, you are Hell-bound.  You will have noticed, hopefully, that I haven't delved into detail.  

You, however, are delving into detail which you cannot know when you argue that people who reject your definition of cultural appropriation are doing so because they want to be "pricks".

Hopefully, you see the difference.

No. Not all Christians think those who do not accept Jesus as their savior will go to Hell. But whatever. 

I never said people who reject my definition are pricks. I said people who do things that follow my definition are pricks. If I ever implied the former then I misspoke. But it's a big difference. I'm not sitting here saying anybody who disagrees with me is a prick. I'm saying people who would do the things I described in my numerous examples throughout the thread are. Maybe you'd disagree, but I want to make that as clear as possible. I'm not trying to straight-up insult anybody arguing with me....unless they wear blackface in their spare time?

humpalumpacus[/color]

Explain to me how my "assumption" was "baseless."

Because you aren't inside the mind of the person who disagrees with you, and can only assume the reason you ascribe to their not agreeing with you.

You weren't clear what exactly you were talking about. You quoted my comment about the anti-PC people being racist. I didn't know you meant my overall argument. Let me try and clear this up once more. Are you now talking about the way I talk about people who reject my definition of cultural appropriation? In that case I direct you a few lines up to what I just wrote.

humpalumpacus][/color]

You don't agree that there are people who hate the politically correct culture because it inhibits their ability to be racist/bigoted?

I didn't say that.  Can you perhaps read what I wrote, rather than what your filters permit you to think? Strawmen are rude things to cast upon someone, and I don't like rudeness, myself.

Again, I thought you were because that was the line you quoted. So I got that from literally reading what you wrote. Don't make me out to be something I'm not. I might be thick-headed, I might even be wrong, but I'm not dishonest.

humpalumpacus][/color]

I don't know why that that statement in particular is any more baseless than anything anyone else in this thread has said (see: another user say something along the lines of "Cultural appropriation is a made up thing by SJWs to moan about something") It's not an assumption though. Donald Trump has an influx of racist supporters who are supporting his anti-PC rhetoric for the very reasons I stated: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dona...d3359dc41a 

There are fallacies on both sides, to be sure.  That doesn't excuse yours.

You ignored my evidence. But maybe that's because you weren't seeking it since you weren't talking about that specific line like I thought you were. 

humpalumpacus][/color]

As for your post earlier, IIRC I didn't have much to say in response. We're talking about different types of cultural appropriation, as you stated. Though I'd argue that blues and jazz being played by white guys is cultural exchange more so than cultural appropriation. I'm talking about forms of cultural appropriation than are more obviously offensive and harmful to the culture.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

It's good to see you adding nuance to your position.  Pity that you're so resistant to simply using the words that have already been assigned meaning for those phenomena, such as bigotry, racist assholes, or idiots.

Because those who do take part in the forms of cultural appropriation I've been talking about are bigoted and/or racist.

humpalumpacus][/color]By ascribing each act of cultural interchange to "cultural appropriation", the nuances get smeared -- as do the people who enjoy a wide variety of cultural influences. If you are going to smear people for doing such, you're going to get pushback.

I never did. I tried to make it as clear as possible the types of things I was talking about. I said on more than one occasion that I'm not referring to more innocent types of cultural exchange / cultural interchange like jazz or blues. I offered my definition of the term that I was arguing for (which, if you recall, was "perpetuating a cultural stereotype that is offensive to the members of that culture and harmful to the overall image of the culture today.")

Acting as if the PC definition of "cultural appropriation" is the only legitimate definition, you are yourself painting with too broad a brush. People have different reasons for adopting different forms of social expression. I do think that a good segment of the left in America is personally and emotionally invested in appearing to be on the "right" side of any issue (in terms of PC) to an extent that they betray their own standards. Thinking that a member of one culture is better able to voice the offense of a member of another culture is itself rather demeaning, don't you agree? Are they not able to speak for themselves? Dr King was not white, nor Malcolm X, nor Gandhi. Who are you that your voice carries more weight? It's great that you have an opinion. It's even better that you want minorities and indigenous people to be treated fairly. But it doesn't carry the same weight, for me, as my biracial son's, or neice's, or nephew's. You know why? Because you will never experience the bigotry they do, you do not share their culture, and beating your breast in offense looks an awful lot like grandstanding from this white member of an interracial family's perspective. How, exactly, are you entitled to speak for them?

You're forgetting my original point. My original point was arguing that cultural appropriation exists. There are serious bigoted and racist things happening that many people are against because it is now held under the banner of cultural appropriation. I didn't think it was fair that all of those things were brushed off because of the reputation of the term itself. So I decided to argue in favor of it existing. I don't think my voice personally carries more weight than anybody else's. Historically, on the other hand, yes, a white person's does. Native Americans had some fantastic voices and figures fight for their rights, such as Arthur C. Parker, Charles Eastman, and Francis La Flesche. But without the work of John Collier, all of their great and inspiring speeches and writings wouldve been for naught. Because, historically speaking, white people are more willing to listen to other white people.

Your opinion is an opinion. Assuming people disagree with you only because "they want to be pricks" is self-righteous bullshit. You don't know a goddamned thing about the people you're engaging in discussion, and if you had half-a-brain, you'd limit your conversation to what you know, unflattering though that might be.

Again...I never called anybody disagreeing with me pricks. Can't make that clear enough. Seems you were automatically on the defensive when you've been reading my posts throughout this thread. Re-read them without a pitchfork in your hand. I gave examples. Blackface on a costume? I see you as a racist and yes, someone who "wants to be" a prick. I don't think that's self-righteous. Dress like Hitler and do the Hitler salute and claim to be dressing as a German? That is a harmful form of cultural approrpiation and yes, you're a prick. Never once throughout this thread did I say anybody arguing with me was an asshole. You twisted my words so that you could call yourself an asshole:

Note that the opening sentence lays it out: "Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of a different culture." Following that, this passage turns to the idea of misappropriation, which is clearly not a settled matter. But the fact is that cultural appropriation is exactly what I'm doing in playing blues or jazz, or cooking Italian food. It follows, then, that misappropriation -- which certainly exists in the forms you both mention -- is only a subset of cultural appropriation.

My point was aimed at people who view all such appropriation in the above-mentioned "colonial" manner.

I stand by my interpretation of my own actions, and the actions of many if not most people in the world, as being a form of cultural appropriation, and if that hurts people's feelings -- well, maybe it means as Aegon says, I'm an asshole (which is a fact I freely admit, by the way, but not for this reason). Or maybe it means people who get hurt by a white boy playing the blues need to get a helmet.

There it is. I said, in the same post you ripped a quote out of earlier, the definition of cultural appropriation that I and many others (not on this forum obviously) arguing positions similar to mine are going by. I suppose the better term would have been misappropriation, then? Okay. But you saw that I was confused about the legitimate and agreed upon definition of the term. You saw I was talking about something different. Yet you pretended I was talking about you. And in that same post you ripped a quote out of I said that I wasn't talking about white boys playing the blues. But here you are, twisting my words. I was clear what and who I was talking about. You weren't one of them. But you graciously made yourself one of them and made it seem like I straight-up called you an asshole when I didn't. 

I'm not as familiar with the names of fallacies as you are. Can you tell me which fallacy you commit you when you accuse someone in a very dirgogatory manner things that they never did?

---

Explain to me how my "assumption" was "baseless." You don't agree that there are people who hate the politically correct culture because it inhibits their ability to be racist/bigoted?

You act like PC is the polar opposite of bigotry.  You don't have to have fucking thought police to endorse, and enforce, a reasonable standard of goodwill and protection for all citizens.

When mostly-white hipster SJWs spend all their time trying to protect the sensibilities of black people, handicapped people, Tibetans, etc., what does this really imply?  "I, a 20-year old, never-once-employed poet with a $3000 computer and a $12 Starbucks coffee, need to bring under my umbrella of protection all the weak groups: handicapped people, black people, and Tibetans."  But this generation-zero loser is NOT a protector, or a hero, or a warrior, and his "help" benefits nobody.  He's just a punk with a lot to say and nothing important to say it about.

PC is really just weak-minded, unaccomplished people trying to validate their pointless existence by pretending to care about a "cause."  

It's passive aggression, and it's social masturbation.

You're right...we don't need "Thought police." I thought I made it clear a few posts ago that I don't really agree with the PC culture you're talking about? The cultural appropriation I've been discussing to death isn't something that just "white hipster SJWs" spend their time caring about. That's been one of my points this entire time. I guess I didn't make that clear enough?