[worry]

This is neat:

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 23 July 2019 - 10:26 PM, said:

Why are you telling me this?

Because in fuller context the melange of common arguments you seem to be referring to don't apply very well to your examples.

Does Jenner wearing cornrows 'divorce' cornrows from black culture and erase its connection with black people? In context, not really. Even their appeal on her comes from the recognition of cornrows as 'black'. She's been intimately connected with black people and black culture for a long time. Her black husband, Travis Scott, is one of the most prominent musicians in the world. She has the 'permission' of a large number of black people; she's becoming a part of black culture---literally giving birth to a black daughter---so the idea that she's 'extracting' black culture to 'divorce' it from black people is ridiculous.

In context, the same goes for the idea that Westernized yoga is economically harmful to Indian people or interest in Indian yoga, or that its commercialized form came about by being 'extracted' and 'exploited' by Westerners without permission from or respect towards its Indian creators.

For example, Bikram yoga---a form of hot yoga which I did as a teenager---does largely divorce yoga from its traditional focus on pranayama, meditation, and spirituality in favor of asana-as-physical-exercise. The vast majority of instructors and practitioners are white, and it's a wildly successful international corporation. But the company's founder is Indian-American Bikram Choudhury.

The divorce of yoga from its spiritual roots, its reduction to a form of commercialized exercise, was an innovation by Indian immigrants. While exercise-yoga may now primarily economically benefit white instructors or primarily white companies, claims that its popularity does net economic harm to Indian or South Asian people, or reduces interest in traditional Indian yoga, seem clearly false.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 23 July 2019 - 11:21 PM

[worry]

Ah. I'm afraid that strikes me as the very same binary It Is!/It Isn't! adjudication -- like we test for 'cultural appropriation' the same way Maury Povich does paternity -- that I just got through explaining I find to be useless and don't want any part of. Like, I'm definitely not debating with you if the Western yoga industry has been appropriative, since 1) you can surely find more scholarly voices than mine providing the hows and whys; and 2) it's not really a Yes or No question in the first place. Obviously there's ways it has been and ways it hasn't been, ways it's been exploited even in other-than-appropriative ways, and ways it's been honored from people with varying degrees of relationship.

As far as Kylie goes, I'm going to fully ignore the argument that a white person with intimate connections to black people can't also be exploitative of black people and culture, because I know you don't mean that. But I will say that discussing cultural appropriation -- identifying appropriative acts and behaviors, even naming names -- isn't a project of handing out scarlet letters to perpetrators. Nobody's comparing the bulk of appropriators to mustache-twirling movie villains stealing from orphanages (though naturally, there certainly exist particularly virulent actors). But generally speaking, one's participation in appropriative behaviors is in no way contingent on intent, and when you're called out -- at the risk of getting redundant -- take it as an opportunity for reflection on one's self or the issue at large rather than as an accusation to get defensive about.

This post has been edited by worry: 23 July 2019 - 11:57 PM

[worry]

That said, the story of the prom girl getting dogpiled that QT and the article you posted mention is actually a pretty awful event, especially if it represents a broader phenomena, so in that light I can see QT's pov more clearly why he thinks it's important to be on guard. It didn't change my mind generally, because I believe the % of discourse on cultural appropriation that exploits the concept like that is relatively small, but it's definitely a scary bastardization of serious, scholarly work that I hope remains marginal.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 24 July 2019 - 12:15 AM, said:

That said, the story of the prom girl getting dogpiled that QT and the article you posted mention is actually a pretty awful event, especially if it represents a broader phenomena, so in that light I can see QT's pov more clearly why he thinks it's important to be on guard. It didn't change my mind generally, because I believe the % of discourse on cultural appropriation that exploits the concept like that is relatively small, but it's definitely a scary bastardization of serious, scholarly work that I hope remains marginal.

Search results for 'cultural appropriation':

Google Scholar: About 23,400 results

Google News: About 109,000 results

'cultural appropriation' Twitter: About 3,210,000 results

It's not just on the internet. 'Calling out' cultural appropriation of dreadlocks and fashion in person is common on college campuses and urban areas, as you can see in numerous videos (granted, on the internet) and that I've observed personally (I live in an urban area near several college campuses). So are protests, formal bans, etc.

For example:

https://www.japantim...n/#.XTe7dOhKhPY

(In contrast, Kim Kardashian's attempt to legally *trademark* the word 'Kimono' crossed a line, and drew a letter of rebuke from the mayor of Kyoto. Thankfully she dropped the name.)

The sociological study of cultural appropriation and nuanced, contextualized consideration of the ethical issues involved are important. There is substantial evidence for the claim that white people have wanted to experience non-white culture while marginalizing non-white people and/or adopting whitewashing, quasi-colonial, caricaturing, triviliazing, or otherwise denigrating or exploitative frames. People who benefit from being influenced by non-white minority cultures should make sure that they give back substantively to the peoples of those cultures, at the very least by recognizing, being respectful towards, and actively promoting their works.

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 24 July 2019 - 03:11 AM

[worry]

I agree with you regarding Kim K's trademark, am not particularly fond of the argument in that article, but I think we're on the same page of your final paragraph.

[Cause]

I don't take cultural appropriation seriously for the simple reason I don't think it can exist. Culture is the social norms of a population. Its not static, it changes everyday. Its meant to. It evolves, it adapts and that's all normal. Slavery was once culturally accepted and its not anymore. Two societies may have different cultures but that's because they are separated. Once they mix, their cultures will mix too. The stronger (more popular, exciting, or because the leaders of one culture actively promote it as necessary) culture may win, the two cultures may blend. Hollywood exports American culture worldwide and America does a good job of exporting its culture and I think its safe to say that much of western culture is American culture. There is a reason that many of us on this forum, not American, are still offended when trump acts un-American. That said the French are still French, the british are still british but they are not the British of 100 years ago. Japan I would argue, for whatever reason, is a nation that has managed to export its culture beyond what might be expected for its size. Anime helps, Japanese culture fascinates the west for some reason. As a white person in south Africa I use a knife, fork and spoon for 99% of my eating, when I go to a Japanese restaurant they give me chopsticks and I often think a spoon or fork would be more useful. On the other hand I often use chopsticks for a reason that has nothing to do with 'japanse culture' to eat chips that would otherwise make my fingers dirty. I don't think the Japanese care, should care, or that I am being disrespectful. In japan I wouldn't leave my chopsticks vertical because their its a cultural taboo (and I don't want to be rude), in my own house I don't care because the reason for the cultural taboo, it looks like funeral innocence, has no anchor in my experiences. This is all normal. Japan benefits from this soft power of goodwill, that translates to anime sales, tourism and benefiting their economy. Culture is a 'meme' it by its very nature seeks to spread and expand. People will take the parts that they like and abandon the rest. Some people will rebel and become part of a counter-culture which despite the name is its own culture. This is all normal and natural.

Kim Kardashian calling her new lingerie line Kimono wasn't cultural appropriation, it was marketing that infringed on the very meaning of what a kimono is and as such japan needed to step in to protect their IP more than they did to protect their culture in my opinion. When I first heard of the company I thought she was gonna be selling Japanese inspired silk robes etc and if that was the case I think Japan would have been fine with it.

Now some things make us uncomfortable. As an atheist who doesn't really care for my Jewish culture I still react with disdain when I hear about Madonna learning kaballah, an esoteric form of jewish knowledge that even most jews don't even bother with. I cant really say why, except that is utterly bizzare and crazy. However life moves on. Guy Ritchie recently promoted Aladdin in Israel in an interview in fluent Hebrew though, because he used to learn kabbalah with Madonna. That's cool.

Civ games have it right, the more people your culture touches the better.

Edit- what did anziz asari do that he is suddenly getting flack?

This post has been edited by Cause: 24 July 2019 - 12:23 PM

[QuickTidal]

Other's have replied to your other comments better than I could, so I'll defer to them.

worry, on 23 July 2019 - 08:38 PM, said:

1) I was planning to never watch the new Aziz Ansari special, I'm afraid. But maybe for you I'll do it, QT. I'll have to think about it.

So, I will say this. Out of all the #MeToo'd celebrity men out there, Aziz's event seems to have been the lowest on the long list, he admitted straight out (never rejected her take) and he is 100% guilty of not reading non-verbal cues from a date, and male "probing" of clear defences of his date till he found a way through them, and basically seeing the situation entirely different from said date (bearing in mind that he was not accused of anything before that, nor indeed anything after, as his girlfriend Serena is soon to be his fiancee seems genuinely happy with him; not that this excuses his behaviour on that one date...but the context at least is mildly important). He not only addresses this in the special, but serves up not one but two discussion-worthy, soul-search moments at the beginning, and at the end that are not just an apology, but an inward reflection of the different way he and she saw those things and a full acceptance of how she did. He's quiet, and reserved throughout the special actually. I don't know that I've seen such a difference in any of the people who got taken down post-Weinstein than I did in an hourlong special by Aziz. If you want to see a human who has been changed inwardly by a revelation/reaction of his own behaviour, look no further.

I was as hard on this guy as anyone when I read the story, but in the grand scheme of "comebacks", I don't feel he needs to be wiped from the comedy spectrum either (Louis CK on the other hand is clearly unapologetic and non-introspective and can fuck off forever).

So I think it's worth a watch solely for what I think is Aziz capitulating that he did wrong, accepts that, and appreciates that the woman in the situation had valid points that he is sorry for.

[HoosierDaddy]

Same old same old in congress. Trump has one hell of a pull. These people are cowards.

[QuickTidal]

Jim Jordan is a fucking tumerous growth. WTF is wrong with voters in Ohio?

[QuickTidal]

HOLY SHIT.

Ken Buck, please kick the ball into your own net. Buck: No problem!

Buck: Once the President is out of office, would you charge him with obstruction of justice?

Mueller: Yes.

Buck: You're saying that you would indict him after he's out of office?

Muller: (no equivocation) Yes.

Fucking hell, I wanted someone to ask him that but I expected it from a Democrat not a self-fucking own by a Republican.

My gods. LOL

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 24 July 2019 - 02:09 PM, said:

Jim Jordan is a fucking tumerous growth. WTF is wrong with voters in Ohio?

He also covered up sexual abuse while he was a coach at Ohio State University. Evil man thoroughly.

[Malankazooie]

Turned on the news. In one quadrant Mueller being questioned before Congress. Main story blaring is Boris Johnson announcing that 'The Queen' has invited him to form a government.

Do you guys think we have a chance? Will we? (can we?) make it through if Trump gets another four years? Or is that doomsday bunker looking a little more appealing these days?

By the way, what if 'The Queen' just decided to say "sod off wanker" (or is all that just a formality?)

[Cause]

Muller said a president could be charged when he left office, not that trump should. Democrats are playing a weak game. They are disappointed he didnt give them the 'alpha strike' they wanted and he said it was a matter for congress and the senate. He wont change tracks now. They must decide where their duty lies and play the hand they have. They cant force the board to be rest.

What boggles my mind is the rules of this hearing. I just watched a clip of a republican firing off question after question at Mueller and getting annoyed when Muller actually tries to respnd because he only has five minutes, so when Mueller answers he cant fire off his next loaded question.

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 24 July 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

Muller said a president could be charged when he left office, not that trump should.

Dude. Three people (Buck, Liu, and Garcia) ALL got him to admit that if Trump were a regular guy, he would have been charged with Obstruction. So yes, he did.

Cause, on 24 July 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

Democrats are playing a weak game. They are disappointed he didnt give them the 'alpha strike' they wanted and he said it was a matter for congress and the senate. He wont change tracks now. They must decide where their duty lies and play the hand they have. They cant force the board to be rest.

His report SHOULD stand for itself, so he doesn't want to be there reiterating the content of it. Second, the DOJ has Barred him from talking about certain stuff.

Cause, on 24 July 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

What boggles my mind is the rules of this hearing. I just watched a clip of a republican firing off question after question at Mueller and getting annoyed when Muller actually tries to respnd because he only has five minutes, so when Mueller answers he cant fire off his next loaded question.

This is a classic Republican tactic as far as I can tell...Grandstand and speechify, and barely ask questions...not letting Mueller answer and when he does try to be full in answer they cut him off claiming it's "their" time. It's a delay to run out the time and not let him paint things as they should be painted.

[Cause]

QuickTidal, on 24 July 2019 - 04:04 PM, said:

Cause, on 24 July 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

Muller said a president could be charged when he left office, not that trump should.

Dude. Three people (Buck, Liu, and Garcia) ALL got him to admit that if Trump were a regular guy, he would have been charged with Obstruction. So yes, he did.

Sorry I saw an article on CNN that said 'Note: Mueller did not say specifically that trump should be charged'. Im glad to hear he was a bit more specific.

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 24 July 2019 - 04:33 PM, said:

QuickTidal, on 24 July 2019 - 04:04 PM, said:

Cause, on 24 July 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

Muller said a president could be charged when he left office, not that trump should.

Dude. Three people (Buck, Liu, and Garcia) ALL got him to admit that if Trump were a regular guy, he would have been charged with Obstruction. So yes, he did.

Sorry I saw an article on CNN that said 'Note: Mueller did not say specifically that trump should be charged'. Im glad to hear he was a bit more specific.

I think Buck's question that he answered could be nitpicked, but I believe Liu and Garcia were more direct about it.

Any any rate, the nitpicking of these notes will be what Fox news picks up on anyways.

[HoosierDaddy]

Hillary Clinton is on trial. Again.

[QuickTidal]

HoosierDaddy, on 24 July 2019 - 06:17 PM, said:

Hillary Clinton is on trial. Again.

The Hillary drinking game of these hearings is going to land people in hospital with alcohol poisoning.

Drink also every time The R's say "Strozk" "Fusion GPS" "Clintons" or "Exoneration"

[HoosierDaddy]

Fusion GPS!


Checkmate libtards!

But what about the e-mails!


Checkmate libtards!

Do you like fast food?


I love it!

(I also love fast food. I don't have White House cooking.................)