• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Cultural appropriation mythicist angry that people have different tastes to her

The myth is that cultural appropriation qua cultural appropriation is automatically bad. As long as this central idea is allowed to go unchallenged, the mythicists will continue their never ending quest to be as selfish, entitled little pricklets as possible.

So, any idea that you disagree with is now a 'myth?'

Do you know what a myth is?
If I put on a bonnet of feathers, sell sweat lodge ceremonies, chant Lakota prayers over my white consumers paying me for this, to the outrage of the Lakota people, that’s cultural appropriation. It doesn’t matter if it’s religious, it’s still an important part of a people’s identity and disrespecting it is taking a big ugly shit on human beings which doesn't jibe well with a rational stance of "live and let live".

But "live and let live" is a rational stance -- and if people want to pay other people to orchestrate a really bad experience in a sweat lodge, so what? I simply cannot process why people privilege the distress of some people over the feelings of others who are non-violently engaging in an activity.


In your statement above, you state:

There's a saying: give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Well, it's already too late for that. The cultural appropriation mythicists have taken that inch and run a marathon. When somebody can publish such moral dreck as the author in the OP, can be paid for espousing such highfalutin, bombastic, but ultimately empty rantings, and when ordinarily sane people find the need to defend her (#notallmythicists), I despair.

You seem to have no problem with the person in abaddon's example making a profit over providing a false and deceptive version of a Lakota practice to the public for profit.

However, you are outraged that someone publishes an article that you disagree with about such practices and resort to rants and name calling.

Huh.
 
So, any idea that you disagree with is now a 'myth?'

No, wrong ideas pushed as truth are myths.

However, you are outraged that someone publishes an article that you disagree with about such practices and resort to rants and name calling.

Huh.

Outrage is not wrong. Outrage for no good reason is wrong. Outrage that reduces human happiness and convinces people to believe false things is wronger.

You strike me, Toni, as someone who cannot simultaneously believe that free speech is a moral good and that religion is terrible, even though both things are true.
 
No, wrong ideas pushed as truth are myths.

That may be your personal definition but it hardly fits any definition I have found in any dictionary. Does that make your definition of myth a myth?

Outrage is not wrong. Outrage for no good reason is wrong. Outrage that reduces human happiness and convinces people to believe false things is wronger.

Huh. So cultural appropriation of the practices, art, myths, legends, and religion by a non-member of that culture and being sold to the public, thereby convincing other people to have inaccurate and false views of the culture being appropriated is wrong.

That sounds like what I've been saying.

You strike me, Toni, as someone who cannot simultaneously believe that free speech is a moral good and that religion is terrible, even though both things are true.

You strike me as someone who sees the world as black and white and who believes that the only valid viewpoint is the one from inside your head.
 
Does that make your definition of myth a myth?

It doesn't matter to me if you don't agree with my terminology. I would hardly expect it, since you are a cultural appropriation true believer.

Huh. So cultural appropriation of the practices, art, myths, legends, and religion by a non-member of that culture and being sold to the public, thereby convincing other people to have inaccurate and false views of the culture being appropriated is wrong.

No. Cultural appropriation generally increases human happiness, and is therefore generally a moral good. If cultural appropriation did not increase human happiness, nothing would ever be culturally appropriated.

Some people think they have a right to exclusive control over ideas their ancestors invented.

I would never believe such a wicked thing.
 
It doesn't matter to me if you don't agree with my terminology. I would hardly expect it, since you are a cultural appropriation true believer.

And you are back to name calling as a substitute for actually attempting to understand, much less respect, someone else's position. How predictable. Also quite contrary to rational thinking. Or thinking.

Huh. So cultural appropriation of the practices, art, myths, legends, and religion by a non-member of that culture and being sold to the public, thereby convincing other people to have inaccurate and false views of the culture being appropriated is wrong.

No. Cultural appropriation generally increases human happiness, and is therefore generally a moral good. If cultural appropriation did not increase human happiness, nothing would ever be culturally appropriated.

Some people think they have a right to exclusive control over ideas their ancestors invented.

I would never believe such a wicked thing.

By 'increasing human happiness' you must mean your own personal happiness. It decreases the happiness and well being and sometimes the social and legal rights of those whose culture is being appropriated. It has served to erase or attempt to erase entire peoples.

If that's what makes you happy, then you are not a good person.
 
By 'increasing human happiness' you must mean your own personal happiness. It decreases the happiness and well being and sometimes the social and legal rights of those whose culture is being appropriated. It has served to erase or attempt to erase entire peoples.

Erase entire peoples??? Or do you mean entire cultures? And how does somebody such as in the OP making a sushi donut in any way harm any culture?
 
You have to have "privilege" to "culturally appropriate"? Is this correct?
 
You seem to think I believe stealing from other cultures is some crime.

There's nothing wrong with it.

But there is no US culture.

The US is the Borg, a conglomeration of many many cultures.

Then why call it stealing?

Stealing is to take without payment.

Is it stealing?

But I haven't taken some object. I've taken an idea that nobody owns.
 
By 'increasing human happiness' you must mean your own personal happiness.

Of course, I do not, although I am part of humanity so it would include me.

It decreases the happiness and well being and sometimes the social and legal rights of those whose culture is being appropriated.

First of all, no. It causes distress to some members raised in that culture. I know I have to remind you of this constantly, Toni, but not all people in a group are identical. For example, there are some black women who go apeshit over a white boy wearing his hear in dreadlocks. And then, there are other black women who could not care less and are as bewildered as I am over the fuss.

Social and legal rights? No, Toni. If Cracker McWhitebread sells sweat lodge events to white tourists, that does not do anything to any native person's rights.

Legislators give and take away legal rights, not someone in yoga pants.

I'm amused by the argument though: oh, if only people understood the real thing, the real sweat lodge ceremony, not this parody travesty, then all the world would be holding hands and we can turn back the hands of time and native Americans would have been respected as human equals.

If Johnny Lunchpail and Sally Housecoat go to Cracker McWhitebread's fake sweat lodge tour, and coming out of that they think 'wow, that was so crazy, the Lakota are fucked up and we should legislate away their human rights', it still wouldn't make McWhitebread's actions wrong. The wrongness is in the people who would legislate against someone's human rights.

It has served to erase or attempt to erase entire peoples.

No, Toni, cultural appropriation has never, not ever, done that.

You know what erases entire peoples? Stealing their cultural artifacts, taking away their children, forbidding their language, killing them outright.

Copying some half-baked religious idea like sweating yourself until you hallucinate? That's never wiped out anyone (except the individuals who died during the ceremony, natch).
 
Do these fake sweat lodge tours include catered lunches with neo-authentic Native American tacos and sushi? If so, would you mind forwarding mw a brochure?
 
Stealing is to take without payment.

Is it stealing?

But I haven't taken some object. I've taken an idea that nobody owns.


It wasn't my word choice. Stealing includes more than physical property.

Do you think that there should be a copyright on culture?

Japanese Sushi©
Chinese takeaway©
Clog Dancing©
Sun Worship©
The English© Chip Butty©
Frankfurter©
Ramadan©
 
here is an example of cultural appropriation. i wrote a setting for RPG's based on Bantu mythology -you know, Kongo, Swahili,, Great Zimbabwe, Zulu, etc? i read hundreds of journal articles and kept the PDF's so i can cite my references, instead of the 'dark continent' BS, i create a thriving Empire on the level of Renaissance europe that uses magic as technology. when i presented this to the RPG community, the first objection was to one optional character race i included, the !tsharg, which are sapient mandrills. i was told that having any kind of talking monkey in an african themed RPG would be offensive. i responded that all humans are talking monkeys, and that if one pays attentions, chimps have the same skin color as europeans. it didn't go over well, in Bantu culture, baboons are always thought of as being a sentient people.

here's the PDF of the setting WajabuPDF

but the real problem was with how i i presented the pygmies. meaning the Twa, Sanadwe, etc. in real life, during the Bantu expansion, most of these cultures were destroyed. in Bantu society, if you want to get married, you have to pay a price to the bride's father, usually in cattle. to avoid that, some people just abducted pygmy women, often killing their husbands and any other males, and 'married' them. doesn't happen now (rarely), but that was the process. also, during the Rwanda/Burundi genocides, the local pygmies were slaughtered, in once case, killing 30% of the population. i didn't like that shit, so in my world, i gave them a leg up, some special magical powers, but mostly, i made them a different race that could not interbreed with humans, thus preventing the main problem.oh, hell. in RPG's, when you do this, you present a template of that race's physical and mental abilities. i lessened strength and height only, and gave a boost to health to compensate. no chance to IQ or anything. the critics when ape shit. one said that i had 'created a fictional oppression and genocide of a real people, who in fact live in harmony with the Tutsi and Hutu, in order to present myself as their savior, when i was actually ripping off their culture'. at one point that person said i had the 'white imperialist mindset'. i said that assuming i'm white, and calling me that was racist. a mod intervened and said 'saying you are white when you are white is not racist. back off'. note that nowhere on this site is my ethnicity identified. i responded to that, and was banned for life from the site.

truthfully, though i look like a white norteamericano, that is not how i identify myself. for one thing, my maternal grandfathter was a light skinned black who pretended to be indian in order to marry a white women, by those rules, 'one drop pollutes', i'm black. i've never tried to present myself as such, as it would be ridiculous and offensive, but it is true. for myself, i believe that my soul comes from an extinct race of pygmies that lived in north america before what we call 'Indians' arrived, such people did exist - Monte Verde and i believe this and wrote up our creation story before knowing about the evidence. so, i'm not white. i'm one of the realpeople, as we call ourselves, but you can call us the 'ohcanyousea'. here's a link to our story- [URL="https://weirdnessconfessions.wordpress.com/2015/05/12/confessions-of-a-weirdness-magnet-part-11/]ohcanyousea[/URL]

these people are vicious, and off their nuts, that's what i'm sayin.
 
The ORIGINAL cultural appropriation was called out by Jesus.... "money-changers in the temple". Bankers appropriated the religious culture for profit.

Caring for "ethnic" foods, as long as the culturally disgusting parts are removed from the dish, is not "appropriation".

If this Vietnamese woman had her way (only original dishes are allowed to be replicated), then there would be pretty much no where outside of Vietnam to acquire these dishes, or even the ingredients for them... so she could go back to Vietnam from lunch if she likes... just don't come back... and stay away from those millions of McDonalds that exist outside of the US that offer local flavor (like the Japanese sushi big mac, the Australian Kiwi burger (with pickled beet and fried egg - actually delicious), and all those ILLEGAL dishes that have APPROPRIATED US culture.
 
Fascinating stuff, tantric. Thanks for the post.

i don't put up with BS. i get a lot of shit for it, but it's my nature. i'm the trickster archetype, and it's a hard road to hoe. i just pushes my button. 'people of color' - what am i ? transparent? as a buddhist, i see the concept of race as what we call 'maya'. that means 'illusion' but it implies an idea construct that people take as real but is actually false and harmful like 'intellectual property' or 'soul'. if you want to follow the path of right thought, you can't have such things. frankly, it's against my religion..'race' is a collection of lies stitched together with hate.
 
Of course, I do not, although I am part of humanity so it would include me.

So are those who object to having their culture appropriated by others. Cultural appropriation decreases their happiness and sense of well being.


Social and legal rights? No, Toni. If Cracker McWhitebread sells sweat lodge events to white tourists, that does not do anything to any native person's rights.

Can you cite statutes that support your case?


Legislators give and take away legal rights, not someone in yoga pants.

I'm amused by the argument though: oh, if only people understood the real thing, the real sweat lodge ceremony, not this parody travesty, then all the world would be holding hands and we can turn back the hands of time and native Americans would have been respected as human equals.

If Johnny Lunchpail and Sally Housecoat go to Cracker McWhitebread's fake sweat lodge tour, and coming out of that they think 'wow, that was so crazy, the Lakota are fucked up and we should legislate away their human rights', it still wouldn't make McWhitebread's actions wrong. The wrongness is in the people who would legislate against someone's human rights.

I think fraud is wrong. Don't you? Fraud is generally against the law. Do you disagree with that?

Fraud is a wrong committed against both the consumer who purchased a fraudulent good or service but also for the owner of what is genuine, whose genuine articles may be devalued or passed over in favor of the fraudulent presented by a trusted white man. Who is trusted because he is white.

It has served to erase or attempt to erase entire peoples.

No, Toni, cultural appropriation has never, not ever, done that.

You know what erases entire peoples? Stealing their cultural artifacts, taking away their children, forbidding their language, killing them outright.

Copying some half-baked religious idea like sweating yourself until you hallucinate? That's never wiped out anyone (except the individuals who died during the ceremony, natch).

Stealing artifacts is very much like stealing designs, ceremonies, and so on. Stealing a design, ideas, intellectual property, etc. is called plagiarism. It's frowned upon, may be illegal and is grounds for dismissal from academic institutions and will get you some seriously expensive law suits.

When the fraudulent idea/good/work of art, etc. is so widely distributed that it overwhelms the original, the original eventually dies. When the original dies out, it causes genuine harm to the owner of the original.
 
Back
Top Bottom