Native Americans sic Wendigo on JK Rowling for "cultural appropriation"

[Nexus]

...or assertions that SJW don't exist.

Yeah, that is untrue, but you don't bother to read what I write, so that is to be expected.

No you just don't remember what you write from thread to thread.

Great, another fake term that is going to be tossed around by a subset of people to be able to handwave whatever they want away.

Its not a fake term. Real people exist that the term describes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, I also don't see any kind of conservative slant in that position. While, in a broad sense, "not caring about the appropriation of minority cultures" could be labelled as conservative, this isn't that. It's saying that the argument being expressed by Keene is an invalid one. It's not being called invalid because it's the position of a minority culture, it's being called invalid because the OP is saying that the logic behind the argument lacks merit.

Which is really the same thing, in this case.

Regardless of whether one is religious in any sense, the moral and cultural tenements of various religions, relious cultures and societal cultures have and will continue to shape the views and attitudes of individuals and societies.

It's evidenced in this thread.

BTW, you are correct: not caring or dismissing concerns or outright denying the concept of cultural appropriation is very much a conservative position.

But that's not what he's doing. He's pointing out that, once again, a stupid religious belief has made a stupid person say a stupid thing. That's eminently worthy of mockery the same way that every other stupid thing that stupid people say about their stupid religions is worthy of mockery and he has detailed why he thinks it's all stupid.

If the basis of his position was that it's wrong for them to complain about the cultural appropriation, then it would be a conservative position. If it just so happens that an unrelated conservative position would take someone to the same end point he's at, that doesn't somehow put him in line with conservatives anymore than someone who doesn't like Al Sharpton because they think he's fake and insincere is in line with a KKK member who doesn't like Al Sharpton because he's done so much work towards equal rights for blacks, even though they both end up at the same point of not liking Al Sharpton.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, that is untrue, but you don't bother to read what I write, so that is to be expected.

No you just don't remember what you write from thread to thread.

Yeah... if that were true, you would have quoted something.

Great, another fake term that is going to be tossed around by a subset of people to be able to handwave whatever they want away.

Its not a fake term. Real people exist that the term describes.

Certain that they do. Of course, the SJW label has a very useful canopy that lets it cover more people than just the people you vaguely refer to.

 

[Nexus]

He's pointing out that, once again, a stupid religious belief has made a stupid person say a stupid thing.

To many leftists, religious beliefs can only be stupid if they are of the Christian variety. The rest should be sacred and admired.

 

[laughing dog]

Which is really the same thing, in this case.

Regardless of whether one is religious in any sense, the moral and cultural tenements of various religions, relious cultures and societal cultures have and will continue to shape the views and attitudes of individuals and societies.

It's evidenced in this thread.

BTW, you are correct: not caring or dismissing concerns or outright denying the concept of cultural appropriation is very much a conservative position.

But that's not what he's doing.

Ahem, a basis for the OP is the underlying principle that "the idea of 'cultural appropriation' is literally incoherent".

 

[Toni]

Which is really the same thing, in this case.

Regardless of whether one is religious in any sense, the moral and cultural tenements of various religions, relious cultures and societal cultures have and will continue to shape the views and attitudes of individuals and societies.

It's evidenced in this thread.

BTW, you are correct: not caring or dismissing concerns or outright denying the concept of cultural appropriation is very much a conservative position.

But that's not what he's doing. He's pointing out that, once again, a stupid religious belief has made a stupid person say a stupid thing. That's eminently worthy of mockery the same way that every other stupid thing that stupid people say about their stupid religions is worthy of mockery and he has detailed why he thinks it's all stupid.

If the basis of his position was that it's wrong for them to complain about the cultural appropriation, then it would be a conservative position. If it just so happens that an unrelated conservative position would take someone to the same end point he's at, that doesn't somehow put him in line with conservatives anymore than someone who doesn't like Al Sharpton because they think he's fake and insincere is in line with a KKK member who doesn't like Al Sharpton because he's done so much work towards equal rights for blacks, even though they both end up at the same point of not liking Al Sharpton.

But that's not the argument.

There is more than one type of conservative. Most people hold both liberal and conservative beliefs. I think most Americans would see me as a lefty--even radically so. Yet I know that some of my positions are in agreement with conservatives. To quote Stuart Smiley: And that's OK.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I noticed none of these things. Instead, I noticed an argument that is hard to refute.

Then you must either have insight I lack, or have lower standards of argumentation.

His main point is that 'Skinwalkers don't exist, and you don't have a copyright on them.' Both points are true. But I frequently point out the difference between something that is trivially true and meaningfully true. These here are trivial truths. It is true that skinwalkers don't exist. However, religious people around the world believe in things that don't exist, and expect these beliefs to be treated with some degree of courtesy. Native Americans have frequently noted their own beliefs are treated differently than those of others, that others have no qualms about portraying their culture and beliefs in certain ways that they would likely find objectionable if their own culture were so portrayed. While we as atheists can dismiss claims that these supernatural things are true, we can't dismiss the unfairness that is happening. The second point about them not having the copyright is also true, but trivially true and irrelevant, as no one is suing anyone. What is happening is criticism, and everyone has a right to criticize.

Goodness help us if we mock the Laffer Curve. The Randians will just lose it!

Native Americans, who are still very marginalized and mistreated in this country (and Canada), are understandably concerned about media depictions of them that reinforce the stereotypes that go along with the very real mistreatment. Depictions of them as savages are of course clearly problematic. But also (in their view) are more 'positive' depictions, showing them as being magical, mystical and in tune with nature. The reason for this is perhaps a person primed with these 'positive' stereotypes, then seeing the miserable conditions that exist on many reservations, (conditions we have largely inflicted on them) might react negatively towards the inhabitants themselves, for not living up to their expectations. Perhaps they are over-sensitive, but on the other hand, no one can deny they have suffered hugely, and it seems to me that we can afford to indulge their possible over-reaction, rather than risk adding to very real and undeniable suffering.

My trouble here is that the depiction by the author seems to be unknown. It isn't enough, in my mind, to complain that she merely references them. She has to do such a thing in a careless or ignorant manner for it to become objectionable. Sadly, the article does a real shit job of expanding on this potential concern.

 

[laughing dog]

He's pointing out that, once again, a stupid religious belief has made a stupid person say a stupid thing.

To many leftists, religious beliefs can only be stupid if they are of the Christian variety. The rest should be sacred and admired.

Please clarify the minimum number required to attain "many leftists" and then please point out a few "leftists" who think only the Christian variety of religious beliefs can be stupid.

 

[ronburgundy]

What makes his position neoconservative?

If you offend a sacred in-group of the left you must have taken a position on the right.
.

Real offense to an actual "group" is not required. It is sufficient to trigger the manufactured offense of a handful of self-promoting pseudo-intellectuals who arrogantly claim to speak for a group.

Keene and other professional outrage mills treat cultural appropriation as though it's inherently bad. While there are instances where cultural appropriation that are distasteful and demeaning, they are the exception. Something not being to your preferences does not constitute demeaning (a conflation that the left is increasingly borrowing from the religious-right). All of culture is appropriation. Ideas, dress, practices, speech, food, etc. are borrowed (usually in piecemeal fashion) adapted and re purposed for various uses. Appropriation is the source of variation, and 99% of appropriations are neutral or positive by any reasonable assessment. Culture is appropriation, so to complain about culture being appropriated is moronic. In addition, there is no valid basis to distinguish between appropriation within versus between cultures, despite all the outrage being directed at the latter. There is no objective demarcation where a culture begins and another ends. Every culture can be divided into sub-cultures, so all within-appropriations can be viewed as between-appropriations. Ultimately, Keene and her ilk only care about white people appropriating non-white cultures, because it isn't about appropriation, but about wanting to invent another form of racial injustice.

Ironically, Rawlings' type of appropriation is so common (emphasizing the spiritual/magical aspects of pre-modern cultures) precisely because of a bigger and objective error by many on the left, the romanticizing of pre-modern cultures, as though they were "deeper" and more harmonious than modern society. Efforts to evoke regret, a sense of loss, and guilt about the demise of these cultures have entailed presenting them as spiritually and in most other ways superior to the modern world. Part of this narrative (dominant in most science fiction) entails villainizing technology and modern science for causing us to lose touch with our true selves, "the spirits" and mother-earth, blah, blah, blah.
We have lost touch with the "magic" that was cherished by the people our modern world paved over. Its a rampant trope that could be the tagline to almost every movie entailing a clash between modernism and pre-industrial societies.

Rawlings' book is not about Native Americans per se. Its about magic. A major theme in her book is that magic has been largely wiped out and forgotten in the modern world. So, it makes sense that she would invoke cultures that have been largely wiped out and forgotten as the keepers of that lost magic. Of course she isn't going to go into all the details surrounding various "magical" elements of those cultures. In fact, tethering those practices to various tribe-specific realities would undermine the story she is telling, which is a story more about how the same "magic" existed (and still exists hidden) all over the world.

BTW, I am not at all a Rawlings fan. I just understand her narrative and the pseudo-historical romanticized narrative context it stems from.

Although conservatives dismiss cultural appropriation in general, what I've argued here is not a conservative position any more than a person who opposed Hiltler was taking a Stalinist position, just because Stalin fought against Hitler. It is a rational position that merely acknowledges that appropriation is the essence of culture itself and thus there is nothing wrong with it. The small % of instances that can be reasonably said to be wrong, are not wrong for being appropriations but for being insults where the appropriated objects are merely incidental props used in the insult.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Although conservatives dismiss cultural appropriation in general, what I've argued here is not a conservative position any more than a person who opposed Hiltler was taking a Stalinist position, just because Stalin fought against Hitler. It is a rational position that merely acknowledges that appropriation is the essence of culture itself and thus there is nothing wrong with it. The small % of instances that can be reasonably said to be wrong, are not wrong for being appropriations but for being insults where the appropriated objects are merely incidental props used in the insult.

Do we even know how Rowling uses the Native archetypes?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But that's not the argument.

There is more than one type of conservative. Most people hold both liberal and conservative beliefs. I think most Americans would see me as a lefty--even radically so. Yet I know that some of my positions are in agreement with conservatives. To quote Stuart Smiley: And that's OK.

Ya, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with conservatives. I'm saying that in order to label a position as conservative, one has to look at the rationale behind why they have that position, not whether or not there are conservative who would agree with the end position for other reasons. He is saying that nobody owns beliefs and anybody is free to adapt those beliefs for whatever reason they want without the need to ask permission from some group who says it's theirs.

I really don't see how Metaphor is "conservative" for holding a position like that any more than Monty Python is a group of conservatives because they made Life of Brian without seeking Vatican approval and The Quest for the Holy Grail without getting the British royal family to sign off on it.

 

[prideandfall]

I really don't see how Metaphor is "conservative" for holding a position like that any more than Monty Python is a group of conservatives because they made Life of Brian without seeking Vatican approval and The Quest for the Holy Grail without getting the British royal family to sign off on it.

in a purely cultural way (not necessarily ideological, though he also that) it's because at least around here on FRDB it's very much a tactic of the conservative posters to take a single blog they managed to find out about through one of their manufactured-rage aggregate sites and then post it with some kind of smugly self-satisfied commentary about how this spells the end of Freedom and Bald Eagles and Men and Pie.

one random native american chick writing a snarky blog post bitching at rowling isn't a national movement, it isn't an international incident, it doesn't matter - this is the sort of thing you MAYBE mention to a friend "man, you wouldn't believe this dumb thing someone posted" when you're looking for idle banter, but it's absolutely ridiculous bullshit for the same 5 or 6 people to spam these forums over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again for literally a decade or more now with this idiocy.

 

[Sarpedon]

I don't think the key point is 'does this depiction cause offense.' I agree that is an unreasonable and incoherent objection. More reasonable is 'does the depiction reinforce a stereotype associated with an actually harmful pattern of behavior?'

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I really don't see how Metaphor is "conservative" for holding a position like that any more than Monty Python is a group of conservatives because they made Life of Brian without seeking Vatican approval and The Quest for the Holy Grail without getting the British royal family to sign off on it.

in a purely cultural way (not necessarily ideological, though he also that) it's because at least around here on FRDB it's very much a tactic of the conservative posters to take a single blog they managed to find out about through one of their manufactured-rage aggregate sites and then post it with some kind of smugly self-satisfied commentary about how this spells the end of Freedom and Bald Eagles and Men and Pie.

one random native american chick writing a snarky blog post bitching at rowling isn't a national movement, it isn't an international incident, it doesn't matter - this is the sort of thing you MAYBE mention a friend 'man, you wouldn't believe this dumb thing someone posted' when you're looking for idle banter, but it's absolute ridiculous bullshit for these same 5 or 6 people to spam these forums over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again for literally a decade or more now with this idiocy.

And one pastor smoking crack with a male prostitute isn't indicative of anything about the anti-gay movement of evangelical Christians as a whole, but that's not a reason to avoid talking about it and laughing at the guy - which we did a lot. I mean, we didn't shut up about that for a while and I'm still mentioning it ... because it was fucking hilarious. This is a discussion forum and these are topics which interest him. If they don't interest you then nobody's going to suspend your account if you ignore those threads but if he feels that these issues highlight a matter which he feels warrants discussion, then there's no problem with him starting one, ten or a hundred threads on the topic.

 

[prideandfall]

And one pastor smoking crack with a male prostitute isn't indicative of anything about the anti-gay movement of evangelical Christians as a whole, but that's not a reason to avoid talking about it and laughing at the guy - which we did a lot.

right, right... and the inherent irony and humor in the blatant hypocrisy, which is WHY we find that shit funny and post it and laugh about it, is present in this situation where exactly?
is JK rowling a howling madwoman who routinely goes off on incoherent rants about how ill treated native americans are? does she spend her entire life attacking white people for their disrespect of native american culture, and THEN turn around and use some common cliches as elements in her book?
because THAT would be comparable, but since that isn't remotely even close to reality, it isn't.

I mean, we didn't shut up about that for a while and I'm still mentioning it ... because it was fucking hilarious. This is a discussion forum and these are topics which interest him. If they don't interest you then nobody's going to suspend your account if you ignore those threads but if he feels that these issues highlight a matter which he feels warrants discussion, then there's no problem with him starting one, ten or a hundred threads on the topic.

absolutely, and mind you i never said that he or anybody else shouldn't be posting their idiotic neocon lunacy, i simply pointed out that the question asked regarding why someone would classify him as a neocon is answered, in part, by his neocon behavior.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

absolutely, and mind you i never said that he or anybody else shouldn't be posting their idiotic neocon lunacy, i simply pointed out that the question asked regarding why someone would classify him as a neocon is answered, in part, by his neocon behavior.

And that's the entire premise of what I'm saying - that's it's not neocon behaviour. The fact that it resembles the behaviour of neocons is not sufficient to have it warrant that label if the rationales which lead to the behaviour are not conservative ones.

Getting outraged by trivial matters and selectively processing those as being indicative of the members of a broader category is not a characteristic confined to either liberals or conservatives. It's the reasoning behind the outrage which would lead to the labels and he is not using conservative reasoning.

 

[prideandfall]

And that's the entire premise of what I'm saying - that's it's not neocon behaviour. The fact that it resembles the behaviour of neocons is not sufficient to have it warrant that label if the rationales which lead to the behaviour are not conservative ones.

i think you're focusing on the wrong part, because the thing you keep referring to isn't what i'm attributing to being an indicator of the similarity.

Getting outraged by trivial matters and selectively processing those as being indicative of the members of a broader category is not a characteristic confined to either liberals or conservatives. It's the reasoning behind the outrage which would lead to the labels and he is not using conservative reasoning.

getting outraged by trivial matters is absolutely not unique to any political or philosophical bent.

however, feeling the need to go out of your way to walk into a group of people who don't share your beliefs and smugly declare that some trivial bit of idiocy you dug out from under a rock proves how stupid all 'you people' are IS a trait which in the real world tends to be very predominantly shared by conservatives (though of course not exclusively).
THAT is why metaphor and LP and derec and dismal and nexus and tswizzle (and you, on occasion) get lumped into this general malaise "nut-bag neocons" - not because you're cherry picking incidences out of the world and using it as an excuse to circle-jerk yourselves over how superior it makes you feel, but because you do it in front of the rest of us like you honestly believe you're going to shame us into thinking you're right.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

i think you're focusing on the wrong part, because the thing you keep referring to isn't what i'm attributing to being an indicator of the similarity.

Getting outraged by trivial matters and selectively processing those as being indicative of the members of a broader category is not a characteristic confined to either liberals or conservatives. It's the reasoning behind the outrage which would lead to the labels and he is not using conservative reasoning.

getting outraged by trivial matters is absolutely not unique to any political or philosophical bent.
feeling the need to go out of your way to walk into a group of people who don't share your beliefs and smugly declare that some trivial bit of idiocy you dug out from under a rock proves how stupid all 'you people' are IS a very conservative trait, however, and THAT is why metaphor and LP and derec and dismal and nexus and tswizzle (and you, on occasion) get lumped into this general malaise "nut-bag neocons" - not because you're cherry picking incidences out of the world and using it as an excuse to circle-jerk yourselves over how superior it makes you feel, but because you do it in front of the rest of us like you honestly believe you're going to shame us into thinking you're right.

Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because I see your position as being as unrelated to Metaphor's posts as I'm sure you see mine as.

 

[dismal]

Although conservatives dismiss cultural appropriation in general

Non-morons on both the right and left understand that cultures have been evolving, adapting, and borrowing from other cultures since the dawn of forever.

The recent development is the idea that this entitles you to wave a victim card about.

 

[prideandfall]

Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree because I see your position as being as unrelated to Metaphor's posts as I'm sure you see mine as.

which is fine, but i don't see your posts as unrelated - i totally understand where you're coming from with what you're saying on the subject, i just think that you're focusing on an aspect of it that isn't the real point in the first place.