So...We Gonna Talk About This Speech?

[untermensche]

It's amazing how many SJWs excuse the odious behavior of those they are trying to help.

- - - Updated - - -

Excusing such behavior is tantamount to holding black people to a lower standard - textbook racism.

The issue here is police violence against people standing on the street.

The issue of black poverty is related though.

Poverty has always led to crime.

To think it is a black issue is to have ulterior motives.

BLM is making things into racial issues that weren't originally.

Young black men being gunned down in the streets is a racial issue.

The drug war is a racial issue.

 

[dismal]

The nearest sense I can make of it is this: some white people make money by 'appropriating' black culture, and it is morally wrong for white people to do that.

Well, that can't be it since he's gotten himself rich in the historically white artform of TV Medical Drama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_drama_television_programs

 

[Trausti]

The nearest sense I can make of it is this: some white people make money by 'appropriating' black culture, and it is morally wrong for white people to do that.

Kinda like when non-whites do opera or ballet, or play video games, or . . . ..

 

[ZiprHead]

Ok, since the subject has been opened, is The Rock a black guy?

People sometimes talk about him like he's a black guy, but he looks more like a white guy with a tan to me. Maybe he's like ... Samoan or something? I've never known how to ask the question, but the thread's been turned into that topic, so I'm not he dick for asking.

I believe he is of south Pacific heritage.

 

[repoman]

Let's say some old film or audio is found of Elvis Presley or Hank Williams Sr. (not dummy Jr) being extremely racist against black people. I would be much more disappointed in Elvis, considering that a lot of his career was based off of black music of the time, while country music is a lot "whiter".

I would even go so far as to say that it would push me to call his music more close to cultural appropriation (as in the meaning of use without recompense), because he despised blacks. If he liked blacks as much as whites then it would more be an expression of sharing and respect.

Of course this is just a hypothetical, there is zero evidence I know that Elvis was a virulent racist.

 

[Metaphor]

Let's say some old film or audio is found of Elvis Presley or Hank Williams Sr. (not dummy Jr) being extremely racist against black people. I would be much more disappointed in Elvis, considering that a lot of his career was based off of black music of the time, while country music is a lot "whiter".

I would even go so far as to say that it would push me to call his music more close to cultural appropriation (as in the meaning of use without recompense), because he despised blacks. If he liked blacks as much as whites then it would more be an expression of sharing and respect.

Of course this is just a hypothetical, there is zero evidence I know that Elvis was a virulent racist.

Elvis actually came much closer to real 'appropriation' than what cultural appropriation mythicists call 'cultural appropriation', since Elvis's manager demanded Elvis get publishing and/or writing credit on songs that other people had composed in exchange for Elvis deigning to record said song.

 

[repoman]

hmm, didn't know that.

But what about the hypothetical of finding a racist rant by Elvis or Hank Williams Jr. Would Elvis be the worse of the two from a moral standpoint?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Ok, since the subject has been opened, is The Rock a black guy?

People sometimes talk about him like he's a black guy, but he looks more like a white guy with a tan to me. Maybe he's like ... Samoan or something? I've never known how to ask the question, but the thread's been turned into that topic, so I'm not he dick for asking.

I believe he is of south Pacific heritage.

His father is a Black Nova Scotian, and his mother is of Samoan heritage. His father was part of the first black tag team to win the World Tag Team championship in the World Wrestling Federation (WWF).

 

[Metaphor]

hmm, didn't know that.

But what about the hypothetical of finding a racist rant by Elvis or Hank Williams Jr. Would Elvis be the worse of the two from a moral standpoint?

Since I don't believe what the mythicists claim is 'cultural appropriation' is wrong, no, it wouldn't make it 'worse'.

A racist rant is its own moral problem.

 

[Arctish]

Elvis actually came much closer to real 'appropriation' than what cultural appropriation mythicists call 'cultural appropriation', since Elvis's manager demanded Elvis get publishing and/or writing credit on songs that other people had composed in exchange for Elvis deigning to record said song.

Metaphor, how do you differentiate between a "cultural appropriation mythicist" and a cultural appropriation factualist or a cultural appropriation realist? What do you see as the defining characteristic(s)?

 

[Metaphor]

Elvis actually came much closer to real 'appropriation' than what cultural appropriation mythicists call 'cultural appropriation', since Elvis's manager demanded Elvis get publishing and/or writing credit on songs that other people had composed in exchange for Elvis deigning to record said song.

Metaphor, how do you differentiate between a "cultural appropriation mythicist" and a cultural appropriation factualist or a cultural appropriation realist? What do you see as the defining characteristic(s)?

Anyone who believes in the coherency of the concept of 'cultural appropriation' is a cultural appropriation mythicist, since culture cannot be appropriated and, even were it able to be 'appropriated' in the way mythicists imagine, it would not be morally wrong to do so, but in fact usually morally neutral or morally desirable.

 

[Arctish]

Metaphor, how do you differentiate between a "cultural appropriation mythicist" and a cultural appropriation factualist or a cultural appropriation realist? What do you see as the defining characteristic(s)?

Anyone who believes in the coherency of the concept of 'cultural appropriation' is a cultural appropriation mythicist, since culture cannot be appropriated and, even were it able to be 'appropriated' in the way mythicists imagine, it would not be morally wrong to do so, but in fact usually morally neutral or morally desirable.

You say culture can't be appropriated, but then go on to say that cultural appropriation "the way mythicists imagine" is "usually morally neutral or morally desirable". You are claiming it can't happen while also claiming that it does happen.

 

[Metaphor]

Anyone who believes in the coherency of the concept of 'cultural appropriation' is a cultural appropriation mythicist, since culture cannot be appropriated and, even were it able to be 'appropriated' in the way mythicists imagine, it would not be morally wrong to do so, but in fact usually morally neutral or morally desirable.

You say culture can't be appropriated, but then go on to say that cultural appropriation "the way mythicists imagine" is "usually morally neutral or morally desirable". You are claiming it can't happen while also claiming that it does happen.

'Cultural appropriation', as a concept, is incoherent and impossible.

In the first place, culture cannot be owned so there is nobody and nothing to appropriate from.
Second, even if, in some sense, culture could be owned (and leaving aside who has the right to make the judgment on who the owner is), copying, embellishing, reimagining, reinventing, and crafting anew from that culture is not 'appropriation'. It is a creation like any other and the moral owner is the person who created it.

Now, I know generally what the cultural appropriation mythicists mean by cultural appropriation. They refer to an activity where people, who do not share some deemed-to-be-important signifier of 'belonging' to a culture, copy or are inspired by elements of a culture. It is generally agreed by the mythicists that nobody in an 'oppressed' culture that borrows or reimagines something from the 'dominant' culture is appropriating it, but anyone who shares a signifier with the 'dominant' culture and borrows or reimagines something from the 'oppressed' culture is an appropriator.

It goes without saying that the mythicists find 'appropriation' 'problematic' and morally wrong.

The mythicists, of course, are morally abhorrent, but they're also incoherent. For example, Beyonce was criticised for 'appropriating' Indian culture in a video collaboration she did with Coldplay, but it is not clear how Beyonce is a member of a dominant culture that oppressed Indian culture, but perhaps Beyonce's Americanness is close to Britishness, and Britain did have an empire in India, and therefore she really is an appropriator.

So, culture cannot be appropriated in any meaningful sense, but yet I recognise the actions that cultural appropriation mythicists call 'cultural appropriation'. But even when I recognise what they are talking about, I do not agree with them that these actions are morally wrong. In fact, the actions are usually either morally neutral or morally desirable.

 

[laughing dog]

'Cultural appropriation', as a concept, is incoherent and impossible.

In the first place, culture cannot be owned so there is nobody and nothing to appropriate from.

Appropriate means "to take as one's own", so it only requires existence not prior ownership. Hence your argument is based on a false premise.

Second, even if, in some sense, culture could be owned (and leaving aside who has the right to make the judgment on who the owner is), copying, embellishing, reimagining, reinventing, and crafting anew from that culture is not 'appropriation'. It is a creation like any other and the moral owner is the person who created it.

It academia it is considered bad form to appropriate the ideas of others without giving them credit. In business, taking someone else's idea or product and "embellishing, re-imagining, reinventing and crafting anew" may result in civil damages. So, your argument runs counter to reality.

To summarize, your argument that the impossibility of cultural appropriation is based on a faulty premise (misunderstanding of the term appropriation) and a faulty understanding of how the "creative" process is generally viewed.

 

[Derec]

It academia it is considered bad form to appropriate the ideas of others without giving them credit. In business, taking someone else's idea or product and "embellishing, re-imagining, reinventing and crafting anew" may result in civil damages. So, your argument runs counter to reality.

1. That does not apply to things that are in the public domain.
2. It does not matter what race or ethnicity people are. I.e. in academia blacks do not automatically have claim to ideas other blacks came up with by virtue of their ethnicity.
3. There is no one-sided double standards, i.e. blacks are not allowed to plagiarize from whites either. The "cultural appropriation" nonsense is one sided that way.

To summarize, your argument that the impossibility of cultural appropriation is based on a faulty premise (misunderstanding of the term appropriation) and a faulty understanding of how the "creative" process is generally viewed.

To summarize, you completely missed the point of how "cultural appropriation" differs from individuals owning their work.

 

[Trausti]

'Cultural appropriation', as a concept, is incoherent and impossible.

You really need to educate yourself.

 

[laughing dog]

1. That does not apply to things that are in the public domain.

What does not apply to things in the "public domain"?

2. It does not matter what race or ethnicity people are. I.e. in academia blacks do not automatically have claim to ideas other blacks came up with by virtue of their ethnicity.

WTF are you babbling about here?

3. There is no one-sided double standards, i.e. blacks are not allowed to plagiarize from whites either. The "cultural appropriation" nonsense is one sided that way.

No it isn't.

To summarize, you completely missed the point of how "cultural appropriation" differs from individuals owning their work.

My entire point is the concept of cultural appropriation does not require prior ownership - something Metaphor claims. Nothing in your response addresses that. So, outside of providing more evidence of how bias retards reasoning and reading comprehension, your response appears to have no relevance.

 

[Derec]

Elvis actually came much closer to real 'appropriation' than what cultural appropriation mythicists call 'cultural appropriation', since Elvis's manager demanded Elvis get publishing and/or writing credit on songs that other people had composed in exchange for Elvis deigning to record said song.

That would be just regular appropriation. From actual songwriters. Although if they freely sold songwriting credits it is not exactly stealing either.

 

[Derec]

What does not apply to things in the "public domain"?

Things like copyright law.

WTF are you babbling about here?

I was explaining to you why your comparing "cultural appropriation" with copyright law or academic plagiarism simply doesn't work. The two are nothing alike.

No it isn't.

Of course it it. "Cultural appropriation mythicists" never complain about non-Europeans "appropriating" European culture.

My entire point is the concept of cultural appropriation does not require prior ownership - something Metaphor claims. Nothing in your response addresses that. So, outside of providing more evidence of how bias retards reasoning and reading comprehension, your response appears to have no relevance.

You have not provided any evidence for your point. In fact, your examples fail completely as I have shown.

 

[laughing dog]

I was explaining to you why your comparing "cultural appropriation" with copyright law or academic plagiarism simply doesn't work. The two are nothing alike.

Of course they are. All are examples of people taking the effort or work or output of others for their own use - something Metaphor claims is not possible.

Of course it it. "Cultural appropriation mythicists" never complain about non-Europeans "appropriating" European culture.

I have heard people complain about others appropriating Nordic culture.

You have not provided any evidence for your point. In fact, your examples fail completely as I have shown.

Of course I have. The fact you are failing to rebut it is direct evidence that claim is false.

Cultural appropriation is possible. I think it is a rather ill-defined concept and it is certainly too costly to enforce legally. IMO, the arguments over cultural appropriation are based mostly on aesthetics and differing views on what is proper (or appropriate) behavior (what used to considered "good manners"). But in some instances, bigotry and racism play a motivating and perpetuating role in the discussion. Frankly, it is derail to the actual OP topic. But then, some people just have to ride their hobby horses.