Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Jun 07, 2014 10:49 pm UTC

! 0% of Native Americans amounts to about as many people as live in DC, so it's not a number I'm comfortable dismissing out of hand, just because it is a minority.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby eSOANEM » Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:04 am UTC

The relevant group is not all native americans. It's the native americans who live near DC. The ones who encounter it on a regular basis and the ones who live in the context of the washington redskins.

The Oneida Indian Nation certainly is not the nearest, but they're much nearer DC than the average for the US and so, their opinions are more relevant than a national survey.

Better still would be the opinions of native americans living in the immediate vicinity of DC.

Also, the main reason people have a low standard of evidence for changing their behaviour if offence is caused is that, generally, it costs us nothing to change our behaviour to not cause offence. This has been discussed in much depth in the very first few pages of the thread.

Off-topic: the forum timeouts seem to be a chrome bug. There's a thread in forum issues.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Mon Jun 09, 2014 11:35 am UTC

You must know that really reads like a "no true Indian wouldn't be offended" argument...

It could well be that they are just people and like most normal people just don't get offended by petty stuff

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Jun 09, 2014 1:48 pm UTC

Aren't the Oneida from New York though?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 09, 2014 3:16 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:! 0% of Native Americans amounts to about as many people as live in DC, so it's not a number I'm comfortable dismissing out of hand, just because it is a minority.


In practice, we do it all the time. Maybe we should do it more. *eyeballs climate skeptics* The minority opinion matters, but as the minority shrinks, so too should the weight we give their opinion.

eSOANEM wrote:The relevant group is not all native americans. It's the native americans who live near DC. The ones who encounter it on a regular basis and the ones who live in the context of the washington redskins.


Local folks seem to be ok with it, so far as I can tell. I suspect that local people are more inclined to like the local sportsball team than the national average, so, not really surprising.

But why is that the important group? Is it only their culture?

I can't see that a group from new york has a particularly strong claim here. They seem roughly on par with everyone else. Sure, they're exposed to national sportsball coverage, but isn't everyone pretty much equally?

eSOANEM wrote:Also, the main reason people have a low standard of evidence for changing their behaviour if offence is caused is that, generally, it costs us nothing to change our behaviour to not cause offence. This has been discussed in much depth in the very first few pages of the thread.


I suspect that this is not the case for the sportsball examples under discussion. Logos and branding probably have significant recognition and change costs associated with them.

Good to know about the Chrome thing, though, thanks.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Jun 09, 2014 7:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:10% of Native Americans amounts to about as many people as live in DC, so it's not a number I'm comfortable dismissing out of hand, just because it is a minority.

In practice, we do it all the time. Maybe we should do it more. *eyeballs climate skeptics* The minority opinion matters, but as the minority shrinks, so too should the weight we give their opinion.
Science denialism is not remotely an analogous situation, though. A tiny minority belief about a fact, which is a minority because the overwhelming majority of the evidence goes in the other direction, can be ignored because they are likely objectively wrong.

Offense is subjective, though, and so there's no external evidence to look at when deciding which people's opinions to ignore. Instead, I think we should look at the absolute numbers and decide if it's large enough to care. Should we ignore the population of Wyoming or Vermont or DC if they said something offended them, just because they make up a tiny fraction of the country's population? What if it was offensive to all American Hindus or Vietnamese Americans?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Lazar » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:21 pm UTC

I think it depends a lot on the salience of the population involved: if a majority (or even a large fraction) of a whole state or cultural group finds something offensive, that can provide significant support to the argument against that thing. If, on the other hand, it were merely 600,000 people (or even ten times that many) spread out over the whole country and not belonging to a minority culture, then their opinion would deserve essentially no weight.
Exit the vampires' castle.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:56 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Offense is subjective, though, and so there's no external evidence to look at when deciding which people's opinions to ignore. Instead, I think we should look at the absolute numbers and decide if it's large enough to care. Should we ignore the population of Wyoming or Vermont or DC if they said something offended them, just because they make up a tiny fraction of the country's population? What if it was offensive to all American Hindus or Vietnamese Americans?


If 100% of the population of DC were concerned about something, it'd be interesting even if nobody else did. You have a statistical connection(geographical, in this case). In that case, exploring why such a distinct divide exists may be enlightening.

But yeah, if a smattering of random people across the US are offended over something, then yeah, nobody cares. This happens basically all the time. You have people who are seriously upset over us not further investigating the "conspiracy of the moon landings" or what not. They are not, however, relevant.

If you prefer a more subjective example, perhaps fascists or anarchists. I have met people who actually describe themselves as such in the US. Extreme political ideologies like this do exist, even here. But statistically, as part of the US, they are rare and irrelevant, even if in absolute numbers they do represent a fair number of actual people. Still, none of us give a damn about what they think.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:55 pm UTC

Native Americans on actual reservations think the Redacteds' official name is usu. a slur;
http://www.buzzfeed.com/joeflood/how-th ... ian-reserv

And that 9-in-10 poll managed to find 768 people who self-identify, so it wasn't statistically meaningful;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/we- ... story.html

I can't find it, but I read another breakdown that showed that those on reservations - the ones that actually suffer from discrimination - find it a slur at a much higher rate (nearly all disapproving of the term) than those off. And that's not surprising. Many, maybe most of those who self-identify off-reservation are like me - no one would know if they didn't tell them. So what big is it to them?

But just as I self-identify that way, I also don't believe it's up to me to make that choice: I'm not marginalized by it, so I will accept that others find it offensive.

-Crissa

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:09 pm UTC

This changes the proposed standard from "members of the cultural group" to "those who feel victimized".

Which...is kind of recursive. Obviously, those who dislike something will be those who dislike something.

How can such a standard practically be applied universally? Would this not apply to just about any subset that dislikes something?

Also, on statistical validity, in the blog post he asked people on only one reservation, in a much smaller sample size, no information is given about selection criteria, and he only asked if they prefer the name be changed, not about your contention of offensiveness. Statistically, that's weak as hell. Also, he still got a majority of respondants who preferred the Redskins not change their name. That's...not really supporting your contention strongly. Yes, opinion distribution may vary within the sample population based on various factors, but when you're cherry picking like hell and still most of them prefer things stay the same....

Yes, the buzzfeed post proposes that it is a problem, just one they don't care about because of the great many more pressing problems inflicted upon them by racism. This may well be true. How bout we fix some of those other major problems they actually DO care about, and if they get to a point where this becomes a significant concern, we worry about that then? I suspect it's easier for people to yell on the internet about something that is someone else's responsibility to fix rather than to consider problems that maybe they could do something about.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:11 pm UTC

ah the unbeatable and totally fairly derived "heres the sub-sub-group that supports my position, therefore they are the correct ones to decide" argument

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:30 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:This changes the proposed standard from "members of the cultural group" to "those who feel victimized".

Which...is kind of recursive. Obviously, those who dislike something will be those who dislike something.

How can such a standard practically be applied universally? Would this not apply to just about any subset that dislikes something?

Also, on statistical validity, in the blog post he asked people on only one reservation, in a much smaller sample size, no information is given about selection criteria, and he only asked if they prefer the name be changed, not about your contention of offensiveness. Statistically, that's weak as hell. Also, he still got a majority of respondants who preferred the Redskins not change their name. That's...not really supporting your contention strongly. Yes, opinion distribution may vary within the sample population based on various factors, but when you're cherry picking like hell and still most of them prefer things stay the same....

Yes, the buzzfeed post proposes that it is a problem, just one they don't care about because of the great many more pressing problems inflicted upon them by racism. This may well be true. How bout we fix some of those other major problems they actually DO care about, and if they get to a point where this becomes a significant concern, we worry about that then? I suspect it's easier for people to yell on the internet about something that is someone else's responsibility to fix rather than to consider problems that maybe they could do something about.
It sure is too bad that it's only possible to address one problem at a time.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:47 pm UTC

leady wrote:ah the unbeatable and totally fairly derived "heres the sub-sub-group that supports my position, therefore they are the correct ones to decide" argument

...Because the victimized should probably be listened to?

Your logic excludes dealing justice for any minorities. That's not an ethics I will subscribe to.

Tyndmyr wrote:Also, on statistical validity, in the blog post he asked people on only one reservation, in a much smaller sample size, no information is given about selection criteria, and he only asked if they prefer the name be changed, not about your contention of offensiveness. Statistically, that's weak as hell.

I didn't say it had statistical validity. I wasn't able to find the larger poll that I had read prior. So I was using an anecdote to illustrate that there was a definite difference. Attacking the article's statistical validity which is self-admitted shows that you do not believe in your argument.

Tyndmyr wrote:How bout we fix some of those other major problems they actually DO care about, and if they get to a point where this becomes a significant concern, we worry about that then?

Why don't we? Why don't we pass a federal law that allows tribal police to arrest and prosecute non-tribe members, just like every other police force in the US? They have less rights than state college security! And smaller budgets. Why don't we?

And while we're doing that, why don't we also stop doing this shitty thing that they don't have time to worry about? Microaggressions are real, and while wikipedia's article about them is terrible (since they're basically just shitty interactions that build up over time, not specifically any topic), and we as an ethical society should reduce them.

Have you no respect?

-Crissa

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:07 pm UTC

Take that logic to its natural conclusion - the ultimate minority is the individual....

It doesn't exclude justice for minority, because justice is a concept of the consistent application of law across everyone. Its not supposed to be there to generate arbitrary exceptions (ok I accept there are lots in practice...)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:13 pm UTC

BREAKING NEWS: US patent office cancels Redskins trademark.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:23 pm UTC

dear god the american legal system has some dodgy backdoor governance

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:45 pm UTC

You don't think calling someone a "redskin" is disparaging?

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:59 pm UTC

Who other than the court system should give final review of whether a trademark is appropriate or not?

Back door? Do you even understand Civics?

leady wrote:Take that logic to its natural conclusion - the ultimate minority is the individual....

Leaving aside your argument is meaningless: We do. Individual consent is one of our highest and most stringent value. Under our law, I can't make you donate a kidney, I can't slander you, I can't force you to participate in anything - not even vote.

-Crissa

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Wed Jun 18, 2014 5:42 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
leady wrote:ah the unbeatable and totally fairly derived "heres the sub-sub-group that supports my position, therefore they are the correct ones to decide" argument

...Because the victimized should probably be listened to?


What does 'victimized' mean? Who gets to decide?

There are many different moral standards for answering this question. But I notice that most answers to this question are based on minority groups looking for power. Not many people are particularly upset that many universities have quotas on the number of Asians who can be accepted there -- Asians are generally overrepresented anyways. Meanwhile, Jews are pretty universally accepted as a victimized class, but most American schoolchildren read books like Elie Wiesel's Night. Nobody is much fussed by the cultural indignities faced by Catholics or the Irish. (Realize that Joe Biden is the only Catholic Vice President ever, and Kennedy remains the only Catholic President. Nobody is calling for better Catholic representation in our higher offices.)

I'm not dismissing the "I feel victimized" line out of hand. But I have a hard time picking a justification that gets upset at the 'correct' incidents without justifying 'incorrect' ones.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 18, 2014 5:55 pm UTC

It's called something along the lines of "reasonable person". It doesn't matter if anyone at all is offended, but if a "reasonable person" would be offended. For example, a "reasonable person" wouldn't view a handshake as sexual harassment, even if a few people freak out at the idea of touching the skin of an opposite gendered person (and they do exist). And a reasonable person may be offended by the use of the term "Redskin".

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:53 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:You don't think calling someone a "redskin" is disparaging?


not particularly, nor is it used in that context that I'm aware of and its been shown you really have to be specific to find Indians that do find it offensive. In any event its not like having a sports team named after you is insulting, its actually a badge of pride. I'm guessing the rugby team in England "saracens" is offensive on the same basis in that wide a context

Who other than the court system should give final review of whether a trademark is appropriate or not?

Back door? Do you even understand Civics?


Thats policy not implementation in my books, things shouldn't flip in courts like that, its a legislature job

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:29 pm UTC

leady wrote:Thats policy not implementation in my books, things shouldn't flip in courts like that, its a legislature job

So what do the courts do, if they don't rule on the propriety of implementation?

Your solution, isn't. It's not appropriate (or even timely) for every difference to be taken up by lawmakers.

mobiusstripsearch wrote:Nobody is calling for better Catholic representation in our higher offices.

Possibly because most of the Supreme Court is Catholic?

WTF is it with the racist diatribes? Ugh.

And no one even bothered to face up to my point and the weakness of local law enforcement on tribal lands. I haven't even mentioned other problems. Gosh! It's too difficult to say who might be insulted by the Redacteds' name! Bleah.

-Crissa

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:47 pm UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:Nobody is much fussed by the cultural indignities faced by Catholics or the Irish.

I am.
leady wrote:Heisenberg wrote:
You don't think calling someone a "redskin" is disparaging?


not particularly,
Have you ever, like, talked to a Native American? I highly recommend it.
Protip: Don't open with "HEY REDSKIN!"
leady wrote:its been shown you really have to be specific to find Indians that do find it offensive
No it hasn't. It's been shown that some Native Americans in New York don't find it offensive, which is to say that NOT ALL Native Americans are offended when you refer to them by the perceived color of their skin. I'm sure that NOT ALL black people in Alabama are offended by people referring to them by the color of your skin, but that doesn't give you the right to have the federal government step in and defend you when someone writes "Montgomery Negroes" on a t-shirt.
leady wrote:Thats policy not implementation in my books, things shouldn't flip in courts like that, its a legislature job
No, the legislature's job is to say what the law is, not to rule on specific cases. Here's what the legislature did: "The group argued that the Redskins should lose their federal trademark protection based on a law that prohibits registered names that are disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous or disreputable." The legislature certainly should not be expected to name every conceivable disparaging remark and codify those into law. That would be idiotic.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:10 pm UTC

Every so often I find out about a new word being used to disparage black people, though mostly from foreigners (hatred of black people is the one thing that seems to unite all cultures, even black ones.)

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:53 pm UTC

I changed my mind, leady. We'll do a little experiment. If you're sure that the term is not disparaging, then please go find various Native Americans and begin your conversation by calling them redskins. Make a little table, and after each encounter make a tally mark in one of the following columns:
1) Not punched in the face.
2) Punched in the face.

How many data points do you think you'll have to collect before you get a mark in column 2? I have $20 on "Five or Fewer".

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 18, 2014 9:15 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:It sure is too bad that it's only possible to address one problem at a time.


No such claim is being made. It's merely that "they SHOULD care, but they don't because they have too many other things to care about" may be true...or may not be. It's indiscernable from "no, they really don't care" from an evidence perspective. So, why focus on the thing you cannot even support as being a problem when you have a great many things that very clearly are serious problems? Are you arguing against prioritization EVER happening?

Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Also, on statistical validity, in the blog post he asked people on only one reservation, in a much smaller sample size, no information is given about selection criteria, and he only asked if they prefer the name be changed, not about your contention of offensiveness. Statistically, that's weak as hell.

I didn't say it had statistical validity. I wasn't able to find the larger poll that I had read prior. So I was using an anecdote to illustrate that there was a definite difference. Attacking the article's statistical validity which is self-admitted shows that you do not believe in your argument.


In a conversation chain where my entire point is pointing out that statistics are superior to anecdotes, you responded to statistics with an anecdote. Uh, of COURSE I'm going to disparage the statistical validity. This isn't lack of belief. This is an obvious result. You'll note that essentially no attention was paid in the buzzfeed article to lack of statistical validity as well.

CorruptUser wrote:It's called something along the lines of "reasonable person". It doesn't matter if anyone at all is offended, but if a "reasonable person" would be offended. For example, a "reasonable person" wouldn't view a handshake as sexual harassment, even if a few people freak out at the idea of touching the skin of an opposite gendered person (and they do exist). And a reasonable person may be offended by the use of the term "Redskin".


This sounds subjective as all hell. What, precisely, constitutes a reasonable persons opinion? Do all reasonable people have the same opinion?

Crissa wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:Nobody is calling for better Catholic representation in our higher offices.

Possibly because most of the Supreme Court is Catholic?

WTF is it with the racist diatribes? Ugh.

And no one even bothered to face up to my point and the weakness of local law enforcement on tribal lands. I haven't even mentioned other problems. Gosh! It's too difficult to say who might be insulted by the Redacteds' name! Bleah.

-Crissa


Someone discussing consistency, using the catholic faith as an example, is not making a racist diatribe.

Yes. Local law enforcement is weak on tribal lands. There is unfairness there. Other problems exist as well. Nobody's arguing that. You can argue for it more if you wish, but it's not the point of contention here.

Heisenberg wrote:not particularly,
Have you ever, like, talked to a Native American? I highly recommend it.
Protip: Don't open with "HEY REDSKIN!"[/quote]

Hey (skin color) would be a really odd greeting in most contexts. Even like, two white guys saying it to one another, it just sounds strange. That also doesn't seem to be the context in which it is used with regards to the sports team.

Just because you CAN use a word to provoke offense does not mean that every use of a word is offensive.

Heisenberg wrote:
leady wrote:its been shown you really have to be specific to find Indians that do find it offensive
No it hasn't. It's been shown that some Native Americans in New York don't find it offensive, which is to say that NOT ALL Native Americans are offended when you refer to them by the perceived color of their skin. I'm sure that NOT ALL black people in Alabama are offended by people referring to them by the color of your skin, but that doesn't give you the right to have the federal government step in and defend you when someone writes "Montgomery Negroes" on a t-shirt.


You have read the data inversely. The "offensive" crowd was arguing based of the statement of a single tribe far away from the team. The "mostly inoffensive" crowd was using a statistical study of a randomly selected population across the US. It isn't a matter of "all" or "not all", but when your study shows that >90% of a given group believes x, it is strange to hold that not-x is somehow the universal truth without further evidence.

Heisenberg wrote:I changed my mind, leady. We'll do a little experiment. If you're sure that the term is not disparaging, then please go find various Native Americans and begin your conversation by calling them redskins. Make a little table, and after each encounter make a tally mark in one of the following columns:
1) Not punched in the face.
2) Punched in the face.

How many data points do you think you'll have to collect before you get a mark in column 2? I have $20 on "Five or Fewer".


As you are no doubt well aware, this is not how science is done. If you want to find out if the team name "redskins" offends them, you ask them about that specifically. You're specifically skewing this to cause offense.

Edit: To those raging about the court decision, this is subject to appeal, and they do retain the trademarks until after the appeal. It is highly likely that, like the last time this happened, it'll be overturned on appeal. I'd reserve judgement on the failure of civics or what not until after that is resolved.

User avatar
Crissa
Posts: 294
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 8:06 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:23 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Also, on statistical validity, in the blog post he asked people on only one reservation, in a much smaller sample size, no information is given about selection criteria, and he only asked if they prefer the name be changed, not about your contention of offensiveness. Statistically, that's weak as hell.

I didn't say it had statistical validity. I wasn't able to find the larger poll that I had read prior. So I was using an anecdote to illustrate that there was a definite difference. Attacking the article's statistical validity which is self-admitted shows that you do not believe in your argument.
In a conversation chain where my entire point is pointing out that statistics are superior to anecdotes, you responded to statistics with an anecdote. Uh, of COURSE I'm going to disparage the statistical validity. This isn't lack of belief. This is an obvious result. You'll note that essentially no attention was paid in the buzzfeed article to lack of statistical validity as well.

Statistically, Native Americans are a meaningless minority. Hence, your argument has no real validity. An anecdote of a small survey of a rather tiny population can demonstrate that there are reasons for statistical anomalies. Only someone invested in lying about statistics would ignore these things instead of working to learn why there would be these differences.

Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:It's called something along the lines of "reasonable person". It doesn't matter if anyone at all is offended, but if a "reasonable person" would be offended. For example, a "reasonable person" wouldn't view a handshake as sexual harassment, even if a few people freak out at the idea of touching the skin of an opposite gendered person (and they do exist). And a reasonable person may be offended by the use of the term "Redskin".
This sounds subjective as all hell. What, precisely, constitutes a reasonable persons opinion? Do all reasonable people have the same opinion?

It's a legal term. Look it up. It's a way of describing propriety without defining all possible cases or changes in mores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

Tyndmyr wrote: ...using the catholic faith as an example, is not making a racist diatribe.

Pedant troll. You serve no purpose in the discussion.

So far you've shown no curiosity as to why statistical sampling of a population that lives in mostly isolated enclaves might be inconsistent; you've espoused contempt and ignorance of a legal term; and then brought pedantry as if 'jew' and 'asian' and 'irish' were all considered racial differences now or in previous times. The entire construct of a discussion was a barely hidden racist rant. Pedantry of what exact word to define your bigotry does not defend the argument at all.

Hint: When your argument sounds like one a racist makes, maybe you should reconsider.

Tyndmyr wrote:You have read the data inversely. The "offensive" crowd was arguing based of the statement of a single tribe far away...

How close to the nation's capital does one have to be to have an opinion of the nation's capital? By definition, all tribes are far away from the nation's capital, because they are now, and have been historically relocated far away from the nation's capital.

That's it. Tired of feeding racist scum.

-Crissa

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:57 am UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I changed my mind, leady. We'll do a little experiment. If you're sure that the term is not disparaging, then please go find various Native Americans and begin your conversation by calling them redskins. Make a little table, and after each encounter make a tally mark in one of the following columns:
1) Not punched in the face.
2) Punched in the face.

How many data points do you think you'll have to collect before you get a mark in column 2? I have $20 on "Five or Fewer".


Sounds like a fine experiment to try once I correct it a little

1. Naturally in order to really find results I'm suggesting that we go for the 18 -35 male crowd.
2. Only first order violence is taken - no secondary offense results

however we need a control group to compare offensive to, so I think to establish a baseline you need to go to Harlem and perform the same experiment using the most common terms.

I suspect I'd get attacked less than 1 in 20, you 1 in 5 or worse.

Film it for youtube and we may even get my $1000 airfare back...

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:40 am UTC

Heisenberg wrote:I changed my mind, leady. We'll do a little experiment. If you're sure that the term is not disparaging, then please go find various Native Americans and begin your conversation by calling them redskins. Make a little table, and after each encounter make a tally mark in one of the following columns:
1) Not punched in the face.
2) Punched in the face.

How many data points do you think you'll have to collect before you get a mark in column 2? I have $20 on "Five or Fewer".

This isn't a very good experiment to run, because for example a lot of white people get offended at the drop of a hat, so going around calling white people "cracker" is liable to get you punched in the face pretty quick even though "cracker" is a perfectly okay word to use in trademarks and even though white people have never in history been oppressed because of their race.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:35 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:even though white people have never in history been oppressed because of their race.


Tell that to the Irish. And the Basque. And the Slavs. Also tell that to the people of the northwest coast of the Mediterranean, of which a million were kidnapped as sold into slavery in the Arab world, where men were castrated as SOP. Or the 2 million in Eastern Europe sold into slavery to the Ottomans, where again the castration. Or the Slavs again in WWII. Depending on whether you count the Ashkenazi as white, them too for most of their history.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:55 pm UTC

White people oppressed for being white, I should have said. Ethnic persecution of ethnic minorities whom Americans now consider white doesn't count, nor does including some conveniently located white people in the millions you take as slaves.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

speising
Posts: 2367
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby speising » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:57 pm UTC

even the germans were slaves to the romans.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:18 pm UTC

But not for being white, was my point.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby KrytenKoro » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:31 pm UTC

Stating first off that my opinion is that it doesn't matter whether Native Americans as a whole find the term offensive, the point is there is a minority that does, and that should be taken into account.

Crissa wrote:Statistically, Native Americans are a meaningless minority. Hence, your argument has no real validity. An anecdote of a small survey of a rather tiny population can demonstrate that there are reasons for statistical anomalies. Only someone invested in lying about statistics would ignore these things instead of working to learn why there would be these differences.

If I'm reading things right, Tyndmyr is comparing the survey of one tribe, who doesn't live in the area, to a more diverse sampling of Native Americans, who do live in the area.

So your insinuation that he's implying Native Americans as a whole should be written off is a strawman, as is your later insinuation that he's dismissing the first survey for being "far away" without replacing it with a survey that is, objectively, more representative of Native American opinion.

Maybe you're the person here who should be learning about statistics.

It's a legal term. Look it up. It's a way of describing propriety without defining all possible cases or changes in mores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

From the wikipedia article, it only seems to be relevant to English and American Common Law. Have you considered that not all posters might be part of or familiar with those legal systems? Are you familiar with all the legal terms from Saudi Arabian law, and would it be fair to yell at you for criticizing them when you first learn about them?

Pedant troll. You serve no purpose in the discussion.

He's not being pedantic, you're strawmanning.

So far you've shown no curiosity as to why statistical sampling of a population that lives in mostly isolated enclaves might be inconsistent; you've espoused contempt and ignorance of a legal term; and then brought pedantry as if 'jew' and 'asian' and 'irish' were all considered racial differences now or in previous times. The entire construct of a discussion was a barely hidden racist rant. Pedantry of what exact word to define your bigotry does not defend the argument at all.

Hint: When your argument sounds like one a racist makes, maybe you should reconsider.

None of this is what Tyndmyr actually said, you are being paranoid.

How close to the nation's capital does one have to be to have an opinion of the nation's capital? By definition, all tribes are far away from the nation's capital, because they are now, and have been historically relocated far away from the nation's capital.

Again, if I'm reading this correctly, Tyndmyr is comparing the "offensive" survey to one conducted among a more diverse group of Native Americans who are also located closer to the capital.

gmalivuk wrote:But not for being white, was my point.

I'm not sure I'd disagree with your main point, but I'm uncomfortable with the claim that the Ottoman slaves can be so easily discounted.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby bigglesworth » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:42 pm UTC

Arab and Ottoman slaves were taken from non-Muslim populations rather than non-Arab/Turk populations. non-Muslim Arabs, Persians, Circassians, Europeans and Africans were enslaved.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:47 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:But not for being white, was my point.


The only reason why Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontics don't disagree with you is because there are barely any left.

And in this country, the Irish and Italian were oppressed for being Irish and Italian. Sure, it wasn't nearly as often as for being black but it did happen. And in South Africa and Zimbabwe, you can bet your ass that white people are being targeted by various terrorist groups for being white. I'm not trying to play misery poker, but don't act like any particular group has a monopoly on suffering.

bigglesworth wrote:Arab and Ottoman slaves were taken from non-Muslim populations rather than non-Arab/Turk populations. non-Muslim Arabs, Persians, Circassians, Europeans and Africans were enslaved.


And in the colonies, it was nonchristians. It was forbidden for a time to teach slaves Christianity, because if they had souls it was wrong to enslave them. Eventually the people convinced themselves teaching then Christianity was doing them a favor, therefore slavery was uplifting and moral, because cognitive dissonance.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:06 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Also, on statistical validity, in the blog post he asked people on only one reservation, in a much smaller sample size, no information is given about selection criteria, and he only asked if they prefer the name be changed, not about your contention of offensiveness. Statistically, that's weak as hell.

I didn't say it had statistical validity. I wasn't able to find the larger poll that I had read prior. So I was using an anecdote to illustrate that there was a definite difference. Attacking the article's statistical validity which is self-admitted shows that you do not believe in your argument.
In a conversation chain where my entire point is pointing out that statistics are superior to anecdotes, you responded to statistics with an anecdote. Uh, of COURSE I'm going to disparage the statistical validity. This isn't lack of belief. This is an obvious result. You'll note that essentially no attention was paid in the buzzfeed article to lack of statistical validity as well.

Statistically, Native Americans are a meaningless minority. Hence, your argument has no real validity. An anecdote of a small survey of a rather tiny population can demonstrate that there are reasons for statistical anomalies. Only someone invested in lying about statistics would ignore these things instead of working to learn why there would be these differences.


Have you ever taken a statistics class? Nobody is saying that there is not variation in the sample population. That's...not a relevant part of the argument, by itself. There's clumping of opinions on pretty much any topic, because people who are socially close are more likely to share attitudes about something.

Tyndmyr wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:It's called something along the lines of "reasonable person". It doesn't matter if anyone at all is offended, but if a "reasonable person" would be offended. For example, a "reasonable person" wouldn't view a handshake as sexual harassment, even if a few people freak out at the idea of touching the skin of an opposite gendered person (and they do exist). And a reasonable person may be offended by the use of the term "Redskin".
This sounds subjective as all hell. What, precisely, constitutes a reasonable persons opinion? Do all reasonable people have the same opinion?

It's a legal term. Look it up. It's a way of describing propriety without defining all possible cases or changes in mores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person


I am aware it is a legal term. I find this particular usage to be subjective as hell. Not every usage is necessarily so controversial, but boiling down what, exactly defines a reasonable person's opinion seems relevant. It's something even courts have trouble with, so advocating it as some sort of gold standard here isn't necessarily the end of ambiguity.

Tyndmyr wrote: ...using the catholic faith as an example, is not making a racist diatribe.

Pedant troll. You serve no purpose in the discussion.

So far you've shown no curiosity as to why statistical sampling of a population that lives in mostly isolated enclaves might be inconsistent; you've espoused contempt and ignorance of a legal term; and then brought pedantry as if 'jew' and 'asian' and 'irish' were all considered racial differences now or in previous times. The entire construct of a discussion was a barely hidden racist rant. Pedantry of what exact word to define your bigotry does not defend the argument at all.

Hint: When your argument sounds like one a racist makes, maybe you should reconsider.


You're just tossing around the word "racist", assuming I'll what, just walk away? You want to actually back that accusation up?

And no, catholic is not a racist term. This isn't mere pedantry, this is pointing out that you're jumping to racist accusations off of flimsy pretexts.

Tyndmyr wrote:You have read the data inversely. The "offensive" crowd was arguing based of the statement of a single tribe far away...

How close to the nation's capital does one have to be to have an opinion of the nation's capital? By definition, all tribes are far away from the nation's capital, because they are now, and have been historically relocated far away from the nation's capital.

That's it. Tired of feeding racist scum.

-Crissa


Which is why, yknow, I advocated for using the nationwide polling data*. Thus, all tribes opinions count. I can think of no particular reason why you would rely on the opinion of a single tribe not particularly related to/close to the team unless you were interested in merely advocating a viewpoint, not attempting to actually determine overall opinion.

CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:even though white people have never in history been oppressed because of their race.


Tell that to the Irish. And the Basque. And the Slavs. Also tell that to the people of the northwest coast of the Mediterranean, of which a million were kidnapped as sold into slavery in the Arab world, where men were castrated as SOP. Or the 2 million in Eastern Europe sold into slavery to the Ottomans, where again the castration. Or the Slavs again in WWII. Depending on whether you count the Ashkenazi as white, them too for most of their history.


While those things have happened, it remains the case that not all racial terms are equal. Cracker is one where we understand what it means, but is...not terribly relevant today, or especially important to those examples. Still, it'd be a strange thing to go down the street and greet people with, and as he points out, context is relevant. I made a similar point earlier.

*Sadly excluding Alaska and Hawaii, if memory serves, because the polling company only operates in the 48 states. Still, that's not excluding people for being too close to the capital. Also, I should note that I live here, and there isn't really a local outcry of the native american population either.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Hey (skin color) would be a really odd greeting in most contexts.
Yes, it is. And if a word is so controversial that you yourself would not even consider using it in regular conversation, that's the first indication that the word may be disparaging and shouldn't be used at all. Your second might be that when you look the term up in the dictionary it says "very offensive and should be avoided."
Tyndmyr wrote:It isn't a matter of "all" or "not all", but when your study shows that >90% of a given group believes x, it is strange to hold that not-x is somehow the universal truth without further evidence.
Reading up on that 10-year-old poll, it appears to include anyone who identified as "Indian." So, do you think South Asians have anything useful to say, here? Do you think the Navajo children we forcibly removed from their tribal lands as children and beat into good English-speaking, suit-wearing, short-haired adolescents have a good understanding of all the racial slurs their parents were called? Congratulations, your poll found six hundred-odd self-proclaimed "Indians" that didn't find the term offensive.

This lawsuit was brought by four Native tribes, and the National Congress of American Indians, the largest intertribal organization, which represents more than 250 groups with a combined enrollment of 1.2 million.
National Congress of American Indians wrote:The ‘Redskins’ trademark is disparaging to Native Americans and perpetuates a centuries-old stereotype of Native Americans as ‘blood-thirsty savages,’ ‘noble warriors’ and an ethnic group ‘frozen in history.'

This is not a case of a handful of folks eating sour grapes. A MILLION PEOPLE are currently petitioning the government to stop defending the use of this derogatory term.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26836
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:24 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:But not for being white, was my point.
The only reason why Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontics don't disagree with you is because there are barely any left.
You sure about that? Armenia, at least, probably contains at least a few Armenians.

I rather suspect the reason they don't disagree is because those genocides weren't about, "Hey, those fuckers are white, let's kill all of them!"

And in this country, the Irish and Italian were oppressed for being Irish and Italian. Sure, it wasn't nearly as often as for being black but it did happen. And in South Africa and Zimbabwe, you can bet your ass that white people are being targeted by various terrorist groups for being white. I'm not trying to play misery poker, but don't act like any particular group has a monopoly on suffering.
Being oppressed for being of a particular nationality is different from being oppressed for being of a particular race. If there is terrorism in parts of Africa to such an extent that white populations in those countries can be said to be oppressed, then congratulations, your shotgun approach successfully found a single exception to my claim.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:51 pm UTC

Irish and Italian weren't considered to be white until a century ago. They are "white" now. Turns out the definition of "white" has changed quite a bit, because "race" isn't nearly as clear cut as people like to think.

And I find it REALLY offensive that you don't seem to think that the various genocides at the end of the Ottoman Empire "count". Not all Armenians were Christian; they were killed for being Armenian. They were killed for their race, and they were "white". Same goes for the Pontics and Assyrians. The Romani ("gypsies") are also "white" (they are Indo-European), and even today they are oppressed. One barely survived a lynching in France a week ago.

No I'm not trying to dismiss the experiences of black or first peoples in the US, but don't pretend that any one group has a monopoly on the receiving end of Racism.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests