Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

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

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:01 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote: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.


Yeah because grievence collectives are a far better source for dispassionate data

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:03 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
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."


*sigh* I also wouldn't use cracker as a label to greet someone, but totally would use it to describe the items made by Ritz. Context matters. You are aware of this, because you're deliberately selecting an offensive context that is not the same as the the context of talking about a sports team.

Language does not invariably carry the same meaning and weight in all contexts and situations.

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.


A ten year old poll isn't that odd for a niche topic. Studies like this often take years to do and publish. There does not appear to be any more recent data on the topic. If you have good, newer data, then by all means, bring it up.

Also, yes, I suspect that the children who were subjected to a shitload of force and terribleness might be sensitive to slurs. Is this some sort of "no true Indian" deal? What other standards would you prefer and why?

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.


In theory, congress represents the entire United States, but it turns out that not everyone agrees with all the shit they say either.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:30 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote: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.
If they weren't "white" when they were being oppressed in the US, then they were hardly being oppressed for being white, were they?

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.
They don't "count" as people being wiped out for being white. Which is the only thing I was counting. Genocide is obviously terrible, but trying to exterminate a people on national or religious grounds, or because you don't perceive them as white, is not genocide on the basis of whiteness.

Also, Indians are also Indo-European, and I daresay no one considers them white. Equating the two is pretty ridiculous.
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 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:36 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote: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.

My impression is that the late Ottoman genocides were largely motivated by culture and religion, not by a notion of biological race. Particularly in the case of the Greek minorities, there's really no noticeable physical difference between them and Turks, as modern Turks are largely descended from Turkified Hellenic populations. In Ottoman Anatolia, otherwise indistinguishable groups of people would be considered Greek or Turkish based on whether they were Orthodox or Muslim.

The Romani ("gypsies") are also "white" (they are Indo-European), and even today they are oppressed.

As Gmal indicates, Indo-European is a linguistic category, not a racial one. Romanis can have a diverse range of physical appearances depending on how much they've mixed with the local population, but those in Eastern Europe tend, on the whole, to have darker skin than their non-Romani neighbors, and often aren't considered white.
Exit the vampires' castle.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:58 pm UTC

"White" is an amorphous term that (in the US anyway) has meant "the major group in power". The major group in power almost as a tautology is not oppressed. There are people who try to redefine racism as requiring power for that reason (I disagree because no one has a monopoly on power even if there is a massive disparity in power). "White" has expanded considerably since the early days when only Anglo-Saxons were "white" and the Irish were literally called "the white negroes" (which later referred to Jews). And there is little reason "white" couldn't expand to include Asians or Romani or Hispanics because ultimately "race" has little basis in biology and it's all about cognitive dissonances. But prior to being accepted as an extension of the group in power, the minority groups were indeed subject to racism.

Unless you are trying to argue that "the major group in power isn't subject to widespread racism, and the subgroups who were were only subject to it prior to becoming part of the major group in power". That I can agree with.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:08 pm UTC

What does it mean to oppress a group?
"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

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:09 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:*sigh* I also wouldn't use cracker as a label to greet someone, but totally would use it to describe the items made by Ritz. Context matters. You are aware of this, because you're deliberately selecting an offensive context that is not the same as the the context of talking about a sports team.
Does this look like a cracker to you?
Image
We're not talking about a grocery store item that has other meanings here. We're talking about an ethnic slur made up by one group to describe another group and then plastered over banners, shirts, and hats across the damn country. They took a picture, of an Indian, and colored his skin with a red fucking marker. Then they said "Look at us! We're red, just like this fucking Redskin." Don't compare this to someone making up a slur based on an existing brand. This is a guy who made up a brand based on an existing slur. That's pretty fucked up, and I don't understand why you think the federal government should be spending your tax dollars helping this racist asshat.
Tyndmyr wrote:Is this some sort of "no true Indian" deal? What other standards would you prefer and why?
No, this is a case of someone trying to pass off a study of "Indians" with literally no standard at all for what that term means. I already proposed a standard, like a voting member of the National Congress of American Indians, but you made some joke about government and blew them all off in favor of your own non-standard. Why do you insist on referring to this specious study while ignoring the actual people who spent time and money issuing a legal challenge and developing an ad campaign?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:18 pm UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:What does it mean to oppress a group?


Colleges that have limits on applicants from your group
Businesses refusing to hire you
Police doing any sort of "racial profiling"
Banks refusing to lend to your group
Police ignoring crimes that occur to your group
Lynch mobs that form whenever you try to be anything more than the bottom of society
And those same people then turn around and berate you for "being too lazy/stupid to be better"
Society determining that your group is ugly by default
Extra taxes/mandatory service based on your group
Not being allowed to testify in court, or your testimony is worth less

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:29 pm UTC

[quote]Why do you insist on referring to this specious study while ignoring the actual people who spent time and money issuing a legal challenge and developing an ad campaign?{/quote]

Because loud noisy groups have agendas that are far far far more aggressive than the usual nominal member

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:06 pm UTC

What makes a group loud and noisy?

Who do you consider a nominal member?

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:29 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:*sigh* I also wouldn't use cracker as a label to greet someone, but totally would use it to describe the items made by Ritz. Context matters. You are aware of this, because you're deliberately selecting an offensive context that is not the same as the the context of talking about a sports team.
Does this look like a cracker to you?


Come now. It is an analogy meant to demonstrate a point. Nobody is saying that they ARE the same.

We're not talking about a grocery store item that has other meanings here. We're talking about an ethnic slur made up by one group to describe another group and then plastered over banners, shirts, and hats across the damn country. They took a picture, of an Indian, and colored his skin with a red fucking marker. Then they said "Look at us! We're red, just like this fucking Redskin." Don't compare this to someone making up a slur based on an existing brand. This is a guy who made up a brand based on an existing slur. That's pretty fucked up, and I don't understand why you think the federal government should be spending your tax dollars helping this racist asshat.


What constitutes a slur now, and what constituted a slur in the past may not be the same. You'll note that one of the judges in this case decided against on the basis of lack of evidence for this position. A whole mess of sports teams, companies and brands include names, logos and what not of various minority groups. Not every such case is considered offensive. Furthermore, what is considered offensive may vary depending on era and context. I believe it is trivial to observe that people talking about a sports team is a very different thing than using a term to describe a newly met aquaintance by skin color.

This is true even if they are the same word. One is a LOT more likely to get you punched, if that's the standard you prefer.

As for the tax dollars, well, I'd love to see some sort of copyright reform in general, but I don't particularly want to see governmental weight applied in an unfair manner. This is also the viewpoint of the ACLU, etc, who point out that this is a 1st amendment threat due to unequal treatment.

Tyndmyr wrote:Is this some sort of "no true Indian" deal? What other standards would you prefer and why?
No, this is a case of someone trying to pass off a study of "Indians" with literally no standard at all for what that term means. I already proposed a standard, like a voting member of the National Congress of American Indians, but you made some joke about government and blew them all off in favor of your own non-standard. Why do you insist on referring to this specious study while ignoring the actual people who spent time and money issuing a legal challenge and developing an ad campaign?


This would be much like declaring that if you don't vote, you're not really an American. My "joke", as you call it, existed to demonstrate that the opinions of leadership cannot be assumed to be the opinions of everyone underneath them. This should be fairly obvious, so I'm not sure why you're so intent on ignoring it.

Presenting a legal challenge and developing an ad campaign does not mean you are right, or that your opinions represent a broader group. A brief perusal of various lawsuits and ad campaigns should suffice to understand this.

Derek
Posts: 2181
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:15 am UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Derek » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:01 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:And there is little reason "white" couldn't expand to include Asians or Romani or Hispanics because ultimately "race" has little basis in biology and it's all about cognitive dissonances.

FTR, the US Census Bureau already considers most (or around half) of Hispanics to be white, because it considers Hispanic an ethnicity, not a race. Most of the other Hispanics are mixed or black Hispanics. This isn't that unusual either, historically. Lucy and Ricky were not considered an inter-racial couple on I Love Lucy (otherwise it never would have been aired in the 50's), though Ricky was unequivocably Mexican.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 19, 2014 8:10 pm UTC

*Cuban. Ricky Ricardo was Cuban, not Mexican. And it WAS an issue back then, and Lucille had to fight the studio to let her real husband costar. It was also an issue that he was several years younger than she was. But she fought them, and with her husband she took the act to vaudeville to prove people would love it. And they did. The studio decided that they'd rather make money, so the funny foreigner stayed.

Fun fact; Lucille Ball produced Star Trek TOS. Yes.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:14 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:This is a guy who made up a brand based on an existing slur. That's pretty fucked up, and I don't understand why you think the federal government should be spending your tax dollars helping this racist asshat.

What constitutes a slur now, and what constituted a slur in the past may not be the same. You'll note that one of the judges in this case decided against on the basis of lack of evidence for this position. A whole mess of sports teams, companies and brands include names, logos and what not of various minority groups. Not every such case is considered offensive. Furthermore, what is considered offensive may vary depending on era and context. I believe it is trivial to observe that people talking about a sports team is a very different thing than using a term to describe a newly met aquaintance by skin color.
So you're saying that because you associate it more with the football team named after the slur, it's not really a slur at all. That's ridiculous. Overuse of racial slurs doesn't make them ok. The actual origin of this particular name came from the original coach of the Washington Football Team, who pretended to be Indian in order to dodge the draft. When you treat "Redskin" as a sort of character that you can play at, that's derogatory.
Tyndmyr wrote:This would be much like declaring that if you don't vote, you're not really an American.
So which would be a better sample of United States citizens? Calling up random numbers around the world and asking "Are you American?" Or polling actual voters of the United States? Only one of these choices includes a dozen Venezuelans.
Tyndmyr wrote:Presenting a legal challenge and developing an ad campaign does not mean you are right, or that your opinions represent a broader group.
Yeah, but the annual membership dues you collect from people who want you to represent them is a pretty good indicator that you can represent those people.

How many million people would have to tell you it's derogatory for you to believe it?

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:56 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:What does it mean to oppress a group?


Colleges that have limits on applicants from your group
Businesses refusing to hire you
Police doing any sort of "racial profiling"
Banks refusing to lend to your group
Police ignoring crimes that occur to your group
Lynch mobs that form whenever you try to be anything more than the bottom of society
And those same people then turn around and berate you for "being too lazy/stupid to be better"
Society determining that your group is ugly by default
Extra taxes/mandatory service based on your group
Not being allowed to testify in court, or your testimony is worth less


Who's doing the oppressing then?

Most of these sound pretty modern. You'd have a hard time classifying the Jews in Ancient Egypt or Dhimmi in the Caliphate as oppressed by this definition. There's little room for distinction between the Carthaginians and the Alba Longans (only one was reduced to slave status).
"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
doogly
Dr. The Juggernaut of Touching Himself
Posts: 5538
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:31 am UTC
Location: Lexington, MA
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby doogly » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:05 pm UTC

There was no such thing as Jewish slavery in Egypt but that is a cute try I guess, nice contribution to the discussion.
LE4dGOLEM: What's a Doug?
Noc: A larval Doogly. They grow the tail and stinger upon reaching adulthood.

Keep waggling your butt brows Brothers.
Or; Is that your eye butthairs?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:08 pm UTC

Those were examples. If you want a definition, lets just define oppression as significantly and intentionally less privilege than the dominant group.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:40 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote: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.

There is no such survey of Native Americans who 'live in the area.' What is 'in the area' of the team that represents the nation's capital? Second, what tribes remain in the area? Third, are those living in that area the ones which are disadvantaged by the national trademark of a slur?

-Crissa

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby KrytenKoro » Fri Jun 20, 2014 12:00 am UTC

Crissa wrote:There is no such survey of Native Americans who 'live in the area.' What is 'in the area' of the team that represents the nation's capital? Second, what tribes remain in the area? Third, are those living in that area the ones which are disadvantaged by the national trademark of a slur?

-Crissa

Reading further in, it looks like I mixed up which sources were saying what, so retracted. I still don't think it's reasonable to interpret Tyndmyr's argument as racist.

Heisenberg wrote:So which would be a better sample of United States citizens? Calling up random numbers around the world and asking "Are you American?" Or polling actual voters of the United States? Only one of these choices includes a dozen Venezuelans.

It seems like it would have a better chance of being representative of the average American, though, as voter turnout in the US is nowhere near comprehensive.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:19 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Crissa wrote:There is no such survey of Native Americans who 'live in the area.'
What is 'in the area' of the team that represents the nation's capital? Second, what tribes remain in the area? Third, are those living in that area the ones which are disadvantaged by the national trademark of a slur?

Reading further in, it looks like I mixed up which sources were saying what, so retracted. I still don't think it's reasonable to interpret Tyndmyr's argument as racist.

I have highlighted the important parts of my post. My reply isn't meant to be an attack on you, but a thought experiment creating doubt on the disingenuous argument you'd commented upon.

I won't speak further of disingenuous posters specifically, that argument was yesterday and will remain there.

-Crissa

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jun 20, 2014 4:07 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:This is a guy who made up a brand based on an existing slur. That's pretty fucked up, and I don't understand why you think the federal government should be spending your tax dollars helping this racist asshat.

What constitutes a slur now, and what constituted a slur in the past may not be the same. You'll note that one of the judges in this case decided against on the basis of lack of evidence for this position. A whole mess of sports teams, companies and brands include names, logos and what not of various minority groups. Not every such case is considered offensive. Furthermore, what is considered offensive may vary depending on era and context. I believe it is trivial to observe that people talking about a sports team is a very different thing than using a term to describe a newly met aquaintance by skin color.
So you're saying that because you associate it more with the football team named after the slur, it's not really a slur at all. That's ridiculous. Overuse of racial slurs doesn't make them ok. The actual origin of this particular name came from the original coach of the Washington Football Team, who pretended to be Indian in order to dodge the draft. When you treat "Redskin" as a sort of character that you can play at, that's derogatory.


Slurs sometimes lose their sting, yes. Words change. And historical draft dodging shenanigans aside, not every team name is currently an appropriate label for someone you just met. It'd be ridiculous to think it would be. A word can totally be a slur in one context and not in another. That's remarkably normal, in fact.

Tyndmyr wrote:This would be much like declaring that if you don't vote, you're not really an American.
So which would be a better sample of United States citizens? Calling up random numbers around the world and asking "Are you American?" Or polling actual voters of the United States? Only one of these choices includes a dozen Venezuelans.


Both methods contain some potential for error, which is why every survey ever has a margin of error. One of those however, is a ludicrously more biased polling method.

And yes, this does mean our current voting system has issues. Obviously.

Tyndmyr wrote:Presenting a legal challenge and developing an ad campaign does not mean you are right, or that your opinions represent a broader group.
Yeah, but the annual membership dues you collect from people who want you to represent them is a pretty good indicator that you can represent those people.

How many million people would have to tell you it's derogatory for you to believe it?


It still doesn't mean they're in lockstep. Look, maybe group x has a bunch of members because the membership is mostly happy with how leadership represents them. Or they are kind of unhappy about it, but feel they have no better options. That doesn't mean they agree with every single thing leadership says. Additionally, the sort of people who pay memberships for something are not likely to be a good sampling of the larger population. Would you consider people who pay for memberships to scientology a reliable sample set of views on religion, or even on scientology? God no. You're selecting for extreme views.

Crissa wrote:
KrytenKoro wrote: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.

There is no such survey of Native Americans who 'live in the area.' What is 'in the area' of the team that represents the nation's capital? Second, what tribes remain in the area? Third, are those living in that area the ones which are disadvantaged by the national trademark of a slur?

-Crissa


Polling all in the continental US is a pretty reasonable way to include everyone. If you demand a different standard, you should probably define that standard and provide evidence why it is superior.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:40 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Polling all in the continental US is a pretty reasonable way to include everyone. If you demand a different standard, you should probably define that standard and provide evidence why it is superior.

I answered this in my first post. There are definite statistical differences between the diaspora population of Native Americans - who for the most part do not feel discrimination for their race - versus the population of Native Americans who are mostly sequestered to reservations - and are discriminated against for their race. Then there's the problem that of people in the US, Native Americans barely make up a percent. Lastly, we don't vote on minority rights.

That's three strikes against the bullshit racist position that majority rule should apply when deciding if something is offensive or not.

-Crissa

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jun 20, 2014 7:58 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Polling all in the continental US is a pretty reasonable way to include everyone. If you demand a different standard, you should probably define that standard and provide evidence why it is superior.

I answered this in my first post. There are definite statistical differences between the diaspora population of Native Americans - who for the most part do not feel discrimination for their race - versus the population of Native Americans who are mostly sequestered to reservations - and are discriminated against for their race. Then there's the problem that of people in the US, Native Americans barely make up a percent. Lastly, we don't vote on minority rights.

That's three strikes against the bullshit racist position that majority rule should apply when deciding if something is offensive or not.

-Crissa


Read back. It was a polling of the entire united states native american population. Not the entire population of the united states, which is obviously much larger. Thus, the fact that they only make up 1% is not relevant to the results.

So, how DO we decide when something is offensive if a general majority is insufficient, and a minority of a given population, as self-identified, is insufficient?

This is not about the majority voting to oppress the minority. This is about you needing to define a standard. Hedging about statistical differences is not doing that. Are you honestly proposing that the opinions of native americans do not matter unless they live on reservations?

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:18 pm UTC

Okay, I guess I have to reply to the broken record.

Tyndmyr wrote:Read back. It was a polling of the entire united states native american population. Not the entire population of the united states, which is obviously much larger. Thus, the fact that they only make up 1% is not relevant to the results.

Of course. I already covered this. The survey you're referring to had a vanishingly small chance of locating this tiny part of the population, let alone the portion which is discriminated against. Even by self-reporting - which would be more likely to find me, a blond haired blue eyed pale person than one on a reservation - they only found 768 total respondents. Which is, as you know, not a sufficient number to be statistically meaningful. Especially since it was a sampling of the greater population which took no effort to find if this sample was representative.

This is totally about a majority voting to oppress a minority. Why else repeat the racist tropes about an unrepresentative sample or 'grievance collective'?

-Crissa

PS: A new poll finds an overwhelming majority of Native Americans find the term in general to be offensive: http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/na ... acial-slur

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 23, 2014 12:18 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:Okay, I guess I have to reply to the broken record.

Tyndmyr wrote:Read back. It was a polling of the entire united states native american population. Not the entire population of the united states, which is obviously much larger. Thus, the fact that they only make up 1% is not relevant to the results.

Of course. I already covered this. The survey you're referring to had a vanishingly small chance of locating this tiny part of the population, let alone the portion which is discriminated against. Even by self-reporting - which would be more likely to find me, a blond haired blue eyed pale person than one on a reservation - they only found 768 total respondents. Which is, as you know, not a sufficient number to be statistically meaningful. Especially since it was a sampling of the greater population which took no effort to find if this sample was representative.

This is totally about a majority voting to oppress a minority. Why else repeat the racist tropes about an unrepresentative sample or 'grievance collective'?

-Crissa

PS: A new poll finds an overwhelming majority of Native Americans find the term in general to be offensive: http://www.buzzfeed.com/lindseyadler/na ... acial-slur


768 is a statistically meaningful sample size. Why would you think it isn't?

Random sampling is an excellent way to get a representative sample. This is an incredibly normal way to survey people.

This new survey, while I cannot seem to access the survey methodology from this computer, does seem to survey only people who are "an active enrolled member of a tribal group". This seems to be a significantly less comprehensive surveying method, and as he has only about 400 surveys in total, I cannot conceive of why you would object to the methodology of the 2004 study while accepting the methodology of this one.

I'll try to investigate the new survey in more detail, but my guess is that the subset of the Native American population feels differently than the larger group, and additionally, question phrasing is influencing the results. This is not uncommon. So, tell me, why should we discount the opinion of Native Americans that are not enrolled in a tribal group and actively involved in it?

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Mon Jun 23, 2014 1:21 pm UTC

that survey is terrible - take the key question that drives the outcome being championed

"The Redskins team name is a racial or racist word and symbol."

I don't think any sane individual is going to answer that as no - its blatantly a racial word, but note the subtle conflation with racist to get the desired outcome

add to that theres no reference to the sampling (although its referenced that its positively identified - screaming selection bias, if I had to guess college students) and that the sample is a huge 98 in that biased sample ( which is moving into 10% error bar territory alone)...

speising
Posts: 2365
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby speising » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:04 pm UTC

that's not even the only point, i wouldn't think that anyone thinks "redskin" is not racist (if you call a native american by that name). but that doesn't mean automatically that you are offended by a sportsteam of that name.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:07 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:So, tell me, why should we discount the opinion of Native Americans that are not enrolled in a tribal group and actively involved in it?

We shouldn't discount anyone's opinion. Everyone who didn't find the term derogatory in the first poll have valid opinions, and the other group of people in the second poll, who do consider the term derogatory, should also have their opinions considered.

This isn't a matter of whose opinion is more valid (although if you did have that argument, the answer is obvious). This is a matter of whether or not the NFL's racially charged team name is derogatory or not. A significant group of people have come out and said "Yes, it is." Game over.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:45 pm UTC

You see you can't show that - you can only show that a very specific subset of people are offended by it and that there is no supporting evidence that the offense is widespread. You can make decisions based on that kind of evidence, but it wouldn't be very justified.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:56 pm UTC

speising wrote:that's not even the only point, i wouldn't think that anyone thinks "redskin" is not racist (if you call a native american by that name). but that doesn't mean automatically that you are offended by a sportsteam of that name.


Indeed. The surveys are asking somewhat different questions, and what question you ask can definitely change the results. Asking about a term in context of the team name will get you the best data for how they feel about the team name.

Heisenberg wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, tell me, why should we discount the opinion of Native Americans that are not enrolled in a tribal group and actively involved in it?

We shouldn't discount anyone's opinion. Everyone who didn't find the term derogatory in the first poll have valid opinions, and the other group of people in the second poll, who do consider the term derogatory, should also have their opinions considered.

This isn't a matter of whose opinion is more valid (although if you did have that argument, the answer is obvious). This is a matter of whether or not the NFL's racially charged team name is derogatory or not. A significant group of people have come out and said "Yes, it is." Game over.


These are different groups of people being polled. The second set is a significantly smaller subset of the first set. I do not contest that if you slice subsets small enough, and are permitted to pick any subset you choose, you will eventually find one that finds the term offensive.

Of course you will. That's trivially true for essentially anything.

So, you need to justify why this particular group selection is the proper parameters with reasons other than "they give the results we want". Potential justifications include "the larger set's opinion isn't relevant". You are welcome to think up alternatives, but the idea of it being "game over" is...strange. You can't just declare yourself to have won without even setting the rules for playing. Or rather, you can, but it's not going to convince anyone.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Mon Jun 23, 2014 7:47 pm UTC

Gosh, it's almost like someone is missing part of the context that makes something racist.

  • Offensive. It doesn't need to be offensive. Anything can be offensive, but that's one strike against it if it is.
  • Denigrating, Othering, Isolating. Instead, it could denigrate or be used in a way denigrating a group (in this case the group is 'race' but since 'race' isn't a real thing, it's hard to define. It totally can be racist against people not of that race or religion, depending upon how it was applied.)
  • And that group or race needs to be damaged by it - usually by already being downtrodden. Punching down is racist, punching up is humor.
You know what the major difference between Native Americans who live on reservations or registered with tribes? Only 30% have health insurance. The median family income is 40% less than the median American. They can't get home loans - no, really, they can't, because banks often cannot or will not apply for custodianship of their homes. They suffer unemployment, dispossession, and yes, racial bias as well as denigration of their traditions and images. (I'm rounding here, btw.)

You can look this up. It's pretty simple why you might ask those who suffer instead of those who don't.

-Crissa

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:21 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:A word can totally be a slur in one context and not in another. That's remarkably normal, in fact.
Maybe if the word had a dual meaning, but that's not the case here. The court ruled that "redskin" was a slur when they named a football team that. It's also still currently a slur. No amount of white guys dressing up and yelling "REDSKIN" at a football game will make it ok.

Do you think that naming a team after a racial slur today would be wrong, but would somehow become not wrong 50 years from now when people identified that slur with a team? Actually, it doesn't really matter what you think, because the law is pretty clear that if you pick a disparaging name, we're not going to protect your right to its exclusive use.
Tyndmyr wrote:These are different groups of people being polled. The second set is a significantly smaller subset of the first set. I do not contest that if you slice subsets small enough, and are permitted to pick any subset you choose, you will eventually find one that finds the term offensive.

So you admit that a large group of people find the term disparaging. That's it. That is the condition. That condition is met, so the United States Government need not defend the racist asshat who owns this team any more.
Tyndmyr wrote:That's trivially true for essentially anything.
Oh, really? You find me a significantly large group of people who find the term "Seahawk" to be disparaging and I will write a legal brief in support of your lawsuit. I'll even pay for postage, because I like you.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:11 pm UTC

Crissa wrote:Gosh, it's almost like someone is missing part of the context that makes something racist.

  • Offensive. It doesn't need to be offensive. Anything can be offensive, but that's one strike against it if it is.
  • Denigrating, Othering, Isolating. Instead, it could denigrate or be used in a way denigrating a group (in this case the group is 'race' but since 'race' isn't a real thing, it's hard to define. It totally can be racist against people not of that race or religion, depending upon how it was applied.)
  • And that group or race needs to be damaged by it - usually by already being downtrodden. Punching down is racist, punching up is humor.
You know what the major difference between Native Americans who live on reservations or registered with tribes? Only 30% have health insurance. The median family income is 40% less than the median American. They can't get home loans - no, really, they can't, because banks often cannot or will not apply for custodianship of their homes. They suffer unemployment, dispossession, and yes, racial bias as well as denigration of their traditions and images. (I'm rounding here, btw.)

You can look this up. It's pretty simple why you might ask those who suffer instead of those who don't.

-Crissa


So...we should what, only poll those who don't have health insurance and who have low incomes? Their opinions regarding what is offensive is more important than those in a different demographic?

I do not deny that discrimination exists, or that folks on reservations face challenges, but how does that make them the statistically important group to study about what a football team should be named?

Heisenberg wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:A word can totally be a slur in one context and not in another. That's remarkably normal, in fact.
Maybe if the word had a dual meaning, but that's not the case here. The court ruled that "redskin" was a slur when they named a football team that. It's also still currently a slur. No amount of white guys dressing up and yelling "REDSKIN" at a football game will make it ok.

Do you think that naming a team after a racial slur today would be wrong, but would somehow become not wrong 50 years from now when people identified that slur with a team? Actually, it doesn't really matter what you think, because the law is pretty clear that if you pick a disparaging name, we're not going to protect your right to its exclusive use.


Slurs are not fixed in stones. New ones arise, old ones lose their sting. Of COURSE a slur can be made ok. The question is how you do so.... Personally, I think that repeated use of it in the context of a slur probably makes it more offensive, and use of it in other contexts makes it more mundane. So, you shouldn't use such a term to refer to an individual(and certainly not in a derogatory fashion), but another use of the word may be fine.

As for your "the law totally justifies my moral stance" argument, uh...you realize that this is a split decision subject to an appeal, right? And the Redskins won the last appeal. Plus, legality isn't inherently moral anyway. Relying on copyright law for morality seems...dubious. Have fun defending the RIAA and company.

Tyndmyr wrote:These are different groups of people being polled. The second set is a significantly smaller subset of the first set. I do not contest that if you slice subsets small enough, and are permitted to pick any subset you choose, you will eventually find one that finds the term offensive.

So you admit that a large group of people find the term disparaging. That's it. That is the condition. That condition is met, so the United States Government need not defend the racist asshat who owns this team any more.


How did you go from "significantly smaller subset" to "large group"?

Look, you seem to think that ANY group with an opinion is enough reason for selective enforcement. That seems to remove enforcement altogether. Would it be valid to poll users of The Pirate Bay on if protected trademarks of major media labels are "offensive" and should be revoked? Why or why not? What result do you think such a standard would have?

Heisenberg wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:That's trivially true for essentially anything.
Oh, really? You find me a significantly large group of people who find the term "Seahawk" to be disparaging and I will write a legal brief in support of your lawsuit. I'll even pay for postage, because I like you.


I suspect it would be as simple as finding a group of fans of whatever sportsball team is in a rivalry or whatever with the Seahawks. Or perhaps PETA. Those guys seem to hate everything involving animals, and a seahawk is certainly that. They tried to rename fish "sea kittens".

People will do all kinds of stupid stuff. If your standard of "large" is entirely mutable, and can be any cherry picked subpopulation of whatever, you can get whatever result you want. There are pages devoted to hatred of anything you can imagine hating on the internet, and probably to many things it's never even occured to you to consider hating.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Heisenberg » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:44 pm UTC

Yes, lots of people hate lots of things, but it's not illegal to trademark a word people HATE. It's illegal to trademark a word that's DISPARAGING.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:55 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:Yes, lots of people hate lots of things, but it's not illegal to trademark a word people HATE. It's illegal to trademark a word that's DISPARAGING.


I bet a lot of people would describe a word that they hate as disparaging. Especially if they believed that doing so would reduce the use of the word, or affect something they dislike.

It's harder though, if you have something akin to standards. Is it something that people overall find disparaging? Or is it something that the group so labeled finds disparaging? Or must cherries be picked in order to arrive at the conclusion?

Note that, as previously mentioned, I do not care about the Redskins whatsoever, they are merely a handy example for me to demonstrate that people care a shitload more about justifying offense and attempting to use that to force change on others than actually seeking out any sort of reasonable standard. I did not expect quite so vivid a demonstration in this thread itself, but...I believe the point has been well made.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:04 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:So...we should what, only poll those who don't have health insurance and who have low incomes? Their opinions regarding what is offensive is more important than those in a different demographic?

Yes. This should not be a complex thought. You ask a victim if they were victimized, and you hope that institutional pressures don't interfere so you get the answer they're actually feeling.

Tyndmyr wrote:I do not deny that discrimination exists, or that folks on reservations face challenges, but how does that make them the statistically important group to study about what a football team should be named?

Do you even know what disparaging means?

-Crissa

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10549
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:39 am UTC

Crissa, we know who made the post, no need to sign off on every one.

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby Crissa » Tue Jun 24, 2014 6:19 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:merely a handy example for me to demonstrate that people care a shitload more about justifying offense and attempting to use that to force change on others than actually seeking out any sort of reasonable standard. I did not expect quite so vivid a demonstration in this thread itself, but...I believe the point has been well made.

Trolling comment aside...

...Why do you think your right to speak ill of a people is higher than their right to be insulted by that?

When your argument sounds exactly like a racist's argument, perhaps you should examine your argument - instead of being upset for being called a duck for quacking like a duck.

-Crissa

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

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby leady » Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:42 am UTC

Who is speaking ill of anyone?

and again why should the bulk of society submit to a seemingly unproveable cultural offense of a sub-set of a population based on a dubious study? and just as importantly why would this take precedence over the tradition of millions who clearly use the term as a badge of respect? (its not like teams are referred to as the Washington Frenchmen after all)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26823
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Cultural Appropriation / Assimilation

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:51 am UTC

No one is making the bulk of society submit to anything. A trademark will no longer be protected by the federal government. That isn't the same as making you throw out all your Redskins paraphernalia.
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)


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests