The world has become too fragile

[HP29]

47 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Just decades? You should probably brush up on your history a bit.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm just trying to make sense of the ever changing ruleset of what's allowed and what isn't allowed. My confusion can't come from the arbitrary ruleset in place that's malleable based solely upon a person's colour of their skin. You know, like racists do.

It's weird that my viewpoint that there shouldn't be racial divides is being held as a shitty belief system. The past oppression of people should have zero impact on being able to use art styles, but apparently I'm wrong because dwelling on the past and not moving forward is apparently a healthy attitude.

But I am glad you chimed in. When the peanut gallery get's involved is my favourite. Especially when it comes as their own expense for overreacting to a small joke.

 

"I didn't understand you were kidding at the beginning so now I'm going to double down on my ignorance."

C'mon man. It was clear from the start he was kidding. Not his fault you misinterpreted it.

Haha, riveting stuff, Coop - yes, good. Catch me on semantics. Sorry, cEnTuRiEs, do you feel better now? You're going to lean on history, while shitting on it? Now, that's ironic.

It's not about dwelling, it's about reconciling. You don't get to tell a marginalized group how they're supposed to feel, simply because addressing an issue makes you uncomfortable, or you feel indifferent. Nobody is obligated to move forward in the way that you would like them to, just because you want them to.

The peanut gallery kneels before you, Coop. Whip out that massive post count, big guy. We're salivating over here.

[coopaloop1234]

10 minutes ago, HP29 said:

Haha, riveting stuff, Coop - yes, good. Catch me on semantics. Sorry, cEnTuRiEs, do you feel better now? You're going to lean on history, while shitting on it? Now, that's ironic.

It's not about dwelling, it's about reconciling. You don't get to tell a marginalized group how they're supposed to feel, simply because addressing an issue makes you uncomfortable, or you feel indifferent. Nobody is obligated to move forward in the way that you would like them to, just because you want them to.

The peanut gallery kneels before you, Coop. Whip out that massive post count, big guy. We're salivating over here.

Man are you ever riled up about not being able to take a joke. lol

I've touched on the arguments you've listed, at this point conversing with you isn't really a discussion as it's clear you're more interested in getting on me instead.

[ThatCarGuy]

@coopaloop1234 well he wasn’t wrong about the peanut gallery at least

[coopaloop1234]

1 minute ago, ThatCarGuy said:

@coopaloop1234 well he wasn’t wrong about the peanut gallery at least

How else am I supposed to flex my e-muscle without that useless number?

[dualshowman]

2 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

I'm not being obtuse, I'm just trying to make sense of the ever changing ruleset of what's allowed and what isn't allowed. My confusion can't come from the arbitrary ruleset in place that's malleable based solely upon a person's colour of their skin. You know, like racists do.

It's weird that my viewpoint that there shouldn't be racial divides is being held as a shitty belief system. The past oppression of people should have zero impact on being able to use art styles, but apparently I'm wrong because dwelling on the past and not moving forward is apparently a healthy attitude.

I agree that using history as the measure of the present or, even worse, the future is a non-starter. That we feel compelled to perpetuate the obvious differences between human beings through whatever means we can is precisely the stumbling point.

The goal, as I see it, is to have zero racial, social, and culture pejoratives concentric with total celebration of racial, social, and cultural norms on the Venn diagram. Bluntly put: No one sees race, and everyone can openly and freely celebrate their differences without negative consequence. This may seem lofty and, to some folks too idealistic, but it is really the only goal that is completely inclusive. If anyone believes that eliminating racial division is inextricable from cultural genocide, I would implore them to think a bit harder about how they would improve upon the current state of affairs.

[Scythe]

4 hours ago, MTH said:

It's another social media pile on. 

Everyone get on this! Hurry!

 

I had 3 bags of popcorn reading this thread with Land O Lakes butter. 

[CJ Boiss]

4 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

This isn't the first time I've had a discussion on this topic online/irl, and it sure isn't the first time the other side I converse with falls back onto this arbitrary rule set of who's allowed to do what, based off of skin colour, power structure, and/or "who'd had it worse".

I've always seen it as a cop out for these social rule sets that always seem to be evolving. Instead of a define rule set that should be applicable to all, the people I argue with twist what's allowed to meet their narrative.

It's not like the baseline thought process is coming from a place of malice either. It's just that it's warped into this "Opression Olympics" that's pitting everyone against each other to who's had it worse.

How is that helping or joining people together?

It's not, it's creating further divide and perpetuating the current social issues we're having. There's plenty of examples too. We can take our discussion here, we can take the gatekeeping in the black community as some people don't have dark enough skin, we can look at TERFS, or other exclusion of specific groups in the LGBT community.

It's asinine to me. What's the purpose/end goal?

I have not fallen back onto an "arbitrary rule set".

I don't know what to tell you but, things change. Society, language, beliefs, morals, virtues, ethics. None of these things are static in how they are viewed or acted upon by society or the people within it. If you're looking for a comprehensive, defined, static set of rules for the ways in which everyone is allowed to interact with each other and their cultures, you're never going to find it because it will never exist. Nobody is playing "the oppression Olympics".

It's just life. Life is messy.

 

My rule of thumb is: when in doubt, be inclusive and respectful. And above all else, to listen, openly and honestly, when someone tells me I've made a mistake. I strive to know what I don't know, and let my worldview be challenged by new information.

Division is created when people stop listening. Not when someone explains why appropriating a raped culture can negatively impact real people. Not when critically examining racial and cultural gatekeeping within African American communities. Not when revealing gender- and sexuality-based bigotry within the LGBT+ community.

Acting as if skin colour doesn't exist doesn't eliminate racism, or intra-cultural gatekeeping. Feigning blindness doesn't make bigotry magically disappear. All that does is give people a convenient shield to hide behind if they do or say something that is, for lack of a better word, problematic.
(ex. "It's OK, I can say that word because I don't see race". "Yes, I'm straight, but I can put on that voice because I'm not homophobic".)

When people claim to be above conversations about race, or gender, or sexuality - which, make no mistake, that's exactly what "I don't see race/gender/sexuality" is - then they are shutting down conversations.

Refusing to engage in the conversation by pretending you've risen above it. That is the real cop out.

I am not a perfect man, by any stretch of the imagination. I have made and will continue to make mistakes that, honest though they may be, hurt people. But that only becomes a problem when I stop listening, and stop learning, and stop trying to be better.

3 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

It's weird that my viewpoint that there shouldn't be racial divides is being held as a shitty belief system. The past oppression of people should have zero impact on being able to use art styles, but apparently I'm wrong because dwelling on the past and not moving forward is apparently a healthy attitude.

This video provides a great explanation of why it's not "dwelling" on the past to acknowledge historical oppression: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3wwvefJVUA

Some More News is a pretty cool channel; Katy Stoll and Cody Johnston are Cracked alumni, from when it put out good content.

[coopaloop1234]

3 minutes ago, CJ Boiss said:

I have not fallen back onto an "arbitrary rule set".

I don't know what to tell you but, things change. Society, language, beliefs, morals, virtues, ethics. None of these things are static in how they are viewed or acted upon by society or the people within it. If you're looking for a comprehensive, defined, static set of rules for the ways in which everyone is allowed to interact with each other and their cultures, you're never going to find it because it will never exist. Nobody is playing "the oppression Olympics".

It's just life. Life is messy.

I don't know, it sure feels arbitrary. Your reasoning as to why art from African Americans is allowed to be appropriated but not the work of first nations is a clear example of that. You've made compromises to what is allowed and what isn't solely based off of a real undefined metric of who's had it worse.

That's what I'm mostly getting at when I'm saying it's arbitrary. If your stance was that appropriation of any culture that had faced serious amounts of oppression was a no-no, then I could see where you're coming from.

What I'm getting is that it's a moving goalpost that's entirely dependent on the person I'm interacting with. It's why there is a decent opposition to all this "wokeness" because what's allowed and not allowed shifts so wildly that's it's impossible to keep up and it's been modified as a tool.

Quote

Division is created when people stop listening. Not when someone explains why appropriating a raped culture can negatively impact real people. Not when critically examining racial and cultural gatekeeping within African American communities. Not when revealing gender- and sexuality-based bigotry within the LGBT+ community.

Division is caused by more than just not listening. The examples I'm showcasing is how division has risen up in people's own communities in regards to who has it worse. These are people that should be standing together in solidarity but are attacking their own kind for shit's that out of their control.

Imagine telling someone with lighter skin that their life is easier because they're not as dark as you? There's this growing level of who can out woe who in order to dominate conversations. That's not progressive. That's regressive as all hell.

This relates to my point by showcasing that a lot of the conversations that are coming up due to past transgression involving culture or race end up being dominated by who has been worse off. I'm still going to use you as an example when we were comparing the ability to use a culture's art when coming first nations and african americans.

I still think that this unnecessary gatekeeping is more regressive than progressive.

Quote

Acting as if skin colour doesn't exist doesn't eliminate racism, or intra-cultural gatekeeping. Feigning blindness doesn't make bigotry magically disappear. All that does is give people a convenient shield to hide behind if they do or say something that is, for lack of a better word, problematic.
(ex. "It's OK, I can say that word because I don't see race". "Yes, I'm straight, but I can put on that voice because I'm not homophobic".)

When people claim to be above conversations about race, or gender, or sexuality - which, make no mistake, that's exactly what "I don't see race/gender/sexuality" is - then they are shutting down conversations.

Refusing to engage in the conversation by pretending you've risen above it. That is the real cop out.

See, I've seen this new way of thinking about race and I still don't agree with it. I'm not one to go "I don't see colour", It's just that it's gone from acceptance of each other's races to placing race as an important identifier.

When race becomes such a heavy point of emphasis of conversation, especially when considering sharing art in all forms, it really starts to limit/gag what can be done and said due to the potential implication of offending someone or coming across as racist. When in reality it should be something of a non-factor in day to day life.

See where I'm having a hard time with all of this? This new age "wokeness" emphasizes race so much that it feels like it's two steps back instead of progressing as people. I just don't get it, and I'm not sure if I ever will.

 

[CJ Boiss]

Just now, coopaloop1234 said:

I don't know, it sure feels arbitrary. Your reasoning as to why art from African Americans is allowed to be appropriated but not the work of first nations is a clear example of that. You've made compromises to what is allowed and what isn't solely based off of a real undefined metric of who's had it worse.

That's what I'm mostly getting at when I'm saying it's arbitrary. If your stance was that appropriation of any culture that had faced serious amounts of oppression was a no-no, then I could see where you're coming from.

What I'm getting is that it's a moving goalpost that's entirely dependent on the person I'm interacting with. It's why there is a decent opposition to all this "wokeness" because what's allowed and not allowed shifts so wildly that's it's impossible to keep up and it's been modified as a tool.

Excuse me, I did not say that it's OK to appropriate the art of African Americans, but not First Nations.

The historical context between white Americans and indigenous Americans is wildly different than the historical context between African Americans and East Asian cultures. That does not mean I am OK with African American culture being commodified and stereotyped on the other side of the world.

Quote

Division is caused by more than just not listening. The examples I'm showcasing is how division has risen up in people's own communities in regards to who has it worse. These are people that should be standing together in solidarity but are attacking their own kind for shit's that out of their control.

Imagine telling someone with lighter skin that their life is easier because they're not as dark as you? There's this growing level of who can out woe who in order to dominate conversations. That's not progressive. That's regressive as all hell.

This relates to my point by showcasing that a lot of the conversations that are coming up due to past transgression involving culture or race end up being dominated by who has been worse off. I'm still going to use you as an example when we were comparing the ability to use a culture's art when coming first nations and african americans.

I still think that this unnecessary gatekeeping is more regressive than progressive.

So your argument is that intra-cultural division in black communities, vis a vis how dark someone's skin is, is the fault of people within those communities. Not the fault of people outside the communities who treat "light skinned" and "dark skinned" black people differently.

I think that misidentifies a knock-on effect of racism as the root cause of division.

(also, that isn't gatekeeping, it's intersectionality)

Quote

See, I've seen this new way of thinking about race and I still don't agree with it. I'm not one to go "I don't see colour", It's just that it's gone from acceptance of each other's races to placing race as an important identifier.

When race becomes such a heavy point of emphasis of conversation, especially when considering sharing art in all forms, it really starts to limit/gag what can be done and said due to the potential implication of offending someone or coming across as racist. When in reality it should be something of a non-factor in day to day life.

See where I'm having a hard time with all of this? This new age "wokeness" emphasizes race so much that it feels like it's two steps back instead of progressing as people. I just don't get it, and I'm not sure if I ever will.

"I don't see race" has never, in practice, been solely about acceptance. There has always been a strong element of "I don't have to talk about or critically examine racism in my own life anymore, because I'm definitely not racist".

"Race" - by which I mean a person's social and cultural identity which, like it or not, skin colour is a significant part of - is an important identifier. It's more than skin-deep, and having conversations about including race respectfully in art doesn't limit or gag what can be done, unless what the artist wants to do is fundamentally racist.

[coopaloop1234]

9 minutes ago, CJ Boiss said:

Excuse me, I did not say that it's OK to appropriate the art of African Americans, but not First Nations.

The historical context between white Americans and indigenous Americans is wildly different than the historical context between African Americans and East Asian cultures. That does not mean I am OK with African American culture being commodified and stereotyped on the other side of the world.

So far as European and Asian countries mimicking music created by African Americans, eh, doesn't feel great to me. But that physical distance, the lack of historical oppression within those countries (more specifically, Asian countries) changes the context of the situation. Like I said before, nobody creates in a vacuum. I'm not equipped enough to say more on that matter

Apologies man but it sure seems like you're making an exception to me. You may not 100% be on board with it, but making it a grey area based off geography is, well, crap. Either you're ok with appropriation or you're not and making these exceptions really comes down to arbitrary measures.

This again comes down to this weird thing where you want to include a historical sense into whether a culture can be used by another. Again, gate keeping based off race/geography/history/etc.

I don't agree with it.

Quote

So your argument is that intra-cultural division in black communities, vis a vis how dark someone's skin is, is the fault of people within those communities. Not the fault of people outside the communities who treat "light skinned" and "dark skinned" black people differently.

I think that misidentifies a knock-on effect of racism as the root cause of division.

(also, that isn't gatekeeping, it's intersectionality)

I see what you're saying, but I'll still disagree with it. This division comes from internally in that community for things that occur outside of it. It's a sort of resentment for their own people.

That's like me hating the Swedish for being subjectively beautiful people and claiming that they're not allowed to talk about being white as they get preferential treatment.

It's suppressing voices in their own community because they're not treated as harshly. More Oppression Olympics.

 

Quote

I don't see race" has never, in practice, been solely about acceptance. There has always been a strong element of "I don't have to talk about or critically examine racism in my own life anymore, because I'm definitely not racist".

"Race" - by which I mean a person's social and cultural identity which, like it or not, skin colour is a significant part of - is an important identifier. It's more than skin-deep, and having conversations about including race respectfully in art doesn't limit or gag what can be done, unless what the artist wants to do is fundamentally racist.

But my point is that it's become too much of an important identifier. To the point that unless you get approval or are from that race, you can't "use" their culture.

And the ability to "use" their culture without that approval comes down to whether they meet the thresholds in the beginning of this post.

So you get this massive sliding scale of what's allowed and by whom it's allowed, that's based off of arbitrary measures that comes down to almost personal interpretation.  So now there's these pockets of protected groups and non protected groups, the rules associated with each one is muddled and all over the place, and it creates further divide.

It's crap man. Either we come to a decision that sharing and using each other's cultures are OK, or we all squirrel away and protect our own and vilify others who want to adopt/share.

These identity politics becoming the forefront of discussion about almost anything is only causing things to become worse.

It's exhausting, detrimental, and just nonsensical.

Either way, I do think we've mostly reached an impasse in regards to this conversation. I think we just have very fundamentally different views on this that I think reaching a conclusion my not occur.

I did enjoy the conversation despite not agreeing with ya, and I'm glad we were able to refrain from getting to much at each other.

*cough*

 

[dualshowman]

43 minutes ago, coopaloop1234 said:

I think we just have very fundamentally different views on this that I think reaching a conclusion my not occur.

@coopaloop1234

@CJ Boiss

I am reading and contributing to all of this from the perspective that the views expressed are not so much fundamentally different as they are semantically (goddddddddammit) different, my contributions included. Ultimately, I am reading what appears to be a group of folks that are truly striving to be the least incorrect about what is best for humans. This is an admirable pursuit, one that is made better by your efforts in understanding and action. The gradient within the conversation feels like banal argument; it is all part of a larger, comprehensive discourse for good. The consensus appears to be some highly cosmopolitan society in which the offenders and the offended find an far more subtle path to a common truth, while the rest of us can dial it in even further on a more granular level. I'd be very pleased with that. 

[HP29]

6 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Man are you ever riled up about not being able to take a joke. lol

I've touched on the arguments you've listed, at this point conversing with you isn't really a discussion as it's clear you're more interested in getting on me instead.

 

1 hour ago, coopaloop1234 said:

So far as European and Asian countries mimicking music created by African Americans, eh, doesn't feel great to me. But that physical distance, the lack of historical oppression within those countries (more specifically, Asian countries) changes the context of the situation. Like I said before, nobody creates in a vacuum. I'm not equipped enough to say more on that matter

Apologies man but it sure seems like you're making an exception to me. You may not 100% be on board with it, but making it a grey area based off geography is, well, crap. Either you're ok with appropriation or you're not and making these exceptions really comes down to arbitrary measures.

This again comes down to this weird thing where you want to include a historical sense into whether a culture can be used by another. Again, gate keeping based off race/geography/history/etc.

I don't agree with it.

I see what you're saying, but I'll still disagree with it. This division comes from internally in that community for things that occur outside of it. It's a sort of resentment for their own people.

That's like me hating the Swedish for being subjectively beautiful people and claiming that they're not allowed to talk about being white as they get preferential treatment.

It's suppressing voices in their own community because they're not treated as harshly. More Oppression Olympics.

 

But my point is that it's become too much of an important identifier. To the point that unless you get approval or are from that race, you can't "use" their culture.

And the ability to "use" their culture without that approval comes down to whether they meet the thresholds in the beginning of this post.

So you get this massive sliding scale of what's allowed and by whom it's allowed, that's based off of arbitrary measures that comes down to almost personal interpretation.  So now there's these pockets of protected groups and non protected groups, the rules associated with each one is muddled and all over the place, and it creates further divide.

It's crap man. Either we come to a decision that sharing and using each other's cultures are OK, or we all squirrel away and protect our own and vilify others who want to adopt/share.

These identity politics becoming the forefront of discussion about almost anything is only causing things to become worse.

It's exhausting, detrimental, and just nonsensical.

Either way, I do think we've mostly reached an impasse in regards to this conversation. I think we just have very fundamentally different views on this that I think reaching a conclusion my not occur.

I did enjoy the conversation despite not agreeing with ya, and I'm glad we were able to refrain from getting to much at each other.

*cough*

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa - Coop. COOP... I thought we had an understanding here. C'mon... lets call it what it is. You took the first shot.

And in that spirit, citing an "impasse" with CJ is a little reductive. I think a more accurate description would be that you got absolutely dismantled. I mean, Mike Tyson right hand to the jaw, scrambling on all fours, trying to collect your teeth, by way of digging in your heels and "doubling down on ignorance."

My favourite part was when you decided to single out a perceived lesser-member to try and beat up on, to regain some "clout", as it were. 

You're better than this, Coop.

(I mean, you're absolutely not.)

But you are better than this.

(You aren't.)

[CJ Boiss]

1 hour ago, coopaloop1234 said:

Apologies man but it sure seems like you're making an exception to me.
[...]
This again comes down to this weird thing where you want to include a historical sense into whether a culture can be used by another. Again, gate keeping based off race/geography/history/etc.

I'm not making an exception. Being physically located on the other side of the planet from America means that East Asian cultures were physically not there during hundreds of years of oppression that African American communities experienced in America. That fundamentally changes the relationship between the two, and makes cultural exchange/appropriation between African American and East Asian cultures a very different situation than cultural exchange/appropriation between white Americans and indigenous Americans.

That isn't gatekeeping.

Quote

But my point is that it's become too much of an important identifier. To the point that unless you get approval or are from that race, you can't "use" their culture.

And the ability to "use" their culture without that approval comes down to whether they meet the thresholds in the beginning of this post.
[...]

It is not about getting approval to "use" another culture. It's about making sure your use is accurate. Authentic. If you don't know enough to ensure your work is accurate, you consult an expert. Like, for instance, an individual from the culture you intend to "use" that is also an expert is your particular field.

Again, it isn't about getting permission. It's about ensuring accurate representation, because that's important.

Quote

Either way, I do think we've mostly reached an impasse in regards to this conversation. I think we just have very fundamentally different views on this that I think reaching a conclusion my not occur.

I did enjoy the conversation despite not agreeing with ya, and I'm glad we were able to refrain from getting to much at each other.

Fair enough.

3 minutes ago, HP29 said:

[snip]

You're neither helping nor contributing.

I'm not a mod, and I don't pretend to be, so I'm asking you as just a regular guy: calm down or shove off.

[coopaloop1234]

Oh @HP29, you silly goose you. 

[CJ Boiss]

2 minutes ago, netminder said:

Cancel Culture Stikes again...bye bye Canucks logo

https://globalnews.ca/news/7523720/canucks-logo-first-nations-cultural-appropriation-comments/?utm_source=GlobalEdmonton&utm_medium=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2oNhZ5gHWlqzozFCu0ILmrPMhX8OEOAjBK_uyCg87JZjARlkl87xT8YSQ

Or, you know, they could do what Holtby is doing: re-design in consultation with First Nations people.

Finn, their mascot, already has a re-designed Orca logo on his drums that was made by First Nations artist Xwalacktun, which looks absolutely amazing. 

 

[coopaloop1234]

12 hours ago, CJ Boiss said:

Or, you know, they could do what Holtby is doing: re-design in consultation with First Nations people.

Finn, their mascot, already has a re-designed Orca logo on his drums that was made by First Nations artist Xwalacktun, which looks absolutely amazing. 

 

 

But this whole thing is being spearheaded by a white dude in Manitoba on the curtails of the other "controversy" and the local first nations see no issue with it.

How is this not indicative of "woke" culture going astray?

Shit, couldn't we also say the Sean is "Appropriating" Indigenous culture since who better to talk about First Nations History than someone of First Nations heritage?

Doesn't it showcase how silly these whole ordeals are?

 

Edit: did more digging around on the Sean Carleton guy, apparently he has a poor reputation among some first nations groups for overstepping his bound and hurting the reconciliation movement.

Can't say I'm surprised. It's a running stereotype.

 

Edit2: https://bc.ctvnews.ca/grand-chief-says-he-s-not-offended-by-canucks-logo-1.5233048

Coast Salish Chief sees zero issue with it.

What was that quote? Oh yea:

Quote

's not about dwelling, it's about reconciling. You don't get to tell a marginalized group how they're supposed to feel, simply because addressing an issue makes you uncomfortable, or you feel indifferent.

Amazing how these things come around like this eh?

[RichMan]

It used to be that imitation was a sign of flattery. That clearly has changed.

I agree that if you want to represent a cultural symbol or whatever, do your research and ask people who are in the culture to get the details right.

If I go back to practicing Wing Chun and wear my traditional Jing Mo (kung fu outfit), does that mean I'm appropriating the Asian culture? If I decide to get back into b-boying (break dancing, which I practiced for 20+ years) while I still enjoy my underground Hip Hop, am I trying to be black? If a Haitian woman straightens her hair, is she trying to be white? If a transgender decides to be one or the other opposite sex of what they physically are, does that make them appropriating of the opposite sex?

Too often now people are thrown under the bus for free instead of reaching out and educating them on what/when/where/how and why.

And for the term/word "woke", I mean how street can that shit sound! Why not use "awaken" or "mindful" and such?

Too many people are trigger happy and are literally looking for this stuff, whether for self-glorification or group acceptance, but when it's absolutely necessary, please do.

[coopaloop1234]

7 minutes ago, RichMan said:

If I go back to practicing Wing Chun and wear my traditional Jing Mo (kung fu outfit), does that mean I'm appropriating the Asian culture?

If you talk to the people that adhere to "woke" culture, you are actually.

Too bad no one in Japan thinks so considering they want to share their heritage. You know, like we all should be doing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/4f22q3/is_it_actually_offensive_for_foreigners_to_wear/

https://charlotte-brill.medium.com/wearing-kimono-appropriation-or-appreciation-a93dd099355b

https://www.dismantlemag.com/2019/07/22/dress-code-kimono-cultural-appropriation/

My favourite quote is this one:

Quote

Turns out there are lots of ways to appropriate! But all cultural appropriation is really about cultural power, which put bluntly, means maintaining white supremacy

lol.

 

[CJ Boiss]

3 hours ago, coopaloop1234 said:

[snip]

If the Coast Salish people have no problem with the logo, I see little reason to change it at the moment. All I'm saying is that, if it becomes a problem in the future, the orca logo doesn't have to be binned.

Besides, I think Xwalacktun's orca is way cooler than the current one, and ownership would be crazy not to use it at some point. The Jets worked with some First Nations artists to do a one-off re-design of their jersey for WASAC Night, and they look beautiful.

3 hours ago, RichMan said:

If I go back to practicing Wing Chun and wear my traditional Jing Mo (kung fu outfit), does that mean I'm appropriating the Asian culture? If I decide to get back into b-boying (break dancing, which I practiced for 20+ years) while I still enjoy my underground Hip Hop, am I trying to be black? If a Haitian woman straightens her hair, is she trying to be white? If a transgender decides to be one or the other opposite sex of what they physically are, does that make them appropriating of the opposite sex?

If practitioners of Wing Chun wear a Jing Mo when doing so, then no, that wouldn't be appropriation (it would be if you didn't practice Wing Chun, and wore a Jing Mo for the aesthetic alone). As I alluded to earlier, break dancing probably isn't appropriation (it might be if you were doing some kind of weird pseudo "break dancing", but still called it break dancing). A black Haitian woman straightening her otherwise curly hair may or may not be appropriation, it would depend on whether or not the specific hair style she is mimicking is one that is culturally significant to another group.

And, in each instance, whether or not that appropriation is problematic is a different question entirely.

Also, let's not conflate transgender people transitioning with cultural appropriation. Firstly, gender identity and expression is not culture. Secondly, nobody "decides" to be transgender. Thirdly, a transgender man is not faking anything by dressing like a man; they are a man, full stop (likewise, for transgender women).

[coopaloop1234]

9 minutes ago, CJ Boiss said:

If the Coast Salish people have no problem with the logo, I see little reason to change it at the moment. All I'm saying is that, if it becomes a problem in the future, the orca logo doesn't have to be binned.

Besides, I think Xwalacktun's orca is way cooler than the current one, and ownership would be crazy not to use it at some point. The Jets worked with some First Nations artists to do a one-off re-design of their jersey for WASAC Night, and they look beautiful.

I mean, if we're being honest here, the Orca needs to go anyways. I've never been a huge fan of it. Spaghetti skate or nothing.

I do like the Xwalacktun orca more as well. Fully dives into the art style.

I had to look up the Jets jerseys as I wasn't too familiar with them. I'll be honest, I don't think they look that great. It looks like someone tossed a poncho on the jet and decorated the circle.

I'm thinking something a bit more stylized would have been neater. But that's solely just a subjective opinion.

[CJ Boiss]

1 hour ago, coopaloop1234 said:

I had to look up the Jets jerseys as I wasn't too familiar with them. I'll be honest, I don't think they look that great. It looks like someone tossed a poncho on the jet and decorated the circle.

I'm thinking something a bit more stylized would have been neater. But that's solely just a subjective opinion.

Manitoba Moose also got a re-design for WASAC night: 

[coopaloop1234]

9 minutes ago, CJ Boiss said:

Manitoba Moose also got a re-design for WASAC night: 

Ok maybe not that stylized.

[raidersgoalie]

As a pure blooded native person, I'm honored for a nhl goalie to wear our heritage. I see no harm in it. He was using to show of his support to the culture. But in this day and age u cant please anybody. If he didn't have a aboriginal homage to the aboriginal people, there would be an uproar also. one fd up world.

[CJ Boiss]

1 hour ago, raidersgoalie said:

...

If he didn't have a aboriginal homage to the aboriginal people, there would be an uproar also. one fd up world.

Nobody would care if Holtby had not used First Nations art on his mask.

See: literally every other goalie in every league.

[MTH]

On 12/16/2020 at 10:04 AM, RichMan said:

If I go back to practicing Wing Chun and wear my traditional Jing Mo (kung fu outfit), does that mean I'm appropriating the Asian culture?

You mean wang chung.