Suddenly there is a bumper crop of Comments of the Day on Ethics Alarms; two more are slated for re-publication today, both in response to Spartan’s provocative opinion that she would leave a gym that allowed white supremacist Richard Spencer work out there, even if he restrained his urge to heil.
First up is Mrs Q, a relatively recent addition to the ethics colloquy here, and one who has distinguished her self quickly for non-nonsense posts of clarity and purpose. Her reference in this post to the “socialist shithole” of Portland was especially timely: yesterday we learned that the city’s social justice warriors had driven a local burrito business to close for the offense of “cultural appropriation.”
Here is Mrs. Q’s Comment of the Day on the post, Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Dunce: Old Town Sport And Health in Alexandria,VA. Why? Because White Nationalists Have A Right To Work Out Too”:
…In my mind I don’t see myself as a quadruple minority. Yes my skin color is brown, I’m a lady married to a lady, work from home due to disability…but I don’t think of myself in terms of “special classes.” I’m probably more like a country conservative old school hippy stuck in a socialist shithole (Portland OR). However how do you think many of the young white liberals here tend to treat me? Well some dismiss me because I don’t agree with their stances. I’m called a traitor or “uncle Tom” by those who speak “anti-racism” because I don’t see myself as a victim & have no problem with people thinking so-called racist thoughts.
But there are also the certain white liberals who do something else just as annoying; they attempt to treat me like some sort of scared animal who should be bestowed with gifts & extra kindness. From literally receiving a minority discount to people falling all over themselves to stay out of my way or smile condescendingly or whatever (it wasn’t like this prior to the Nov. election).
Now let me ask…who is the real racist? Who is the real bigot? Is it the guy in the gym who thinks his thoughts, says what he says in his home or on his website, but treats me personally like everyone else? Or is it the liberal who sees me & assumes I think like they do & rewards me for it, or calls me a race traitor because I don’t think their way?
Personally I’d rather workout by the dude who thinks what he thinks but treats me the same in public than the person who treats me differently in public because of my race, class, etc. I don’t know anyone who isn’t a bigot or jerk about something (including myself) internally. I assume everyone I meet is a hypocrite, bigot, and fails miserably at some category of human decency. I don’t care if their book bag says ” white privilege is real” (I literally saw this yesterday at a taco bar & almost threw up a little) or if they have KKK tattooed on their inner lip, sanctimonious BS is sanctimonious BS, and sanctimonious BS NEVER makes anything better for anyone in the long run.
I like people, even racists, because something special happens when we take down the walls of elitism & virtue signaling. When we let people think what they want but still treat them with common courtesy & respect, even if they don’t reciprocate, we find we have much more in common than we think and there is even brotherly love at times. I once gave a neo-Nazi a quarter for the bus & he smiled…so you just never know.
Ethics Alarms 
Mrs Q,
Your a classy lady; great comment!
For those that missed it in the other thread; I’m whipping out this quote again because I think it reflects some of what Mrs. Q talked about.
There are no chasm walls created so distant by ideologies that are not bridged by the solid foundation of underlying human commonalities that support those ideologies.
Bingo. Well done.
I think certain commenters deserve being recognized as something like “Distinguished Commenters” in the way IBM has their Distinguished Engineers program. Mrs. Q could be the founding member. Members could even be allowed to put a “Q” after their names.
Mrs. Q,
I think that not only do capture the essence of the golden rule perfectly, but nicely sum up what Jesus says after saying the gold rule:
“If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. 35But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. 36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.”
The ultimate problem with virtue signaling is that it helps no one; it only creates problems. Maybe in the same way a crowd of yes man will tell a CEO what they want to hear. If we really want to fix the problems with the country, we need more people willing to reach across the aisle, while not waiting for someone else to do it first.
Hi John. Well you’re very observant as I am a Christian. Probably a terrible one, but I do find much hope in God’s Word.
Let’s keep the faith…no matter what!
Jack,
As much as you despise hip-hop, you’re ripping off the genre: people don’t buy Chance the Rapper’s new album just to hear all the guest the guest appearances.
Your mark has become diluted and is no longer an identifier as to the source of the goods or services.
You trying for Snotty Comment of the Day, Neil? You’ve certainly won it.
Other Bill:
It’s brand advice. Take it however you want.
-Neil
I took it to mean: “Hey Jack, you shouldn’t be lazy and use commenters’ comments as posts. Doing so lowers the quality of your enterprise.” Which snarkily verged on “Don’t be so lazy, Jack. These comments aren’t really worth reposting. You’re screwing up.”
Last I knew, Jack is doing this for free as some sort of very admirable, to the point of mystifying, Quixotic enterprise. Which I, for one, greatly appreciate. I’d suggest as a matter of common courtesy and professionality (if you’re a brand expert) you consider taking your brand advice off line and convey it via an email.
That’s how it read to me, too.
This is a pretty good representation of a very high Cranial Power Generation Potential.
Honestly Neil, I think that comment earned this…
Zoltar:
You’re obviously not an intellectual property attorney.
Neil Dorr wrote, “Zoltar: You’re obviously not an intellectual property attorney.”
Please explain while I hold my breath.
Zoltar: You aren’t, are you? The rest is all gibberish.
That’s not an explanation. Explain why you asked the question.
Zoltar:
It was nonsense. All of it. I (mistakenly) assumed the ridiculous nature of the complaint, the reference to hip-hop, using legal terminology completely out of context, and my tacit acceptance of the A.S.S.H.O.L.E. award would have keyed you in to the fact that I had no real qualms with anything.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
Neil Dorr wrote, “It was nonsense. All of it. I (mistakenly) assumed the ridiculous nature of the complaint, the reference to hip-hop, using legal terminology completely out of context, and my tacit acceptance of the A.S.S.H.O.L.E. award would have keyed you in to the fact that I had no real qualms with anything.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.”
Aha, so now you’re saying that you didn’t mean what you originally wrote even after you tried to justify it in a follow up comment where you stated “It’s brand advice. Take it however you want.”
Nope Neil, I’m not buying it. I think this is a classic example of Jacks 54. The Joke Excuse, or “I was only kidding!”
That seems to be a fair analysis. I honestly don’t know what gets into Neil sometimes, or why. Pazuzu?
Zoltar:
Justify it? “Brand advice” doesn’t make sense in that context. None of it did. It wasn’t a “joke,” nor was I “kidding.” It was just something ridiculous to say that got you to spin your wheels. Thanks for the entertainment.
-Neil
So what? Expertise excuses unprovoked rudeness?
Bill:
No, I never said it did.
1) I don’t despise hip-hop. I despise hip-hop culture.
2) See, this is the kind of comment that makes you seem like a troll. It is just a gratuitous complaint.
3) This is not “Jack Marshall’s edicts on right and wrong.” This is “Jack Marshall uses his expertise and perspective to induce productive debate and discussion on right and wrong.” Commenters contribute to that debate, and take time and effort, or should, to make original and well-reasoned contributions. The COTD is an appropriate way to recognize the participation and the best of the contributions, a well as to incentivize high-level commentary..
4) Almost all of the COTD entries are introduced by or followed by comments and observations by me, and these are usually at least as long as the typical blog post on nationally known blogs.
5. The grand-daddy of all political blogs, Instapundit, typically links to an article by someone else,, with brief commentary by Prof. Reynolds. Nobody has ever accused him of “diluting his brand,’ because he places all such links in his own context.
6.I average slightly more than 2800 words a day, in posts authored by me. If there is a serious blogger who writes more than that, I haven’t found him or her. I also respond to more comments than anyone in the blogosphere with a similar volume of comments.
7. Eugene Volokh is not the only writer on the Volokh Conspiracy. Ken White uses several assistant bloggers on Popehat, and often goes weeks between his own posts. Reynolds has at least four that take over periodically on Instapundit. Jonathan Turley used guest weekend bloggers for years. None of this damaged their “brand,” not should it have, and those other writers were all more autonomous than the Commenters of the Day, which I vet, edit and frame.
8. In short, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
You are correct; all of the above was utter nonsense.
Bravo, Neil.
To which I took the time to compose a substantive response.
Yeah, I was confused. Why did you do that?
Because you had richly deserved Zoltar’s reward and Jack made the mistake of thinking that you were actually a sincere participant. Rather than a troll.
I don’t know. I’m lured by the rhetoric, but it seems rather facile. The search for the “real bigot”, which apparently can only be unequivocally be occupied by those on the Left and minorities, continues.
I think there is a wide gulf between those who hold on to their bigotry in the privacy of their thoughts, and those who proudly and publicly urge the destruction and removal of minorities from society. It’s the Strom Thurmond version of racism. He might deign to treat “his” help and random strangers with politeness (and may even have sex with them, and treat the resulting progeny well), but also try to enact policies that cause irreparable harm to that community on the whole. To only focus on someone’s personal interactions, without stepping back to look at the macro picture, seems incredibly short-sighted. I’m sure some Nazis were very polite to their Jewish neighbors, yet still, politely no doubt, enacted policies that led to their wholesale slaughter.
The Tutsi survivors of genocide often remarked about how nice their Hutu neighbors were, and how unbelievable and unthinkable it was that those same smiling, polite neighbors thought nothing of stepping aside and allowing them to be killed, or killing them themselves. Genocides (ethnic cleansings) don’t appear out of thin air. They begin with ideas, and then are furthered by people who take up the cause.
We aren’t talking about mind reading machines that take people’s personal thoughts without their consent. When you spread bigotry, when you urge genocide, when you proudly proclaim the tenets of racial supremacy, then you are you are no longer worthy of my courtesy or respect. You obviously don’t respect other people’s humanity, but still demand respect for your own humanity? No. And the lack respect for the neo-Nazi is an entirely rational and foreseeable consequence of failing to respect other people. You reap what you sow. So the Nazi smiled at her when she let him borrow a quarter. I think that same Nazi will smile even broader when his ideological brothers he elects to power enact policies that restrict Ms. Q’s freedom to be with her beloved, to hold a job, to have insurance, to live. It has happened before, time and again. And “politely” ignoring someone’s racism that they themselves take care to advertise, as if it’s a lingering fart in a room, does nothing but help it grow unchallenged.
The
Well said, and in my opinion, this should also be a Comment of the Day.
“I’m sure some Nazis were very polite to their Jewish neighbors, yet still, politely no doubt, enacted policies that led to their wholesale slaughter.”
But there you abandon the issue, which is people who may have bigoted thoughts and desires, but who do not act on them and behave ethically. Someone who says one thing to be polite and acts unethically is entirely different, and not part of the discussion.
But there you abandon the issue, which is people who may have bigoted thoughts and desires, but who do not act on them and behave ethically. Someone who says one thing to be polite and acts unethically is entirely different, and not part of the discussion.
I don’t abandon the issue. People have the luxury of their bigoted thoughts. But one ceases to enjoy that once they proclaim their bigoted thoughts to the world, and going one step beyond that, urging that the bigoted thoughts be made into policies and treatments that will profoundly affect other people’s lives, liberties, and freedoms. Those aren’t thoughts, those are actions, and it is only other people’s actions that prevent such things from being enacted. I don’t consider urging that entire groups of people be eliminated as “behaving ethically”, but some see it as a mere thought exercise, rather than the necessary prelude. I think trying to persuade people to do unethical, immoral things is an action that is, in and of itself, immoral and unethical.
But there you abandon the issue, which is people who may have bigoted thoughts and desires, but who do not act on them and behave ethically. Someone who says one thing to be polite and acts unethically is entirely different, and not part of the discussion.
If they do not act on their bigoted thoughts and desires, how would anyone know that they are bigoted? I don’t think Deery is dodging the issue, he’s addressing the only part of the issue that can actually be observed and evaluated.
They speak them, write them, tell colleagues about them. Spencer speaks them. Is there any evidence that he actually has discriminated against anyone?
Well, he singles out different racial and ethnic groups and urges that they all be treated worse in society, and tries to enact policies that bring this about, so I think that should qualify as discrimination.
Or is it only discrimination if I personally deny you a sandwich based on your race, rather than working tirelessly to make sure that you can never get served a sandwich based on your race at any point, anywhere, by anyone? Like I noted in my original post, that seems to be a very micro, isolated way of looking at discrimination.
They speak them, write them, tell colleagues about them.
Speaking, writing, and telling colleagues that blacks should be segregated from whites and that evil Jews control the world is “behaving ethically” to you? It isn’t “acting on” their bigoted beliefs? Good god.
Spencer speaks them. Is there any evidence that he actually has discriminated against anyone?
Is there any evidence that Joseph Goebbels ever personally discriminated against anyone?
Hi Deery. I love that word facile! Such a fancy way to note something that’s easy and cheap. Words certainly can be easy & cheap & I have no doubt mine can be too. However I want to make sure I understand the end of your 1st paragraph where you say “which apparently can only be unequivocally occupied by those on the Left and minorities, continues.” Are you implying I implied that the only “real bigot(s)” (I’m quoting your quote) are the left & minorities? I want to clarify your meaning before I respond to that.
You’re right that comprehending and responding to an issue requires looking at macro and micro events. I don’t believe I insinuated that there is only one way to view this issue or that it should be only looked at through micro or personal interactions. If I did say that, could you point out where? Bringing up the micro/macro aspect seems besides the point, distracting, and serving to only attempt to discredit the writer (me) without actually addressing I actually said. The giveaway in that paragraph is “seems incredibly short-sighted” which acts as a slight or insult in conversation.
Should I deem that potential insult as a racist act? Are you negating my experience and intelligence because of my race? If I was looking for a fight, for war, for hate, I could certainly pursue such a possible affront to my character. I could definitely come up to you in a gym and give you the what for and I bet plenty of certain liberals would support me blindly. Especially if you’re insinuating things I didn’t say or discounting my words. But I know that’s not what you were doing. I believe in your good heart.
You’re also right that most contemplative people recognize there’s a chasm between prejudiced thought vs. acting out on it. Bringing up Mr. Thurmond, Nazism, and the Rwandan genocide strikes me as an attempt to hit a visual nerve with extreme examples in order to appeal to the readers fear. This leads me to want to ask you…are you scared Deery? If so, what are you most afraid of? Are you concerned that our country will experience greater violence and even terror if we allow some (white) people to proclaim their racialized sense of superiority?
Are you afraid of the violence that lurks beneath the skin of the bigot and where it will lead? If so, I say look in the mirror. I’m a bigot, you’re a bigot, and we all have groups of folks we feel superior to and could “go off on” in the right circumstances if our passions are stirred to the brink. No one is exempt from anger and fear and prejudice. Why would I dehumanize someone who is guilty of dehumanization just like me? Revenge doesn’t solve revenge. By saying ” You reap what you sow” as you did, you are also advocating for a type of violence. We assume the wolf is about to bite so we bite first. Where does this get us? When will the tables be turned enough to satisfy a vicious thirst for *a kind* of justice, fairness, tolerance, and so-called peace?
To me a more striking and applicable example comparing Nazism to today was the boycott of Jewish businesses. Much like boycotting gyms where racists work out or restaurants that serve Mexican food but are owned by whites, we’re seeing a version of Germany in the early 30’s. Here’s a report from a German officer in Dortmund 1935:
“Not only did the boycott limit itself to avoidance of Jewish businesses. It also manifested itself in numerous attacks directed against Jewish shops, whose show windows were defaced with slogans or smashed in. In many instances, customers were photographed or publically denounced in some other manner.” -From Boycott to Annihilation by Avraham Barkai
As you may know Deery, currently were experiencing in Portland something pretty similar to the above paragraph. The folks doing the boycotting, the window smashing, the intimidating, and denouncing are currently what we’d call lefties or socialists (please don’t read into that I mean only lefty people do such things, I’m simply pointing out the reality of who is behind such events in Portland and around the country at this current time).
When grudge lists emerge noting people and places that should be avoided because we think we know *how* they think, when businesses feel they must put political signs on their doors to signify solidarity with a movement or keep from being attacked, when windows are smashed, when we feel we must only go to certain places that have certain people, we have indeed bigotry as well as authoritarianism. I think of Vaclav Havel’s Green Grocer story.
It’s facile to point a finger. To feign being above someone else’s ideological crimes is cheap and easy. It’s easy to hate and get revenge too. The world’s history as you pointed out, repeats patterns of one culture or peoples invading or getting revenge against another’s. And the hard and scary truth is that is never going to change for as long as there are people, there will be crimes against other people. This doesn’t mean we do nothing as implied by using the terms “”politely” ignoring”, as you did Deery. It also doesn’t mean we become like the people we claim are so horrible, which is also cheap & easy.
Loving is just about the hardest thing to do. You have to be brave, able to take the verbal blows, and willing to try over and over to practice true peace, not false peace. It’s a devastating journey filled with heartbreak, disappointment, and an awakening to the coldest of hearts. Hate is much easier. It gives a sense of superiority (I’m not a racial sinner but you are) and pacifies fear temporarily. Love instead doesn’t politely ignore. Love boldly goes into the unknown and the darkness to see the soul of the sinner. It doesn’t mean signing off on what’s wrong but being willing to keep these words in mind:
“We proclaim our devotion to democracy, but we sadly practice the very opposite of the democratic creed. We talk passionately about peace, and at the same time we assiduously prepare for war. We make our fervent pleas for the high road of justice, and then we tread unflinchingly the low road of injustice.”
“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.” -The Strength to Love by Martin Luther King jr.
Thanks for your time Deery. Appreciate all the food for thought. Oh and BTW just for fun, check out 2 books. Boycott Divestment Sanctions by Omar Barghouti and The Case Against Academic Boycotts of Israel by Cary Nelson. Very eye opening and if you catch on, very concerning, if your willing to see it. Also here’s some links for your viewing pleasure.
https://bdsmovement.net/get-involved/what-to-boycott
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JJuHMuAeuHxy-c4nyp6NLghhrCdZYO7I5kDGSt22Ie8/htmlview
http://www.racistsandwich.com/pocdirectory/
Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Mrs. Q.
However I want to make sure I understand the end of your 1st paragraph where you say “which apparently can only be unequivocally occupied by those on the Left and minorities, continues.” Are you implying I implied that the only “real bigot(s)” (I’m quoting your quote) are the left & minorities? I want to clarify your meaning before I respond to that.
It wasn’t directed to you specifically, but against a prevalent trope here and elsewhere that anyone accusing whites of racism(or men of sexism) must present extraordinary evidence and apparent mind-reading abilities. The “real” racism (or sexism) as everyone knows, is really against the beleaguered white male, who still only controls most of the levers of power in society. No extraordinary evidence needed for them.
Should I deem that potential insult as a racist act? Are you negating my experience and intelligence because of my race? If I was looking for a fight, for war, for hate, I could certainly pursue such a possible affront to my character. I could definitely come up to you in a gym and give you the what for and I bet plenty of certain liberals would support me blindly. Especially if you’re insinuating things I didn’t say or discounting my words. But I know that’s not what you were doing. I believe in your good heart.
I think any liberal onlooker would be very confused, and I will leave it at that.
You’re also right that most contemplative people recognize there’s a chasm between prejudiced thought vs. acting out on it. Bringing up Mr. Thurmond, Nazism, and the Rwandan genocide strikes me as an attempt to hit a visual nerve with extreme examples in order to appeal to the readers fear. This leads me to want to ask you…are you scared Deery? If so, what are you most afraid of? Are you concerned that our country will experience greater violence and even terror if we allow some (white) people to proclaim their racialized sense of superiority?
I bring up these extreme examples because that is exactly what Spencer and his ilk are advocating. What do think “ethnic cleansing ” entails? We aren’t talking about differences in tax policy here. And the last time white people expressed interest in policies that reflected their racial superiority, we ended up with mass genocide, 250 years of white people literally owning other people, and another 150+ years of an explicit racial caste system, that only formally ended within the lifetime of many people here. Why shouldn’t people be afraid of that?
I speak not of vengeance. But anyone who proudly proclaims they want a return to that past should be shunned, and certainly will get shunned by me. I have no smiles for Nazis, and I give them no comfort, and no quarter. I don’t think they should be censored by the government under our free speech laws, but I don’t give them any platform, and no reason to believe and become embolyby my silence. If they prescribe for other people to suffer, fine. But not seeing the irony of wanting a place where they don’t have to have their own words, words they went out of their way to publicize, following them, is rather galling. This isn’t mere “thoughts”, this is action. Spencer is the head of a movement which dehumanizes you on several different levels and calls for you and the people you love to be eliminated. You may be comfortable smiling at him, working next to him, giving him money while he works for you to destroyed. I would not be. I don’t think it is unethical to avoid such people. I don’t think it is unethical for certain types of businesses to avoid interacting with him. Sometimes silence and lack of action is unethical.
Deery as I said love is not a lack of action. Have you tried attempting to befriend someone whose thoughts you may abhor? I have many a time & yes sometimes it ends up difficult or painful, but sometimes looking someone in the eye…really & truly…changes hearts in ways I just can’t explain here.
That being said I extend to you the same invitation I gave to Humble Talent. If you come to Portland I’d love to buy you a beer & bake you something my Czech grandma taught me. I bet we’d have a fun time agreeing, disagreeing, and learning how to love moment to moment.
“I’m probably more like a country conservative old school hippy stuck in a socialist shithole (Portland OR).”
I hear you have food trucks so good the lefties ran them out of town. Love to hear your opinion.
Hi Humble Talent. Well like I said, I feel stuck here with all the anger and spite that those of us over 30 are becoming concerned by. When I moved to PDX in the 90’s the city was all about art, craft, fun, and yes, weirdness but the quirky kind – not the all whites must pledge allegiance to appropriation ideology – kind. I swear that show Portlandia killed the soul of this place. There’s so many stores and homes that have banners/signs displaying political allegiances that’s it’s hard to go somewhere in town & not be proselytized to about politics. This has become an intolerant place & if it weren’t for the amazing clients I have, I’d left here long ago.
Thanks for the question. Now it’s your turn HT. What do you think?
See… I don’t live in Portland, but that food truck “cultural appropriation” thing that’s making the rounds annoys the living bejesus out of me. If people are so worried about illegitimately appropriating other people’s food cultures, then please feel free to send me a dollar in reparation every time you eat a perogy.
I do however live in Canada, which is kinda like Portland-Light. And generally…. I’m OK with it. Our current PM is moderately embarassing, and we pass policies that make my head spin every now and again (Bill C-16), but our courts are fair and SCOC usually fixes them. Really… Canadian politics are dull, and while that might make for a better country, I often feel like Tiny Tim fogging glass to a scene I’d like to be part of.
For what it’s worth, most liberals I have seen comment on that particular “cultural appropriation” story have agreed that it’s absolutely ridiculous.
Good to hear, Chris.
As are all cultural appropriation stories.
Disagree. There are disrespectful, respectful, and neutral ways of engaging with another culture. Cooking food from another culture is obviously neutral. Something like the portrayal of Indians in Disney’s “Peter Pan” is obviously disrespectful, and can correctly be called “cultural appropriation,” while a more accurate portrayal by a white author would be respectful. A white kid dressing as a particular character from Moana would not be disrespectful, but putting on a sombrero and going as “a Mexican” would be disrespectful and cultural appropriation.
Most social justice concepts do have some practical applicability, but as many proponents of social justice are young and over-eager, these concepts are also easily abused.
You’re using a version of cultural appropriation that isn’t what the controversy is about. The Indians in Peter Pan is just pure racist stereotyping. What’s appropriated? The SJW’s claim that white people shouldn’t do yoga, and serving General Tso’s chicken is offensive, that white can’t wear dreadlocks, and non-jews can’t wear Hebrew symbols, while an Italian-American can’t wear a fez.
Hmmm…. Interesting.
So, can you put into words what you think of as the difference between the kinds of things you would call inappropriate cultural appropriation and things that are racist stereotypes? And if there is no material difference, why have two terms for it?
Stereotypes can be nothing but beliefs or comments, whereas the examples of cultural appropriation I mentioned involve taking stereotypes of another culture and inhabiting them in some way–portraying a group stereotypically in a movie, or wearing a racist costume. But I’m still working through the concept.
None of which is cultural appropriation.
“Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of the elements of one culture by members of another culture.[1] Cultural appropriation is sometimes portrayed as harmful and is claimed to be a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating culture. Often unavoidable when multiple cultures come together, cultural appropriation can include using other cultures’ traditions, fashion, symbols, language, and cultural songs without permission.[6] According to critics of the practice, cultural (mis)appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or cultural exchange in that the “appropriation” or “misappropriation” refers to the adoption of these cultural elements in a colonial manner: elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of representatives of the originating culture,”
Going back to my original statement, the concept is garbage because the intellectual property argument is garbage. All cultural practices, symbols, products, traditions and activities are truly in the public domain, and can be borrowed, adapted, or otherwise used by anyone, any group, anywhere, for any purpose, completely freely and without legitimate interference. Jews can celebrate Christmas. Whites can play jazz. Blacks can straighten their hair and dye it blonde. I can wear a dashiki. My sister can get a Maori face tattoo. An Iranian can clog dance.
Jews can celebrate Christmas. Whites can play jazz. Blacks can straighten their hair and dye it blonde. I can wear a dashiki. My sister can get a Maori face tattoo. An Iranian can clog dance.
Certainly.
What about religious symbols? Is it wise for an atheist to go around wearing a cross necklace? How about for a Muslim to wear a Star of David?
I think there are lines of appropriate and inappropriate. The only example you brought up that I think pushes the line is you in a dashiki, though I can’t articulate why at the moment.
“What about religious symbols? Is it wise for an atheist to go around wearing a cross necklace? How about for a Muslim to wear a Star of David?”
I don’t know why they’d want to… and one of them might be killed for it…. But sure? That seems like a really odd question.
Your buddy Barry, even as he decried the instance, linked on his Twitter to one of the most cringey reads I’ve ever had the pleasure to laugh at, which I will now share with everyone:
http://uproxx.com/life/cultural-appropriation-food-chefs/
Humble Talent if you ever visit Portland let me know & I’ll buy you a beer & make Kolaches. My Czech grandma made the best but mine are pretty good. Have a great weekend.
Again thanks Jack! Dear friends I’ll take my time responding to comments on this thread because I want to chew on every word & think before I post. Thanks in advance for patience.
Thank you to Zoltar Speaks!, Other Bill, Tex, & Slickwilly for your kind responses. Also thank you Neil, Deery, and Chris for keeping me humble.
Congrats, my lady!
I enjoy your comments always, Mrs.Q, and this one was especially good.
Often, Teachers are made the scapegoat; Mainly due to the lack of support and respect they receive.
You get what you pay for.