Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in

Latest Site News

Theme Catchup2018 - posted on 1st May 2018 at 1:50 PM
Replies: 128 (Who?), Viewed: 54647 times.
Page 3 of 6
Instructor
#51 Old 28th Sep 2015 at 2:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Your explanation hinges on the idea that in your theoretical area, there is no longer discrimination against the small group.


Perhaps not the best phrasing on my part, but that is the definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/bro...+discrimination I meant was once WIDELY discriminated against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
That's because in this society, minorities are typically shown that they should be ashamed of their ethnicity. Hell, I once saw a caucasian friend of mine in elementary school mocked and called names because she came back with a tan that made her look like a minority. "Proud to be X" is a means of combating that, because it's the opposite of shame.

"Proud to be White", on the other hand, is stupid. It's because white people are equating centuries of dehumanization and an ongoing institutional racism with our experience of not being as far above the "brown people" as we used to be.
POC: We're still having trouble getting recognized as equals, but we're continuing to fight and to develop our own culture despite being looked down on. Let's not bow down to pressure, and let's be who we are!
White people: We can't appropriate a catchphrase, even though 'White Power' has traditionally been associated with Nazis and the KKK who kill non-white people, so that must mean we're being persecuted! D: *sheds single manly tear*


I just don't see how anyone can be proud of something that's not an accomplishment. Reread my comment. I'm not saying white people should say they're proud to be white and I'm certainly not saying discrimination based on anything is okay.

Off-topic: I can understand the agrees on my comment and I can understand the disagrees, but who on Earth thinks it's funny?!
Top Secret Researcher
#52 Old 28th Sep 2015 at 3:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeman101
Perhaps not the best phrasing on my part, but that is the definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/bro...+discrimination I meant was once WIDELY discriminated against.


Okay. And what do you consider 'not widely discriminated against'? I mean, that phrase comes from the 1965-1970, according to that site. 1965 was the year the federal government finally stepped in and stopped people from refusing to let black people use the voting booths, or threatening to beat up or kill the black people who did vote.

Methinks the people who invented that phrase were more annoyed at steps toward equality than about 'preferential behavior'.

And again, what country are you living in if you think widespread discrimination is gone? Judging by your buzzwords, I'm assuming US. Well, the US currently has preschoolers suspended and expelled just for being black. Not kidding. 18% of preschoolers are black. Nearly half of all preschoolers suspended are black. Something is very wrong there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeman101
I just don't see how anyone can be proud of something that's not an accomplishment. Reread my comment. I'm not saying white people should say they're proud to be white and I'm certainly not saying discrimination based on anything is okay.


Yeah, and I was trying to explain why the pride movements exist. Reread my comment.

Pride doesn't necessarily mean that you accomplished anything. From the dictionary:
Noun:
pride ‎(countable and uncountable, plural prides):
2. A sense of one's own worth.

Gay pride is the idea that gay or queer people are worth the same as all the straight cissexuals. Black pride is the idea that black people are worth the same as white people. And so on.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Instructor
#53 Old 28th Sep 2015 at 1:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
And again, what country are you living in if you think widespread discrimination is gone? Judging by your buzzwords, I'm assuming US. Well, the US currently has preschoolers suspended and expelled just for being black. Not kidding. 18% of preschoolers are black. Nearly half of all preschoolers suspended are black. Something is very wrong there.


1) Canada.
2) That's really weird. What could preschoolers even do that warrants expulsion? Steal someone's sippy cup?

One last paraphrase, since semantics apparently play a huge role in debate: "institutionalized discrimination."

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Pride doesn't necessarily mean that you accomplished anything. From the dictionary:
Noun:
pride ‎(countable and uncountable, plural prides):
2. A sense of one's own worth.


Hmm... wasn't aware that there was a second definition. I've always been told pride should come from accomplishment. In that case, fair point.
Alchemist
#54 Old 29th Sep 2015 at 4:26 AM
Racism and reverse racism are tough to talk about, but the fact of the matter is no one is immune to discrimination.

My parents (both white) are dealing with a problem my mother deals with on regular occasion: We live in a heavily Korean area. The Koreans that come into her store are the type to threaten to get her fired.

It is disheartening to see my mother unhappy because false accusations could actually mean her job is terminated and that is bad, considering she is the breadwinner while my dad is learning the ropes of being a chef.

I'm not a representative of my family, but my family doesn't like anyone falsely accusing them

"There are some obstacles that cannot be removed with a mere show of force."
-King of Atlantis, as portrayed by Leonard Nimoy, Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Top Secret Researcher
#55 Old 29th Sep 2015 at 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PANDAQUEEN
Racism and reverse racism are tough to talk about, but the fact of the matter is no one is immune to discrimination.

My parents (both white) are dealing with a problem my mother deals with on regular occasion: We live in a heavily Korean area. The Koreans that come into her store are the type to threaten to get her fired.


But isn't that just an example of people being rude customers? Just because the bad behaviour is coming from someone of a different race doesn't mean it is discrimination. They might do the same thing if your mother was Korean.

I wouldn't put a lot of effort into getting it transported.
Alchemist
#56 Old 2nd Oct 2015 at 4:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by simbalena
But isn't that just an example of people being rude customers? Just because the bad behaviour is coming from someone of a different race doesn't mean it is discrimination. They might do the same thing if your mother was Korean.


Where I live, the Korean population has, more or less projected an air of superiority. When going to H-mart, a primarily Korean market to stock up on green onions, my father is stared at and I can feel this uneasy energy that I used to feel when dealing with the kids in junior high and it was a panic-induced feeling.

Elitism is another part of the issue. In the Pacific Northwest, Scandinavians are the major white population, but as far as I remembered, there weren't any hostilities.

My experience with people leaves me scared, so people watching is just something that makes me flip out

"There are some obstacles that cannot be removed with a mere show of force."
-King of Atlantis, as portrayed by Leonard Nimoy, Atlantis: The Lost Empire
Top Secret Researcher
#57 Old 2nd Oct 2015 at 10:19 PM Last edited by hugbug993 : 2nd Oct 2015 at 10:39 PM.
...So you feel like the Asian people feel like they're superior to you and you get uneasy around them, but the white people are perfectly fine?

What you're describing doesn't sound all that unusual. During my brief foray into customer service and mental instability, I had all kinds of customers threaten to call corporate on me because they were idiots and ordered the wrong thing. There was one case where a man (caucasian) gave his kids a cup he didn't pay for, they spilled the drink on the floor, and he blamed me for it and threatened to have me fired. Granted, this wasn't as big a deal after I started getting a manager the second a customer had a problem, but the people who did it were fairly proportional to the mix of races in the area.

And the staring thing sounds more like they're going "Oh, hey, something you don't see every day! Wonder why he's here?" (or maybe they're even worried that he'll cause a scene) while you're going "Oh no, they're watching me. Watching is a sign of attack. Will they attack me?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeman101
1) Canada.
2) That's really weird. What could preschoolers even do that warrants expulsion? Steal someone's sippy cup?

One last paraphrase, since semantics apparently play a huge role in debate: "institutionalized discrimination."


Small children are tiny sociopaths. Of course they can get into a lot of trouble.

And again, our countries still have a problem with institutionalized discrimination. Even in your country, black people are more likely to be punished for minor things that the police will ignore for white people. (Remember that one Twitter hashtag about white people who got away with crimes that a black person wouldn't have? Canadian users were chiming in, too.) Universities will often turn away minorities in favor of white people, schools in predominantly minority areas will get less funding and worse supplies and teachers, and they're more likely to expel black students for something that a white student can get away with, no problem. Civil improvement programs focus more on predominantly white areas.
Take a look at the statistics, if you dare, and tell me that there is no institutional discrimination.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Field Researcher
#58 Old 12th Oct 2015 at 12:43 AM
Of course white people can experience racism. It's just that certain forms of racism are less common than others. But to simply say that racism against white people doesn't exist is just dishonest, unhelpful and counterproductive. Ignoring an issue or pretending it doesn't exist doesn't solve any problems. It just makes you an inconsiderate asshole.
Field Researcher
#59 Old 11th Mar 2016 at 8:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
Of course white people can experience racism. It's just that certain forms of racism are less common than others. But to simply say that racism against white people doesn't exist is just dishonest, unhelpful and counterproductive. Ignoring an issue or pretending it doesn't exist doesn't solve any problems. It just makes you an inconsiderate asshole.


How is racism against white people not common? Whites now their place in the world,teaching themselves self-hate and abnormal guilt/respect towards the Jewish,Muslim or the black person. White people know instinctively they are evil by nature and hence must repent. How is that not racist?

"The only reason people get lost in thought is because it's unfamiliar territory. "
Alchemist
#60 Old 12th Mar 2016 at 2:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sayyadina
towards the Muslim

Unlike the Jewish or the Copts, Muslim is not an ethnic-religious group, it is a title given to people that are adherent followers of a religion based on the Qurʾān (Islam predominantly) and so therefor a person cannot be racist towards Muslims.

Quote:
"Towards the end of any culture, you have the second or third generation that steps into the culture, which is so far from the origination, it's the impression of what's real, but it's not the full definition of what's real. It's just cheesy. [emphasis added]" (Lyle Owerko, 2010)
Theorist
#61 Old 13th Mar 2016 at 4:07 AM
Well they can, but mostly just because racists are often idiots who imagine that all the world's Muslims are Middle Eastern. Jerks aren't known for brains.
Test Subject
#62 Old 21st Mar 2016 at 10:15 AM
No, I am currently in a class focused on Race and Ethnicity, taught by a white man and learned from a "white" woman. I have come the realization that we as "whites" experience prejudice, as racism must have a systematic basis to be true to form. In America, we do not see this. Our Black/African-Descended live with constant struggle due to the system that we as a country permit to continue. To imagine the "white" experience to the experience of day to day racism that our minorities see and feel is harmful to both them and ourselves as a country. That is why we should all appreciate the Sims, the game permits us to exist in a world that does not include the horrors of this one. I do not mean to insult others, we all must learn to destroy racism, I only hope to inform other of the information I am privileged to understand.
Inventor
#63 Old 30th Mar 2016 at 6:05 PM Last edited by Nemiga : 30th Mar 2016 at 6:52 PM.
Of course they can.

Le example
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=37e_1459243157

That's what I call double standart "tolerance".

Also, I see this in sims community too, when blog or tumblr owner post pics with white sims having dreadlocks or other ethnic hair, they receive a lot of hate and threats. Seriously some people are really fucked up.....
Field Researcher
#64 Old 31st Mar 2016 at 3:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nemiga
Also, I see this in sims community too, when blog or tumblr owner post pics with white sims having dreadlocks or other ethnic hair, they receive a lot of hate and threats. Seriously some people are really fucked up.....


That's because ~cultural appropriation~ is constantly being disguised as cultural appreciation within the community. I don't agree with the hate or threats but in real life black people with locs face expulsion from school, being fired from work, unwarranted discrimination & a myriad of other issues and yet when white people do it it's either a trendy fashion statement or they're being *alternative* - either way they don't face the same issues as black people do. Certainly not on the same level (because of institutional racism & injustice & all that jazz.)

So of course there's some anger when you take something like locs or henna or Native American headdresses and strip them of all cultural significance for a trendy Sim lookbook. Your fashion statement is someone's culture. It informs the knowledge of who they are as a person. It is the context in which they exist and it connects them to their history and legacy. It doesn't belong to you so why take it?

There is a difference between appreciation and appropriation. What we see daily is appropriation.

Queen of the Land of Typos.

Check out my simblr .
Theorist
#65 Old 31st Mar 2016 at 5:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaeShelle
It doesn't belong to you so why take it?

There is a difference between appreciation and appropriation. What we see daily is appropriation.


Here's where I get off the bus: Ideas, notions, even treasured cultural bits? They don't "belong" to anyone or even any given group. Ideas are not possessions, if you think your identity depends on some cultural tic what you're getting off on is a false sense of possessing something that simply doesn't work that way. If you're not Asian are you stealing, misappropriating some sort of vital bit of identity when you make eggrolls? Am I intrinsically disrespecting Germans by wearing lederhosen, or Scots if I wear a kilt? What makes you so special that your cultural bits are somehow off limits? There's no appropriation of ideas, ideas are only shared. That's why we've had to invent special legal rules protecting certain kinds of ideas like music and books. In their natural state they are ethereal and transitory, no owns your notions of cultural specificity -no more than anyone is obliged to derive their identity from that culture. You are not your dreds.
Field Researcher
#66 Old 1st Apr 2016 at 3:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
Here's where I get off the bus: Ideas, notions, even treasured cultural bits? They don't "belong" to anyone or even any given group. Ideas are not possessions, if you think your identity depends on some cultural tic what you're getting off on is a false sense of possessing something that simply doesn't work that way.


Ideas are possessions in certain contexts. That context generally depends upon a certain level of specificity. Music is not a possession. The genre of love songs is not a possession. One specific love song by a specific artist? That's a possession. That song belongs to them. That same manner of thinking can be extended to culture. Culture in and of itself is not a possession. (And no one is claiming that it is.) General things, like hand bags or tattoos or hairstyles are not possessions. (And no one is claiming that it is.) But specific hand bags or tattoos or hairstyles that have specific cultural significance and were created by specific cultures are possessions.

Why? Because these things did not simply come into being, as general ideas might. They came into being because they were created by a specific culture. They are things uniquely developed among a group of people which makes them theirs. If you are truly going to argue that, you are arguing against a major piece of the way we understand history, especially ancient history. Ever been to a museum? You would be hard pressed to find an exhibit on a group of people that did not consider aspects like their clothing, art, symbols, what have you to be theirs. For example, one may ask "Well, why is the Kente cloth considered to belong to the Ashanti/Akan people?" Because even if they did not create the idea of cloth or the idea of using cloth for the reasons that they used it for, they created Kente cloth. It is specific to them and has been since it's inception. So it is theirs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
If you're not Asian are you stealing, misappropriating some sort of vital bit of identity when you make eggrolls? Am I intrinsically disrespecting Germans by wearing lederhosen, or Scots if I wear a kilt?


Of course not. When did I make that argument?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook
What makes you so special that your cultural bits are somehow off limits? There's no appropriation of ideas, ideas are only shared. That's why we've had to invent special legal rules protecting certain kinds of ideas like music and books. In their natural state they are ethereal and transitory, no owns your notions of cultural specificity -no more than anyone is obliged to derive their identity from that culture. You are not your dreds.


I think the issue is that you're confusing ideas with culture. They're not the same thing. I actually don't understand what your point is here - my culture is not off limits because ideas can be shared? An idea is a thought or suggestion where culture is something that is manifested through time, it is the characteristics and knowledge of a certain group of people and it encompasses everything they have created. (That definition is incredibly simply put, obviously) There is no correlation. Furthermore, the fact that no one owns the notion of cultural specificity does not remove the existence of cultural specificity itself.

No one is obliged to derive their identity from a specific culture? I never said that they were. However, it's naive to imply that someone's identity is not informed by their culture. And of course I am not my (non-existent) locs, it's impossible for me to be hair.

Queen of the Land of Typos.

Check out my simblr .
Field Researcher
#67 Old 13th Apr 2016 at 6:04 PM
Basically the "cultural appropriation" outcry goes as so: A tells B that B can not be like A because C discriminates A and not B.

See the flaw here? It's C that is the problem. Not B. Instead of demonizing people who just likes an element of a culture, how about attacking the source of the problem? Those who _do_ use a double standard when it comes to these things, e.g. not allowing a black person to wear their dreadlocks at work but allowing a white person to do the same. Criticize THEM. Not those who are just lucky to avoid unfair treatment. Just because you get unfair treatment it doesn't mean someone else deserves it too, or that they should be ashamed for not receiving the unfair treatment? Two wrongs don't make a right.

I have been extensively reading about cultural appropriation to try to understand the argument but it always falls under scrutiny.
Top Secret Researcher
#68 Old 14th Apr 2016 at 4:31 AM
Your "simplification" fails, because it assumes C - the authorities from the majority population - is the source of the problem. They're not. Where, exactly, do you think C comes from or gets the idea that it's okay to discriminate? From B - the majority population.

When people think something is okay, they always had to get the idea it was okay from somewhere. Any time you see something extreme in a society, there is always something in the larger society that will back it up. Guy shoots a woman for refusing to date him? Go online and you can see tons of people lambasting women for not dating the "nice guy", some even going so far as to say that they should be raped. There is a cultural expectation that being a "nice guy" earns you women. When women don't perform to expectations, that means that she is breaking the "cultural norm" and not giving him what he thinks he deserves. That makes her a "bad person". And we're told it's okay to shoot the bad guys.
In this case, the problem is that one person thought it was okay to kill a woman for turning him down, but he had to get that idea from somewhere. That somewhere is the underlying premise that men "deserve" women for certain actions. Getting rid of the person who caused that problem will not solve the underlying problem, because it only addresses extreme actions.

Going back to the cultural appropriation, telling the authorities that it's wrong to discriminate will not solve the larger problem: that enough people think it's okay to discriminate that the authorities feel comfortable doing so. Sure, going after the authorities will solve the extreme, obvious problems, but the only reason they think it's fine is because there is racism in our society. C only exists because B is supporting it. Maybe C goes a little farther than B normally would, but B clearly isn't telling them to knock it off.

You're also talking about a problem which is a lot older than just white people wanting to wear dreadlocks. Sure, one person wants that hairstyle and can't have it. That sounds demonizing enough to the black people, right? However, the country that is having most of these problems is the United States. Over here, there is a long, long history of appropriating black culture. Ever heard of blackface? It was a way for white performers to dress up as black people and play stereotypes for the amusement of the crowd - dehumanizing the black people. This only happened in the United States. If you go to some other countries, it's fine there, because it doesn't have the same history and context.
Oh, and there were instances where doctors stole African American bodies for scientific research, or performed (sometimes deadly) scientific experiments on them in the guise of medical treatment.
There are a ton of other examples that are less extreme: music genres, recipes, even quiltmaking techniques. All of these were given white faces and sold off. The white people who took it made a ton of money. The black people who developed it got nothing, just because their race didn't make it palatable enough for the majority.

When you're talking about dreadlocks, you're not talking about one hairstyle and the meanies who won't share it. This is number 64 in the Connect the Dots pattern. There is a big cultural context behind this, from the underlying racism in society to the history of appropriation, that you probably won't understand if your only exposure to it has been complaining about the perceived double standard.

Now, all of this is just one example. Generally speaking, the instances people will complain about fall under at least one of the following categories:
1. They follow a history of appropriation (as seen above)
2. The appropriation promotes negative stereotypes or dehumanizes the culture (like the blackface minstrel shows)
3. There is an important cultural context behind what is taken, which is missing in the appropriation (like yoga, which was originally a religious experience and was stripped of that to fit "spirituality" and to make money for white people)
4. It makes money off of the appropriation without crediting or benefiting the originators
5. It harms the culture it came from (for both 4 and 5, like how Stephenie Meyer made money off of the Quileutes and all they got for it was a reservation trashed by Twilight fans)

I doubt most of the people who do these things, even actively harm other people, intend to be malicious. But the thing is, there is one premise that causes all of this: that people feel like their desire to have something is less important than what other people feel about it. They're told that it's fine to take things from other people, because those other people are lesser. It's fine to have a baseball team named after a racial slur, because nobody cares about the people who were called that. That kind of attitude needs to be challenged, because it leads to worse problems, like interracial violence (and most of the countries accused of appropriation also have higher rates of that). Getting rid of the small stuff and forcing people to get rid of that mindset prevents the big stuff.

Not all examples of borrowing something from another culture are appropriation. I doubt anyone from the SE Asian countries cares that anyone else has incorporated Asian foods into their diets, because there's no strong significance attributed to those foods. Some people are happy to talk about their culture and try to recruit people to join it. If the culture doesn't mind and you're not being a dick to them in how you use it, then it's perfectly fine.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Field Researcher
#69 Old 15th Apr 2016 at 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Your "simplification" fails, because it assumes C - the authorities from the majority population - is the source of the problem. They're not. Where, exactly, do you think C comes from or gets the idea that it's okay to discriminate? From B - the majority population.

Your "rebuttal" fails, because you assume I mean a group of people when I say B. No, I mean individuals. I don't insist on dividing people into groups, like you do. People aren't more responsible for anyone else's actions just because they happen to have the same skin color, or have been born into the same culture. Individuals are responsible for their individual actions. Therefore B and C are rarely the same person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
When people think something is okay, they always had to get the idea it was okay from somewhere. Any time you see something extreme in a society, there is always something in the larger society that will back it up. Guy shoots a woman for refusing to date him? Go online and you can see tons of people lambasting women for not dating the "nice guy", some even going so far as to say that they should be raped. There is a cultural expectation that being a "nice guy" earns you women. When women don't perform to expectations, that means that she is breaking the "cultural norm" and not giving him what he thinks he deserves. That makes her a "bad person". And we're told it's okay to shoot the bad guys.
In this case, the problem is that one person thought it was okay to kill a woman for turning him down, but he had to get that idea from somewhere. That somewhere is the underlying premise that men "deserve" women for certain actions. Getting rid of the person who caused that problem will not solve the underlying problem, because it only addresses extreme actions.

You're going off on a tangent here, but sure, I can take that debate too. We don't find such justifications in the larger society. We don't have a cultural norm that women deserve to be shot for refusing to date a man. If that were the case, it wouldn't be against the law and the majority of people would condone it, since it would be considered normal. I don't see such a majority. A minority doesn't dictate a norm in larger society. And changing the way people think in society (however that would work, brainwashing?) won't solve the issue with criminals, you can't teach people not to be evil. We have been doing that since forever, but people still grow up to be murderers and rapists. But I'd like to hear your magical solution.

You may accuse me of strawmanning, but think of what you're saying; you're saying that you can find justifications for shooting a woman for not dating a man in larger society, as if there are no other factors. No, it isn't about our culture. It's about the fact that some people are violent freaks.

So how do we solve the underlying problem? First we need to find where the problem is, and the problem is assholes. It is assholes who say stuff like "men deserve women for certain actions". So how does getting rid of assholes not solve the problem with assholes? And you're comparing oranges to apples, misogyny actually hurts people, cultural appropriation is an imaginary harm. The real harm is, as I've said, those who do treat people differently because of skin color or other superficial factors - we call that racism (or bigotry). The underlying problem isn't "cultural appropriation" aka borrowing stuff from different cultures that no one owns anyways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Going back to the cultural appropriation, telling the authorities that it's wrong to discriminate will not solve the larger problem: that enough people think it's okay to discriminate that the authorities feel comfortable doing so. Sure, going after the authorities will solve the extreme, obvious problems, but the only reason they think it's fine is because there is racism in our society. C only exists because B is supporting it. Maybe C goes a little farther than B normally would, but B clearly isn't telling them to knock it off.

Again, make sure we're talking about the same thing when we say B or C. I'm taking about individuals, and you're talking about groups, and I don't care that you're forcing me into a group just because of my skin color. I've never accepted that grouping, so I don't care what you might attribute to that group that you've decided I belong to. Skin color is irrelevant. What matters is the way people think. A white person who is a racist and another white person who isn't a racist don't belong to the same group to me. If B is supporting it, it is the same person as C and in that case we're not on the same page. When I say B I mean someone who doesn't discriminate against people, but just likes to use elements from another culture. B has no more responsibility for C's actions just because they share the same skin color.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
You're also talking about a problem which is a lot older than just white people wanting to wear dreadlocks.

I was just using that as an example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Sure, one person wants that hairstyle and can't have it. That sounds demonizing enough to the black people, right? However, the country that is having most of these problems is the United States. Over here, there is a long, long history of appropriating black culture. Ever heard of blackface? It was a way for white performers to dress up as black people and play stereotypes for the amusement of the crowd - dehumanizing the black people. This only happened in the United States. If you go to some other countries, it's fine there, because it doesn't have the same history and context.
Oh, and there were instances where doctors stole African American bodies for scientific research, or performed (sometimes deadly) scientific experiments on them in the guise of medical treatment.
There are a ton of other examples that are less extreme: music genres, recipes, even quiltmaking techniques. All of these were given white faces and sold off. The white people who took it made a ton of money. The black people who developed it got nothing, just because their race didn't make it palatable enough for the majority.

And now you're diving into the concept of white guilt, which is one of the building blocks of this argument that cultural appropriation is wrong. But this to me is one of the main reasons that this argument instantly falls apart when you examine them. The concept that white people should carry the guilt of their forefathers' actions - this to me has never been a sustainable argument. How could you possibly be responsible for anything that took place before you were born? People shouldn't feel the need to inherit roles. Accept that you are born with a clean slate - you are always born innocent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
When you're talking about dreadlocks, you're not talking about one hairstyle and the meanies who won't share it. This is number 64 in the Connect the Dots pattern. There is a big cultural context behind this, from the underlying racism in society to the history of appropriation, that you probably won't understand if your only exposure to it has been complaining about the perceived double standard.

Instead of telling me I won't understand right from the bat - explain it to me and we'll see. How does racism in society and history have anything to do with how a non-racist chooses to express themselves, if they are not part of the problem as an individual?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Now, all of this is just one example. Generally speaking, the instances people will complain about fall under at least one of the following categories:
1. They follow a history of appropriation (as seen above)
2. The appropriation promotes negative stereotypes or dehumanizes the culture (like the blackface minstrel shows)
3. There is an important cultural context behind what is taken, which is missing in the appropriation (like yoga, which was originally a religious experience and was stripped of that to fit "spirituality" and to make money for white people)
4. It makes money off of the appropriation without crediting or benefiting the originators
5. It harms the culture it came from (for both 4 and 5, like how Stephenie Meyer made money off of the Quileutes and all they got for it was a reservation trashed by Twilight fans)

2. Yes, that's a case where this is understandably aggravating. Although that's rarely the reason people complain, in my observations it is very rarely about these things, but just merely about the fact that someone uses something from a culture they're not from. And that shouldn't be seen as a problem in and of itself.
3. That's something people need to accept when we live in a globalized world where different cultures are more accessible than ever; you can't expect people to cater to your personal beliefs all of the time, you can't always be babied and have your way. People have different beliefs and that's okay. Why should people need to follow a religious/cultural belief they don't believe in themselves, just because they like a specific phenomenon in a culture that no one owns anyway? Yoga wasn't invented by any living person today. Again, I don't care about groups. You can be as offended as you'd like, but being offended doesn't make you right.
4. You don't need to give credit if no one owns the copyright to what you're using.
5. I don't know anything about that. Source? And in that case it was the Twilight fans who are in the wrong here, not Stephanie Meyer. They did the actual harm in that case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
I doubt most of the people who do these things, even actively harm other people, intend to be malicious. But the thing is, there is one premise that causes all of this: that people feel like their desire to have something is less important than what other people feel about it.

I assume this was a typo and that you meant more important? Anyways, I don't think people should have to think about what other people think all of the time. You can't please everybody, it's impossible. I think people should be free to be themselves. If other people can't accept that, they simply need to learn to adapt to a changing society like the rest of us. If it hurts their feelings to see someone use something from their culture, then so be it. Again, being offended doesn't make you right. Change is never without friction anyways. And this is a change I like; I want people to be free to look how they want, act how they want, eat what they want, etc, etc, as long as it's within the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
They're told that it's fine to take things from other people, because those other people are lesser.

Why would you want to take things from a culture you don't like and look down upon...

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
It's fine to have a baseball team named after a racial slur, because nobody cares about the people who were called that.

Obviously somebody does care and obviously it isn't fine, or it wouldn't be an issue. Then do something about that issue and don't put things like wearing a Native American headdress for Halloween in the same category as verbal abuse, it's counterproductive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
That kind of attitude needs to be challenged, because it leads to worse problems, like interracial violence (and most of the countries accused of appropriation also have higher rates of that). Getting rid of the small stuff and forcing people to get rid of that mindset prevents the big stuff.

The attitude that wearing something from another culture is in the same category as using racist slurs needs to be challenged, because it leads to worse problems, like the whole anti racist movement being seen as a joke.
Top Secret Researcher
#70 Old 16th Apr 2016 at 8:34 AM Last edited by hugbug993 : 16th Apr 2016 at 9:02 AM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
Your "rebuttal" fails, because you assume I mean a group of people when I say B. No, I mean individuals. I don't insist on dividing people into groups, like you do. People aren't more responsible for anyone else's actions just because they happen to have the same skin color, or have been born into the same culture. Individuals are responsible for their individual actions. Therefore B and C are rarely the same person.


That makes no sense. If you're talking about an individual from a group, then the group of individuals is still a group.

But the point is, where do you think the attitudes of C come from? Do you think they just suddenly wake up and decide to discriminate against black people (or any other group)? If most people are not racist, then why are some people racist, and why do they think it's okay to be that way?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
You're going off on a tangent here, but sure, I can take that debate too. We don't find such justifications in the larger society. We don't have a cultural norm that women deserve to be shot for refusing to date a man.


Aren't you from Sweden? If so, then we don't have the same culture.

But you completely missed my point. I am not saying that people think shooting a woman for turning a guy down is considered normal. My point is that mild to moderate expressions in the larger society will manifest in the extreme expressions. Let's assume that you're right and that some people are just predisposed to violence and will be violent, whether or not they're taught not to be (although there are groups that do say it's fine for men to be violent to women - fortunately, they're shrinking and will inevitably die out - and the men who do become violent often belong to those). So, among all men, there are a small subset of them who are willing to turn violent. If all boys are taught that they deserve women, then the ones who will become violent are also taught that. Then, women who turn them down become an acceptable target for their violence.

But getting rid of the ones who do will not solve the problem. In the next generation, there will be another group of kids who will be predisposed to violence. Their society will again teach all boys that they deserve women because that's what they've been teaching them for a long time, and some of those will then go on to be violent to women because of that.

Those boys are violent to the women who turn them down because they think they deserve them. But again, where does that attitude come from? Do they just suddenly wake up and decide that they deserve women regardless of what the woman wants?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
So how do we solve the underlying problem? First we need to find where the problem is, and the problem is assholes. It is assholes who say stuff like "men deserve women for certain actions". So how does getting rid of assholes not solve the problem with assholes?


And where do the assholes come from? Even people who don't think men deserve women will still pretend that they do in some cases, because that's what they think will allow them to fit in or sell their work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
And you're comparing oranges to apples, misogyny actually hurts people, cultural appropriation is an imaginary harm. The real harm is, as I've said, those who do treat people differently because of skin color or other superficial factors - we call that racism (or bigotry). The underlying problem isn't "cultural appropriation" aka borrowing stuff from different cultures that no one owns anyways.


No, cultural appropriation is not just borrowing stuff from cultures. They are borrowing things from other cultures in ways that upset the original culture. Italians are not annoyed at people who borrow pizza. That is not appropriation. Quileutes are annoyed that a woman made a ton of money off of making their tribe out to be a bunch of dirt-poor, wife-beating sexual assaulters, and telling people that their creation myth is The Lion King but with wolves, all while completely ignoring the harm her book has caused to their reputation and to their home. That is appropriation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
If B is supporting it, it is the same person as C and in that case we're not on the same page. When I say B I mean someone who doesn't discriminate against people, but just likes to use elements from another culture.


If someone just likes to borrow from other cultures, but does not discriminate and respects the culture they draw from, then they are not performing cultural appropriation. They are also not white people who wear dreadlocks, because they respect the feelings of the black community and do not wear them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
I was just using that as an example.


Okay. And?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
And now you're diving into the concept of white guilt, which is one of the building blocks of this argument that cultural appropriation is wrong. But this to me is one of the main reasons that this argument instantly falls apart when you examine them. The concept that white people should carry the guilt of their forefathers' actions - this to me has never been a sustainable argument. How could you possibly be responsible for anything that took place before you were born? People shouldn't feel the need to inherit roles. Accept that you are born with a clean slate - you are always born innocent.


Again, you're completely misunderstanding my point. Have you tried actually reading what I say instead of going "oh, this looks like a white guilt argument, so there must be nothing else going on here"?

I am not saying that people are responsible for what happened. People are always informed by the culture they live in. Let me give you an example. As you said, children are always born innocent. Now, suppose there's a kid growing up in a US community that's largely white, but does have a small share of minorities. The kid is taught by their parents that they shouldn't stand too close to black people because they might hurt the kid. Because the kid trusts their parents, they do so. When they go into the living room and see their parents watching the news, most of the criminal cases reported on feature black people as the aggressors. In the media, all the protagonists they see have white skin. If there are any black people in the story, then either their race is used for comic relief, they die more quickly than the white cast
or they only exist to support the white characters in some way. When the parents use a racial slur and the kid repeats it back, the parents and their friends find it hilarious. The kid likes it when adults think they're funny, so they keep saying it.
The kid hears some jazz music on the radio and likes it, but the parents turn it off because "black people never produce anything good". So the kid seeks out examples of white jazz musicians and stays away from the black artists. When the kid sees a very nice quilt, but learns that it was produced by a black person, the kid thinks of what their parents would say and instead seeks out similar quilts made by white artists.

And so the kid grows up, largely staying away from black people. On the rare instances that they do meet one, they group them under "the good ones" and leave it at that.
Given all of that, is the kid solely to blame for their racist ideas? Or any actions they take that are informed by those ideas? Sure, to an extent, but the kid's parents are guilty as well, as is the society they live in. And where did the parents get their ideas? Probably the same place: their parents and the society they live in. Where did society get the ideas? From the people living in it. And you can stretch this back to a time when slavery was perfectly fine. Even the abolitionists were racist to some degree, even if it was less than their peers.

The kid is not responsible for what happened a long time ago, but the attitudes that caused those problems are inherited and often not confronted. People act that way and teach their kids about it, and those are passed on, both to their children and in the media they produce. Sometimes, people feel uncomfortable confronting what society ingrained in them. That is the reason discrimination still exists, even though it's been years since it was acceptable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
Instead of telling me I won't understand right from the bat - explain it to me and we'll see. How does racism in society and history have anything to do with how a non-racist chooses to express themselves, if they are not part of the problem as an individual?


Considering that I explained it in the exact same section you quoted, I have to question your assertion that explaining it will help you understand.

People are not islands. They learn things from the people and media around them. If society at large thinks it's okay to discriminate, then the average individual thinks it's okay to discriminate. If society at large thinks it's fine to exploit minorities, then the individual will also think it's fine.
If individuals who are "not racist" decide that it's fine to disrespect people and the majority of them feel the same way, then society will see it as fine to disrespect those people. Because not all people are the same, some people will be milder about it and some people will take it further, like the people you grouped into C.

And those individuals decide that it's fine based on the society in which they live. Society tells people what's okay, and the individuals tell society. It's a feedback loop that doesn't change unless enough people change their minds and petition to change everyone else.
Society in the past has said it's fine to exploit black people, that their ideas and their bodies belonged to masters. Even when they were "free", it was still okay to take what they owned. The very overt instances - such as outright slavery or stealing corpses - were uprooted, but the intellectual theft was not. Society said it was fine to take what black people owned, and so people did it. This is the same attitude that you see with dreadlocks. People see that they're part of an expression of belonging to black culture. They don't care what black people think about it and there's a history of appropriation. I mean, people thought it was fine when a white artist does an uncredited cover of a song a black artist wrote, so they passed that attitude down to their kids and not enough of them confronted that. Therefore, it's fine to wear dreadlocks even if black people don't like it.

Of course, some people just do it because they're dicks, so take your pick. But the attitude is real. When I was working in fast food, more people tried to steal things when we had a black or hispanic manager in charge of the shift - or when the non-white workers were at the registers - than when one of the white managers was working. I had to tell a few people who kept trying to take things to put everything back, and when I did that and a non-white manager was working, there was always this side glance at the manager which was never there when the white managers were in charge. There was also the time someone called the cops because they thought our black manager was robbing the place, but that's another story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
2. Yes, that's a case where this is understandably aggravating. Although that's rarely the reason people complain, in my observations it is very rarely about these things, but just merely about the fact that someone uses something from a culture they're not from. And that shouldn't be seen as a problem in and of itself.


Really? Please provide an example of people complaining about appropriation when
1. the majority of the people in the culture it comes from are fine with it,
2. it is not stereotyping or demeaning,
3. it does not generate revenue that is not shared with the culture it came from, and
4. it has not actually led to any harm toward the culture in question in any way

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
3. That's something people need to accept when we live in a globalized world where different cultures are more accessible than ever; you can't expect people to cater to your personal beliefs all of the time, you can't always be babied and have your way. People have different beliefs and that's okay. Why should people need to follow a religious/cultural belief they don't believe in themselves, just because they like a specific phenomenon in a culture that no one owns anyway? Yoga wasn't invented by any living person today. Again, I don't care about groups. You can be as offended as you'd like, but being offended doesn't make you right.


You can't always expect people to do what you want, but you can expect them not to be rude to you. I mean, if one person in a crowd is rude to you, that's something you can shrug off. When most people in a crowd are rude to you, simply because of the culture you come from? That's generally a bad thing.

Also, I'd like to point out that there is a common law idea of ownership. If, for instance, you take in a cat and take care of it, even if you didn't formally adopt it (which would be covered by formal law), then you are considered to be the owner of the cat. If someone else who knows you cared for the cat takes the cat, then they stole it from you, even if there is no legal paperwork stating that you own the cat, and they can be prosecuted for it. It is not just about the legality of the ownership, but that they knew it was yours and that you liked the cat and they didn't care.
Or something that I have to deal with: one of my clients had an idea for a TV show. One of the people he got feedback from took it and made it into a TV show, cutting him out. He was not given credit for this and did not receive any of the profits. He led a successful lawsuit against it. While the idea wasn't copyrighted, it was still his and it was still taken. I'm just mentioning this in case you completely miss the point on the other example and protest that you wouldn't have the cat anymore, so that's obviously a terrible metaphor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
4. You don't need to give credit if no one owns the copyright to what you're using.


Actually, if you're talking legally, you can be penalized for making money off of another person's idea and not giving them a share of the profits, whether or not the idea was copyrighted. Legality aside, it's at least common courtesy to share the profits when you make money off of someone's idea - especially when the person in question is struggling financially - and to encourage people to not be dicks to the people in question (which a lot of appropriators don't do, such as Meyer).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
5. I don't know anything about that. Source? And in that case it was the Twilight fans who are in the wrong here, not Stephanie Meyer. They did the actual harm in that case.


No, but the reason the fans felt it was fine to trash the reservation was because of the way the books represented the community.

The trashing was not covered by any major news sources (as most instances of harm done to Native Americans aren't). However, they lost a lot of money cleaning up the reservation afterwards, and they barely made any revenue from the tourism. I heard about this from a friend of mine who was pretty upset at that and about the time news reporters invaded their cemetery.

Anyway, if you want to learn more about that, here's a link to an online exhibit which is a collaboration between the Quileute people and the Burke Museum.
http://www.burkemuseum.org/static/truth_vs_twilight/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
I assume this was a typo and that you meant more important?


Sorry. Freudian slip.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
Anyways, I don't think people should have to think about what other people think all of the time. You can't please everybody, it's impossible. I think people should be free to be themselves. If other people can't accept that, they simply need to learn to adapt to a changing society like the rest of us. If it hurts their feelings to see someone use something from their culture, then so be it. Again, being offended doesn't make you right. Change is never without friction anyways. And this is a change I like; I want people to be free to look how they want, act how they want, eat what they want, etc, etc, as long as it's within the law.


Oh. Then does that mean I can get an invitation into your home, rearrange the furniture and the objects so you can never find anything, and leave rotting fish in your bed? That's not illegal and it won't physically harm you in any way, therefore it is totally fine. After all, I don't have to care about being rude, because I'll just act how I want. If you're offended or upset, that's your problem.

Because you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say, just to make it clear, I'm saying that appropriation is rude at best and it's a bad thing to knowingly be rude unless you want to be seen as a dick. Sure, people can do whatever they want, but there are still consequences to actions. It's not illegal to regularly go into your friend's house smelling like a sewer, but don't be surprised if you're kicked out and not invited back - and really, are you going to tell your friend that they're wrong to get annoyed at you or to kick you out because you can do whatever you want?

But what exactly do you mean by 'changing society'? This is the exact same kind of thing that's been going on for years, as demonstrated by what I said last post about the thing you labeled "white guilt". The only thing that's changing is that people are actually taking what the minorities say into consideration instead of steamrolling over them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
Why would you want to take things from a culture you don't like and look down upon...


Because people look down on the people in the culture but like the trappings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
Obviously somebody does care and obviously it isn't fine, or it wouldn't be an issue. Then do something about that issue and don't put things like wearing a Native American headdress for Halloween in the same category as verbal abuse, it's counterproductive.


So what you're saying is that because people care about it and don't think it's okay, then it's a bad thing? Good, that's my point. Also, keep in mind that I was speaking as the kind of person who defends those teams, not my own personal viewpoint.

And it is a problem for people to wear "Native American" clothes for Halloween. Disrespect toward a culture does not have to be overt, or even manifest as something intended to be negative. As a side note, most of the costumes that are used do not represent any sort of clothing that any actual Native Americans wore. The headdresses were used only for special ceremonies and not by all tribes. The term Native Americans is more like saying 'Europeans' (even though it covers two continents and a lot more ground than Europe) and using it in that way is like saying that Europeans wear the hats you see on English royalty at weddings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
The attitude that wearing something from another culture is in the same category as using racist slurs needs to be challenged, because it leads to worse problems, like the whole anti racist movement being seen as a joke.


Once again, wearing something from another culture is fine if the majority of the people in the culture think it's fine. And people can go ahead and think it's a joke if they want to. After all, abolitionists were once seen as jokes, and they did just fine.

My MTS writing group, The Story Board
Lab Assistant
#71 Old 19th Apr 2016 at 2:04 AM
Reverse racism doesn't exist. It's a joke. It has always been a joke. To understand why white people cannot experience racism, you first have to understand why white people are the only ones who can be racist. In order for one to be racist, you have to hold institutional power thus giving you the benefit of being the "superior" race. Considering white people are the dominating force in the United States, and have since the founding of this country, consistently held power, over minorities, they have the power to execute standards against non-White people (and have).

Minorities can be prejudice against, white people, however they can never be racist, because their are not enough of them to suppress white people on any level.
Lab Assistant
DELETED POST
20th Apr 2016 at 9:24 PM
This message has been deleted by SerenaOhSerena. Reason: double post
Field Researcher
#72 Old 27th Apr 2016 at 5:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
That makes no sense. If you're talking about an individual from a group, then the group of individuals is still a group.

But the point is, where do you think the attitudes of C come from? Do you think they just suddenly wake up and decide to discriminate against black people (or any other group)? If most people are not racist, then why are some people racist, and why do they think it's okay to be that way?

Of course it doesn't make sense to you since you're still in the mindset that the groups we're talking about are groups based on superficial factors like people's skin color. It was you who added "from a group", not me. Again, I don't think it's fair to lump people together based on their skin color, there is no reason why a black person and a white person can't belong to the same majority group or minority group based on things that actually matter, such as opinions/beliefs, wealth or education level. There are white people in power and there are poc in power. There are white racists and there are poc who are racists. It is not fair of you to say that a racist gets their ideas from the majority population since the majority of people aren't racists.

Racists don't get their ideas from white people exclusively. Racists get their ideas from other racists exclusively. They may be white or they may not be white, it doesn't matter; it's not their appearance that matters, it is their opinions. Being white doesn't make you racist. Being racist makes you racist. It is simply more informative to group people together based on their beliefs rather than appearance. You can say absolute statements about a group based on beliefs when you're talking about beliefs, which we are doing here. For example you can say "all racists discriminate people based on race". You can not say "all white people discriminate people based on race". And you can say absolute statements about a group based on appearance when we're talking about appearance, which we are NOT doing here. For example you can say "all white people have light skin". You can not say "all white people are racists" or "all racists are white". Given all this, therefore the only grouping that should matter in this debate is that of opinions.

So going back to my initial argument, yes, B and C are indeed different people because they belong to different groups based on beliefs. I don't care about their appearance, it was you who brought that up, not me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Aren't you from Sweden? If so, then we don't have the same culture.

Yes I am. No, we don't have the exact same culture but western cultures share roughly the same values and many similarities (like women are allowed to hold positions of power, you aren't imprisoned for being gay, etc) than if you compare to e.g. Middle Eastern and Northern African cultures where things like human rights are severely undermined (women can't hold positions of power, forced marriage and female genital mutilation are common, gays are executed or imprisoned, to mention a few things). There you would indeed find misogynistic attitudes in the majority population, you don't find that in USA or Sweden. Unless you have a very vivid imagination.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
But you completely missed my point. I am not saying that people think shooting a woman for turning a guy down is considered normal. My point is that mild to moderate expressions in the larger society will manifest in the extreme expressions. Let's assume that you're right and that some people are just predisposed to violence and will be violent, whether or not they're taught not to be (although there are groups that do say it's fine for men to be violent to women - fortunately, they're shrinking and will inevitably die out - and the men who do become violent often belong to those). So, among all men, there are a small subset of them who are willing to turn violent. If all boys are taught that they deserve women, then the ones who will become violent are also taught that. Then, women who turn them down become an acceptable target for their violence.

But getting rid of the ones who do will not solve the problem. In the next generation, there will be another group of kids who will be predisposed to violence. Their society will again teach all boys that they deserve women because that's what they've been teaching them for a long time, and some of those will then go on to be violent to women because of that.

But society doesn't teach boys that they deserve women. You're going to have to back that up with evidence. What are these moderate expressions in larger society you're talking about that inspires extreme actions? Be specific please. And where do we find this majority that agrees with them? Do you have any data? Polls, statistics, etc? There may be a minority that does, but that's not our society's fault since we have laws protecting women (and men) against forcing someone to do something sexually against their will. Obviously society as a whole is against it. But even if that were true, you can't ignore all the other factors and pretend the issue will be solved if you just focus on one side of the problem. Teaching men to not rape women will not work in the same way teaching people to not steal doesn't work. Some people have lower empathy than others, it has to do with psychology and their mental health. You can't teach anyone to be psychologically stable. And the reason most rape victims are women and most rapists are men is not due to misogyny, it's due to the fact that most men are straight so their victims will naturally be women, and it's easier for men to rape women than the other way around. Men are generally physically stronger than women, and men generally have a higher sex drive. Misogyny is a factor, yes, but you can't ignore the other factors. I won't pretend to be an expert on criminology so I won't dive more into this, and unless you are, I suggest you do the same.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Those boys are violent to the women who turn them down because they think they deserve them. But again, where does that attitude come from? Do they just suddenly wake up and decide that they deserve women regardless of what the woman wants?

Just like racists get their ideas from other racists, misogynists get their ideas from other misogynists. It's not fair to attribute extremism to a whole population. What if I said Muslim extremists only exist because the majority Muslim population supports them? That would be the same thing that you're saying, although it sounds more offensive now, doesn't it? No, extremists have their little circles that you can not blame the majority population for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
And where do the assholes come from? Even people who don't think men deserve women will still pretend that they do in some cases, because that's what they think will allow them to fit in or sell their work.

And where do the Muslim extremists come from? Even Muslims who aren't Muslim extremists will still pretend that they want to blow up an airport in some cases, because that's what they think will allow them to fit in or sell their work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
No, cultural appropriation is not just borrowing stuff from cultures. They are borrowing things from other cultures in ways that upset the original culture.

Not always. According to this definition : "Cultural appropriation, or cultural misappropriation is a sociological concept which views the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of a different culture as a largely negative phenomenon." - which was the definition I used. Doesn't say it has to upset the original culture to be viewed as cultural appropriation. It only says you have to use elements from a different culture you don't belong to, which I said. Where did you get your definition from? Also, examining the word "appropriating" in this dictionary page , it can mean: 1. "to take or use (something) especially in a way that is illegal, unfair, etc." - which is probably where the word cultural appropriation is rooted, however it is not illegal so that leaves us with unfair. But then you'd have to explain how it is unfair . Aka "treating people in a way that favors some over others : not fair, honest, or just". I fail to see how e.g. wearing dreadlocks or a native american headdress is not honest or just but you put this under the same umbrella term of cultural appropriation. Also, all of these terms are highly subjective, so that means this could mean different things depending on who you ask. Also, ironically, another definition of appropriating is: 2. "to take exclusive possession of". Which sounds a lot like what the other side is doing. So I could turn cultural appropriation into meaning the act of claiming a culture as exclusively your own. Which you have to do in order to accuse someone of cultural appropriation in the first place. (After all, you can only claim someone is stealing something if it's yours to begin with.) Kind of falls apart now doesn't it? And if you're going to tell me I can't do that - I'm sorry to break it to you, but as soon as a definition reaches the dictionary it becomes legit, no matter how you feel about it. That's the whole point of a dictionary, to have an objective source of meanings of words. All else is arbitrary. And I couldn't find an actual dictionary definition of the word "cultural appropriation", so the word itself is already arbitrary.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
If someone just likes to borrow from other cultures, but does not discriminate and respects the culture they draw from, then they are not performing cultural appropriation. They are also not white people who wear dreadlocks, because they respect the feelings of the black community and do not wear them.

Yes they are, because dreadlocks didn't originate from the African American community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreadlocks
And this is again why I think it's ridiculous to claim ownership of a culture since phenomenas of a culture often have a different origin than the claimed original culture to begin with.
Btw here is a video on cultural appropriation that could be thought provoking for someone like you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGgj9S8XO7k
Another rant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_q0OcWhIDF0
Acting like black people have more right to wear dreadlocks just because they're black is not only racist in itself but it implies all black people have the same culture. Like, WTF?

And if you're still whining about cultural appropriation after this, please see this video. This girl KILLS that argument: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwQvnyIR9_0

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Okay. And?

And I said that because you said "You're also talking about a problem which is a lot older than just white people wanting to wear dreadlocks.", as if I didn't know that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Again, you're completely misunderstanding my point. Have you tried actually reading what I say instead of going "oh, this looks like a white guilt argument, so there must be nothing else going on here"?

I read what you wrote, that's why I said it was a white guilt argument. You started telling me about the history of racism in USA, implying that's why it is justified that white people are under more scrutiny now than any other race when it comes to cultural appropriation, and to that I say it's bullshit, since we can't control history and had nothing to do with it. Don't see the relevance to this argument. Everyone should be under the same standard, no matter what race you are, because history is behind us. White people shouldn't need to be more careful than anyone else. Yet black people are never accused of culturally appropriating white culture, only the opposite. (I wouldn't condone accusing them of that either btw.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
I am not saying that people are responsible for what happened. People are always informed by the culture they live in. Let me give you an example. As you said, children are always born innocent. Now, suppose there's a kid growing up in a US community that's largely white, but does have a small share of minorities. The kid is taught by their parents that they shouldn't stand too close to black people because they might hurt the kid. Because the kid trusts their parents, they do so. When they go into the living room and see their parents watching the news, most of the criminal cases reported on feature black people as the aggressors. In the media, all the protagonists they see have white skin. If there are any black people in the story, then either their race is used for comic relief, they die more quickly than the white cast
or they only exist to support the white characters in some way. When the parents use a racial slur and the kid repeats it back, the parents and their friends find it hilarious. The kid likes it when adults think they're funny, so they keep saying it.
The kid hears some jazz music on the radio and likes it, but the parents turn it off because "black people never produce anything good". So the kid seeks out examples of white jazz musicians and stays away from the black artists. When the kid sees a very nice quilt, but learns that it was produced by a black person, the kid thinks of what their parents would say and instead seeks out similar quilts made by white artists.

And so the kid grows up, largely staying away from black people. On the rare instances that they do meet one, they group them under "the good ones" and leave it at that.
Given all of that, is the kid solely to blame for their racist ideas? Or any actions they take that are informed by those ideas? Sure, to an extent, but the kid's parents are guilty as well, as is the society they live in. And where did the parents get their ideas? Probably the same place: their parents and the society they live in. Where did society get the ideas? From the people living in it. And you can stretch this back to a time when slavery was perfectly fine. Even the abolitionists were racist to some degree, even if it was less than their peers.

The kid is not responsible for what happened a long time ago, but the attitudes that caused those problems are inherited and often not confronted. People act that way and teach their kids about it, and those are passed on, both to their children and in the media they produce. Sometimes, people feel uncomfortable confronting what society ingrained in them. That is the reason discrimination still exists, even though it's been years since it was acceptable.

And this is why you group all white people together? This isn't news to me. Yes, you are affected by the society you live in. Go figure. But this does still not justify that a white person who isn't racist is automatically put in the same group as a white person who is a racist. Believe it or not, most people nowadays aren't racist! At the very least they don't choose to act upon it, and until then, they are innocent. Yes, the society would indeed be responsible in this case, but the society is also changing. I see tons of movies where your stipulations aren't met - yes, there could be more. But then again, I don't notice people's race a lot, in movies or otherwise. Or well, I didn't. Now I do. I wouldn't, had my mind not been infected by the SJW:s (which Sweden is filled of, unfortunately -.-), who are SO, so, so hung up on race. It's ironic, really. The goal of anti-racism should be to make people NOT think about people's race, but they have the complete opposite effect. You can't fight fire with fire. Also, it would be the racist society that would be responsible for that, not the whole society of white people, since again, not all white people are racists. Also, a non-racist white person is not responsible for society either since they don't participate in the racism of society. They are free of responsibility for that since you couldn't possibly change the whole society on your own. I mean, what are you demanding here? I hope I've explained myself clearly enough but I find it hard to communicate with someone who demands to put people in groups and insists this is always relevant, while I'm talking about individuals who are responsible for their individual actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Considering that I explained it in the exact same section you quoted, I have to question your assertion that explaining it will help you understand.

You didn't explain the underlying racism in society in that section. And how it is relevant to this discussion. I don't see anything in that text that supports your argument, and answers my question: How does racism in society and history have anything to do with how a non-racist chooses to express themselves, if they are not part of the problem as an individual? And you immediately assumed I wouldn't understand without explaining it. Also, in order to understand something it has to be something that makes sense in the first place (e.g. I couldn't ask you to "understand" that the world is flat), so first present a sustainable argument and we'll see if I "understand" it, or that stipulation may be misguided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
People are not islands. They learn things from the people and media around them. If society at large thinks it's okay to discriminate, then the average individual thinks it's okay to discriminate. If society at large thinks it's fine to exploit minorities, then the individual will also think it's fine.
If individuals who are "not racist" decide that it's fine to disrespect people and the majority of them feel the same way, then society will see it as fine to disrespect those people. Because not all people are the same, some people will be milder about it and some people will take it further, like the people you grouped into C.

Good thing the society at large isn't that way then! No, the people I grouped into C are EVERYONE who treats a person differently because of their race, in any way or form. And many, MANY people aren't like this at all! Those I grouped into B. How many times do I need to say this? But alright, for someone who sees racism in everything, pretty much everyone is racist to them, so in that case you would make sense. But I don't share that world view. Give me the evidence first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Society said it was fine to take what black people owned, and so people did it. This is the same attitude that you see with dreadlocks. People see that they're part of an expression of belonging to black culture. They don't care what black people think about it and there's a history of appropriation. I mean, people thought it was fine when a white artist does an uncredited cover of a song a black artist wrote, so they passed that attitude down to their kids and not enough of them confronted that. Therefore, it's fine to wear dreadlocks even if black people don't like it.

Nope it isn't - since, again, dreadlocks aren't owned by the black culture. (Whatever that means, I assume you mean the African American culture since not all black people have the same culture.) Also, if you thought dreadlocks originated from Jamaica, wouldn't black people living in USA be culturally appropriating Jamaicans then? Everyone steals from everyone, this isn't a black vs white issue. And you're comparing stealing a song (a copyrighted work) with a hairstyle, which does not fulfill the originality requirement in order to be considered a protected work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Of course, some people just do it because they're dicks, so take your pick. But the attitude is real. When I was working in fast food, more people tried to steal things when we had a black or hispanic manager in charge of the shift - or when the non-white workers were at the registers - than when one of the white managers was working. I had to tell a few people who kept trying to take things to put everything back, and when I did that and a non-white manager was working, there was always this side glance at the manager which was never there when the white managers were in charge. There was also the time someone called the cops because they thought our black manager was robbing the place, but that's another story.

And anecdotes are the best sources of facts that supports one's arguments. They can always be applied to the greater picture. No further research needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Really? Please provide an example of people complaining about appropriation when
1. the majority of the people in the culture it comes from are fine with it,
2. it is not stereotyping or demeaning,
3. it does not generate revenue that is not shared with the culture it came from, and
4. it has not actually led to any harm toward the culture in question in any way

I can't find an example where all of these criteria are met. The problem here is that you are putting all of these very different instances in the same category. It is very different to stereotype people in a negative way than to not give money to people who aren't the original inventors of an idea in the first place, yet you call both of these things cultural appropriation. (How would that work btw? Giving money to a culture? Would you give an equal sum to all who happen to be born into the culture or how does it work exactly?) This is just like the word "islamophobia" - means hate towards Muslims, hate towards Islam, fear towards Muslims, fear towards Islam, all at the same time. Yet they are 4 completely different concepts. Also, how could I possibly find out the answer to nr 1? And is it reasonable that people must find this out this way in any given instance when an item is used from another culture? Seems a bit unreasonable to demand you must ask a whole population of people every time you want to use a piece of clothing, doesn't it?

Here is an example of something that was accused of cultural appropriation: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/1..._n_8259468.html
It is not stereotyping or demeaning. The designer is obviously proud of their designs, putting them on display like that for everyone to admire. It's not for mocking, it's for appreciation. Still it is accused of cultural appropriation. As for nr 1 and 3, I don't know the answer to those, don't care either. For nr 4 I'd actually be interested in hearing how a fashion show can hurt a whole culture in any tangible way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
You can't always expect people to do what you want, but you can expect them not to be rude to you.

No because rudeness is something subjective, you can't expect people to always duck for what you personally think is rude - what's rude to one person is not rude to another person. If you find something rude, you can tell that person that, and they might change, but if they are not attacking you directly, it is really you who are up in their business, not the other way around. And you can't just go around telling people they're rude, you have to back that up. This is rude, because _. (And don't fill in the blank with "because I say so".) It is when you examine these reasons why people think cultural appropriation is rude that things start to fall apart. For example, you can say wearing this item as a Halloween costume is rude because it has a lot of meaning in our culture that is missing in your appropriation. A response to that would be that it doesn't have meaning to them and they are choosing to attribute another meaning to it than what it originally had. And that's OK since the original inventor(s) of the item are dead since long. No one owns a culture. Sure, the people of the original culture have all right to be offended, just like anyone has a right to be offended about anything. But you can't say the person/people causing these feelings are automatically wrong because of that. After all, the only reason the people of the original culture are offended is because they have chosen to attribute much meaning to this item. Why would one choice be more valid than the other? (And don't use argumentum ad populum.) Sometimes the problem lies with the one actually feeling offended. Maybe the people of the original culture need to learn to be more tolerant and stop being so sensitive to differing views - it would benefit them as well. Why do they never have to change? Why do they get a free pass from criticism? It would be a good thing if e.g. Native Americans just learned to stop taking offense to people wearing their headdresses for other occasions, since most of the time those people aren't doing it with the purpose to offend anyone in the first place. Everyone would be happy. (Btw, I haven't actually seen a case where a Native American is complaining about this, it's usually just white people complaining to white people, lol. I could be wrong, of course, so in case I am, that's what I'm responding to.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Also, I'd like to point out that there is a common law idea of ownership. If, for instance, you take in a cat and take care of it, even if you didn't formally adopt it (which would be covered by formal law), then you are considered to be the owner of the cat. If someone else who knows you cared for the cat takes the cat, then they stole it from you, even if there is no legal paperwork stating that you own the cat, and they can be prosecuted for it. It is not just about the legality of the ownership, but that they knew it was yours and that you liked the cat and they didn't care.
Or something that I have to deal with: one of my clients had an idea for a TV show. One of the people he got feedback from took it and made it into a TV show, cutting him out. He was not given credit for this and did not receive any of the profits. He led a successful lawsuit against it. While the idea wasn't copyrighted, it was still his and it was still taken. I'm just mentioning this in case you completely miss the point on the other example and protest that you wouldn't have the cat anymore, so that's obviously a terrible metaphor.

Good, then I don't have to respond to that since you took care of that for me.
As for the other metaphor, it is still a bad metaphor since you're talking about an individual who got his own idea stolen, whereas a whole population can not own an idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Actually, if you're talking legally, you can be penalized for making money off of another person's idea and not giving them a share of the profits, whether or not the idea was copyrighted.

So what? You're nitpicking and beating around a bush. Change "You don't need to give credit if no one owns the copyright to what you're using." to "You don't need to give credit if no one owns the idea." and my point still stands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Legality aside, it's at least common courtesy to share the profits when you make money off of someone's idea - especially when the person in question is struggling financially

If someone owns the idea in the first place, that is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
and to encourage people to not be dicks to the people in question (which a lot of appropriators don't do, such as Meyer).

Not her responsibility, or anyone. Dicks are responsible for their own actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
No, but the reason the fans felt it was fine to trash the reservation was because of the way the books represented the community.

No, the reason is because THEY'RE IDIOTS! >.< You sound like someone who would think it'd be a TV-show's fault that some idiot blew up his genitals because the show didn't say "Don't try this at home".

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Oh. Then does that mean I can get an invitation into your home, rearrange the furniture and the objects so you can never find anything, and leave rotting fish in your bed? That's not illegal and it won't physically harm you in any way, therefore it is totally fine. After all, I don't have to care about being rude, because I'll just act how I want. If you're offended or upset, that's your problem.

Another bad metaphor. First off I wouldn't invite anyone like that to my home, and if you did come anyway, that'd be trespassing which is illegal. And even if you somehow did lure me into inviting you home and did that, that would be a personal attack against me as an individual. Cultural appropriation is seldom (if ever) directed at an individual. And it would indeed harm me in some way, in the form of e.g. losing valuable time to clean up everything, when I might have had a deadline for school or job, that leads to consequences for my economy, might get fired, etc, etc. There are lots of things that could go wrong. Whereas cultural appropriation is only offensive if you choose to be offended. I couldn't "choose" to not be offended at someone destroying my home, has nothing to do with the way I think. Cultural appropriation is something you see, destroying one's home is something I have to not only see, but take care of. Furthermore, you destroying my home would be with the purpose of attacking me, whereas people who are accused of cultural appropriation seldom are doing it with the actual intention to hurt people. But touche, I wasn't clear enough. I meant: I want people to be free to look how they want, act how they want, eat what they want, etc, etc, as long as it's within the law and isn't a personal attack.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Because you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say, just to make it clear, I'm saying that appropriation is rude at best and it's a bad thing to knowingly be rude unless you want to be seen as a dick. Sure, people can do whatever they want, but there are still consequences to actions. It's not illegal to regularly go into your friend's house smelling like a sewer, but don't be surprised if you're kicked out and not invited back - and really, are you going to tell your friend that they're wrong to get annoyed at you or to kick you out because you can do whatever you want?

And I don't agree that it's always rude!
And yet another bad metaphor - are you expert on those? That friend would be right since that friend sets their rules for their own home. People of a culture can not set the rules for another country. (Or even the rules of their own country if the majority there doesn't agree! If it's a democracy, that is.) And before you're going to nitpick again - yes I know the majority can not overrule the minority in a democracy (or at least in USA), but I'm not talking about laws, but rather informal laws. Which, translated from the metaphor, would be social norms, I guess? It's just a bad metaphor, so I don't know how you intended it to be translated exactly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
But what exactly do you mean by 'changing society'? This is the exact same kind of thing that's been going on for years, as demonstrated by what I said last post about the thing you labeled "white guilt". The only thing that's changing is that people are actually taking what the minorities say into consideration instead of steamrolling over them.

But the society hasn't always been as globalized as it is now, and multicultural. That's what I was referring to. In a globalized world people are bound to "steal" cultures from each other, and that's OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
So what you're saying is that because people care about it and don't think it's okay, then it's a bad thing? Good, that's my point. Also, keep in mind that I was speaking as the kind of person who defends those teams, not my own personal viewpoint.

Yes, using racial slurs is a bad thing, I agree! What I don't agree with though, is that it belongs to the same category as the umbrella term cultural appropriation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
And it is a problem for people to wear "Native American" clothes for Halloween. Disrespect toward a culture does not have to be overt, or even manifest as something intended to be negative.

And why is it a problem? You didn't explain that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
As a side note, most of the costumes that are used do not represent any sort of clothing that any actual Native Americans wore.

Good, then no need to take offense to it then, since it isn't the same thing! Yet another example of how cultural appropriation is only offensive if you choose to take offense!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
The headdresses were used only for special ceremonies and not by all tribes. The term Native Americans is more like saying 'Europeans' (even though it covers two continents and a lot more ground than Europe) and using it in that way is like saying that Europeans wear the hats you see on English royalty at weddings.

You are nitpicking again. Okay, I wasn't specific enough, so what? I got my point across, that's what matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
Once again, wearing something from another culture is fine if the majority of the people in the culture think it's fine.

And even if they don't, because a) you couldn't possibly find out what the majority of a whole population thinks at any given instance and b) no one owns a culture

Quote:
Originally Posted by hugbug993
And people can go ahead and think it's a joke if they want to. After all, abolitionists were once seen as jokes, and they did just fine.

But why would you purposely want people to think it's a joke? Why purposely make obstacles for yourselves? It would be a whole lot easier to recruit people to your cause if you didn't have so many double standards and inconsistencies in your world view.

Also, you are comparing the struggle against friggin SLAVERY to the "struggle" against people minding their own business wearing what they want. That is the most ridiculous thing you've said, and most blatantly offensive.
Field Researcher
#73 Old 27th Apr 2016 at 5:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SerenaOhSerena
Reverse racism doesn't exist. It's a joke. It has always been a joke. To understand why white people cannot experience racism, you first have to understand why white people are the only ones who can be racist. In order for one to be racist, you have to hold institutional power thus giving you the benefit of being the "superior" race. Considering white people are the dominating force in the United States, and have since the founding of this country, consistently held power, over minorities, they have the power to execute standards against non-White people (and have).

Minorities can be prejudice against, white people, however they can never be racist, because their are not enough of them to suppress white people on any level.

According to your own made-up definition maybe. (Or tumblr blog, or wherever you got that from.) However, according to the ACTUAL definition , racism is:

1. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior

2. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

So it's applicable to any kind of racism.

As for you calling it "reverse racism", reverse racism would be something like NOT being prejudiced against another race due to the belief that your own race is inferior. Or something? xD

When a poc is prejudiced against a white person for being white, that is not called reverse racism. It's simply called racism. There is no need to rank bigotry, it's all the same shit and we ALL should move past it, regardless of who we may be taught to hate.

Cheers
Instructor
#74 Old 27th Apr 2016 at 6:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
As for you calling it "reverse racism", reverse racism would be something like NOT being prejudiced against another race due to the belief that your own race is inferior. Or something? xD

When a poc is prejudiced against a white person for being white, that is not called reverse racism. It's simply called racism. There is no need to rank bigotry, it's all the same shit and we ALL should move past it, regardless of who we may be taught to hate.

Cheers


"Reverse-racism" is commonly defined as racism against the largest group in a community.

It typically goes something like this:
1) The majority discriminates against the minority for many generations.
2) The racism slowly dissipates for any number of reasons, through generations of progress.
3) Now, the majority is pre-judged to be racist (even though they aren't, since this is an entirely new generation) and are often called racists when they disagree with or dislike a member of the minority, even at a personal-level. Since the term "white guilt" has been thrown in, this is where it would best apply (the belief that white people are all innately racist or have some need to atone for the racism of their ancestors).

It's called "reverse-racism" only to distinguish it from majority-on-minority racism. All reverse-racism is racism, but not all racism is reverse-racism.
Lab Assistant
#75 Old 30th Apr 2016 at 12:31 AM Last edited by SerenaOhSerena : 30th Apr 2016 at 2:50 AM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pideli
According to your own made-up definition maybe. (Or tumblr blog, or wherever you got that from.) However, according to the ACTUAL definition , racism is:

1. Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior

2. The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races

So it's applicable to any kind of racism.

As for you calling it "reverse racism", reverse racism would be something like NOT being prejudiced against another race due to the belief that your own race is inferior. Or something? xD

When a poc is prejudiced against a white person for being white, that is not called reverse racism. It's simply called racism. There is no need to rank bigotry, it's all the same shit and we ALL should move past it, regardless of who we may be taught to hate.

Cheers


Cheers my behind, m'am.

Please point me in the direction in any point in time where a white person has experienced segregation or systemic racism. And sweetheart, the only thing made up, is your delusional defense mechanisms which stem from a broader and ignorant perspective of white people not wanting to be labeled as racist. I am sorry if anyone told you otherwise, but at least make it make sense. And if you can't make it make sense without getting your feelings hurt (like the 5 people who passive aggressively disliked my post without arguing against it as they more than likely have nothing to back up claims other than defensiveness), then I will make it make sense for you:

1. 1) Racism = privilege + power

In order to be racist, you need to possess two traits. The first is privilege: A structural, institutional, and social advantage. White people occupy positions of racial privilege, even when they are disadvantaged in other ways. White women, for example, consistently make more than black women, because they benefit from racial attitudes. Furthermore, you also have to have power: the ability, backed up by society, to be a strong social influencer, with greater leeway when it comes to what you do, where, and how.

For instance, white people benefit from privilege and power when they aren’t arrested for drug crimes at disproportionate rates, while black people experience racism when they’re arrested, and sentenced, for the same crimes. This reflects a racialized power imbalance in the justice system. It’s about the privilege and power of white offenders (less likely to be racially profiled, more likely to have strong legal representation, more likely to be able to talk police officers out of an arrest) and the lack of social status for black offenders.

People of color talking about white people don’t occupy positions of privilege or power. Therefore, they cannot be racist. Racism is structural, not personal.

2) Anger is a legitimate response to oppression.

When “reverse racism” is flung around, it’s often in response to angry language, to protests, to fights for equality. People of color have been pushing back on privilege and power for a long time. Many of them are understandably pretty tired of it. Unsurprisingly, some aren’t interested in moderating their tone for a white audience. That means that sometimes they use strong language, out of frustration, rage, or to make a heavy impact on observers. Still not reverse racism.

More importantly, insisting that people of color need to be nice about the way they talk about racism is, in fact, racist: It suggests that, for example, “angry black women” don’t merit social attention, because they’re being unreasonable.

3) Attempts to rectify systemic injustices are not examples of reverse racism.

One of the most common pieces of evidence used as “proof” of reverse racism is that of affirmative action and minority admissions at colleges, universities, and some companies. The argument goes that people of color are stealing positions and jobs away from better or equally qualified white people.

This is not the case. The problem is that generations of injustice have resulted in underrepresentation of people of color in these settings, and the goal of affirmative action and related initiatives is to ensure that they aren’t harmed by racial bias in admissions and hiring decisions. People of color aren’t admitted or hired “over white people.” They’re considered equally, with an eye to the fact that subconscious bias may be influencing decisions made by people in power, who are, you guessed it, often white.
Page 3 of 6
Back to top