Cultural Sensitivity/Appropriation and Anger

As a follow up to my frustration about SJW anger, I posted to my friends on Facebook (many of whom are SJW), inviting them to engage in a dialogue with me. I said that I wanted to understand their anger, and if they wanted, could they please PM me so we could talk about it (adding that it was a sincere request for constructive dialogue) and because I didn't want to do it in a public thread.

I had about half a dozen people respond.

But here's the kicker: they were ALL straight white cis men. They all admitted to not being SJW, but wanted to be part of the discussion. They were all very invested in the social issues that SJW often bring up, and had a lot of insight about them. Also they had a few theories about why SJW get so angry and confrontational, but every single one was respectful. They also expressed to me a few things: #1. feeling that they had no right to be part of the dialogue of social issues because they're seen as the enemy, #2. feeling afraid to speak up publicly about it for fear of being attacked or labelled as part of the problem.

One said that it's a matter of time before white/straight/cis/men are targeted for violence - and this was said in sad hopelessness, not in defensive aggression.


Another fellow brought up the idea of the "regressive left", people who have gone so far past social activism that it's circled around and become hatred and aggression under the facade of "social justice"

It's easy to tell these men "Well, now you know how it feels" but is that really what we want? To bounce different groups of people around as the "you're fucked" group? To keep the "us vs them" cycle of hate going? Is it fair to judge individuals under the umbrella of the "white cis oppressor" when, for the most part, they want to be part of the solution?

I know that it's easy to get defensive and righteous when you know that injustice has been done (and in many cases, still happening). Heck, I'm guilty of it. More and more, though, I'm realizing that it's not the way to make change happen. Being defensive and accusatory (on either side of a SJW-style discussion) is essentially trying to force your truth on someone else, whether it's "objectively true," backed by facts, or simply an expression of feelings/experiences.

We can't force people to accept our beliefs. Especially when we're throwing blame, pointing fingers, and "proving it". I know it feels good to do that - it's cathartic. But it's not helping. And this goes not just for SJW-types, but for everyone.

Leah, clicking thank you wasn't enough. Thank you for that last response.

I get what you are saying, and I agree that people are too PC and too soft.

As a person of color, I have to say that if you asked me to explain to you why I take offense at something racial, there is good chance you wouldn't understand. Not because you're privileged or racist or dumb, but because I cannot convey to you what it is like to live every day as a Native American, what our culture is like, how we are taught to internally deal with it, what our American/world/life experience is. I can probably get a point across, but I don't think anyone can explain it fully, partly because of emotion and partly because of culture and experience.

The reason that many of us say "X privilege" is certain people (mostly SJW) think that they can understand it because they are super smart/wise/down/hip/etc. but they can't. They can't go live a lifetime in our shoes and then come back. I applaud the effort, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. IMHO, when you ask people of the class the offense is being claimed for and they don't respond or aren't offended, then there you go.

The privilege card also comes into play when people (usually westerners) think they know what is best for you/your culture/your people. We are adults, it's ok to offer assistance/aid/etc, but don't try to treat us like children.

This happens more than you think. A middle age white women with no grasp of my culture has on more than one occasion sat me down and told me how we should address native issues. It was painfully obvious from the start that she had no sense for the people or situation she was talking about, but that didn't stop her, as white woman she knew better than I did. Flipside of that, I've had people go with me and walk on the rez or sit down and talk, and then come out and say, how do I help? That's the attitude I see as being the right one (the same way you seem to be going about this) That's my 2 cents.

Apologies, I have not read much of this thread beyond the first post. I am also trying to understand the issue behind it. I've come up with a few questions:

1. As a society, do we honestly respect the culture responsible four Maui and Moana? The answer will be yes when the real flesh and blood people from that region can receive the same benefits from the society as the one's who are attempting appreciate or appropriate them.

There is the same issue with the appropriation of Native American culture. Consider Disney's Pocahontas, the sports team the Chiefs and the sports team the Redskins. What will we do about those? Are we as a society going to respect the people and the culture responsible by affording them the same opportunities?

I think you raise a good point, Ros. There is cultural appropriation, and then there is cultural misappropriation. Not every case of the former is a case of the latter.

As not to generalize, I will take on the burden of being the sensitive one here. Do I care if part of my people's mythology is used to make a horror movie starring individuals who are not native? No, as long as they tell the story right, I don't care at all. Now, do I care if a sports team decides their name is the Braves, and then they use a big nosed, big eared, fire engine red, feather wearing, whooping asshat to portray that? Yes.

It's not about if it puts me or mine in a good light. I would love to see a nice doc or drama about the drug problems we have, the unemployment and suicide rates, the epidemic of missing native women in the great lakes area. It's about whether it is being done with malice or ignorance.

Because too often we take what we see, read, and hear as gospel and go "oh, I saw a 20/20, a doc, read a book, listened to podcast....xyz." therefore it must be true, or it must be the case that.

For some of us, these are the only images people will ever experience of our culture. Then one day they may have to teach us, hire us, protect us, work for us, operate on us, and their entire view of our culture is based on a fictional work or single image. That's a reality as a minority. So, we have to protect those images. That probably makes us seem a little over sensitive to those in the majority.

While I am talking about race, I know the same can be said for religion, creed, color, sexuality, etc. I just don't think society always looks at these in the same context, but they are.

“You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?”

- Chris Rock

Jamie Stick wrote: I certainly tried, but I guess I have to do it all by myself .

Very enlightening, but hardly substantial. History doesn't come with value assertions. When it comes to your asserted values connected with these concepts, that's all just your opinion. And this really doesn't change the facts that I brought up about Westernization and cultural appropriation either...

I just stated that by saying, "I don't have a culture" you were conforming to a very typical white thing to say.

Now, I never said that I don't have a culture. I merely said that a person is not born with some magical culture in their brain. Culture is the result of experience, that has been the major point I've brought up.
As I've been pointing out, simply saying "a very typical white thing to say" is itself racist. If that statement were pointed toward any other race, it would be considered terribly racist. Do you or do you not agree with that? And if you do agree that saying "that's a typical black thing to say" is racist, then why do you excuse yourself while doing the same thing to white people?

I can't win. First you tell me not to judge you then you get mad because I made a point of not assuming your ethnicity based on appearance.

First of all, "Jew" is not a race or an ethnicity. There certainly are some Jews who have obvious Middle Eastern ancestry, but the Russian Jewish community I was raised in wasn't like that. There's nothing that would differentiate the Russian Jews I know from any other Russian people by appearance. Sure, there is the matrilineal aspect of Judaism -- but I know plenty of people who have converted to Judaism, and they certainly don't have any racial connected with it.
But we're not talking about ethnicity here. We're talking about race. You can assume my race by looking at me because that's what race is. It is, by definition, only skin deep. You can tell that I'm white by looking at me, just like you can tell my Jewish grandmother is white by looking at her. White is a race, and the shared cultures of European nations (among others) does NOT equal "white culture". You can't tell anything about my ethnicity by looking at me. You can't tell anything about my culture by looking at my skin. So when you say "That's a typical white thing to say", who are you referring to? Italians, Russians, the French? What exact culture are you referring to?

And I hate to break this to you, but looking at someone and saying "they're white!" is not judgment in any negative sense of the word at all. It's basic empiricism.

Also, I'm not trying to win anything here. It's not like there's a cookie waiting for whoever wins or something like that, lol. I just voiced my opinion, as have you. And despite your presumption, both of us have studied this subject.

Valid only in the sense that you're entitled to it, but it doesn't make it right in the sense of accuracy or with anything informing aside from self-validation.

Sorry Jamie, but your alleged superiority here isn't making itself apparent. I don't see any symbolic logic being used in your posts. I don't see you pointing out when you reach a conclusion via hypothetical syllogism or anything like that. I don't see regular sources cited when you talk about most things. If you're going to hold me to a standard of rhetoric, you should keep that standard yourself so as to not appear hypocritical.
But if you intend to do so, keep things like the association fallacy in mind.

You could refrain from posting on these threads. That would be infinitely better. Just read, analyze, consider, do your own research.

I know about this topic. Don't presume to know anything about how much I've looked into something just because I don't share your biases or your opinions. I also find it odd that you think that because I don't share your opinion, I should be silenced -- which is itself a problem. You could, of course, say the same two sentences to anyone who disagrees with you about any subject. This doesn't lend anything to your argument or the discussion at hand, it just seems as if you're interested in echo chambers and unchallenged opinions.
I have seen this used by a lot of people in a lot of different circumstances. The whole, "You don't agree with me, therefore you don't know as much about the subject as me".

The People's History by Howard Zinn
The Souls of Black Folk by W.E.B. Du Bois
Black Skin, White Masks by Frantz Fanon
The Malcolm X Autobiography by Alex Haley and Malcolm X
Letter from Birmingham Jail by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Sister Outsider by Audre Lorde
Race Matters by Dr. Cornel West
Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria: And Other Conversations About Race by Dr. Beverly Daniel Tatum

I suppose I'll have to read all of these before I'm qualified to speak with you on this subject? Of course, I have my own sources -- ones much less biased than those covered, if the background of the author(s) serve as any indication towards potential bias. After all, Malcolm X was well known for his own racism and tendencies toward black supremacy. Without any clear argument (and sources of argument) presented, I guess I'd just be reading blindly and looking out for anything which happens to be similar to your points. Most of those aren't based in science or philosophy, so they're essentially useless as sources for anything beyond anecdote. And many of them (such as Dr. King's materials) really have no relevance in the West today.
As for my sources, I think these three will do just fine and should contain all of the information needed to defend my positions:
Human Nature and Conduct by John Dewey (regarding the means by which we accumulate culture)
The Conscious Mind by David Chalmers (regarding human mental processes)
The Fixation of Belief by Charles Peirce (regarding general epistemology important for this subject; it's rather short)

Frankly, I don't address all your points because I feel that disrespected by your lack of time and effort put into making an informed argument. Why should I spend my time arguing with someone who can't do me the courtesy of doing their research?

Because I haven't read the same books as you, I haven't done my research? Just because your rhetoric is a bit more tidy, you believe yourself more well-researched, more qualified to speak on the subject? You think that the words that come from you are suddenly of more value than the ones that come from me? Even if I had never read a single thing on the subject in my life, I could still make true statements. As I have. Even if I were to say "Plato theorized about Forms" without ever having read Plato or anything about him or his philosophy in my life, that statement would be true.
As for your informed argument, I have yet to see it. You haven't once defended your use of racist speech adequately. Your argument regarding cultural appropriation can essentially be boiled down to "I'm right, you're wrong, and this is true because I'm more educated on this subject than you". You haven't addressed my own argument at all. You've only jumped around the argument, avoiding the content and attacking anything else to attempt to defeat the position by association. I've not seen a counterpoint, and as far as I know you didn't even read the core of my argument as you haven't addressed it once or brought any of it up once.

I'm sorry if my demand for something more than an uninformed opinion comes across as arrogance. I don't understand why this is such a ridiculous request of me to make. Are you incapable of doing your own research? Are you incapable of reading books and searching the internet? Am I missing some crucial piece of this puzzle that would explain why asking for something more than ignorance is unreasonable?

I have done my research. I discuss this topic regularly. I've taken college classes which cover topics similar to and including cultural appropriation and I've done well in them. I've read books, articles, essays, etc. etc.
Your position regarding my level of knowledge on this subject come from ignorance. It is something you assumed, baselessly, in order to demerit my argument. And you responded further as if my argument had been completely demerited by your statement, which only served to falsely smear my character. It was a sloppy and pointless ad hominem attack based on wild presumptions, and it has nothing to do with what I initiated conversation with you over -- namely, the presence of racially discriminatory language (racism) in your posts.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh7c7PSVubE

OB1Shinobi wrote: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh7c7PSVubE

This video is the nail in the coffin of that poor argument. Thanks for posting it.

Cultural appropriation is a very serious topic. It is, however, often misdiagnosed.

Continue with your "people shouldn't be upset about things that don't upset me" rants, though.