Cultural Sensitivity/Appropriation and Anger

OB1Shinobi wrote: there is an actual appropriation of culture relevant to this story, and that is the way that native peoples barred from practicing their indigenous beliefs and forced to adopt Christianity

that was a situation where we can legitimately claim harm and appropriation, because cultural beliefs and practices were literally being taken away from people

but the situation in the article is actually a case of one group of people telling some that he cannot engage in the practices that he believes will better his life because they do not approve

One of the concepts of cultural appropriation is that there is a lasting, generational impact of appropriation or mistreatment that happened in the past. That certain groups are disadvantaged as far as cultural exchanges go because of events in history.

I find that article relevant because it can be seen as fallout from that historical appropriation you're talking about. Native Americans are still being barred from practicing cultural traditions in parts of the country. Meanwhile, those cultural traditions are being "shared" amongst people who have no connection to those cultures. And the justification is usually "I'm not hurting anybody." Maybe, in an indirect way, they are because they're contributing to the trivialization, commodification, and/or Christianization that is still ongoing and that impacts Good Christian Cree Communities™ who are deciding whether they want to allow a sweat lodge.

OB1Shinobi wrote: the thing isnt to tell someone "no you cant do that because your skin is wrong"
the thing is to tell people "be sincere and diligent and responsible in what you do, and who you trust"

1. Culture is not race.
2. That does not discount the existence of cultural appropriation. In fact, it supports the argument that it both exists and is a problem.

steamboat28 wrote:

1. Culture is not race.

That is 100% correct. Yet somehow I keep getting told I can't do certain things because I'm white.

I'm ALWAYS told I can't and yet, I do.
No theology but that's kinda what the difference is, the ability to act.

Goken wrote:

steamboat28 wrote:

1. Culture is not race.

That is 100% correct. Yet somehow I keep getting told I can't do certain things because I'm white.

To be fair, there is being a race and then a culture usually associated with that race. They are separated entities and for the most part, I don't think race is requisite for being a part of the culture. It can play a big part in their identity and may (sadly) be their only defining trait, that's the decision of the people in that culture, that's their right.

Parnerium wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: there is an actual appropriation of culture relevant to this story, and that is the way that native peoples barred from practicing their indigenous beliefs and forced to adopt Christianity

that was a situation where we can legitimately claim harm and appropriation, because cultural beliefs and practices were literally being taken away from people

but the situation in the article is actually a case of one group of people telling some that he cannot engage in the practices that he believes will better his life because they do not approve

One of the concepts of cultural appropriation is that there is a lasting, generational impact of appropriation or mistreatment that happened in the past. That certain groups are disadvantaged as far as cultural exchanges go because of events in history.

I find that article relevant because it can be seen as fallout from that historical appropriation you're talking about. Native Americans are still being barred from practicing cultural traditions in parts of the country. Meanwhile, those cultural traditions are being "shared" amongst people who have no connection to those cultures. And the justification is usually "I'm not hurting anybody." Maybe, in an indirect way, they are because they're contributing to the trivialization, commodification, and/or Christianization that is still ongoing and that impacts Good Christian Cree Communities™ who are deciding whether they want to allow a sweat lodge.

There are many things my ancestors could do which I can't. I don't blame other cultures/races for it, I don't prevent others from copying my culture or parts of it (chritianization, isn't that the "theft" and modification of christianity?), and certainly wouldn't claim ownership of an idea on my own behalf or that of a group of people who happen to look very slightly more similar to me than others do.

I can see why racial stereotyping/typecasting annoys people, but racial stereotypes are a bit like the chicken and the egg, who knows which came first? Race isn't the only thing to suffer from stereotypes though. Kids do this, old people do that, men do

This being said, the snowflakes who would complain about me doing some other culture/race's "thing" know to stay well away from me as they'd get a reply of the "you're right it's shit, I don't know why I ever bothered showing any interest in this, it should be banned, really" variety. Shuts them up good and tight.

ren wrote: This being said, the snowflakes who would complain about me doing some other culture/race's "thing" know to stay well away from me as they'd get a reply of the "you're right it's shit, I don't know why I ever bothered showing any interest in this, it should be banned, really" variety. Shuts them up good and tight.

I may have to use this - in very specific situations, of course! Ha ha!

ren wrote: ...I don't prevent others from copying my culture or parts of it (chritianization, isn't that the "theft" and modification of christianity?)...

Christianity aims to spread itself, so no, it's not "theft." It's hard to steal something that missionaries came specifically to give you.

I'd also challenge the use of the word "theft" in relation to cultural appropriation. Theft is a zero sum act. If I steal your candy you don't have candy any more. Cultural transmission (through sharing, appropriation, or something else) isn't like this.

ren wrote: I can see why racial stereotyping/typecasting annoys people, but racial stereotypes are a bit like the chicken and the egg, who knows which came first? Race isn't the only thing to suffer from stereotypes though. Kids do this, old people do that, men do

This being said, the snowflakes who would complain about me doing some other culture/race's "thing" know to stay well away from me as they'd get a reply of the "you're right it's shit, I don't know why I ever bothered showing any interest in this, it should be banned, really" variety. Shuts them up good and tight.

Serious question, is there any reason we keep conflating race and culture? Or are there just two different conversations happening (one about racial stereotyping and one about cultural appropriation)?

Thought Exercise:

Say tomorrow morning, interest in this site explodes wildly. People start grabbing bits of doctrine, pasting them in memes, getting tattoos of them, drawing the TOTJO logo on themselves in class. Maybe they wear hoods or robes or carry toy lightsabers to the grocer's with them. Maybe they look at each other over bowls of popcorn and say "Dude, I'm totally a Jedi now, wanna see some of the sweet Jedi wisdom I got?"

But none of them--not a single individual who stopped by, not a single individual who borrowed something from TOTJO, not even one of them--were actually interested in learning the significance behind the doctrine, or the meaning of the logo, or anything. They didn't come to learn, they just came, thought something was neat, and took it.

How would you feel about that?

Parnerium wrote: I think removing the element of cultural appropriation isn't helpful, considering we're talking about cultural appropriation.

probably i did not express the point i was making very well, so i will be more precise with my words and the line of thought which brought us to this statement

i asked if someone could demonstrate a harm more significant than "its distasteful" or "i dont like it" (in the interest of being very precise i could ALSO phrase this one as "i find it offensive" and that would be consistent with the idea that i want to express)

you responded with this link
http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/james-arthur-ray-arizona-sweat-lodge/story?id=11016900

i made the assumptions that you were indicating:

1) the events described in this link offer an example of cultural appropriation causing harm greater than "it offends me"
2) death and injury were the "harm" you were indicating was caused
and especially
3) cultural appropriation was the actual cause of the deaths and injuries

the gist of my response was that it was not cultural appropriation that killed those people; it was being taken to a secluded place in the desert for days without food or water, and told to “to surrender to death to survive it.”

basically, it was dangerous and incompetent leadership which killed those people

i demonstrated this point with a sort of logical exercise, which was the suggestion of the following 2 things

1) this cult leader dude, james ray, constructed a dangerous and difficult scenario for his followers which he did not properly understand or prepare for

which implies to me that even if he had not used the context of a sweat lodge or a vision quest, he would still have been dangerous and incompetent because he was disposed towards constructing dangerous scenarios which he did not really understand, and was not prepared to administrate safely

that is a formula for getting people killed, with or without cultural appropriation

and

2) if he had really understood what a sweat lodge is and how they work, and the risks involved in what he was doing and how to accurately evaluate the capabilities of his followers, then he could have hosted a sweat lodge -or probably an imitation of a sweat lodge- without anyone being hurt

i cant substantiate the second point, do you agree that it seems reasonable? by "reasonable" i mean "do you agree that it is logically sound/consistent chain of reasoning?", not "do you believe that it is true?"

both of those hypotheticals demonstrate that the appropriation itself was not the cause of harm, if by "harm" we are referring to the deaths and injuries of the people attending the sweat lodge, and not to, say, the public perception of either sweat lodges or of the self help industry, or some other example of some other kind of harm that we might come up with if we think about it long enough

Parnerium wrote: Perhaps appropriating a practice he didn't understand was one of those irresponsible actions.

sure, but i dont highlight the cultural origin of the practice as the irresponsible part, i highlight the inherent dangers of the situation that he constructed, and his lack of competence to protect his followers from those dangers, as being the irresponsible part

he was not a responsible leader, so the chain of "if" is too long and too broad to say what he would have done differently if he were responsible: he wouldnt have been in that situation, for sure

this would be a good time to talk about what we each mean when we say "cultural appropriation" but this post is long enough as it is and that question is more appropriately directed to someone else

OB1Shinobi wrote: the thing isnt to tell someone "no you cant do that because your skin is wrong"
the thing is to tell people "be sincere and diligent and responsible in what you do, and who you trust"

Parnerium wrote: I don't think cultural appropriation has anything to do with skin color whatsoever.

well, "skin" is four letters and "ethno-cultural, familial, and communal heritage and background" is a whole helluva lot of letters, and everyone knows that us white people are f**in lazy!