Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Or: The problem with white belly dancing women.
From Salon, and where else? Well, in any case, we shouldn’t be too surprised:
Google the term “belly dance” and the first images the search engine offers are of white women in flowing, diaphanous skirts, playing at brownness. How did this become acceptable?
:
One of the most awkward occurrences for me when I go out to an Arabic restaurant is the portion of the evening when the white belly dancer comes out. This usually happens on weekends, and I’ve learned to avoid those spaces then, but sometimes I forget. The last time I forgot, a white woman came out in Arab drag — because that’s what that is, when a person who’s not Arab wears genie pants and a bra and heavy eye makeup and Arabic jewelry, or jewelry that is meant to read as “Arabic” because it’s metallic and shiny and has squiggles of some kind — and began to belly-dance. She was not a terrible belly dancer. But she was incredibly thin…
:
These women are more interested in their investment in belly dancing than in questioning and examining how their appropriation of the art causes others harm. To them, I can only say, I’m sure there are people who have been unwittingly racist for 15 years. It’s not too late. Find another form of self-expression. Make sure you’re not appropriating someone else’s.
Wah.
Robert Tracisnki commented just a little while later:
Now that is an interesting principle if we were to apply it consistently. The mind reels. Enormous parts of our culture have been influenced by and therefore “appropriated” from someone else. Much of contemporary American popular music was “appropriated” in one way or another from Southern blacks, as are whole styles of dance. Tap dance was appropriated by whites from blacks, who appropriated it from the Irish. Or maybe the other way around, or both. Parts of the American Arts and Crafts style were “appropriated” from traditional Japanese homebuilding. Franz Liszt encouraged his contemporaries to “appropriate” melodies from the Hungarians like all get-out. Classical architecture was “appropriated” from the Romans by the descendants of the very barbarians who sacked the empire. And so on.
What Jarrar condemns as “appropriation” is actually “learning”…
This thing we today call “liberalism” isn’t anything of the kind. As this little dust-up vividly illustrates, it is a fascination with categorizing people: You go there, you go there, you other people go there. White women shouldn’t belly-dance, and such.
Whatever “liberalism” and “conservatism” might have meant in years past, this is a distinction that works reasonably well today: The idea that people of certain races & classes belong in certain places, is exclusively scare-quote “liberal.”
“How did this become acceptable?” That should be a slogan, emblazoned on the coat-of-arms of scare-quote “liberal”-ism. These-people shouldn’t be doing this. Those-people shouldn’t be doing that.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Your readers might be interested in Randa Jarrar’s response.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 05:19http://randajarrar.com/2014/03/18/new-essay-2/
Yes, America pretends to be a melting pot, but this means everyone has to adhere to a cultural norm, and in the process, minorities are negated and further made invisible.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 06:57This is what one would expect to have happen in a “melting pot,” isn’t it? And how is it any sort of problem?
[…] dancing is, of course, racist. Ain’t first world problems […]
- A Good Excuse for Some Cheesecake | Rotten Chestnuts | 06/15/2014 @ 07:45mkfreeberg: This is what one would expect to have happen in a “melting pot,” isn’t it?
No. You would have an admixture. That’s what “melting pot” means.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:05No. You would have an admixture. That’s what “melting pot” means.
Precisely. And there is my point: In a mixture of black and white, the outcome is gray, and the black & white ingredients lose distinction as they are mixed together. What’s the problem?
It’s only a problem if the bringers of the custom are somehow disallowed from practicing it, which it doesn’t seem anyone anywhere is saying is happening here. OR — if someone has an irrational fascination with separate-ness. “You go there, you go there, you other people go there.” Which would make THEM the problem.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 08:25mkfreeberg: Precisely.
Her point is the dominance relationship distorts the relationship. She says she has been persecuted for being Arabic, while whites want to adopt caricatures of Arab culture.
http://topbet.eu/news/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Cleveland-Indians-MLB.png
We’re not agreeing with her regarding belly dancing, by the way. While most liberals are sensitive to cultural co-option, most consider the essay to have missed the mark.
- Zachriel | 06/15/2014 @ 08:29I saw my first authentic belly dancer in Sinop, Turkey -1962. He must have weighed at least 300 pounds.
- roylofquist | 06/15/2014 @ 12:07Questions: What does an Arab look like? What color is an Arab?
- Rich Fader | 06/15/2014 @ 16:28While most liberals are sensitive to cultural co-option, most consider the essay to have missed the mark.
That may very well be true. But y’all would be very hard-pressed to find any conservatives today who would agree with her.
In 2014, the self-identifying “liberals” simply are not ready for a melting pot. Round up a hundred or so who are all googley-eyed over “Isn’t it wonderful we have a black President?” and “Isn’t it wonderful we’re about to have a woman in that office?” and “Isn’t it wonderful we have a ‘wise Latina’ on the Supreme Court?” — most of them will identify as liberals. The conservative rebuttal to this nowadays is not quite so much that blacks and women and Latinas need to mind their place, however much liberals might wish that were the case; it is more fairly characterized as a fatigued and weary attitude of, “I just don’t want to get into this.” Haven’t got the time for it. If the President or Associate Justice can do the job — or not — that is really all that matters, don’t care if s/he is pink with purple polka dots.
I’m old enough to remember when that was supposed to have been the goal of liberalism. All these years later, we see liberals turn out to have been lying to us the whole time. They can’t get over their fascination with putting certain classes and ethnicities of people in certain boxes. Nowadays, if you still support a truly color-blind society, you’re not only a “right winger,” but an extremist one. The lesson seems to be that our fascination with victimology enjoys a longer lifespan than our fascination with real equality.
- mkfreeberg | 06/15/2014 @ 18:55QueenCassie, by the way, is about as white as copier paper, and completely amazing.
In all likelihood, the author of the Salon piece wouldn’t look quite that good trying to do the same thing, and that’s probably the real problem.
mkfreeberg: But y’all would be very hard-pressed to find any conservatives today who would agree with her.
Many people close their eyes to the problem of cultural appropriation.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 05:22http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
Many people close their eyes to the problem of cultural appropriation.
Yeah. Japanese people putting on Shakespeare plays, Asian musicians playing Beethoven, Indians programming computers and providing technical support, it’s a pretty serious problem all around. And conservatives close their eyes to the mess.
When are all these ethnicities ever going to learn their place?
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 06:21mkfreeberg: Yeah. Japanese people putting on Shakespeare plays, Asian musicians playing Beethoven, Indians programming computers and providing technical support, it’s a pretty serious problem all around.
So you don’t see the difference between that and this:
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 06:24http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
There’s an obvious difference between that and the 100-year-old photo you share, Zachriel. It’s the effort. It takes no time at all to slather some paint on your face. Actual admiration – to the point where one wants to put in lots of time and effort and practice in the attempt to master a skill, where one submits as a pupil to a teacher of a different ethnicity and cultural background – is quite another story. And if anyone is conflating the two, it’s Jarrar.
- nightfly | 06/16/2014 @ 07:36nightfly: It’s the effort. It takes no time at all to slather some paint on your face.
Actually, Jolson put a lot of effort into his acts, which included song and dance, as well as ‘traditional’ costuming. However, we agree that learning about and showing respect for a culture is quite different than caricaturing it.
nightfly: And if anyone is conflating the two, it’s Jarrar.
It’s important to understand her argument before deciding whether it applies in the particular case. Keep in mind that she has suffered anti-Arab discrimination which has colored her views.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 07:42I’m sorry if Ms. Jarrar has suffered previously from insensitive people. That, however, isn’t proof that everything else around her is prejudiced. An admission that prior incidents have colored her views implies strongly that her views on this particular incident may not be clear. In any case, “This upsets me” isn’t a dispositive statement. Even if people are willfully doing it because they know it upsets her, it isn’t dispositive. People are often jerks to each other, not from any large-class bias, but because they’re inclined through fallen nature to be jerkish.
I find it quite unlikely that a woman who loves belly dancing is doing it specifically to insult the entire lineage of Turks… or Greeks, for that matter. It’s more likely that the person grabbing at the entire art form and screeching “MINE MINE MINE DOWN DOWN DOWN BACK BACK BACK” is the one with the problem, inasmuch as the art form belongs not to a single culture but forms part of the expression of several.
- nightfly | 06/16/2014 @ 08:47nightfly: I’m sorry if Ms. Jarrar has suffered previously from insensitive people. That, however, isn’t proof that everything else around her is prejudiced.
True enough.
nightfly: In any case, “This upsets me” isn’t a dispositive statement.
Dispositive of what?
nightfly: I find it quite unlikely that a woman who loves belly dancing is doing it specifically to insult the entire lineage of Turks… or Greeks, for that matter.
Do you think Al Jolson was doing it specifically to insult blacks?
Do you remember our point? That you have to recognize that cultural appropriation is a valid concern before you can determine whether it applies in this case.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 08:58…you have to recognize that cultural appropriation is a valid concern before you can determine whether it applies in this case.
I can do the latter without the former. And in a single word, a more delicate euphemism for which would be: “Nonsense.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 10:53mkfreeberg: I can do the latter without the former.
It’s always easier to reject an argument without addressing it, but it doesn’t makes for a coherent objection.
Are you saying cultural appropriation can never be a valid concern?
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 11:52http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
It’s always easier to refect an argument without addressing it…
Dismissing the entire concept as buffoonery is a valid position to take, even though y’all may find it disagreeable.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 12:00Just imagine it working the other way: Nobody can comment intelligently on whether or not I’m wonderful, until they agree that I am.
Truly wonderful people would never have a need to impose such a rule on others.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 12:03mkfreeberg: Dismissing the entire concept as buffoonery is a valid position to take, even though y’all may find it disagreeable.
Just so we understand, are you saying cultural appropriation can never be a valid concern?
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 12:12mkfreeberg: Nobody can comment intelligently on whether or not I’m wonderful, until they agree that I am.
We didn’t insist that you agree. We asked you a question. Are you saying cultural appropriation can never be a valid concern?
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 12:13To answer my own questions: There is no single Arab look. There is no single Arab skin color. In other words, this ostensibly anti-racist harangue itself implicitly depends on a racist assumption. Oh, and Turks also have a long-standing tradition of belly dance. And they’re not Arab.
- Rich Fader | 06/16/2014 @ 12:52The thing is, “cultural appropriation” sounds like a genuine scholarly term, but unpack it’s meaning, and it boils down to a hipster lament that someone else is enjoying something that doesn’t jibe with said hipster’s notion of what that other person ought to enjoy – usually based on the sort of stereotyping that is supposed to be anathema. One could reasonably believe that the term is invented for no other reason than to hide this knowledge from the self – to provide cover for indulging in a little prejudice oneself, by claiming to find it in others.
It doesn’t have to be racial; it can be as simple as a working class family thinking that one of their number is a snob for listening to Brubeck, or an upper-class family thinking that their child is slumming for admiring graffiti murals. It can be a family of doctors disowning a child for choosing culinary school, or a family of factory workers shunning an aspiring dancer. It can be the fans of a band getting into tiresome arguments over a popular album being a sell-out. It’s most recently seen in the huge blow-up over sci-fi fans refusing to accept work based on the perceived political failings of the author. Every last bit of it is based on the idea that once art is released to the world, it only belongs to a few people who set themselves up as gatekeepers to judge the worthiness of others to admire and appreciate. The goal isn’t loving the thing itself, but controlling other people.
- nightfly | 06/16/2014 @ 13:40Rich Fader: In other words, this ostensibly anti-racist harangue itself implicitly depends on a racist assumption.
Arabism is an ethnicity.
nightfly: The thing is, “cultural appropriation” sounds like a genuine scholarly term, but unpack it’s meaning, and it boils down to a hipster lament that someone else is enjoying something that doesn’t jibe with said hipster’s notion of what that other person ought to enjoy – usually based on the sort of stereotyping that is supposed to be anathema.
So this is not cultural appropriation?
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 14:00http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
nightfly: It doesn’t have to be racial; it can be as simple as a working class family thinking that one of their number is a snob for listening to Brubeck, or an upper-class family thinking that their child is slumming for admiring graffiti murals.
Of course, those examples don’t have the same impact as cultural appropriation with regards to many minorities who have experienced persecution.
nightfly: The goal isn’t loving the thing itself, but controlling other people.
No one can stop you from wearing blackface, or wearing an Indian outfit with a plastic feather headdress. But we’re quite sure that many people who would voice their objections are sincere in their criticisms.
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 14:06http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zvpMP3-Dn60/UTbnYY36PKI/AAAAAAAAALk/gny4UkOOb5o/s1600/imhonoringyou.jpg
I think I understand now. Appropriation is valid (and The Zachriel are right, AGAIN)…if, and only if, what QueenCassie is doing is equal to what Al Jolson did.
And I’m very sure there are people who *feel* that this is true. But that’s the trouble with feelings. They’re convincing, when they shouldn’t be. At the end of the day, though — the equation evaluates to the boolean value of false, the two sides of it are not equal, The Zachriel are wrong again, and this whole thing is a bunch of hooey.
Which brings me to the other point.
By pronouncing it as such, I have successfully “determine[d] whether it [‘appropriation’] applies in this case” — it doesn’t — without “recogniz[ing] that cultural appropriation is a valid concern.” Which debunks what they said over here.
They have reacted to that debunking with yet another tired old game of “we are asking a question and you are not responding.”
For the record, I have come to recognize that as their version of admitting defeat. They can be counted on launching into it every time they’re backed into a corner. Which is often.
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 17:36mkfreeberg: I think I understand now.
It would be much easier to reach understanding if you would answer simple questions about your position, rather than having us guess.
Are you saying cultural appropriation can never be a valid concern?
mkfreeberg: Appropriation is valid (and The Zachriel are right, AGAIN)…if, and only if, what QueenCassie is doing is equal to what Al Jolson did.
That is incorrect. Rather, we provided an *obvious* example to show that cultural appropriation is a real phenomenon. Something doesn’t have to be that obvious to be a case of cultural appropriation, in which case you have to look at the specifics of the argument.
mkfreeberg: By pronouncing it as such, I have successfully “determine[d] whether it [‘appropriation’] applies in this case”
No, you haven’t, because you haven’t actually considered the problem of cultural appropriation and whether it applies. Rather, you avoid any actual discussion.
Try answering this simple question. You might be surprised how it can actually lead to a better understand of our respective positions. Are you saying cultural appropriation can never be a valid concern?
- Zachriel | 06/16/2014 @ 17:51M: By pronouncing it as such, I have successfully “determine[d] whether it [‘appropriation’] applies in this case”
Z: No, you haven’t, because you haven’t actually considered the problem of cultural appropriation and whether it applies. Rather, you avoid any actual discussion.
Y’all don’t agree with my determination. But that does not mean I haven’t determined.
I dismiss the entire concept as a lot of baloney. I’m not alone in doing that, by the way, but that is not the point. The point is that this is a determination, so what y’all said has been falsified. It only takes one example.
There’s something else. What y’all said was immediately identifiable as nonsense. It gels with reality no better than “Nobody can comment on whether or not I’m wonderful, until they agree that I am.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/16/2014 @ 19:40mkfreeberg: But that does not mean I haven’t determined.
The process is flawed because you didn’t consider the actual claim being made.
Zachriel: Are you saying cultural appropriation can never be a valid concern?
mkfreeberg: I dismiss the entire concept as a lot of baloney.
If by “entire concept” you mean cultural appropriation, then that could be a valid argument. (Not sure why you can’t be explicit.) If cultural appropriation doesn’t exist, then you’re claiming this is not cultural appropriation.
http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
Not sure that’s a tenable position.
“Cultural appropriation is the adoption of some specific elements of one culture by a different cultural group. It describes acculturation or assimilation, but can imply a negative view towards acculturation from a minority culture by a dominant culture.”
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 04:19The process is flawed because you didn’t consider the actual claim being made.
The process by which y’all determined the process is flawed, is in itself flawed. Y’all didn’t even consider that maybe the whole idea is a bunch of codswallop.
And I’ve noticed that seems to be a pattern. Y’all concluded X and seem very sure of y’all’selves about it, but how seriously did y’all ponder the possibility of not-X?
If by “entire concept” you mean cultural appropriation, then that could be a valid argument. (Not sure why you can’t be explicit.)
Oh, by “be explicit” y’all mean use the word? Is this proposition so fragile that it must insist on EVERYONE discussing it, using the terminology chosen by its adherents?
If cultural appropriation doesn’t exist, then you’re claiming this is not cultural appropriation.
I’m claiming it’s not a problem. While we’re asking questions and being explicit, how would we define the problem if there is one? Mockery? So what. Liberals mock conservatives all of the time. Atheists mock Christians. Pretty much everybody is mocking pretty much everybody else.
But this is all beside the point, since what Al Jolson did is different from what QueenCassie did. This has been explained to y’all several times, and not just by me.
I think coming up with these loaded terms to create new branches and disciplines of victimology, would be a much bigger problem in our society today than any mockery. Perhaps someone should come up with a word to describe that, instead.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 05:05mkfreeberg: The process by which y’all determined the process is flawed, is in itself flawed. Y’all didn’t even consider that maybe the whole idea is a bunch of codswallop.
We subject every precept to criticism. By “the whole idea”, do you mean cultural appropriation?
mkfreeberg: Oh, by “be explicit” y’all mean use the word?
We would like to understand to what you are referring.
mkfreeberg: Is this proposition so fragile that it must insist on EVERYONE discussing it, using the terminology chosen by its adherents?
It’s entirely appropriate to use the term. You could say “The whole idea of cultural appropriation is a bunch of codswallop”. Or you could even use scare-quotes. “The entire concept of ‘cultural appropriation’ is a lot of baloney.”
mkfreeberg: I’m claiming it’s not a problem.
Never a problem? Or just in this case?
It can’t be the latter because you said “I dismiss the entire concept as a lot of baloney,” and then suggested “the whole idea is a bunch of codswallop.” Is this not a problem?
http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
mkfreeberg: But this is all beside the point, …
No. You said “I dismiss the entire concept as a lot of baloney,” and then suggested “the whole idea is a bunch of codswallop,” so it is relevant to that claim.
mkfreeberg: But this is all beside the point, since what Al Jolson did is different from what QueenCassie did.
In what way?
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 05:19We subject every precept to criticism.
Sure you do! Y’all were so skeptical of the concept of appropriation. Until y’all found a picture of Al Jolson in blackface, and WHOA. That settled it once and for all!
Is this not a problem?
Right. It’s not a problem.
The problem would be the notion that some solution is required. Somehow or another, such a solution would have to involve force. That would be a problem.
M: But this is all beside the point, …
Z: No. You said “I dismiss the entire concept as a lot of baloney,” and then suggested “the whole idea is a bunch of codswallop,” so it is relevant to that claim.
Pretending white bellydancers are engaging in mockery, is relevant to the claim?
Nonsense, by its very nature, is not relevant to anything at all. It isn’t even relevant to the claim that the nonsense is nonsense.
In what way?
Let’s ask a white bellydancer:
It would be easier to ask: How is what Al Jolson similar to what white bellydancers do? Maybe y’all should field that one.
I don’t think pasting the link to that picture a few dozen more times is going to get that one settled. I’ve looked and looked; dude doesn’t look like a white bellydancer to me.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 05:34mkfreeberg: Y’all were so skeptical of the concept of appropriation.
Every precept is subject to criticism. However, cultural appropriation is a well-established phenomenon.
Zachriel: Is this not a problem?
http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
mkfreeberg: Right. It’s not a problem.
That’s all we wanted to established.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 05:38That’s all we wanted to established.
Must make a note to add “questions without any curiosity” to Make Bigger Mistakes, More Often, and Without Any Doubts: The Zachriel Weltanschauung. I could put it right after “problems defined, no actual solutions proposed.”
Hey here’s a question for y’all — and I have some genuine curiosity about it. Is this a problem? Unlike the white bellydancers, it actually does bear some resemblance to Al Jolson; and, if I recall correctly, without any massive social movements or new words or rules in place, the situation seemed to work out just fine.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 05:48mkfreeberg: Is this a problem?
Yes, it was a problem.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 06:03Yes, it was a problem.
Seems to have worked out okay. Ted Danson retreated into obscurity, humiliated, mumbled some sort of silliness about the oceans disappearing in ten years, disappeared again.
In general, these things work out better when people are allowed to do things. The Danson debacle conclusively proves that to apply here.
But mockery of black people has nothing to do with white women bellydancing. So back to the subject at hand, and let’s try y’all’s question here: Is Randa Jarrar’s eagerness to compartmentalize people, a problem? And I’m genuinely curious about y’all’s answer. Seems to me y’all have been working pretty hard to avoid this.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 06:17mkfreeberg: Seems to have worked out okay. Ted Danson retreated into obscurity, humiliated, mumbled some sort of silliness about the oceans disappearing in ten years, disappeared again.
Yes, most people today understand the problem of cultural appropriation based on stereotypes, especially after a long history of persecution. This is contrary to your claim that it’s not a problem.
–
Zachriel: Is this not a problem?
http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
mkfreeberg: Right. It’s not a problem.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 06:40M: Right. It’s not a problem.
Z: That’s all we wanted to established.
Two possibilities are available, no more and no less: mkfreeberg saying it is not a problem, somehow solves the problem; or, The Zachriel are not interested in solving any problem. One of those, and only one, must be true.
And I think we can safely eliminate the first of those two.
Is Randa Jarrar’s eagerness to compartmentalize people, a problem? And I’m genuinely curious about y’all’s answer. Seems to me y’all have been working pretty hard to avoid this.
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 07:19mkfreeberg: Two possibilities are available, no more and no less: mkfreeberg saying it is not a problem, somehow solves the problem; or, The Zachriel are not interested in solving any problem.
Both statements are false, and are a false dichotomy. Zachriel’s interest in solving problems is not relevant to the power of mkfreeberg to solve the problems inherent in cultural appropriation by simply saying so.
mkfreeberg: Is Randa Jarrar’s eagerness to compartmentalize people, a problem?
That’s like saying complaining about blackface is compartmentalizing people.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 07:48What in the holy %#!$ are these pompous asses even talking about? “Appropriating” my ass. Why is it that those who lecture us the most boil absolutely everything down to race? YOU can’t do this because you’re not the right race, or religion (which they also typically boil down to race … because that’s what they DO).
The PC Culture bullies know no bounds, and pride themselves in their “ability” to use twisted rationalization to condemn what they don’t like in the name of “tolerance”. They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.
I work with a lovely Iraqi brown people who invited my decidedly white wife to come learn belly dancing with with her other brown and white friends. I say this not to justify it — because it doesn’t NEED justification, I say it to tell people who whine about how free people choose to dress and dance and speak if it’s not “their” culture to go f**k themselves running.
I have completely had it with this.
- philmon | 06/17/2014 @ 09:03Hey, look who’s appropriating Southern speech.
It is terrible that a**holes have treated her badly because of her race.
But getting angry with about belly dancers or people who like them won’t fix it. That anger is misdirected.
- philmon | 06/17/2014 @ 09:11(that should be:
“But getting angry about white belly dancers or people who like them won’t fix it.” )
- philmon | 06/17/2014 @ 09:12philmon: I work with a lovely Iraqi brown people who invited my decidedly white wife to come learn belly dancing with with her other brown and white friends.
Nightfly seemed to have hit on the important point. It’s respect for the other culture that determines whether cultural appropriation is a problem or not.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 09:15Except that I would still reject the term “cultural appropriation,” and for reasons I wrote earlier: it gives the gloss of intellectual theory to what is decidedly an emotional reaction, to wit: “MINE MINE MINE.” And I am confident of being on the right track there, because the people taking it upon themselves to decide whether the respect is genuine or not are the people inventing and using that term. This tells me that it’s more about controlling who gets to do what, claiming that a personal dislike is actually a universal and objective wrong that must be righted. “You’re not allowed to enjoy that, because I say so.”
The natural response is ,”Why not, if I like it and am good at it?” And that’s a harder question to answer truthfully without sounding very much like the person who really has the problem with acceptance and welcoming different people. But dress up the problem with a conjuring term like “cultural appropriation” and you can pretend that your problem is in fact a mark of distinction and refinement – you turn something shameful into something flattering, and you get to explain what “cultural appropriation” is, and get on TV and be impressive to people you want to like you, and to condescend and bully others who discount the notion. And since a lot of us generally prefer to get along with folks, and especially prefer not to be thought of as bigots – most especially when they aren’t, in fact, bigots – they are forced into one of two replies.
The first is to challenge the notion. This leads to problems, since the
To avoid the unpleasantness, people usually go for the second reply: nod and try to accommodate the idea, just to prove to their suspicious accuser that they aren’t prejudiced. This has two drawbacks: first, it lets the incoherent accusation stand as a valid idea. Second, it doesn’t actually work to avoid the unpleasantness. Sooner or later there’s another accusation, another “cultural appropriation” or “microaggression” or whatever the next encroachment is to be called. And why not? The first one worked beautifully. What’s been appropriated, and rather aggressively, is control of a little mental geography, from the native of that mind to an interloper. Your own likes and dislikes, thoughts and words and deeds, no longer belong to you.
Each further push moves farther from the criteria of actual harm done – concrete terms that can be demonstrated to anyone – to perceived hurt feelings, realistic or not, that can never be proven or disproven. Real harm is done in return to these slights, often to bewildered people who had no idea that the things they loved and enjoyed all their lives somehow proved how awful they actually were. Half the time these newly-minted targets were people who were on the aiming end for prior things, and can’t imagine why their enthusiastic mob-mates are turning on them.
- nightfly | 06/17/2014 @ 13:11nightfly: Except that I would still reject the term “cultural appropriation,” and for reasons I wrote earlier: it gives the gloss of intellectual theory to what is decidedly an emotional reaction, to wit: “MINE MINE MINE.”
The term can be neutral, positive, or negative, depending on context. It’s a standard anthropological term. It’s not an emotional reaction, but a process by which cultures interact.
nightfly: And I am confident of being on the right track there, because the people taking it upon themselves to decide whether the respect is genuine or not are the people inventing and using that term.
Who do you think should decide other than the individual based on their own values? There’s no law against wearing blackface. People reach judgments, sometimes hastily, sometimes after much thought.
nightfly: Real harm is done in return to these slights, often to bewildered people who had no idea that the things they loved and enjoyed all their lives somehow proved how awful they actually were.
Ignoring, of course, those who have been hurt by the ‘bewildered’.
- Zachriel | 06/17/2014 @ 14:56http://victualling.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sambocollage.jpg?w=500
Zachriel’s interest in solving problems is not relevant to the power of mkfreeberg to solve the problems inherent in cultural appropriation by simply saying so.
No. Here is what y’all said:
There’s something fascinating going on here; something deep, something that separates liberals from conservatives, who are dedicated to living in a cause-and-effect universe, relatively obsessed with results. You’ve heard of the conflict with men and women, when women complain about a problem and men irritate them further by coming up with solutions to it? Liberals make women look masculine. They don’t live on the same planet as finding a practical or effective solution to a problem. They don’t even orbit the same star. They’re not in the same galaxy.
The closest they ever come to solving a problem, is what this goofy columnist did. Whine and bitch and complain. That’s why Detroit. And, come to think of it, lately, Iraq.
Conservatives solve. Now and then, the conservative solution does not work. Occasionally it makes the problem worse. But, what really defines the distinction is that when conservatives say their plan is designed to solve the problem, they really mean it. Liberals say their solution is designed to solve the stated problem, an awful lot in fact — but what they really mean by this is “If you dare utter so much as a peep of protest against our plan, we will accuse you of wanting the problem to continue.” And that is ALL they mean when they say they design their plans to solve problems.
They don’t solve problems. They preen. They brag about being better than others. That is all they do.
“That’s all we wanted to established.” — The Zachriel.
It’s respect for the other culture that determines whether cultural appropriation is a problem or not.
And, it’s the feelings of the person ostensibly disrespected — correct or not — that determine whether or not there is a grievance. That’s why this whole thing, in addition to being the purest sort of nonsense, is incompatible with the peaceful continuance of civilization. It’s the protocol of gang warfare. “He dissed me! He won’t get away with it!”
Silly liberals. They think greater conflict, over nothing, is some sort of “progress.”
- mkfreeberg | 06/17/2014 @ 17:47Zachriel: Is this not a problem?
http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
mkfreeberg: Right. It’s not a problem.
That’s all we wanted to establish, that mkfreeberg doesn’t consider it a problem. It shows where our views differ. We consider the “dandified coon” to be offensive, and representative of the worst aspects of cultural appropriation. You don’t.
- Zachriel | 06/18/2014 @ 05:17nightfly: “And I am confident of being on the right track there, because the people taking it upon themselves to decide whether the respect is genuine or not are the people inventing and using that term.”
Z: “Who do you think should decide other than the individual based on their own values?”
I think that it can’t be unilaterally decided. A person may simply be delusional and/or paranoid. And further, their “own values” may turn out to be laughably bad, leading them to terrible judgments about what is and is not genuine respect.
If the only people claiming offense are the cadre of people whose entire livelihood depends on doing so, they’re probably full of it. At the very least their claims are highly suspect and should face a higher scrutiny from others.
nightfly: “Real harm is done in return to these slights, often to bewildered people who had no idea that the things they loved and enjoyed all their lives somehow proved how awful they actually were.”
Z: “Ignoring, of course, those who have been hurt by the ‘bewildered’.”
No, not at all. That sentence specifically refers to the sentence I wrote immediately before it: “Each further push moves farther from the criteria of actual harm done – concrete terms that can be demonstrated to anyone – to perceived hurt feelings, realistic or not, that can never be proven or disproven.” (emphasis added)
These two things are linked together, as you can no doubt see: a concrete and demonstrable harm will generally be apparent to a wide variety of people regardless of their values. A case can be made for it and against it that is not solely based on how a few sensitive souls may feel. In the reverse, if something bothers a good many different types of people from different backgrounds, it’s a clue – not infallible by any means, but certainly it raises a possibility that there really is something concretely wrong or “off” about what’s happened.
I think what’s going on here is a confusion between concrete virtue and vice, good and evil, that is universal and unchanging, vs. a society’s ethos, which can move closer to or further from those objective standards. What is against an ethos may not actually be wrong. “Good” and “proper” are not synonyms. Below that level you have mere custom, a lot of which is not at all a matter of morality, except where one goes out of one’s way to be insufferable. And even then – well, should anything be done about it, or would that be worse than just forgetting it?
We have a guy in our hockey league who scores cheap manhood points by acting badass after whistles (usually with a ref and teammates between him and his target), talking tough and calling other people cowards for backing down – but of course he’s only doing it precisely because he knows those challenges aren’t going to be accepted. He’s exploiting everyone else’s unwillingness to be as stupid as he is. It’s a pain in the ass, but it’s also not something he should be kicked out of the league for. He’s not actually starting fights or trying to injure other players. There’s no law against being a prick.
- nightfly | 06/18/2014 @ 09:18nightfly: I think that it can’t be unilaterally decided.
That it shows respect or not? Each person will reach their own conclusion. You may agree or not, depending on your values and evaluation of the situation.
nightfly: And further, their “own values” may turn out to be laughably bad, leading them to terrible judgments about what is and is not genuine respect.
Bad values being values you don’t share, of course.
nightfly: If the only people claiming offense are the cadre of people whose entire livelihood depends on doing so, they’re probably full of it.
Perhaps. Do Native Americans make a living by being caricatured?
nightfly: In the reverse, if something bothers a good many different types of people from different backgrounds, it’s a clue – not infallible by any means, but certainly it raises a possibility that there really is something concretely wrong or “off” about what’s happened.
But by nature, it’s the disenfranchised minority that is the butt of the blackface. Everybody else is just having some fun.
- Zachriel | 06/18/2014 @ 09:36nightfly: “I think that it can’t be unilaterally decided.”
Z: “That it shows respect or not? Each person will reach their own conclusion. You may agree or not, depending on your values and evaluation of the situation. ”
nightfly: “And further, their “own values” may turn out to be laughably bad, leading them to terrible judgments about what is and is not genuine respect.”
Z: “Bad values being values you don’t share, of course.”
Point taken on that second, but these two replies highlight exactly the problem. All these individual conclusions, drawn according to personal values (which may be wildly malformed), are being forwarded as if they are gospel truth. What’s more, the proposed reaction is to demand real laws designed to inflict a punishment on anyone and everyone else – not just the alleged offender but anyone who fails to show the proper enthusiastic agreement. We’re far beyond “blackface is generally offensive and ought not to be done.” Now we’re talking about “I am personally miffed and you must be made to pay for it – your business, your freedom of speech and worship, and your money are all mine now.”
To top all of that off, these proposals are declared as self-evident and unarguable, by people who never once reconsider their own values, who never reflect on whether their actions are good – much less whether their actions are even in keeping with their own stated principles. I’m being asked, in effect, to re-evaluate my own values by people who never examine theirs so far as to even know whether or not they live by them. Sure, they may be right by accident, but as I said before, it’s quite unlikely. They are so far out of practice at moral evaluation that I don’t trust their evaluation of my morals any more than I can trust my dog not to try to gobble dropped food. They never use the very process that would help them tell right from wrong, so why should I trust their judgment?
If I look at the two options: one allows all parties concerned to act by their consciences and values, while the other commands allegiance to one value alone. One permits people to change their minds, the other makes it impossible to do so. In short, if I want a world in which people are truly individuals and can have personal points of view, then I’m strongly in favor of option one. Option two, taken in the name of unassailable individual values, turns out to be the death of them all. By definition it can’t be the correct option.
- nightfly | 06/18/2014 @ 12:21nightfly: What’s more, the proposed reaction is to demand real laws designed to inflict a punishment on anyone and everyone else …
There are no laws in the U.S. against wearing blackface or belly dancing.
- Zachriel | 06/18/2014 @ 12:26There are no laws in the U.S. against wearing blackface or belly dancing.
That would be contrary to y’all’s claim that it’s a problem.
- mkfreeberg | 06/18/2014 @ 19:54mkfreeberg: That would be contrary to y’all’s claim that it’s a problem.
How so? Not all problems have legal solutions.
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 05:16Not all problems have legal solutions.
True. We can certainly consider that.
But in doing so, we would have to consider that when “most people today understand” something, they might very well be wrong. Large groups of people often are. And, nobody outside a liberal echo chamber takes the “appropriation” thing seriously anyhow.
- mkfreeberg | 06/19/2014 @ 05:57mkfreeberg: True.
Which contradicts your suggestion that if it’s a problem there must a law.
mkfreeberg: But in doing so, we would have to consider that when “most people today understand” something, they might very well be wrong.
Sure, it is something to be considered. Most people today think a “dandified coon” is derogatory and hurtful, and you don’t. However, most people used to think it was just some good fun.
mkfreeberg: And, nobody outside a liberal echo chamber takes the “appropriation” thing seriously anyhow.
Cultural appropriation is an anthropological term.
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 06:08Z: “Which contradicts your suggestion that if it’s a problem there must a law. ”
Oh, it’s not Morgan’s, nor my suggestion that this must be the solution – quite the opposite. It’s our observation that the Left is constantly agitating for laws and rules to codify their own personal preferences. Our whole argument here is that this is the opposite of tolerance and freedom.
- nightfly | 06/19/2014 @ 06:58nightfly: It’s our observation that the Left is constantly agitating for laws and rules to codify their own personal preferences.
Yet, as we already pointed out, no one is proposing any laws concerning blackface or belly dancing.
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 08:07Z: “Yet, as we already pointed out, no one is proposing any laws concerning blackface or belly dancing.”
Because as Morgan pointed out, society figured this out on its own, and what was common a century ago was unthinkable a half-century later.
Here, I’ll give you this next one: “Society got its act together precisely because of people like Randa Jarrar, who wrote about how the Little Sambo and other stereotypical caricatures were insulting to actual black performers and robbed them of their dignity, making them only comic relief, the targets of ridicule.” In reply, it would be our burden to demonstrate how a white girl’s love of belly dance is not remotely the same thing, thus refuting the actual Randa Jarrar’s attempt at a moral equivalency and a shaming of the world into catering to her whims.
I’ve thought a lot about the Jolson case in particular. Leave aside all the Sambos and Stepin Fetchits and other purely exploitive uses for the moment – it seems plain that the Jazz Singer wasn’t about that at all. Jolson assumed blackface in this story not to mock blacks but to identify with them. The scandal was that he was using his gifts for secular music rather than cantoring at synagogue, and more scandalous still, music considered vulgar and tasteless. It was bringing Harlem back downtown to the Lower East Side and it was not welcome. Jolson’s character wore blackface not to be racist himself but to fight the racism that said that jazz was beneath him. He chose to visually identify with the jazz artists.
Thirty years later, Dave Brubeck has a racially-integrated jazz combo, and is giving back to the art form by bringing in Western classical polyrhythms and odd time signatures. Jazz has not only Ellington, Holliday, Parker, Basie, and Calloway, but also Dorsey, Miller, Goodman, and Woody Herman and the Thundering Herd. As long as the sound is there who cares? Black entertainers and their music are gaining greater acceptance, both for their “own” jazz and blues, and with crooners and vocal acts like Nat King Cole and the Platters. They still face discrimination but it’s known for what it is: there’s nowhere to hide anymore.
You couldn’t do a blackface act now at least in part because he DID do it then. It broke down a barrier. It’s like a person trying to get to the top floor of an office building – he’s very happy to see the fourth floor as he’s climbing up, but would be quite annoyed if he climbed five more flights only to get stuffed in an elevator and find himself shuttled back down there again.
- nightfly | 06/19/2014 @ 09:43nightfly: Because as Morgan pointed out, society figured this out on its own, and what was common a century ago was unthinkable a half-century later.
That’s right. People spoke out against it, even though many people thought it was just good fun. What spoilsports!
nightfly: In reply, it would be our burden to demonstrate how a white girl’s love of belly dance is not remotely the same thing, thus refuting the actual Randa Jarrar’s attempt at a moral equivalency and a shaming of the world into catering to her whims.
That’s right. You acknowledge the problem that can occur with cultural appropriation (even though you don’t like the term), then show a willingness to discuss whether this is a case with negative connotations. Mkfreeberg has suggested that cultural appropriation is never a problem (though, as usual, he avoids clarity).
nightfly: Jolson assumed blackface in this story not to mock blacks but to identify with them.
Sort of. It also camouflaged his Jewish heritage, just another white guy.
In any case, that’s the nature of cultural appropriation. You end up with plastic leprechauns and Jesus bobble-heads. Some of it is pernicious, especially when there is a long history of persecution. So while some whites may think they are honoring Native Americans by doing the tomahawk chop or wearing ornaments with deep cultural significance, many Native Americans might feel otherwise.
nightfly: Thirty years later …
That’s right. We can look at minstrel shows as a leading edge of the cultural integration of black music.
So, even though Jolson may not have been trying to denigrate anyone, it still had that effect. Jolson and his character, Jakie Rabinowitz (who changed his name to Jack Robin to hide his Jewish heritage), were as trapped by the negative tradition as anyone. And speaking out is part of ending the negative aspects of cultural appropriation.
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 10:07None of this has anything to do with cultural appropriation or some such malarky. Even if it a common anthropological term, this isn’t anthropology. We aren’t talking about Incan ruins or trying to reconstruct the daily life of Etruscan weavers. Besides, it’s dehumanizing to use anthropological terms to discuss actual living societies – and the people in them – studying them from without, like they were objects, instead of living within them. It has the effect of subtly elevating oneself above the level of what one is studying, holding oneself superior and apart. Since the topic at hand is actually how not to dehumanize other people, it seems pertinent to point this out again.
I think that’s how you’re missing the forest for the trees on this topic. Just like botany is not woodcraft, anthropology isn’t the same as knowing people. It’s too detached. Jarrar isn’t an alien coolly examining some long-dead cultural artifact and forwarding a theory for review in the Xevian Journal of Old Earth Studies. She’s writing because she’s personally pissed off at something she witnessed with her living eyes, and other people are saying she’s full of bunk. We have to start there. So is she in fact full of bunk? Sign number one that she is – she herself makes this mistake about what’s bugging her. She uses abstract theoretical terms to make it a topic that she can lecture about, instead of simply saying “I am offended at this.” It tries to cast a personal affront as an objective principle that all ought to observe, and those who disagree are going to be corrected on how the study is to be done and the result to be reached.
- nightfly | 06/19/2014 @ 11:45nightfly: None of this has anything to do with cultural appropriation or some such malarky.
“Cultural appropriation is the adoption of some specific elements of one culture by a different cultural group. It describes acculturation or assimilation, but can imply a negative view towards acculturation from a minority culture by a dominant culture.” Call it Fred if it makes you feel any better, but its a real phenomenon.
nightfly: She’s writing because she’s personally pissed off at something she witnessed with her living eyes, and other people are saying she’s full of bunk.
Sure. A lot of people don’t agree with her, including liberals.
nightfly: So is she in fact full of bunk?
In order to determine that, you have to understand her argument. You could argue that cultural appropriation, er, Fred doesn’t exist, but that is contrary to all the evidence. Or, granting cultural appropriation, you could argue that this case doesn’t have negative aspects, that most belly dancers have a general respect for Middle Eastern culture. Or you could argue that most belly dancers have no real notion of Middle Eastern culture, are purveying a stereotype, but that the particular problem is inconsequential.
- Zachriel | 06/19/2014 @ 11:59In order to determine that [she’s full of bunk], you have to understand her argument.
False. Some white supremacist says “blacks are stupid” or “if they move into your neighborhood they’ll lower your property value,” it’s okay to call bullshit on that straight-away.
I see no reason why it should work differently with her. None at all.
- mkfreeberg | 06/19/2014 @ 18:15I’m not sure that you’re understanding my objection to Fred or his cultural appropriation. I don’t call it malarkey solely because I don’t agree with the premise – even if I granted it in full, I think that it’s the wrong lens to view a situation occurring right now and involving the people who are going full Fred about it. It disengages from living people in a real-world situation in favor of looking at things as if they were so many butterflies pinned to cards.
If you get lost in the woods, you don’t want to start talking about the ecosystem and how the pine trees evolved, you want an Eagle Scout to break out a compass and plot a course back home. And if you want to get anywhere in understanding why, say, a white woman might enjoy belly dancing, your best bet is to ask her. Remember, we’re not trying to piece together ancient customs from scraps of pottery and some engravings – this happened last week.
Incidentally, this is why I think cultural appropriation is largely bunk – it necessarily involves a lot of educated guessing. That might be our only option with ancient and lost cultures, but it’s a poor choice when there are better ways of knowing what’s going on. I suspect that Fred and his fellow anthropologists, if offered a small wormhole that permitted them to look at an Etruscan marketplace for fifteen minutes, would run over a gaggle of orphaned puppies on their way to the lab.
- nightfly | 06/19/2014 @ 20:52Dolphina — gorgeous.
In this “appropriation” hooey, we’re looking at the way societies work right before they break down, like inside a jail right before a prison riot. Disrespect, inferred by the person ostensibly disrespected. The person who might have done the disrespecting is not to enjoy the benefit of any doubt. Guilty until proven innocent. Liberals, being the lords of chaos that they are, maintain a passionate and inordinate fondness for all this.
That’s how they have sexual-harassment rules working, isn’t it? “The intent of the accused is entirely irrelevant, it is the feelings of the person offended that determine everything” or some such. We can see that toxic social fabric endure, or society itself endure, but not both; for society to continue, people are going to have to learn to “man up” and get over it. It’s a necessary ingredient, just like laws against assault and robbery.
- mkfreeberg | 06/19/2014 @ 21:05mkfreeberg: False. Some white supremacist says “blacks are stupid” or “if they move into your neighborhood they’ll lower your property value,” it’s okay to call bullshit on that straight-away.
Criticisms of those statements can be justified like any statement about the world. But you refuse to justify your own position, including your muddled use of the term liberal and conservative in the original post.
mkfreeberg: I see no reason why it should work differently with her. None at all.
You’re not required to support your claims. We just point out when you don’t—which is most of the time.
nightfly: And if you want to get anywhere in understanding why, say, a white woman might enjoy belly dancing, your best bet is to ask her.
Sure, but keep in mind that doesn’t resolve the problem of cultural appropriation. Minstrel artists may not have been intending to denigrate blacks, but they were.
We’re not convinced by Jarrar’s argument, by the way, assuming that wasn’t already clear. Our position is that you can’t discount all cultural appropriation to dismiss Jarrar’s argument.
- Zachriel | 06/20/2014 @ 02:57mkfreeberg: Disrespect, inferred by the person ostensibly disrespected. The person who might have done the disrespecting is not to enjoy the benefit of any doubt.
The disrespect doesn’t have to be intentional.
Zachriel: Is this not a problem?
http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
mkfreeberg: Right. It’s not a problem.
- Zachriel | 06/20/2014 @ 03:04Z: Is this not a problem?
M: Right. It’s not a problem.
So in liberal-land, the closest you come to actually solving a problem is being horrified and aghast, and calling out non-problems as problems.
Liberals don’t solve problems. They preen. They brag about being better than others. That is all they do.
“That’s all we wanted to established.” — The Zachriel.
- mkfreeberg | 06/20/2014 @ 05:57Here’s a problem that’s a real problem, by the way.
- mkfreeberg | 06/20/2014 @ 05:58mkfreeberg: So in liberal-land, the closest you come to actually solving a problem is being horrified and aghast, and calling out non-problems as problems.
Most conservatives also recognize blackface as a problem. That you don’t is all we wanted to establish.
mkfreeberg: Here’s a problem that’s a real problem, by the way.
Quick! Change the subject.
- Zachriel | 06/20/2014 @ 09:19Quick! Change the subject.
Sorry, weren’t we just discussing problems?
Weren’t we just discussing people who trivialize or refuse to recognize problems? Here’s a problem that actually hurts people. Y’all consider that off-topic, while trying to read something sinister into a guy wearing black makeup on his face? Generations ago?
In my version of a “problem,” there are real people being hurt. Y’all think that’s a change of subject?
Looks more like y’all don’t want to actually review the subject that is already under discussion.
- mkfreeberg | 06/20/2014 @ 17:04mkfreeberg: Weren’t we just discussing people who trivialize or refuse to recognize problems?
The problem we’re discussing is called cultural appropriation. We did establish this:
Zachriel: Is this not a problem?
http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
mkfreeberg: Right. It’s not a problem.
We provided an example that most would consider to be a significant instance of cultural appropriation, the “dandified coon”. You say it’s not a problem, but we do. This suggests a difference in fundamental values beyond the reach of argument.
- Zachriel | 06/21/2014 @ 06:43You say it’s not a problem, but we do. This suggests a difference in fundamental values beyond the reach of argument.
I agree.
Not to over-simplify the difference, but I perceive there is conflict emerging when I regard a problem as something that involves: People getting hurt. It seems y’all take issue with this. Y’all’s definition of a problem has something to do with the potential for stirring up conflict, if some aggravating agent is willing to work hard to stir up that conflict. A “problem,” on y’all’s planet, has something to do with opportunity to be exploited.
On my planet, which is the third one from the sun, we figure if there is an opportunity for lower drama, rather than higher, then the problem ceases to be a problem. If people can be told to man up, put on your big boy panties and get over it, and that actually is realistic — then, whether there is a problem or not, is pretty much up to them.
Which means there isn’t a problem. Unless you want to preface the word “problem” with “First World”.
- mkfreeberg | 06/21/2014 @ 16:14mkfreeberg: If people can be told to man up, put on your big boy panties and get over it, and that actually is realistic — then, whether there is a problem or not, is pretty much up to them.
So your idea of how to “man up” is to ignore denigrating insults, such as the “dandified coon”, even when those insults are part-and-parcel of a long period of persecution and oppression.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 04:42http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
So your idea of how to “man up” is to ignore denigrating insults, such as the “dandified coon”, even when those insults are part-and-parcel of a long period of persecution and oppression.
Yes, that is my claim. In a strong society, people ignore insults, especially perceived insults. Furthermore, this is necessary for the preservation of society, as the “jailbird protocol” of stopping in one’s tracks, turning around, and delivering a beatdown in response to every perceived slight leads to chaos.
Liberals have insisted on exactly that, for America as a whole, for half a century straight now. The results of this do a far better job of qualifying as a “problem” than some guy with makeup on his face.
So it turns out, after half a century of experimentation — from which our liberals are entirely unwilling to learn anything — this is a better way to go:
“Part-and-parcel of a long period of persecution and oppression” is extremely weak tea. In what way has any problem been identified here, for which an effective solution could be put together?
Y’all previously implied that my reference to the deterioration of Detroit due to the policies of the liberals running it, was a change-of-subject. This has been falsified in a number of ways in a very short time. First, we’re seeing how liberals are not hip to the idea of identifying, let alone solving, genuine problems. Second, we see why it is that wherever they’re in charge — because they wouldn’t know what a real problem was even if it bit ’em square on the Obama-bumper-sticker — chaos, degeneracy and ruin are the inevitable results.
It’s important to recognize real problems, and differentiate them from phony ones, anytime there is a desire for good results. Which is a desire we all have. Except liberals.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 07:10mkfreeberg: Yes, that is my claim.
Yes, we understand.
Zachriel: : Is this not a problem?
http://www.museumoffamilyhistory.com/ajolson-blackface-1914-a.jpg
mkfreeberg: : Right. It’s not a problem.
That’s all we wanted to establish.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 09:11That’s all we wanted to establish.
And I think most people would agree, more has to be established in order to solve an actual problem. Which proves that liberals are not into this, and probably are not capable of this.
Detroit’s condition would settle that once and for all. Hey, what’s the conservative counterpart to the disaster that is Detroit?
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 10:06That’s all we wanted to establish.
Yes, it is quite clear that Morgan does not consider a photo of Al Jolson in blackface, taken in 1914, is a problem here in this, anno domini 2014. It was “established” 20 posts ago. Evidently y’all’s reading comprehension is so piss poor that you can’t even identify the answer you seek, even after several repetitions.
Just spitballin’ here, but I’d wager he also doesn’t consider many of the other burning issues of 1914 to be problems nowadays either. So unless I’m wrong about that, and Morgan’s got some big unresolved gripe about the status of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the South Manchuria Railway, or the Payne-Aldrich Tariff, it’s time to be moving on.
- Severian | 06/22/2014 @ 11:32mkfreeberg: And I think most people would agree, more has to be established in order to solve an actual problem.
Um, do we have to recite the history of blacks in America? Seriously? Slavery. Lynching. The KKK. Jim Crow. Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.
Severian: Yes, it is quite clear that Morgan does not consider a photo of Al Jolson in blackface, taken in 1914, is a problem here in this, anno domini 2014.
Did he ever make that point? In any case, wearing blackface is still considered derogatory by nearly everyone, liberal and conservative, here in this, anno domini 2014.
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 15:52Did he ever make that point?
Here’s the comment thread. Here is your shame closet. Use the one to analyze the other.
- Severian | 06/22/2014 @ 17:15Severian: Here’s the comment thread.
http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/burning-her-last-bridge-with-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-25616
- Zachriel | 06/22/2014 @ 18:12Funny y’all should link that thread, since it also quite clearly spells out the consequences for silly little cephalopods who address their betters without permission. Get back in your shame closet.
- Severian | 06/22/2014 @ 19:49Well, I like that they’re going down this road. Let’s see: They say “Is this a problem?” and I say “No” and they say “Most people think it’s a problem.” This, I suppose, establishes my intellectual and moral inferiority, and after that I’m supposed to make some sort of face, like Alan Rickman falling out of Nakatomi Plaza in the first Die Hard movie, or any villain-guy in an action movie right before the missile hits his helicopter. The “Oh my God I just figured out how much I suck” face.
And then those who are morally superior to me can talk out, among themselves, what to do while the troglodytes like me, properly stripped of our influence, go back to our mud huts to pound rocks together.
It shows that liberals cannot identify or solve real problems. It vividly demonstrates why this is the case. They can’t even comprehend what a discussion is, any better than the toddler in the video. They think it’s all got to do with mimicry, specifically, mimicking that morally-indignant monologuing Alan Alda did on M.A.S.H.
Which explains the wreckage that ensues when they’re in charge of something. Explains Detroit.
- mkfreeberg | 06/22/2014 @ 20:14they say “Most people think it’s a problem.”
But that’s not what they did. They asked “Is this a problem?” and you said No” and they said “Did he ever make that point?” when they’d already declared that particular point “established” one two three four times.
So either they’re a) so retarded they can’t remember what they themselves proclaimed multiple times, or b) not arguing in good faith. In either case, why do you bother responding to them? Al Jolson running around in blackface in 1914 is not a problem in 2014. The end. If they want to claim that a 100-year-old picture IS a problem, right here, right now, it’s on them to spell out precisely how that is. Otherwise, let the word go forth to all the peoples: mkfreeberg doesn’t consider a picture of Al Jolson in blackface from 1914 a problem. Fin. Move on dot org.
- Severian | 06/22/2014 @ 22:20mkfreeberg: Well, I like that they’re going down this road. Let’s see: They say “Is this a problem?” and I say “No” and they say “Most people think it’s a problem.”
No, it’s an aside to the reader, most of whom are very aware of the problem of derogatory racial animus.
mkfreeberg: This, I suppose, establishes my intellectual and moral inferiority …
No, it just highlights a difference in fundamental values.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 05:22No, it just highlights a difference in fundamental values.
Well then, I can’t find anything disagreeable in there at all. I think if a problem’s worth identifying, it’s worth solving. If it isn’t solvable, then maybe there’s not much to be gained in identifying it.
I can’t find anything disagreeable in anything the arguing-baby said either. Whom, I’m sure, is making lots of “aside[s] to the reader” as well.
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2014 @ 05:55Severian: But that’s not what they did. They asked “Is this a problem?” and you said No” and they said “Did he ever make that point?” when they’d already declared that particular point “established” one two three four times.
It was a rhetorical question. It’s clear that mkfreeberg doesn’t consider it a problem in any context, not in 1914, not in 2014.
mkfreeberg: If it isn’t solvable, then maybe there’s not much to be gained in identifying it.
Highlighting your fundamental values is enough to show that your argument rests on a narrow(-minded) foundation.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 06:02Uh huh. “Rhetorical.” Well, whoever these “readers” are that we’re making “asides” to now, can judge y’all’s “rhetorical” skills for themselves. Now get back in your shame closet.
- Severian | 06/23/2014 @ 06:29Severian: Uh huh. “Rhetorical.” </i
As in, we never expected you to answer, or be able to answer.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 07:00http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/burning-her-last-bridge-with-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-24486
Thanks for making my point for me. The more “readers” who see y’all’s flagrant hackery, the better. Now get back in your shame closet.
- Severian | 06/23/2014 @ 07:05Severian: Thanks for making my point for me.
You’re welcome.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 07:06http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/burning-her-last-bridge-with-obama/comment-page-1/#comment-24486
I must admit, this is perversely fascinating. Anyone else would slink away in shame after having his flagrant dishonesty exposed in such comprehensive detail.
Not y’all, though; you just keep plowing away, Pee Wee Herman style — “I meant to do that!” If y’all were capable of embarrassment (and weren’t such putrid little trolls), I’d almost feel sorry for you. So by all means, please do keep it up. I’m sure the “readers” are getting a good chuckle out of it.
- Severian | 06/23/2014 @ 08:09Severian, as we said it’s clear that mkfreeberg doesn’t consider it a problem in any context, not in 1914, not in 2014.
- Zachriel | 06/23/2014 @ 08:32Fascinating. “Pretending to be retarded to get the last word in” isn’t a tactic most folks would go with, but apparently that’s all you’ve got…. so, you know, good luck with that.
- Severian | 06/23/2014 @ 08:48Maybe y’all could blossom forward with some specifics about how this is a problem in 2014? Or was in 1914?
Or, what is to be done about it in 2014? What should have been done about it in 1914?
Maybe some re-education? In camps? With numbered-tattoos, six-point stars, boxcars and furnaces?
- mkfreeberg | 06/23/2014 @ 18:09mkfreeberg: Maybe y’all could blossom forward with some specifics about how this is a problem in 2014? Or was in 1914?
It’s derogatory of a minority group, and representative of stereotypes of a long oppressed people as in minstrel shows.
mkfreeberg: Or, what is to be done about it in 2014? What should have been done about it in 1914?
Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt.
mkfreeberg: Maybe some re-education? In camps? With numbered-tattoos, six-point stars, boxcars and furnaces?
There’s no law against blackface, nor should there be.
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 03:54Scorn and defiance; slight regard, contempt.
There’s no law against blackface, nor should there be.
A perfect illustration of why liberals never make anything better. They want the credit for banishing bigotry and intolerance, but don’t want to accept any of the responsibility.
This is y’all’s definition of the problem, and there’s no solution offered except to preen. Liberals don’t solve. They preen.
- mkfreeberg | 06/24/2014 @ 04:23mkfreeberg: They want the credit for banishing bigotry and intolerance, but don’t want to accept any of the responsibility.
It was a liberal movement that ended segregation and outlawed discrimination in public accommodations.
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 04:26http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
It was a liberal movement that ended segregation and outlawed discrimination in public accommodations.
The liberals we know today wouldn’t be too fond of the treating-people-equally part of it; they oppose that routinely, constantly pigeonholing people, putting them in boxes.
Making new laws though? They get very excited about that.
- mkfreeberg | 06/24/2014 @ 04:35mkfreeberg: The liberals we know today wouldn’t be too fond of the treating-people-equally part of it; they oppose that routinely, constantly pigeonholing people, putting them in boxes.
More handwaving generalities. We provided a specific example. It was a liberal movement that ended segregation and outlawed discrimination in public accommodations.
- Zachriel | 06/24/2014 @ 04:45http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html
More handwaving generalities. We provided a specific example.
I have provided many examples.
- mkfreeberg | 06/25/2014 @ 04:27mkfreeberg: I have provided many examples.
Examples of what? You claimed blackface isn’t a problem, has never been a problem. Then you wanted to make broad generalities because people object to people in blackface, saying “A perfect illustration of why liberals never make anything better.” So we pointed to a specific example where most people think liberals did make something better: It was a liberal movement that ended segregation and outlawed discrimination in public accommodations. But you’ve also said you are against laws ending segregation in public accommodations, so we have that. You would have allowed segregation to fester, while others worked to end its inherent injustice.
Ultimately, it’s a matter of values.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 05:17I don’t think you’ve established that your example is, in fact, one of liberals making something better. My observation is that the Reverend King didn’t mention any parties at all in his famous letter, and the only political category he singled out was “moderates”. The people he mentioned by name, such as Governor Wallace and Birmingham Commissioner Bull Connor in particular, were Democrats – historically the party of segregation, the Klan, and Jim Crow.
That “most people think” this civil rights was a liberal victory isn’t by itself a proof. To paraphrase the eminent philosopher, Agent J, everybody KNEW the earth was flat, everybody KNEW the sun circled it … and just imagine what everybody will know tomorrow.
Not that we all haven’t been around the mulberry bush forty thousand times already, but a small rehash may prove useful here. What we really have are two different usages for the word “liberal” that are in opposition: the traditional meaning that relates to liberty and freedom; and the current tall-L “Liberal” that says those words while actively working to take them away, or else to dole them out as treats so long as the recipients conform to the tall-L’s whims. And tall-L’s like very much to take credit for things that others did, so that what they try to do now isn’t scrutinized too closely – the better to make the case that their top-down, heavy-handed, Nothing Approved without Permission approach is no different than civil rights or abolition or American Independence.
Because the word is the same, “most people” (that chimerical critter) think that these two opposing forces are the same – that doesn’t mean we have to fall for it. Historically, the tall-L’s and their party have opposed all the things they now take 100% of the credit for, with Civil Rights being no exception. Given this track record, I look askance on their claim to be working for freedom and liberality now.
- nightfly | 06/25/2014 @ 08:24nightfly: My observation is that the Reverend King didn’t mention any parties at all in his famous letter, and the only political category he singled out was “moderates”.
King supported federal power over states’ rights, ending segregation, affirmative action, income redistribution, jobs programs, urban renewal, opposed the Vietnam War, marched for jobs and freedom, and was murdered while supporting a public employees’ union strike. He was politically liberal in his time, and he would still be considered liberal today.
nightfly: The people he mentioned by name, such as Governor Wallace and Birmingham Commissioner Bull Connor in particular, were Democrats – historically the party of segregation, the Klan, and Jim Crow.
Yes, they were called conservative Democrats. They had those back then. There were even liberal Republicans.
nightfly: Historically, the tall-L’s and their party have opposed all the things they now take 100% of the credit for, with Civil Rights being no exception.
As we said, King was politically liberal in his time, and he would still be considered liberal today based on his political positions and philosophy.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 08:45You keep using the word “conservative” as a synonym for “bad stuff”. They were Democrats, but they liked the bad stuff – POOF conservatives! And again, there’s that same confusion over the two opposing uses of the word liberal. How is federal power over states’ rights “liberal”? It means more centralized control over things. It may be required in certain instances but it is not freeing. Wanting the feds to stop segregation and repeal Jim Crow laws is one thing – wanting them to dictate terms in every instance is the opposite thing.
Perhaps it would help to recast it as a case of confusing means with ends. King sought certain ends, and advocated these methods to reach them. But if the methods don’t work, or if they stop working, then new means are required.
A lot of folks who lionize Dr. King focus on how he approached the society of sixty years ago, and forget that they no longer live there, precisely because of what he did. Working for his goals may require doing some things quite differently as a result. If you want a land that judges people by their character, for example… sixty years ago you may need an affirmative action program to find qualified minorities who were refused consideration; today you may want to consider scrapping that program if it forces the hiring of poorly-qualified people. Sixty years ago you have a reason to try redistributing funds through taxation; today, after it has proved an abject failure at anything except spreading misery and dependency, you may want to considering stopping it at once – at least, if you want what King wanted instead of just doing what King did. You want to march for jobs and freedom? Then you might want to consider some pro-business rallies. You may want to reduce the regulatory and tax burdens on those businesses so they can afford workers and sell products for a wage that working-class people can afford to pay.
Z: “As we said, King was politically liberal in his time, and he would still be considered liberal today based on his political positions and philosophy.”
Based on which meaning of “liberal”? Because I think Dr. King was not so great a fool as to lose sight of the goal of true freedom of opportunity, racial unity, and equal treatment under the law. Would he really stick with programs that don’t work anymore, if they ever worked at all? Would he confuse means with ends, or liberality with tall-L Liberal diktats?
- nightfly | 06/25/2014 @ 11:09nightfly: You keep using the word “conservative” as a synonym for “bad stuff”.
Not at all. All reforms are beset by unintended consequences. Traditions are the bulwark of civilization, and too rapid of change can unmoor society. However, some changes are necessary and inevitable.
nightfly: They were Democrats, but they liked the bad stuff – POOF conservatives!
No. They were conservatives because they were defending the status quo. They were called conservatives then, and they are still called conservatives by those outside the right wing echo chamber.
nightfly: How is federal power over states’ rights “liberal”?
Because of the enforcement of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, which guaranteed the end of slavery, equal protection, and the right to vote. These amendments, federally enforced, increased overall liberty and equality. African Americans are generally very suspicious of “states’ rights”.
nightfly: Wanting the feds to stop segregation and repeal Jim Crow laws is one thing – wanting them to dictate terms in every instance is the opposite thing.
Sure.
nightfly: A lot of folks who lionize Dr. King focus on how he approached the society of sixty years ago, and forget that they no longer live there, precisely because of what he did.
We’re not lionizing him. Rather, he is an example of a liberal solving a problem, contrary to mkfreeberg’s claim above that liberals don’t ever solve problems.
nightfly: sixty years ago you may need an affirmative action program to find qualified minorities who were refused consideration; today you may want to consider scrapping that program if it forces the hiring of poorly-qualified people.
Sure. But mkfreeberg has argued that equality means never making such distinctions.
nightfly: Based on which meaning of “liberal”?
Based on his political positions, by the use of the term liberal then, and by the use of the term liberal today. The center hasn’t moved that far.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 11:24nightfly: Would he really stick with programs that don’t work anymore, if they ever worked at all?
King may not agree with your assessment of the efficacy of particular programs. While we can’t know what King would do today, if he adopted Goldwater’s views or joined the Tea Party, he wouldn’t be considered a liberal, but a conservative.
- Zachriel | 06/25/2014 @ 11:28[…] the first fifteen comments. Hell, Morgan’s idiot troll infestation still routinely links to pictures of Al Jolson in blackface as if that’s some kind of argument here in this, anno domini […]
- Party Like It’s 1899 | Rotten Chestnuts | 09/16/2014 @ 11:51