|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl.
What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option
|
On June 19 2017 09:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 09:42 Wegandi wrote:On June 19 2017 09:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2017 09:21 Wegandi wrote: Cultural "Appropriation" is the new segregation. Keep every people confined to themselves. People who promote this garbage are too daft to recognize their own segregationist views lmao. Have you considered that if you have an incredibly simplistic and clear cut view on something which both doesn't impact you and is also treated as a complex subject by the people it does impact then the subject might just be a little bit more nuanced than you realize? Well, it might affect him. Maybe he dreams of owning and operating a Navajo-themed casino capitalizing on their cultural identity with no Navajo involved in any stage of planning or ownership and doesn't want to get sued into oblivion. The condescension is palpable. When the term is so vaguely defined and poorly communicated, it ceases relevance. If you're going to use cultural appropriation to only talk about tribal cultures then how about specifying that in the language. However, I've met too many people who support this idea who support shit like "it's cultural appropriation to make brats and celebrate Oktoberfest if you're not german, or make and sell Gyozo if you're not Japanese, etc.". What's the result - segregation. Besides, culture is meant to be spread. Just seems like another attack on markets and property rights to me. By the way I'm 50% Cherokee, so please do tell me about cultural appropriation. That's exactly what the cultural appropriation we're talking about is, though. The proposed UN regulation specifically looks at indigenous people/native cultures. That is one of the scenarios where the view of it as segregation falls apart, and dismissing all claims of cultural appropriation marginalizes cases like this. Edit: To be clear, this is part of why I think the Portland list and other things do a grave disservice to a legitimate concept. When people start to think of cultural appropriation as "white people doing South American things" it makes it easier to dismiss cases where there really is people profiting off of culture that the users of that culture have a right to not have shared.
Perhaps using appropriate language would be a start. Regardless, no one owns culture - it's nebulous and ever-changing. Also, again, that profit word. Are you really proposing it should be illegal to use your own property to sell Indian Cigar store merchandise if you're not a part of the tribe (just one example)? What about making and selling replica Amazonion tribe merchandise? Dogon stuff? Where does it end? We should be celebrating the fact that people want to experience these cultures and are willing to hand their money over to do so. The fact you overlook this and focus on "profit" reeks. The biggest offense to tribes in this country is the Government - not some joe schmoes selling a peace pipe or headdresses.
I suppose it would be better if no one gave a shit and those cultures were fossilized and put into some museum in the middle of no-where. As someone who has a Cherokee Nations flag in my room right now, I'd be ecstatic if more people decided to delve into the culture regardless if some white people were the ones selling the shit. Combine white people hate and capitalism hate into one and ride the moral high ground. Boom, cultural appropriation.
|
On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl.
But "fishbowl culturalism" is a racist or at least essentialist view of culture. It is what makes people argue that one group has 'their land' and we have 'our land'. It is the weapon of both anti-imperialists who will argue on behalf of some population as if they have no agency, and nativists who want to purge foreigners from their own country. Are you endorsing this?
Shattering 'the fishbowl' isn't bad. Cultures conflict, merge some new culture is produced, nothing bad about it. I don't see why the engine "commodification" in this case is particularly offensive.
|
On June 19 2017 09:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 09:42 Wegandi wrote:On June 19 2017 09:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2017 09:21 Wegandi wrote: Cultural "Appropriation" is the new segregation. Keep every people confined to themselves. People who promote this garbage are too daft to recognize their own segregationist views lmao. Have you considered that if you have an incredibly simplistic and clear cut view on something which both doesn't impact you and is also treated as a complex subject by the people it does impact then the subject might just be a little bit more nuanced than you realize? Well, it might affect him. Maybe he dreams of owning and operating a Navajo-themed casino capitalizing on their cultural identity with no Navajo involved in any stage of planning or ownership and doesn't want to get sued into oblivion. The condescension is palpable. When the term is so vaguely defined and poorly communicated, it ceases relevance. If you're going to use cultural appropriation to only talk about tribal cultures then how about specifying that in the language. However, I've met too many people who support this idea who support shit like "it's cultural appropriation to make brats and celebrate Oktoberfest if you're not german, or make and sell Gyozo if you're not Japanese, etc.". What's the result - segregation. Besides, culture is meant to be spread. Just seems like another attack on markets and property rights to me. By the way I'm 50% Cherokee, so please do tell me about cultural appropriation. I'm 100% black American. Should I tell you about cultural appropriation? Culture is meant to be appreciated and shared to those who wish to learn more about said culture. It doesn't need to spread outside of the culture it originated from if they don't intend for it. Cultural appropriation is magnified because you see 10 wealthy white people profiting largely from underrepresented populations such as indigenous tribes and minorities. If that culture is protected by law, then what's the harm?
Lmao, what? Boy, cultural appropriation really brings out the segregationists. How dare the culture be spread by people outside the tribe. We don't want your stinkin' filthy non-tribal hands on our culture - so we're going to mandate by law that any vestige of our culture should only be held and spread by our own tribes/peoples. Do you realize how backwards and regressive you sound?
|
God I hate the cultural appropriation argument. What I consider cultural appropriation is basically taking from another culture without any even mild effort to understand any facet of that culture.
As an artist, I try not to culturally appropriate, its really not hard because to make good work you HAVE to research it, Ive spent a few years studying ancient mesoamerican language systems, mythology, and their general culture. Generally I think its really, really easy to take a culture and treat it with respect, if you like some aspect of it you're already like 90% of the way to not culturally appropriating, you're just missing some mild wikipedia'ing and you can get some context as to whatever it is you're planning. Like you'll probably be considered pretty tasteless if you (100% hypothetically with nothing particular in my head) wear a traditional ancient funerary garment to someone of that culture's wedding. Its just kinda weird and makes you look a little ignorant.
I wish we could put away the thought of creating laws about this sort of thing, its so fucking grey and weird. I'm not Mexican, but I'm Puerto Rican. Under these laws can I continue to draw from ancient mesoamerican culture? I mean I'm not from any part of where the ancient Mayans lived, but one of the metrics that defines "ancient mesoamerican" culture is whether or not that area had the "ball game" concept that most people have some vague familiarity with, and Puerto Rico technically falls under that umbrella. But I'm not Mayan and anyone who has any experience with ancient mesoamerican culture would understand that Mayan culture was different from Mixtec culture was different from Olmec was different from Aztec. Mixtec, Mayan, and Aztec culture was also obviously heavily affected by those good 'ol spaniards. So would anyone from Mexico be allowed to use ancient Mayan culture for example? Or only those few who still practice more traditional cultural lifestyles?
What about interpreting the culture? Giving it unique twists, or taking specific aspects from it and applying them in some way outside of the specifics of the cultural origin?
I've seen what strict adherence to the idea that one should only ever draw from one's own ancestral culture is like and my god is it bland.
EDIT: 'cause I read KwarK's post, and while I think a measure of that can be solved by just making sure to be generally thorough in one's research into a culture (and I can tell you that Disney actually is REALLY REALLY thorough, like if they make a movie about a culture, they hire cultural experts, they send their people to the area that culture is from, and they typically get the whole nine yards done when it comes to their artists actually getting to know about the culture's they're working from), but yeah the active cultural genocide thing is a problem, and if a culture is specifically under threat in a way such as the Tibet thing its probably best to kind of put some work into making that like, not under threat anymore. Although I think I'd prefer to separate that from cultural appropriation and specifically label it cultural genocide, but I'm not really a scholar on this subject so I can only really speak from my experiences with the meaning of cultural appropriaton, and not it's actual scholarly use.
|
On June 19 2017 10:20 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 09:46 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 09:42 Wegandi wrote:On June 19 2017 09:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2017 09:21 Wegandi wrote: Cultural "Appropriation" is the new segregation. Keep every people confined to themselves. People who promote this garbage are too daft to recognize their own segregationist views lmao. Have you considered that if you have an incredibly simplistic and clear cut view on something which both doesn't impact you and is also treated as a complex subject by the people it does impact then the subject might just be a little bit more nuanced than you realize? Well, it might affect him. Maybe he dreams of owning and operating a Navajo-themed casino capitalizing on their cultural identity with no Navajo involved in any stage of planning or ownership and doesn't want to get sued into oblivion. The condescension is palpable. When the term is so vaguely defined and poorly communicated, it ceases relevance. If you're going to use cultural appropriation to only talk about tribal cultures then how about specifying that in the language. However, I've met too many people who support this idea who support shit like "it's cultural appropriation to make brats and celebrate Oktoberfest if you're not german, or make and sell Gyozo if you're not Japanese, etc.". What's the result - segregation. Besides, culture is meant to be spread. Just seems like another attack on markets and property rights to me. By the way I'm 50% Cherokee, so please do tell me about cultural appropriation. That's exactly what the cultural appropriation we're talking about is, though. The proposed UN regulation specifically looks at indigenous people/native cultures. That is one of the scenarios where the view of it as segregation falls apart, and dismissing all claims of cultural appropriation marginalizes cases like this. Edit: To be clear, this is part of why I think the Portland list and other things do a grave disservice to a legitimate concept. When people start to think of cultural appropriation as "white people doing South American things" it makes it easier to dismiss cases where there really is people profiting off of culture that the users of that culture have a right to not have shared. Perhaps using appropriate language would be a start. Regardless, no one owns culture - it's nebulous and ever-changing. Also, again, that profit word. Are you really proposing it should be illegal to use your own property to sell Indian Cigar store merchandise if you're not a part of the tribe (just one example)? What about making and selling replica Amazonion tribe merchandise? Dogon stuff? Where does it end? We should be celebrating the fact that people want to experience these cultures and are willing to hand their money over to do so. The fact you overlook this and focus on "profit" reeks. The biggest offense to tribes in this country is the Government - not some joe schmoes selling a peace pipe or headdresses. I suppose it would be better if no one gave a shit and those cultures were fossilized and put into some museum in the middle of no-where. As someone who has a Cherokee Nations flag in my room right now, I'd be ecstatic if more people decided to delve into the culture regardless if some white people were the ones selling the shit. Combine white people hate and capitalism hate into one and ride the moral high ground. Boom, cultural appropriation.
It's great to celebrate that people want to experience cultures and are willing to "hand over their money." But does it make sense to allow Nike to mass-produce what they call Cherokee Nations flags and have the legal entity of the Cherokee Nations have no recourse whatsoever if Nike decided to turn the black star in the top right into a Nike swoosh and call it the official Cherokee Nations flag? It isn't as though the only way for culture to grow and change is to have outsiders making money off of it.
|
On June 19 2017 10:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl. What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option
so you are using capital to prop up a culture that would otherwise be wiped out for what? for curiosity's sake? that's the liberal fish bowl and is of course a rationale beyond propertizing "culture." my argument is that this is self-defeating. see above.
On June 19 2017 10:20 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl. But "fishbowl culturalism" is a racist or at least essentialist view of culture. It is what makes people argue that one group has 'their land' and we have 'our land'. It is the weapon of both anti-imperialists who will argue on behalf of some population as if they have no agency, and nativists who want to purge foreigners from their own country. Are you endorsing this? Shattering 'the fishbowl' isn't bad. Cultures conflict, merge some new culture is produced, nothing bad about it. I don't see why the engine "commodification" in this case is particularly offensive.
yeah of course it's racist. i am not endorsing it. I am identifying it as a motivation for propertizing "culture." I am not arguing against shattering the fish bowl. in fact, it is inevitable, and has mostly already happened.
|
On June 19 2017 10:26 Zambrah wrote: God I hate the cultural appropriation argument. What I consider cultural appropriation is basically taking from another culture without any even mild effort to understand any facet of that culture.
As an artist, I try not to culturally appropriate, its really not hard because to make good work you HAVE to research it, Ive spent a few years studying ancient mesoamerican language systems, mythology, and their general culture. Generally I think its really, really easy to take a culture and treat it with respect, if you like some aspect of it you're already like 90% of the way to not culturally appropriating, you're just missing some mild wikipedia'ing and you can get some context as to whatever it is you're planning. Like you'll probably be considered pretty tasteless if you (100% hypothetically with nothing particular in my head) wear a traditional ancient funerary garment to someone of that culture's wedding. Its just kinda weird and makes you look a little ignorant.
I wish we could put away the thought of creating laws about this sort of thing, its so fucking grey and weird. I'm not Mexican, but I'm Puerto Rican. Under these laws can I continue to draw from ancient mesoamerican culture? I mean I'm not from any part of where the ancient Mayans lived, but one of the metrics that defines "ancient mesoamerican" culture is whether or not that area had the "ball game" concept that most people have some vague familiarity with, and Puerto Rico technically falls under that umbrella. But I'm not Mayan and anyone who has any experience with ancient mesoamerican culture would understand that Mayan culture was different from Mixtec culture was different from Olmec was different from Aztec. Mixtec, Mayan, and Aztec culture was also obviously heavily affected by those good 'ol spaniards. So would anyone from Mexico be allowed to use ancient Mayan culture for example? Or only those few who still practice more traditional cultural lifestyles?
What about interpreting the culture? Giving it unique twists, or taking specific aspects from it and applying them in some way outside of the specifics of the cultural origin?
I've seen what strict adherence to the idea that one should only ever draw from one's own ancestral culture is like and my god is it bland.
EDIT: 'cause I read KwarK's post, and while I think a measure of that can be solved by just making sure to be generally thorough in one's research into a culture (and I can tell you that Disney actually is REALLY REALLY thorough, like if they make a movie about a culture, they hire cultural experts, they send their people to the area that culture is from, and they typically get the whole nine yards done when it comes to their artists actually getting to know about the culture's they're working from), but yeah the active cultural genocide thing is a problem, and if a culture is specifically under threat in a way such as the Tibet thing its probably best to kind of put some work into making that like, not under threat anymore. Although I think I'd prefer to separate that from cultural appropriation and specifically label it cultural genocide, but I'm not really a scholar on this subject so I can only really speak from my experiences with the meaning of cultural appropriaton, and not it's actual scholarly use.
you are abstracting culture. of course abstract ideas should not be propertized. the thing is to recognize that this abstraction itself is destructive (as Kwark describes before he reinscribes it within the inevitability of unspoken teleological norms).
now, given that it is destructive of culture, what are marginalized peoples to do? they are going to engage in war with the means provided to them within liberal norms. and that means reclaiming the commoditization as their commodity. the hypocrisy is in calling it a preservation of culture. the destruction happens either way, it's just a matter of who owns it.
|
On June 19 2017 10:24 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 09:52 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 19 2017 09:42 Wegandi wrote:On June 19 2017 09:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On June 19 2017 09:21 Wegandi wrote: Cultural "Appropriation" is the new segregation. Keep every people confined to themselves. People who promote this garbage are too daft to recognize their own segregationist views lmao. Have you considered that if you have an incredibly simplistic and clear cut view on something which both doesn't impact you and is also treated as a complex subject by the people it does impact then the subject might just be a little bit more nuanced than you realize? Well, it might affect him. Maybe he dreams of owning and operating a Navajo-themed casino capitalizing on their cultural identity with no Navajo involved in any stage of planning or ownership and doesn't want to get sued into oblivion. The condescension is palpable. When the term is so vaguely defined and poorly communicated, it ceases relevance. If you're going to use cultural appropriation to only talk about tribal cultures then how about specifying that in the language. However, I've met too many people who support this idea who support shit like "it's cultural appropriation to make brats and celebrate Oktoberfest if you're not german, or make and sell Gyozo if you're not Japanese, etc.". What's the result - segregation. Besides, culture is meant to be spread. Just seems like another attack on markets and property rights to me. By the way I'm 50% Cherokee, so please do tell me about cultural appropriation. I'm 100% black American. Should I tell you about cultural appropriation? Culture is meant to be appreciated and shared to those who wish to learn more about said culture. It doesn't need to spread outside of the culture it originated from if they don't intend for it. Cultural appropriation is magnified because you see 10 wealthy white people profiting largely from underrepresented populations such as indigenous tribes and minorities. If that culture is protected by law, then what's the harm? Lmao, what? Boy, cultural appropriation really brings out the segregationists. How dare the culture be spread by people outside the tribe. We don't want your stinkin' filthy non-tribal hands on our culture - so we're going to mandate by law that any vestige of our culture should only be held and spread by our own tribes/peoples. Do you realize how backwards and regressive you sound? How am I segregating? I posited that if people want to know and understand the culture, then it's fine to share it. But as was mentioned above, which I'm assuming you selectively read, when someone takes your culture to turn a profit and you don't have a say in the matter, then that's wrong. For example, I think Washington Redskins need to change. So do Kansas City Chiefs. I highly doubt any tribe in those regions were asked for permission to use their culture as a representation of a sport that makes billions a year. If you want people to take your culture and bastardize it to where it is no longer recognizable, then by all means, do you.
But I for one would appreciate it if credit was given to the people who created the culture and not "found" all over again. Minorities and tribal cultures have been doing things forever and it only takes a celebrity to bring it to the forefront. Then, through cultural appropriation, it's bastardized and made popular. There is no way to talk about this topic and not come off as a racist or whatever, because there is investment into it. I'm in the black American camp, so my views are skewed towards the obvious ripoffs. But I digress, this argument is futile.
|
On June 19 2017 10:40 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 10:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl. What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option so you are using capital to prop up a culture that would otherwise be wiped out for what? for curiosity's sake? that's the liberal fish bowl and is of course a rationale beyond propertizing "culture." my argument is that this is self-defeating. see above.
Is the motivation that the individuals within the culture themselves may prefer it not to be wiped out or subsumed and valuing their preferences just another chain in this fish bowl? There is no inherent compulsion for them to keep it crystallized and frozen or even preserve the spectral fish at all, after all, let alone for others which curiosity would entail
|
On June 19 2017 10:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 10:40 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl. What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option so you are using capital to prop up a culture that would otherwise be wiped out for what? for curiosity's sake? that's the liberal fish bowl and is of course a rationale beyond propertizing "culture." my argument is that this is self-defeating. see above. Is the motivation that the individuals within the culture themselves may prefer it not to be wiped out or subsumed and valuing their preferences just another chain in this fish bowl? There is no inherent compulsion for them to keep it crystallized and frozen or even preserve the spectral fish for others, after all
Explain to me how you can have a "living culture" property right? Are you familiar with copyright, trademark, or patent claims? You necessarily "freeze" or "crystallize" property claims. The "culture" has become a costume that you wear after you get home from your office job maybe a few weekends a year. They aren't out planting squash under corn anymore, and the rain dance ceremonies have no connection except as spectacle. This is what I meant when I said that talking of a "disney culture" is a nostalgic fantasy for that which is absent.
"Black culture" is infinitely more alive than most indigenous cultures at this point. That is, there is at least something still there to talk about as culture, in a way that does not exist for most indigenous cultures as least thought by those who wish to return to some nostalgic time in the past. I am sure in Oklahoma and Washington and wherever there are plenty of mostly-indigenous groups who practice some form of culture. That is almost tautological. But is that culture, of the now what they are so interested in preserving? I would argue not. It is a fantasy culture that they want protection for, because that is what is valuable (i.e. profitable).
|
On June 19 2017 10:56 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 10:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:40 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl. What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option so you are using capital to prop up a culture that would otherwise be wiped out for what? for curiosity's sake? that's the liberal fish bowl and is of course a rationale beyond propertizing "culture." my argument is that this is self-defeating. see above. Is the motivation that the individuals within the culture themselves may prefer it not to be wiped out or subsumed and valuing their preferences just another chain in this fish bowl? There is no inherent compulsion for them to keep it crystallized and frozen or even preserve the spectral fish for others, after all Explain to me how you can have a "living culture" property right? Are you familiar with copyright, trademark, or patent claims? You necessarily "freeze" or "crystallize" property claims. The "culture" has become a costume that you wear after you get home from your office job maybe a few weekends a year. They aren't out planting squash under corn anymore, and the rain dance ceremonies have no connection except as spectacle. This is what I meant when I said that talking of a "disney culture" is a nostalgic fantasy for that which is absent.
I think I still don't get you. Property rights don't prevent change by the owner of the property. Mickey Mouse is an IP but he's not frozen or crystallized. The Mickey today and the Mickey 50 or even 10 years ago are not one and the same but they're covered by the same IP. Nor is the Luke Skywalker of 1979 the same as the Luke Skywalker of 2015.
|
On June 19 2017 10:45 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 10:26 Zambrah wrote: God I hate the cultural appropriation argument. What I consider cultural appropriation is basically taking from another culture without any even mild effort to understand any facet of that culture.
As an artist, I try not to culturally appropriate, its really not hard because to make good work you HAVE to research it, Ive spent a few years studying ancient mesoamerican language systems, mythology, and their general culture. Generally I think its really, really easy to take a culture and treat it with respect, if you like some aspect of it you're already like 90% of the way to not culturally appropriating, you're just missing some mild wikipedia'ing and you can get some context as to whatever it is you're planning. Like you'll probably be considered pretty tasteless if you (100% hypothetically with nothing particular in my head) wear a traditional ancient funerary garment to someone of that culture's wedding. Its just kinda weird and makes you look a little ignorant.
I wish we could put away the thought of creating laws about this sort of thing, its so fucking grey and weird. I'm not Mexican, but I'm Puerto Rican. Under these laws can I continue to draw from ancient mesoamerican culture? I mean I'm not from any part of where the ancient Mayans lived, but one of the metrics that defines "ancient mesoamerican" culture is whether or not that area had the "ball game" concept that most people have some vague familiarity with, and Puerto Rico technically falls under that umbrella. But I'm not Mayan and anyone who has any experience with ancient mesoamerican culture would understand that Mayan culture was different from Mixtec culture was different from Olmec was different from Aztec. Mixtec, Mayan, and Aztec culture was also obviously heavily affected by those good 'ol spaniards. So would anyone from Mexico be allowed to use ancient Mayan culture for example? Or only those few who still practice more traditional cultural lifestyles?
What about interpreting the culture? Giving it unique twists, or taking specific aspects from it and applying them in some way outside of the specifics of the cultural origin?
I've seen what strict adherence to the idea that one should only ever draw from one's own ancestral culture is like and my god is it bland.
EDIT: 'cause I read KwarK's post, and while I think a measure of that can be solved by just making sure to be generally thorough in one's research into a culture (and I can tell you that Disney actually is REALLY REALLY thorough, like if they make a movie about a culture, they hire cultural experts, they send their people to the area that culture is from, and they typically get the whole nine yards done when it comes to their artists actually getting to know about the culture's they're working from), but yeah the active cultural genocide thing is a problem, and if a culture is specifically under threat in a way such as the Tibet thing its probably best to kind of put some work into making that like, not under threat anymore. Although I think I'd prefer to separate that from cultural appropriation and specifically label it cultural genocide, but I'm not really a scholar on this subject so I can only really speak from my experiences with the meaning of cultural appropriaton, and not it's actual scholarly use. you are abstracting culture. of course abstract ideas should not be propertized. the thing is to recognize that this abstraction itself is destructive (as Kwark describes before he reinscribes it within the inevitability of unspoken teleological norms). now, given that it is destructive of culture, what are marginalized peoples to do? they are going to engage in war with the means provided to them within liberal norms. and that means reclaiming the commoditization as their commodity. the hypocrisy is in calling it a preservation of culture. the destruction happens either way, it's just a matter of who owns it.
I have almost no idea what it is you are saying, break it down in normal words for me
|
On June 19 2017 11:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 10:56 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:40 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl. What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option so you are using capital to prop up a culture that would otherwise be wiped out for what? for curiosity's sake? that's the liberal fish bowl and is of course a rationale beyond propertizing "culture." my argument is that this is self-defeating. see above. Is the motivation that the individuals within the culture themselves may prefer it not to be wiped out or subsumed and valuing their preferences just another chain in this fish bowl? There is no inherent compulsion for them to keep it crystallized and frozen or even preserve the spectral fish for others, after all Explain to me how you can have a "living culture" property right? Are you familiar with copyright, trademark, or patent claims? You necessarily "freeze" or "crystallize" property claims. The "culture" has become a costume that you wear after you get home from your office job maybe a few weekends a year. They aren't out planting squash under corn anymore, and the rain dance ceremonies have no connection except as spectacle. This is what I meant when I said that talking of a "disney culture" is a nostalgic fantasy for that which is absent. I think I still don't get you. Property rights don't prevent change by the owner of the property. Mickey Mouse is an IP but he's not frozen or crystallized. The Mickey today and the Mickey 50 or even 10 years ago are not one and the same but they're covered by the same IP. Nor is the Luke Skywalker of 1979 the same as the Luke Skywalker of 2015.
Mickey Mouse and Luke Skywalker aren't culture. They aren't "forms of life." They are abstract concepts. Abstraction kills culture. That is my whole point. What is the difference between a white person imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee and a person of Cherokee genetic stock who was adopted by a white family imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee? What does it mean to "own" a culture that doesn't exist (is no longer practiced, is no longer a mode of moving or becoming in the world)? It's a simple commoditization/disneyfication of something that might once have been a culture. It is the adaptation for sale of a culture.
On June 19 2017 11:05 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 10:45 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:26 Zambrah wrote: God I hate the cultural appropriation argument. What I consider cultural appropriation is basically taking from another culture without any even mild effort to understand any facet of that culture.
As an artist, I try not to culturally appropriate, its really not hard because to make good work you HAVE to research it, Ive spent a few years studying ancient mesoamerican language systems, mythology, and their general culture. Generally I think its really, really easy to take a culture and treat it with respect, if you like some aspect of it you're already like 90% of the way to not culturally appropriating, you're just missing some mild wikipedia'ing and you can get some context as to whatever it is you're planning. Like you'll probably be considered pretty tasteless if you (100% hypothetically with nothing particular in my head) wear a traditional ancient funerary garment to someone of that culture's wedding. Its just kinda weird and makes you look a little ignorant.
I wish we could put away the thought of creating laws about this sort of thing, its so fucking grey and weird. I'm not Mexican, but I'm Puerto Rican. Under these laws can I continue to draw from ancient mesoamerican culture? I mean I'm not from any part of where the ancient Mayans lived, but one of the metrics that defines "ancient mesoamerican" culture is whether or not that area had the "ball game" concept that most people have some vague familiarity with, and Puerto Rico technically falls under that umbrella. But I'm not Mayan and anyone who has any experience with ancient mesoamerican culture would understand that Mayan culture was different from Mixtec culture was different from Olmec was different from Aztec. Mixtec, Mayan, and Aztec culture was also obviously heavily affected by those good 'ol spaniards. So would anyone from Mexico be allowed to use ancient Mayan culture for example? Or only those few who still practice more traditional cultural lifestyles?
What about interpreting the culture? Giving it unique twists, or taking specific aspects from it and applying them in some way outside of the specifics of the cultural origin?
I've seen what strict adherence to the idea that one should only ever draw from one's own ancestral culture is like and my god is it bland.
EDIT: 'cause I read KwarK's post, and while I think a measure of that can be solved by just making sure to be generally thorough in one's research into a culture (and I can tell you that Disney actually is REALLY REALLY thorough, like if they make a movie about a culture, they hire cultural experts, they send their people to the area that culture is from, and they typically get the whole nine yards done when it comes to their artists actually getting to know about the culture's they're working from), but yeah the active cultural genocide thing is a problem, and if a culture is specifically under threat in a way such as the Tibet thing its probably best to kind of put some work into making that like, not under threat anymore. Although I think I'd prefer to separate that from cultural appropriation and specifically label it cultural genocide, but I'm not really a scholar on this subject so I can only really speak from my experiences with the meaning of cultural appropriaton, and not it's actual scholarly use. you are abstracting culture. of course abstract ideas should not be propertized. the thing is to recognize that this abstraction itself is destructive (as Kwark describes before he reinscribes it within the inevitability of unspoken teleological norms). now, given that it is destructive of culture, what are marginalized peoples to do? they are going to engage in war with the means provided to them within liberal norms. and that means reclaiming the commoditization as their commodity. the hypocrisy is in calling it a preservation of culture. the destruction happens either way, it's just a matter of who owns it. I have almost no idea what it is you are saying, break it down in normal words for me
If I break it down into Newspeak for you will it still mean the same? Are signifiers completely interchangeable?
|
@ tenthdoc
now look, i agreed with you that it was a war. in some ways it can be thought of as a redistribution or reparation for past exploitation. if you think mickey mouse being owned in perpetuity is a good thing, and you think this is a good way to make reparations (as Falling apparently does not) then be my guest and join the battle. i am only saying that it is self-defeating on its own stated terms. it is a war fought as wars always are for standing and wealth within a global liberal democratic culture. just don't act like that is not what it is.
|
On June 19 2017 11:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 11:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:56 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:40 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl. What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option so you are using capital to prop up a culture that would otherwise be wiped out for what? for curiosity's sake? that's the liberal fish bowl and is of course a rationale beyond propertizing "culture." my argument is that this is self-defeating. see above. Is the motivation that the individuals within the culture themselves may prefer it not to be wiped out or subsumed and valuing their preferences just another chain in this fish bowl? There is no inherent compulsion for them to keep it crystallized and frozen or even preserve the spectral fish for others, after all Explain to me how you can have a "living culture" property right? Are you familiar with copyright, trademark, or patent claims? You necessarily "freeze" or "crystallize" property claims. The "culture" has become a costume that you wear after you get home from your office job maybe a few weekends a year. They aren't out planting squash under corn anymore, and the rain dance ceremonies have no connection except as spectacle. This is what I meant when I said that talking of a "disney culture" is a nostalgic fantasy for that which is absent. I think I still don't get you. Property rights don't prevent change by the owner of the property. Mickey Mouse is an IP but he's not frozen or crystallized. The Mickey today and the Mickey 50 or even 10 years ago are not one and the same but they're covered by the same IP. Nor is the Luke Skywalker of 1979 the same as the Luke Skywalker of 2015. Mickey Mouse and Luke Skywalker aren't culture. They aren't "forms of life." They are abstract concepts. Abstraction kills culture. That is my whole point. What is the difference between a white person imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee and a person of Cherokee genetic stock who was adopted by a white family imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee? What does it mean to "own" a culture that doesn't exist (is no longer practiced, is no longer a mode of moving or becoming in the world)? It's a simple commoditization/disneyfication of something that might once have been a culture. It is the adaptation for sale of a culture.
But you just said you need to freeze things to have property claims? That's obviously false. Neither of those things are frozen despite being "owned" entities.
I also don't understand why you think genetics are involved here, because (at least to me) there is generally no difference in a cultural sense between a Caucasian adopted by a reservation family growing up there and someone from "Cherokee genetic stock" who was born there.
I also think there are plenty of people descended from indigenous people who view their heritage as a mode of moving or becoming in the world. Should we ignore them when they want to go to "war" in this sense?
Edit: I think I'm following you more now after your last response. I'll stop cluttering up the thread-sorry.
|
On June 19 2017 11:08 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 11:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:56 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:40 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl. What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option so you are using capital to prop up a culture that would otherwise be wiped out for what? for curiosity's sake? that's the liberal fish bowl and is of course a rationale beyond propertizing "culture." my argument is that this is self-defeating. see above. Is the motivation that the individuals within the culture themselves may prefer it not to be wiped out or subsumed and valuing their preferences just another chain in this fish bowl? There is no inherent compulsion for them to keep it crystallized and frozen or even preserve the spectral fish for others, after all Explain to me how you can have a "living culture" property right? Are you familiar with copyright, trademark, or patent claims? You necessarily "freeze" or "crystallize" property claims. The "culture" has become a costume that you wear after you get home from your office job maybe a few weekends a year. They aren't out planting squash under corn anymore, and the rain dance ceremonies have no connection except as spectacle. This is what I meant when I said that talking of a "disney culture" is a nostalgic fantasy for that which is absent. I think I still don't get you. Property rights don't prevent change by the owner of the property. Mickey Mouse is an IP but he's not frozen or crystallized. The Mickey today and the Mickey 50 or even 10 years ago are not one and the same but they're covered by the same IP. Nor is the Luke Skywalker of 1979 the same as the Luke Skywalker of 2015. Mickey Mouse and Luke Skywalker aren't culture. They aren't "forms of life." They are abstract concepts. Abstraction kills culture. That is my whole point. What is the difference between a white person imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee and a person of Cherokee genetic stock who was adopted by a white family imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee? What does it mean to "own" a culture that doesn't exist (is no longer practiced, is no longer a mode of moving or becoming in the world)? It's a simple commoditization/disneyfication of something that might once have been a culture. It is the adaptation for sale of a culture. Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 11:05 Zambrah wrote:On June 19 2017 10:45 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:26 Zambrah wrote: God I hate the cultural appropriation argument. What I consider cultural appropriation is basically taking from another culture without any even mild effort to understand any facet of that culture.
As an artist, I try not to culturally appropriate, its really not hard because to make good work you HAVE to research it, Ive spent a few years studying ancient mesoamerican language systems, mythology, and their general culture. Generally I think its really, really easy to take a culture and treat it with respect, if you like some aspect of it you're already like 90% of the way to not culturally appropriating, you're just missing some mild wikipedia'ing and you can get some context as to whatever it is you're planning. Like you'll probably be considered pretty tasteless if you (100% hypothetically with nothing particular in my head) wear a traditional ancient funerary garment to someone of that culture's wedding. Its just kinda weird and makes you look a little ignorant.
I wish we could put away the thought of creating laws about this sort of thing, its so fucking grey and weird. I'm not Mexican, but I'm Puerto Rican. Under these laws can I continue to draw from ancient mesoamerican culture? I mean I'm not from any part of where the ancient Mayans lived, but one of the metrics that defines "ancient mesoamerican" culture is whether or not that area had the "ball game" concept that most people have some vague familiarity with, and Puerto Rico technically falls under that umbrella. But I'm not Mayan and anyone who has any experience with ancient mesoamerican culture would understand that Mayan culture was different from Mixtec culture was different from Olmec was different from Aztec. Mixtec, Mayan, and Aztec culture was also obviously heavily affected by those good 'ol spaniards. So would anyone from Mexico be allowed to use ancient Mayan culture for example? Or only those few who still practice more traditional cultural lifestyles?
What about interpreting the culture? Giving it unique twists, or taking specific aspects from it and applying them in some way outside of the specifics of the cultural origin?
I've seen what strict adherence to the idea that one should only ever draw from one's own ancestral culture is like and my god is it bland.
EDIT: 'cause I read KwarK's post, and while I think a measure of that can be solved by just making sure to be generally thorough in one's research into a culture (and I can tell you that Disney actually is REALLY REALLY thorough, like if they make a movie about a culture, they hire cultural experts, they send their people to the area that culture is from, and they typically get the whole nine yards done when it comes to their artists actually getting to know about the culture's they're working from), but yeah the active cultural genocide thing is a problem, and if a culture is specifically under threat in a way such as the Tibet thing its probably best to kind of put some work into making that like, not under threat anymore. Although I think I'd prefer to separate that from cultural appropriation and specifically label it cultural genocide, but I'm not really a scholar on this subject so I can only really speak from my experiences with the meaning of cultural appropriaton, and not it's actual scholarly use. you are abstracting culture. of course abstract ideas should not be propertized. the thing is to recognize that this abstraction itself is destructive (as Kwark describes before he reinscribes it within the inevitability of unspoken teleological norms). now, given that it is destructive of culture, what are marginalized peoples to do? they are going to engage in war with the means provided to them within liberal norms. and that means reclaiming the commoditization as their commodity. the hypocrisy is in calling it a preservation of culture. the destruction happens either way, it's just a matter of who owns it. I have almost no idea what it is you are saying, break it down in normal words for me If I break it down into Newspeak for you will it still mean the same? Are signifiers completely interchangeable?
I swear sometimes your posts make me feel like I'm reading a YokoKano blog, except with like 10% less LSD.
Not all of us are philosophy majors, and I'm sure as hell not. Are you saying that the only way for marginalized communities to properly defend and retain their culture is to have the rights to monetize their cultures? Are you saying in the end that culture is ever changing and because of that inherently doomed?
|
On June 19 2017 11:21 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 11:08 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 11:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:56 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:40 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl. What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option so you are using capital to prop up a culture that would otherwise be wiped out for what? for curiosity's sake? that's the liberal fish bowl and is of course a rationale beyond propertizing "culture." my argument is that this is self-defeating. see above. Is the motivation that the individuals within the culture themselves may prefer it not to be wiped out or subsumed and valuing their preferences just another chain in this fish bowl? There is no inherent compulsion for them to keep it crystallized and frozen or even preserve the spectral fish for others, after all Explain to me how you can have a "living culture" property right? Are you familiar with copyright, trademark, or patent claims? You necessarily "freeze" or "crystallize" property claims. The "culture" has become a costume that you wear after you get home from your office job maybe a few weekends a year. They aren't out planting squash under corn anymore, and the rain dance ceremonies have no connection except as spectacle. This is what I meant when I said that talking of a "disney culture" is a nostalgic fantasy for that which is absent. I think I still don't get you. Property rights don't prevent change by the owner of the property. Mickey Mouse is an IP but he's not frozen or crystallized. The Mickey today and the Mickey 50 or even 10 years ago are not one and the same but they're covered by the same IP. Nor is the Luke Skywalker of 1979 the same as the Luke Skywalker of 2015. Mickey Mouse and Luke Skywalker aren't culture. They aren't "forms of life." They are abstract concepts. Abstraction kills culture. That is my whole point. What is the difference between a white person imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee and a person of Cherokee genetic stock who was adopted by a white family imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee? What does it mean to "own" a culture that doesn't exist (is no longer practiced, is no longer a mode of moving or becoming in the world)? It's a simple commoditization/disneyfication of something that might once have been a culture. It is the adaptation for sale of a culture. But you just said you need to freeze things to have property claims? That's obviously false. Neither of those things are frozen despite being "owned" entities. I also don't understand why you think genetics are involved here, because (at least to me) there is generally no difference in a cultural sense between a Caucasian adopted by a reservation family growing up there and someone from "Cherokee genetic stock" who was born there. I also think there are plenty of people descended from indigenous people who view their heritage as a mode of moving or becoming in the world. Should we ignore them when they want to go to "war" in this sense?
"Mickey Mouse" the noumenal entity is frozen. I mean are you arguing that "Mickey Mouse in Outer Space" is somehow a new being? Or is it the same "person" just in a different environment? Property claims are directed to things that are the same no matter where you place them. Can we talk of a "culture" that is the same no matter where you place it? How can we talk about a "culture" without respect to its lived-in-ness? Culture is a process, not a thing. Abstracting it kills it by untethering it from this mode of living.
As for the rest, it of course depends on what exactly their "mode of moving" in the world is. How many Cherokee do you know hunting buffalo on horseback anymore?
I used "genetics" because that presumably will be how these IP rights are distributed. Do you think if I moved to a reservation with a white wife and white children that they would be allowed to do whatever they wanted with the "culture" there in this hypothetical scenario? If you do, you are imagining a different hypothetical than the one I am imagining (given that many benefits given to native peoples in this country are based on claiming descent) but mutatis mutandis the argument would be the same.
edit in response to your cross-outs: ok cool
|
On June 19 2017 11:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 11:21 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 11:08 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 11:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:56 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:40 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl. What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option so you are using capital to prop up a culture that would otherwise be wiped out for what? for curiosity's sake? that's the liberal fish bowl and is of course a rationale beyond propertizing "culture." my argument is that this is self-defeating. see above. Is the motivation that the individuals within the culture themselves may prefer it not to be wiped out or subsumed and valuing their preferences just another chain in this fish bowl? There is no inherent compulsion for them to keep it crystallized and frozen or even preserve the spectral fish for others, after all Explain to me how you can have a "living culture" property right? Are you familiar with copyright, trademark, or patent claims? You necessarily "freeze" or "crystallize" property claims. The "culture" has become a costume that you wear after you get home from your office job maybe a few weekends a year. They aren't out planting squash under corn anymore, and the rain dance ceremonies have no connection except as spectacle. This is what I meant when I said that talking of a "disney culture" is a nostalgic fantasy for that which is absent. I think I still don't get you. Property rights don't prevent change by the owner of the property. Mickey Mouse is an IP but he's not frozen or crystallized. The Mickey today and the Mickey 50 or even 10 years ago are not one and the same but they're covered by the same IP. Nor is the Luke Skywalker of 1979 the same as the Luke Skywalker of 2015. Mickey Mouse and Luke Skywalker aren't culture. They aren't "forms of life." They are abstract concepts. Abstraction kills culture. That is my whole point. What is the difference between a white person imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee and a person of Cherokee genetic stock who was adopted by a white family imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee? What does it mean to "own" a culture that doesn't exist (is no longer practiced, is no longer a mode of moving or becoming in the world)? It's a simple commoditization/disneyfication of something that might once have been a culture. It is the adaptation for sale of a culture. But you just said you need to freeze things to have property claims? That's obviously false. Neither of those things are frozen despite being "owned" entities. I also don't understand why you think genetics are involved here, because (at least to me) there is generally no difference in a cultural sense between a Caucasian adopted by a reservation family growing up there and someone from "Cherokee genetic stock" who was born there. I also think there are plenty of people descended from indigenous people who view their heritage as a mode of moving or becoming in the world. Should we ignore them when they want to go to "war" in this sense? "Mickey Mouse" the noumenal entity is frozen. I mean are you arguing that "Mickey Mouse in Outer Space" is somehow a new being? Or is it the same "person" just in a different environment? Property claims are directed to things that are the same no matter where you place them. Can we talk of a "culture" that is the same no matter where you place it? How can we talk about a "culture" without respect to its lived-in-ness? Culture is a process, not a thing. Abstracting it kills it by untethering it from this mode of living. As for the rest, it of course depends on what exactly their "mode of moving" in the world is. How many Cherokee do you know hunting buffalo on horseback anymore? I used "genetics" because that presumably will be how these IP rights are distributed. Do you think if I moved to a reservation with a white wife and white children that they would be allowed to do whatever they wanted with the "culture" there in this hypothetical scenario? If you do, you are imagining a different hypothetical than the one I am imagining (given that many benefits given to native peoples in this country are based on claiming descent) but mutatis mutandis the argument would be the same. edit in response to your cross-outs: ok cool The Cherokee culture was never about hunting buffalo on horseback. Wrong part of the country. They were mostly farmers in the eastern/southeastern US before Andrew Jackson unlawfully moved them. To a large degree they'd adopted American society and culture before the trail of tears, with their own newspapers and written language. I'm eastern band and have only ever visited Cherokee in NC so I can't really say too much about the western Cherokee's culture after the Trail.
Preserving a culture is more along the lines of keeping the spoken/written language alive.
|
On June 19 2017 11:37 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On June 19 2017 11:27 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 11:21 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 11:08 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 11:05 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:56 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:49 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:40 IgnE wrote:On June 19 2017 10:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 19 2017 10:11 IgnE wrote: culture as "form(s) of life" is presumably what we are talking about. when that form of life is commoditized and stamped out by the economic logic of capitalist liberalism, the culture ceases to be a culture in the aforementioned sense. presumably there are at least two things going on: the zoological urge to preserve diversity in a fish bowl as spectral object for the white capitalist gaze, and the unseemly profiting off that object which also threatens to shatter the fish bowl. fighting for IP rights is not a fight to preserve the culture for its own sake as much as it is a right to be included as equal member in the capitalist enterprise to exploit a disintegrating fish bowl. What about when the funds from the capitalist enterprise can be and are leveraged to help preserve parts of the culture in some way? Trusting a clearly delineated cultural originator, if one exists, to do that rather than the capitalist scrum seems the least worst option so you are using capital to prop up a culture that would otherwise be wiped out for what? for curiosity's sake? that's the liberal fish bowl and is of course a rationale beyond propertizing "culture." my argument is that this is self-defeating. see above. Is the motivation that the individuals within the culture themselves may prefer it not to be wiped out or subsumed and valuing their preferences just another chain in this fish bowl? There is no inherent compulsion for them to keep it crystallized and frozen or even preserve the spectral fish for others, after all Explain to me how you can have a "living culture" property right? Are you familiar with copyright, trademark, or patent claims? You necessarily "freeze" or "crystallize" property claims. The "culture" has become a costume that you wear after you get home from your office job maybe a few weekends a year. They aren't out planting squash under corn anymore, and the rain dance ceremonies have no connection except as spectacle. This is what I meant when I said that talking of a "disney culture" is a nostalgic fantasy for that which is absent. I think I still don't get you. Property rights don't prevent change by the owner of the property. Mickey Mouse is an IP but he's not frozen or crystallized. The Mickey today and the Mickey 50 or even 10 years ago are not one and the same but they're covered by the same IP. Nor is the Luke Skywalker of 1979 the same as the Luke Skywalker of 2015. Mickey Mouse and Luke Skywalker aren't culture. They aren't "forms of life." They are abstract concepts. Abstraction kills culture. That is my whole point. What is the difference between a white person imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee and a person of Cherokee genetic stock who was adopted by a white family imagining a cyber-punk Cherokee? What does it mean to "own" a culture that doesn't exist (is no longer practiced, is no longer a mode of moving or becoming in the world)? It's a simple commoditization/disneyfication of something that might once have been a culture. It is the adaptation for sale of a culture. But you just said you need to freeze things to have property claims? That's obviously false. Neither of those things are frozen despite being "owned" entities. I also don't understand why you think genetics are involved here, because (at least to me) there is generally no difference in a cultural sense between a Caucasian adopted by a reservation family growing up there and someone from "Cherokee genetic stock" who was born there. I also think there are plenty of people descended from indigenous people who view their heritage as a mode of moving or becoming in the world. Should we ignore them when they want to go to "war" in this sense? "Mickey Mouse" the noumenal entity is frozen. I mean are you arguing that "Mickey Mouse in Outer Space" is somehow a new being? Or is it the same "person" just in a different environment? Property claims are directed to things that are the same no matter where you place them. Can we talk of a "culture" that is the same no matter where you place it? How can we talk about a "culture" without respect to its lived-in-ness? Culture is a process, not a thing. Abstracting it kills it by untethering it from this mode of living. As for the rest, it of course depends on what exactly their "mode of moving" in the world is. How many Cherokee do you know hunting buffalo on horseback anymore? I used "genetics" because that presumably will be how these IP rights are distributed. Do you think if I moved to a reservation with a white wife and white children that they would be allowed to do whatever they wanted with the "culture" there in this hypothetical scenario? If you do, you are imagining a different hypothetical than the one I am imagining (given that many benefits given to native peoples in this country are based on claiming descent) but mutatis mutandis the argument would be the same. edit in response to your cross-outs: ok cool The Cherokee culture was never about hunting buffalo on horseback. Wrong part of the country. They were mostly farmers in the eastern/southeastern US before Andrew Jackson unlawfully moved them. To a large degree they'd adopted American society and culture before the trail of tears, with their own newspapers and written language. I'm eastern band and have only ever visited Cherokee in NC so I can't really say too much about the western Cherokee's culture after the Trail. Preserving a culture is more along the lines of keeping the spoken/written language alive.
yeah you are right my bad, i was thinking of comanche. i should have verified with wikipedia first
|
|
|
|