[RD] Cultural Appropriation: The Solution?

[Thorgalaeg]

They removed skin but left identity.

Seriously the burning of Maya and Aztec codices was not very nice. Spaniards burnt a lot of invaluable hebrew and arab books in Andalusia and Oran too but the Maya thing was specially infuriating in my opinion, they are so strange to any other thing... But 16th was Taliban time for all Europe, not only Spain.

 

[warpus]

A really good first step on this (as well as on some other issues) would be - just to pick one random excentric idea - not to have statues of hateful raging racist eugenecists on Parliament Hill.

Just a thought.

Uhhh no, that's not the problem I was talking about. In fact I do not believe this to be a problem at all

 

[metatron]

, even as openly racist political parties start winning elections and racist narratives become ever more common in the mainstream.

Winning elections?
You mean losing elections less pathetically than before?
Cause the two elected (let's ignore "elected" persons like Putin) heads of government in the developed world on both sides of the Atlantic that summarily satisfy the condition coming to mind are one Mr. Orban and one Mr. Trump.

But specifically what I mean is that the European mainstream appears more or less in denial that an anti-racist politics is even necessary

Maybe the European mainstream doesn't consider your so-called "anti-racist politics" anti-racist or, for that matter, useful.

What do you consider "anti-racist politics"?
Just so we agree on what we are talking about.

In fact I do not believe this to be a problem at all

Why? And how?

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

The funny thing about cultural appropriation is that I've been asked to participate in events and festivities that "belong" to cultures that I'm not part of.

 

[sophie]

But 16th was Taliban time for all Europe, not only Spain.

This is a gross and unfortunate mischaracterization

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Ok, now is when you elaborate on it.

 

[NovaKart]

I suppose to compare 16th century Europe to the Taliban they would have to destroy works from classical Ancient Greece and Rome and ban public entertainment like the theater.

I suppose destroying the Aztec codices was a little different because it was a civilization they were unfamiliar with while the Bamiyan Buddhas has been in Afghanistan a really long time without them being destroyed.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Well, obviously there is not an 1-1 similarity but 16th century was not a good time for religious tolerance. It was a time of inquisition, witch hunt, reformation and counter-reformation, wars of religion and book burnings everywhere.

 

[luiz]

You're being spectacularly unclever tonight and the idea that having supposed good intentions excuses those committing genocide somewhat is ridiculous. Trying to raise the bar on the definition of genocide so that it has only occurred two or three times in human history would turn it into a useless concept, and if some other CFC posters advocated for this would call it sinister, whereas I think you're just mistaken.

Unfortunately genocide, as in a deliberate attempt to a wipe a people out, happens often enough that it merits a definition of its own. We don't have to go back in history to see actual genocides taking place. What Isis did against Yazidis and other religious minorities constitutes genocide. In Rwanda there was genocide.

Also I'm not trying to narrow down the definition. Most scholars do not call the Portuguese colonization of Brazil "genocide". This opinion certainly exists but it is a fringe one.

I'm not excusing anyone, as I said many horrible crimes were commited, and the settlers were often criminals and ruthless adventurers who left a trail of carnage in their wake.

No, the Anglican and Catholic churches didn't round the native kids up and gas them. But they did literally beat them for speaking their own languages, expressing their religious beliefs in words or ceremonies, and many were taken hundreds of miles away from their families so there was no way to have contact with them. Some of the kids ran away to try to get home; a few made it, but most were either caught or died on the way.

Are you seriously telling me that this was all because of benign motives? I'm reminded of Senator Lynn Beyak, who should be kicked out of the Senate but can't be unless she breaks certain rules; she's got a whole raft of racist letters and emails posted on her official website, praising her for prattling on about how "loving" the teachers were in these schools, and that yes, there were a few bad incidents, but overall it was a wonderful experience for the kids, and on and on and on... I'm sure the kids who were raped multiple times were just overjoyed at such treatment, right?

There are generations of screwed-up people, as what happened to the kids didn't just go away with their generation. They grew up apart from their own languages and traditions, and many had no idea how to build functional families when they became adults. So this had consequences on their kids, grandchildren, and so on.

All of that is horrible and had an undeniable devastating effect over the Indians, but it's not the same as an attempt to murder them out of existence.

As for the intentions, I don't know about Canada. But in Brazil we do know for a fact that the Portuguese kings took very seriously the mission given them by the church of saving the souls of their new subjects. Of course, the way their orders were carried our was often brutal, and even when they were correctly carried out the results were often disastrous for the Indians. But this is quite different from Hitler or Pol Pot or Isis "caliphs" that wanted nothing short of the physical elimination of entire groups of people. I think different cases merit different words.

 

[Senethro]

Read your own post again then m8

I'm not a big fan of the term cultural genocide, as I think it waters down the meaning of genocide as practiced by the Nazis, Turks, Khmer Rouge, etc.

I do agree that the suppression of Indian culture was often tragic - I can speak of the Brazilian case but am not that familiar with the Canadian one. But I also know that, unlike the Nazis who had evil goals, the assimilation and conversion of Indians arose from people who genuinely wanted to "save" them. Often this "salvation" was carried in a brutal way that today we can only call stupid, but we can't really use the same word as we use to describe Auschwitz and the Cambodian killing fields.

The separation you're creating between evil and the merely "stupid" is most definitely an attempt to excuse, as is the ascribing of genuinely good intents to them. Why though? Reflexive defense of your "team", even though you actually do acknowledge the criminals and carnage etc?

 

[warpus]

Why? And how?

Actually, I'm not really sure who you are referencing tbh. I thought it was the same thing that some people were complaining about a while ago, they wanted somebody's named removed from everything. In the end his name wasn't removed from anywhere I don't think, as he remains an important part of Canadian history

 

[metatron]

Actually, I'm not really sure who you are referencing tbh. I thought it was the same thing that some people were complaining about a while ago, they wanted somebody's named removed from everything. In the end his name wasn't removed from anywhere I don't think, as he remains an important part of Canadian history

Famous Five.

 

[Mouthwash]

rather than because there's anything inherently abominable to English-speaking eyes about the combination of letters than comprise "Latinx"

Speak for yourself.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The resources necessary to even attempt that were only available in the modern world. Before that there was no state organized education system. The only way to achieve such cultural substitution was outright genocide and migration. And the real way cultures changed was through trade, imitation of more prestigious more practical cultural norms, slow mingling or assimilation - there are natural processes and it is insane to think they can be prevented.

Define "modern world." The residential school system in Canada started not long after Confederation and remained in operation for over a century. The last one was closed in 1996.

Canadian Indian residential school system

Note that the article states that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission uses the term 'cultural genocide'.

Unfortunately genocide, as in a deliberate attempt to a wipe a people out, happens often enough that it merits a definition of its own. We don't have to go back in history to see actual genocides taking place. What Isis did against Yazidis and other religious minorities constitutes genocide. In Rwanda there was genocide.

Also I'm not trying to narrow down the definition. Most scholars do not call the Portuguese colonization of Brazil "genocide". This opinion certainly exists but it is a fringe one.

I'm not excusing anyone, as I said many horrible crimes were commited, and the settlers were often criminals and ruthless adventurers who left a trail of carnage in their wake.


All of that is horrible and had an undeniable devastating effect over the Indians, but it's not the same as an attempt to murder them out of existence.

As for the intentions, I don't know about Canada. But in Brazil we do know for a fact that the Portuguese kings took very seriously the mission given them by the church of saving the souls of their new subjects. Of course, the way their orders were carried our was often brutal, and even when they were correctly carried out the results were often disastrous for the Indians. But this is quite different from Hitler or Pol Pot or Isis "caliphs" that wanted nothing short of the physical elimination of entire groups of people. I think different cases merit different words.

1. Genocide already has a definition of its own.

2. Of course you're trying to narrow down the definition.

3. "They intended this to 'save' the natives"... yeah, that's an excuse.

4. The intent was to "murder" their languages and culture out of existence - to turn them into white people in every way possible but their physical characteristics (and one of the first things they did was take the scissors to the kids' hair - no long hair allowed, for either boys or girls).

5. Then stop trying to excuse and dismiss what happened in Canada. This is stuff I've studied in history classes, stuff I've learned from people who were personally affected by the residential school system, and stuff that is currently a major issue in many facets of Canadian life.

6. So you want us to invent a whole new word for "cultural genocide"? How about giving us credit for knowing the difference between making people physically dead and leaving them alive but culturally assimilated with the intent to erase their original culture?

Famous Five.

The Famous Five are in the category of "they did some good things, and they did some bad things." The eugenics is bad, and I don't excuse it. But if not for these women, it would have taken a hell of a lot longer for Canadian women to have the right to vote, and even to be considered legal persons.

 

[innonimatu]

Define "modern world." T

"Modern Era" usually refers to history after the intellectual, technical and political changes that together produced what was called the "Enlightenment", the departure from ancient traditions, overturning of old legal systems, reduction of the role of religion, etc. Starting in late 18th century France and England and spreading from there, they enveloped the whole of Europe during the Napoleonic Wars, North America with the revolution there, South America after their wars of independence, later Asia during the 19th and early 20th centuries, and finally Africa well into the 20th century and still ongoing.

It involved the creation of modern states with their bureaucracies and increased ability to control and organize the population.

This Enlightenment of which we here are all products was by itself a vehicle for a huge "cultural genocide" wherever it touched. People's lives were completely upended by it: there is no place in the world where the imposition of modernity, often by force, did not upend people's lives. The resistance against it is still ongoing in many places. What sustained the multiple afghan rebellions against soviet-inspired government, then an american one? What force toppled Mossadegh in Iran, and later the shah? Not the CIA alone, not Khomeini alone. What drove the wars in Central Africa, or in the horn of Africa? Not merely foreign corporations or support from foreign governments. These all happened also because there were cultural conflicts between the old and the new available to be leveraged on.

Consider your own country.. If two native tribes had an ongoing conflict where one was being successful in attacking, enslaved, raped and killed members of another, would you advocate non-intervention, or that the government should step in? Because that was what had been happening in the 19th century in several places... But to intervene and to "civilize" them would be "cultural genocide"?

 

[metatron]

The Famous Five are in the category of "they did some good things, and they did some bad things." The eugenics is bad, and I don't excuse it. But if not for these women, it would have taken a hell of a lot longer for Canadian women to have the right to vote, and even to be considered legal persons.

You said this before.
Unless you want to be in the Canadian Senate (the Senate? really?) they are kind of late to give you the franchise.
And as much as it may hurt your sensibilities: Pretty much everybody got the franchise (or most of it in that case) around that earlier time on account of that war having happened, with or without weird racist ladies.

And i am sure there are more feminist role models in Canada who'd make for nice bronze figures.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You said this before.
Unless you want to be in the Canadian Senate (the Senate? really?) they are kind of late to give you the franchise.
And as much as it may hurt your sensibilities: Pretty much everybody got the franchise (or most of it in that case) around that earlier time on account of that war having happened, with or without weird racist ladies.

And i am sure there are more feminist role models in Canada who'd make for nice bronze figures.

I choose my role models, for reasons that make sense to me, and I am well aware that they are not perfect people. Your approval is not required.

Since it appears to be impossible for you to refrain from being snide in your replies to me, you and I are done with this conversation.

 

[metatron]

I choose my role models, for reasons that make sense to me, and I am well aware that they are not perfect people. Your approval is not required.

Since it appears to be impossible for you to refrain from being snide in your replies to me, you and I are done with this conversation.

I was nothing but polite.
The conversation is a result of your volition.
You in fact butted in.
You are entitled to have role models of your choosing.
You are very much not entitled for other persons to not have opinions about them.

And it would do you well to consider your own tone first.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

What puzzles me is that the word "Latin" is already perfectly descriptive, non-offensive and gender neutral. Why is there a need to invent a new, bizarre and unpronounceable word? Do we need a gender neutral word for "black" too?

Also, after some time Americans of Latin origin cease being Latin Americans and are just... Americans of Latin origin.

I will say "Latin" is not really used in the US. Latin-American sort of yeah, but "Latino" is way, way more common than "Latin" when referring to a person or persons, and even "Latino-America" is more common too. So I'd guess that's why.

 

[Lexicus]

See, there are Europeans in this thread who are on a "here are the reasons the European conquest of the Americas was actually better for the natives" level of discourse, but then other Europeans are assuring me that there is no racism in Europe...something doesn't add up here...