Cultural Appropriation is a Non-Issue

[Matt8800]

17 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Said from the perspective of someone in a dominant culture group. Notice how you are trying to define the terms and control the narrative. You have that privilege being within a dominant culture group. Notice how you could care less about other perspectives on cultural appropriation. You want to control the narrative. Once that narrative of cultural appropriation was challenged by a fellow member within the dominant cultural group, you switched to a "beyond ego" framework. This is a form of spiritual bypassing. 

@Serotoninluv You are forcefully identifying me to a group of others, which I find personally offensive. Do I have a choice or does my skin color choose for me? Of course, whether Im offended or not wouldnt matter to your ideology because of what you believe "my" group (and thereby me as an individual) should or shouldnt do. No matter how you justify it, it fits the definition of racism.

I have always been a recluse and a loner. If you have always been more of a social person, you wouldnt understand my complete non-identification with a group.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

2 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv You are forcefully identifying me to a group of others, which I find personally offensive. Of course, whether Im offended or not wouldnt matter to your ideology because of what you believe "my" group (and thereby me) should or shouldnt do.

You raised the issue of cultural appropriation. Part of understanding cultural appropriation is to understand one's own conditioning within a cultural group. Saying "There is no 'me' and I don't identify to any group" is a form of spiritual bypassing. It is bypassing to avoid looking at one's own conditioning and subconscious biases.  Conditioning and programming shapes one's lens and the attachment/identification to this lens. A major part of this conditioning is the cultural group the human is within. If you were an oppressed Guatemalan that lived in poverty, you would have very different conditioning and lens. If you worked in the Peace Corps within oppressed communities, you would have a different lens. If you were a sociology scholar specializing in cultural appropriation, you would have a different lens. . . Simply saying "I am not part of any group and I have transcended all identity and lenses" is bypassing underlying subconscious conditioning and biases. A key part of transcendence is wearing and understanding other lenses. 

 

On 10/21/2019 at 1:41 PM, Matt8800 said:

The implication of the anti-cultural appropriation movement basically says that if you are asian, you must act asian, look asian and like asian things. If you are Indian, you must act and look Indian, African - act and look African, etc.

Right from the beginning, you defined the narrative in your terms. This narrative does not recognize fundamental aspects of cultural appropriation. It is a nuanced topic. Are there some instances in which people go overboard about racism? Yes, of course. Yet to consider fringe aspects as the essence filters out a lot of pertinent information. It would be like saying "The implication of the environmental conservation movement is to blow up SUVs". That is a distortion and does not consider underlying essence. 

Why do you get to define what cultural appropriation is? Have you studied it? Have you immersed yourself and lived within culturally oppressed communities? Are there people out there with deep knowledge of cultural appropriation that you could learn from?. . . And why do you get to define what cultural appropriation rather than an asian, Indian or African? Why don't they get to define what cultural appropriation is? And why aren't you interested in their input about cultural appropriation?

Another orientation would be: What is cultural appropriation? Under what contexts would something be considered cultural appropriation? 

[Scholar]

Matt, at this point I think the best we can do is tell you that to us it seems very obvious that what you are representing here are orange values. We are trying to point to you why it is the case, yet you are unable to see our perspectives.

This is not a personal attack, I think what you want to do is just consider the possibility that you are ignorant here or that you have a biased perspective and that you could try to step out of it to investigate if what we are saying is true.

 

You are demanding us to expand your perspective, which we cannot do if you are not willing. Additionally, it is effortful for us to guide you through why you have a limited perspective in this case. We are talking about your development as a human being here, we are not responsible for that. If you want to dismiss us by saying we are talking down on you or that we do not provide good reasons for what we are saying, then we are only going to walk in circles.

 

Notice how this conversation is drifting into a meta-conversation and conversations about you as individual. There is no attempt to expand your knowledge, you are turning this into a debate.

 

I think you should have started out this topic by asking what Cultural Appropriation is and what it is about. Instead you have created your own version of it and criticized that version. The very first sentence you wrote in this thread shows to anyone who knows what Cultural Appropriation is that you have not even read a single, basic definition of it. You, from the beginning, have been very uncharitable towards the position of Cultural Appropriation.

 

This is a problem, no matter who is right here. The fact that you could not even get the very basic and fundamental facts straight should make a warning-bell go off in you. It should not lead to further justifications of your position, but a reconsideration of your position. You cannot ask us to explain something to you that you will not even make the effort of reading a single unbiased article on.

[Hansu]

@Scholar  @Serotoninluv

Inspiring replies right here! Really helped me understand on more deeper level how this is not about me, this is not about races or character traits but about creating equality between the groups in our society who happen to predominantly be a certain race or have certain character trait/traits. Words like "passable white" and ideas like "white acting black guy" are actually starting to make some sense now that I make it about groups and not about the individuals race.

I find ways to victimize myself so I can continue thinking in ways like "race is just a race", to keep it being about myself and not having to think about others. There is definitely work to do here

I will 100% be revisiting this thread from time to time. Thank you!

[Hansu]

55 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

I would subconsciously consider myself as more educated/intelligent and them not being as intelligent. I was totally unaware of this. . .

These thought patterns are such a bitch even if you understand their fault. Like you can acknowledge how you are not much more intelligent than the average joe but then your mind makes up horseshit like "Understanding that is really intelligent thinking! You are really special and intelligent for realizing this!". And then when you start to finally give up the last parts of that thought pattern and your mind dont have any diversions left, it starts to reason that your thought pattern was real all along

New experiences really are the best ways to uncover and disassemble subconscious programming. I used to be mgtow until one night a 9/10 girl came up on me in a bar and brushed her leg on my crotch. Didnt take long to discover pickup after that experience!

Edited October 22, 2019 by Hansu

[Matt8800]

@Scholar @Serotoninluv According to your ideology, would a white person decrying cultural appropriation that had a Buddha or Shiva statue at home be guilty of hypocrisy? 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Matt8800

[Matt8800]

15 minutes ago, Keyhole said:

The documentary talks about how these people feel about their culture being destroyed, because they are still facing the strong effects of it.  I chose this group of people because their story is similar to the Native American genocide, but could be used to show that it happens all over the world, and because the responsibility for this genocide is of German origin I had hoped that it would not spark feelings of guilt, but to show that this is a systemic problem with many races of people.

The documentary about the Herero people that were systemically destroyed by Germany pre WWII and how the scars of the past still effect them today.  German settlers stole their land, turned them into farms, put them in concentration camps where they were raped and murdered.  They had to clean the chopped off heads of their neighbors to have them sent to Germany where the heads were used in "scientific studies" to prove that Africans were subhuman.  When the Herero people fought back, the Germans pushed them out into the desert and poisoned the watering holes, reducing these people to a little over a thousand members left.  Now in current days, many of these people live in poverty - they can't even visit their ancestors because the land that this happened on is owned by a German farmer.

When things like this happen, the effects that it cause don't just go away, they cascade down the generations.

It reminds me of when I visit my BPD mother, who's severe child abuse damaged me emotionally, but also messed up my nervous system.  When I try to explain to her my point of view on why my life is problematic, I get from her, "You did it to yourself and you just need to get over it."  Part of getting over it is having that reality addressed so that it can be worked through.  A person can't just be pushed into the dirt with nothing, and then expected to "get over it" because the abuser doesn't want to see the situation for what it really is.  It creates a gaslight.  A reality where the oppressor can live guilt free and can sleep well at night.  These things happen on so many different levels and in so many different ways.  Most of us know what being oppressed in some form or another feels like.

I also posted some other viewpoints on this, from the perspective of someone innocent who is practicing a spiritual craft - and how a person who feels small can hide behind cultural appropriation to gain a sense of importance.  That has happened to me as well, and I think that is what you are talking about.  The thing is, most white folks who use the spiritual practices of other cultures are fakers.  Fakers and stealers who lie and turn the divine into an ego show.

There will be a lot of different points of view on this topic, and it will be layered like an onion - if you are accused of cultural appropriation, then what happens will have to be treated within that context for your particular situation as a True Sighted white man.

@Keyhole Yes, I agree those are sad situations and I empathize deeply. 

I personally feel that what is sacred to one culture should be treated as sacred by others. My point was certainly NOT to say that it is OK to treat other cultures any way they want. My point is mainly that if I, or others, want to participate in a facet of another culture out of love and respect, I see nothing wrong with that. This is exactly how Yoga and Buddhism made it to the West.

My spiritual life is saturated with ideas and objects considered sacred to other cultures....and they are sacred to me also. I dont feel there is anything wrong with this however, it falls within definition of cultural appropriation. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Matt8800

[mandyjw]

22 hours ago, remember said:

authenticity is nothing we can recreate in mass production, it`s as simple as that. what people should or should not do or revive as their cultural heritage is their own business, it`s sad if traditional manufacturing techniques get lost because there is no one who wants to inherit it, but that`s how it has always been. there is a reason why some things are protected by regions of origin, because the energy going into it deserves some status and as such protection.

A lot of brilliant innovations and creations have been copied and mass produced for nothing by China, they have nearly destroyed entire art forms. Of course this isn't China's fault, it's Americans/westerners preference for cheap quantity over quality. I live near to a Native American tribe reservation and once traded my art with a basket maker. The one I got from her she had added her own decoration style to, a technique that was not traditional but something her mother had come up with and taught her. I do feel like there is some pressure to keep their work traditional and not to innovate or add personal style too much. There are also tensions between generations because the younger generation never seems to be able to keep the traditions as well as the older had, naturally as time passes and the world changes. There are certain records that out of respect for tribes are ONLY kept within the tribe, not even historical records exist outside. This puts a huge amount of pressure on a very small group of people to keep these things. Sadly being to unwilling to share traditions with interested outsiders means that some will be lost forever, but inevitably they will be evolved into something new if the world takes hold of it. I'm not sure there's a right answer. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by mandyjw

[DrewNows]

4 hours ago, remember said:

@DrewNows the evolutionary process of quantity has also been a quality creating process. quality is conciousness, quantity is either need or greed in our time. sorry it is a very long story, the story about the hows.

i think you're full of it  

Don't be too sure now

 

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

@Scholar @Serotoninluv According to your ideology, would a white person decrying cultural appropriation that had a Buddha or Shiva statue at home be guilty of hypocrisy? 

No.

[Matt8800]

8 minutes ago, Scholar said:

No.

@Scholar Technically, that would fall under the definition of cultural appropriation. If you are saying that cultural appropriation is fine if done with respect, then it sounds like we agree.

[Matt8800]

17 minutes ago, Keyhole said:

I agree with you there, but you are a rare exception to the rule in that you are able to create a genuine connection with these tools, whereas most white people who take on these roles and traditions are doing so from the perspective of playing a World of Warcraft character.  For these people, they have had their cultures stolen from them.  Not only do white people take on their traditions without having a connection, but they themselves are like a tree that has been cut from the root.  Many of their own people no longer have a connection to the sacred.

I

@Keyhole Yes, I agree but I see the root of that problem as a lack of respect in the West for ANYTHING sacred, regardless of what culture it has come from. It is the mixing of the profane with the sacred that is problematic, regardless of one having the right ancestors.

If this is true, it is not having incorrect ancestors that is the problem. Broadly denouncing cultural appropriation as a problem is an incomplete understanding of all the deeper dynamics. The problem with the West, generally speaking, is that it is profane. THAT should be the talking point. Specifically speaking, it comes down to the individual's intent and orientation.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

4 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv According to your ideology, would a white person decrying cultural appropriation that had a Buddha or Shiva statue at home be guilty of hypocrisy? 

 

3 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

Technically, that would fall under the definition of cultural appropriation. If you are saying that cultural appropriation is fine if done with respect, then it sounds like we agree.

According to whose definition of cultural appropriation? Why do you get to set the terms of what cultural appropriation is? Why not ask Buddhists and Hindus that have been oppressed what cultural appropriation is? Why shouldn't the oppressed people have a say in what cultural appropriation is? One of the hallmarks of privilege is that the privileged get to define terms and set the narrative, without having to bear the burden. An extreme example would be white slave owners setting the narrative of the ethics of slavery.. . . Input from slaves is critical in creating an ethical construct of slavery.  Similarly, the input of oppressed groups is critical in creating a construct of cultural appropriation. . . . In terms of SD, this is an element in evolving above Orange. 

Ask an oppressed buddhist community living in poverty that has gone through generations of oppression how they would feel if their oppressor took their hand-made Buddhist statues and prominently displayed the statues in their lavish living rooms. Context and perspective matters. In particular, cultural appropriation involves oppressors, the oppressed and unequal power dynamics. You keep filtering out those aspects. 

I am not saying that your behavior is cultural appropriation. I am saying that you have a view of cultural appropriation that is based on fringe examples. This will distract one from learning about and understanding cultural appropriation. . . I could define environmentalism as some fringe group that chain themselves to trees and blows up SUVs. If I am contracted within that view, it would close me off from learning about and understanding environmentalism. 

[remember]

13 hours ago, mandyjw said:

A lot of brilliant innovations and creations have been copied and mass produced for nothing by China, they have nearly destroyed entire art forms. Of course this isn't China's fault, it's Americans/westerners preference for cheap quantity over quality. I live near to a Native American tribe reservation and once traded my art with a basket maker. The one I got from her she had added her own decoration style to, a technique that was not traditional but something her mother had come up with and taught her. I do feel like there is some pressure to keep their work traditional and not to innovate or add personal style too much. There are also tensions between generations because the younger generation never seems to be able to keep the traditions as well as the older had, naturally as time passes and the world changes. There are certain records that out of respect for tribes are ONLY kept within the tribe, not even historical records exist outside. This puts a huge amount of pressure on a very small group of people to keep these things. Sadly being to unwilling to share traditions with interested outsiders means that some will be lost forever, but inevitably they will be evolved into something new if the world takes hold of it. I'm not sure there's a right answer. 

yes you are also right, that`s why there are people who design new patterns and objects with help of the techniques and oftentimes the traditional craftsmen and bring the production process back to where it belonged to. this is all part of very conscious value creation cycles. although unfortunately still not enough people doing consciousness work like that. and i bet there are a lot of native american tribes who would maybe welcome cooperations. the traditional and the new can exist next to each other, but it`s important that quality is equal, if the new design/pattern is of lesser aesthetic or functional quality it won`t work.

if these tribes live in tourist areas or have touristic attractions also throwing out all the plunder which is not linked to them directly or doesn`t serve a functional purpose out of their program step by step and replacing it would serve the purpose of value creation. people in the future will less and less buy hollow knick-knacks.

i guess you know that yourself, that adding additional purpose and content makes products more valuable because then it serves a function. sometimes it`s also about removing additional content what serves a function.

cultural appropriation takes place anyways, direct trading of such makes it more fair and reestablishes value and love.

for example you can buy brezels everywhere in germany, but nowhere they taste better than in munic or in bavarian countryside. it`s not just a slogan it`s really the recipe of the brezel. but even there you will find better or worse ones, but the worse will not make it in the long run. why? because they don`t have the breath of the centuries.

Edited October 23, 2019 by remember

[Matt8800]

15 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

 

According to whose definition of cultural appropriation? Why do you get to set the terms of what cultural appropriation is? Why not ask Buddhists and Hindus that have been oppressed what cultural appropriation is? Why shouldn't the oppressed people have a say in what cultural appropriation is? One of the hallmarks of privilege is that the privileged get to define terms and set the narrative, without having to bear the burden. An extreme example would be white slave owners setting the narrative of the ethics of slavery.. . . Input from slaves is critical in creating an ethical construct of slavery.  Similarly, the input of oppressed groups is critical in creating a construct of cultural appropriation. . . . In terms of SD, this is an element in evolving above Orange. 

Ask an oppressed buddhist community living in poverty that has gone through generations of oppression how they would feel if their oppressor took their hand-made Buddhist statues and prominently displayed the statues in their lavish living rooms. Context and perspective matters. In particular, cultural appropriation involves oppressors, the oppressed and unequal power dynamics. You keep filtering out those aspects. 

I am not saying that your behavior is cultural appropriation. I am saying that you have a view of cultural appropriation that is based on fringe examples. This will distract one from learning about and understanding cultural appropriation. . . I could define environmentalism as some fringe group that chain themselves to trees and blows up SUVs. If I am contracted within that view, it would close me off from learning about and understanding environmentalism. 

@Serotoninluv Yes, that is basically the narrative from the (mostly white) extreme left: "We dont know how to define what cultural appropriation is exactly, or when to know when you've been guilty of it, but dont do it. We'll determine your guilt and express our outrage after you do it."

Interestingly, when I googled articles looking for people speaking against it, they all appeared to be written by white people. So much for your theory that the privileged group doesnt have the right to say anything about it - it seems they are the only ones saying something about it. Looks like its more of a "white guilt" issue that was manufactured by whites.

The only exception I could find is Native Americans not liking their sacred objects being used in profane ways by people who had no respect for the sacred. As I stated earlier, I agreed that the sacred should remain sacred and I would side with the Natives on that one.

As for me, I will continue to participate, with gratitude and respect, in aspects of other cultures that I admire and I will do so without any guilt. One could say that my whole spiritual path is built on the foundation of cultural appropriation of the sacred, and it is extremely rich, beautiful and powerful because of it. 

Edited October 23, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

@Matt8800 A few things to unpack here. I am not saying your points are wrong, I'm saying they are components within a bigger picture. It is like the brakes of a car. There is nothing wrong with the brakes - yet they are just one component within a larger picture. We wouldn't say "the brakes are not the car", nor would we say "the brakes are the car". The breaks are within the car. To better understand the overall car, one would need to let go of the idea that the brakes (and only the brakes) are the car.

I'll offer just another perspective. It is doesn't resonate and isn't helpful, feel free to ditch it. 

6 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv Yes, that is basically the narrative from the (mostly white) extreme left: "We dont know how to define what cultural appropriation is exactly, or when to know when you've been guilty of it, but dont do it. We'll determine your guilt and express our outrage after you do it."

This is also a contracted view. You did add the term "extreme", yet the underlying suggestion in the views you've expressed is that this narrative is not extreme. It is the basis of how you have been defining cultural appropriation. If this is an extreme perspective of cultural appropriation, we shouldn't give it much weight in understanding the true essence of cultural appropriation. We should the majority of our time examining the true essence of cultural appropriation. For example, I can define environmentalism as extreme groups blowing up SUVs. I can call it "extreme", yet if I limit myself to this extreme definition I cannot learn about true environmentalism. I would think things like "Can you believe those environmentalists that blew up those SUVs? Environmentalists are so dangerous. I am going to spend all day watching environmentalists blow up SUVs. I'm going to watch the court cases that convict those criminal environmentalists. It's awful. We should ban environmentalism." . . .This view is very contracted and will not allow us to explore the vast world of the environmental movement and to learn/understand what the environmental movement is really about. Similarly, we can contract ourselves into an extreme view of cultural appropriation - yet this will prevent us from exploring cultural appropriation and to learn/understand what it is really about. . . Once the awareness of contraction is revealed, it is a personal choice of whether to stay contracted or to expand. If I had the view that "the environmental movement is about blowing up SUVs" and it was revealed to me that blowing up SUVs is just a small extreme component of environmentalism and that there is much more going on with the environmental movement - I now have a choice. I can choose to stay contracted within my view or I can choose to expand. Nobody can force you or me to expand. The person needs to be open and have desire. Yet this can be difficult. If I was raised my whole life that environmentalists are dangerous criminals to may blow up my SUV and threaten my survival - I will be conditioned to see the environmental movement through that lens. Intellectual theory may be insufficient to break that lifetime of conditioning. One may need more, for example to join an environmental conservation group. Perhaps join the Peace Corp in live in a rain forest for a while. This type of thing can help de-condition prior conditioning. 

Regarding the definition you offered: Cultural appropriation is a nuanced topic that is context dependent. If you are looking for a black and white definition, it will be very limited. That is stage Blue. I provided a link to an entry-level perspective of cultural appropriation, yet you don't seem interested. You seem more interested in protecting the boundaries of a contracted view. That is fine. Yet you won't expand that way. The choice is yours. I can't make you read the article or explore more. 

6 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

Interestingly, when I googled articles looking for people speaking against it, they all appeared to be written by white people. So much for your theory that the privileged group doesnt have the right to say anything about it - it seems they are the only ones saying something about it. Looks like its more of a "white guilt" issue that was manufactured by whites.

This is the opposite of my point. Core dynamics of cultural appropriation is an oppressor group and oppressed group - and there is an inherent dynamic. The privileged group (related to the oppressor group) has the privilege of setting the narrative - NOT the oppressed group. That is the key of the power dynamic. What you observed is an expression of this power dynamic. Your googling revealed the narrative being exclusive set by the privileged group. That is an aspect of privileged and the privileged group generally isn't even aware of it.  This gets to one core of the issue. Why do the privelidge group get to set the narrative? It doesn't matter what that narrative is. The narrative could be that any time a white person does anything from another culture it is cultural appropriation. The narrative could be that all white people are guilty of cultural appropriation and we should pay reparations. The narrative could be that cultural appropriation is a bogus theory mad up by guilty white people. What the narrative is is irrelevant. What matters here is that the privileged group (white people) gets to set the narrative of what cultural appropriation is and that those actually being expressed do not have equal input. This is an essence of marginalization and inequality.

A striking example would be with slavery dynamics in which white people were the where not enslaved and black people were enslaved. The privileged group is white people. White people had the privilege of setting the narrative of the ethics of slavery and what types of rights.  White slave owners said slavery was ethical and white abolitionists said slavery was unethical. White segregationists said black people should not have equal rights and white anti-segregationists said black people should have equal rights. The point isn't the narrative. The point is that white people had the privilege and power to set the narrative and decide the ethics of slavery and what racism is. The oppressed slaves were marginalized and didn't have input into the ethics of slavery or what racism is. And they were the ones being oppressed!! If anyone should have a say in what oppression is it is those being oppressed. It would be like an alcoholic father abusing and beating his wife/children. . . and the father gets to decide what counts as "abuse". It is really important that the wife and children have a voice. However this would be threatening to the father who has the power in an inequal power dynamic. This is what made MLK and the civil rights movement so powerful. For the first time in American history, the oppressed, marginalized group was able to have a voice about segregation and rights. . . Similarly, it is important that the marginalized, oppressed groups have a say in what cultural appropriation is - yet most of the privileged group will not like that because they want to control the narrative (whatever that narrative may be).

So it's important to include input from oppressed groups when creating these constructs, yet we don't want to go to an extreme and put the entire burden on them. For example, to ask black people to define what cultural appropriation and racism is - so the majority group doesn't have to put any effort into the conversation. 

6 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

The only exception I could find is Native Americans not liking their sacred objects being used in profane ways by people who had no respect for the sacred. As I stated earlier, I agreed that the sacred should remain sacred and I would side with the Natives on that one.

Unfortunately, the voice of oppressed Native American groups is marginalized. You offer one form of cultural appropriation: "Using sacred objects in profane ways with no respect for the sacred.". I think most would agree that this is cultural appropriation. Yet what you are doing is setting up a blue-level bimodal "either / or" construct of cultural appropriation. This is very limiting in that it limits the discussion to two extreme poles. You are filtering out many aspects of degree, nuance and contexts. To expand one would need to let go of attachment to the binary construct and explore. Yet that decision is up to the person, no one can force the person to expand. 

6 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

One could say that my whole spiritual path is built on the foundation of cultural appropriation of the sacred, and it is extremely rich, beautiful and powerful because of it. 

Who is this "One" you are referring to? In a binary system, this "One" would be an extreme, strawman position - which happens when a duality is reduced to "either / or" extremes. What you are calling "cultural appropriation" is really really contracted. I would also consider it distorted. In the context of what you have described, I wouldn't consider it cultural appropriation. Yet there are many nuances and you don't seem interested in exploring the issue. 

[Zizzero]

Someone having a problem with cultural appropriation reveals more about them than the person whose action they're criticizing. 

Stage orange doesn't have a problem with it as you realize on this stage that you should treat people as individuals and not as personification of a group they're part of.
Stage green doesn't have a problem with it as - unlike blue - it focuses on what makes us the same rather than what separates us. Healthy green is in support of more cultural appropriation; let's bring people together. 
To have a problem with cultural appropriation, you'd either have to be stage blue or have a blue shadow. It shows that you are overly identified with your race or culture and that you're thinking of yourself as a member of a tribe in relation to a member of another tribe.

You don't own a culture, you're merely born a certain way. You haven't created your culture and are therefore not entitled to exclude others from it.

[Emerald]

29 minutes ago, Zizzero said:

Someone having a problem with cultural appropriation reveals more about them than the person whose action they're criticizing. 

Stage orange doesn't have a problem with it as you realize on this stage that you should treat people as individuals and not as personification of a group they're part of.
Stage green doesn't have a problem with it as - unlike blue - it focuses on what makes us the same rather than what separates us. Healthy green is in support of more cultural appropriation; let's bring people together. 
To have a problem with cultural appropriation, you'd either have to be stage blue or have a blue shadow. It shows that you are overly identified with your race or culture and that you're thinking of yourself as a member of a tribe in relation to a member of another tribe.

You don't own a culture, you're merely born a certain way. You haven't created your culture and are therefore not entitled to exclude others from it.

Stage Green is all about noticing how various groups are impacted by different systemic forces, including cultural appropriation.

So, it's not that Green is hyper-focused on identifying dogmatically with a group like Blue is. It's that they recognize that the social system impacts people differently depending on which group people are in. And Green also recognizes that Orange's "everyone is an individual" perspective, glosses over and creates a blindspot in awareness toward many systemic social problems. And that's because Orange is (on some level) pretending that different groups don't exist and that they aren't impacted differently by cultural forces.

It can often be difficult for people from the dominant culture in a region who are in stage Orange to understand the impact of cultural appropriation on minority groups, as they don't have any frame of reference in terms of being impacted by cultural appropriation by a more dominant social group. So, it can be abstract to understand for white people living in a white majority multicultural region why cultural appropriation would be a problem. 

So, Orange with its individualistic focus that has transcended Blue's hyper-focus toward absolutist group-identification and maintaining the ingroup, can confuse Green's awareness of collective dynamics and how they uniquely impact certain groups with Blue's social dogma around group identities.

The difference is undetectable from Orange, usually because Orange fails to look from the collective perspective and thus can't shift into the proper perspective to see what's happening on that level. But there is a world of difference because Blue is about hyper-focus toward just one group that's seen as the best, and Green is about adopting a collectivist group-focused lens to notice macro-societal patterns and have an understanding of various social groups and trying to alleviate problems that those social groups are facing that may be in the blindspot of the dominant social groups.

And you can't do the latter if you pretend that differences in social groups don't exist, like Orange does. You need to evolve to Green to see these larger dynamics play out on the global scale... which is also 100% a pre-requisite for Yellow as well.

 

 

 

 

[Zizzero]

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

Stage Green is all about noticing how various groups are impacted by different systemic forces, including cultural appropriation.

So, it's not that Green is hyper-focused on identifying dogmatically with a group like Blue is. It's that they recognize that the social system impacts people differently depending on which group people are in. And Green also recognizes that Orange's "everyone is an individual" perspective, glosses over and creates a blindspot in awareness toward many systemic social problems. And that's because Orange is (on some level) pretending that different groups don't exist and that they aren't impacted differently by cultural forces.

It can often be difficult for people from the dominant culture in a region who are in stage Orange to understand the impact of cultural appropriation on minority groups, as they don't have any frame of reference in terms of being impacted by cultural appropriation by a more dominant social group. So, it can be abstract to understand for white people living in a white majority multicultural region why cultural appropriation would be a problem. 

So, Orange with its individualistic focus that has transcended Blue's hyper-focus toward absolutist group-identification and maintaining the ingroup, can confuse Green's awareness of collective dynamics and how they uniquely impact certain groups with Blue's social dogma around group identities.

The difference is undetectable from Orange, usually because Orange fails to look from the collective perspective and thus can't shift into the proper perspective to see what's happening on that level. But there is a world of difference because Blue is about hyper-focus toward just one group that's seen as the best, and Green is about adopting a collectivist group-focused lens to notice macro-societal patterns and have an understanding of various social groups and trying to alleviate problems that those social groups are facing that may be in the blindspot of the dominant social groups.

And you can't do the latter if you pretend that differences in social groups don't exist, like Orange does. You need to evolve to Green to see these larger dynamics play out on the global scale... which is also 100% a pre-requisite for Yellow as well.

Green can be summarized quite easily: Green believes that people should treat each other with compassion and empathy and people shouldn't be assholes towards one another. The left's cultural appropriation stance is not about compassion; quite the opposite actually; it's about being so in love with ideas of virtue and justice that you fail to look at whose in front of you. The result is people like Bernie Sanders saying stuff like "If you're white, you don't know what it's like to be poor."

Should a white person dress up for Halloween in a way that makes fun of a minority? No. Why? Because of how it makes the people he interacts with feel worse and because it simply lowers the vibe. 
That is not the left's argument. The argument is that you are nothing more but a personification of a group you're part of. It's this idea that you can attribute the attributes of a whole group to every individual this groups consists of - identity politics. The problem then is not how the act of ridiculing a culture makes individuals feel, it's that someone from the dominant group did it. I don't care if that's stage green or blue or purple - it's wrong either way. It's nothing other than saying that someone's rights should depend on what their born as. Regardless of who you are, you are not allowed to do what your step-brother does because your skin is paler than his. I seriously once heard a left-winger tell me that in the US a homeless white person is more privileged than a black millionaire.

3 hours ago, Emerald said:

But there is a world of difference because Blue is about hyper-focus toward just one group that's seen as the best, and Green is about adopting a collectivist group-focused lens to notice macro-societal patterns and have an understanding of various social groups and trying to alleviate problems that those social groups are facing that may be in the blindspot of the dominant social groups.

Blue doesn't necessarily think it's own tribe is the best. This is this white supremacy myth; there is virtually no one in the whole world who thinks that white people are better than non-whites. But what there is, is a lot of people who believe that they have a right live exclusively with people their own race and who believe that other races and cultures are perfectly ok as long as they don't interact with one another. Most blue people don't believe they are the best, they just want their own to stay away from the other. That is blue - the idea that the human species should primarily be looked at as different groups and the dynamic between these groups. Characterizing people as "us" and "others". The idea that you own your culture and have the right to exclude others from your culture - which is the whole premise this nonsense is build around - is blue as well. My advice to these people would be to not base your identity around your race, sexual orientation or nationality.

 

If the intention was truly to protect the weak, then the left would say exactly that: "be more sensitive to how you make others feel". No need to bring race into it. Instead they entangle themselves in regressive black and white power fantasies and are completely oblivious to the nuances of human interactions. 

Edited October 24, 2019 by Zizzero

[Forestluv]

11 hours ago, Zizzero said:

Someone having a problem with cultural appropriation reveals more about them than the person whose action they're criticizing. 

Stage orange doesn't have a problem with it as you realize on this stage that you should treat people as individuals and not as personification of a group they're part of.
Stage green doesn't have a problem with it as - unlike blue - it focuses on what makes us the same rather than what separates us. Healthy green is in support of more cultural appropriation; let's bring people together. 
To have a problem with cultural appropriation, you'd either have to be stage blue or have a blue shadow. It shows that you are overly identified with your race or culture and that you're thinking of yourself as a member of a tribe in relation to a member of another tribe.

You don't own a culture, you're merely born a certain way. You haven't created your culture and are therefore not entitled to exclude others from it.

No, Green understands cultural appropriation and the harm it causes to marginalized groups. This isn't just an intellectual thing. You will need to evolve beyond an Orange level intellectual analysis. 

You are giving an Orange-level argument. It is essentially the "color blind" argument. That is: we should be color-blind and just see everyone as individuals. At an Orange level, that is resistance to Green - resistance to understanding/embodying the relative experience of others - in particular marginalized/ostracized groups. . . At stage yellow, there can be a return of the "color blind" perspective, yet it is integrated with understanding/emodiment of Green - which your argument lacks.

11 hours ago, Zizzero said:

Healthy green is in support of more cultural appropriation; let's bring people together. 

That is Orange looking up and Green. It is a major misunderstanding of cultural appropriation. 

7 hours ago, Zizzero said:

This is this white supremacy myth; there is virtually no one in the whole world who thinks that white people are better than non-whites. But what there is, is a lot of people who believe that they have a right live exclusively with people their own race and who believe that other races and cultures are perfectly ok as long as they don't interact with one another.

This is a major block that filters out A LOT. . . It filters out a lot of overt prejudice and filters out implicit biases. 

Imo, this is one of the major Orange lenses that creates distortion and resistance to Green. 

7 hours ago, Zizzero said:

The argument is that you are nothing more but a personification of a group you're part of. It's this idea that you can attribute the attributes of a whole group to every individual this groups consists of - identity politics.

This is one dynamic that can be included in an integrated Yellow-level view. The problem is that you haven't emodied/integrated Green, so it becomes a contracted Orange-level view. You are hyper-focused on Orange-level individual consciousness and are not seeing the integration of individual and collective consciousness. 

As a more extreme example to make the point: it would be like saying being a black slave is just the personification of being part of a slave group - it's an idea that you can attribute the attributes of a slavery group to every individual slave. This fails to consider both individual and group dynamics. . . It is an Orange view that is resistance to evolution up to Green. 

Orange logical arguments can be very intellectually sophisticated. Orange can go into genius zones. Yet it isn't Yellow, in part because it doesn't have understanding/embodiment of Green and doesn't integrate Green. Reading about Green and intellectually analyzing Green is not Green and will not lead to embodiment.