Halloween and "cultural appropriation".

gaara4158 said:

It was never insinuated that those legal circumstances persist; only their long-term consequences.

Click to expand...

If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he say that?

gaara4158 said:

Again, location. Trailer parks are located where there are already a majority of white people, and because they’re cheap, that’s where the poor white people go.

Click to expand...

If they’re cheap, how come poor blacks don’t go there?

gaara4158 said:

Poor black people have no reason to seek out trailer parks when they’re far away from where they already have roots, which tends to be cities.

Click to expand...

Not all black people living in urban areas have been there for generations upon generations, many choose to move from one city to the next even though their roots are not in the new city. However whatever reason they choose to live in the city, that is their choice; not some systemic force.

gaara4158 said:

It doesn’t matter how land stacks up against other investments.

Click to expand...

Yes it does! That is what my disagreement is all about? What did you think we were having; a rich man vs poor man argument?

gaara4158 said:

We’re comparing all landowners against all non-land owners, not just the small subset who don’t own land but own similarly valued assets. We’re testing for wealth here, so it doesn’t make any sense to correct for it in the sample population.
We’re not saying land is a magical commodity that makes you a higher-class citizen over all non-landowners, we’re saying a history of land ownership in the family — something black people were historically barred from having and still struggle to gain — lends you a demonstrable material advantage over those who do not.

Click to expand...

You seem to be making a completely different argument than what the other guy and I were having before, you seem to be making the rich man vs poor man argument, you seem to be making the case that families with a history of wealth (be it land or some other valuable asset), have it better off than families without such wealth, and because blacks were prevented from generating wealth in the past, this has an effect today.
If this is your claim, I will agree with you.

gaara4158 said:

You’re going to have to go over the last ten pages of this thread for the rebuttals to that line of argumentation. It’s been beaten to death already and ken has me repeating myself far more than I already care to do.

Click to expand...

His remark was right on point; your attempted rebuttals have been dismantled.

Aldebaran said:

So much for their personal choices as to how they live. Their personal and lifestyle choices are always the "fault" of those of a different skin color. How convenient.

Click to expand...

When that other skin color literally put constraints into place into the law or even societal norms that marginalized the minority skin color group, they kind of deserve some of the blame and should recognize that things aren't as ideal as they're led to believe by those who want to keep their power instead of doing anything to put it in jeopardy

Ken-1122 said:

If that’s what he meant, why didn’t he say that?

If they’re cheap, how come poor blacks don’t go there?

Not all black people living in urban areas have been there for generations upon generations, many choose to move from one city to the next even though their roots are not in the new city. However whatever reason they choose to live in the city, that is their choice; not some systemic force.

Yes it does! That is what my disagreement is all about? What did you think we were having; a rich man vs poor man argument?

You seem to be making a completely different argument than what the other guy and I were having before, you seem to be making the rich man vs poor man argument, you seem to be making the case that families with a history of wealth (be it land or some other valuable asset), have it better off than families without such wealth, and because blacks were prevented from generating wealth in the past, this has an effect today.
If this is your claim, I will agree with you.

Click to expand...

That was literally what I said, you not sussing it out is only partly my fault, you just seem to assume I said something entirely different without being constructive or using an elenchic method for conversation

Ken-1122 said:

You seem to be making a completely different argument than what the other guy and I were having before, you seem to be making the rich man vs poor man argument, you seem to be making the case that families with a history of wealth (be it land or some other valuable asset), have it better off than families without such wealth, and because blacks were prevented from generating wealth in the past, this has an effect today.
If this is your claim, I will agree with you.

Click to expand...

This has been our claim this entire time. Finally. We can rest.

We are told, in this time of renewed movement toward civil rights, cultural appropriation matters because it is evidence of power plays: Who can take culture and whose culture is taken, who has power and who doesn’t. Yet cultural appropriation is everywhere. Where is the line where it is wrong? You can hardly have a meal having what is not taken from a culture other than your own. And your clothes are sure to have something from another culture.

muichimotsu said:

Could swear it's equal opportunity, privilege is the opposite of equality because it's specialized treatment, and that's even moreso when we're talking about skin color as any kind of qualification for that privileged treatment

Click to expand...

If you have opportunities some others do not have that is privilege.

FredVB said:

We are told, in this time of renewed movement toward civil rights, cultural appropriation matters because it is evidence of power plays: Who can take culture and whose culture is taken, who has power and who doesn’t. Yet cultural appropriation is everywhere. Where is the line where it is wrong? You can hardly have a meal having what is not taken from a culture other than your own. And your clothes are sure to have something from another culture.



If you have opportunities some others do not have that is privilege.

Click to expand...

Cultural appropriation is distinct from cultural appreciation or other forms of exchange between two cultures that would be of a more equitable nature versus the colonialist aspects that come with cultural appropriation specifically.

Equal opportunity is not meant to be necessarily perfect from the start, it has to recognize flaws and improve upon that in the system it's forming

durangodawood said:

Or is absolutely everything just fine?

Click to expand...

It's Halloween. Everything is just fine.

gaara4158 said:

As in, issues that affect one race more than it does others is defined as a racial issue.

Click to expand...

Then all issues are racial issues....which makes the term pointless.

muichimotsu said:

1) Did I say that they have more rights than non landowners? Pretty sure that's a no, I said they have more power, which is distinct from a right protected under law, power just being clout and privilege that can be utilized to marginalize others

Click to expand...

How are you measuring "power"?

You're claiming it can be measured....you haven't explained how though.

2)Except it is when we're talking about a country founded and dominated by white people over its history, that's basic facts that you cannot remotely deny without acting like blacks weren't mocked for centuries as lesser, as clowns, as anything that was non white and worthy of being demeaned and treated like garbage. Things are better now, that doesn't mean we should just conclude it is complete or perfect or even ideal, that's laziness and pride rooted in this fallacy that there are "bigger" problems, as if the problems can't have any relation at all, because that'd be too "complex"

Click to expand...

Yes, the past affects the present....brilliant observation. Nobody understands what you mean when you describe this as a problem or part of the problem. It's not a thing that can be changed.

3) Get the feeling you're not remotely using equal in a consistent fashion, because it isn't equal by necessity, it's only equal in the idealized imaginary world where you think no one is going to prejudge you in contrast to me because I'm white and you're black, especially in America.

Click to expand...

Are we back to discussing individual racism?

Strathos said:

His position seems to be that unless you can read the minds of every police officer involved in every one of those stops, then even suggesting that racism played a part in any of it is out of the question.

Click to expand...

I thought the study showed systemic racism.....not cops who are racist.

Which is it?

muichimotsu said:

Cultural appropriation is distinct from cultural appreciation or other forms of exchange between two cultures that would be of a more equitable nature versus the colonialist aspects that come with cultural appropriation specifically.

Equal opportunity is not meant to be necessarily perfect from the start, it has to recognize flaws and improve upon that in the system it's forming

Click to expand...

So all things we have from cultures not our own do not have to be done away with. But there really are opportunities that some among us have that others among us do not have, that is the reality, and it is privilege that often involves that difference according to differences of culture and background, even of just gender too.

FredVB said:

So all things we have from cultures not our own do not have to be done away with. But there really are opportunities that some among us have that others among us do not have, that is the reality, and it is privilege that often involves that difference according to differences of culture and background, even of just gender too.

Click to expand...

That privilege should not just be accepted as inevitable or indicative of any kind of superiority, otherwise you fall into survival of the fittest mentality, where people are essentially meant to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and just persist, expecting a reward for mere hard work.

No one is claiming doing away with the cultural exchange, it's the nature of the exchange in what is implied for the dynamic that is the problem. Casually using Native american headdresses or other cultural symbols in a way that trivializes them as well as othering them is not helpful and just encourages a colonialist imperialist mindset where whiteness is the norm

Dress up as a pirate, it's always a safe bet.

So all things we have from cultures not our own do not have to be done away with. But there really are opportunities that some among us have that others among us do not have, that is the reality, and it is privilege that often involves that difference according to differences of culture and background, even of just gender too.

Click to expand...

muichimotsu said:

That privilege should not just be accepted as inevitable or indicative of any kind of superiority, otherwise you fall into survival of the fittest mentality, where people are essentially meant to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and just persist, expecting a reward for mere hard work.

No one is claiming doing away with the cultural exchange, it's the nature of the exchange in what is implied for the dynamic that is the problem. Casually using Native american headdresses or other cultural symbols in a way that trivializes them as well as othering them is not helpful and just encourages a colonialist imperialist mindset where whiteness is the norm

Click to expand...

Nothing said was meaning that privilege is inevitable. It is the reality. What is present reality can be changed. There are opportunities that some among us have that others among us do not have. That is privilege which those have. That can change. But those with privilege, whether they admit those or not, are mostly by far not going to be willing to give those up, and many would have no problem keeping others from having exactly the same opportunities. Change must come some other way, it may come to that possibly soon rather than much later.

Individuals all having opportunity to pull themselves up with their own work is a fancy myth which is convenient. Most wealthy individuals have wealth that has been passed down, most hard workers work as far as they can in their lives without such success. And many don't have opportunity for work that can give hope of any betterment. It is convenient to many others to neglect consideration of that.

FredVB said:

Nothing said was meaning that privilege is inevitable. It is the reality. What is present reality can be changed. There are opportunities that some among us have that others among us do not have. That is privilege which those have. That can change. But those with privilege, whether they admit those or not, are mostly by far not going to be willing to give those up, and many would have no problem keeping others from having exactly the same opportunities. Change must come some other way, it may come to that possibly soon rather than much later.

Individuals all having opportunity to pull themselves up with their own work is a fancy myth which is convenient. Most wealthy individuals have wealth that has been passed down, most hard workers work as far as they can in their lives without such success. And many don't have opportunity for work that can give hope of any betterment. It is convenient to many others to neglect consideration of that.

Click to expand...

The problem is it's like saying inequality is natural and it can imply one doesn't think there's any need to change that fact

Utilizing one's privilege for the underprivileged is arguably the best one can hope for, but even that can be used in a way that has no real impact long term, like rich college kids doing Teach For America, which really accomplishes nothing for the students, padding the college kids' resume

"Nothing said was meaning that privilege is inevitable. It is the reality. What is present reality can be changed. There are opportunities that some among us have that others among us do not have. That is privilege which those have. That can change. But those with privilege, whether they admit those or not, are mostly by far not going to be willing to give those up, and many would have no problem keeping others from having exactly the same opportunities. Change must come some other way, it may come to that possibly soon rather than much later.
Individuals all having opportunity to pull themselves up with their own work is a fancy myth which is convenient. Most wealthy individuals have wealth that has been passed down, most hard workers work as far as they can in their lives without such success. And many don't have opportunity for work that can give hope of any betterment. It is convenient to many others to neglect consideration of that."

muichimotsu said:

The problem is it's like saying inequality is natural and it can imply one doesn't think there's any need to change that fact

Utilizing one's privilege for the underprivileged is arguably the best one can hope for, but even that can be used in a way that has no real impact long term, like rich college kids doing Teach For America, which really accomplishes nothing for the students, padding the college kids' resume

Click to expand...

That really is not the best we can hope for. A problem we have generally among us is resigning to acceptance to the way things are, and only trusting help in small changes. More aware for making real positive change would help a lot. And social inequality is not a good thing and there can be work toward making opportunities more equally available. But certainly, there are those resisting that.

FredVB said:

That really is not the best we can hope for. A problem we have generally among us is resigning to acceptance to the way things are, and only trusting help in small changes. More aware for making real positive change would help a lot. And social inequality is not a good thing and there can be work toward making opportunities more equally available. But certainly, there are those resisting that.

Click to expand...

The problem is apathy, which changing that is far more difficult than mere misdirected love of "country" or "race" or "purity" that manifests as hate

"Familiarity breeds contempt" as the saying goes and it echoes true on various levels.

Some people would argue social inequality is just an inevitability and even could quote Jesus as to the whole "the poor will always be with you," line from a few of the gospels. That's the bigger concern, justifying the status quo by faith

Apathy is widespread. That is no excuse for those who say that does not include them to not communicate or advocate for positive changes as with that. Opportunities can be spread more equally, it is right to not resist that.