Jump to content


Photo

Because, Canada


  • Please log in to reply
505 replies to this topic

#481 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,008 posts

Posted 17 October 2019 - 1151 AM

Well it is 'above board' unlike in the USA where it was 'under the table'.


  • 0

#482 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,267 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0019 AM

https://www.news.com...9e7a4ba15236343

 

How dare a student exclaim that Remembrance Day is not all about those of the alphabet?


  • 0

#483 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,265 posts

Posted 08 November 2019 - 0548 AM

https://www.news.com...9e7a4ba15236343

 

How dare a student exclaim that Remembrance Day is not all about those of the alphabet?

Most depressing on how diabolical the stench of liberalism truly is. The modern education system is not building men and women up, but depressingly giving them spines and brains of jello.


  • 0

#484 MiloMorai

MiloMorai

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,008 posts

Posted 11 November 2019 - 1321 PM

 

https://www.news.com...9e7a4ba15236343

 

How dare a student exclaim that Remembrance Day is not all about those of the alphabet?

Most depressing on how diabolical the stench of liberalism truly is. The modern education system is not building men and women up, but depressingly giving them spines and brains of jello.

 

More to the story, https://www.msn.com/...ocid=spartanntp


  • 0

#485 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,786 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 0346 AM

I'm sure the creator of the rainbow poppy meant no disrespect, but the poppy already has a specific meaning. It isn't a matter of homophobia, a pink poppy for cancer would be as inappropriate.
  • 0

#486 R011

R011

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,786 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 0346 AM

I'm sure the creator of the rainbow poppy meant no disrespect, but the poppy already has a specific meaning. It isn't a matter of homophobia, a pink poppy for cancer would be as inappropriate.
  • 0

#487 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 0411 AM

I'm sure the creator of the rainbow poppy meant no disrespect, but the poppy already has a specific meaning. It isn't a matter of homophobia, a pink poppy for cancer would be as inappropriate.

 

 

Exactly. Nobody has made a specific LBGT Crucifix or Crescent have they? For the same reason, the symbols are already inclusive.

 

The creator didnt mean any respect and I can see that. But its depressing how many people jump on these things, ostensibly as a symbol of inclusivity, when what they really want to express is why they are different from everyone else.


  • 0

#488 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,265 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 0451 AM

 

I'm sure the creator of the rainbow poppy meant no disrespect, but the poppy already has a specific meaning. It isn't a matter of homophobia, a pink poppy for cancer would be as inappropriate.

 

 

Exactly. Nobody has made a specific LBGT Crucifix or Crescent have they? For the same reason, the symbols are already inclusive.

 

The creator didnt mean any respect and I can see that. But its depressing how many people jump on these things, ostensibly as a symbol of inclusivity, when what they really want to express is why they are different from everyone else.

 

The poppy is a victim of cultural appropriation.


  • 0

#489 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 0529 AM

Well, misappropriation in this case.

 

There are many cases when I dont have an issue with cultural appropriation. About 5 years ago to commemorate the start of WW1, a young Muslim woman printed a Hijab with poppies on it. It was her way of showing respect, and fair enough.  Plenty of muslims died in British service in both wars. And you could after all, just use it as a scarf depending on your identity. It wasnt JUST identifying with one sub group of the fallen.

 

This to me is different. Its altering the message to be saying this is an LBGT symbol. Thats less appropriation  than misappropriation. Its says its only the LBGT community that is relevant in the symbol.

 

Well, thats just my view fwiw....


  • 0

#490 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,694 posts

Posted 12 November 2019 - 1418 PM

That is exactly how the people talking all the time about "cultural appropiation" use the term. Someone (or group) steals a cultural feature from another culture. In this case the LGBT radicals from the general public of the UK. (or commonwealth)


Edited by Panzermann, 12 November 2019 - 1419 PM.

  • 0

#491 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,690 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 1422 PM

Really?

 

Most everyone owns at least one screwdriver. But Canadians likely own a screwdriver that few outside Canada would recognize. 

 

https://youtu.be/R-mDqKtivuI


Edited by RETAC21, 18 November 2019 - 1422 PM.

  • 0

#492 Wobbly Head

Wobbly Head

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,077 posts

Posted 18 November 2019 - 2234 PM

Really?
 
Most everyone owns at least one screwdriver. But Canadians likely own a screwdriver that few outside Canada would recognize. 
 
https://youtu.be/R-mDqKtivuI


Once you start using Robertson screwdrivers you won't want to use anything else they are better than any other screw type.
  • 0

#493 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 19 November 2019 - 0418 AM

That is exactly how the people talking all the time about "cultural appropiation" use the term. Someone (or group) steals a cultural feature from another culture. In this case the LGBT radicals from the general public of the UK. (or commonwealth)

 

Well, its a complex subject, and I dont claim to be learned in such things. But it strikes me that cultural appropriation happens everywhere. We all drink coca cola, we listen to music from all round the world. It seems even Hong Kong celebrates November 5th. The New Zealand All Blacks  all do the Haka whatever their lineage is. Few seemingly find issue in these things.

 

Im not sure its the right word for when its done in a negative sense, such as that LBGT poppy, or for example, Jazz, where white musicians took black music and took credit for it. Or, God help us, blackface. There is one kind of appropriation where its celebrating the culture of a minority, or sub group, and another where its pretending it doesn't exist and modifying its culture or icons as its own motiff, or just plain ridiculing it. It   strikes me as 2 separate things.

 

Maybe im overthinking it. :)


  • 0

#494 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,868 posts

Posted 19 November 2019 - 0426 AM

"Cultural appropriation" is a combat phrase wielded by people who have no idea how cultural evolution works. You could just as well describe sexual reproduction as "gene approriation". It's absurd. Nobody gets any poorer from the spread of ideas. As much as I am with the Italians that pineapple doesn't belong on a Pizza, Italians have no exclusive control over Pizza recipes worldwide and for all eternity. Just like Jazz music can be played and enjoyed by anyone except those who imposter and aggrandize theselves as the new morality police.

It's yet another pus flowing from the sores that identity politics create.


  • 0

#495 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 19 November 2019 - 0438 AM

Yes, but in the case of Jazz you had a black group of musicians who  were making the music, not getting credit for it, or if they were, getting ripped off by White Record producers. Which is not entirely the same as saying a white guy has the right to play jazz. Of course he does, but that is different from what was apparently happening in the 1920's where the black guys could rarely get gigs in public, or record deals. We can see the context now, then, im not sure it was that simple.

 

That is wholly different from say, a white musician today who does Rap. Because we all know where Rap came from, and quite clearly Black Musicians got their due in pioneering it. If thats cultural appropriation, its not really in the same league.

 

I agree mostly with what you say, nobody should have a copyright on such things. At the same time, if a minority or group is creating something, they should get due credit for it. The LBGT poppy above, as presented, is clearly something else , where they are attempting to replace a long extant symbol with another, just for political posturing.

 

Once again, I think its perhaps a case of inadequate language hiding meaning.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 19 November 2019 - 0439 AM.

  • 0

#496 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,868 posts

Posted 19 November 2019 - 0506 AM

Yes, but in the case of Jazz you had a black group of musicians who  were making the music, not getting credit for it, or if they were, getting ripped off by White Record producers. Which is not entirely the same as saying a white guy has the right to play jazz.

 

Sure, but then again, pretty much everybody gets robbed in the music business. Maybe they got robbed more because as blacks they made "even better victims" than the usual broke-ass musician unless he is lucky enough to gain celebrity status. The thing that changed in the 1900s...1920s was that there were two media revolutions that were particularly prominent for musicians.

 

 

Before the invention of the grammophone a singer/orchestra could fill but a single concert hall, and make money on that evening from exactly that one performance. Everybody who wanted to hear that singer had to travel there. Enrico Caruso is famous because he was one of the first opera singers available on mass-produced record, and the fame helped feeding the fame and sell more records. He's the model case, the first prototype of the phenomenon of a pop star.

In the 1920s the next force multiplier was added to the music business - radio. Radio could air music, it had to air music. Every radio station had to fill hours every day, and the best way to fill the time between commercials was advertisement for musicians. And while, in theory, there was copyright law, as a musician you could in practice enforce it only if you had a really good agent. Guess who had no really good agents? Pretty much every broke-ass musician. And those suffering from illiteracy were even more vulnerable.

 

And that was the fate of the black Jazz musicians at the time. They were stuck in the old business model of filling a concert hall (well, a speakeasy bar mostly) so their style had to be discovered and made popular for the radio and record market and guess who were the only ones who could do it? Other musicians with really good agents. And then of course record label producers.

 

Without doubt some of them were racists, does that make the whole history of the spread of a music style a racist practice?

You could also look at the whole situation through an indentity lense and call it systemic racism.

Or you use the Marxist lens and speak of the repression of the lower classes by means of economic exploitation.

Or the free-market lens and say that, eventually, black musicians won the Jazz battle with their own superstars - Louis Armstrong, Nat Cole, etc.

 

Was Elvis Presley a culturally appropriating racist?

He, more than other white musicians at the time, gave the blacks credit for what he took and then transmogified into something entirely new (and then Marty McFly helped out Marvin Barry, and the rest's music history). If Presley was racist, everybody is a racist - and then nobody is.


  • 0

#497 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,868 posts

Posted 19 November 2019 - 0510 AM

WRT your example of rainbow poppies, well, that's what letter noodle activists do. They are professional attention seekers, and they got yours.


  • 0

#498 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,776 posts

Posted 19 November 2019 - 0512 AM

 

Yes, but in the case of Jazz you had a black group of musicians who  were making the music, not getting credit for it, or if they were, getting ripped off by White Record producers. Which is not entirely the same as saying a white guy has the right to play jazz.

 

Sure, but then again, pretty much everybody gets robbed in the music business. Maybe they got robbed more because as blacks they made "even better victims" than the usual broke-ass musician unless he is lucky enough to gain celebrity status. The thing that changed in the 1900s...1920s was that there were two media revolutions that were particularly prominent for musicians.

 

 

Before the invention of the grammophone a singer/orchestra could fill but a single concert hall, and make money on that evening from exactly that one performance. Everybody who wanted to hear that singer had to travel there. Enrico Caruso is famous because he was one of the first opera singers available on mass-produced record, and the fame helped feeding the fame and sell more records. He's the model case, the first prototype of the phenomenon of a pop star.

In the 1920s the next force multiplier was added to the music business - radio. Radio could air music, it had to air music. Every radio station had to fill hours every day, and the best way to fill the time between commercials was advertisement for musicians. And while, in theory, there was copyright law, as a musician you could in practice enforce it only if you had a really good agent. Guess who had no really good agents? Pretty much every broke-ass musician. And those suffering from illiteracy were even more vulnerable.

 

And that was the fate of the black Jazz musicians at the time. They were stuck in the old business model of filling a concert hall (well, a speakeasy bar mostly) so their style had to be discovered and made popular for the radio and record market and guess who were the only ones who could do it? Other musicians with really good agents. And then of course record label producers.

 

Without doubt some of them were racists, does that make the whole history of the spread of a music style a racist practice?

You could also look at the whole situation through an indentity lense and call it systemic racism.

Or you use the Marxist lens and speak of the repression of the lower classes by means of economic exploitation.

Or the free-market lens and say that, eventually, black musicians won the Jazz battle with their own superstars - Louis Armstrong, Nat Cole, etc.

 

Was Elvis Presley a culturally appropriating racist?

He, more than other white musicians at the time, gave the blacks credit for what he took and then transmogified into something entirely new (and then Marty McFly helped out Marvin Barry, and the rest's music history). If Presley was racist, everybody is a racist - and then nobody is.

 

 

Absolutely, which is why I say you cannot have culture appropriation as an effect of race, because there are plenty of examples in the 50's and 60's of people taking something, playing with it, and turning it into something new. Im aware of the Rolling Stones giving due credit to black musicians for what they created, but it didnt hold them back form going off the wall and creating something completely different and brilliant.

 

Ok, here is another very silly example of cultural appropriation. Freedom Fries. :D


  • 0

#499 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,868 posts

Posted 19 November 2019 - 0522 AM

...when they are Belgian, anyway.


  • 0

#500 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,265 posts

Posted 19 November 2019 - 0540 AM

"Cultural appropriation", a term du-jour, is only applicable from non-white to white. Never the other way around. 


  • 0