Cultural Appropriation is a Non-Issue

[Matt8800]

10 hours ago, Keyhole said:

If you have the time, this documentary can provide another perspective.

@Keyhole Those are unfortunate stories about groups of people that have nothing to do with me as an individual, what I like as an individual and what I participate in as an individual.

I refuse to participate in other people's grouping of me in with others because of the color of my skin.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

So, in other words, if my individual skin color is a particular color that others deem is the wrong color, I am limited in what I can like and participate in. An individual is judged according to what "group" he/she belongs to. Isnt that literally the exact definition of racism?

No. You are seeing this from a dominant culture perspective. You are not considering impact. As well, you are not considering various contexts. I gave a link that offered a different perspective. 

Rather than limiting your focus on how this impacts you, consider how cultural appropriation affects others. If you want to understand better, try to see it through a different perspective - such as the perspective of an oppressed group. 

You are not limited to how you act. Yet actions have impact on others. This is context-dependent. If I wore blackface this Halloween, it would have an impact on my predominately black community. 

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

Sounds to me like this is "acceptable" racism as opposed to "unacceptable" racism.

Being unable to step outside of one's own self perspective often sets up a "reverse racism" interpretation that fails to see degree and impact on others.

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

There is no argument as to how I personally have oppressed anybody. Just like MLK, I believe that a person should be judged as an individual rather than the color of their skin.

You are contracted within a limited perspective of only seeing the impact on yourself and only seeing your own intent. As well, cultural appropriation includes both individual and systemic societal dynamics - you are only focusing on individual (you).

To expand your perspective, let go of attachment to your personal intent and how this impacts you personally. See that there are many contexts. See the societal dynamics of dominant groups and oppressed groups. See the perspective within oppressed groups. Have conversations with people within marginalized groups. If you want to develop and deeper broader understanding, volunteer with marginalized groups as an advocate. Live within a marginalized group.

Your MLK quote is distorted. MLK was speaking for an oppressed group. You are speaking for a dominant group. This is the same dynamic as black people saying "Black Lives Matters" while some white people say "All Lives Matter". This creates an equivalency that masks the underlying inequality. This is advantageous to the dominant culture group to maintain the status quo and their privilege. This is seen over and over in social dynamics. 

A personal view that "I am color blind" is a relatively low conscious level in terms of race and culture. It is a contracted view that filters out a lot of social dynamics. If you grew up as a member within an oppressed group and had a lifetime of discrimination and marginalization - you would have direct experience and insights into different dynamics and would have a different perspective. 

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

 I believe that a person should be judged as an individual rather than the color of their skin.

This attitude would work if the world was absent of group dynamics and historical discrimination.

The way you might want to start looking at it: In the past we have had discrimination based on skin color, which lead to the current status quo. If all group dynamics are now ignored, and discrimination of the past forgotten, we will not be able to create systemic changes so as to help the status quo to change. Rather the individualistic point of view can be used to dismiss group dynamics and uphold the status quo.

 

For example, if we have a higher suicide rate amongst a certain population group, it would be far more effective to analyze the problems with group dynamics instead of encountering each individual as a completely new set of problems. We might put certain protections on that group so as to equalize it among all other groups. This will allow us for faster and systemic change instead of individualistic approaches which do not account for the differences in groups.

For example, we might want to elevate a certain group specifically in a way that will seem disciminatory towards other, more established groups. However the elevation would only be done temporarily, until the groups are equalized.

This is not done to inherently help the groups, but to help the most amount of people and create an equal society in the most effective way. Of course we have to look out for new power dynamics that would arise from the elevation of these certain groups. Power corrupts and any change of status quo can and will be attempted to be used for individualistic and collective gains. One might for example use a protective status for their own egoic needs, which is something we expect and observe.

 

But the truth is that protective status is already present in groups that hold more power and already individuals in these groups use these special protections to actualized their egoic desires. As these special protections are pulled back from these groups and the protections of others are elevated, we are going to see what you would describe as unfair. That "unfairness" is a necessary byproduct for the overall greater good. In the end we are seeking to break down the group identities and create new identities which are free of egoic power structures.

 

For example, women might experience a shift towards masculinity to equalize their status in society. As their status is going to be equalized, they will in the end be able to be free to follow their own energy again, namely the feminine energy.

 

This is basically the deconstruction of societal norms and power structures by constructing new societal norms and power structures.

 

An even simpler example to illustrate is the following:

There is a limited amount of food and two people. One person is stronger and takes most of the food, as a result growing even bigger and stronger. The second person is growing weaker and smaller.

Now comes along the notion of equality. It's not fair that the stronger person gets more food, instead everyone should get the same amount of food. This is better, but the problem is that the stronger person will remain stronger and bigger, because he will keep growing as much as the weaker and smaller person. It would only lead to the status remaining still.

 

What would actually be fair, one might argue, is taking away some food from the stronger person and giving it to the weaker. While the weaker person will grow stronger, the stronger person will grow weaker and smaller. This will be obviously be seen as unfair, but do you really think it is? How is it fair for the weaker person to remain weak just because the stronger person had an unfair advantage at the beginninger? Would it not be better to give the weaker person more food and the stronger less until they were equally strong? At that point we can give everyone the same share.

 

You are basically here arguing that we should just give everyone an equal amount and wait for everything to equalize naturally. However, this attitude will lead to a great amount of suffering, and it is inherently a limitation of stage orange values, which you are residing in.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Scholar

[Matt8800]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

No. You are seeing this from a dominant culture perspective. You are not considering impact.

@Serotoninluv If I buy a Native American dreamcatcher and treat is as sacred, what exactly is my impact and to whom?

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv If I buy a Native American dreamcatcher and treat is as sacred, what exactly is my impact and to whom?

That's a strawman. The true problem is that you are trying to dismiss the concept of cultural appropriation without even attempting to study it at all. You have a dismissal attitude towards stage green values and tools.

This will inevitably lead to an impact on society.

[Matt8800]

15 minutes ago, Scholar said:

This attitude would work if the world was absent of group dynamics and historical discrimination.

The way you might want to start looking at it: In the past we have had discrimination based on skin color, which lead to the current status quo. If all group dynamics are now ignored, and discrimination of the past forgotten, we will not be able to create systemic changes so as to help the status quo to change. Rather the individualistic point of view can be used to dismiss group dynamics and uphold the status quo.

 

@Scholar Yes, group dynamics and historical discrimination makes it a complicated and nuanced subject. 

With that said, I am still more than my skin color nor do I identify with others simply because they have the same skin color.

You make some good points to consider but so do I. I think the main point I wanted to express is that it is more complex and nuanced than people would like to admit.

[Matt8800]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

That's a strawman. The true problem is that you are trying to dismiss the concept of cultural appropriation without even attempting to study it at all. You have a dismissal attitude towards stage green values and tools.

This will inevitably lead to an impact on society.

@Scholar No, that is not a strawman. I asked a specific example in a specific situation that could be considered from a broader perspective. The answer is that there is literally no negative impact of me owning a dreamcatcher to anyone. Its all made up concepts that have an imaginary impact on illusory egoic identities. 

I am not dismissing green values. I am simply looking at it from a yellow perspective. 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Matt8800

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Scholar Yes, group dynamics and historical discrimination makes it a complicated and nuanced subject. 

With that said, I am still more than my skin color nor do I identify with others simply because they have the same skin color.

You make some good points to consider but so do I. I think the main point I wanted to express is that it is more complex and nuanced than people would like to admit.

But who are you talking about when you say "people"? I don't know a lot of people who would deny individualism. The fact is that current society is completely unaware of these group dynamics and doesn't care at all.

Your average joe doesn't care about cultural appropriation at all, they don't understand it's usefulness. Sure we should not reduce everything to group dynamics, but I don't see that happening a lot outisde of the imagination of people like Jordan Peterson and other right wingers.

[Matt8800]

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

But who are you talking about when you say "people"? I don't know a lot of people who would deny individualism. The fact is that current society is completely unaware of these group dynamics and doesn't care at all.

Your average joe doesn't care about cultural appropriation at all, they don't understand it's usefulness. Sure we should not reduce everything to group dynamics, but I don't see that happening a lot outisde of the imagination of people like Jordan Peterson and other right wingers.

@Scholar I stand by my previous statement: In the end, its all made up concepts that have an imaginary impact on illusory egoic identities. 

I do agree that we "should" be mindful of respect but ultimately, we have to decide what is reasonable because there are unreasonable people on BOTH sides. Some people have way too strong of a reaction to non-injuries. To some degree, we should care about their imaginary pain from their non-injuries but only to a certain point.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Matt8800

[remember]

2 hours ago, Matt8800 said:

@remember Thats a reasonable argument to consider. I think the item's "sacredness" to that culture is a consideration in this point. 

i`m also talking about cheese, so it`s not just the sacred aspect but the whole process of keeping cultural heritage of value chains alive which make every manufactured good sacred, it`s conciousness alone which makes something sacred.

Edited October 22, 2019 by remember

[DrewNows]

i dont know what to say here. I think it may have to do with "saving" vs "empowering" people who make a difference in their evolution. People choose to accept the cultural norms out of fear until they learn to rise up. Sorry i may be way off base here, It's hard to keep up with all this intellectualism  

[remember]

1 minute ago, DrewNows said:

i dont know what to say here. I think it may have to do with "saving" vs "empowering" people who make a difference in their evolution. People choose to accept the cultural norms out of fear until they learn to rise up. Sorry i may be way off base here, It's hard to keep up with all this intellectualism  

no it has to do with quality and love.

[DrewNows]

1 minute ago, remember said:

no it has to do with quality and love.

please elaborate 

[remember]

@DrewNows in the sense of quality and love, i`m talking about empowernment to create goods in the quality they where created through a longterm design process these goods are not just produced by the technique alone but through creative cultural evolution. the reason why these goods are reproduced in a lesser quality is because of their quality and the desire to use that quality, although it can not have the same quality because the production process has a soul, if the product is stripped of the soul it usually falls victim to cost management and so on while the culture of origin will keep the value chain alive, because the value chain possesses meaning. the love for the product preserves the products quality and it gives love back because it gives love through identification with cultural value and self esteem and it gives love to the consumer because the consumer recives a product of value, if the consumer is able to apreciate value.

a hand thrown cup is not more valuable than an industrial made cup because it`s unique although it is unique, but it is valuable because of the love that was put into it to make something unique with care. you can even see that value chain in industrial made products. if you school your eye in that direction you just know it when you see it.

Edited October 22, 2019 by remember
hupsi wheele thrown

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv If I buy a Native American dreamcatcher and treat is as sacred, what exactly is my impact and to whom?

1 hour ago, Matt8800 said:

I asked a specific example in a specific situation that could be considered from a broader perspective. The answer is that there is literally no negative impact of me owning a dreamcatcher to anyone. Its all made up concepts that have an imaginary impact on illusory egoic identities. 

I am not dismissing green values. I am simply looking at it from a yellow perspective. 

Notice how contracted this is. You are filtering out context to hyper focus on one situation that you already have a pre-conceived personal answer to. Your question to me was disingenious. You did not ask it with an open, curious mind that wants to learn and grow. You asked it already having a pre-conceived answer and you are prepared to defend that answer. This will keep you trapped within a contracted view. 

Your view is Orange on the SD scale. It lacks understanding of green and yellow. A holistic yellow perspective with integrated green would be very different than yours. As well, yellow-centered is exploration without attachment/identification, which is different than your orientation. Yellow is a master at understanding multiple aspects, dynamics and perspectives. Leo explains this in his SD yellow video. 

You asked about cultural appropriation, yet it seems like you are hyper focused on your personal story. If you want to learn about the dynamics of cultural appropriation, step outside your own personal story of a self-centered view. Context and power dynamics are important. I included a link above that is a primer to see other perspectives on cultural appropriation, yet it seems like you didn't read it, dismissed it or did not integrate it into your view. Change your lens and try to see things from the perspective of the marginalized, oppressed group. A higher awareness would understand multiple individual/social dynamics at play, rather than one personal dynamic. In this case, perhaps read articles written by Native Americans on cultural appropriation. Or reach out to Native Americans and ask them about cultural appropriation. Perhaps their are TedTalks on cultural appropriation that you can learn from. Yet the key is to be teachable to what you are unaware of and open to other perspectives and the direct experience of others. For example, your contracted view does not even consider previous and current forms of systemic oppression and its impact on social dynamics. 

To me it seems like you are locked in a contracted personal perspective and want to defend that perspective. It doesn't seem like you genuinely want to learn and grow regarding cultural appropriation and . It seems like you want to debate. Which is fine, you just won't expand that way. It takes curiosity, desire and open-ness.  And you won't expand to higher conscious levels defending a pre-conceived opinion on an internet forum. 

[RichardY]

Selling, widgets and Christmas crackers with crappy plastic toys is one thing.

Changing the overall aesthetics of a society, is another. The more mixed the society, the weaker any one colour on the palette.

[DrewNows]

@remember thanks, people who value the origins of specific goods also value the quality. But what is quality but an idea or symbol created in belief, and love put into physicality and symbolism . The cultural goods/services shift with the evolution of our collective consciousness. Attraction of quality changes with demand, profit, expense etc. There's the shift of from quality to quantity back to quality in the dynamic just like the psychological evolution. (Sorry im talking out my ass a lot here, Very abstractly, feel free to agree or disagree, im trying to make sense of this and it's not fully understood) 

[remember]

@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.

[Matt8800]

40 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Notice how contracted this is. You are filtering out context to hyper focus on one situation and you already know the answer. Your question to me was disingenious. You did not ask it with an open, curious mind that wants to learn. You asked it already having a pre-conceived answer and you are prepared to defend that answer. This will keep one trapped in a contracted view. 

Your view is Orange on the SD scale. It lacks understanding of green and yellow. A holistic yellow perspective with integrated green would be very different than yours. As well, yellow-centered is exploration and is very different than your orientation. 

You asked about cultural appropriation, yet it seems like you are hyper focused on your personal story. If you want to learn about the dynamics of cultural appropriation, step outside your own personal story of a self-centered view. Context and power dynamics are important. I included a link above that is a primer to see other perspectives on cultural appropriation, yet it seems like you didn't read it, dismissed it or did not integrate it into your view. Change your lens and try to see things from the perspective of the marginalized, oppressed group. A higher awareness would understand multiple individual/social dynamics at play, rather than one personal dynamic. In this case, perhaps read articles written by Native Americans on cultural appropriation. Or reach out to Native Americans and ask them about cultural appropriation. Perhaps their are TedTalks on cultural appropriation that you can learn from. Yet the key is to be teachable to what you are unaware of and open to other perspectives and the direct experience of others. For example, your contracted view does not even consider previous and current forms of systemic oppression and its impact on social dynamics. 

To me it seems like you are locked in a contracted personal perspective and want to defend that perspective. It doesn't seem like you genuinely want to learn and grow regarding cultural appropriation and . It seems like you want to debate. Which is fine, you just won't expand that way. It takes curiosity, desire and open-ness.  And you won't expand to higher conscious levels defending a pre-conceived opinion on an internet forum. 

@Serotoninluv That is a lot of conceptualization with no foundation. The conceptualization is wholly based on the identity of the ego. 

Im not saying that pain that stems from a threat to one's hyper-identification with a constructed ego isnt real pain. What Im saying is that the real answer is to rise above individual and group egos where this pain no longer exists. 

There needs to be some balance between catering to people's egoic demands to prop up their constructed egos and encouraging them to see past the illusion of their constructed egos.

Validation should not take prominence over transcendence. They both need to be acknowledged. By only focusing on validation of their egoic idenfication to a group, you are reinforcing the egoic prison of the individual.

Edited October 22, 2019 by Matt8800

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

@Serotoninluv That is a lot of conceptualization with no practicality. The conceptualization is wholly based on the identity of the ego. 

Again, you just aren't seeing your filter. You have a narrative that you want to control and defend. 

I am pointing toward transcending one's own personal attachments/identification to deepen/broaden understanding. Your entire thread is based upon "Cultural Appropriation is a non-issue" through a personal lens. You are giving examples of "reverse-racism" and asking personal situation questions you already have the answer to. Your position has an Orange "color blind" foundation. You can't skip Green and Yellow and go straight to a Turquoise "beyond ego". There are Orange level anchors and Green shadows to work through here. 

In practical terms - go live within an oppressed, marginalized community. No conceptualization. Direct experience. If you spent a year living within an oppressed, marginalized community you will likely see how your mind is contracted. I've done it and it was a major key for depth and expansion. 

15 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

Im not saying that pain that stems from a threat to one's hyper-identification with a constructed ego isnt real pain. What Im saying is that the real answer is to rise above individual and group egos. 

Yet you don't understand that pain or those painful dynamics. One cannot transcend something they are unaware of. 

15 minutes ago, Matt8800 said:

There needs to be some balance between catering to people's egoic demands to prop up their constructed egos and encouraging them to see past the illusion of their constructed egos.

Said from the perspective of someone in a dominant culture group. Notice how you are trying to define the terms of debate and control the narrative. You have that privilege being within a dominant culture group. You couldn't care less about understanding cultural appropriation. You have pre-conceived personal opinions on cultural appropriation and want to control the narrative. Once that Orange narrative of cultural appropriation was challenged from a yellow perspective, you reached for Turquoise and tried to switch to a "beyond ego" framework. This is a form of spiritual bypassing.