comelately
Wild Horses
I am not sure I want to know what really goes on in the mind of Ted Cruz, for example.
I think we now have a better idea about that lol.
I am not sure I want to know what really goes on in the mind of Ted Cruz, for example.
I read it and didn't hate it. I don't think it makes much sense, though. On the one hand, racism is structural (therefore pervasive and impersonal); on the other hand, we're all personally responsible for it (if we are white). We can also become better people by being mindful of our whiteness (even though this has no effect on a structural level).
Structures are maintained by the actions of people. Your last statement in brackets isn't true at all - it's exactly when a lot/critical mass of people become mindful of structural racism and whiteness, that effects are seen on a structural level. That's how all change occurs. And it requires a few people to start it - most people base their opinions upon the prevailing cultural currents, so as soon as they see others thinking about race in a different way, they may consider it too.
If sufficient people become mindful of their racism and are therefore motivated to effect structural change, that's one thing, but being mindful isn't the same as structural change nor does it necessarily lead to it. One of the points made in that article is that it doesn't matter what you as an individual think or do as an individual, you still participate in a system that is racist, so don't feel good about yourself ("racism comes out of our pores as white people", etc).
Western fertility started to dive in the 70s... Numerous factors have contributed to the Incredible Shrinking Family...
Yet all of these contributing elements may be subsidiary to a larger transformation in western culture no less profound than our collective consensus on what life is for.
(...)
I propose that we have now experienced a second demographic transition. Rather than economics, the engine driving Europe's "birth dearth" is existential.
To be almost ridiculously sweeping: baby boomers and their offspring have shifted emphasis from the communal to the individual, from the future to the present, from virtue to personal satisfaction. Increasingly secular, we pledge allegiance to lower-case gods of our private devising. We are less concerned with leading a good life than the good life. We are less likely than our predecessors to ask ourselves whether we serve a greater social purpose; we are more likely to ask if we are happy. We shun values such as self-sacrifice and duty as the pitfalls of suckers. We give little thought to the perpetuation of lineage, culture or nation; we take our heritage for granted. We are ahistorical. We measure the value of our lives within the brackets of our own births and deaths, and don't especially care what happens once we're dead. As we age - oh, so reluctantly! - we are apt to look back on our pasts and ask not 'Did I serve family, God and country?' but 'Did I ever get to Cuba, or run a marathon? Did I take up landscape painting? Was I fat?' We will assess the success of our lives in accordance not with whether they were righteous, but with whether they were interesting and fun.
barty barges into the thread, says loads of well contentious stuff ('sometimes its necessary to gas the jews') then backs out saying, 'i dont argue about politics on dissensus anymore so dont even bother raising an eyebrow at any of this stuff k thx'
This however is a very good way of putting things: "Almost any defensiveness that you get from a white person trying to talk about racism is rooted in that good/bad binary," DiAngelo says. "They hear you saying, 'You are a bad person.'" It's why most conversations about racism or any kind of discrimination don't go anywhere, because people have a very low tolerance to any suggestion they might be a bad person (and the question as to why people's ego strength is so low is vital, of course - loads of possibilities), and misinterpret 'those things you do are bad - think about changing them' as 'you are inherently a terrible person'.
barty barges into the thread, says loads of well contentious stuff ('sometimes its necessary to gas the jews') then backs out saying, 'i dont argue about politics on dissensus anymore so dont even bother raising an eyebrow at any of this stuff k thx'
I've just been catching up with the politics threads and did cringe a little when I read my post.
There’s no coherent theory of cultural appropriation that can include all or most of the times that these claims are made that does not necessarily indict the people making the charge. No one will rise to this challenge. They can’t do it, and their attempts to do so will stand in direct and explicit contradiction with other people’s attempts.
You want a rule? Don’t mimic or perform being a type of person that you intend others to recognize as such, especially when that involves exaggeration or when intended to inspire contempt or humor. That is a rule about people, not a rule about culture. If you are knowingly attempting to look or act like a member of a group that others would recognize – if the point is to be recognized as doing so – then you are already guilty. That has nothing to do with cultural borrowing. It has to do with the mutual recognition of you and the people you are dressing up for that you are intentionally adopting another group as a role, costume, or similar. So no blackface, no Mexican “costumes” on Cinco de Mayo, no wearing a Native American headdress, no “talking ghetto.” If you intend to be seen as part of a group that you know you would not naturally be perceived as part of being, then it’s wrong. It’s not complicated.
Why would anyone care in either case?
I guess cultural appropriation isn't really a very useful term then.