Yep.
Not sure which local tribe Chiefs will be able to ask.How do you feel about the NCAA's regulations restricting the use of Native American imagery but allowing it when permission is granted by a local tribe, as in the case of Florida State University and the Seminole Tribe?
I think that's absolutely fine.
Go on, keep telling us how fucking dumb you are.Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:17 am
They can use the same logo they use now, it's generic. All they need is the blessing from a single tribe.
sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:55 amYep.
Not sure which local tribe Chiefs will be able to ask.How do you feel about the NCAA's regulations restricting the use of Native American imagery but allowing it when permission is granted by a local tribe, as in the case of Florida State University and the Seminole Tribe?
I think that's absolutely fine.
How many years would you consider something needs to exist before no one else can appropriate it?sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:20 amI tend to see a difference between creating a culture from the ground up and appropriating long after it's been established.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:01 amsockwithaticket wrote: ↑Sun Oct 17, 2021 5:44 pm
Same ones that have been repeated in here multiple times but with a bit more detail and from the mouths of people whose opinions on it matter. Head dresses and warpaint on non-Native Americans is the equivalent to stolen valour and sacrilige given how they are obtained by and what they represent to Native people. Chants are generally used in specific rituals and ceremonies, so to have a made up one for a sporting event is also bordering on sacrilege and is certainly insulting.
Using a caricatured composite image of a generic Native American is reductive and an insult to the 600+ distinct tribes. It's inappropriate and offensive for non-Native Americans to appropriate the imagery even if the decision was made from a place of benign ignorance.
Of course most of those 600 tribes appropriated it themselves. If they're free to do so then so is everyone else. And if we're not free to wear, sing, cook, style hair, use make up, write, print ideas others thought of first then there are some quite shocking restrictions coming in our lives.
The idea of owning ideas is problematic, even in instances where sharing and enjoining of those ideas gives rise to offence, and whether that offence is intended or not
The guarding of one's culture becomes a little bit more important when your people were almost exterminated and the survivors endured systematic programs of cultural erasure well into the 20th century.
It's easy, when you haven't been subjected to that, to say that liberalism entails we be able to do all the things you've listed regardless of how people feel about it. I suppose no one can legally stop you from doing so, but, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. It sounds a little trite, but it's very apt.
Just for your information, this year's Cardiff Singer competition was won by a fantastic South Korean baritone, Gihoon Kim. Ankhbayar Enkhbold, the Mongolian baritone who sang an aria from Iolanta as part of his programme, featured in Round 1 of the competition, but sadly did not win his heat, and did not make it through to the final.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:27 pmHow many years would you consider something needs to exist before no one else can appropriate it?sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:20 amI tend to see a difference between creating a culture from the ground up and appropriating long after it's been established.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:01 am
Of course most of those 600 tribes appropriated it themselves. If they're free to do so then so is everyone else. And if we're not free to wear, sing, cook, style hair, use make up, write, print ideas others thought of first then there are some quite shocking restrictions coming in our lives.
The idea of owning ideas is problematic, even in instances where sharing and enjoining of those ideas gives rise to offence, and whether that offence is intended or not
The guarding of one's culture becomes a little bit more important when your people were almost exterminated and the survivors endured systematic programs of cultural erasure well into the 20th century.
It's easy, when you haven't been subjected to that, to say that liberalism entails we be able to do all the things you've listed regardless of how people feel about it. I suppose no one can legally stop you from doing so, but, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. It sounds a little trite, but it's very apt.
And would you for instance be offended that a Mongolian singer won Cardiff's Singer of the World competition with a performance from Iolanta? There's little in Mongolian musical history which speaks to such an operatic style, so should the lad be required not to seek a career in 'western' music but instead seek a career based on more traditional Mongolian culture? We all know some in a community will be alarmed/offended by others copying their culture, and by some of their own stepping away from their culture, without doubt there are some in Mongolia highly critical of Mongolians not utilising music from their own culture.
its a crazy idea.
Fab building it is tooLobby wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:53 pmJust for your information, this year's Cardiff Singer competition was won by a fantastic South Korean baritone, Gihoon Kim. Ankhbayar Enkhbold, the Mongolian baritone who sang an aria from Iolanta as part of his programme, featured in Round 1 of the competition, but sadly did not win his heat, and did not make it through to the final.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:27 pmHow many years would you consider something needs to exist before no one else can appropriate it?sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:20 am
I tend to see a difference between creating a culture from the ground up and appropriating long after it's been established.
The guarding of one's culture becomes a little bit more important when your people were almost exterminated and the survivors endured systematic programs of cultural erasure well into the 20th century.
It's easy, when you haven't been subjected to that, to say that liberalism entails we be able to do all the things you've listed regardless of how people feel about it. I suppose no one can legally stop you from doing so, but, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. It sounds a little trite, but it's very apt.
And would you for instance be offended that a Mongolian singer won Cardiff's Singer of the World competition with a performance from Iolanta? There's little in Mongolian musical history which speaks to such an operatic style, so should the lad be required not to seek a career in 'western' music but instead seek a career based on more traditional Mongolian culture? We all know some in a community will be alarmed/offended by others copying their culture, and by some of their own stepping away from their culture, without doubt there are some in Mongolia highly critical of Mongolians not utilising music from their own culture.
You might also be interested to know that Mongolians are very proud of the success of their opera singers. Several Mongolian singers have featured in the Cardiff Singer competitions since Amartuvshin Enkhbat reached the finals in 2015 (incidentally, he will be performing the lead role in Nabucco at the Royal Opera House in December), and Mongolian singers have also previously won the Operalia prize as well as the Tchaikovsky competition in Moscow. In 2017, another Mongolian singer, Ariunbaatar Ganbaatar, won the Song Prize at Cardiff. The State Opera House in Ulaanbaatar opened in 1963 and hosts over 100 performances a year.
Sorry for the digression, but the (ingenuous) suggestion that Mongolians are offended by the international success of Mongolian opera singers is simply untrue.
Downplaying it cuts both ways. The people against change say it's not important, it doesn't matter and people should just get over it. Ok, if it's so inconsequential, why are you so upset about or resistant to changing?
Exactly. How angry it seems to make people is fascinating. I imagine some aren't even Exeter supporters, but maybe see it as yet another attack on the world they grew up in and dominated? I know I get a bit irked when I hear 'de-colonize' used to attack the status quo. I get the point and often largely support the intent, but I think because I'm the offspring of mid-late 19th century colonists, maybe feel it as a direct attack, like it's my fault? But I also know change is inevitable and necessary in most cases, and sometimes you have to swing a big hammer to smash the establishment that's preventing change.sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 8:51 am
Downplaying it cuts both ways. The people against change say it's not important, it doesn't matter and people should just get over it. Ok, if it's so inconsequential, why are you so upset about or resistant to changing?
Some Mongolians are very proud of such success you mean, and they are, not simply Mongolians. Some Mongolians are rather cross about it on the back the legacy of rule from Russia when Mongolian music was banned and music such as Opera which was seen as something that could promote them to the Western world in a way which the more simplistic Mongolian culture wouldn't (that being the Russian/Soviet take). And so it's only more recently with independence that traditional Mongolian music has made a return to being taught in Mongolia, and whilst some are very happy to co-exist there's no point pretending some aren't annoyed that attention is taken from more traditional stylings and there's not the furtherance of from more people engaging in and promoting such artsLobby wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:53 pmJust for your information, this year's Cardiff Singer competition was won by a fantastic South Korean baritone, Gihoon Kim. Ankhbayar Enkhbold, the Mongolian baritone who sang an aria from Iolanta as part of his programme, featured in Round 1 of the competition, but sadly did not win his heat, and did not make it through to the final.Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:27 pmHow many years would you consider something needs to exist before no one else can appropriate it?sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:20 am
I tend to see a difference between creating a culture from the ground up and appropriating long after it's been established.
The guarding of one's culture becomes a little bit more important when your people were almost exterminated and the survivors endured systematic programs of cultural erasure well into the 20th century.
It's easy, when you haven't been subjected to that, to say that liberalism entails we be able to do all the things you've listed regardless of how people feel about it. I suppose no one can legally stop you from doing so, but, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. It sounds a little trite, but it's very apt.
And would you for instance be offended that a Mongolian singer won Cardiff's Singer of the World competition with a performance from Iolanta? There's little in Mongolian musical history which speaks to such an operatic style, so should the lad be required not to seek a career in 'western' music but instead seek a career based on more traditional Mongolian culture? We all know some in a community will be alarmed/offended by others copying their culture, and by some of their own stepping away from their culture, without doubt there are some in Mongolia highly critical of Mongolians not utilising music from their own culture.
You might also be interested to know that Mongolians are very proud of the success of their opera singers. Several Mongolian singers have featured in the Cardiff Singer competitions since Amartuvshin Enkhbat reached the finals in 2015 (incidentally, he will be performing the lead role in Nabucco at the Royal Opera House in December), and Mongolian singers have also previously won the Operalia prize as well as the Tchaikovsky competition in Moscow. In 2017, another Mongolian singer, Ariunbaatar Ganbaatar, won the Song Prize at Cardiff. The State Opera House in Ulaanbaatar opened in 1963 and hosts over 100 performances a year.
Sorry for the digression, but the (ingenuous) suggestion that Mongolians are offended by the international success of Mongolian opera singers is simply untrue.
Again demonstrating just how little you understand about the problem, and how you're completely closed off to even trying.
I was wondering why being racist about Arabs would get a free pass.I like neeps wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 7:28 amI mean it hasn't:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... wners.html
eh?Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 6:48 amThe owners OK'd it and Arabs do not equal Native Americans.
What wonderful news. Our government has concluded a free-trade deal with the mysterious hermit kingdom of New Zealand, which will enable the British consumer to enjoy much cheaper imports from this strange, distant land in which nobody is allowed in or out and death has been made illegal. There are many desirable products for which New Zealand is justly famous — wine, orc meat and self-righteousness being just the three most renowned.
In return a strictly controlled number of British people will be allowed to view New Zealand from boats moored offshore and wave at the citizens, although as far as I’m aware they will be prevented from actually setting foot in the place. It is suggested that this deal will knock 20p off the price of a bottle of Kiwi screwtop pinot grigio and also that it has annoyed the National Farmers’ Union. So, win-win! The deal was announced in a virtual joint press conference between Boris Johnson and New Zealand’s leader, the sainted Lady Jacinda of the Perpetual Lockdown and Many Masks.
Of those famous New Zealand products, self-righteousness was the first to arrive. A rider to the trade deal is New Zealand’s insistence that the haka must not be performed “inappropriately” in the UK. I wasn’t aware that it was performed at all.
The haka is a kind of tribal war dance containing much grunting and shouting and is basically an affectation of belligerence. If anyone other than the Maoris had come up with it, the thing would have been considered the ultima Thule of toxic masculinity. Anyway, you’re not allowed to do it any more, which I’m sure has put a crimp in your evening.
Jacinda Ardern, who spends the majority of her time grovelling around the Chinese and refusing to let her people go anywhere, is resolute in her opposition to cultural appropriation. Only Maoris, then, are allowed to do the haka (apart from the non-Maori members of the All Blacks rugby team — for them it’s just fine). Jacinda is impeccably right-on, you see.
With the possible exception of the abolition of women, there is no more idiotic shibboleth in the stunted lexicon of jiggery-wokery enthusiasts than the opposition to what they deem “cultural appropriation”. It has been used to castigate students who wear sombreros, food companies that produce ready meals they dare to call “curry”, cabaret singers belting out a version of Carl Douglas’s sublime hit Kung Fu Fighting, Katy Perry wearing a kimono, rugby teams wearing Native American headdresses and people who eat rice with their meals instead of chips. There is even a growing confected anger in America over white people wearing training shoes — “sneaker culture” being a black thang, OK? Never mind that the people who invented the training shoe, for better or for worse, were white.
The point is that what they call cultural appropriation is not merely acceptable (whether done “respectfully” or otherwise) but crucial to our success as a species. The aping of customs previously foreign to us is how we learn and progress. For example, I am delighted, rather than insulted, that so many countries have culturally appropriated freedom of speech and democracy and would urge more to do the same. Cultural appropriation is why London has some of the best restaurants in the world today — and if someone from the Indian subcontinent complains about the inauthentic western take on curries, point out to them that they wouldn’t have chillies if it weren’t for the Portuguese.
The history of mankind has been a history of cultural appropriation — in art, in literature and even more so in music. Rhythm and blues from black American culture was fused with the white working-class country music to form rock’n’roll, for example. Liszt (like plenty of others) culturally appropriated the Gypsy folk music of central Europe and the result was the Hungarian Rhapsodies.
Everything that is good about us as a species has been enhanced and enriched by cultural appropriation, and you would think that the internationalist left would concur. But instead the left insists that we must all squat inside our respective ghettos, because no exchange between us can ever be quite pristine and equal. It is an absurdity.
Listen, Jacinda. I will refrain from performing the haka this evening, and I’m sure that marketing companies will likewise desist from using the dance to flog their products. The main reason I will refrain, though, is that it is a singularly stupid dance and your rugby players, Maori or white, look really stupid when they are doing it. You can keep it.
With the possible exception of the abolition of women,
That’s old. Since then …I like neeps wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 7:28 amI mean it hasn't:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... wners.html
Although I’d make one point that it states culturally traditional clothing (not tea towels).
But they have now "clarified" matters, saying fans should "feel free".
Similar attire was also seen in the club's first home game under the new owners, against Tottenham.
Earlier this week, Newcastle stated that the ownership was not offended and "acknowledged" the gesture "as positive and welcoming in its intent".
However, the club added that "there remains the possibility that dressing this way is culturally inappropriate and risks causing offence to others".
Three days later, the club have issued a new statement, saying the owners have been "overwhelmed by the welcome of the local community", and that fans who have celebrated by wearing "culturally traditional clothing, including head coverings, have been part of that welcome".
The club continued: "Those who wish to support the club by wearing appropriate culturally-inspired clothing should feel free to do so as they see fit. We are inclusive to all.
A person can think they're being positive whilst still being negative though.Woddy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:27 am What I take his general point to be, and if so I agree with it, is that one should approach the issue with positive intent rather than a default negative one (as can seem to be the case sometimes). So, assume that someone is using a cultural reference for good reasons unless they clearly are not. Unfortunately, people assume the negative too often and it stops positive cultural interchange.
What if you are told by a particularly mental shouty person from that group, but no one else cares?Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:02 pmA person can think they're being positive whilst still being negative though.Woddy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:27 am What I take his general point to be, and if so I agree with it, is that one should approach the issue with positive intent rather than a default negative one (as can seem to be the case sometimes). So, assume that someone is using a cultural reference for good reasons unless they clearly are not. Unfortunately, people assume the negative too often and it stops positive cultural interchange.
The moment you're told what you're doing isn't positive by someone who's actually part of the group your imitating, then you no longer even have the excuse of doing it for good reasons.
But, to use an example given above, being told by a Jamaican that they find a western person cooking (or describing a recipe for) jerk chicken offensive would fall under that condition.Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:02 pmA person can think they're being positive whilst still being negative though.Woddy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:27 am What I take his general point to be, and if so I agree with it, is that one should approach the issue with positive intent rather than a default negative one (as can seem to be the case sometimes). So, assume that someone is using a cultural reference for good reasons unless they clearly are not. Unfortunately, people assume the negative too often and it stops positive cultural interchange.
The moment you're told what you're doing isn't positive by someone who's actually part of the group your imitating, then you no longer even have the excuse of doing it for good reasons.
I think it goes beyond that, and plays to the risks of making a political/cultural/societal football of it.Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:38 pmWhat if you are told by a particularly mental shouty person from that group, but no one else cares?Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:02 pmA person can think they're being positive whilst still being negative though.Woddy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 11:27 am What I take his general point to be, and if so I agree with it, is that one should approach the issue with positive intent rather than a default negative one (as can seem to be the case sometimes). So, assume that someone is using a cultural reference for good reasons unless they clearly are not. Unfortunately, people assume the negative too often and it stops positive cultural interchange.
The moment you're told what you're doing isn't positive by someone who's actually part of the group your imitating, then you no longer even have the excuse of doing it for good reasons.
