NPR

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:49 am It also mentions it needs to be a local tribe...

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.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:17 am

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:14 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:10 am Somebody earlier said there are 600 tribes in the USA. Exeter only need to get consent from one of them.

Only if they use specifics from that tribe. Which would require a change in merchandise anyway.

So just convert to a Celtic tribe already.

They can use the same logo they use now, it's generic. All they need is the blessing from a single tribe.

Biffer wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:58 am

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:17 am

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:14 am

Only if they use specifics from that tribe. Which would require a change in merchandise anyway.

So just convert to a Celtic tribe already.

They can use the same logo they use now, it's generic. All they need is the blessing from a single tribe.

Go on, keep telling us how fucking dumb you are.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:55 am

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 11:49 am It also mentions it needs to be a local tribe...

Yep.

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.

Not sure which local tribe Chiefs will be able to ask.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:11 pm This smacks of desperation now.

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:20 am

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:01 am

sockwithaticket 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

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.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:11 pm This smacks of desperation now.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:29 pm

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:11 pm This smacks of desperation now.

Eh? It wasn't me who said there wasn't a unified body that represents them. Which frankly, is surprising if true.

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:27 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:20 am

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

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.

How many years would you consider something needs to exist before no one else can appropriate it?

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.

Lobby wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:53 pm
Sorry for the digression, but the (ingenuous) suggestion that Mongolians are offended by the international success of Mongolian opera singers is simply untrue.

yermum wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:20 pm Cultural appropriation and appreciation are not the same thing.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 3:02 pm

yermum wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 2:20 pm Cultural appropriation and appreciation are not the same thing.

What about cultural appreciation, is that permissable or even possible nowadays?

Lobby wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:53 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:27 pm

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.

How many years would you consider something needs to exist before no one else can appropriate it?

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.

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.

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.

Niegs wrote: ↑Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:55 am Reading a lot of the ‘oh get over it’ type comments on the socials reminded me of this. Shop some Exeter gear on them…

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?

Lobby wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 1:53 pm

Rhubarb & Custard wrote: ↑Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:27 pm

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.

How many years would you consider something needs to exist before no one else can appropriate it?

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.

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.

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.

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:11 pm And now we have this



Which has been ok’ed as welcoming.

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:11 pm And now we have this



Which has been ok’ed as welcoming.

Kawazaki wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:54 pm

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:11 pm And now we have this



Which has been ok’ed as welcoming.

Thousands of kids look like that in their school nativity play every year.

The culture appropriating child racist bastards. /Biffer

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:11 pm And now we have this



Which has been ok’ed as welcoming.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 7:28 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:11 pm And now we have this



Which has been ok’ed as welcoming.

I mean it hasn't:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... wners.html

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 6:48 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:11 pm And now we have this



Which has been ok’ed as welcoming.

The 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.

Tichtheid wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 8:55 am Poor old Rod Little, you have to feel a wee bit sorry for him.


edit, I was going to correct the spelling mistake, but in fact I think I'll leave it.

I like neeps wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 7:28 am

Ymx wrote: ↑Sun Oct 24, 2021 10:11 pm And now we have this



Which has been ok’ed as welcoming.

I mean it hasn't:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footb ... wners.html

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.

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.

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:02 pm

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.

A person can think they're being positive whilst still being negative though.

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.

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:02 pm

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.

A person can think they're being positive whilst still being negative though.

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.

Slick wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:38 pm

Raggs wrote: ↑Mon Oct 25, 2021 12:02 pm

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.

A person can think they're being positive whilst still being negative though.

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.

What if you are told by a particularly mental shouty person from that group, but no one else cares?