On totems
March 24, 2016 7:37 AM Subscribe
Sarah McCarry writes an essay about being called out for inappropriate use of Native American imagery
I really thought this would be about "spirit animal". It never occurred to me that "at the top of the totem pole" would be a trigger. I'm glad I know that now.
(Also, was the Canadian criminalization of the potlatch based in anything but extermination of First Nation culture? Did they at least try to claim that people were using the ceremony to gather and plot nefariousness or somesuch?)
posted by Etrigan at 7:56 AM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
(Also, was the Canadian criminalization of the potlatch based in anything but extermination of First Nation culture? Did they at least try to claim that people were using the ceremony to gather and plot nefariousness or somesuch?)
posted by Etrigan at 7:56 AM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Nope, it was pretty explicitly "let's make them properly European and Christian, they can't do that while having potlatchs". Plus "oh it makes them sick/kills babies/turns them into prostitutes" stuff.
posted by jeather at 8:04 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by jeather at 8:04 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Wouldn't it have been wonderful if JK Rowling had responded this thoughtfully to similar criticisms? Great essay, thank you for posting.
posted by pjsky at 8:24 AM on March 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by pjsky at 8:24 AM on March 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Couple of comments deleted. How about we don't launch directly into "this doesn't seem like a problem to me, at a remove, so people who think it's a problem are just overreacting"; that's not a good way to have a conversation about this incredibly thorny kind of issue.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:38 AM on March 24, 2016 [13 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:38 AM on March 24, 2016 [13 favorites]
There was nothing wrong with Jack seeing the beauty and differences in Christmas town, it’s when he tried to take what is unique about Christmas town away from those it originally belonged to without understanding the full context of Christmas things is when everything went wrong.
My interpretation of the film's message is that Halloween is the best holiday ever and Christmas is dumb so everybody should stop doing ridiculous Christmas stuff and just celebrate Halloween all the time, but your interpretation makes sense too.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:43 AM on March 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
My interpretation of the film's message is that Halloween is the best holiday ever and Christmas is dumb so everybody should stop doing ridiculous Christmas stuff and just celebrate Halloween all the time, but your interpretation makes sense too.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:43 AM on March 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
I hope that if I should ever be called out for cultural appropriation or misrepresentation in my own work, I would respond with such thoughtfulness and grace.
posted by bibliotropic at 8:45 AM on March 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
posted by bibliotropic at 8:45 AM on March 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
Mod note: Another couple of comments deleted. Please don't come in here looking to start a fight with "the easily offended". If you think this stuff is stupid please just skip it.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:51 AM on March 24, 2016 [19 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:51 AM on March 24, 2016 [19 favorites]
I assume there must be some really interesting thought out there about how to counter-program some of this stuff? I'm quite embarrassed to admit that I had never really given this particular turn of phrase much thought, and I'm sure that's the default since I hear it a lot.
I hope that if I should ever be called out for cultural appropriation or misrepresentation in my own work, I would respond with such thoughtfulness and grace.
If only everyone could! So often you have to convince people (like myself in this case) to actually think about the words they use, and if you are white and reasonably well-off that's just not something you're accustomed to. And for every children's book author who really takes it to heart, there's going to be someone who just goes into a defensive crouch.
The person I know who is the most willing to be introspective about these things is my four-year-old daughter, and I'm not sure if that's great or depressing.
posted by selfnoise at 8:58 AM on March 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
I hope that if I should ever be called out for cultural appropriation or misrepresentation in my own work, I would respond with such thoughtfulness and grace.
If only everyone could! So often you have to convince people (like myself in this case) to actually think about the words they use, and if you are white and reasonably well-off that's just not something you're accustomed to. And for every children's book author who really takes it to heart, there's going to be someone who just goes into a defensive crouch.
The person I know who is the most willing to be introspective about these things is my four-year-old daughter, and I'm not sure if that's great or depressing.
posted by selfnoise at 8:58 AM on March 24, 2016 [2 favorites]
It is also important to recognize that the more social and material capital an individual has access to, the more he or she is able to mediate the real or perceived emotional consequences of that attention, and the more likely that attention is to be a single moment in the span of a lifetime rather than, as it is for marginalized people, a lifetime's span of oppressions ranging from daily microaggressions to physical assault or even death.
This also works as a great explanation for why a bunch of people on twitter telling, say, [a famous white author] that they were offended by a piece of their work is NOT cyberbullying. It's the same reason that publicly criticizing a politician for their beliefs is not harassment. Thanks for the post.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:10 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
This also works as a great explanation for why a bunch of people on twitter telling, say, [a famous white author] that they were offended by a piece of their work is NOT cyberbullying. It's the same reason that publicly criticizing a politician for their beliefs is not harassment. Thanks for the post.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:10 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
As she rightly points out, to describe a person's status as "high" or "low" on the totem pole is a misrepresentation of the culture of the Northwest Native tribes who create totem poles and the meaning and purpose of those poles.
Actually, just using the expression "totem pole" in English is not a representation of any specific culture at all. Consequently it can hardly be a misrepresentation of one.
The word "totem pole" might be native American or Canadian in origin, but it is now a part of the English language. And while migrating to English, its meaning has changed to something like "hierarchy" - which is apparently different from the original meaning. I probably can't grasp the original meaning in it's entirety, but it seems possible that what little is left of the original meaning and nuance is but a carcass of the original Algonquian(?) word.
posted by sour cream at 9:11 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Actually, just using the expression "totem pole" in English is not a representation of any specific culture at all. Consequently it can hardly be a misrepresentation of one.
The word "totem pole" might be native American or Canadian in origin, but it is now a part of the English language. And while migrating to English, its meaning has changed to something like "hierarchy" - which is apparently different from the original meaning. I probably can't grasp the original meaning in it's entirety, but it seems possible that what little is left of the original meaning and nuance is but a carcass of the original Algonquian(?) word.
posted by sour cream at 9:11 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Actually, just using the expression "totem pole" in English is not a representation of any specific culture at all. Consequently it can hardly be a misrepresentation of one.
And yet, if you ask 100 people whether it is, 90-plus percent will say that it's a Native American/First Nations thing. The fact that more than one group on the continent used the same basic idea doesn't mean that everybody else gets to use it without being aware of the connotations it has for some of those groups.
Also, speaking as a Romani -- a.k.a. "Gypsy", based on the erroneous belief that we were Egyptian in origin -- the fact that it's wrong doesn't mean it can't be hurtful.
posted by Etrigan at 9:20 AM on March 24, 2016 [32 favorites]
And yet, if you ask 100 people whether it is, 90-plus percent will say that it's a Native American/First Nations thing. The fact that more than one group on the continent used the same basic idea doesn't mean that everybody else gets to use it without being aware of the connotations it has for some of those groups.
Also, speaking as a Romani -- a.k.a. "Gypsy", based on the erroneous belief that we were Egyptian in origin -- the fact that it's wrong doesn't mean it can't be hurtful.
posted by Etrigan at 9:20 AM on March 24, 2016 [32 favorites]
while I am generally on the side of adapting specific terms into broader usage, turning words that have original meaning and nuance into word caracasses is probably exactly the problem here
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:21 AM on March 24, 2016 [32 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:21 AM on March 24, 2016 [32 favorites]
was the Canadian criminalization of the potlatch based in anything but extermination of First Nation culture?
There are probably better people to talk about this than me, but my understanding is that it was typical colonialism, to extinguish the Pacific coastal First Nations traditional practices. Like many of the other impositions of the Indian Act, it was designed to assimilate, and therefore destroy the existing societies of the indigenous peoples and convert them to "Canadian" British moral, religious and economic norms. It wasn't just a matter of different practices or religions either, at least some of the motivation was economic, to force band members away from tribal redistribution of wealth and toward private ownership of resources. Coincidentally, this would also result in band workers following the schedules the British employers wanted. The government wanted to rewire the whole way FN peoples worked and related to each other so that they could "assimilate".
posted by bonehead at 9:26 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
There are probably better people to talk about this than me, but my understanding is that it was typical colonialism, to extinguish the Pacific coastal First Nations traditional practices. Like many of the other impositions of the Indian Act, it was designed to assimilate, and therefore destroy the existing societies of the indigenous peoples and convert them to "Canadian" British moral, religious and economic norms. It wasn't just a matter of different practices or religions either, at least some of the motivation was economic, to force band members away from tribal redistribution of wealth and toward private ownership of resources. Coincidentally, this would also result in band workers following the schedules the British employers wanted. The government wanted to rewire the whole way FN peoples worked and related to each other so that they could "assimilate".
posted by bonehead at 9:26 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
English has lots and lots of words. It didn't occur to me that using totem pole like that would be hurtful, but now I know, so I will use any of the many possible synonyms.
posted by jeather at 9:28 AM on March 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by jeather at 9:28 AM on March 24, 2016 [8 favorites]
is it just totem poles we need to clear on, or is totem itself problematic?
While the term "totem" is Ojibwe, belief in tutelary spirits and deities is not limited to indigenous peoples of the Americas but common to a number of cultures worldwide, such as Africa, Arabia, Asia, Australia, Europe, and the Arctic. However, the traditional people of those cultures have words for their guardian spirits in their own languages, and do not call these spirits or symbols, "totems".
I don't know if it's because I've long lived in the Pacific Northwest but it never occurs to me use totem pole as an analogy. But totem -- well, that covers a lot of ground quickly, which is what we generally want a word to do.
posted by philip-random at 9:42 AM on March 24, 2016
While the term "totem" is Ojibwe, belief in tutelary spirits and deities is not limited to indigenous peoples of the Americas but common to a number of cultures worldwide, such as Africa, Arabia, Asia, Australia, Europe, and the Arctic. However, the traditional people of those cultures have words for their guardian spirits in their own languages, and do not call these spirits or symbols, "totems".
I don't know if it's because I've long lived in the Pacific Northwest but it never occurs to me use totem pole as an analogy. But totem -- well, that covers a lot of ground quickly, which is what we generally want a word to do.
posted by philip-random at 9:42 AM on March 24, 2016
There was nothing wrong with Jack seeing the beauty and differences in Christmas town, it’s when he tried to take what is unique about Christmas town away from those it originally belonged to without understanding the full context of Christmas things is when everything went wrong.
This is such a wonderful explanation! Bookmarking!
while I am generally on the side of adapting specific terms into broader usage, turning words that have original meaning and nuance into word caracasses is probably exactly the problem here
Concur. I don't understand why it's so difficult, when someone says "Hey, that usage is problematic and hurtful!", to simply use something that is NOT problematic and hurtful. I'm fond of "food chain", myself.
posted by MissySedai at 9:44 AM on March 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
This is such a wonderful explanation! Bookmarking!
while I am generally on the side of adapting specific terms into broader usage, turning words that have original meaning and nuance into word caracasses is probably exactly the problem here
Concur. I don't understand why it's so difficult, when someone says "Hey, that usage is problematic and hurtful!", to simply use something that is NOT problematic and hurtful. I'm fond of "food chain", myself.
posted by MissySedai at 9:44 AM on March 24, 2016 [6 favorites]
How about "C-level in the corporate hierarchy?" Appropriate the 1%!
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:46 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:46 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
On one hand, you have a bunch of people whose lives, writing, and daily existence would be unchanged if they didn't use "top man on the totem pole" or "spirit animal" or similar phrases.
On the other hand, you have an oppressed people to whom the phrase not only has actual meaning and isn't merely shorthand for numberless equivalent phrases, but when carelessly used by the oppressors is painful and a reminder that oppression wasn't just something that happened but is ongoing.
If this was two kindergartners, you'd tell the first kid to knock it off, and you'd be right. But because it's "free speech" and white adults, good luck.
And as a reminder, if you're white (especially if you're white and male) and raised in western society, there is literally no way you can understand this, just as being called "whitey" by a non-white is in no way the equivalent of using a racial slur against a non-white.
We can empathize, take folk at their word, and use our own words more carefully. There is just a tiny effort involved, surely we can do that.
posted by maxwelton at 9:48 AM on March 24, 2016 [18 favorites]
On the other hand, you have an oppressed people to whom the phrase not only has actual meaning and isn't merely shorthand for numberless equivalent phrases, but when carelessly used by the oppressors is painful and a reminder that oppression wasn't just something that happened but is ongoing.
If this was two kindergartners, you'd tell the first kid to knock it off, and you'd be right. But because it's "free speech" and white adults, good luck.
And as a reminder, if you're white (especially if you're white and male) and raised in western society, there is literally no way you can understand this, just as being called "whitey" by a non-white is in no way the equivalent of using a racial slur against a non-white.
We can empathize, take folk at their word, and use our own words more carefully. There is just a tiny effort involved, surely we can do that.
posted by maxwelton at 9:48 AM on March 24, 2016 [18 favorites]
"I’m a senior now, officially at the top of the totem pole, building memories and planning for my future."
The thing is, aside from the appropriation angle, this is completely wrong about the importance of height of a figure on a totem pole. I'm no expert and I may be wrong, but here's an article that describes why the lower figures are oftentimes more important than the higher; at least in terms of quality of carving.
posted by achrise at 9:52 AM on March 24, 2016
The thing is, aside from the appropriation angle, this is completely wrong about the importance of height of a figure on a totem pole. I'm no expert and I may be wrong, but here's an article that describes why the lower figures are oftentimes more important than the higher; at least in terms of quality of carving.
posted by achrise at 9:52 AM on March 24, 2016
Honest question: how do we bridge the gap from something like this, which is intellectually quite sophisticated and nuanced and, at the other end of the spectrum, the 'everyone is just too damn sensitive' crowd?
posted by tippiedog at 9:56 AM on March 24, 2016
posted by tippiedog at 9:56 AM on March 24, 2016
Honest question: how do we bridge the gap from something like this, which is intellectually quite sophisticated and nuanced and, at the other end of the spectrum, the 'everyone is just too damn sensitive' crowd?
"Hey asshole, that shit's offensive. Knock it off."
It sounds harsh, but let's face it: the 'everyone is just too damn sensitive' crowd takes pride in the fact that they're ignorant and privileged and don't have to bother with manners.
posted by zarq at 10:02 AM on March 24, 2016 [15 favorites]
"Hey asshole, that shit's offensive. Knock it off."
It sounds harsh, but let's face it: the 'everyone is just too damn sensitive' crowd takes pride in the fact that they're ignorant and privileged and don't have to bother with manners.
posted by zarq at 10:02 AM on March 24, 2016 [15 favorites]
I expect to get this sort of thing wrong from time to time, and you're free to ascribe this to laziness, thoughtlessness or just not realising that there are greater issues with a particular metaphorical idiom. Things like the fpp help me to be more aware of it as an issue, and thus be a more careful user of language, and that's a good thing - but the basic mechanisms of language and culture include appropriation, so please be slow to ascribe baser motives to me.
There's a whole spectrum of carelessness, from JK Rowling behaving like a 1920s children's writer to me once (accurately but thoughlessly) describing a particular device as being in a 'pizza box' format, which the Italian manufacturer took to be derogatory. (In that case, I think the outrage was synthetic, as the review was negative for good technical reasons, and they were threatening us with a defamation case in order to get us to retract. Be that as it may, had I made the connection between pizza boxes and Italy, I wouldn't have used the phrase in the first place, purely through a sense of good taste.)
And there are issues where I really don't know what the correct approach is. There's a particular configuration of transistors in electronic design that's called a totem-pole output - because the devices are stacked vertically in a circuit diagram much like the figures in a totem pole. Is that bad? I honestly can't tell - there's certainly no misrepresentation of hierarchy in the metaphor. And I use terms like purdah, Dutch courage, hocus-pocus and so on, even though I know that the etymologies can be uncomfortable. I just don't use them in sensitive contexts - I wouldn't refer to a particular Roman Catholic article of belief as hocus-pocus, even if i were commenting on its particular illogicality, but I would a bit of marketing-based magical thinking.
English is idiomatic, and the history of language components does not determine the current meaning or use even though it may be problematic.
I think the best approach is to be aware of the words you use, as far as you can, and that is a general rule for being a better writer in any case.
posted by Devonian at 10:02 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's a whole spectrum of carelessness, from JK Rowling behaving like a 1920s children's writer to me once (accurately but thoughlessly) describing a particular device as being in a 'pizza box' format, which the Italian manufacturer took to be derogatory. (In that case, I think the outrage was synthetic, as the review was negative for good technical reasons, and they were threatening us with a defamation case in order to get us to retract. Be that as it may, had I made the connection between pizza boxes and Italy, I wouldn't have used the phrase in the first place, purely through a sense of good taste.)
And there are issues where I really don't know what the correct approach is. There's a particular configuration of transistors in electronic design that's called a totem-pole output - because the devices are stacked vertically in a circuit diagram much like the figures in a totem pole. Is that bad? I honestly can't tell - there's certainly no misrepresentation of hierarchy in the metaphor. And I use terms like purdah, Dutch courage, hocus-pocus and so on, even though I know that the etymologies can be uncomfortable. I just don't use them in sensitive contexts - I wouldn't refer to a particular Roman Catholic article of belief as hocus-pocus, even if i were commenting on its particular illogicality, but I would a bit of marketing-based magical thinking.
English is idiomatic, and the history of language components does not determine the current meaning or use even though it may be problematic.
I think the best approach is to be aware of the words you use, as far as you can, and that is a general rule for being a better writer in any case.
posted by Devonian at 10:02 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I've come to use what I call the "but-is-the-building-burning-down?" analogy.
That is, if I've said or otherwise indicated something that somebody else finds offensive, I ask myself, what are the stakes here? Is now a good time to get curious about something that I've clearly taken for granted (else I wouldn't have said it)? Or is something more dire going on that supersedes this?
Hint: the building is almost never burning down.
posted by philip-random at 10:11 AM on March 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
That is, if I've said or otherwise indicated something that somebody else finds offensive, I ask myself, what are the stakes here? Is now a good time to get curious about something that I've clearly taken for granted (else I wouldn't have said it)? Or is something more dire going on that supersedes this?
Hint: the building is almost never burning down.
posted by philip-random at 10:11 AM on March 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
I actually just bought a copy of "All Our Pretty Songs" a couple of weeks ago. Haven't gotten around to reading it yet.
Looking forward to it.
posted by kyrademon at 10:18 AM on March 24, 2016
Looking forward to it.
posted by kyrademon at 10:18 AM on March 24, 2016
tippiedog: Honest question: how do we bridge the gap from something like this, which is intellectually quite sophisticated and nuanced and, at the other end of the spectrum, the 'everyone is just too damn sensitive' crowd?
I think you can equate the "too much PC" crowd as "settlers" who claim any land and resources as their own, despite a pre-existing use for them. There are a world of words you can use, and just because some are already claimed by someone else, it doesn't mean you're being fenced in or censored.
It can be hard for settlers to recognize the actions of the existing inhabitants, because they don't look or act they way they do. "There aren't any fences, so I can use it. And no one has branded those animals as theirs, so I'll brand them as mine." Nope, you have no right to those thing.s But there is good news! Unlike limited physical resource, there are plenty of other words and phrases you can use!
posted by filthy light thief at 10:20 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think you can equate the "too much PC" crowd as "settlers" who claim any land and resources as their own, despite a pre-existing use for them. There are a world of words you can use, and just because some are already claimed by someone else, it doesn't mean you're being fenced in or censored.
It can be hard for settlers to recognize the actions of the existing inhabitants, because they don't look or act they way they do. "There aren't any fences, so I can use it. And no one has branded those animals as theirs, so I'll brand them as mine." Nope, you have no right to those thing.s But there is good news! Unlike limited physical resource, there are plenty of other words and phrases you can use!
posted by filthy light thief at 10:20 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
kyrademon, let us know what you replaced that line with.
posted by Etrigan at 10:23 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Etrigan at 10:23 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
how do we bridge the gap from something like this
If you want to work with someone long-term and affect change, my view is that it's a long, slow process of education, staring at preschool ages. My experience is that these things do take generations to change and that educating kids is far more important to winning hearts and minds than confronting reactionary adults, which has limited success at best. Racism's cure is education. That's a decadal process, not an acute one. It takes persistence and a lot of effort, most of it in teaching and conversation.
posted by bonehead at 10:35 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
If you want to work with someone long-term and affect change, my view is that it's a long, slow process of education, staring at preschool ages. My experience is that these things do take generations to change and that educating kids is far more important to winning hearts and minds than confronting reactionary adults, which has limited success at best. Racism's cure is education. That's a decadal process, not an acute one. It takes persistence and a lot of effort, most of it in teaching and conversation.
posted by bonehead at 10:35 AM on March 24, 2016 [4 favorites]
Faint of Butt: for us, the "christian rock" metaphor might be more helpful than the "nightmare before christmas" one.
posted by idiopath at 10:40 AM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by idiopath at 10:40 AM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
I was impressed by both the writer, and by the approach Dr. Reese took in writing to her. The "one-line problem" is something I encounter in a lot of books—I was reading a novel I was very much enjoying just the other day, when a character suddenly said they were "free, white, and twenty-one," and it took me right out of it. I'm glad to have a name for it.
I liked this bit:
I'm often struck, though, by how many people have to have a blind spot for this kind of thing to get into print. I think of it in movies and TV as well—was there no one, no actor or crew member or producer or director or writer, who recognized the sexism or racism in a certain scene or line? McCarry put it well:
I liked this bit:
In talks I give, and in conversations, I suggest that teachers teach kids that books are not sacred. We can write in them, if they're ours. What if you said to your readers, that you want them to take our their copy of SONGS and turn to that page, and do x or y or z.It's another way of addressing the imperfections of otherwise good work, and of dealing with the loving of problematic things. So often expressions like "top man on the totem pole" come to us as something like that Orwell called a "dead metaphor," a phrase so ossified that it functions like a word. It takes effort and attention to hear these phrases, and think of them as metaphors, and consider whether the metaphor is useful, effective, and appropriate. Sarah McCarry didn't put that effort in. She responded really well when it was pointed out to her.
I'm often struck, though, by how many people have to have a blind spot for this kind of thing to get into print. I think of it in movies and TV as well—was there no one, no actor or crew member or producer or director or writer, who recognized the sexism or racism in a certain scene or line? McCarry put it well:
All of which brings me back to All Our Pretty Songs, totem poles, and the thankless, exhausting work of writers and critics like Dr. Reese, who have devoted their careers to calling into question the constant reinforcement of stereotypes and racist tropes that occurs within the publishing industry. As an individual, I can apologize all I like for failing to do my job as a writer, but no apology I can make will take away the fact that my error is indicative both of my own inattention and the inattention or outright disinterest of an industry that continues to put into wide circulation that error and thousands of others like it by thousands of other writers.posted by not that girl at 11:04 AM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Honest question: how do we bridge the gap from something like this, which is intellectually quite sophisticated and nuanced and, at the other end of the spectrum, the 'everyone is just too damn sensitive' crowd?
I mean, to be blunt, the "everyone is just too damn sensitive" crowd by definition doesn't give a flying fuck what anybody else thinks. So, you can't reach them, period. I know there was a lot of discourse circa 2000+ about "framing", and a pervasive belief on the left that simply explaining liberal beliefs with the right words could convert even the most die-hard conservatives to life-long Democrats.
This is, to be polite, magical thinking. To be less polite, it's utter horse shit.
For some people, being an asshole isn't a means to an end, and it's not even an end in itself, it's their entire personal identity. These are the people in the "everyone is just too damn sensitive" crowd.
That said, Broad City recently did a pretty good lay-person explanation. Criminally, the clip itself is nowhere on line, but you can read a description here.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:12 AM on March 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
I mean, to be blunt, the "everyone is just too damn sensitive" crowd by definition doesn't give a flying fuck what anybody else thinks. So, you can't reach them, period. I know there was a lot of discourse circa 2000+ about "framing", and a pervasive belief on the left that simply explaining liberal beliefs with the right words could convert even the most die-hard conservatives to life-long Democrats.
This is, to be polite, magical thinking. To be less polite, it's utter horse shit.
For some people, being an asshole isn't a means to an end, and it's not even an end in itself, it's their entire personal identity. These are the people in the "everyone is just too damn sensitive" crowd.
That said, Broad City recently did a pretty good lay-person explanation. Criminally, the clip itself is nowhere on line, but you can read a description here.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:12 AM on March 24, 2016 [5 favorites]
The Halloween/Christmas analogy seems to be suggesting that there is no value whatsoever in syncretism. That seems wrong to me. I don't think Krampus would agree with that idea.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:15 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:15 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
So, you can't reach them, period.
I think you can reach a few, so confrontation isn't completely useless. It's vital even, in accessing those individuals who can take change of the generational change necessary.
However, the best way to get an old racist to change their mind, IMO, is to bury them.
posted by bonehead at 11:23 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think you can reach a few, so confrontation isn't completely useless. It's vital even, in accessing those individuals who can take change of the generational change necessary.
However, the best way to get an old racist to change their mind, IMO, is to bury them.
posted by bonehead at 11:23 AM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Thanks for the answers, depressing though they are, to my question reaching the 'everyone is just too sensitive' crowd.
This is not directly germane to this essay, but the following was a formative experience for me with regard to this stuff:
A couple of years ago, I learned a very hard lesson on a local Facebook crime watch page. Someone posted a link to a local news report about two burglars who had been caught. The news page featured their mug shots front and center, and they were both African-Americans.
Unsurprisingly, there were several unkind comments on the post. One of the first commenters just wrote, "Thugs". I responded, "You might not want to use the word 'thugs.' It's racially charged."
Oh man, was I unprepared for the responses. Name calling, hostility, etc. Several people pointed out that they are not racist, for a variety of reasons. I realized that day that I was thinking of racism in the terms assumed in this essay, but to the others on this Facebook page, a racist is someone who is intentionally hostile to another race. The concept of institutional racism or passive racism or whatever you want to call it just didn't exist for them. No awareness that meaning lies with the recipient of words, not the speaker's intentions, etc.
posted by tippiedog at 12:17 PM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
This is not directly germane to this essay, but the following was a formative experience for me with regard to this stuff:
A couple of years ago, I learned a very hard lesson on a local Facebook crime watch page. Someone posted a link to a local news report about two burglars who had been caught. The news page featured their mug shots front and center, and they were both African-Americans.
Unsurprisingly, there were several unkind comments on the post. One of the first commenters just wrote, "Thugs". I responded, "You might not want to use the word 'thugs.' It's racially charged."
Oh man, was I unprepared for the responses. Name calling, hostility, etc. Several people pointed out that they are not racist, for a variety of reasons. I realized that day that I was thinking of racism in the terms assumed in this essay, but to the others on this Facebook page, a racist is someone who is intentionally hostile to another race. The concept of institutional racism or passive racism or whatever you want to call it just didn't exist for them. No awareness that meaning lies with the recipient of words, not the speaker's intentions, etc.
posted by tippiedog at 12:17 PM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
sour cream: The word "totem pole" ... of the original Algonquian(?) word.
From what I can tell, the English word "totem" originates from Algonquian, however Algonquian is based more in the Eastern US while specifically totem poles are Pacific Northwest culture. I've not really studied much of Pacific Northwest culture, but I believe the languages spoken by tribes that carved totem poles would be the Wakashan languages.
posted by Deflagro at 12:26 PM on March 24, 2016
From what I can tell, the English word "totem" originates from Algonquian, however Algonquian is based more in the Eastern US while specifically totem poles are Pacific Northwest culture. I've not really studied much of Pacific Northwest culture, but I believe the languages spoken by tribes that carved totem poles would be the Wakashan languages.
posted by Deflagro at 12:26 PM on March 24, 2016
Deciding that cultural appropriation is not a good idea, and things like the more widespread acceptance of gender fluidity (I could go on) are good examples of a lot of people growing up. We'll make mistakes. (At my school, male staff were encouraged to grow beards during Prostate Cancer Awareness Month--September--and have the students vote on which style beard we had to wear for a day. One choice was the Fu Manchu. Asian-American parents were not amused.)
posted by kozad at 12:32 PM on March 24, 2016
posted by kozad at 12:32 PM on March 24, 2016
I used this word without thinking sometimes in the electronics contex Devonian mentioned, but "push pull" is a perfectly good synonym I will be using from now on.
posted by Maxwell's demon at 12:33 PM on March 24, 2016
posted by Maxwell's demon at 12:33 PM on March 24, 2016
Krampus is its own thing completely separate from Halloween.
Krampus is a Christmas figure in European tradition that stems from the syncretism of Christianity and the religions of various Roman and Germanic tribes. Santa Claus (aka St. Nick) is also an example of this, just with less demonic fire. Christmas in winter is also an example -- Jesus wasn't born on December 25. That date was Sol Invictus, as every religious historian will tell you.
Good things can come from syncretism. I'll leave you a gift under the pagan symbol Yule tree to prove it. Happy Holidays.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:49 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Krampus is a Christmas figure in European tradition that stems from the syncretism of Christianity and the religions of various Roman and Germanic tribes. Santa Claus (aka St. Nick) is also an example of this, just with less demonic fire. Christmas in winter is also an example -- Jesus wasn't born on December 25. That date was Sol Invictus, as every religious historian will tell you.
Good things can come from syncretism. I'll leave you a gift under the pagan symbol Yule tree to prove it. Happy Holidays.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 12:49 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
"One of the main characters of the book, Raoul, is Navajo."
Totem poles have nothing more to do with Navajo culture than they do with, say, Finnish. Putting the words "I'm at the top of the totem pole" in that character's mouth is conflating very different cultures into a generic "Indian/Native American" and seems to me to rather miss the point of having a Navajo character in the book. I'm kind of surprised no one in the article brought that up (unless I missed it).
posted by 3urypteris at 1:40 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
Totem poles have nothing more to do with Navajo culture than they do with, say, Finnish. Putting the words "I'm at the top of the totem pole" in that character's mouth is conflating very different cultures into a generic "Indian/Native American" and seems to me to rather miss the point of having a Navajo character in the book. I'm kind of surprised no one in the article brought that up (unless I missed it).
posted by 3urypteris at 1:40 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
"One of the main characters of the book, Raoul, is Navajo."
I believe this is meant to explain why Debbie Reese was reading it; the totem pole sentence most likely came from another character's mouth. Reese would absolutely have noticed that kind of conflation, if it had occurred. Here's some of her recent posts and reviews.
posted by redsparkler at 3:16 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I believe this is meant to explain why Debbie Reese was reading it; the totem pole sentence most likely came from another character's mouth. Reese would absolutely have noticed that kind of conflation, if it had occurred. Here's some of her recent posts and reviews.
posted by redsparkler at 3:16 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I find the "you're too sensitive" crowd to be really sensitive to pushback. It's part of why they go with that particular rhetorical hook. You'd be shocked at the number of people who object to my project to remove all slurs from my language - very quick to objecting to me doing that! Owning your own sensitivity, stating the obvious, being honest can go a long way.
So can "you're free to be an asshole... elsewhere", depending on your variety of (in this case) Settler.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:20 PM on March 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
So can "you're free to be an asshole... elsewhere", depending on your variety of (in this case) Settler.
posted by Deoridhe at 5:20 PM on March 24, 2016 [7 favorites]
I've never understood that argument. So what if someone is "too" sensitive (on what scale does one measure this)? They're sensitive; it's not up to me to try random desensitization via offensive words.
I also don't understand the "what if they're making it up?" argument. If person A is claiming to find something offensive, do I need to look into their soul to find out why they want me to stop doing it? It seems a safe assumption that they want me to stop because they find it upsetting on some level, and if they just want to play power tripping games[1], well, does it really hurt me to stop using that term in front of them or in general?
It feels of one piece with the discussion in the Jian Ghomeshi thread, where people insist on absolute evidence from so-called lower status people when they never would in other situations.
[1] I don't think people do want this when they say that something like "low man on the totem pole" is offensive
posted by jeather at 5:40 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
I also don't understand the "what if they're making it up?" argument. If person A is claiming to find something offensive, do I need to look into their soul to find out why they want me to stop doing it? It seems a safe assumption that they want me to stop because they find it upsetting on some level, and if they just want to play power tripping games[1], well, does it really hurt me to stop using that term in front of them or in general?
It feels of one piece with the discussion in the Jian Ghomeshi thread, where people insist on absolute evidence from so-called lower status people when they never would in other situations.
[1] I don't think people do want this when they say that something like "low man on the totem pole" is offensive
posted by jeather at 5:40 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
If you're not Native American (or First Nations), it doesn't matter whether or not you find it offensive. Simple as that.
That said, I wonder if all figurative uses of that phrase should be avoided? Language is tricky. I mean, I'll avoid it, for sure (it's easy! There are lots of words! Yay!), but it's hard to freeze a language and even harder to shape it by fiat or intent.
Gavin Edwards:
That said, I wonder if all figurative uses of that phrase should be avoided? Language is tricky. I mean, I'll avoid it, for sure (it's easy! There are lots of words! Yay!), but it's hard to freeze a language and even harder to shape it by fiat or intent.
Gavin Edwards:
Any language is like a melting ice cube: dictionaries and grammar mavens may try to keep it frozen, but if it gets used, it will keep changing and liquefying.posted by Joseph Gurl at 6:48 PM on March 24, 2016 [3 favorites]
Cool Papa Bell: Good things can come from syncretism.
The analogy isn't to a general Hallowe'en/Christmas mashup, but to the specific story of The Nightmare Before Christmas, in which Jack Skellington (good-naturedly and enthusiastically) conquers Christmas and adopts its symbolism and culture so ham-handedly that he produces something monstrous.
In this recent post about Blandly I noticed the cutting wit of a banner in their fake Ted Talk, reading "Appropriation is Collaboration". There's the crucial difference: syncretism driven by collaboration is noble. Driven by appropriation, that's just "theft" with more syllables. Jack Skellington frightening children because he doesn't know any better.
posted by traveler_ at 7:26 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
The analogy isn't to a general Hallowe'en/Christmas mashup, but to the specific story of The Nightmare Before Christmas, in which Jack Skellington (good-naturedly and enthusiastically) conquers Christmas and adopts its symbolism and culture so ham-handedly that he produces something monstrous.
In this recent post about Blandly I noticed the cutting wit of a banner in their fake Ted Talk, reading "Appropriation is Collaboration". There's the crucial difference: syncretism driven by collaboration is noble. Driven by appropriation, that's just "theft" with more syllables. Jack Skellington frightening children because he doesn't know any better.
posted by traveler_ at 7:26 PM on March 24, 2016 [1 favorite]
It's not "offense" that matters. It's that many terms are imperialist propaganda that matters.
Is Pocahontas imperialist propaganda? Yes of course. Should we limit our party outfits? Hell no, but maybe do not identify your outfit as Pocahontas, well not without wearing chains that mock imperialism anyways.
Should we stop saying totem pole? Meh. We should avoid language that benefits imperialist religions like Christianity and Islam, but it's nice artful language too. Could we keep the term but provide a more accurate definition that corrects the willful ignorance of Christian imperialists perhaps?
We need more "offense" of powerful beliefs like American nationalism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc. It's the language those beliefs created to help them impose power that should be challenged.
Anyone complaining about these issues should drop the weak ass terms like "offense" and replace them with more meaningful terms like "imperialist propaganda". And use that term precisely of course.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:13 AM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is Pocahontas imperialist propaganda? Yes of course. Should we limit our party outfits? Hell no, but maybe do not identify your outfit as Pocahontas, well not without wearing chains that mock imperialism anyways.
Should we stop saying totem pole? Meh. We should avoid language that benefits imperialist religions like Christianity and Islam, but it's nice artful language too. Could we keep the term but provide a more accurate definition that corrects the willful ignorance of Christian imperialists perhaps?
We need more "offense" of powerful beliefs like American nationalism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc. It's the language those beliefs created to help them impose power that should be challenged.
Anyone complaining about these issues should drop the weak ass terms like "offense" and replace them with more meaningful terms like "imperialist propaganda". And use that term precisely of course.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:13 AM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Should we limit our party outfits?
YES YOU SHOULD
dressing as a member of an ethnic group who has suffered genocide orchestrated by members of your ethnic group as a party costume is very clearly in the "never ever do this" camp
it is not important whether you're a specific individual like Pocahontas or not, that's really not the point, the point is that turning a people into a costume is incredibly trivializing on top of being just an exercise in sterotyping. You don't fix that by saying you're doing it to "mock imperialism", which is noble but sidesteps the very real damage you've done along the way
holy god don't do that thing
posted by vibratory manner of working at 9:01 AM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
YES YOU SHOULD
dressing as a member of an ethnic group who has suffered genocide orchestrated by members of your ethnic group as a party costume is very clearly in the "never ever do this" camp
it is not important whether you're a specific individual like Pocahontas or not, that's really not the point, the point is that turning a people into a costume is incredibly trivializing on top of being just an exercise in sterotyping. You don't fix that by saying you're doing it to "mock imperialism", which is noble but sidesteps the very real damage you've done along the way
holy god don't do that thing
posted by vibratory manner of working at 9:01 AM on March 25, 2016 [5 favorites]
It's exactly the representing a specific piece of imperialist propaganda like the Pocahontas story that matters. There is no damage when people take elements of historical garb, iconography, etc. that they've encountered. All the damage comes from propagating the myths used to justify imperialism.
What about pirates? They were frequently forcefully conscripts who rebelled. Is wearing an eye patch or sewing a toy parrot to a vest a "never do this"? Absolutely not.
What about rappers? We know their art form, clothing, etc. stem from systematic racial oppression and methods to survive it. Is Vanilla Ice offensive?
What about Celtic face paint or runes? Are your ancestors Christian? Yeah, that's who conquered, enslaved, etc. the Celts.
That said, I mostly envisioned people incorporating elements of traditional garb, like the hippie with a dream catcher or feathers. It's usually lame to wear an actual costume from a costume shop anyways, as one should show a little creativity. Anyone who gets offended that you combined a loin cloth with feathers is an idiot though.
All culture is appropriation at some level. It's a question of doing it creatively, or stupidly, or in ways that reenforce imperialist mythology.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:44 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
What about pirates? They were frequently forcefully conscripts who rebelled. Is wearing an eye patch or sewing a toy parrot to a vest a "never do this"? Absolutely not.
What about rappers? We know their art form, clothing, etc. stem from systematic racial oppression and methods to survive it. Is Vanilla Ice offensive?
What about Celtic face paint or runes? Are your ancestors Christian? Yeah, that's who conquered, enslaved, etc. the Celts.
That said, I mostly envisioned people incorporating elements of traditional garb, like the hippie with a dream catcher or feathers. It's usually lame to wear an actual costume from a costume shop anyways, as one should show a little creativity. Anyone who gets offended that you combined a loin cloth with feathers is an idiot though.
All culture is appropriation at some level. It's a question of doing it creatively, or stupidly, or in ways that reenforce imperialist mythology.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:44 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
ya but "all cuture is appropriation" and hypotheticals are not a good answer to a specific group saying hey can you not do this specific thing.
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:55 AM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:55 AM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
'Cultural imperialism' is an actual sociological term which means imposed cultural hegemony. The term addresses systemic, forced assimilation and forced cultural diffusion of a minority culture into a larger, majority culture. It's related to cultural appropriation, but in a different way -- one which takes into account economic and other cultural pressures upon a minority to abandon that which they hold sacred so they can blend into the whole. See wikipedia for further details. The term was first used to describe an effect of communications, where media from one culture would cause internal and external pressures in another.
posted by zarq at 11:05 AM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by zarq at 11:05 AM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
It's not "offense" that matters.
Must be nice.
posted by Etrigan at 11:18 AM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Must be nice.
posted by Etrigan at 11:18 AM on March 25, 2016 [3 favorites]
Does it actually fucking hurt you that much to just not dress in a fucking Pocahontas costume? Seriously, pick anything else. Anything. There's lots of other shit you can dress as, I promise you.
The Vanilla Ice question is genuinely interesting, though, but mainly by comparison with Eminem. The key question in why one of those two was accepted by the larger hip hop community while the other wasn't comes from an authenticity of experience. Eminem can never know from direct experience what it was like to grow up as a black kid in America, but he grew up around and with black kids, and when he appeared on the scene as an artist he did it by gaining respect within the underground hip-hop community itself. He may not be black, but he was an insider to that community, so for him to adopt markers of that community in his dress is very different than some middle-class suburban white kid doing the same thing because he saw some cool rap videos on MTV.
Ultimately, the only way to earn the "right" to wear an "offensive costume" is to belong in some real, tangible sense to a group that originated the costume. But then you wouldn't be wearing a costume, you'd just be expressing your own culture. Are there real people who are alive right now who would be hurt by your caricature? Then maybe don't use it.
It's really, truly not that hard, unless you want to make it hard to prove some dumbass point.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:26 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Vanilla Ice question is genuinely interesting, though, but mainly by comparison with Eminem. The key question in why one of those two was accepted by the larger hip hop community while the other wasn't comes from an authenticity of experience. Eminem can never know from direct experience what it was like to grow up as a black kid in America, but he grew up around and with black kids, and when he appeared on the scene as an artist he did it by gaining respect within the underground hip-hop community itself. He may not be black, but he was an insider to that community, so for him to adopt markers of that community in his dress is very different than some middle-class suburban white kid doing the same thing because he saw some cool rap videos on MTV.
Ultimately, the only way to earn the "right" to wear an "offensive costume" is to belong in some real, tangible sense to a group that originated the costume. But then you wouldn't be wearing a costume, you'd just be expressing your own culture. Are there real people who are alive right now who would be hurt by your caricature? Then maybe don't use it.
It's really, truly not that hard, unless you want to make it hard to prove some dumbass point.
posted by tobascodagama at 11:26 AM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
All culture is appropriation at some level. It's a question of doing it creatively, or stupidly, or in ways that reenforce imperialist mythology.
What parts of your culture have you seen other people appropriate? I'm not talking about your culture moving - selling movies to a foreign country doesn't count, nor does opening up a restaurant in a foreign culture - I mean seeing someone re-interpret an aspect of your culture from the outside.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:07 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
What parts of your culture have you seen other people appropriate? I'm not talking about your culture moving - selling movies to a foreign country doesn't count, nor does opening up a restaurant in a foreign culture - I mean seeing someone re-interpret an aspect of your culture from the outside.
posted by Deoridhe at 1:07 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, "cultural imperialism" makes sense, zarq, but that begins with the notion of governmentality, which boils down to control. It's very far from creatively appropriating minor elements of dress.
I singled out the American/Disney myth around Pocahontas because it's basically holocaust denial. Just wearing a Star of David or copying elements of your dress from Ice-T is not. There is a world of difference and silly words like "offense" do not do it justice.
Just consider, what does "offended" actually describe? It represents Christians attempting to silence evolution, Kinsey, etc. It represents "but I love my slaves". It represents power silencing objections it does not like. It's fundamentally a tool to stop a discussion when your position no longer makes sense, but you'll win by default because you hold the power. Worse, it's historically the argument power makes last right before they lose.
You do a disservice to serious social justice efforts when you conflate them with people being "offended". First, you'll fail because taking offense is a tool of existing power, not a revolutionary tool. Second, you diminish real concerns like genocide denial as being about people being "offended" rather than about real that it'll happen again.
It's not an academic discussion. America instituted programs of torture, and murder, in part because objectors could be dismissed as merely being "offended" and not possessing real arguments.
If you want to make a serious argument about why a white person should not wear a loin cloth, then you need to somehow trace it back to real concerns around imperialism/governmentality/control. That's trivial for the Pocahontas myth, but good luck if you've only a piece of clothing.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:22 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
I singled out the American/Disney myth around Pocahontas because it's basically holocaust denial. Just wearing a Star of David or copying elements of your dress from Ice-T is not. There is a world of difference and silly words like "offense" do not do it justice.
Just consider, what does "offended" actually describe? It represents Christians attempting to silence evolution, Kinsey, etc. It represents "but I love my slaves". It represents power silencing objections it does not like. It's fundamentally a tool to stop a discussion when your position no longer makes sense, but you'll win by default because you hold the power. Worse, it's historically the argument power makes last right before they lose.
You do a disservice to serious social justice efforts when you conflate them with people being "offended". First, you'll fail because taking offense is a tool of existing power, not a revolutionary tool. Second, you diminish real concerns like genocide denial as being about people being "offended" rather than about real that it'll happen again.
It's not an academic discussion. America instituted programs of torture, and murder, in part because objectors could be dismissed as merely being "offended" and not possessing real arguments.
If you want to make a serious argument about why a white person should not wear a loin cloth, then you need to somehow trace it back to real concerns around imperialism/governmentality/control. That's trivial for the Pocahontas myth, but good luck if you've only a piece of clothing.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:22 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
Also, there is a good case to be made against saying ".. on the totem pole", but this article fails to make it when it runs off into concerns about "emotional consequences". A stronger argument is simply :
The phrase ".. on the totem pole" imposes a hierarchical view that did not exist in those tribes. In this way, it is cultural imperialism that hides at least one thing of value they could offer and thus tacitly attempts to justifying their destruction, conversion, etc.
I think that makes a reasonable argument for avoiding the phrase under many circumstances, maybe fixing it, etc. And that reasoning is far more tangible than worries about someone being offended.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:56 PM on March 25, 2016
The phrase ".. on the totem pole" imposes a hierarchical view that did not exist in those tribes. In this way, it is cultural imperialism that hides at least one thing of value they could offer and thus tacitly attempts to justifying their destruction, conversion, etc.
I think that makes a reasonable argument for avoiding the phrase under many circumstances, maybe fixing it, etc. And that reasoning is far more tangible than worries about someone being offended.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:56 PM on March 25, 2016
Not reducing other cultures to lazy cliches is seriously nbd and really none of us need to wait for a request for such to be invoked with the proper phrasing in order to be mindful of that
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:13 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 7:13 PM on March 25, 2016 [2 favorites]
Heavens forfend, it appears that we might be splitting our hairs incorrectly! Shame that we have to throw "serious social justice efforts" -- whatever those are, since telling white people to stop casually appropriating other cultures apparently doesn't count -- in the trash and start from scratch now.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:50 PM on March 25, 2016
posted by tobascodagama at 7:50 PM on March 25, 2016
> I singled out the American/Disney myth around Pocahontas because it's basically holocaust denial. Just wearing a Star of David or copying elements of your dress from Ice-T is not.
Why are you talking like your word is the final word on this? This is exactly part of the problem. Likewise you defining what people who are "offended" mean, and who they are, and what they object to.
posted by rtha at 9:15 PM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
Why are you talking like your word is the final word on this? This is exactly part of the problem. Likewise you defining what people who are "offended" mean, and who they are, and what they object to.
posted by rtha at 9:15 PM on March 25, 2016 [4 favorites]
The phrase ".. on the totem pole" imposes a hierarchical view that did not exist in those tribes.
Really? Cite plz. Because I see this:
Really? Cite plz. Because I see this:
The Algonquin social structure was a common structure during the Age of Exploration. Like most tribes women did not have high rights. The leader of all of the tribe was the shaman he would usually get his rights from his father. All tribes were independent which means they had different rules, polices, and governments for different tribes. The Algonquin social structure was patriarchal; men were the leaders and the heads of the family and territorial hunting rights were passed from father to son. The Shaman had a high right in the social structure of Algonquin tribes. The Ogima were the leaders of the tribe the usually were the last Ogima’s son nephew, brother, or brother in law. The Algonquin social structure and government affected the Atlantic world.posted by Joseph Gurl at 9:40 PM on March 25, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Algonquin social structure…As mentioned above, totem poles have nothing to do with the Algonquin people, except that English-speaking settlers adopted an Algonquian word for them. The poles themselves are the product of a completely different group of societies, thousands of miles away. (Tlingit territory is as distant from the Algonquin nations as Moscow is from Rome.)
the languages spoken by tribes that carved totem poles…Kwakwaka'wakw and Tlingit and other peoples in the Pacific Northwest still do carve them (despite past efforts by White settlers to destroy the practice).
posted by mbrubeck at 10:31 PM on March 30, 2016 [4 favorites]
mbrubeck: Kwakwaka'wakw and Tlingit and other peoples in the Pacific Northwest still do carve them
Sorry, I didn't mean for the carving to be past tense, I meant the language being spoken as past tense! Because I thought (admittedly not too familiar though) that the languages were not as common today.
posted by Deflagro at 10:53 PM on March 30, 2016
Sorry, I didn't mean for the carving to be past tense, I meant the language being spoken as past tense! Because I thought (admittedly not too familiar though) that the languages were not as common today.
posted by Deflagro at 10:53 PM on March 30, 2016
Justin Bieber's Dreadlocks Show How White People (Still) Steal Everything
posted by jeffburdges at 2:14 PM on April 5, 2016
posted by jeffburdges at 2:14 PM on April 5, 2016
« Older BroDog | Why it's getting harder to prosecute white collar... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
This was a very thoughtful piece. Thanks.
posted by rtha at 7:54 AM on March 24, 2016 [2 favorites]