@condra, I smiled more than winced at your reply. Still less because I agree with you and more because your writing is highly fucking creative. "Sent from a Czech pub, wearing a sombrero, listening to Nigerian jazz." and "What do you expect? People are gonna send you some ancient Christian cis white male tears in the post as a form of reparations." being the gems.
Taking it from the top, Initially, -I- wasn't making an argument. I didn't assume anything about anything being "self evidently correct". The whole point of me saying, "I'm just going to leave this here" was to present someone else's perspective for consideration. Someone whom, as a First Nation person, has done a lot of thinking on the matter. I find it informative to consider other people's perspectives, don't you?
Your response to label that resource as "SJW nonsense", was the first shot fired. The first name calling, designed to polarize and discredit. And then you doubled down with the fallacious argument that "Since I'm not bothered, no one else should be." So I called you out.
And now with your SJW lingo, You've tripled down on a real turducken of a 'Straw Man Argument'.
You know, your acronyms don't actually help people understand anything. SJW (which I didn't know was a thing until I looked it up yesterday) Is just another code that tells someone to turn their brain off and stop thinking. It's convenient to apply broad labels if all you want to do is engage in demagoguery, but if you're looking to present an actual point of view, you'll need to skip the shorthand. "SJW virtue signalling" "That's not how things work anymore."?
Apparently I missed a lot of memos on the way to this conversation. I didn't know a whole language had been developed to protect sensitive tough guys from hearing other perspectives.
I guess I could make my own shorthand and run around applying it to anyone I want to silence and discredit. Let's call you the STG, and whenever I say, "oh that's just an STG" (Sensitive Tough Guy) everyone who already agrees with me will just collapse into polarity. You're either with the SJW's or the STG's... what's it going to be?
What were we talking about? Oh yeah. I was merely suggesting that one might consider not dressing up in First Peoples ceremonial outfits... you know, because history. Just consider it. And don't go black-face this Halloween either.
But apparently, considering other viewpoints will make you into a bad internet name.
So on the one hand you're telling me that I'm not considering other peoples viewpoints, but on the other hand, you posted a link to an article that effectively supports CENSORSHIP.
I'm happy to consider other viewpoints. It's usually the leftists who want to close down conversation.
It just happens that I think your concept of "cultural genocide" is fucking nonsense, and your initial post, just plopping out a link and expecting everyone to accept it, is unfortunately lazy and typical. I had an omelette for lunch today. EGG GENOCIDE.
Culture is an evolving, and multi-faceted thing. While it may be tasteless to impersonate another culture, something so frivolous should never be banned. I'm fundamentally against any attempt to legislate against hurting peoples feelings. Black, gay, white, trans ... don't care.
Leftists call it "cultural genocide" if a white person borrows from another culture in any way, but immigration to Europe or USA is of course, "cultural enrichment". I will never apologise for enjoying my own or other cultures, or ridiculing my own, or other cultures.
Up in Northern Ireland in recent years, Catholics are attending traditional protestant bonfires, and Protestants are getting involved in St Patricks celebrations. This "cultural appropriation" from both sides is extremely progressive because it focuses on RECONCILIATION, not SEGREGATION.
You see, the key to successful multiculturalism and a peaceful and fair society is not to take your own identity too seriously. Quite the opposite of what the professionally offended are calling for.
Because someone has a different viewpoint than you and would prefer you not use their cultural identity as a costume, and goes to great lengths to express why, in the most conciliatory manner possible, does not mean they support CENSORSHIP, in the modern sense of the word. By your reading, it would seem that any opinion or expression of one's preference anywhere amounts to supporting censorship, which is obviously absurd.
Politically I identify most closely as an anarchist, does that make me a leftist? Could you please define leftist, as you understand the word?
I didn't expect everyone to accept the contents of that link, I didn't expect anything at all, 'just planting seeds', as Bill Hicks would say.
Yes, "Culture is an evolving, and multi-faceted thing", but sometimes people have their cultural ways threatened, or destroyed by force of violence, or a change to their means of survival by forces greater than their capacity to adapt. The latter is cultural genocide, or extinction I suppose, if you want a less politically charged word.
National Geographic reports that:
It's great to hear about the Protestants and Catholics getting together, and putting aside their differences. This sounds to be, however, voluntary and mutual, in contrast to a defeated people, on the brink of survival having their traditions stolen, and misappropriated, in their eyes.
I suspect now that there is a degree of parity in political power and voice, between the Protestants and Catholics, that there can be this reconciliation between them.
But if I am under your boot, we will not reconcile. That is the problem with the question of First Peoples in the Americas. They don't have political power, or voice, having been shoved onto reservations in the least desirable land in the country, over the last several generations. So there is currently no basis for reconciliation, and understandably, there might be a good deal of resentment.
It's always easy to say everything is ok, when you're in a position of power.