Sensitivity Writers. AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing

[Derren]

The original purpose of this thread was an attempt to discuss this exact question as reasonable, rational adults. If you don't want to have that discussion, why are you here?

And my answer to that is "no one".

 

[Umbran]

To make it even shorter: you are a Stalinist.

Mod Note:

I don't know what the thought process behind this was, but let us be clear - this is not acceptable here.

Calithorne will not be returning to this thread. Anyone else stooping to this kind of rhetoric will find themselves spending a week on vacation reconsidering how they engage with people here.

Do not expect discussion or warning on that - inflammatory language will not be tolerated.

If you have questions about this, please take it to PM.

 

[Guest 85555]

The original purpose of this thread was an attempt to discuss this exact question as reasonable, rational adults. If you don't want to have that discussion, why are you here?

I think the reason people are getting frustrated with it is because it feels like sacrosanct is just insisting that his view of Cultural Appropriation is correct, and objectively reflects reality. But some people don't agree with his arguments. It is a little frustrating in these discussion when people act like a controversial idea is true, even when it is really more of an academic concept that is subject to debate. This is a concept that only filtered into the mainstream within the past two to three years or so. And it hasn't even been in academia all that long. It is fair for people to be skeptical about claims surrounding it, especially when the solution is a fairly radical change to how people normally engage in the creative arts.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note 2:
Ladies and gentlemen,

Some of you seem to be discussing this topic as if the fate of the world is at stake, and there would be no ground given in defense of that.

It is that very stance that led to someone getting booted from the thread - putting a stake in the ground that there is no compromise is pretty much a discussion-ending stance. You fundamentally cannot discuss if you have no intention of learning from, or taking to heart, anything from the opposing side. You can, at best, rant and pontificate.

This is an internet discussion board, not a voting body or group of combat units. There will never be a point at which you can be said to have won the conflict. The human psyche, however, doesn't do a good job of allowing for that - and so people escalate in an effort to win, and that leads to what we have seen.

Consider that before you write another word in this thread. If you are in it to prove the other guy is wrongity-wrong, with wrong sauce, that is apt to go a place that you will be fundamentally unhappy with.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Deset Gled]

I think the reason people are getting frustrated with it is because it feels like sacrosanct is just insisting that his view of Cultural Appropriation is correct, and objectively reflects reality. But some people don't agree with his arguments. It is a little frustrating in these discussion when people act like a controversial idea is true, even when it is really more of an academic concept that is subject to debate.

Someone starts a thread that says "How can I learn to be a better DM at 4e?" and someone responds with "You shouldn't DM 4e. It's got the smallest fan base and is objectively the worst edition. Here's why...". It doesn't matter how logical their reasons for disliking 4e are. They're still threadcrapping and edition waring, preventing the discussion from happening by those who actually want to answer it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Its established by a very specific circle of people who demand that it is true as otherwise no one would pay attention to them.

That very specific circle of people are subject matter experts who are professionals in this sort of topic, as opposed to some random person on the internet who doesn't want it to be true because it goes against their narrative. I.e., one "side" has a lot more credibility here. It's also interesting that you're describing the people who claim it to be true as people with bad motives and are just doing so for the attention. That's telling. I guess those Native Americans who have the gall to say how they are upset that a group of white people profiting over the misrepresentation of Native American culture(s) are just doing so for attention...

Too bad that just because you demand that something is true doesn't make it so. Notice how you didn't respond to any to the points in my last post? Or how your last post started with a combat term "white colonialism" in an effort to silence everyone who thinks differently as this term leaves no room for any debate or discussion? And here you are continuing to use racist combat terms with "white privilege".

I didn't respond point by point because your very first paragraph was fundamentally flawed as I explained, which subsequently implied all of your other points were also fundamentally flawed. But if you want a break down: I said cultural appropriation continues to reinforce white colonialism. That's a real thing too. When the British Empire took certain aspects of the Indian culture they liked (dress, art) that was cultural appropriation. And white colonialism when they forbade Indians from speaking their language or worshiping how they wanted. The white American government did the exact same thing to the Native Americans. That's not a combat term. That's the actual, official, term. What other term am I supposed to used besides the proper one? Cultural appropriation does exactly what I said it does in that context of White colonialism because it's still going on in the US, to this very day.

As far as my use of white privilege, that's not a racist term either. I've actually given corporate presentations on this topic; it's something I feel I'm pretty well researched on. It's not a racist term, but also an actual thing we can observe. It's not just the big things, but also the little things like:

• being assured that whenever you turn on the TV or open a paper, you're going to see people who look just like you
• no one ever telling you you're a credit to your race/gender just because you did something good
• not being the only person of your race in a college classroom
• being assured that no matter what town you go in, you're going to find a place of worship that fits your religious beliefs
• not having the police called because you're having a BBQ in a public place, or just hanging out at your own apartment
• not having people stare at you the entire time you're in a store

Etc, etc.

So...when you deny that white colonialism, or white privilege is a thing, or is only a "buzzword" meant to attack, do you deny those things I listed existed? If you agree they exist, then why are you arguing? Because then you agree that white colonialism, and white privilege are very real things. And they are the proper terms to use.

Color privilege certainly exist, but which one is privileged depends on the region. It is not a global concept. And what is racist is to use alleged global privilege of one color or the other as excuse to discriminate against people of the color which is what usual happens when someone cites white privelege.

Also, while there certainly is some overlap, the circle of people who claim that cultural appropation is a problem are not always the ones affected by it (at least in a way it is considered problematic).

See Sacrosanct himself. He describes himself as white and of european descent, but is very concerned about cultural appropation of native american cultures and somehow thinks he is qualified to speak for native americans and how their culture shall be handled.
That doesn't mean that european cultures are not subjected to cultural appropation as he defines it and some are also on their way to extinction. But as I said before that is usually not seen as a problem for people who otherwise claim to be very concerned about this. This just shows the hypocrisy and arbitrary drawn lines.

Not every black person is offended by every racist image or term. But that in no way means that the image or term isn't racist. People of minority cultures aren't some hive mind. If your line drawn before you accept something is "everyone impacted has to agree", then that's an awfully convenient way to justify your position of denying it's a thing. But to use your argument, it seems almost everyone denying that cultural appropriation is a thing are members of the majority who benefit from cultural appropriation. Awfully convenient, that.

I think the reason people are getting frustrated with it is because it feels like sacrosanct is just insisting that his view of Cultural Appropriation is correct, and objectively reflects reality.

I think this is your key mistake, if this is your assumption. I'm not arguing "my way", or "my view". I'm arguing the accepted view among professionals and experts, citing my argument with resources to back it up. So far, none of you arguing otherwise have provided solid citations that refute my own citations.

 

[Umbran]

But some people don't agree with his arguments. It is a little frustrating in these discussion when people act like a controversial idea is true, even when it is really more of an academic concept that is subject to debate.

Ah, but is not the assertion that it is "an academic concept that is subject to debate"... similarly claiming a truth?

(Hint - yes, it is)

You are acting like the idea that this is academic is true! And, you apparently don't see that it is equally frustrating to others when you do that, and not recognize that there are real, non-academic, people impacted by the issue.

In order for this to go anywhere, we likely need two things:

1) Those who are asking for authors to care about appropriation have to understand that they are asking for people to do significant work they haven't had to do in the past. It is also work that says, in effect, that in the past... they were doing something wrong, were acting unethically. That is a hard pill to swallow, and most folks push back on the implied accusation.

2) Those who are pushing back on the idea of appropriation have to understand that real (non-academic) people get harmed by insensitive use, and just letting that happen is hard to swallow.

Lacking these two points, there is little sense to continuing. I daresay that explicit statements recognizing these might go a long way in helping us recognize that this is difficult for both sides.

 

[Guest 85555]

Ah, but is not the assertion that it is "an academic concept that is subject to debate"... similarly claiming a truth?

(Hint - yes, it is)

You are acting like the idea that this is academic is true! And, you apparently don't see that it is equally frustrating to others when you do that, and not recognize that there are real, non-academic, people impacted by the issue.

In order for this to go anywhere, we likely need two things:

1) Those who are asking for authors to care about appropriation have to understand that they are asking for people to do significant work they haven't had to do in the past. It is also work that says, in effect, that in the past... they were doing something wrong, were acting unethically. That is a hard pill to swallow, and most folks push back on the implied accusation.

2) Those who are pushing back on the idea of appropriation have to understand that real (non-academic) people get harmed by insensitive use, and just letting that happen is hard to swallow.

Lacking these two points, there is little sense to continuing. I daresay that explicit statements recognizing these might go a long way in helping us recognize that this is difficult for both sides.

I don’t think this is going to happen. Essentially this is still demanding people accept the ideas behind cultural appropriation, while just acknowledging it isn’t easy. But the end result is still the same. The problems people see with the CA position still present. It is a problem of people not agreeing on key assumptions, but also finding the development of this trend morally bad.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don’t think this is going to happen. Essentially this is still demanding people accept the ideas behind cultural appropriation, while just acknowledging it isn’t easy. But the end result is still the same. The problems people see with the CA position still present. It is a problem of people not agreeing on key assumptions, but also finding the development of this trend morally bad.

Of course accepting cultural appropriation isn't easy, especially if you (general you) have been the beneficiary of it and/or have never been harmed by it. But I reject this continued notion from you (and a few others) that it's just a concept up for debate where people can't agree on assumptions. here is the definition:

"...cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or equal cultural exchange in that this appropriation is a form of colonialism: cultural elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture "

What assumptions are there that are up for disagreement? Can you think of any examples that have happened in the past or are happening today that fit that definition? If so, then congratulations! We all agree that it's a thing, and what that thing is.

If not, then what are you disagreeing with? That that's not the definition of what cultural appropriation is? (and if so, what IS the definition then, if not that?). Or are you disagreeing that the actions described in that definition have occurred?

Because remember, the argument over the past couple days isn't on where a specific line of what is or isn't cultural appropriation is, it's been on whether cultural appropriation is even a thing or not, with some arguing that it isn't.