2.

2. It Lets People Show Love for the Culture, But Remain Prejudiced Against Its People, E.G white people owning restaurants that serve non white food"

I'm sure you'll agree with me that this one is too foolish. If a white person opens a Mexican style restaurant, it's stealing? When a Mexican person opens a Mexican style restaurant, are they obligated to share profits with all other Mexicans? — VagabondSpectre

Sure it sounds foolish when you represent it like that. But she didn't say it was "stealing" for a start and qualified that the problem was mostly in the wider economic context.

E.g.

"In the San Francisco Bay Area, I witness people taking what they like without wanting to associate with where it came from all the time. Here, recent transplants to the area write Yelp reviews in search of “authentic Mexican food” without the “sketchy neighborhoods” – which usually happen to be what they call neighborhoods with higher numbers of people of color. The Yelpers are getting what they want, at least in terms of the neighborhood, as gentrification rapidly pushes people of color out of their homes, and white-owned, foodie-friendly versions of their favorite “ethnic” restaurants open up.
...
So is every non-Mexican who enjoys a good burrito guilty of cultural appropriation? Say it ain’t so! That would include me and nearly everyone I know."

I don't think this is one the stronger points here but it's not looney tunes either.

"3. It Makes Things ‘Cool’ for White People – But ‘Too Ethnic’ for People of Color. E.G white people 'get away with' cultural hair-styles that people of color are discriminated against because of"

This is one is too foolish to even address. — VagabondSpectre

Here's the crux of the text:

"For example, standards of professionalism hold back all kinds of people who aren’t white men. As a Black woman, there are many jobs that would bar me if I wore cornrows, dreadlocks, or an afro – some of the most natural ways to keep up my hair.
...
Compare that to fashion magazines’ reception of white teenager Kylie Jenner’s “epic” cornrows or “edgy” dreadlocks.

When Black women have to fight for acceptance with the same styles a young white woman can be admired for, what message does that send to Black women and girls?"

The target of criticism seems to be unequal treatment by institutions not the white teenagers who copy the hairstyles. I don't know the extent that that's a fair reflection of what actually happens in the U.S. but it doesn't strike me as completely implausible either. So, why is it too foolish to even think about?

Another example of white imperialists disrespecting Native American customs and trying to impose their standards on Native Americans can be found here.

That kind of rhetorical tactic will only discredit you. No-one here is pro-child abuse.

With studies showing that negative stereotypes and harmful “Indian” sports mascots are known to play a role in exacerbating racial inequity — Baden

What's an example of some of those studies? Let's look at their methodology.

Several are linked to at the end of the paper. I await your analysis with bated breath.

But let's ignore all that because it's all just based on a rubbish concept? And this is how you start your critique. Try harder. — Baden

Mostly a rubbish concept... As I ceded originally, the Redskins mascot is somewhat insensitive (it's "dickish"), but it's just not problem of comparable magnitude to what many Native Americans face. Suicide rates in Native American youth (among other social issues) is not primarily caused or significantly exacerbated by merely insensitive mascots. I can understand the idea that demanding respect from the MLB franchise is symbolic of being respected as a culture, but it will achieve exactly nothing. The NCAI has the spare time to take up the issue, and good for them, I wish them success, but it would be more meaningful to actually address the social problems directly.

Sure it sounds foolish when you represent it like that. But she didn't say it was "stealing" for a start and qualified the wider economic context.

E.g.

"In the San Francisco Bay Area, I witness people taking what they like without wanting to associate with where it came from all the time. Here, recent transplants to the area write Yelp reviews in search of “authentic Mexican food” without the “sketchy neighborhoods” – which usually happen to be what they call neighborhoods with higher numbers of people of color. The Yelpers are getting what they want, at least in terms of the neighborhood, as gentrification rapidly pushes people of color out of their homes, and white-owned, foodie-friendly versions of their favorite “ethnic” restaurants open up.
...
So is every non-Mexican who enjoys a good burrito guilty of cultural appropriation? Say it ain’t so! That would include me and nearly everyone I know."

I don't think this is one the stronger points here but it's not looney tunes either. — Baden

I don't understand how the yelpers or the foodies or the white restaurateurs are gentrifying neighborhoods (it doesn't make sense). That said, gentrification happens, and sometimes people of color are priced out of their own current homes, but it's just as just or unjust as when it happens to whites; it's capitalism.

Here's the crux of the text:

"For example, standards of professionalism hold back all kinds of people who aren’t white men. As a Black woman, there are many jobs that would bar me if I wore cornrows, dreadlocks, or an afro – some of the most natural ways to keep up my hair.
...
Compare that to fashion magazines’ reception of white teenager Kylie Jenner’s “epic” cornrows or “edgy” dreadlocks.

When Black women have to fight for acceptance with the same styles a young white woman can be admired for, what message does that send to Black women and girls?"

The target of criticism seems to be unequal treatment by institutions not the white teenagers who copy the hairstyles. I don't know the extent that that's a fair reflection of what actually happens in the U.S. but it doesn't strike me as completely implausible either. So, why is it too foolish to even think about? — Baden

It's foolish to taker seriously the idea that one's race determines what kinds of hairstyles, cuisines, careers, or practices we should or should not pursue. The article doesn't seem to be demanding that institutions cease discriminating against individuals from different cultures (that demand is an unwritten given), it's actually trying to explain why whites doing X is harmful. "When Black women have to fight for acceptance with the same styles a young white woman can be admired for, what message does that send to Black women and girls?" (the implication being: white people, stop wearing black hairstyles because it's not fair)

Asking for fair treatment is one thing, but asking for unequal treatment for others (whether to spare feelings, or to prevent gentrification) is another thing entirely.

I looked at a couple, but they didn't seem to be making claims about "negative stereotypes and harmful 'Indian' sports mascots playing a role in exacerbating racial inequity." Could you point me to one of the studies that claims this?

Have you looked at the regulations for men in the US army.

With respect to what specifically?

That they forbid certain hairstyles such as dreads or cornrows? (I'm guessing wildly at what you're referencing...).

My social-equity-gripe against the army is mainly for its homophobic policies. Their recruiters are "abelist" and "ageist", but unfortunately they have to be. I'm not opposed to female infantry (or women occupying other physically demanding positions) so long as they're physically capable of doing the job (on average men tend to be physically stronger and more physically durable than women, which is why men are more often suited for soldiering than women (maybe there's some psychological trends to be acknowledged as well, such as the male penchant for violence, but I'd rather not go there)).

No, I wouldn't think so. But there may be people who are naive about the reality of life among aboriginals, where the sensibilities of advanced societies with respect to children are not so common. The same problem is found in Australia, by the way.

Males tend to be viewed as more expendable as well. There are many reasons not to join an army, but expendability is certainly one of them. "It's a soldier's job to stop the bullet, they say. So you stop the bullet, then they stop your pay."

Mostly a rubbish concept... — VagabondSpectre

I don't see that you've established anything other than what I conceded at the beginning of the discussion that the idea is often misapplied or applied overstrenuously. But the effect of using your language is dismissive with or without the 'mostly' and echoes the right-wing media's attempts to deride everything that's a concern of minorities by downplaying or mocking it. So, if, as per the first example, American Indian organizations who represent a people who have historically been treated abominably and are now amongst the most deprived in the country say their social problems are partly to do with negative stereotypes being inflicted on them and particularly their youth and that a major remaining stereotype is associated with a huge money-spinning football franchise, I'd be willing to take them seriously on the basis that they're the ones who are the authority on themselves and their problems. Anyway, I think we've reached the end here. It's a conversation I expected from the very beginning would be filled with mockery and contempt and I wanted to give the other side a fair shake. Which I've done I think.

The problem with this attitude is you go from criticizing the excessive victim playing of the Sami to creating victims out of those who insulted their culture — Baden

Seems you didn't get what I was actually saying at all, just gave what indeed are the typical remarks made of "the excesses". And I responded to Terrapin Station. Hopefully you'll read my reply thoroughly.

My basic point is that the whole discourse of 'cultural appropriation' has a rigid framework and specific narrative which isn't at all changed no matter where it is applied. It isn't changed at all, because I the primary reason is that people relate things to other examples. Hence you can have in Finland a blonde blue-eyed young Sami activist talking about colonization and the oppression by the 'white' majority. This is a framework that works. The reason is of course that people are against colonialism, against a white majority repressing a minority, so you when talk about 'colonialism' and you make it to a racial issue. It's like appropriation of cultural appropriation, use of a specific narrative.

The basic problem of this is that you can find here clear aspects of what I would call 'the lithurgy'. A situation similar in Church where the priest in Sermon says something and the thing to do is to listen and nod in agreement. And because it's lithurgy, you actually don't debate it. You just nod in agreement, because that is what is meant to do...and don't pay any attention to it.

And this is actually counterproductive if you genuinely try to engage the public debate. This is my main point. If your objective is to get an academic position in studying indigenous people and minorities or to get yourself heard by the government, then this 'copy paste'-approach is totally logical. But there's a backlash if you talk about colonization and the repression of an indigenous people by a white majority. The simple fact is that when your 'colonizers' have come to the land before the birth of Christ, hence been thousands of years here too, the narrative of colonization makes no sense. Or the reference to race, because you absolutely cannot make any difference between a Finn and a Sami. The average 'man on the street' will find it strange and then if this then becomes 'the lithurgy', official truism that opposing makes you a bigot, then it makes just things worse.

Just to take a reality check on these issues, let's just take as example of what Amnesty International says what is wrong in Finland and Myanmar:

Finland:

Changes to the asylum procedure continued to affect asylum-seekers negatively. Support services for women who experienced domestic violence remained inadequate. Legislation on legal gender recognition continued to violate the rights of transgender people. Draft legislative changes limiting the right to privacy were proposed.

Myanmar:

The human rights situation deteriorated dramatically. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya fled crimes against humanity in Rakhine State to neighbouring Bangladesh; those who remained continued to live under a system amounting to apartheid. The army committed extensive violations of international humanitarian law. Authorities continued to restrict humanitarian access across the country. Restrictions on freedom of expression remained. There was increased religious intolerance and anti-Muslim sentiment. Impunity persisted for past and ongoing human rights violations.

In one case the treatment of a minority is an issue, in another case it isn't.

I agree with most of that. We're pushing back at excesses and thoughtlessness from different directions. And the rhetoric is important on both sides I think.

Surely all decent people can agree that it's wrong to needlessly cause pain to others. So if some group is genuinely made unhappy by thoughtless references to them, don't do it. If Native Americans now do not appreciate being called "redskins", then don't do it.

But ... it doesn't help anyone to nurture the idea that they are victims. If there is a current injustice inflicted on a group -- and there have been plenty of such injustices in every nation on earth -- then correct it, and move on.

The real problems of, say, Native Americans and similar groups are located in the fact that many of them have not yet found a way to join the modern world, while retaining such of their customs as are comfortable to them and not in conflict with modern values. Sometimes well-meaning arrangements for them actually help cement them into a backward way of life.

The Jews provide us all with an example of how to succeed in the modern world, while retaining aspects of traditional culture, and, in a different way, so do the Choctaws. (Declaration of interest: I'm a descendant of Mosholatubee, the chief of the Choctaws who had to sign the grossly unjust Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Hill, by which they were forced to give up their fertile land in the Southern states and were put on the 'Trail of Tears'. Those who survived ended up in Oklahoma, thought by the whites to be not worth stealing, especially because of the nasty stinky black tarry stuff that oozed up from the ground in various places around the state. You can honor their memory by spitting into the ugly harsh face of Andrew Jackson whenever you handle a twenty-dollar bill.)

To the extent that the dominant culture puts obstacles in their path, let's remove those obstacles. More than that, let's take positive steps to make joining modernity possible. I don't know enough about conditions on Native American reservations to be concrete, but I would look first at educational opportunities there, and whether the legal arrangements in tribal areas make it easy to open a business.

I believe a good example of the right approach can be found in Australia, in the work of Noel Pearson on behalf of his fellow aboriginals.

In short, gesture politics is cheap. Real redress for peoples who were overrun by more advanced cultures might actually cost something.

I remember being annoyed, a long time ago, about Run DMC t-shirts being something of a fad among hipsters who, as far as I could tell, had never listened to a Run DMC track in their life, and were wearing the t-shirts 'cause they simply were the in thing. I'd probably not care so much today, but I think any fan of Run could probably relate. Cultural appropriation is like that, only, the guy wearing the t-shirt probably also had relatives who said that Run would never make it big, and then he wore the t-shirt anyway.

Man-on-the-moon cultures generally develop a higher ethical standard, as well as developing better engineering techniques. — Doug1943

Well, the Soviet Union did lead the space-race and was close even to getting a man to the moon first, if it wasn't for an enthusiastic German called Werner von Braun. So higher ethical standards of the Soviet Union? :roll:

The real problems of, say, Native Americans and similar groups are located in the fact that many of them have not yet found a way to join the modern world, while retaining such of their customs as are comfortable to them and not in conflict with modern values. — Doug1943

'Found a way to join the modern world' sounds condescending. The cause is simply the low numbers of these groups and the lack of a sovereign nation state. Once when you do have a sovereign state, then other people will treat you as a citizen of that state, even if you have no love for it. It truly changes how you are treated.

It's not about 'finding a way' but simply resisting cultural assimilation. The way that entire people fade away is simple: you don't care a shit about the language your family or your ancestors and simply choose to be part of another group. And typically you are allowed to do that. Languages and hence entire people have assimilated to larger groups.

Sometimes well-meaning arrangements for them actually help cement them into a backward way of life. — Doug1943

I think that social welfare programs can be used as a veiled counter-insurgency strategy. Or just make booze and drugs cheap and available.

We're pushing back at excesses and thoughtlessness from different directions. And the rhetoric is important on both sides I think. — Baden

I think so. I think dialogue is mutually beneficial, because it's not a game of winning or losing. Excesses and thoughtlessness basically limit the dialogue. Or the will to have a dialogue. We have those wonderful echo-chambers to go to in this new age of tribalism.

Well, the Soviet Union did lead the space-race and was close even to getting a man to the moon first, if it wasn't for an enthusiastic German called Werner von Braun. So higher ethical standards of the Soviet Union?

With respect to the Soviet Union: it actually did have pretty advanced ethical standards -- in some ways superior to those of free (capitalist) countries. But the official standards were in contradiction to actual practice. The Soviets paid lip-service to things like international brotherhood, racial equality, even sexual equality, while in practice being Russian nationalists and male chauvinists. (When I lived there, I heard some hair-raising expressions of opinions about Africans, for example.)
The standard of personal behavior taught to Soviet children was admirable. It was just that the whole edifice was sustained by hypocrisy: everyone knew that the near-unanimous support for the ruling party was maintained by force, and the claim that socialism could outdo capitalism in provision of material wealth -- the only 'rational' justification for its restrictions on freedom -- was eventualy also undermined. And when this happened, it didn't take long for the system to collapse.

I actually lived in the Soviet Union for a few months -- my then-wife was a Fulbright Exchange scholar and I accompanied her. Most people I tell the following to assume I am mad but ... the KGB fellow who was the 'minder' for all foreigners in the city we were in was actually, personally, a very decent fellow.

I think a better counter-example to my assertion is Nazi Germany. Even Nazi Germany in many respects had modern ethical standards, it just reserved them for able-bodied patriotic Germans. Even there, there were contradictions which revealed the tension between Nazi-ism and the modern concept of fair play for all: Iron Crosses awarded to known Jews, the US savagely lampooned for lynching Blacks.

But as I think I said, the Nazis were the extreme example of the uneven development of the cultural superstructure, really a historical aberration. But any theory which has too many ad hoc exceptions to its rule is not a good one, so if we see more repetitions of the Nazi case -- technologically-advanced societies which consistently and openly practice barbarism -- then my theory will have been disproved. )

'Found a way to join the modern world' sounds condescending. The cause is simply the low numbers of these groups and the lack of a sovereign nation state. Once when you do have a sovereign state, then other people will treat you as a citizen of that state, even if you have no love for it. It truly changes how you are treated.

I'm sorry if it sounds condesending. I believe people are a product of their material circumstances, including their past circumstance, ie. their history, not the result of some inner unchangeable essence, and certainly not blame-worthy for being born into such circumstances.

In the case of Native Americans, we can see that some were well on the way to high civilization -- the Incas, the Aztecs, (and the Mayas before some environmental catastrophe cut their progress short ) -- and then the Europeans arrived, and disease and gunpowder reduced them to the state they're in today.

I happen to agree that state sovereignty would be a useful experiment to try. It hasn't worked out very well in Africa, but it might among Native Americans. In any case, the right of peoples to self-determination is generally a good principle, and ought to apply to Native Americans, should they choose it. Of course, this would mean a multiplicity of states -- you're not going to get the Hopi and the Navajo into a single state, or not for long. Maybe this will come about in the future, in which, I believe, there is a very good chance that we shall see the break up of the American state.

I don't know if just being a citizen of a state earns you respect. You have to be the citizen of a state seen to be successful in one or more respects. When I was little -- a long time ago -- the Chinese were an object of derision. A few years after the Chinese Revolution, they became an object of fear. Twisting Machiavelli, I think we can affirm that it is better to be feared than derided.

And it's hard to become a successful state without having a high degree of education among your population. This is the delicious contradiction that will eventually undermine the mullahs and the Chinese Communists. Educated people want, for example, to be able to argue about free will and determinism, or the existence of God, or the errors or otherwise of dialectical materialism on forums like this.

I agree with you about welfare being a way to stupefy potentially-troublesome groups, although i doubt this was done consciously. Good intentions, road to hell, etc.

I don't see that you've established anything other than what I conceded at the beginning of the discussion that the idea is often misapplied or applied overstrenuously. But the effect of using your language is dismissive with or without the 'mostly' and echoes the right-wing media's attempts to deride everything that's a concern of minorities by downplaying or mocking it. So, if, as per the first example, American Indian organizations who represent a people who have historically been treated abominably and are now amongst the most deprived in the country say their social problems are partly to do with negative stereotypes being inflicted on them and particularly their youth and that a major remaining stereotype is associated with a huge money-spinning football franchise, I'd be willing to take them seriously on the basis that they're the ones who are the authority on themselves and their problems. Anyway, I think we've reached the end here. It's a conversation I expected from the very beginning would be filled with mockery and contempt and I wanted to give the other side a fair shake. Which I've done I think. — Baden

I like to think my position on the subject amounts to more than just mockery from conservative echo-chambers. If to log an opposing sentiment against the concept of cultural appropriation, or a specific instance thereof, is to deny the concerns of minorities, how can I say a solitary word against any of it?

Regarding the example of the "Redskins" mascot, it might seem insensitive, dickish, or insulting (and what is a slight but the semblance of one?), though from my perspective it's actually compassionate: progressive movements often shoot themselves in the foot by making unpersuasive and irrelevant appeals rather than having a tangible set of meaningful and positive goals to organize around at the outset. In the case under discussion, Native American groups need to worry primarily about pollution (e.g: fracking tainting lakes and rivers), crises in access to healthcare (including mental-health care), and full blown sovereignty dilemmas (at least in Canada where it is a re-opened question). Let's say hypothetically that the Redskins rebrand to something neutral. Then what? What will have been achieved? The insult of the insensitive mascot will have been eliminated, but the serious social injuries that need to be addressed will remain unchanged. I can see some sort of pragmatic argument that alleges having the mascot changed will be a positive symbolic gesture, but I very much doubt it if we can only make them change by sheer negative social pressure. Many Americans (and even some Native ones ) will look at the Redskins controversy and for whatever reason be unpersuaded that it is meaningful (especially when compared to the physically injurious aforementioned problems). Since getting the name changed will generate little or no physical change in the situations facing Native Americans, and it happens to generate opposition, why bother putting it anywhere near the top of the agenda?

Here is a thread I wrote about the situation facing First Nations peoples in Canada: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3812/first-nation-soverignty-and-the-canadian-government (I would be most appreciative if anyone interested in the thread could respond to it. It's a very informative post, and also (or so I thought) very thought provoking, but I only managed to attract a single respondent).

Imagine that we're trying to persuade an average American that we should address (with serious effort) the social injuries faced by Native Americans. Compare the approach I took in my own thread to the approach inherent in the cultural appropriation appeal. One inexorably demands negative action (that X stops doing Y) to address feelings, while the other inexorably demands positive actions to address substantial inequities across physical and political spectra. Frankly I see the Redskins issue as an unproductive waste of time which only serves to obfuscate those more important issues and to engender opposition from anyone unsympathetic to the aesthetic issue. If and when the Redskins do rebrand, I want it to be the autonomous consequence of genuinely changed beliefs (the positive desire to be more sensitive rather than a response to negative social pressure). I can see my approach being persuasive to almost everyone, and while I do not make specific policy recommendations (I reference the logistic difficulties facing policy-makers), I would be seriously surprised if anyone could come away from my thread with the impression that we ought to change nothing.

Reflecting more broadly on the topic of cultural appropriation, it can only coherently apply as an argument against cultural insensitivity, where the sentiments of the parent culture define what amounts to use/misuse of a cultural artifact. To the extent that use or misuse of a given emotionally significant cultural artifact is offensive, I think it should not be used or misused. Applying this to the Redskin mascot, it's not exactly use of an important artifact so much as it is a percievably racist portrayal of an entire ethnic category. I can see why the stereotype amounts to racism, but it's not exactly the kind of hate-based racism/prejudice/discrimination that has lead to negative social outcomes for many First Nations groups. Some Americans have made the argument that the Redskin mascot is actually a celebration of Native Americans (however foolish or misguided the thought might be in reality) which makes it an even less persuasive appeal overall. And because the entire idea of opposing harmful cultural appropriation is based on the premise that it leads to negative social outcomes, I feel obligated to voice my opinion that in terms of what's causally important, we have much bigger fish to fry.

A lot of what you've written above seems to amount to nothing more than the following falsity: X is more important than Y; therefore Y is not important. So, I'll grant there are almost certainly more pressing problems for American Indians but seeing as I have no special insight into how they view things, I'll take the community's word that this issue is at least worthy of attention.

In other words, I'd argue that if American Indian groups say the Redskins name and mascot are offensive and damaging to them and they want it changed, and there is significant justification for considering it offensive and damaging and no pressing ethical reason to retain it, it should be changed. Why not? That you happen to think it won't do much good for them is not remotely as convincing as the fact that they, or their representatives (presuming they are fairly representative of their community's wishes), think it will and have written a detailed report to explain why.

Other cases of (alleged) cultural appropriation, I'd similarly take on their own merits. I'm not wedded to the term, but I'm not allergic to it either. It seems to do some semantic work other terms don't.

But I don't really want to go on about it any more as I feel like I'm in danger of setting myself up as a spokesperson for other cultures I don't even know that much about, so if I don't reply from here on in, tough shit, my apologies. :zip:

With respect to the Soviet Union: it actually did have pretty advanced ethical standards -- in some ways superior to those of free (capitalist) countries. - Even Nazi Germany in many respects had modern ethical standards — Doug1943

Hmm, I wonder what systems you find lacking ethical standards. :wink:

the KGB fellow who was the 'minder' for all foreigners in the city we were in was actually, personally, a very decent fellow. — Doug1943

Isn't that part of his job?

The most famous KGB chief in Finland, general Victor Vladimirov, was not only a very intelligent, cultured and decent fellow, but also a gentleman and very liked person here (and angered many Soviet embassadors with his personal relations with top Finnish politicians).

Here he is (in the white shirt) with President Kekkonen:

...and earlier in his career he was the chief responsible for KGB's assassinations. So yes, they can be decent guys.

I had the opportunity to visit the Soviet Union just before it collapsed. I spent a little bit over a week in Moscow with Muscovite family. Russians are very nice people. Yet the harsh totalitarian system beneath everything was real too. There was this fear (still then) beneath everything which we in the West don't have. In the West we just have to depict people in a totalitarian systems, especially those in leading roles or simply part of the system as vile, insane and utterly evil people. We simply cannot admit to ourselves that the people enforcing the totalitarian system might be totally OK guys.

I don't know if just being a citizen of a state earns you respect. — Doug1943

Being a citizen of let's say Afghanistan or Somalia doesn't get much respect. But you are treated as an Afghan and that is a thing. Being an Afghan might not be the thing one actually relates to. The real thing that matters to one might be being a Pashtun, a Tajik, a Hazara or a Nuristani. After all, we did talk about Yugoslavians before, even if we knew that the country was made of many people. And we still talk about the British, even if we know that there are Scots and Welsh on the Island besides the English.

And it's hard to become a successful state without having a high degree of education among your population. — Doug1943

Not just that. You really have to have a collective will for independence. Just think about the Scots. They have wealth, history, an own culture, yet they are fine with being British. The English asked them kindly to stay and they stayed. Perfect example how you indeed can create an identity above an original historic identity.

Yep, the English are good if not the best in countering independence-movements, insurgencies and separatist movements.

I think what I'm saying rather amounts to: X is far more important than Y, and focus on Y obfuscates X, so lets focus less on Y and more on X. I'm not saying the redskins shouldn't remove their insensitive optics, I'm saying it won't amount to significant change in the social issues facing many First Nations communities.

The positions of special interest organizations not withstanding (which may or may not accurately represent the mosaic of different First Nations cultures and the diverse individuals that comprise them), my argument is about what is a practical or pragmatic means of addressing root issues (the same underlying issues being pointed to as a presumed consequence of, in part, cultural appropriation). The only people that the Redskins franchise is going to pander to are their actual fan-base, and the understanding that "redskins" and their mascot is a harmful and racist stereotype just isn't appealing to them; outside protests wont work. Our only other option to feasibly make them change the name would be legislation, which could almost never happen (what we consider "offensive" is too subjective and fluid to be enshrined in law). Simply put, it is a poorly chosen issue because it goes nowhere while burning fuel.

P.S When it comes to setting yourself up as a spokesperson for a culture, unless you've been elected by it (somehow...), I don't think there's much of a risk (almost any individual claiming to speak for an entire culture seems dubious to me). And yet, your ideas about what is socially harmful, why, and how we can address them can still be useful even if you don't belong to the culture(s) whose problems you're addressing. I'm of Acadian and Native American descent (ostensibly "Métis"), but that doesn't reflect on the truth of my statements (even though my experiences might give me insight (e.g: first generation student, inter-generational poverty/alcoholism, lost culture, etc...), my own experiences are anecdotal). I have never lived on a reservation, but I am still capable of comprehending the problems they tend to face and thinking about ways to address them, and you are too.

P.P.S: I realize we want to have different discussions, and I don't judge your lack of interest. My responses are intended as a defense of what I believe to be an ethical, empirical, and pragmatic argument.

Well, I'm just going to digest everything that's been said here anyhow. I'm not really satisfied with much of it including my own stuff. It's difficult not to get caught in a pincer between trying to be ethically aware and acting as a placeholder for a somewhat misguided standard liberal view. Ho hum...

I wonder what systems you find lacking ethical standards — ssu

All organized human groups have standards of behavior. Primitive tribes who are perfectly happy torturing captives to death have rigid codes of behavior within the tribe. As I see it, modernity involves the slow expansion of who the average person considers 'we'. In some respects it has even begun to extend outside our species.

I'm arguing that what Soviet schoolchildren were taught about how to behave was by and large what the children of all advanced societies are taught. Surely this isn't controversial?

Isn't that part of his job? — ssu

Of course he was no doubt tasked to be pleasant to foreigners so that they would get a good impression of the Soviet Union ... and more than that. (We were casually asked by him, at the end of our stay there, if we would write reports on what was happening in the West. We advised him to tell his bosses to get a subscription to The Economist.)

All I can say is that I met a range of personality types among the Soviet officials we dealt with, some of them rather unpleasant -- sterotypical Russian bureaucrats, and people who were obviously dissemblers and deceivers. Our guy seemed like a very decent man, but of course my judgement could be completely lacking.

I believe it was the conventional wisdom in the West that the KGB, being actually aware of conditions in the West via the presence of their own agents there, was more 'liberal' -- or perhaps just more realistic about life in the West-- than the Soviet bureaucrats who read only their own propaganda. I believe something similar was said of the CIA as well. Both of these agencies also did pretty nasty things.

Could it be that a highly-cultured, 'liberal' person -- one able to at least pretend to see the other person's point of view, to make jokes about the shortcomings of his own system and its leaders -- in short, to advance the sort of persona that would make a 'target' likely to trust him ... could such a person also cold-bloodedly order or commit an assassination? I'm sure of it. People more well-read than me can probably suggest famous characters from history, or at least from literature, who meet this description. Wasn't Mussolini's son-in-law supposed to be a congenial fellow?

As for the Scots -- I reckon they'll be gone within a decade. [As for the English, my favorite saying about them is supposedly an Arab one: "Why is better to have the English as your enemy, than as your friend? Because if you are their enemy, they will try to buy you. But if you are their friend, they will try to sell you."]

And look for resurgent nationalism all over the place -- India, Canada, Spain of course ... and in the Russian Federation. Loyalty to the tribe will, in some of these places, erode that general ethical advance we've seen over the last century -- Yugoslavia is the terrible example. But the country to really worry about the revival of tribal-nationalism in, is the US, if the current mad craze for 'identity politics' spreads into the white population.

I think in the long run this resurgence of tribalism will prove to be a passing phase, and will burn out after a few decades, and the logic of globalized economics will reassert itself.

In any case, pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.

First, if it's coming from college students who hold very little power or influence, particularly regarding political and social matters, then who cares? Second, in some of these stories, such as the incident at Oberlin and sushi, and Vietnamese banh mi sandwich, the truth is far more banal than the various publications, ranging from The Atlantic, The New York Times, and right-wing publications such as National Review and Breitbart led on. No one was demanding that these food be "banned" from campus. A Vietnamese student was disappointed that a cafeteria dish advertised as a traditional Banh Mi Vietnamese sandwich was made with the wrong type of bread, the wrong type of pork, and the wrong type of other fillings and that it was disrespectful to advertise it as such despite complete lack of authenticity. According to the original article from the Oberlin Review, several students who initially raised complaints wanted to meet and collaborate with the Oberlin dining service and cultural student organizations in order to rework the dishes. The way I think of it for myself, is if my school had 'New York Pastrami Sandwiches' but it was served on potato bread instead of traditional rye bread, I would seek to have it corrected. If someone unfamiliar with your cultural foods were given a very inauthentic version of it, you'd seek to have it corrected, surely. This happens across cultures. — Maw

Here is a new article on this exact story, how it was manufactured and framed as an apotheosis of whiny woke college students, despite being largly overblown at best, and shaped by lies at worst.