Saturday, March 10, 2018
Saturday, September 23, 2017
Cultural Appropriation and Racial Identity
As I've mentioned before, racism is a real issue that still occurs today. In that context, I'd like to discuss the idea of cultural appropriation, and make an argument that what the term generally refers to is not always a form of racism, and how it is sometimes based on an ideological foundation that it is is actually racist itself. Here's how.
Consider the end goal of eliminating racism: All races treated equally. In the very, very rare instances where race actually makes a difference (such as medical risks), individualization of needs has that covered, and covered more accurately when race is treated as a heuristic rather than a basis.
In this scenario of a racism-free world we're working towards, does it make sense to say that a given person can't do what another person can because of their skin color? Imagine a world where people could only express themselves in ways developed by people of their own skin color. Of course it doesn't, that would be racist as hell.
And so I can't help but feel troubled when I see people promoting this mindset that skin color determines acceptable behavior while claiming it's being done to fight racism.
The idea of cultural appropriation being racist comes from a rather specific dynamic: When one person(s) has a marketable idea and another person(s) takes that idea and markets it in a way the creator would be unable to specifically because of their respective races. It is exploitation made possible by racial inequality, and yes, that is racist. This original problem is one of unequal opportunity, a longstanding issue rooted largely in educational and economic inequality. And the answer is to start there, to address that root inequality. But the concept has expanded far beyond that, into something that betrays its very ideals. It has become the idea of 'cultural ownership'.
Ideas are not collectively invented by all people sharing the same skin color, nor is ownership transferred through the sharing of skin color. Furthermore, culture is not intrinsic. Cultures differ among people with the same skin color and people of different skin colors may share a culture. Races do not own cultures, nor are cultures innately tied to races.
Example: One of the more common focuses of cultural appropriation is dreadlocks. I have seen well-worded arguments for how non-black people wearing dreadlocks is racist, noting their ties to either African culture, slavery, or Rastafarianism. All of these things are historically related to dreadlocks, yes. But to say they are intrinsically linked to dreadlocks and intrinsically linked to the "black race" is, frankly, racist. It is a statement that these things, such as blackness and slavery, can never be separate. So long as that is true, we cannot escape racism. That's not to say we should ever forget the past, far from it, but to say we cannot let its views weigh down the present or future. To truly move beyond those wrongs means defying the premise, not reinforcing it with just the polarities reversed.
The dreadlock argument, specifically, also only makes sense under the lens of the American past - ignoring the rest of the world, its cultures, and its history. Dreadlocks have been a part of nearly all cultures throughout history. We have of records of them dating back to what is present day Greece, over 3000 years old. You can get nit-picky about what constitutes "real" dreadlocks, but that's splitting hairs, and it misses the point. The real crux of this is not figuring out who historically 'owns' dreadlocks more, it's that strictly tying a specific race to something that is not inseparable from that race is wrong. And by continuing to equate African Americans with dreadlocks and slavery, you are reinforcing the notion that black people are forever, and exclusively tied to being slaves.
If something has strong cultural connotations we should be aware and respectful of it. We should try to understand what cultural symbols mean to someone else. They should also take that approach with you. If you differ, that's okay! We can still respect each other. This respect has nothing to to do with race, it's just the right thing to do.
That is different from defining what something means for and is permitted for any given individual. Culture is dynamic. It is also local, and subjective. Culture is not a defining factor. It is a broad descriptor of the people. It is not an authority, and attempts to treat it as one will result in -isms.
This ties into the other problem with the argument. People are not their race, nor are they their culture, nor are they their ancestors. These things make up parts of who we are, but to broadly define individuals by chosen sub-factors of their being is inherently problematic and will necessarily lead to unfair discrimination.
Think about it: To hold an entire race responsible for the actions of people who just happen to have the same skin color is, yes, racist. We don't hold the children of murderers responsible for their parent's crimes because we know they are distinct people. For some reason this logic is not always applied when race is involved.
But what about the lingering results of ancestral racism? Even if modern people aren't slave holders, families with slavery in their past did not have the same foundation to build upon, and those effects are still lingering in modern times. Yes, this is true! And it is why providing equal opportunity regardless of racial or cultural background is so important. Rectifying that issue is very different from treating the current generations as having personally caused it. There is no need to impede the modern generation's attempts to integrate, to allow people of different skin colors to be a part of different cultures, and it is rather counterproductive to do so. Not to mention that a great deal of the current generations' ancestors never had anything to do with slavery, no matter their skin color. It distresses me that culture is being used to divide people along racial lines when it could be an opportunity to bring them together.
Cultural appropriation, the real problem version, is a symptom. The disease is inequality and discrimination. Solving those solves the problem. Treating reaching outside one's race to another culture as if it is a root issue only legitimizes those things.
Cultural ownership is part of a move toward validating "racial identity" and identity politics in general. This is dangerous. Identity is only applicable at the individual level. Attempts to define the identity of entire groups will inherently end in the division of people along those lines. Identity politics were originally introduced and reintroduced as a way to help minorities, but as is beginning to show, it is a hammer which can be swing both ways, having now become a weapon for justifying white nationalism using the same logic. And that is why building your argument on long-term, non-circumstantial foundations is so important.
Here's an amusing video on that point,
Consider the end goal of eliminating racism: All races treated equally. In the very, very rare instances where race actually makes a difference (such as medical risks), individualization of needs has that covered, and covered more accurately when race is treated as a heuristic rather than a basis.
In this scenario of a racism-free world we're working towards, does it make sense to say that a given person can't do what another person can because of their skin color? Imagine a world where people could only express themselves in ways developed by people of their own skin color. Of course it doesn't, that would be racist as hell.
And so I can't help but feel troubled when I see people promoting this mindset that skin color determines acceptable behavior while claiming it's being done to fight racism.
The idea of cultural appropriation being racist comes from a rather specific dynamic: When one person(s) has a marketable idea and another person(s) takes that idea and markets it in a way the creator would be unable to specifically because of their respective races. It is exploitation made possible by racial inequality, and yes, that is racist. This original problem is one of unequal opportunity, a longstanding issue rooted largely in educational and economic inequality. And the answer is to start there, to address that root inequality. But the concept has expanded far beyond that, into something that betrays its very ideals. It has become the idea of 'cultural ownership'.
Ideas are not collectively invented by all people sharing the same skin color, nor is ownership transferred through the sharing of skin color. Furthermore, culture is not intrinsic. Cultures differ among people with the same skin color and people of different skin colors may share a culture. Races do not own cultures, nor are cultures innately tied to races.
Example: One of the more common focuses of cultural appropriation is dreadlocks. I have seen well-worded arguments for how non-black people wearing dreadlocks is racist, noting their ties to either African culture, slavery, or Rastafarianism. All of these things are historically related to dreadlocks, yes. But to say they are intrinsically linked to dreadlocks and intrinsically linked to the "black race" is, frankly, racist. It is a statement that these things, such as blackness and slavery, can never be separate. So long as that is true, we cannot escape racism. That's not to say we should ever forget the past, far from it, but to say we cannot let its views weigh down the present or future. To truly move beyond those wrongs means defying the premise, not reinforcing it with just the polarities reversed.
The dreadlock argument, specifically, also only makes sense under the lens of the American past - ignoring the rest of the world, its cultures, and its history. Dreadlocks have been a part of nearly all cultures throughout history. We have of records of them dating back to what is present day Greece, over 3000 years old. You can get nit-picky about what constitutes "real" dreadlocks, but that's splitting hairs, and it misses the point. The real crux of this is not figuring out who historically 'owns' dreadlocks more, it's that strictly tying a specific race to something that is not inseparable from that race is wrong. And by continuing to equate African Americans with dreadlocks and slavery, you are reinforcing the notion that black people are forever, and exclusively tied to being slaves.
If something has strong cultural connotations we should be aware and respectful of it. We should try to understand what cultural symbols mean to someone else. They should also take that approach with you. If you differ, that's okay! We can still respect each other. This respect has nothing to to do with race, it's just the right thing to do.
That is different from defining what something means for and is permitted for any given individual. Culture is dynamic. It is also local, and subjective. Culture is not a defining factor. It is a broad descriptor of the people. It is not an authority, and attempts to treat it as one will result in -isms.
This ties into the other problem with the argument. People are not their race, nor are they their culture, nor are they their ancestors. These things make up parts of who we are, but to broadly define individuals by chosen sub-factors of their being is inherently problematic and will necessarily lead to unfair discrimination.
Think about it: To hold an entire race responsible for the actions of people who just happen to have the same skin color is, yes, racist. We don't hold the children of murderers responsible for their parent's crimes because we know they are distinct people. For some reason this logic is not always applied when race is involved.
But what about the lingering results of ancestral racism? Even if modern people aren't slave holders, families with slavery in their past did not have the same foundation to build upon, and those effects are still lingering in modern times. Yes, this is true! And it is why providing equal opportunity regardless of racial or cultural background is so important. Rectifying that issue is very different from treating the current generations as having personally caused it. There is no need to impede the modern generation's attempts to integrate, to allow people of different skin colors to be a part of different cultures, and it is rather counterproductive to do so. Not to mention that a great deal of the current generations' ancestors never had anything to do with slavery, no matter their skin color. It distresses me that culture is being used to divide people along racial lines when it could be an opportunity to bring them together.
Cultural appropriation, the real problem version, is a symptom. The disease is inequality and discrimination. Solving those solves the problem. Treating reaching outside one's race to another culture as if it is a root issue only legitimizes those things.
Cultural ownership is part of a move toward validating "racial identity" and identity politics in general. This is dangerous. Identity is only applicable at the individual level. Attempts to define the identity of entire groups will inherently end in the division of people along those lines. Identity politics were originally introduced and reintroduced as a way to help minorities, but as is beginning to show, it is a hammer which can be swing both ways, having now become a weapon for justifying white nationalism using the same logic. And that is why building your argument on long-term, non-circumstantial foundations is so important.
Here's an amusing video on that point,
Saturday, September 9, 2017
Monday, July 31, 2017
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Transgenderism and Mental Health
In regards to the United States president's recent statement that transgender people cannot serve in the military, I want to clear up some recurring misconceptions I have seen online.
Being transgender is NOT a mental disorder and has no direct relation to your ability to effectively serve. Mental disorders are defined by how much they impact your ability to function. This isn't a political belief of mine, it's the consensus of the psychiatric community.
Here's a quote directly from the American Psychiatric Association: "It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."
In fact, the only reason it's classified in the DSM-V at all is for protection and insurance purposes: "Persons experiencing gender dysphoria need a diagnostic term that protects their access to care and won’t be used against them in social, occupational, or legal areas.[...] To get insurance coverage for the medical treatments, individuals need a diagnosis. The Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group was concerned that removing the condition as a psychiatric diagnosis—as some had suggested—would jeopardize access to care."
Furthermore, not all transgender people require drugs or surgery. Some are post-op already, some are not transitioning yet, and some simply have no need to physically match their gender.
With these points in mind, there is no meaningful justification for the denial of transgender people in the military.
What it does do is fuel the above misconceptions on a national level and provide a precedent for discrimination based on characteristics that are not directly related to the job at hand.
Being transgender is NOT a mental disorder and has no direct relation to your ability to effectively serve. Mental disorders are defined by how much they impact your ability to function. This isn't a political belief of mine, it's the consensus of the psychiatric community.
Here's a quote directly from the American Psychiatric Association: "It is important to note that gender nonconformity is not in itself a mental disorder. The critical element of gender dysphoria is the presence of clinically significant distress associated with the condition."
In fact, the only reason it's classified in the DSM-V at all is for protection and insurance purposes: "Persons experiencing gender dysphoria need a diagnostic term that protects their access to care and won’t be used against them in social, occupational, or legal areas.[...] To get insurance coverage for the medical treatments, individuals need a diagnosis. The Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders Work Group was concerned that removing the condition as a psychiatric diagnosis—as some had suggested—would jeopardize access to care."
Furthermore, not all transgender people require drugs or surgery. Some are post-op already, some are not transitioning yet, and some simply have no need to physically match their gender.
With these points in mind, there is no meaningful justification for the denial of transgender people in the military.
- If the concern is being mentally unfit, that can and must be evaluated independently of gender.
- If the concern is medical need, that too must be evaluated independently of gender.
- If the concern is cost, in addition to the point above there are literally thousands of more efficient targets for cost-cutting that do not unfairly discriminate. The savings on this are utterly trivial.
What it does do is fuel the above misconceptions on a national level and provide a precedent for discrimination based on characteristics that are not directly related to the job at hand.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
Dschinghis Khan - Moskau
That there is a beautiful man. A beautiful man in a cape, simultaneously displaying everything that was right and wrong about disco. It's hard to ignore the other members as well, and that guy in green totally has a murderface.
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Thursday, November 17, 2016
2016 Election Aftermath
I have made a conscious choice with this blog to be non-partisan. I want to address universal philosophies here, not specific people or groups, and I only bring up current events to illustrate deeper messages and their relevance.
In that spirit, I am only going to say this about the 2016 United States presidential election:
No matter what happens, we must care about all people. We are all human, we are all in this together, no matter how different our beliefs on how to approach problems may be. Respect others' lives, choices, and emotions, even if you disagree with them. Remember that no demographic of people is truly homogeneous and being part of one does not reveal an individual's entire character. Voice your beliefs, voice them clearly, but do not let yourself become tainted by hate or fear. They make you unhappy and easily misled, by both others and yourself.
If you want to do good, take action. I thoroughly encourage it. But know why you are doing it and ensure you are being productive. If you seek to change established minds, you will not do so by being antagonistic. If you present yourself as an enemy, you will be treated that way. They will shut you out and with you, your message.
If you're unsure how to fight without anger, how to foster acceptance without condemnation, I recommend reading this article:
http://sabotagetimes.com/life/daryl-davis-meet-the-black-man-who-befriended-the-ku-klux-klan
and watching these videos
In that spirit, I am only going to say this about the 2016 United States presidential election:
No matter what happens, we must care about all people. We are all human, we are all in this together, no matter how different our beliefs on how to approach problems may be. Respect others' lives, choices, and emotions, even if you disagree with them. Remember that no demographic of people is truly homogeneous and being part of one does not reveal an individual's entire character. Voice your beliefs, voice them clearly, but do not let yourself become tainted by hate or fear. They make you unhappy and easily misled, by both others and yourself.
If you want to do good, take action. I thoroughly encourage it. But know why you are doing it and ensure you are being productive. If you seek to change established minds, you will not do so by being antagonistic. If you present yourself as an enemy, you will be treated that way. They will shut you out and with you, your message.
If you're unsure how to fight without anger, how to foster acceptance without condemnation, I recommend reading this article:
http://sabotagetimes.com/life/daryl-davis-meet-the-black-man-who-befriended-the-ku-klux-klan
and watching these videos
Monday, September 12, 2016
The Neural River
Think about how valleys are formed, a flow of water gradually forming its path. But it doesn't happen overnight - one bucket tossed will not a valley make. But a thousand buckets, continuously, over time - that will. Once a river forms a valley it will want to follow it. And that valley will get deeper, and deeper.
Many people become frustrated with psychotherapy. The advice they are given is not producing noticeable results. Our thoughts and neural pathways work like these rivers and valleys.
The brain is a complex network of neural connections. Think of our these as the valleys and our thoughts as the water. The flow of our thoughts creates new pathways, though deep routes do not happen immediately. This is especially true when trying to change a way of thinking that already exists. Trying to redirect a river out of a valley is not a small feat and not one that can be accomplished with a single tossed bucket.
Our brains will try to justify their current state. They will rationalize why this state of being is appropriate, or inevitable. This is natural.
It is the natural order of the universe, of everything, to follow the path of least resistance. Our brain circuitry is no different. The path of least resistance is the one that already exists.
To change something that is on a undesirable path, including our thinking, we have to go against that order. We have to do it by redirecting the river where we want it to go. At first, this will difficult. The water wants to follow its old path and does not yet have a new one. But with continual small changes, it will form over time, through single gallons that individually may seem to do nothing.
Our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are all interlinked. By slowly changing the course of that neural river, our thoughts, we can change ourselves as a whole.
This is how cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) works.
Many people become frustrated with psychotherapy. The advice they are given is not producing noticeable results. Our thoughts and neural pathways work like these rivers and valleys.
The brain is a complex network of neural connections. Think of our these as the valleys and our thoughts as the water. The flow of our thoughts creates new pathways, though deep routes do not happen immediately. This is especially true when trying to change a way of thinking that already exists. Trying to redirect a river out of a valley is not a small feat and not one that can be accomplished with a single tossed bucket.
Our brains will try to justify their current state. They will rationalize why this state of being is appropriate, or inevitable. This is natural.
It is the natural order of the universe, of everything, to follow the path of least resistance. Our brain circuitry is no different. The path of least resistance is the one that already exists.
To change something that is on a undesirable path, including our thinking, we have to go against that order. We have to do it by redirecting the river where we want it to go. At first, this will difficult. The water wants to follow its old path and does not yet have a new one. But with continual small changes, it will form over time, through single gallons that individually may seem to do nothing.
Our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are all interlinked. By slowly changing the course of that neural river, our thoughts, we can change ourselves as a whole.
This is how cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) works.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)