First thing's first: KEEP. THIS. SHIT. CIVIL. If you can't talk about race without resorting to childish insults and rude generalizations or getting angry at people who don't see it your way, leave the thread.
With that said, I bring you to what can hopefully be the general thread about race.
First, a few starter questions.
- How, if at all, do you feel your race affects your everyday life?
- Do you believe that white people (or whatever the majority race in your area is) receive privileges simply because of the color of their skin. How much?
- Do you believe minorities are discriminated against for the same reason? How much?
- Do you believe that assimilation of cultures is better than people trying to keep their own?
- Affirmative Action. Yea, Nay? Why or why not?
Also, a personal question from me.
- Why (in my experience, not trying to generalize) do white people often try to insist that they aren't white? I can't count the number of times I've heard "I'm not white, I'm 1/4th English, 1/4th German, 1/4th Scandinavian 1/8th Cherokee, and 1/8th Russian," as though 4 of 5 of those things aren't considered "white" by the masses. Is it because you have pride for your ancestry, or an attempt to try and differentiate yourself from all those "other" white people? Or something else altogether?
edited 30th May '11 9:16:04 PM by Wulf
I have some choice words about those places and those religions. You don't want to hear them. Neither does the rest of this forum.
You could have went with "some places have an established dress-code" and not piss me off.
I think intention is important here. If the intent in using someone else's tradition is disrespect, then it is wrong.
So in all other cases, respect is mandatory. But respect does not have to mean participating in a tradition correctly or not participating at all.
If someone walked up to you and asked you to stop wearing a shirt with a specific image because it was annoying them, you would probably stop out of respect for their feelings, or you would tell them off for being silly. That it's just a shirt with an image and they shouldn't be getting annoyed.
Regardless of why a person feels a certain way about something, it is important to respect those feelings, as the feelings are real. Of course, it is also usually the case that getting annoyed at things like symbolism, imagery, or language when not intentionally used disrespectfully is silly.
edited 4th Apr '16 3:22:26 PM by war877
So, giving an explanation (regardless of whether you agree or not with the entire concept of modesty or their communitarianist decisions) of why they'd consider that choice of clothing to be inappropriate pisses you off?
...
Yeah, I'm done here.
![]()
![]()
![]()
I have my disagreements with the abrahamic faiths but I don't think it's unreasonable for someone of faith to be uncomfortable with the idea of people having sex in their churches. I can't say whether I'd personally feel guilty about having sex there either way but I wouldn't blame people for being upset that I did. Seriously dude, you could have been more diplomatic about that.
Re:Cultural appropriation, I'm basically with Jovian on this one. It's important to emphasize though, that this is a bit of a delicate subject with a lot of gray areas. For example I believe Imca's stated that she doesn't care about non-japanese people wearing kimonos because she sees it as people paying respect to her culture and not in any way besmirching it.
edited 4th Apr '16 3:41:20 PM by wehrmacht
Let's see - religion, offense, sin. Nuff said.
My reply is on skirts though. "Some people/places might think it's sin to wear a skirt" is the world's least convincing argument and frankly, I'm already being as diplomatic about this as I can possibly be.
I think exposure and education about the culture is also a big factor. It is impossible to appropriate something American, because we know everything about America, even if we don't live there. Lesser known cultures don't always have this luxury.
I'd say the impossibility of appropriating contemporary "American" culture has more to do with it not really having any unique traditions or cultural practices sacred enough to be considered appropriation rather than ignorance about it. The US is a hodgepodge of various other cultures with their own appropriatable elements, but in and of itself I can't think of anything that's not indigenous tribal practices.
Lots of people know about the sanctity of the crucifix in Catholicism and how it's not something to mess around with because it's similarly widespread but choose to disregard it because Creepy Cool Crosses + someone on them = extra koolz.
I also have the right to open the door for you to leave for any reason if it is my private property. Not wearing a tie, having blue hair or a green shirt. That doesn't give me a right to prescribe what you should do elsewhere.
Your taste isn't superior just because it's "tradition" or "sacred".
Wearing clothing as a costume belittles, stereotypes and others it and the culture it originates from. But wearing it in everyday life wouldn't do any of this.
Crucifixion itself isn't, and anyone who actually practices that nowadays is a barbarian. The crucifix with Christ on the cross though is a sacred symbol much like the Tetragrammaton, the Om, or the Crescent Moon symbol. People can probably wear some of it as a purely decorative statement if they don't belong to the religion but they would have to be extremely careful about it and demonstrate that they can understand its cultural significance (honoring Jesus's sacrifice I believe, Quag 15 can elaborate on this) and appreciate the concept behind it.
![]()
![]()
I can't think of any specific examples off the top of my head when it comes to Chinese culture, but think of certain kinds of appropriation as claiming an honor or membership you don't have any right to. For a secular example think of casually wearing military medals when you were never in the army. You could argue it's your right to wear it because it looks cool, but war vets who may have lost friends, family, and body parts in service will probably be very pissed at you for good reason. There's actually a law against doing that now. Cultural appropriation is kinda like that.
edited 4th Apr '16 4:13:20 PM by AlleyOop
It's less about actually getting crucified and more about Jesus' sacrifice for mankind.
And it being appropriated from the Romans doesn't quite pan out because they didn't place any higher significance on it. It was just another punishment like any other. No different than whippings or beheadings.
edited 4th Apr '16 4:11:56 PM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?Sometimes attempted appopriation can hilariously backfire. Many people think that inverted crosses mean "reverse Christ, evil, something-something-Satan" when the inverted cross is actually a sign of humility and admittance of the wearer to being unworthy of sharing a symbol with Jesus. And doing so is ironically more Christian than wearing the actual cross.
The irony has been lost on a lot of edgy people.
Okay, honest question how does a non Jesus person being crucified, to use the previous example of apropriation from the Cathliocs.
If it is about Jesuses crucifiction, and not the roman form, the person on the cross should mater more then the cross itself.
It would be like flanderizing the iconography of Christianity to "Some people pay reverence to a t because some guy who was supposed to be the son of god was nailed on it and he died for our sins or something like that".
Though this discussion is more related to the Religion Thread than anything else.
The cross itself was a torture device used by the romans to execute criminals, but since Jesus was killed in one it became the symbol for Christians worldwide to remember the man who died in it and his death was to cleanse humanity from sin.
However the cross, even in the form used by the crucifix isn't a Christian only icon or domain, since there were plenty of pre Christian cultures that had crosses as religious iconography, namely the Egyptians and for the Romans it was another device with no specific meaning attached to it.
So like the Piss Christ picture, it is offensive and there are many outright hostile attitudes against Christians iconography for reasons that are not the subject of this thread but still being holy icons being used disrespectfully for decades but without significant outrage meanwhile other religious icons that do get appropriated either offensively like the cartoons mocking Islam or as a fashion accessory clothing and jewelery associated with other faiths have their share of controversy towards their uses by other cultures with a history of colonialism and oppression.
Inter arma enim silent legesThey're not the same. Personal feeling =/= communitarian decision. And just because neither is objective, doesn't mean that said decision should be fucked with (but, then again, you're a total jerk, as you said, so, do it at your own peril).
To use a different analogy you're going to a night club on a day where you have to wear a specific outfit, as laid out in their program/rules. You show up with different clothes. The bouncer has the power to not let you in.
Communitarian uses of a space for cultural and/or religious uses and rituals carry a greater weight than any aesthetic choice made by and individual (a study of Western and some non-Western laws can tell you why). So, either you show diplomatic respect and wear something more appropriate for the occasion or they can simply tell you to fuck off (in a polite way, in most cases).
Again, private property held by a single individual person is different from a property that is used by a given group/denomination/ethno-religious community. The 'doing elsewhere' part is more about the relations between secular jurisprudence and religious jurisprudence (in the West, at least - different areas around the world have different ways of doing things, to a greater or lesser extent), so I won't bother with explaining you the hows and whys of a group's specific prescriptions (as they're not particularly relevant to the general topic here).
@On Crucifixion and Catholicism: The Roman Catholic Church was responsible for keeping a continuous tradition within the larger belief that is Christianity which is, as Le Garcon said, about the punishment given to Jesus (crucifixion was a punishment given to the lowest criminals, traitors of the Roman Empire and people who rebelled against said empire). Through a labyrinthic path that is best understood through a detailed study of the history of Christianity within the Roman Empire and the post-fall of said Empire, the Church has put a larger emphasis on specific cultural and visual symbols which emphasize the core beliefs and many of its mysteries. As one can gather from Oswald Spengler's The Decline Of The West, the Roman Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church, to some extent as well) was part of one of the Western civilization's phases of stability and consequent progress (cultural, scientific, legalistic, and so forth).
Because of its strong association with Catholicism (to the point of a trope being fairly popular in fiction), the Crucifix is part of a strong cultural and religious link to one of the main events of Christianity (which is also referenced in the Creed laid out by the First Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, back in the 4th century). So, there is a strong religious and cultural tradition which harkens back to many centuries and which ended up shaping many local cultures within the Western world (particularly in the Romanic/Romance languages-speaking countries), and, at least in some cases, a Catholic person can rightfully accuse a non-Christian person for wearing said Crucifix without realizing what is the importance of the One who was Crucified and the role of said Crucifixion in the cultural mentality associated with Catholicism (and arguably Christianity as a whole). So, a case fo cultural appropriation could be made, in certain contexts and in certain places.
Partially
'd by Nox.
@Imca: Just so you know, the use of an upside-down cross (not Crucifix) is a sign of great humility, because St. Peter (one of Jesus' apostles and the one considered by the Catholic Church to be the first Pope) asked the Romans to be crucified upside-down, since he considered himself unworthy of receiving the same exact form of punishment as Jesus. Do NOT use an upside-down Crucifix, though.
Also, Imca: what are your thoughts on Anime Catholicism? Because... I think there is some serious appropriation (coupled together with an incredible ignorance of the cultural elements present in Catholicism) in some of those shows, from my perspective.
edited 4th Apr '16 5:13:35 PM by Quag15

In certain places (across many religions around the world), and not just the Abrahamic ones, both inside religious buildings as well as in certain outside areas), it could be considered to be an offense/sin due to being an immodest act (regardless of whether a man or a woman wears said skirt, especially shorter skirts). 'It's kinda cool' is a piss-poor reason and people would have the right to open the door for you to leave (and in some places they have signs showing what you can and can't wear, so, there's a preemptive warning as well).
edited 4th Apr '16 3:15:05 PM by Quag15