fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2272 ]

[ SECRET POST #2272 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2272 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 06 pages, 140 secrets from Secret Submission Post #325.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'd be interested in what you would consider some valid examples?

(not OP)

Using Native American totems as mascots for sports teams that are not Native and are in no way involved with Natives? I'm just going out on a limb there, if anyone wants to correct me, feel free to do so!

But
is it a thing that genuinely bothers someone? Because I see nothing bad in this.

Yes.

Yes, it is a thing that genuinely bothers people, both American Indians and others, especially when the logos used are caricatures (see: "Redskins" as the name for a sports team, which has a history as a borderline-slur, or the Cleveland Indians logo, which almost gets to the point of caricature that way). Both in itself, and because it tends to contribute to stereotypes in society that are actively harmful (although this tends to have more to do with other depictions in society than sports team logos do).

Here's a really good blog all about this kind of thing: http://nativeappropriations.com/

>Spends entire post complaining about caricatures

'...and that's why appropriation is wrong!'

?

I was speaking to the post, not to the thread, if you follow me.

Possibly.

To clarify, would you say a clearly not stereotypical totem pole chosen for the design was still problematic?

Possibly? Ideally the organization in question would try to have some kind of involvement with natives in some way; a lot of it depends on the way it's done. But I don't think something like the old Seahawks logo is intrinsically problematic.

But, again, my comment was to "Do people see Native American sports team logos as problematic", not about appropriation specifically.

Yeah, I think I see it now. People here don't tend to do this kind of thing (when the stereotypes are used, they're usually simply negative stereotypes, as in "members of this social group drink and swear a lot"), but I'd totally be bothered if it was a "stereotype+negative subtext" combination.

How do you feel about the fighting irish?

It does not bother me for a number of reasons. First, because there's an actual historical connection between Notre Dame and the Irish - I mean, it's a Catholic university that drew heavily on the Irish diaspora in America for its students for a long time, and that also has an extremely sizable Irish-American fanbase. Second, because there's no real prejudice against Irish Americans anymore. Third, I think there's a difference between the way that Irishness is depicted (nowadays, at least) in the Fighting Irish mascot when you compare it to the way that American Indians are often portrayed in sports logos, when you look at things like Redskins, and Chief Wahoo, and the Tomahawk Chop. I think that's in a different category.

(I don't think it matters but for reference: I'm Irish-American myself, and don't have any Native American heritage whatsoever. and my grandma's side of the family are all Notre Dame fans)

So THAT is okay because you (having a personal connection) don't find it personally offensive, but THIS is not okay because you (having no personal connection) find it offensive.

Uh-huh.

NA

If you have a personal connection to something, a stake in the offensiveness, it's okay to say you don't find it offensive. Someone who isn't Irish in any way might feel obliged to assume "the Fighting Irish" is also offensive.

You seem fourteen. Old enough to read but too young to understand, and certainly young enough to care about TOTALLY FIGHTING THE ZEITGEIST, MAAAAAN

Fix that.

DA

I find it funny, tbh. Particularly since there was actually a confederate unit nicknamed that during the American Civil War [because it was made up entirely of Irish immigrants/the descendants of them]. They were also the only unit the confederate government granted medals too. /triva

tl;dr: I find it funny because they're ignoring certain history attached to that name when they use it.

nayrt

What about american rock music? Elvis etc becoming wildly popular singing and playing what was previously "black music", while failing to challenge all the cultural and economic barriers to black people making a similar living off of their music.

I know it's an old one, but if that's not appropriation I don't know what is.

:| Not sure if serious.

I thought this is what appropriation was. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, or link me to an explanation.
Seriously. I post anon so I can get my stupid opinions torn apart before I admit to them publicly. It's a good system.

That is a kind of appropriation. I'm not sure why the anon reacted that way.

That's called cowardice, actually.

Yeah, okay. Personally, I think you could learn a couple of things from being anon a while, but what do I know? You don't even know me. :)

Or do you?

ayrt

Maybe it is. We all have to start somewhere. It's not like I'm trolling.

No, actually, that's a very good use for the anonymous posting option. There's a difference between using anon posting as a testing ground for ideas you're not sure of, and may discard after the discussion, and using it as an invisibility cloak while trolling or spewing hate.

Edited 2013-03-24 13:24 (UTC)

I'd be with you on this if the OP post hadn't been phrased like a blatant troll.

I might be getting anons confused, though.

Re: Appropriation

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-24 16:20 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Appropriation

charming_stranger - 2013-03-24 17:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Appropriation

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-24 18:09 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Appropriation

charming_stranger - 2013-03-24 18:18 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Appropriation

(Anonymous) - 2013-03-24 19:32 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Appropriation

charming_stranger - 2013-03-24 20:07 (UTC) - Expand

No, this is definitely something that people have talked about (and I don't mean sjw tumblrites). I don't know a whole lot about it, I'm no expert on music history, but this is definitely a thing and you're not nuts.

The way I understand appropriation in a non-sjw sense is that appropriation can actually take a cultural practice away/make it inaccessible to actual members of that culture, and that's what makes it harmful. I'm pretty sure there's discussion about that within music history. Although obviously, there really isn't and shouldn't be a way of stopping influences in art.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only