Social Justice

[Ben X]

Sure, it makes sense that they would come up with it, but the term itself makes no sense. 

[Bjorn]

It's kind of fascinating to have watched how the term cuck/cuckold has essentially diverged along two different paths of meaning which both have the same root, but have ended up in two radically different places (one positive, one negative). 

 

And it does actually even make sense to me as a word.  A man who isn't a cuck is one who has control of both his life and the people in his life, particularly those who should be subservient to him (like women and minorities).  A cuck has become subservient to those lesser people.  So the emergence of cuckservatives as conservative appearing people who have lost control of women and blacks seems like a natural idea to emerge from those people.  And they're also good at coining rather stomach-turning phrases. 

[Reyturner]

Who uses "cuck" as a positive?

[Ben X]

Cuckolding fetishists.

 

Actually, i just realised, I was placing "conservative" as opposite to Republican in my head because of the Conservative Party over here, so that's one less problem with it. I still think the link between being cheated on by your partner with another man, and race traitors/grassroots Republicans who worked for Republicans in good faith, but get only scorn and contempt is a big stretch. Also, I've never heard of the other men being "often African-Americans"; if I remember my Shakespeare correctly, fricking Othello complained about getting cucked.

[Bjorn]

Out of the mainstream sexyal communities. There are a lot of people,male and female, who openly admit to enjoying watching or knowing of their partners exploits. Cuck is usually favored in the bdsm crowd where distinct power dynamics are present, while compersion is a term favored by swingers and poly folk. Compersion is a bit broader term, and doesn't have the fetish or power meanings within it.

[BadHat]

Based on an article I read, the racist angle comes from a popular usage of the trope in porn, in which a white guy is cuckolded by a black guy. (Of course the wife is also white because racial purity etc)

 

Also a popular trope in the imaginations of privileged white guys who are afraid of things.

 

Edit: Man, what a horrible new page post.

[Ninety-Three]

Over in the Gamergate thread, a bunch of people including myself had very long disagreement about cultural appropriation (unfortunately it's a difficult discussion to follow because a user involved deleted some of their posts, everything was perfectly civil, long irrelevant story). The discussion stalled out a bit, another topic came up, and since it was off topic in the first place, it was left unresolved. I'm still interested in the topic, and it seems that some others are as well, so I'm making this post to continue that discussion. For the record, I shall be arguing against cultural appropriation being harmful.

 

I know we kinda moved past the cultural appropriation discussion because (in my perspective) we reached an impasse, but I just saw this series of tweets and felt it germane to those I was disagreeing with - https://storify.com/JonathanACole/cultural-appropriation

The beginning of those tweets is a sentiment that popped up previously in the discussion, and I think it's projecting. I'm not defensive. I've never been accused of cultural appropriation, nor can I think of anything I do that would be deemed cultural appropriation. When I discuss specific examples, I tend to use examples I have no personal stake in. Many of the people I see arguing against cultural appropriation are similarly not defensive, they're simply disagreeing. The reaction tends to get characterized as defensive because these discussions often start with "That thing you're doing is bad." "No it's not."

To respond to one of the tweets that I most objected to:
 

why do you feel like PoC owe you access to their fashions

Why do you feel like people can deny you access to their fashions? The inventor of the undercut* can't go around telling anyone that they shouldn't get undercuts, so it seems equally absurd to me when someone tries to deny access to the afro. To say "white people shouldn't get afros", one should have to demonstrate how it is harmful, and that's something I feel hasn't been done.

*This example may be undermined by some specific detail about undercuts that I failed to consider, but I trust you can see the point I'm trying to make. There is a hairstyle for which my argument works, so if it's not the undercut, pretend I said the right one instead.

I get that society frowns on black people with afros in ways it doesn't frown upon white people with afros, and that sucks, but to restate the point I reached in the other thread:
 

I think my fundamental disagreement is that I believe benefiting from double standards isn't bad (it's perpetuating them that's bad), and I don't believe that merely benefiting from a double standard inherently perpetuates the standard. If a white person walks to work, they're benefiting from a double standard where they're less likely to get hassled on the sidewalk than a black person is. Is a white person harming black people by walking to work? If not, what's the difference between that and a white person with an afro? In what way does the afro harm people that the walk to work doesn't?

 

Have I reached the point in the cultural appropriation debate where I have an irreconcilable core disagreement (benefiting from double standards doesn't perpetuate them), or do those on the other side of the argument think I'm still missing something?

[Gormongous]

Have I reached the point in the cultural appropriation debate where I have an irreconcilable core disagreement (benefiting from double standards doesn't perpetuate them), or do those on the other side of the argument think I'm still missing something?

 

This isn't a gotcha, but can I just ask you to deepen this particular statement for me, before I respond more in depth? What cultural force perpetuates double standards, if not large groups of people electing to benefit from them rather than reject them and call them out?

[Ninety-Three]

This isn't a gotcha, but can I just ask you to deepen this particular statement for me, before I respond more in depth? What cultural force perpetuates double standards, if not large groups of people electing to benefit from them rather than reject them and call them out?

So the core problem is that society has a tendency to view black people with afros as especially unkempt, dirty or even thuggish. However, society also has a tendency to view all black people as somewhat unkempt, dirty, or even thuggish. What cultural force perpetuates that stereotype? When I try to drill down into it, I ultimately end up with one of two answers: "Because humans have a tendency to think poorly of any out-group" or "Because someone said it once and it has become accepted". I'm not sure which is more accurate, probably some mix of both, and maybe something more that I didn't think of, but I feel that whatever it is, the exact same force perpetuates the double standard regarding afros.

 

To come at it from another direction: How does a white person getting an afro perpetuate the societal notion that black people with afros are unkempt more than a white person getting an undercut? What exactly are they contributing to that notion?

[Cleinhun]

 What cultural force perpetuates double standards, if not large groups of people electing to benefit from them rather than reject them and call them out?

I guess I agree with that, but I think the problem comes from the lack of calling them out rather that the electing to benefit. Is your argument that those two things necessarily go hand in hand?

 

Is it impossible to benefit from a double standard while also calling out the other side of that double standard? Why? I'm legitimately curious about this, because I don't feel like it should be true but I realize that doesn't mean it isn't.

 

Also, In what way would white people rejecting afros benefit black people with afros? Is that a stupid question?

[Gormongous]

To come at it from another direction: How does a white person getting an afro perpetuate the societal notion that black people with afros are unkempt more than a white person getting an undercut? What exactly are they contributing to that notion?

 

Because when a white person with an afro "passes" as neat, clean, and polite, owing entirely to their white privilege and not to anything that they're actually doing differently, it further reinforces to uncritical observers that those negative traits you mention are essential to black people themselves and not necessarily the culture that they produce and partake in. It's taking only the aesthetic object and leaving its baggage behind for black people to keep dealing with. It's the exactly same mentality of white imperialism that ultimately justified the taking of millions of square miles of land from native peoples because "they weren't using it" or "they weren't using it right," because when white people settled and farmed the land to great success, it demonstrated to them and to others the net "good" to humanity of taking native peoples' lands. It's still just about taking what's not yours without asking, mostly because you've seen other people do the same.

 

I guess I agree with that, but I think the problem comes from the lack of calling them out rather that the electing to benefit. Is your argument that those two things necessarily go hand in hand?

 

Is it impossible to benefit from a double standard while also calling out the other side of that double standard? Why? I'm legitimately curious about this, because I don't feel like it should be true but I realize that doesn't mean it isn't.

 

I mean, the whole deal with privilege is that it's impossible to set aside privilege. Even the ability to do so is part and parcel of privilege. So yeah, you're right on that level , but even though intent isn't magic, I think an important part of being a person invested in social justice is recognizing and calling out the ways you benefit from your privilege, as well as just trying not to benefit more than you do just by default. There's probably a situation where a white guy wears an afro and is a great ally to black people in terms of grooming practices and in general, but still makes an effort to point out the principal reason that he gets respect from other white people while adopting parts of a black cultural aesthetic is because of his privilege being white, but... I don't know, that seems really complicated and exhausting and can't he just ditch the afro and simplify the discussion?

[Cleinhun]

Thanks, that's a useful answer. I suppose that people incorporating elements of other cultures in a way that is thoughtful and respectful of their original context is not the kind of appropriation that anyone was complaining about in the first place.

[Twig]

I get that society frowns on black people with afros in ways it doesn't frown upon white people with afros, and that sucks, but to restate the point I reached in the other thread:

I've heard far far more people mocking the white afro (usually in the vein of calling it the Jewfro, on guys at least, which I guess is its own awkward problem, and also in pointing out how messy and unkempt it looked and etc.). That's probably just a factor of where I grew up (high school had a significant amount of black people), but yeah. Personally I've always loved the look of the afro and wished I could pull it off (same with dreads, to be honest), but I never bothered 'cause a) my hair doesn't do anything other than a combover parted on the left b) white afros and dreads look weird and c) ALL OF THIS SHIT.

 

And that's the last post I'll make in here. I'll probably continue reading it, as painful as it is.

[Gaizokubanou]

More I think about this less I 'get' this topic.  The whole notion of cultural identity and belonging feels really alien to me.

[Ninety-Three]

Because when a white person with an afro "passes" as neat, clean, and polite, owing entirely to their white privilege and not to anything that they're actually doing differently, it further reinforces to uncritical observers that those negative traits you mention are essential to black people themselves and not necessarily the culture that they produce and partake in.

 

That's a big statement to just present as true. I could just as easily say that white people with afros are actually helping by providing a data point that demonstrates afros are not necessarily dirty, thus reducing the likelihood that anyone (including black people) will be perceived as dirty for having an afro.

 

Even accepting your statement, white people without afros are contributing to a dataset that says "afros are dirty and all those other hairstyles aren't so people with afros should wear something else". It's a no-win situation in which yes, afros technically do harm, but so does everything else.

 

 

 

 It's taking only the aesthetic object and leaving its baggage behind for black people to keep dealing with.

I see this argument a lot in these discussions and I'm really annoyed by it. It's technically true and completely misleading to say that white people with afros aren't helping. White people with undercuts aren't helping either. Yesterday I ate a sandwich and that didn't help. Nothing except specifically and actively addressing it will help, so it's absurd to complain that a particular action not designed to help isn't helping.

[JonCole]

Nothing except specifically and actively addressing it will help... well, I'm not sure I fully agree with that but I can acknowledge that the greatest gains will come from activism rather than some kind of passive effect. I believe that a core tenet in criticizing cultural appropriation is observing that not only are a massive number of people not making things better actively, but they are also claiming to be (edit: or at least feeling like they are, internally) performing some generous function in appropriating culture by "appreciating it". As though appreciating culture, in itself, is enriching it in some passive way. I honestly think that some white people that appropriate afros do in fact believe that they're doing a service to black people by graciously providing said positive data point for afro cleanliness.

 

I obviously don't think this applies to every single person who performs cultural appropriation, but I think that there's a distinct element of "white people like your culture, enjoy that! It's a melting pot and you're melting into it, aren't you so lucky?" in this topic.

[clyde]

 

Full disclosure: I sometimes paint a few of my nails without considering the traditional reasons for it. I also wear a straw hat and a lot of people assume I have some sort of agricultural background because of that (I don't, I just like how straw hats feel light, are made of very accessible material, they are cheap, and they cover the back of my neck).

 

 

edit:
Also, if you want to see some obvious examples of how cultural appropriation of blackness can be used for the grittiness that promotes and is promoted by racist perceptions, just look at K-pop.

 

This scene is especially offensive to me.

[Gormongous]

That's a big statement to just present as true. I could just as easily say that white people with afros are actually helping by providing a data point that demonstrates afros are not necessarily dirty, thus reducing the likelihood that anyone (including black people) will be perceived as dirty for having an afro.

 

You could easily say it, but do you have any proof at all, even anecdotally, or are you just arguing from the abstract? Because I can name dozens upon dozens of aesthetics and objects that have been appropriated from black culture just during the past century, and I don't think that any of them "helped by providing a data point" that contradicted prevailing cultural attitudes. Did the century of white-appropriated jazz and half-century of white-appropriated rock 'n' roll improve the fortunes of black people in America, even just in the music industry, or did they suffer as white people crowded them out, destroying their market and the cultural prestige that came from what was once their unique music? What you're talking about, that's just not how cultural appropriation works, even centuries ago with ancient Christianity borrowing from pagan cults or medieval Spaniards borrowing from Moriscos, unless the peoples doing the borrowing are themselves oppressed, a minority, or both, in which case the borrowing fosters integration into the dominant culture, which does sometimes improve the standing of a people even as it dilutes their identity.

 

As for the rest of your post, I don't think we can have a useful conversation if you can't acknowledge that, yes, the politics of privilege mean that positive action is ineluctably important, but furthermore that there is a special kind of "fuck you, got mine" attitude that is core to the very nature of white supremacy in not only doing nothing to help, but also claiming a unique feature of an oppressed culture as your own.

[Gaizokubanou]

After scrapping long ranty posts few times, think I will settle for this expression to convey my mostly mixed feelings.

 

I wish it was as simple as Ninety-Three argues for.  I kinda get some elements of tying responsibilities to certain ethnic groups cause of shitty real world history.  I'm also deeply troubled about tying responsibilities based on ethnicity.

[JonCole]

https://twitter.com/RespectTheAfro_/status/633261717720535040

[Gormongous]

https://twitter.com/RespectTheAfro_/status/633261717720535040

 

Exactly. When white people are encouraged or permitted to wear hairstyles that black people are discouraged or forbidden from wearing, despite being traditional to the latter and an appropriation by the former, that ends up erasing black culture.

[Ninety-Three]

As for the rest of your post, I don't think we can have a useful conversation if you can't acknowledge that, yes, the politics of privilege mean that positive action is ineluctably important, but furthermore that there is a special kind of "fuck you, got mine" attitude that is core to the very nature of white supremacy in not only doing nothing to help, but also claiming a unique feature of an oppressed culture as your own.

 

The white person with an afro is a more conspicuous "sucks for you to be black" to black people with afros than is the white person with an undercut, sure. Are you saying that's why white people shouldn't wear afros?

 

Did the century of white-appropriated jazz and half-century of white-appropriated rock 'n' roll improve the fortunes of black people in America, even just in the music industry, or did they suffer as white people crowded them out, destroying their market and the cultural prestige that came from what was once their unique music?

 

This isn't a gotcha but a request for clarification. Do you have evidence that white jazz musicians crowded out black ones? Economic analysis about the market share of black vs white jazz, that sort of thing? My response depends heavily on whether or not this is armchair economics (all too frequent in internet discussions).

[Gormongous]

The white person with an afro is a more conspicuous "sucks for you to be black" to black people with afros than is the white person with an undercut, sure. Are you saying that's why white people shouldn't wear afros?

 

If those are the terms under which you'll accept, then yes. In addition to many other intangibles pertaining to how cultures interact and colonize each other, it's a much bigger finger in the eye for members of a mainstream culture to go around wearing oppressed people's stuff while said people are still being oppressed.

 

This isn't a gotcha but a request for clarification. Do you have evidence that white jazz musicians crowded out black ones? Economic analysis about the market share of black vs white jazz, that sort of thing? My response depends heavily on whether or not this is armchair economics (all too frequent in internet discussions).

 

I didn't mean to imply that it was a direct process of supply and demand, but the first jazz recording was an all-white band in 1917. Despite being a vast minority of jazz musicians and often less accomplished, white musicians continued to have equal or better representation among labels, bookings, and sales, often even buying up black musicians' music to perform with white musicians in order to meet the demand of white audiences. Contemporary accounts of jazz culture in hotspots like New Orleans speak of almost homogeneously black musicians, with a few white musicians of varying talent, but our recordings and records of the period make it look like the opposite. Some of the acknowledged greats of early jazz don't have a single recording to their name, because they were poor and black. That's just how cultural appropriation and white supremacy have always worked.

 

In general, the odd growth of pre-1920s jazz was due to its "black" reputation as the Devil's Music, and only really the Prohibition, during which black musicians were hired for speakeasies because they were cheaper and less likely to talk to cops, and World War II, during which there were broadly just less white musicians around, helped to weaken that stigma. Even so, the rise of swing bands and "big" bands in the 1930s and 1940s, which represented the mainstream peak of jazz, were almost an all-white phenomenon and it took band leaders like Benny Goodman, who'd spent years subsidizing black bands like Fletcher Henderson's, hiring black musicians for the people who'd invented and grown jazz to enjoy some of its financial success.

 

I would really rather not write a history of race and jazz in a forum post, so I'll stop there, but hopefully you find that modestly convincing.

[Ninety-Three]

I didn't mean to imply that it was a direct process of supply and demand, but the first jazz recording was an all-white band in 1917. Despite being a vast minority of jazz musicians and often less accomplished, white musicians continued to have equal or better representation among labels, bookings, and sales, often even buying up black musicians' music to perform with white musicians in order to meet the demand of white audiences. Contemporary accounts of jazz culture in hotspots like New Orleans speak of almost homogeneously black musicians, with a few white musicians of varying talent, but our recordings and records of the period make it look like the opposite. Some of the acknowledged greats of early jazz don't have a single recording to their name, because they were poor and black. That's just how cultural appropriation and white supremacy have always worked.

 

In general, the odd growth of pre-1920s jazz was due to its "black" reputation as the Devil's Music, and only really the Prohibition, during which black musicians were hired for speakeasies because they were cheaper and less likely to talk to cops, and World War II, during which there were broadly just less white musicians around, helped to weaken that stigma. Even so, the rise of swing bands and "big" bands in the 1930s and 1940s, which represented the mainstream peak of jazz, were almost an all-white phenomenon and it took band leaders like Benny Goodman, who'd spent years subsidizing black bands like Fletcher Henderson's, hiring black musicians for the people who'd invented and grown jazz to enjoy some of its financial success.

 

I would really rather not write a history of race and jazz in a forum post, so I'll stop there, but hopefully you find that modestly convincing.

 

I'm not clear on what I'm supposed to be convinced of. You laid out a history of jazz and society denying success to black jazz musicians, which is perhaps a convincing argument for the statement "There was racial discrimination against black jazz musicians". Did you think I didn't already believe that, or was there another point that I totally missed?

[clyde]

I'm not clear on what I'm supposed to be convinced of. You laid out a history of jazz and society denying success to black jazz musicians, which is perhaps a convincing argument for the statement "There was racial discrimination against black jazz musicians". Did you think I didn't already believe that, or was there another point that I totally missed?

 

I believe the assumption is that black musicians lost sales to white musicians and did not receive due credit for their cultural contribution.