Why God, Why?


 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 CA 101 v3.0

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
Sakurelf
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
avatar

Join date : 2009-07-21

PostSubject: CA 101 v3.0   Mon Sep 12, 2011 9:52 pm

Heads up.

This is my re-written article. I've tried to make it less angry and ranty, and much more hand-holdey. My goal isn't to preach to the converted, but to approach fence-sitters and accidental racists with a warm handshake. Right now I'm going through it again and annotating with links and pages, so several statements that read like "Whoa, where's the link, brah?" will have one soon.

A quick readthrough would be helpful

- General emotional reaction, do you feel educated? Sad? Angry? Defensive?

- Any chunky wording?

- Anything too long or off-track?


New version is below!

- changed some awkward wording
- added to the hyper-sexualization section, some important statistics on rape and sexual assault in the US and Canada
- added to residential schools
- minor spelling edits
- annotation added
- Peter Pan videos moved from sexualization to homogenization. (But fuck, really, I could write a whole article on What Makes the Red Man Red)
- haven't removed the warcraft reference, waiting on feedback
- haven't changed the Indian Is the Wrong Word section, waiting on feedback
- didn't add links to my own comics. See my above post for links. Those will be deviantart thumbs later.


New version below.

- changed the section on wording entirely to be more comprehensive.
- added small lines about things being both beautiful and racist at the same time.
- trying to find a way to add in this: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] awesome video
- reference section is kinda messed up right now because of section changes.
- removed warcraft reference
- added section to bottom answering "Does this mean I can't ever use feathers on my OC?"
- added a section on how some people are ok with fag and retarded. some aren't.
- haven't added scholarly article because still reading, and need to sort out reference sections


Spoiler:
 


Last edited by Sakurelf on Sat Sep 17, 2011 7:59 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top Go down
Shisaiga
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-03
Location : Kuhdorf, Germany

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Tue Sep 13, 2011 2:17 am

Quote :
If you're still really struggling to understand the significance and the need for respect of the warbonnet by now, think of it as a really, really tough achievement in World of Warcraft. You do a bunch of long, arduous tasks, you get a flying mount.

You do a bunch of really amazing stuff in Real Life, you get a warbonnet.


Are you sure about this part?
Back to top Go down
WD40
Knight of the Bleach
Knight of the Bleach
avatar

Join date : 2010-02-15
Age : 37
Location : land of broken dreams

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Tue Sep 13, 2011 4:26 am

Personally, I found it fascinating. I read the whole thing easily, and I know I learned something.

It seems to me, however, that there are two articles there... One defining cultural appropriation, and examining how first nations people's culture has been oversimplified and steryotyped, and another article about avoiding it, and dealing with accusations of it.

I agree with Shisaiga's post too... Do you really want to use a WoW achievement as a comparison? And what sort of "really amazing [irl] stuff" are we talking about?
Back to top Go down
Sunatic

avatar

Join date : 2010-07-04
Age : 31
Location : Jyväskylä, Finland

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:26 am

Good article. I don't know much about the tradition of war bonnets (and surely there are cultural differences between tribes regarding it?) but as for what constitutes "really amazing stuff", here's one example.
Back to top Go down
http://nerdywitches.net
rae
Contributor
Contributor
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-10
Location : computer chair

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Tue Sep 13, 2011 9:32 am

Another thing to note: In the US, there are entire tribes that prefer 'American Indian' or even 'Indian' rather than 'First Nations.' However, if in doubt, 'American Indian' (for US-only tribes) or First Nations are probably the best terms to use. Do not use 'Indian' unless very, very certain that is what the majority of the tribe in question prefer. First Nations is probably the best default term, since it is inclusive of both US and Canadian-located tribes.


^This is according to my professor, a Mik Maq, with close ties to a number of other tribes.

Also, is there any chance of us getting to see the pictures? Or is it just my computer not showing them?
Back to top Go down
Sakurelf
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
avatar

Join date : 2009-07-21

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:18 pm

Shisaiga wrote:
Quote :
If you're still really struggling to understand the significance and the need for respect of the warbonnet by now, think of it as a really, really tough achievement in World of Warcraft. You do a bunch of long, arduous tasks, you get a flying mount.

You do a bunch of really amazing stuff in Real Life, you get a warbonnet.


Are you sure about this part?

Not entirely sure, but don't know what to do better.
I mean, remembering this article needs to be accessible to people whose world views are very narrow, due to them being young / not interesting in enlightening themselves.

How do I make associations that Idiot Teenagers (TM) can understand?

Quote :


It seems to me, however, that there are two articles there... One defining cultural appropriation, and examining how first nations people's culture has been oversimplified and steryotyped, and another article about avoiding it, and dealing with accusations of it.

True. But I also wanted to head off a bunch of drama before it starts. If I'm going to be accusing art of being racist, the first thing users will do is ask,. "Ok, but what do you want us to DO about racism?" Which I agree with. I don't want to just call something out without providing something of a solution.

Do you think I could transition better into the second half? Like, start with a different subject, or trail the first half off a bit better?

Quote :
Also, is there any chance of us getting to see the pictures? Or is it just my computer not showing them?

It's not your computer. I often use shorthand for images or videos I insert later on. However, I posted the pictures in another thread, so I can just Copymcpaste for you.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Back to top Go down
Sakurelf
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
avatar

Join date : 2009-07-21

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:47 pm

Quote :
Another thing to note: In the US, there are entire tribes that prefer 'American Indian' or even 'Indian' rather than 'First Nations.' However, if in doubt, 'American Indian' (for US-only tribes) or First Nations are probably the best terms to use. Do not use 'Indian' unless very, very certain that is what the majority of the tribe in question prefer. First Nations is probably the best default term, since it is inclusive of both US and Canadian-located tribes.


^This is according to my professor, a Mik Maq, with close ties to a number of other tribes.

Also, should I change this or would it be too confusing? As much as possible and without being hypocritical, I want to try and stay streamlined. It's already a very complex issue, and it's hard to tell a complete newbie, "Don't ever say this! Except in this situation, possibly this one as well, and maybe these. But don't ever say it!"

1) They get mixed messages / feel like you're hypocritical
2) They feel like it's too complex and don't bother to try and change at all

Thoughts?
Back to top Go down
Sakurelf
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
avatar

Join date : 2009-07-21

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:45 pm

Spoiler:
 


Last edited by Sakurelf on Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:00 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
Owlish
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2010-03-06
Location : Not giving a hoot.

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Tue Sep 13, 2011 11:51 pm

Sakurelf wrote:
Quote :
Another thing to note: In the US, there are entire tribes that prefer 'American Indian' or even 'Indian' rather than 'First Nations.' However, if in doubt, 'American Indian' (for US-only tribes) or First Nations are probably the best terms to use. Do not use 'Indian' unless very, very certain that is what the majority of the tribe in question prefer. First Nations is probably the best default term, since it is inclusive of both US and Canadian-located tribes.


^This is according to my professor, a Mik Maq, with close ties to a number of other tribes.

Also, should I change this or would it be too confusing? As much as possible and without being hypocritical, I want to try and stay streamlined. It's already a very complex issue, and it's hard to tell a complete newbie, "Don't ever say this! Except in this situation, possibly this one as well, and maybe these. But don't ever say it!"

1) They get mixed messages / feel like you're hypocritical
2) They feel like it's too complex and don't bother to try and change at all

Thoughts?

Just don't say anything at all on the subject? Why is it necessary to include it? If you feel you have to include it, explain that there are several culturally-sensitive options to refer to First Nations, but the most important thing is to address people how they would like to be addressed. That's a pretty simple rule, and applies to everyone in any situation.

Sakurelf wrote:
Not entirely sure, but don't know what to do better.
I mean, remembering this article needs to be accessible to people whose world views are very narrow, due to them being young / not interesting in enlightening themselves.

How do I make associations that Idiot Teenagers (TM) can understand?

I hate to be the downer here, but if this is your goal I think your good intentions will likely be for naught. If someone's not interested in being enlightened, they won't be, no matter how articulate you are. And everyone is so trained to think that *racism* is *bad* that a lot of people will automatically fight at the barest suggestion that their way of thinking is *racist* and therefore *bad.* You've explained that issue very well, but comprehending it conceptually and applying it to oneself can be entirely different beasts. I think this piece will be far more successful as a primer for people who want to learn, who have some idea that cultural appropriation is wrong but don't know where to start, or need an easy introduction.

That said, I think your piece is very well-written and you explain a lot of complex issues with tact and finesse. Kudos. My suggestions: include examples of cultural appropriation that don't focus on Native Americans. (Maybe you do in the pics, but I don't see.) Plenty of people know that blackface is wrong, for example, but don't see the parallel between blackface and "native-themed." A lot of people could probably recognize some racist art, even though they don't have the words to explain why it's racist, so making those connections is important. Also, in the very beginning you frame the issue as a "new trend on Deviantart" (paraphrasing) but the issue of cultural appropriation is far older and broader than Deviantart, which you go on to explain at length. I'm just wondering if there is a reason you specify Deviantart at the beginning? Changing that framing can make it more about cultural/historical trends than specific works by specific people, and help head off responses of anger or denial. Overall great work!
Back to top Go down
Sakurelf
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
avatar

Join date : 2009-07-21

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:03 am

Owlish wrote:


Just don't say anything at all on the subject? Why is it necessary to include it? If you feel you have to include it, explain that there are several culturally-sensitive options to refer to First Nations, but the most important thing is to address people how they would like to be addressed. That's a pretty simple rule, and applies to everyone in any situation.

I will go back and rethink this some more. I agree it needs work.

Quote :
Sakurelf wrote:
Not entirely sure, but don't know what to do better.
I mean, remembering this article needs to be accessible to people whose world views are very narrow, due to them being young / not interesting in enlightening themselves.

How do I make associations that Idiot Teenagers (TM) can understand?

I hate to be the downer here, but if this is your goal I think your good intentions will likely be for naught. If someone's not interested in being enlightened, they won't be, no matter how articulate you are. And everyone is so trained to think that *racism* is *bad* that a lot of people will automatically fight at the barest suggestion that their way of thinking is *racist* and therefore *bad.* You've explained that issue very well, but comprehending it conceptually and applying it to oneself can be entirely different beasts. I think this piece will be far more successful as a primer for people who want to learn, who have some idea that cultural appropriation is wrong but don't know where to start, or need an easy introduction.

That said, I think your piece is very well-written and you explain a lot of complex issues with tact and finesse. Kudos. My suggestions: include examples of cultural appropriation that don't focus on Native Americans. (Maybe you do in the pics, but I don't see.) Plenty of people know that blackface is wrong, for example, but don't see the parallel between blackface and "native-themed." A lot of people could probably recognize some racist art, even though they don't have the words to explain why it's racist, so making those connections is important. Also, in the very beginning you frame the issue as a "new trend on Deviantart" (paraphrasing) but the issue of cultural appropriation is far older and broader than Deviantart, which you go on to explain at length. I'm just wondering if there is a reason you specify Deviantart at the beginning? Changing that framing can make it more about cultural/historical trends than specific works by specific people, and help head off responses of anger or denial. Overall great work!

- I will admit. My knowledge about CA is recent, but intense. It's not a subject I have always known about, but I have good sources, including books, websites and relatives. (Mother and sister are teachers, highschool and adult education with First nations issues, aunt has worked on reserve)
- the First nations bit porbably stems from me being Canadian. While we don't specifically learn about residential schools in highschool, society in my local area is pretty much a NEVER SAY NATIVE AMERICAN group. I know it's different in the US, but again, I'm unfamiliar.
- I mention DA because I plan on posting this on DA
- I do make a blackface reference, in my fourth and fifth comics (see my post above teh new article)

k, gotta leave :B
Back to top Go down
Howithurts
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2011-06-20

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Wed Sep 14, 2011 12:27 am

Just a question, but how do you know that the Native Americans were the first nation in America?

Calling them the First Nation is a tad presumptous, don't you think?
Back to top Go down
Maximilia
My spoon is too big.
My spoon is too big.
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-10
Age : 44
Location : South Dakota

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Wed Sep 14, 2011 1:06 am

Howithurts wrote:
Just a question, but how do you know that the Native Americans were the first nation in America?

Calling them the First Nation is a tad presumptous, don't you think?

Because archaeologically, the evidence points to them being the first humans to inhabit North America.
Back to top Go down
Shisaiga
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-03
Location : Kuhdorf, Germany

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Wed Sep 14, 2011 2:26 am

I already asked about the comparison of a warbonnet to a game trophy, but there's the feminist issue too. Yes, an artist shouldn't use feminism as a last-minute excuse, but that doesn't mean you can summarily dismiss feminist issues like that. Just because the wrong person says it for the wrong reasons doesn't mean the point itself is necessarily completely wrong.


Quote :
I will admit. My knowledge about CA is recent, but intense. It's not a subject I have always known about, but I have good sources, including books, websites and relatives.

Then perhaps you should not write about it just yet.

Wait a year until it isn't quite so new and intense. It's a common reaction to having an "Oh, I see!" moment and finally understanding a concept to want to share it and teach others, but it rarely goes well (no matter how right or important it is.). Think of some born-again Christians who are very insistent about showing everyone the light right away. Or that guy who turned vegetarian and suddenly wanted to outlaw meat at the school he was teaching at.

You seem very eager to educate others on the subject, to the extend that you seem willing to include far from perfect examples and things you admit yourself you don't know enough about.

But perhaps I'm projecting, so take this whole comment with a grain of salt.

I've only recently understood "privilege" and I've several times felt the urge to try and explain it to others, but I've seen this often enough to know it's not a good idea at this point. Just because I've found a definition of privilege that doesn't make me go "Eh? But..." doesn't mean everyone else will react the same. Understanding is a long, complicated process, most of it internal.

Your article might very well get someone to start thinking on the topic, but it will take effort on that persons side and probably quite a lot of time and several other discussions/articles/examples/whatever to get them to understand. You most likely won't get any "Oh! I see now!" reactions to posting that (and if anyone says that, it is probably not true, or they knew beforehand already).

Of course it's good to get people to think, but if this is as new to you as it seems, it might be too personal for you just now.
Back to top Go down
Owlish
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2010-03-06
Location : Not giving a hoot.

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:30 am

Sakurelf wrote:
- I will admit. My knowledge about CA is recent, but intense. It's not a subject I have always known about, but I have good sources, including books, websites and relatives. (Mother and sister are teachers, highschool and adult education with First nations issues, aunt has worked on reserve)
- the First nations bit porbably stems from me being Canadian. While we don't specifically learn about residential schools in highschool, society in my local area is pretty much a NEVER SAY NATIVE AMERICAN group. I know it's different in the US, but again, I'm unfamiliar.
- I mention DA because I plan on posting this on DA
- I do make a blackface reference, in my fourth and fifth comics (see my post above teh new article)

k, gotta leave :B

On sources: Looking at the impressive list of citations I can see you've done work on this, however...I see a lot Wikipedia, a lot of Tmblr, and a lot of historical book-report-level pieces. I'll assume this is not a complete list of your work, but the topic you're writing about has been dissected quite thoroughly and eloquently by many scholars, and if you haven't read anything from the field of critical race theory yet I highly suggest it. Hopefully your mom and/or sister can point you in the right direction.

On First Nations v. Native Americans, etc: This can be a very tricky subject, and there likely will never be any consensus here given the huge diversity of peoples these terms have to encompass, so it's probably not a good idea to include it in a primer. If your local society has a preference, absolutely address people how they want to be addressed. I'm accustomed to using "Native American," but personally I would make an extra effort to use "First Nations" if I were conversing with someone who had a distinct preference. But not everyone does, or preferences may differ, so the most important thing is not to generalize.

On the blackface reference: ...I'm not seeing it? Unless you're referring to the comics you drew? I mean that it might be good to include an actual example of blackface in the artworks you dissect, or to include an example of stereotyping a culture other than First Nations. (Cultural appropriation has been going on for a long, long time, and it happens to every minority culture, even though it seems like it's brand new to you.) Or, it might be helpful to break this up into two articles, like WD40 mentioned, one discussing cultural appropriation in general and one discussing CA with specific reference to First Nations.

On DA specificity: I'm going to say this with good intentions, because I do really like what you've written, but honestly... I feel like I could paraphrase your introduction as: "OMG! There are people culturally appropriating on Deviantart! I must stop them!!1"

You refer to cultural appropriation as a "growing trend," when it's actually a very well-established trend. You can't address it "before it becomes the popular thing to do," because it already is the popular thing to do--you've missed the boat by about several centuries. You say that "Unfortunately, that trend has somehow found its way onto Deviantart," which sounds like you thought DA was some paragon of fairness and respect before some dumb kids started culturally appropriating! The "trend" has probably been there since DA began, even though it seems new to you. Again, I'm not trying to be mean because I think you really do have the best intentions here and your writing is fantastic, but the writing is thisclose to sounding self-righteous. I think framing the issue of cultural appropriation in the way that you have is not going to serve your goals, because it sounds like blame is being placed on some dumb kids on DA, rather than on society and history. And it's going to make it that much harder for your target audience to accept it.
Back to top Go down
Sakurelf
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
avatar

Join date : 2009-07-21

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Wed Sep 14, 2011 11:52 am

Here's what I mean when I talk about "recent trend". And you have to understand that the word "trend" means something entirely different in the world of fashion design, than in the rest of the world.

I am a fashion design student. When you enter into the business of fashion, you grow to understand the marketing of trends. A trend lasts from 2 to 8 years.

Trends can be something like

- Colour blocking
- Large shoulders
- Sleeve length slowly lengthening or shortening
- Gothic inspired
- Native American elements (hipster headdress, etc)

Some styles are simply there for a season. (Spring 2011 = everybody wearing floral, fall 2009 = gold accents on everything) Some are annual (e.g. For all of 2011, lilac was a dominant colour on the runway) and some trends slowly evolve and take on new forms.

- 80's style stuff has been trending for half a decade and is still going strong
- Steampunk rose into mainstream about 2 years ago*, and is slowly dying off


*Regarding dates, and again, this is important, I'm not talking about when something started. Because steampunk has existed for a long time. (Wild Wild West was like... 1999)
I'm talking about when the trend is peaking. I.E. "everyone is doing it." So when I say "Started" I mean "Is still going up in popularity, but hasn't hit the max peak yet of EVERYONE wearing gears 'n watchess on their shoes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

(Nevermind the text. Imagine I am talking about April to July on this graph. That is what I mean by "It's starting to become a trend")

The "hipster headdress" trend started just before the summer of last year. Then in the summer it got huge over music festivals, and became a trendy thing over the internet, with people seeing it, then spreading it.

This is what I mean by "stop it before it becomes a huge thing". "Native Inspired" is slowly coming into fashion in these recent years (as opposed to the mid-90's-ish, when it last came around with Pocahontas) and I am speaking out against that.

I certainly know that CA has been around since the dawn of racism, and has even existed in antiquity between the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians. This is not suddenly an "Aha! I need to be good!" moment. It's about an area I am familiar with (fashion) and people wanting to go down an extremely fucked up path.

Knowing trends, this could last for 6 more years in popular culture before people get bored of it. Y'know Steampunk? It's now at the dollar store level and most artists are waiting for that beaten horse to die.

There is a shitton I don't agree with in fashion, especially between me and my marketing prof who is basically like, "Sell, sell, sell! If Indian Feathers are in style, put some damn indian feathers on your dresses. Who gives a shit?" The amount of ignorance and privilege I am exposed to every day makes me grate my teeth.

Even my sources are intentionally chosen to be "watered down". I want people to attempt to read them, not just go "WHOA, GIANT WALL OF POST-GRAD TEXT" and X out of that shit.

I chose sources that, in my opinion, are easier to read and from "real people" to try and draw in a reader, rather than crush them with dry statistics.

When I think of the reader of this article, I do think of one girl in my class in mind. She sees herself as an intelligent young collegiate woman, but doesn't realise that she gets by a lot on her looks. She still says thing like, "Oh, my god, guys, our homework was SO retarded last night, I wanted to kill myself!" or "Ew, parachute pants are SO gay."

When I think of her mental profile, she's not going to say, "Aha, but you did not cite a scholarly article! And your bibliography is neither MLA nor APA! I reject this on the fact that you did not provide post-secondary source material."

She's more likely to think, "Hey, I see a bunch of girls like me making idiots of themselves on Tumblr, and then being made fun of. Maybe that headdress I bought and planned to make my facebook picture was a bad idea."

She isn't an evil person, or even that defensive. But she's completely unaware of her own privilege and it's my opinion that it's easier to draw a person like that in with more down-to-earth reading than long, dry articles. They need to be able to relate, somehow, to what they are reading and what they are saying / doing.

That's also why I want to stay with the Native trend. Yes, other cultures have been appropriated, (always have, probably always will) but since this is what is trending right now, I feel like I need to keep it the main topic of focus.

So, with that in mind

- I have a specific target audience in mind for this article
- That target audience is very, very ignorant. Not unintelligent, but ignorant.
- The goal is to make it easy to read and understand, not be 100% scholarly with lots of 'buts' 'ands' and citations. (boring)
- CA is not a growing trend, but hipster headresses are, and that is what I am refering to

Does that explain things a bit better? Sorry if this reads as defensive, I just wanted to straighten things out and explain what a few key words with multiple definitions meant through my lens. But when I read your words, I will try to imagine how my target audience reads the article, especially the intro, and their reaction.

Also, I plan on going back and reworking the Native American Word section into a different piece. I think it would be informative to instead discuss law and subtle differences between the words. (You're right. I think it was presumptive to insert my own conclusions into this article. I was taught the differences and then told that you should basically just say "First Nations" to avoid trouble. Instead I will back up and focus on the subtleties behind the different words so that people can come to their own conclusions.)

- Aboriginal
- Status
- Non-status
- On-Reserve
- Off-reserve
- Inuit
- First Nations
- American Indian
- Indigenous
- Metis

Again, one of my major downfalls is not a complete lack of research, but the fact that I am Canadian. I have access to uni libraries, but they mostly only carry Canadian sources about Canadian issues. Especially in a hot political area like BC, where the fighting is recent in the long terms (150-ish years) as opposed to the East Coast. Most of my American information comes from online, or generalised sources which try to include multiple countries. It's difficult to break out of a very Canadianized education (Hallo, Louis Riel) and study US versions of things, (both from white documentation, and tribal POVs) but I will do my best in that area.
Back to top Go down
rae
Contributor
Contributor
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-10
Location : computer chair

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:13 pm

One thing you might consider doing is, in addition to tumblr and wiki articles, add a few (2-5) more scholarly links at the bottom, to get the people who are serious about it started off on the right foot. However, I do agree with you that a 101 article needs to start with some pretty watered down information.
Back to top Go down
Sakurelf
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
avatar

Join date : 2009-07-21

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:46 am

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

OH GOD THISISWHY
THISISWHY
THISISWHY

-Front page, again
- naked white girl
- headdress
etc etc etc.

Another one by the same artist, more likely from the same shoot: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The is exactly what I mean by "it's becoming a trend". The Vogueness of Headresses and random "Native American inspired" stuff is very recent. And, of course, you can read the comments.

Quote :
Quote :
if thats the Chiefs daughter what would you give to be his son in law?
Hay Chief, I got a Glass bead factory in Florida. What do ya say?

etc, etc, sexist, racist bullshit.
Back to top Go down
Owlish
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2010-03-06
Location : Not giving a hoot.

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Thu Sep 15, 2011 8:53 pm

Thanks for the clarification, Sakurelf. I didn't realize you were talking about CA specifically within the fashion industry, and apparently I completely misunderstood who your target audience is.

Sakurelf wrote:
Even my sources are intentionally chosen to be "watered down". I want people to attempt to read them, not just go "WHOA, GIANT WALL OF POST-GRAD TEXT" and X out of that shit.

I chose sources that, in my opinion, are easier to read and from "real people" to try and draw in a reader, rather than crush them with dry statistics.

I suggested reading more in depth critical race theory because it might actually help you, not to pad your citations. To help you formulate points which you seem unclear on, or to give you a better sense of the complexity of these issues. But if you don't want to put in any more effort than you absolutely have to, yeah, don't waste your time with big complex ideas when you're pandering to the willfully ignorant. That's cool.

Even if you don't end up citing any scholarly sources in this piece I urge you to do more reading, especially if your interest is as intense as you claim. It would be well worth your time. And I assure you that race theory is not "dry statistics," far from it. The field places a great emphasis on storytelling and narrative as educational tools. Critical Race Theory: An Introduction might be a good place to start, if you can get it.

I understand that you want this piece to be accessible--I'm not suggesting that you change your writing style--but I would still urge you to think about who is going to read this piece and why. If anyone is going to bother looking at your sources, it's going to be people who have at least a minimal interest and want to learn (and maybe your writing can make them want to learn). For the same reason I think your article will largely have to stand on its own, because you can't depend on readers clicking through to the links. But you probably know your target audience better than I do.

(Also, I hope I'm reading this wrong, you don't think that race theory comes from or applies to "real people"? And you think you're in a place to educate other people on these issues?)

Sakurelf wrote:
There is a shitton I don't agree with in fashion, especially between me and my marketing prof who is basically like, "Sell, sell, sell! If Indian Feathers are in style, put some damn indian feathers on your dresses. Who gives a shit?" The amount of ignorance and privilege I am exposed to every day makes me grate my teeth.

Yet, is it realistic to believe that an easy-as-pie intro to cultural appropriation is going to make any of them question that atmosphere? Just putting the question out there, but again you know your target audience better than I do.
Back to top Go down
Howithurts
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2011-06-20

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:05 pm

Maximilia wrote:
Howithurts wrote:
Just a question, but how do you know that the Native Americans were the first nation in America?

Calling them the First Nation is a tad presumptous, don't you think?

Because archaeologically, the evidence points to them being the first humans to inhabit North America.

Because non-stone structures are really going to last thousands of years, especially if another culture conquers them.
Back to top Go down
Sakurelf
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
avatar

Join date : 2009-07-21

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:34 pm

(Yeah, internet text doesn't do so well with my personal speaking style. When writing casual conversation like this, I tend to slip into my face-to-face mode, which includes a lot of very subtle implications which are only clear in my vocal tone. It's also where most of my sense of humour lies. It's awfully difficult to remember that no one can hear my tone when I switch back and forth between normal / sarcasm / implying the other person's pov.)

1) I totally plan on continuing my studies after I write this article. It has become a true interest of mine, not just a white knight cause. I can promise you that.

2) When I say things like "dry statistics" and "real people" again, I am think of Sam in my class.

- 19-ish female, goes clubbing on weekends
- Blonde, blue-eyed european, has modeled before. Very thin, very pretty.
- Wants to be a totally awesome clothing designer. And like, stuff.
- Is the one that lets rip R-bombs and G-bombs left and right
- Can't be seen without a cell phone in hand

So to a naive and privileged club girl, Critical Race Theory probably is "Like, totally boring wall of text, rofl" and that scholars or reknowned activists aren't "real people" because they're so hard to relate to from someone fresh out of highschool and not exactly interested in high academia anyway. (When I say those things, I've automatically switched to Sam-voice in my head. I think I need to colourize my sarcasm.)

Ignorant people like Sam are kinda like children (with whom I also work). You need to leave a trail of breadcrumbs and convince them that they've discovered these conclusions all on their own, all the while you've secretly masterminded and manipulated the outcome the entire time. Otherwise, as many know, they get all defensive and self-righteous and stop listening to any outside ideas. If they feel like Un-Racism was their idea all along! it makes a much smoother transition into real change.

At least, that's my plan.

Also, I feel like it's important to use these very new and very popular images (1 daily deviation, 2 pictures from the front page "popular today" section) to reach a wider audience. Yes, those particular artists are not going to be very happy about being called out on their racism, but they're only about 5 people. (including the new one today) My larger goal is reaching the thousands of small-time artists who will never reach the front-page. Plus, by showing "good" art, it deals with typical non-arguments, such as "popular artists get away with it, you're only picking on small-timers" or "hater hater jealous something whatever"

Quote :
Yet, is it realistic to believe that an easy-as-pie intro to cultural appropriation is going to make any of them question that atmosphere?

Something something raindrop in an ocean. Professionally? No. Amateur-ly? Maybe. I mean, I have to be a little bit white-knight here. I sit in class and listen to lectures on how to take photos to make women feel like they need to buy shit they don't need. And how to outsource all of your labour to china by making a single sample garment instead of manufacturing locally. I don't have a very loud vocie at all, but I do feel like I need to say something.

Large-scale, I don't know if the fashion world is going to pick up on ethics or not. There are some designers that use only eco-friendly fabrics and dyes, and some that mix plus-size models in with regular ones, but to the majority, they're considered a "niche". Not "fringe crazy" but people can't decide if it's just a air-headed trend (remember, 2-8 years) in an effort to gain sympathy, or if Not Raping The Environment will continue on throughout the decades as a Real Thing.

The good thing about DA is that artists there are young, and can be impressionable in a positive way. When exposed to good ideas, a few of them definitely pick them up. When exposed to naked girls in warbonnets, they pick that up too. The tricky business is cleverly snatching out the "Twilight" novels out of backpacks and burning them, while subtlely and unnoticeably replacing them with "The Golden Compass". <- (Again, humour. Requires vocal tone and a cheeky grin. You may nudge yourself with your elbow for added effect.)
Back to top Go down
Maximilia
My spoon is too big.
My spoon is too big.
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-10
Age : 44
Location : South Dakota

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:03 pm

Howithurts wrote:
Maximilia wrote:
Howithurts wrote:
Just a question, but how do you know that the Native Americans were the first nation in America?

Calling them the First Nation is a tad presumptous, don't you think?

Because archaeologically, the evidence points to them being the first humans to inhabit North America.

Because non-stone structures are really going to last thousands of years, especially if another culture conquers them.

...I shouldn't even respond. But I will! Because what fun is an internet argument if people give up?

This article pretty much confirms that the oldest evidence of any human inhabitants in North America is about 14,000 years old. It's estimated that people could have crossed the Bering Land Straight any time after 50,000 years ago. Let me quote, from the very first link I found (wow, the internet can be used for education, who'dathunkit?):

Quote :
The ancestors of modern humans, for example, were much more primitive than they are today and were confined to southern, warmer climates. It was only by about 50,000 years ago that people had evolved cultures capable of supporting them in more northern, colder climates, in northern Europe and Asia, for example.

Quote :
During the advance of the glaciers, modern humans crossed the Bering Land Strait, probably while hunting the large game animals which would have found the conditions there ideal. This crossing was probably a leisurely one, made by hundreds or even thousands of people, and could have occurred any time after 50,000 years ago and probably before 25,000 years ago. Indeed, the "crossing" could have been so gradual that people need not have travelled more than one or two kilometres in their lifetimes.

Although technically, you're correct in a way. The first people in North America are called "PaleoIndians" rather than "Native Americans", but the PaleoIndians are the ancestors of the tribes which the Europeans found many thousands of years later. When you're talking in terms of five-ten thousand or more years, it's not the structures scientists are examining, but rather the waste (which gets fossilized) and tools (which may be fossilized if originally organic, but usually are stone) left behind.
Back to top Go down
Sakurelf
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
avatar

Join date : 2009-07-21

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:00 pm

version 3.0

Spoiler:
 



Last edited by Sakurelf on Mon Sep 19, 2011 8:15 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
rae
Contributor
Contributor
avatar

Join date : 2009-06-10
Location : computer chair

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:53 pm

I think this is definitely looking better and better. I'm going to give it another read once I've had some time to think about it, so I can find any more things to nit-pick. Smile
Back to top Go down
Owlish
Sporkbender
Sporkbender
avatar

Join date : 2010-03-06
Location : Not giving a hoot.

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:58 pm

Sakurelf wrote:
(Yeah, internet text doesn't do so well with my personal speaking style. When writing casual conversation like this, I tend to slip into my face-to-face mode, which includes a lot of very subtle implications which are only clear in my vocal tone. It's also where most of my sense of humour lies. It's awfully difficult to remember that no one can hear my tone when I switch back and forth between normal / sarcasm / implying the other person's pov.)

Quote :
Yet, is it realistic to believe that an easy-as-pie intro to cultural appropriation is going to make any of them question that atmosphere?

Something something raindrop in an ocean. Professionally? No. Amateur-ly? Maybe. I mean, I have to be a little bit white-knight here. I sit in class and listen to lectures on how to take photos to make women feel like they need to buy shit they don't need. And how to outsource all of your labour to china by making a single sample garment instead of manufacturing locally. I don't have a very loud vocie at all, but I do feel like I need to say something.

Large-scale, I don't know if the fashion world is going to pick up on ethics or not. There are some designers that use only eco-friendly fabrics and dyes, and some that mix plus-size models in with regular ones, but to the majority, they're considered a "niche". Not "fringe crazy" but people can't decide if it's just a air-headed trend (remember, 2-8 years) in an effort to gain sympathy, or if Not Raping The Environment will continue on throughout the decades as a Real Thing.

The good thing about DA is that artists there are young, and can be impressionable in a positive way. When exposed to good ideas, a few of them definitely pick them up. When exposed to naked girls in warbonnets, they pick that up too. The tricky business is cleverly snatching out the "Twilight" novels out of backpacks and burning them, while subtlely and unnoticeably replacing them with "The Golden Compass". <- (Again, humour. Requires vocal tone and a cheeky grin. You may nudge yourself with your elbow for added effect.)

Ok, makes sense. Smile I'll try to start reading some things with "Sam voice" in mind. lol I really don't mean to get down on you at all, and I should apologize for my previous comment. You're absolutely right that it's better to say something than nothing, no matter what odds you're up against. What you are doing is fantastic, and I applaud your effort to speak out from within such a stifling atmosphere. I think I was trying to make a point about tone or something, but really that was just my cynicism coming out, and I need to work on not forcing my cynicism on everyone else. Rolling Eyes But I really commend you for undertaking an effort this large.

And as far as adding scholarly articles, I don't think it's absolutely necessary to add sources just because they are "scholarly." I only suggested it because in my experience the quality and depth of those sources is better than Tumblr posts. *shrug* But cite the sources you use, don't make an extra effort to incorporate sources just because.


A few other thoughts:

-A few times you mention "asking permission" before using cultural elements. Couple of questions: Who are artists supposed to ask permission from, exactly? If they don't know, how do they find out? What if whoever they ask says no--should they drop the project entirely? This gets really complicated, because nobody owns or has a copyright on "culture," and it kind of goes without saying that cultural appropriation is not illegal. What if an artist does obtain permission from one source, but someone else who also identifies with First Nation culture doesn't approve, whose opinion wins? (One essay you may want to read is "What is this 'black' in black popular culture?" by Stuart Hall. Obviously it's about black culture, so a lot of it won't apply to First Nations directly--and it's definitely not easy reading--but it might start you thinking about 'culture' differently, and what it actually means to 'appropriate' something).

-The "terms" section is excellent! However, I don't think it should be the very first section of your article. Someone who thinks "native-inspired" art is a good idea is going to be completely lost when you start off by dissecting what "native" means without any of the historical background; I think Sam would tune out completely.

-In the "terms" section under "non status," you include the statement: “kill the Indian to save the man.” That statement definitely needs unpacking. I can imagine Sam scratching her head and going "huh?" scratch You're familiar with the historical treatment of First Nations people, but someone who knows nothing about that history is going to be completely clueless. Maybe you could move the "terms" section below the "residential schools" part, and discuss the thinking behind that statement more thoroughly along with the schools?

-I think you could add more to the "stereotypes have a basis in truth!" defense, near the bottom; you address it further up with the "detailed truth vs generalization" section, but I think these could be combined and emphasized. This is a really important point to get across, because a lot of people who do have genuinely good intentions will be hurt and confused that their "Indian inspired" art that may actually be based on research is still stereotyping, and that the final product is so far from truthful it's not even funny. In my experience that "truth" bit is one of the hardest brambles to pick through, and could use more explication.
Back to top Go down
Sakurelf
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
Shitgobbling pissdrinker
avatar

Join date : 2009-07-21

PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:24 pm

I've taken your later suggestions and moved a few chunks around. Then I'll go back over my sources section.

Regarding the "asking permission" I can't demand much from anyone, as said. All I can do is encourage people to reach out and read, seek real people and then take it into consideration whetehr what they are doing is a good idea or not. Ultimately, it is the artist's decision whether to make a piece or take it down. All I can ask is that the critical thinking goes into it beforehand, not kick them in the ass afterward. So if one person says, "yes," and another says "no," that boils down to the artist.

Personally, I wouldn't make something unless I got 100% yes all around, rather than 80-90%. But I can't force people to follow that.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: CA 101 v3.0   

Back to top Go down
 
CA 101 v3.0
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Why God, Why? :: The Sporking Table :: New Releases-
Jump to: