El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 12:18 pm
Is "Pow Wow Food" offensive? It sounds offensive, but I don't know.
While I hated the Milbank column (obviously), the cookbook thing isn't a great look.
I'm no authority, but I don't know why it would be, as long as it's referring to an actual pow wow, and not just any group of people meeting. Pow wows are not uncommon out here and are often open to the public.
The cookbook itself isn't a great look, or just her contribution to it?
Well, I wasn't wondering whether "pow wow food" is offensive in all contexts, it's just that it's the kind of thing where if you have a bunch of white people discussing "pow wow food", and *especially* a group of white people in the 80s or earlier discussing "pow wow food"...it feels like the odds of that coming out pretty racist (or at least, extremely culturally insensitive) seem pretty high. Like was that "Pow Wow Chow" put out in the 80s by Native Americans, or by like Random House? If it's the latter...I mean, it's possible for that to not come out racist, but it's not very likely.
I'm thinking of stuff like the Native song from the Disney Peter Pan movie. That wasn't racist for the time, and I'm pretty sure that no one making that movie batted an eye about the song at the time...but holy shit is that racist now.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:44 pm
I'm no authority, but I don't know why it would be, as long as it's referring to an actual pow wow, and not just any group of people meeting.
Why would this be a requirement? The dictionary definition offers the following definition:
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:06 pm
Everything I see attributes it to the FiveTribes.
Yeah, it looks like it was published by a Native American museum. They're selling it, not exhibiting it as cultural appropriation.
As criticism, "Warren contributed material to a museum fundraiser!" doesn't really have teeth.
I couldn't (still can't) tell whether the Seminole Museum was publishing / selling it, or whether it's an item in their museum. Or whether the "Five Tribes" made it, or whether the book was just put out as a series of recipes attributable to the five tribes.
Definitely a different story as to Warren if it's the tribes (or a native museum) putting this together (though it's a little weird for them to describe Warren as "Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee".
BTW anti-Warren trolls have definitely gotten to the Pow Wow Chow reviews in the past few days...
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:44 pm
I'm no authority, but I don't know why it would be, as long as it's referring to an actual pow wow, and not just any group of people meeting.
Why would this be a requirement? The dictionary definition offers the following definition:
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:50 pm
It's cultural appropriation.
The English language has been doing that forever. Do you propose to expunge all words with foreign origins?
I don't care how long it's been happening and I didn't propose anything. It was asked why it can be offensive and now you know. You can decide yourself whether you want to use it or not.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:50 pm
It's cultural appropriation.
The English language has been doing that forever. Do you propose to expunge all words with foreign origins?
I don't care how long it's been happening and I didn't propose anything. It was asked why it can be offensive and now you know. You can decide yourself whether you want to use it or not.
Except you threw out something that doesn't really apply. If the common usage of "powwow" required all attendees don a feathered headdress and toke from a peace pipe, you might have something there, but that's not how the term is employed in common usage.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:50 pm
It's cultural appropriation.
The English language has been doing that forever. Do you propose to expunge all words with foreign origins?
The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:50 pm
It's cultural appropriation.
The English language has been doing that forever. Do you propose to expunge all words with foreign origins?
I don't care how long it's been happening and I didn't propose anything. It was asked why it can be offensive and now you know. You can decide yourself whether you want to use it or not.
Except you threw out something that doesn't really apply. If the common usage of "powwow" required all attendees don a feathered headdress and toke from a peace pipe, you might have something there, but that's not how the term is employed in common usage.
Right, but the origins of the term "pow wow" are specifically a Native American meeting, which has been expanded through colloquial use. Kind of like how "gyp" in common use refers to any rip off or cheat, not specific to gypsies / Roma, but the origin of the term is connected to the gypsies (and is part of the baggage of the term).
Not that I think of "pow wow" as inherently offensive, but I personally would just be careful about using it outside of a Native American gathering (and would probably just err on the side of just saying "meeting".
Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:06 pm
Everything I see attributes it to the FiveTribes.
Yeah, it looks like it was published by a Native American museum. They're selling it, not exhibiting it as cultural appropriation.
As criticism, "Warren contributed material to a museum fundraiser!" doesn't really have teeth.
I couldn't (still can't) tell whether the Seminole Museum was publishing / selling it, or whether it's an item in their museum. Or whether the "Five Tribes" made it, or whether the book was just put out as a series of recipes attributable to the five tribes.
Definitely a different story as to Warren if it's the tribes (or a native museum) putting this together (though it's a little weird for them to describe Warren as "Elizabeth Warren, Cherokee".
BTW anti-Warren trolls have definitely gotten to the Pow Wow Chow reviews in the past few days...
I'm assuming it was published by the Five Civilized Tribes Museum in Muskogee. The binding style is the flimsy plastic of the sort you used to see (in the 80s) when small organizations, high schools, etc put together a publication "in house" for fundraising. I remember our churches put out collections (even recipe collections) that looked exactly like that.
I suspect that every contributor is listed with their name and the tribe with which they are affiliated. This is a small publication to which Warren contributed because she likely had a personal connection. (Isn't she from Muskogee herself?) It definitely wasn't something that would be expected to reach a wide audience or be a move in some game of identity politics.
Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:18 pm
I'm all for standing up to the bully, but I don't think this attempt by Warren was very effective. I think it provides grist for the Trump mill.
Look, I'm 100% behind almost anybody that has a good chance of beating Trump in the general. I just don't think Warren is that person.
Completely agree, and your other point above as well. Stupid move by Warren, IMO. And just from a personal perspective, makes me like her less than I did before (that's too strong...don't like her less, just is a negative in my view).
I don't/didn't DISLIKE her, I just think she goes overboard sometimes, and has a Hillary-esque demeanor when she has the podium. Just seems "forced" when she's going after someone, or trying to fire up a crowd. I dunno...I guess I just really like Biden a lot more.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:50 pm
It's cultural appropriation.
The English language has been doing that forever. Do you propose to expunge all words with foreign origins?
I don't care how long it's been happening and I didn't propose anything. It was asked why it can be offensive and now you know. You can decide yourself whether you want to use it or not.
Except you threw out something that doesn't really apply. If the common usage of "powwow" required all attendees don a feathered headdress and toke from a peace pipe, you might have something there, but that's not how the term is employed in common usage.
Pow wow itself is cultural, not just the stereotypical things you associate with them.
Sometimes foreign or cultural terms express shades of meaning beyond a generic bland English word. Is this a bad thing? I think not. The average Native American probably does not give a flying fuck if you call a meeting a pow wow.
I trust everyone is aware, though, that actual Native Americans hold cultural festivals they call "pow wows" all the time. Google the term and you can probably attend one near you.
The pre-Trump American identity was one of inclusion, and I guess I still hold to that. "Powwow" for meeting is a term that melted into the pot, much like "siesta" for nap and "bacchanal" for hell of a good time. It should also be noted that all of these terms pass English language spell-check.
Jeff V wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:53 pm
The pre-Trump American identity was one of inclusion
I'm sure about that. I *do* think it was the identity the Obama administration liked to believe they were striving for, but I still have clear recollections get in the back seat that betrayed the greater message. Before that, I think we've had a long history of "me" which was neither inclusive or exclusive as an identity by design. Me bent everything to our own purpose at the time and include and exclude were tools to help me.
Jeff V wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:53 pm
The pre-Trump American identity was one of inclusion
I'm sure about that. I *do* think it was the identity the Obama administration liked to believe they were striving for, but I still have clear recollections get in the back seat that betrayed the greater message. Before that, I think we've had a long history of "me" which was neither inclusive or exclusive as an identity by design. Me bent everything to our own purpose at the time and include and exclude were tools to help me.
In olden days, it was certainly easier to treat ethnic issues with a broad "melting pot" brush. Treating each ethnicity uniquely definitely creates greater sensitivity and ultimately adds to fragmentation - it creates ethnic silos and ghettos and rather than individual seeking to integrate into an American identity they instead attempt to recreate their homeland here and resist cultural integration.
But the era of the melting pot ideal was also a very racist time. Immigrants who did their best to melt still faced all the exclusions that immigrants faced today, pretty much in proportion to skin tone.
The melting pot was always a model of deference to white cultural authority.
It could be argued that a melting pot *is* happening in the realm of popular culture, where white kids fall in love with minority artists. (Ask the conservative establishment how much they approve of that.)
Holman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:43 pm
But the era of the melting pot ideal was also a very racist time. Immigrants who did their best to melt still faced all the exclusions that immigrants faced today, pretty much in proportion to skin tone.
The melting pot was always a model of deference to white cultural authority.
It could be argued that a melting pot *is* happening in the realm of popular culture, where white kids fall in love with minority artists. (Ask the conservative establishment how much they approve of that.)
The melting pot idea came about during a racist time (which is, basically, the beginning of time to present), but the melting pot idea itself isn't racist.
Holman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:43 pm
But the era of the melting pot ideal was also a very racist time. Immigrants who did their best to melt still faced all the exclusions that immigrants faced today, pretty much in proportion to skin tone.
The melting pot was always a model of deference to white cultural authority.
It could be argued that a melting pot *is* happening in the realm of popular culture, where white kids fall in love with minority artists. (Ask the conservative establishment how much they approve of that.)
The melting pot idea came about during a racist time (which is, basically, the beginning of time to present), but the melting pot idea itself isn't racist.
It all depends on who defines what people are supposed to be melted into.
A modern American melting pot would require that far more white Americans learn Spanish. But most Americans opposed to multiculturalism and in favor of the melting pot model would reject this. When they say "melting pot" they mean "Everybody be pasty Anglo whites."
Holman wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 4:43 pm
But the era of the melting pot ideal was also a very racist time. Immigrants who did their best to melt still faced all the exclusions that immigrants faced today, pretty much in proportion to skin tone.
The melting pot was always a model of deference to white cultural authority.
It could be argued that a melting pot *is* happening in the realm of popular culture, where white kids fall in love with minority artists. (Ask the conservative establishment how much they approve of that.)
The melting pot idea came about during a racist time (which is, basically, the beginning of time to present), but the melting pot idea itself isn't racist.
It all depends on who defines what people are supposed to be melted into.
A modern American melting pot would require that far more white Americans learn Spanish. But most Americans opposed to multiculturalism and in favor of the melting pot model would reject this. When they say "melting pot" they mean "Everybody be pasty Anglo whites."
Right. The melting pot idea can be applied in a racist way, but it is not itself racist. By comparison, the citizenship models of European countries, which tend to be way more limited in who can become French / German / etc. (to the point where you have third generation Turkish Germans who are not citizens), tends to be more racist in effect.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:24 pm
Right. The melting pot idea can be applied in a racist way, but it is not itself racist.
Eh, making people lose their heritage/cultural background in order to melt into the melting pot is kinda racist, even if not necessarily in a "your race is bad" kind of way.
The double standard applied to Warren is infuriating. Who cares about her heritage when the entire Trump mythology of success is based on bolder lies?
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein "I don't stand by anything." - Trump “Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867 “It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
If your parents, grandparents, etc. tell you all your life you have Cherokee blood, why wouldn't you believe them? And why wouldn't you use that to your advantage, if you truly felt that was part of your heritage?
It reminds me of Trump screaming "FAKE NEWS" when a newspaper makes an error that they later retract. As if they did it intentionally. Yet for some reason he can bald-faced lie even in the face of video evidence, and it's OK.
It all goes back to the fact that Trump is incapable of seeing another person's perspective. He thinks everyone is a liar and cheat just like he is because that's all he knows.
I don't think it was a lie for her to say that she had a Native American ancestor.
I think it goes into a grayer area if she said she was a Native American (especially if she used it for benefit, which, AFAIU, she didn't).
But race is a social construct, anyway, and one that's been completely inconsistent throughout history. Sometimes it's determined by appearances, sometimes it isn't, and "one drop of blood" is all it takes. Someone who is Latino or Arab or Indian or Native American would have been considered white at certain times or in certain states in our history but not in others.
El Guapo wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 5:24 pm
Right. The melting pot idea can be applied in a racist way, but it is not itself racist.
Eh, making people lose their heritage/cultural background in order to melt into the melting pot is kinda racist, even if not necessarily in a "your race is bad" kind of way.
(Hence the notion of the Salad Bowl)
I mean, if you want to quibble on metaphors, sure, let's go with a salad bowl. I guess lettuce leafs keep their traditional culture while fondue ingredients do not.
Kurth wrote: ↑Tue Oct 16, 2018 3:18 pm
I'm all for standing up to the bully, but I don't think this attempt by Warren was very effective. I think it provides grist for the Trump mill.
Look, I'm 100% behind almost anybody that has a good chance of beating Trump in the general. I just don't think Warren is that person.
Completely agree, and your other point above as well. Stupid move by Warren, IMO. And just from a personal perspective, makes me like her less than I did before (that's too strong...don't like her less, just is a negative in my view).
I don't/didn't DISLIKE her, I just think she goes overboard sometimes, and has a Hillary-esque demeanor when she has the podium. Just seems "forced" when she's going after someone, or trying to fire up a crowd. I dunno...I guess I just really like Biden a lot more.
This
Jaymann wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 3:24 pm
Sometimes foreign or cultural terms express shades of meaning beyond a generic bland English word. Is this a bad thing? I think not. The average Native American probably does not give a flying fuck if you call a meeting a pow wow.
FWIW I am already tired about talking about Warren's ancestry. Maybe that's part of the value proposition for her - make it so no one will want to think about this in 2019 and 2020.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:44 pm
I'm no authority, but I don't know why it would be, as long as it's referring to an actual pow wow, and not just any group of people meeting.
Why would this be a requirement? The dictionary definition offers the following definition:
Informal. any conference or meeting.
It's cultural appropriation.
Not a thing.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:40 am
FWIW I am already tired about talking about Warren's ancestry. Maybe that's part of the value proposition for her - make it so no one will want to think about this in 2019 and 2020.
That was my thought. Part of why the "emails" stung Clinton was the timing. Getting it out now, she can pretty much ignore it by the time 2020 rolls around.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:50 pm
It's cultural appropriation.
Not a thing.
Cultural appropriation very much is a thing for people who are powerless. It's about control and it's about belief. In some cases, people see their beliefs being taken and used to make money, to mock them. It can be hurtful. It may not intentionally be that way, the people taking it may not even consider it that way, but it exists for some minority people. To dismiss it out of hand is unfair and ignorant.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 1:44 pm
I'm no authority, but I don't know why it would be, as long as it's referring to an actual pow wow, and not just any group of people meeting.
Why would this be a requirement? The dictionary definition offers the following definition:
El Guapo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:40 am
FWIW I am already tired about talking about Warren's ancestry. Maybe that's part of the value proposition for her - make it so no one will want to think about this in 2019 and 2020.
That was my thought. Part of why the "emails" stung Clinton was the timing. Getting it out now, she can pretty much ignore it by the time 2020 rolls around.
Alefroth wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 2:50 pm
It's cultural appropriation.
Not a thing.
Cultural appropriation very much is a thing for people who are powerless. It's about control and it's about belief. In some cases, people see their beliefs being taken and used to make money, to mock them. It can be hurtful. It may not intentionally be that way, the people taking it may not even consider it that way, but it exists for some minority people. To dismiss it out of hand is unfair and ignorant.
If people are using another's culture to mock them, that's bigoted and racist. But no one should claim ownership of their culture. Beliefs, traditions, food, language, and all the other components of culture do not create some kind of patent-like monopoly right. Culture is not property. No one has or should have the right to preclude others from trespassing on their culture.
I'm fine with asking for proper attribution. That's a matter of courtesy and respect.
Outside of that, I stand by "cultural appropriation" is not (or should not be) a thing.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
We're all guilty of cultural appropriation at some level. I would hope that much of what folks deem to be cultural appropriation are more in line with cultural exchange. But the balance of power often makes the distinction hard to define.
