• Current Events, Politics
    & Science

    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • CEPS Moderators: cduggles | Deru | mal3volent
  • Bluelight HOT THREADS
  • Let's Welcome Our NEW MEMBERS!

Megathread Cultural Appropriation and Cancel Culture Discussion

burn out

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
7,570
Location
Michigan
There are plenty of black people in other countries who are far wealthier than in the United States.

Given is a pretty loaded word. I would say they had zero opportunity when brought as slaves, and I don’t think the entire Civil Rights movement was related to something “given” to black people.

I thought you had a good argument going before this stuff, fwiw. But you completely lost me.

I'm saying they came here as slaves but the USA ended slavery and were eventually able to rise up to participate in the highest levels of government. Let's also not forget that they were slaves in their own country at the time and that there were black slave owners in America.

You're probably looking at this through the lens of "well of course we shouldn't have slavery" and "of course black freed slaves should be allowed to participate in government", etc. But if you look around the world and you look at history, notions like this were not obvious at all to many societies, there are places that still have slaves. Do you think Saudi Arabia has ever had a black president?

So when you look at race relations in the USA, a large part of how you see it will be determined by what you use as your bases for comparison. If your bases for comparison is an imaginary utopia where slavery never existed, blacks were never regarded as inferior, and everyone got along, you will see America's history differently from someone who compares it to what was actually going on in other countries around the world during the time America had slaves and the decades following.

So I am sorry if you don't like my wording, I wrote that post in a hurry but I really don't think it detracts from my overall point. I'm not tryng to say blacks didn't have to fight for rights and freedoms in the USA, but clearly their fight would not have been successful if the country as a whole was against their cause. Let's say America was truly irredeemably racist and 90% of white people hated black people. Why would they allow them to become members of congress, to become president, to become millionaires and celebrities? Why would they create and approve programs designed to help black people like affirmative program which can add as much as 100 points to black person's SAT score allowing them to get into schools over Asians and whites who performed better?
 
Last edited:

Zephyn

Bluelighter
Joined
Oct 31, 2020
Messages
2,095
What to cultural appropriation and cancel culture have in common other than some people getting "cancelled" for appropriation? These threads don't necessarily mix
 

cduggles

Sr. Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
18,214
Location
A chromatically corrected world
What to cultural appropriation and cancel culture have in common other than some people getting "cancelled" for appropriation? These threads don't necessarily mix
A lot of people were posting simultaneously about both topics, and it would have been impossible to split the thread. Agree they’re an odd couple.
 

cduggles

Sr. Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
18,214
Location
A chromatically corrected world
I'm saying they came here as slaves but the USA ended slavery and were eventually able to rise up to participate in the highest levels of government. Let's also not forget that they were slaves in their own country at the time and that there were black slave owners in America.

You're probably looking at this through the lens of "well of course we shouldn't have slavery" and "of course black freed slaves should be allowed to participate in government", etc. But if you look around the world and you look at history, notions like this were not obvious at all to many societies, there are places that still have slaves. Do you think Saudi Arabia has ever had a black president?

So when you look at race relations in the USA, a large part of how you see it will be determined by what you use as your bases for comparison. If your bases for comparison is an imaginary utopia where slavery never existed, blacks were never regarded as inferior, and everyone got along, you will see America's history differently from someone who compares it to what was actually going on in other countries around the world during the time America had slaves and the decades following.

So I am sorry if you don't like my wording, I wrote that post in a hurry but I really don't think it detracts from my overall point. I'm not tryng to say blacks didn't have to fight for rights and freedoms in the USA, but clearly their fight would not have been successful if the country as a whole was against their cause. Let's say America was truly irredeemably racist and 90% of white people hated black people. Why would they allow them to become members of congress, to become president, to become millionaires and celebrities? Why would they create and approve programs designed to help black people like affirmative program which can add as much as 100 points to black person's SAT score allowing them to get into schools over Asians and whites who performed better?
I get the gist of what you mean (sorry I’m in a huge hurry), but I would state that I think there were plenty of people who had problems with every advancement black people have made, and still do to this day.
 

burn out

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
7,570
Location
Michigan
I get the gist of what you mean (sorry I’m in a huge hurry), but I would state that I think there were plenty of people who had problems with every advancement black people have made, and still do to this day.

Oh certainly but they are not the majority. The country voted in a black president twice in landslide elections.

There is always going to a segment of white people that doesn't want to live around blacks, just as there are some black people who don't want to be around whites. However, these types of opinions are not at all acceptable in mainstream society, at least not for white people. During the BLM protests last year there were crowds of black people marching chanting "kill the white folk" and yet this got very little media coverage at all. Can you imagine what would have happened had if white people took to the streets and chanted "kill the black folk"? Yet we are told America is a white supremacist country and all its institutions promote white supremacy despite the fact they many of them actively discriminate against white people and asians.
 

cduggles

Sr. Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
18,214
Location
A chromatically corrected world
^ I’m not sure how we got from kneeling to affirmative action and BLM, but it’s really off topic to me. Dragging this stuff in is where you lost me on what looked at first like a very reasonable argument against kneeling.

We have a BLM thread if you’d like to continue in this vein:

 

burn out

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
7,570
Location
Michigan
My response to Xorkoth contained two parts. The first part was an argument against kneeling, which I am glad you found very reasonable.

The second part was a response to his statement that he never saw what the fuss was about. I tried to give my theory on what the fuss was about, which was that this issue was guaranteed to bring in ratings/serve the media's agenda because it relates to a very hot button topic in our society today: racism/wokeness/BLM. That's how we got from kneeling to BLM.

You can agree with my argument against kneeling and disagree with my theory on what the fuss about it was, so I am confused as to how I "lost you". Perhaps you didn't read carefully enough? If you disagree on what the fuss was about, that's fine and I'd like to hear your opinion on what it was about. You can keep it short if you feel it's off topic or post in the other thread.
 
Last edited:

cduggles

Sr. Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
18,214
Location
A chromatically corrected world
Okay, that’s fair.
You lost me in the sense of me disagreeing with the underpinnings of your statement, which obviates me from agreeing with the post as a whole.
Also, I followed your reasoning, but I found some of the language to be objectionable, like the words “give” and “allow” regarding the civil rights movement, which I believe I’ve sufficiently explained.
Additionally, Colin Kaepernick first knelt in 2016, which predates the rise of BLM as a nationally popular organization (mostly in 2019 to 2020), so that’s not what all the media attention was about at that time or for at least a couple of years afterwards. Maybe BLM is part of the narrative now that drives the attention towards kneeling in sports, but it certainly wasn’t then and it was more prominent then. So I don’t think a thorough or cogent explanation comes from that line of reasoning.
(Affirmative action is to my mind completely irrelevant to why kneeling by NFL teams received so much attention, for thoroughness.)
I think there are media narratives on the left and right that drove and still drive the media’s attention to athletes kneeling, and that they revolve around the core issue of police brutality being either systemic or “a few bad apples”, depending on which side of the issue one falls.
I felt your language was very loaded in your description of these drivers, among other problematic aspects that I won’t get into, see examples below:

average blue collar football fan
Decent hard working people
they have been given the opportunity to rise

You're probably looking at this through the lens of
This last one just annoyed me because you made an assumption about how I think.

Colin Kaepernick was clearly canceled by those “decent hard working people”, so this is at least partly relevant to this thread, so I’ll leave it here.
 

burn out

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
7,570
Location
Michigan
Also, I followed your reasoning, but I found some of the language to be objectionable, like the words “give” and “allow” regarding the civil rights movement, which I believe I’ve sufficiently explained.

I am not sure that has been sufficiently explained. Are you suggesting black people took these rights by force? Because otherwise, I don't see how the word give doesn't apply. If you owed me $1,000 I would be perfectly justified in saying give me what you owe. The only way I would see that word not applying would be if I took the money back by force. Even if I held a gun to your head, I could still say "I held a gun to his head and he finally gave me the money he owed me".

Additionally, Colin Kaepernick first knelt in 2016, which predates the rise of BLM as a nationally popular organization (mostly in 2019 to 2020), so that’s not what all the media attention was about at that time or for at least a couple of years afterwards

I have to disagree with you here. This is a quote from an article published in July of 2016:

The Black Lives Matter movement, which came to national prominence in the wake of the 2014 police shooting of an unarmed black 18-year-old in Ferguson, Missouri, continues to gain attention following other incidents involving the deaths of black Americans during encounters with the police. A recent Pew Research Center survey conducted Feb. 29-May 8, 2016, found that general awareness of Black Lives Matter is widespread among black and white U.S. adults, but attitudes about the movement vary considerably between groups.

I am pretty sure I had heard of BLM in 2016 and if you read the rest of the link it says 70% of Americans had heard of it. I would consider something that 70% of Americans had heard of to be nationally popular. It may have become even more popular later on but it had already gained national attention in 2016.

I think there are media narratives on the left and right that drove and still drive the media’s attention to athletes kneeling, and that they revolve around the core issue of police brutality being either systemic or “a few bad apples”, depending on which side of the issue one falls.

Yes, I agree. That is basically what I was trying to say although I'd have to amend this to say the core issue is not simply police brutality, but more specifically police brutality/excessive force used on black people and police racism against black people. When police kill or mistreat an unarmed white man, it does not gain anywhere near the coverage or garner anywhere near the same level of public outrage.
 

cduggles

Sr. Moderator: CEPS, Words
Staff member
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
Messages
18,214
Location
A chromatically corrected world
Are you suggesting black people took these rights by force?
I would state that that black people used many mechanisms to assert these rights, with great risk to their lives, most of these methods being peaceful. Passive resistance being chief among them.

The Freedom Riders (such as the late great Congressman John Lewis, some of whom were killed by firebombing or injured), assassinated leaders (Martin Luther King Jr. being the obvious example), activists who fought for integration who faced fire hoses and white supremacists and police dogs, and the kids who attend hostile mainly white schools certainly weren’t “allowed” or “given” those freedoms as I understand those words. They fought for them.

(And yes there were white people who helped.)


I am pretty sure I had heard of BLM in 2016 and if you read the rest of the link it says 70% of Americans had heard of it. I would consider something that 70% of Americans had heard of to be nationally popular. It may have become even more popular later on but it had already gained national attention in 2016.
Hearing about a hashtag isn’t exactly how I would measure national profile, as BLM had a national network of just over 30 local chapters between 2014 and 2016. That isn’t even one chapter per state.

My measurement of BLM’s significant rise to national prominence was “when an estimated 15 million to 26 million people participated in the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests in the United States, making it one of the largest movements in the country's history.”

And we’ll also have to disagree on how important BLM was in driving media narrative pre-2019 to 2020, when people, including myself, had merely heard of them. I don’t think they drove the agenda of the mainstream media back then as they did in 2019 to 2020, and I would argue they have had their peak, although they are still useful to right-wing media.
 

burn out

Bluelighter
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
7,570
Location
Michigan
I would state that that black people used many mechanisms to assert these rights, with great risk to their lives, most of these methods being peaceful. Passive resistance being chief among them.

The Freedom Riders (such as the late great Congressman John Lewis, some of whom were killed by firebombing or injured), assassinated leaders (Martin Luther King Jr. being the obvious example), activists who fought for integration who faced fire hoses and white supremacists and police dogs, and the kids who attend hostile mainly white schools certainly weren’t “allowed” or “given” those freedoms as I understand those words. They fought for them.

(And yes there were white people who helped.)

Not to sound nitpicky but the example I provided demonstrated that you can fight for something and still use the word given to describe your acquisition of it. Here is a quote from history.com:

During Reconstruction, Black people took on leadership roles like never before. They held public office and sought legislative changes for equality and the right to vote.

In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution gave Black people equal protection under the law. In 1870, the 15th Amendment granted Black American men the right to vote.


As you can see, they are using terms like "gave" and "granted". If these terms were really considered objectionable, I find it hard to believe history.com would be using them. You might personally find them objectionable, but this is the first time I have heard this.

As for the BLM timeline, I agree that they did not drive the agenda of the mainstream media in 2016 and frankly I don't think they drove it in 2019 either but they did get national news coverage. I would consider an organization with 30 plus chapters around the nation that 70% of Americans have heard of and which garners national news coverage on a regular bases to be prominent. However, I agree they became a lot more prominent over the following years, especially in 2020. Of course exactly when an organization achieves "national prominence" is to some degree subjective, so we can agree to disagree on this point. I acrtually don't think we're too far apart, it's just that downplaying their prominence in 2016 serves your point and emphasizing it serves mine.
 
Top