Speaking of being PC...

[2xx1xy1JD]

I have some general issues with Dr. Sears and the larger Attachment Parenting thing, because he took things that people had been doing all along, stuck the label Attachment Parenting on it, and Attachment Parenting went on to become a thing with a definite definition and set of rules.  It's not that his suggestions are bad - it's just that he wasn't the first one to think of these things, and it's also that the whole idea of Attachment Theory predates him and refers to something that's a bit different from what he promotes.

I'd say that Dr. Sears isn't just about "white privilege" but "professional Western privilege".  In plain English - he's not writing as "Bill Sears", he's writing as "Dr. Sears", and his American medical background boosts his credibility.  In some ways, that makes sense - a pediatrician is an expert in infant health, for example.  In some ways, there's not much connection.

Now - is that a bad thing?  I don't really like vague "anthropologists say" statements very much.  I mean, the world is a really big place, filled with many diverse cultures, and that one statement seems to lump them all together.  I'm also a nerd, so I like footnotes and sources.  At the same time - IF there is information from elsewhere that challenges some of the assumptions about how we do things and shows that there is an alternative, why not mention it?

About the "when other cultures do it, they get an F" point:  I do remember reading one psychological report, where there was a brief reference to papooses and suggesting that babies raised in this style don't interact with the mother very much.  The report was tossed out over concerns of racism.  I would agree that valuing something only when it is embraced by a white doctor would be maddening - but the fact that the white doctor is supporting some traditional practices is not the problem.  It can even be helpful, to the extent that it reduces stigma and false concerns about some of those practices in the white North American community.  The problem is that the other cultures got an F in the first place.

[Terrie]

My problem with the "the F is the problem"  argument is that it gives a pass to people who are willing to take advantage of that F. Do you think cultural appropriation is something that actually exists, and, if so, what would be an example that you agree is cultural appropriation? 

[PregnantPornStar]

I have some general issues with Dr. Sears and the larger Attachment Parenting thing, because he took things that people had been doing all along, stuck the label Attachment Parenting on it, and Attachment Parenting went on to become a thing with a definite definition and set of rules.  It's not that his suggestions are bad - it's just that he wasn't the first one to think of these things, and it's also that the whole idea of Attachment Theory predates him and refers to something that's a bit different from what he promotes.

I'd say that Dr. Sears isn't just about "white privilege" but "professional Western privilege".  In plain English - he's not writing as "Bill Sears", he's writing as "Dr. Sears", and his American medical background boosts his credibility.  In some ways, that makes sense - a pediatrician is an expert in infant health, for example.  In some ways, there's not much connection.

Now - is that a bad thing?  I don't really like vague "anthropologists say" statements very much.  I mean, the world is a really big place, filled with many diverse cultures, and that one statement seems to lump them all together.  I'm also a nerd, so I like footnotes and sources.  At the same time - IF there is information from elsewhere that challenges some of the assumptions about how we do things and shows that there is an alternative, why not mention it?

About the "when other cultures do it, they get an F" point:  I do remember reading one psychological report, where there was a brief reference to papooses and suggesting that babies raised in this style don't interact with the mother very much.  The report was tossed out over concerns of racism.  I would agree that valuing something only when it is embraced by a white doctor would be maddening - but the fact that the white doctor is supporting some traditional practices is not the problem.  It can even be helpful, to the extent that it reduces stigma and false concerns about some of those practices in the white North American community.  The problem is that the other cultures got an F in the first place.

I do agree with this. In fact, I have a family member who is generally opposed to "all things AP" and I also generally hate the term "Attachment Parenting" but use it because it seems to best describe what I do. I also hate "natural parenting" because it seems to lump everyone in with a certain set of "rules" one, which really bothers me, is vaccines. I know this is a hot topic in general, and I don't mean to bring up that to start a vaccine debate. What bothers me is this idea that you must follow a set of rules to be an "Attachment Parent" and if not, you are "bad".  Being that I do a lot of "AP" type things, I find it horrifying that people seem to opt to NOT vaccinate (or refuse to ever put their baby in a stroller, etc) simply BECAUSE they feel the need to follow a set of rules. I think social media makes it very easy for people to justify this behavior.  

On the Sears website it says this about babywearing...

Because we noticed that cultures throughout the world carried their babies in homemade slings we began fabricating different styles of slings to carry Mathew. I remember one day when Martha fabricated a sling out of material from an old bed sheet and said, “I really enjoy wearing Mathew. The sling is like a piece of clothing. I put it on in the morning and take it off in the evening.” Hence the term “babywearing” was born in the Sears household.

So, I don't know that he is REALLY claiming it as his own. I do however, agree, that there is a general  illusion that this is something Sears alone is "bringing back" It almost strikes me as arrogant rather than anything of appropriation. It may even be fair to say that he has a platform to influence a change from what seems "mainstream" or rather, what was recently "mainstream".  I feel that there came a point where woman were told what to do by male physicians and that their "instincts" were wrong. So, Sears, (being male) became a new voice of "reason"  Not that anything he said is NEW, as it is obviously is not. We are talking about things women have been doing forever. ALL women, not culturally, but throughout history. I don't think Sears pretends otherwise, but yes, I think his die hard fans act as though he is a sort of god of parenting. 

Anyway, I wouldn't say he is appropriating anything, as, this is not something owned by anyone or unique to anyone. He just happens to be a leading voice in the "movement".  The very idea that it is a "movement" seems to push some people away and some people seem to think this is all newfangled parenting style.  So yes, somehow, some are getting the impressing that this is HIS thing (or someones) rather than something that predates us very much. 

As far as using his Dr title to promote himself, this is my main concern, namely with issues such as vaccines. Being that we are in America, and have access to health care, it is pretty easy to say "Eh, no big deal" to the general population (obviously not all).

Also, important to note, it is Dr. Bob who is the big voice in anti-vax. I believe the rest of the family of docs is a little more reserved with their opinions. Anyway, I digress...I would argue that the anti-vax movement is one thing that screams abuse of "privilege" or whatever you choose to call it, and being that he is a doctor that is promoting such a thing, then yes, that is an issue. 

But babywearing, I just don't see it. 

[Maggie Mae]

I don't have an opinion on babywearing, other than I don't like cuddling and I think it looks hot and uncomfortable.

I do have experience with living in areas where I am not a part of the majority race of that community. The only people who are upset about me wearing kuspuk are my (white) "friends" from my college years. Which is silly, imo.

[laPapessaGiovanna]

I had to think a bit about the concept of cultural appropriation. It's something quite new to me, it's not a thing around here and I have encountered it only on foreign (American and Australian) websites. So far I think it's mainly used in silly ways. I like and share the definition illustrated by @Terrie, but it seems to me that irl it's applied to many disparate situations that have nothing to do with it.

However to try to understand it better I transferred it to my culture. You all know what parmesan is, I don't. I know Grana (meaning Grana Padano) and Parmigiano Reggiano and I bet they are quite different from parmesan. I honestly don't care, I am a bit bugged though when on labels is written that parmesan is italian when it isn't. I don't care if a factory in the USA produces parmesan, I don't like that someone calls it Italian cheese though,  because it isn't.  I don't care if children around the world play with muddy pretend pasta with parmesan, as I think nobody should be bothered if I built a pretend-tepee with bedclothes for my daughter to play with. Should I call it a true Indian tepee and even try to sell it as such, well that's cultural appropriation, in my opinion. Also for owning objects truly belonging to other cultures, I really don't see where the problem is,  as long that they aren't sacred items that would be disrespectful to treat lightly obviously. I think that around this topic there's much frenzy for nothing, probably caused by the guilty conscience of the white man that starts thinking that maybe he's not above others and his past (and not so past) crimes are not forgotten nor forgiven, add to this some misguided pc and you have the nasty comments about babywearing.

[2xx1xy1JD]

My problem with the "the F is the problem"  argument is that it gives a pass to people who are willing to take advantage of that F. Do you think cultural appropriation is something that actually exists, and, if so, what would be an example that you agree is cultural appropriation? 

I've seen a variety of definitions for cultural appropriation.  Does the phenomenon of something from culture X gaining widespread acceptance or popularity in culture Y only after it is adopted by someone from culture Y exist?  Yes.

Some definitions of cultural appropriation seem to stress that exploitation is involved, while others seem to imply that borrowing elements of cultural from another group is always exploitive.

So, with your definition, I would say that a key question is "what happen next?".  In your particular definition, the guy who gets the A isn't really causing the other guy to get an F.  The F was already there.  It's a bit like the way that people who struggle with infertility or pregnancy loss will get really upset when someone gets pregnant by accident or has an abortion.  The initial gut reaction is "that's so unfair!"  Rationally, though, someone else's pregnancy has zero to do with whether or not you have a baby, because it's not like there are only a finite number of babies to go around.  So, not all things that seem unfair are going to be exploitive.  It's only bad if what happens next harms the guy who got an F.  Turning a sacred area into a tourist zone would be bad.  Stealing artwork would be bad.  Having locals work in an unsafe sweatshop to produce kitchy exotic souvenirs would be bad.  Learning about someone's language and culture just to convert them or commit genocide would be bad.  On the other hand, if the guy who got the F now has a chance to get a better grade because his work is more accepted, that can be a good thing.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

My problem with the "the F is the problem"  argument is that it gives a pass to people who are willing to take advantage of that F. Do you think cultural appropriation is something that actually exists, and, if so, what would be an example that you agree is cultural appropriation? 

[Terrie]

.  In your particular definition, the guy who gets the A isn't really causing the other guy to get an F.  The F was already there.  It's a bit like the way that people who struggle with infertility or pregnancy loss will get really upset when someone gets pregnant by accident or has an abortion.  

I would point out that the difference between getting pregnant and what I'm talking about is that pregnancy is not a zero sum. The metaphor I used is based off what happens a lot in, for instance, fashion. Take traditional Southwestern silver and turquoise jewelry. The moment there was a hint that it was becoming popular, sudden there are are copies made for cheap overseas pouring into the market. So not only does someone else make money off it, but it prevents the original artists from profiting.

Remember, in the metaphor I used, the person plagerized and was highly rewarded for it. You're focusing on something I would consider the wrong point. The F represents the limited connections of marginalized communities, which, yes, is a key issue. But to go back to your pregnancy metaphor, a miscarriage is not the right interpretation. It's more having a poor woman's baby taking away to give to the wealthy couple and then claiming it's not the wealthy couple's fault someone else too the baby. They're just the happy recipients of the windfall, right?

[2xx1xy1JD]

That's why "what happens next" is the question I'd ask.  Does harm result from the action?

You're right that I failed to focus on the word "plagerize" in your example.  What is the line between being inspired by something and plagerizing?  Plagerizing suggests that there was stolen intellectual property.  One issue I have with some of the writing on cultural appropriation is that the term intellectual property gets thrown around in a really broad way.  If you don't compensate an artist, that's clearly wrong.  It's a lot fuzzier if you are talking about copying a style of cooking/general type of clothing/common expressions/dance style/style of music, where someone is being inspired by elements of another culture but those things aren't really conventional intellectual property where you can track down the owner and get permission to use.

[sockinshoe]

Based on my experiences and findings, I would define cultural appropriation as a dominant culture taking elements of a minority culture and misusing them for aesthetic purposes or financial gain. For instance, a person wearing a war bonnet to a festival is taking something that is sacred to several aboriginal communities and just applying it to themselves without doing the research and learning that, actually, that's pretty inappropriate. Similarly, pop stars are always getting in trouble for wearing bindis because they're pretty without caring about the religious and cultural significance of the symbol.

It's the same with Hallowe'en costumes. People who dress as a different culture are reducing that culture down to its most visible stereotypes, which is harmful and offensive.

However, wearing non-sacred elements of a culture's clothing (not as a costume) is not appropriation, under my definition/understanding. So wearing batik isn't offensive, unless I'm pretending to be Indonesian. (This final point is kind of nebulous and controversial, as the line between clothing and costume can be very thin)

[Terrie]

Here's an interesting article on some of the legal issues:

http://web.law.duke.edu/cspd/pdf/ip_indigenous-traditionalknowledge.pdf

[PregnantPornStar]

That's why "what happens next" is the question I'd ask.  Does harm result from the action?

You're right that I failed to focus on the word "plagerize" in your example.  What is the line between being inspired by something and plagerizing?  Plagerizing suggests that there was stolen intellectual property.  One issue I have with some of the writing on cultural appropriation is that the term intellectual property gets thrown around in a really broad way.  If you don't compensate an artist, that's clearly wrong.  It's a lot fuzzier if you are talking about copying a style of cooking/general type of clothing/common expressions/dance style/style of music, where someone is being inspired by elements of another culture but those things aren't really conventional intellectual property where you can track down the owner and get permission to use.

Plagiarism, in your example is not what I would consider cultural appropriation. Firstly, as stated in the bolded, being inspired  a style isn't plagiarism. When talking about copying an individual's work, that is plagiarism, as you are not giving credit to the INDIVIDUAL who was copied.  

To say cultural appropriation can only happen to those who were/are oppressed is part of the problem with the general idea of "cultural appropriation" as to appropriate means to take something that belongs to someone else and claim it as their own. We are essentially talking about theft here. Theft can happen to anyone, regardless of being oppressed or being the oppressor. I am obviously not trying to minimize those who have been oppressed. However, there seems a general rule when it comes to the internet yelling about appropriation, that White Americans, Brits, Germans, and Jews (these are the big ones I see) that these cultures cannot be appropriated. 

I will start with dirndls and lederhosen. In modern times, these are typically used as fest wear and on occasion, formal wear. Historically lenderhosen was used for hard work, dirndls were slave clothing. Both were worn regionally, not exclusively in Germany (Bavaria, Austria, etc) and lederhosen type style was not uncommon in other parts of Europe. Now, it is pretty much expected that if you go to a Volksfest, you will be wearing your fest wear and generally not seen as cultural appropriation. Where you tie the ribbon on your dirndl might be up for scrutiny, and you may be corrected, but when I have seen it done it was done in a blunt, but helpful way.  Styles of dirndls vary, some are very expensive, some are simple. In the past, people have worn very short dirndls, bling, and whatnot. It was simply the trend, but currently the trend seems to be more simple. Dirndls are worn in touristy locations (all over Germany) and very often worn in Biergartens. Regardless, we have fest wear and, being that it is German, it is typically encouraged, embraced and accepted that non-Germans can wear fest wear.This isn't the case for traditional clothing of all cultures....I am certainly not claiming to be German, but I do enjoy partaking in the traditions

War bonnets are another thing.  Is it inappropriate to wear a war bonnet and claim you earned all feathers? Of course. Just as it would be inappropriate to wear a Purple Heart that you didn't own (or even uniform) and claim you have earned it.  First, I have never seen random individuals wearing war bonnets in real life.  I have seen it on the internet, but, well, who knows.  Context could come into play and yes, as there have been people who have claimed they have a Purple Heart who have never even been part of the military, I am sure there are people who misrepresent war bonnets they wear...but I think that is likely a stretch simply due to the use of them in modern times. However, the idea of earning an honor, such as a military honor, is an IDEA seen across many cultures and it would be ahistorical to claim this idea belongs to any culture(s). 

The fact that Jews are seen as part of a privileged group by many SJW things I read is often one of the most puzzling things of all. I don't think we need to discuss why, but the attempts to rationalize this thought process seem to trivialize and honestly is one of the most troubling aspects to the "idea" of cultural appropriation. 

Does that mean people are not assholes towards other cultures. Of course not. Stomping on a nations flag would be an asshole move, but what if one is attempting to make a point about a nations faults, or what they believe to be faults (I am thinking of the American flag here) or what if someone throws a bible in front of a Christian? That would be rude, but what if that Christian is using the bible to protest marriage equality? What about the Confederate Flag.  Stomping on it could easily be validated, but some may argue that the SOUTH was oppressed (and yes, we all know they owned slaves) and I think it would probably be in very poor taste to run around on Halloween dressed as General Sherman. The following was rather ill-received when a friend posted it on FB this summer. Not that it was the only individual I saw share it, but one involved big drama.

 

I also find it interesting that many Europeans don't really have a huge concept of Cultural Appropriation, as it isn't really a "thing" in Europe.  At least not in the way it is in the US. I saw this again in again when I referenced the Polish babywearing item made with tepee fabric.  Europeans seemed generally shocked by the very idea that a fabric with a children's printed fabric with tepees would even appear as "stealing" the tepees from any culture, as, nobody was claiming the tepees were their own and a true, real life tepee with any historical value.  In fact, I think Western Europeans embrace multiculturalism on a much larger scale than Americans. Possibly because America is a huge melting pot which has become a society where cultures have crossed and now co-exist? That isn't to say the two are unable to exist together, and I am by no means saying that ANY peoples can not preserve some of their culture. Still, it doesn't mean that you cannot share your culture and allow it to cross with other cultures while also preserving your "ideas".  

What is wrong with sharing the positive things in your culture to further other cultures? Even if your culture is one that has been oppressed and it is furthering a culture where we co-exist with the previously oppressed and the "dominate culture"? Assimilation is a good thing if we want to co-exist with others.  

[Terrie]

The difference between cultural sharing and cultural appropriation is if it comes from a place of respect and learning on the part of those  not part of the culture, not one of arrogance and ignorance. Otherwise, cherrypicking another culture results in a shallow imitation. For instance, since someone brought it up, let's compare the real meaning of the war bonnet and what is lost in how majority culture views it.

An eagle feather might be comparable to a Purple Heart. One. Singular. A full war bonnet is a big deal. It is more comparable to a Congressional Medal of Honor. No, I'm not engaging in hyperbole. It's that big a deal. Each feather is earned by a separate act of courage or service. And American culture has reduced it to a generic "warrior" symbol that is mass-produced as a children's toy (as seen here http://www.amazon.com/Kids-Indian-Headdress-Costume-25571/dp/B009166FBM). 

[PregnantPornStar]

The difference between cultural sharing and cultural appropriation is if it comes from a place of respect and learning on the part of those  not part of the culture, not one of arrogance and ignorance. Otherwise, cherrypicking another culture results in a shallow imitation. For instance, since someone brought it up, let's compare the real meaning of the war bonnet and what is lost in how majority culture views it.

An eagle feather might be comparable to a Purple Heart. One. Singular. A full war bonnet is a big deal. It is more comparable to a Congressional Medal of Honor. No, I'm not engaging in hyperbole. It's that big a deal. Each feather is earned by a separate act of courage or service. And American culture has reduced it to a generic "warrior" symbol that is mass-produced as a children's toy (as seen here http://www.amazon.com/Kids-Indian-Headdress-Costume-25571/dp/B009166FBM). 

See, comparing it to a medal of honor is going to make me point out that we are living in a VERY different time. War is a very different thing now vs then. Which is why people are not earning multiple medal of honors in modern times. Giving it to living recipients isn't super common and most who are living and DO receive it typically have left the military. That wasn't exactly an option when discussing war bonnets. A Medal of honor is a BIG deal. Do you know how few have received a Medal of Honor during OEF or OIF? I don't at all mean to diminish war bonnets when I am saying this (at all) but, also, war is different and medal of honors are not handed out often. At all. 

Now, I am NOT saying it is acceptable to wear a war bonnet, but, I do think it is worth noting that when someone like Pharrell wears one, he is obviously not claiming he actually EARNED those. 

When discussing the Purple Heart, or even trying to diminish it, while there are more recipients, getting an injury in war is hardly something to dismiss. Especially when we are talking about an all volunteer force. 

I don't think "ignorance" automatically equals "arrogance". My example of the Polish woman who had no idea about native american history because she is Polish, who apologized, opted to remove the fabric and not use it, AND took it upon herself to "educate herself" as was demanded of her, yet still being told that "ignorance was not an excuse and apology was not accepted" is absurd. Making a mass produced children's toy doesn't mean someone is claiming they earned anything themselves. Would it be acceptable to learn about the meaning behind it? Sure, but the individual who is wearing it is hardly appropriating and those who are selling it are hardly claiming it as authentic. I *think* when thinking of a child being excited to wear a costume, it may be fair to understand that said child is probably excited about the culture and likely doesn't have a negative view of the culture. I am not saying it is okay, but I don't know that I would consider it theft. 

[Terrie]

PPS, I am in no way diminishing the Purple Heart or the Congressional Medal of Honor. That's my point! Because of cherrypicking of another culture, the average American has not clue how big a deal a war bonnet or even just a single eagle feather is. (Not was, is). 

Historically and traditionally, it is the right of any wounded warrior to retrieve a fallen eagle feather. The eagle feather is the spirit of a fallen warrior and can only be matched in power by the same. This practice still remains over the centuries and should not be altered because of the consequences. Recording and photographing such a ceremony is strictly forbidden. - See more at: http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/when-eagle-feather-drops#sthash.8JPHhMAi.dpuf

 

[PregnantPornStar]

PPS, I am in no way diminishing the Purple Heart or the Congressional Medal of Honor. That's my point! Because of cherrypicking of another culture, the average American has not clue how big a deal a war bonnet or even just a single eagle feather is. (Not was, is). 

Historically and traditionally, it is the right of any wounded warrior to retrieve a fallen eagle feather. The eagle feather is the spirit of a fallen warrior and can only be matched in power by the same. This practice still remains over the centuries and should not be altered because of the consequences. Recording and photographing such a ceremony is strictly forbidden. - See more at: http://www.ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/when-eagle-feather-drops#sthash.8JPHhMAi.dpuf

 

I think we are mostly on the same page in our understanding of thing (war bonnets, feathers, medals, etc). I am sorry I got the impression you were trying to diminish medals.

Now, my only issue is that while the average American likely doesn't know these things (I would even venture to say know much about Purple Hearts of the Medal of Honor) I don't think it is fair to fault individuals for "ignorance" beaches, as said above, people can't know everything. So, the general reaction of "educate yourself" is not helpful, but rather dismissive of the individuals lack of understanding and hurtful to helping understanding.

But, a warbonnet is a very different thing that babywearing, as Babywearing can benefit anyone who is caring for a baby. A warbonnet, or Medal of Honor, is absolutely useless to an individual who hasn't earned these things.

To add, when talking about warbonnets, the focus should be lack of respect rather than oppression. We can argue that the respect isn't given because of oppression, and that may be a fair argument, but it doesn't mean the issue isn't lack of respect for what a warbonnet represents. (The same would go for Purple Heart or Medal of Honor).

When taking about babywearing, that is different, as women, regardless of culture or race have babies and they all can benefit from babywearing and all babies can as well.

So, then we go to dirndls. Which, by the way, were once slave clothing...and now fest wear. I don't think people generally associate a dirndl with slaves or peasants, but beer and fun.

[Terrie]

I don't think babywearing is appropriation. I can see why people would say Dr. Sears and the way he presents it are, but I'm willing to admit that it might be because the guy is a pompous asshole and brings condescension and arrogance to everything he touches. 

I paired respect and learning against ignorance and arrogance for a reason. In both cases, people lack knowledge, but with one set of traits, they seek to correct it, and in another, they are convinced they have nothing they need to learn, because they know best. And while I don't think anyone has an obligation to teach everyone who demands it (because explaining to the 15th person in a day why something is disrespectful gets old FAST, especially when many don't want to listen), there's no need to be rude about it.

[PregnantPornStar]

I don't think babywearing is appropriation. I can see why people would say Dr. Sears and the way he presents it are, but I'm willing to admit that it might be because the guy is a pompous asshole and brings condescension and arrogance to everything he touches. 

I paired respect and learning against ignorance and arrogance for a reason. In both cases, people lack knowledge, but with one set of traits, they seek to correct it, and in another, they are convinced they have nothing they need to learn, because they know best. And while I don't think anyone has an obligation to teach everyone who demands it (because explaining to the 15th person in a day why something is disrespectful gets old FAST, especially when many don't want to listen), there's no need to be rude about it.

Of course someone isn't obligated to explain themselves. Ever, let alone 15 times a day. Telling people something repeatedly does get old and I absolutely understand having zero desire to repeat myself. That doesn't mean I refuse to do it and I am certainly not rude about it.

I understand hat you are saying about pairing the two. Still, I think arrogance may be met with arrogance in this type of thing. When someone is ignorant of something and met with arrogance, like "Go educate yourself" I wouldn't be shocked to see a reaction of "um, no, I am not going to do what you demand of me." Or even "well, if you feel it so important, why don't you kindly explain it to me rather than make demands"

So, both "parties" now have a negative response and it all becomes rather counter productive.

As for Sears, I will say it again, I find him frustrating. I do think it is helpful that he helped "normalize" what was essentially already normal. Unfortunately, what is absolutely normal was not the "norm" for quite some time. How many people do you know that have a family member who freaks out over breastfeeding, co-sleeping or babywearing? But, like I said, people seem to have the impression that this is something HE invented. I don't know if that is due to him, due to people's ignorance or both, but, the God like persona annoys me.

Also, I find it interesting that parenting-styles seem to need to be approved by pediatricians, but that's another rant.

[PregnantPornStar]

To add, when talking about warbonnets, the focus should be lack of respect rather than oppression. We can argue that the respect isn't given because of oppression, and that may be a fair argument, but it doesn't mean the issue isn't lack of respect for what a warbonnet represents. (The same would go for Purple Heart or Medal of Honor).

When taking about babywearing, that is different, as women, regardless of culture or race have babies and they all can benefit from babywearing and all babies can as well.

So, then we go to dirndls. Which, by the way, were once slave clothing...and now fest wear. I don't think people generally associate a dirndl with slaves or peasants, but beer and fun.

[PregnantPornStar]

I think this is pretty relevant to this entire thread.

https://www.thefire.org/yale-students-demand-resignations-from-faculty-members-over-halloween-email/

Responding to speech with MORE speech is okay, but demanding for individuals to be punished for their speech (loss of jobs in this case) is not okay.

[Whoosh]

I think this is pretty relevant to this entire thread.

 

https://www.thefire.org/yale-students-demand-resignations-from-faculty-members-over-halloween-email/

 

Responding to speech with MORE speech is okay, but demanding for individuals to be punished for their speech (loss of jobs in this case) is not okay.

 

 

On the surface, I tend to agree with the thoughts expressed in the controversial email as they are discussed in this article.  However, in this particular instance the issues go a lot deeper than a surface reading of one particular email.  Racial tensions on Yale campus have been an ongoing problem.  In addition, the job in question here - "Master" of Silliman - is one for which I would argue that sensitivity to these types of issues and to the ongoing problems the campus is having surrounding racial tensions should probably be a prerequisite, though I don't know enough detail to say I agree with calling for the author of the email to step down or be removed from the position.

Taken in isolation and without consideration of the nature of the job held by the individual who sent the email, I would tend to agree with you that "this" shouldn't happen.  In context, however, the issue is far more complex.  Here is one article that somewhat puts the events surrounding this email into context.  It is a complex issue for sure.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/11/05/a-confrontation-over-race-at-yale-hundreds-of-students-demand-answers-from-the-schools-first-black-dean/

 

ETA - this article was something that a friend emailed to me.  There may well be better summaries or analyses of the situation out there.

[Palimpsest]

I think this is pretty relevant to this entire thread.

 

https://www.thefire.org/yale-students-demand-resignations-from-faculty-members-over-halloween-email/

 

Responding to speech with MORE speech is okay, but demanding for individuals to be punished for their speech (loss of jobs in this case) is not okay.

 

 

I wondered when someone on this thread would post an article from FIRE. 

It's like posting an article from the Family Research Council and claiming it's moderate and unbiased.  In my opinion, of course.  FIRE is convinced, and has done some fairly shoddy research to attempt to prove, that conservative speech is being shut down on by evil liberal US academia.

I'm proud to say that of the six institutions of higher learning Mr. P and I have been associated with over the years (as students, faculty, adjunct faculty and administration), 5 have been labeled in the "red" speech code zone by FIRE.  They are all private institutions that get to define behavior on campus.  If you don't like their policies, then you are perfectly free not to study there or teach there.  Do I need to explain that the First Amendment only guarantees against the government interfering with your right to free speech?

The sixth, a state university, is in the "yellow" speech code zone - apparently because it has a Sexual Harassment Policy in the student handbook.  That is naughty of them, says FIRE, because state universities are covered by the 14th Amendment  (extending the 1st Amendment to public education).  Interestingly, FIRE doesn't appear to rate "Christian" Universities, accredited or not.  Probably because their policies against evil liberal talk on campus would put them all squarely in the red zone.

BTW, "academic freedom" is a totally different animal from free speech.

The students at Yale and elsewhere are doing exactly what students are supposed to do and have done for centuries.  They are exercising their voices, debating issues and demonstrating.  They could be calling for disinvestment in fossil fuels, Occupying for the 99%, or striking for better cafeteria food and demanding the termination of the contract of the catering service.  It's a subjective judgment as to whether you think those are worthy causes.  They can ask for what they like but there is no guarantee that their requests will be granted.

However, in the Yale case, the relevant emails (neither of which I thought were totally out of line) also tapped into an existing and real problem about diversity and race on campus.  I might add that Yale's track record is pretty damn bad in that area compared to other universities.   I feel sorry for Dean Holloway, Yale's first black Dean.  Now that is something that Yale should be ashamed of indeed.

@‌Pregnant Pawn Star.  You really need to give a citation for your strange claim that dirndls were originally "slave wear."

[Anny Nym]

(snipped your quite interesting post @‌Palimpsest, please don´t take offence, but....)

@‌Pregnant Pawn Star.  You really need to give a citation for your strange claim that dirndls were originally "slave wear."

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT,....... WHAT!?

[HerNameIsBuffy]

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT,....... WHAT!?

I am not @PregnantPornStar but drindl originally meant maids dress:

@Palimpsest From ancestry.com:

Originally, the Dirndl was the working dress of female servants (maid's dress). Around 1870/1880, the upper classes adopted the Dirndl as a modern dress and wore it on their summer holidays. Today the wearing of the dirndl is generally regarded as a sign of national pride and tradition.

wikipedia and a bunch of other sites say similar - it was originally a servents style, not slave.  If you google drindl and slave it turns up quiet a bit of porn and not much else.

tbh even the plain styles were rather lovely and well made.

[Anny Nym]

If you say servant, please don´t think of Downton Abbey-like victorian maids.

Who was a "Dirn" (austrian/bavarian for maid-en - double meaning for working girl at a farm and Girl/Young unmarried woman. Also hence the name for the dress) was a way more complex issue. You have to highly take early "Kleinhäusler/Keuschler/Halbbauern"  (translation: small farmers/tenancy farmers) into context, a agrarian working class - not to mix with the urban working class - who had their own vivid culture, for instance alot of craftmanship,  and indeed their own history. A very fascinating one, I have to add. 

To make a Dirndl, it takes also alot of craftsmanship: The embroideries alone are a form of art. There is also not " the Dirndl" , almost every Region in Salzburg, every Viertel in Lower Austria and every Tal (valley) in West Austria has their own style and colours.

 

AND IT`S CERTAINLY NOT ABOUT "SLAVES, FUN AND BEER"! WHAT THE FUCK, SERIOUSLY!?

 

I take high personal offence in this!

[Palimpsest]

 

I am not @PregnantPornStar but drindl originally meant maids dress:

@Palimpsest From ancestry.com:

wikipedia and a bunch of other sites say similar - it was originally a servents style, not slave.  If you google drindl and slave it turns up quiet a bit of porn and not much else.

tbh even the plain styles were rather lovely and well made.

Hmm.  If you spell it correctly when you google you don't get porn.  I suppose that says something about porno sites. 

Dirndl = traditional dress or peasant dress, and servants' dress.  I want to know where @‌PregnantPornStar got "slave."