Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

They see God's hand in something and derive meaning from the idea that God does everything for a reason and we all have our purpose etc etc and you and I see a meaningless event that inspires a similar amount of awe. I'm not sure how we can ever bridge such a chasm.

Peter Watts (another writer, similar in ways to Bakker) has a theory (may not be his, but he promotes it) that belief in gods/deities was, intriguingly enough, actually an adaptive measure.

He says to consider two primitive homo sapiens on the African steppe, and both of them notice some odd, unnatural motion in the tall grass. One of them says it's nothing, just the wind, but the other says there's a predator in there, and he runs. Maybe the movement is nothing, and one of the men just gets a good workout. But if there is a predator in there, one of the men survives, and the other is dinner.

So people began seeing faces in clouds and meaning in the winds, because it was more dangerous to assume that it was nothing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
Very well could be, I'm not familiar enough w/ evo-psych. Dak might know.

Speaking of Watts, he posted something interesting about a recent paper published in the journal Aging:

Naturally, the paper’s got a fair bit of attention in the popular science press. There’s one thing that none of those articles have mentioned, though. This is not the first time hydrogen sulfide has proven useful in a medical— even in a life-extension— context. Way back in 2005, Blackstone et al exposed mice to 80ppm H2S and reduced their metabolic rate by 90%, with no ill effects. So now we have a simple compound, endogenously produced, which is instrumental both in extending life and in suspending animation.

Or, if you want to be lurid about it, in conferring “immortality” and inducing an undead state.

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8183

This could actually go in the "weird science" thread, but I don't want that thread to become nothing but Watts re-posts. :rofl:
 
This is somewhat of a batshit theory I suppose, but I was having a small debate with a friend and this came up:

The concept of cultural appropriation is unintentionally nationalistic (or at the very least perpetuates basic nationalistic concepts) in its desire to maintain borders around cultures which are closed off from people based almost entirely on racial and ethnic criteria. It's the very opposite of the concept of free movement and internationalism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dak
This is somewhat of a batshit theory I suppose, but I was having a small debate with a friend and this came up:

The concept of cultural appropriation is unintentionally nationalistic (or at the very least perpetuates basic nationalistic concepts) in its desire to maintain borders around cultures which are closed off from people based almost entirely on racial and ethnic criteria. It's the very opposite of the concept of free movement and internationalism.

All things being equal, yeah I would agree. But all things aren't equal. I think there's a significant difference between physical bodies crossing national borders and privileged white people dressing in blackface at Halloween. And I think that makes a difference for qualifying the "nationalism" of cultural appropriation.
 
I have to disagree. Blackface has gone hand in hand with cultural appropriation, and has been integral to American appropriation of black culture since the nineteenth century.

Cultural appropriation is sometimes so blatant it smacks us in the face. The Black and White Minstrel Show ran on British television for – what seems now to us, looking back at it – and astonishing 20 years, from 1958.

Even halfway through its run the show, in which white entertainers “blacked up” to sing songs in a Deep South of America style, was the subject of petitions calling for it to be taken off the air because of its in-your-face racism. It can hardly be seen now without an overwhelming feeling of embarrassment. How did we ever think that was acceptable?

The show was harking back to the minstrel shows in 19th-century America, and blackface was a popular form of entertainment until the enlightenment of the 1960s, coupled with rising racial tensions across the US, finally put paid to it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-blackface-performance-costume-a8356526.html
 
This is part of the problem I see and part of why I think this narrative is fundamentally nationalistic, because this comparison compares skin colour (arbitrary racial characteristic) with culture. It feeds directly into the notions of white nationalism which claims that minorities will be the direct cause of the downfall of the west because, by the sheer fact that they're non-white, they can never perpetuate western values nor integrate into white cultures.

The left utterly underestimates the degree to which they fuel nationalism.
 
I'm not sure I follow. I mean, black culture can't be separated from skin color. That's not a leftist notion, it's just black culture. There are some cultures that aggregate around people of particular appearances.

The difference between white nationalism and those who support black culture is that the latter feel that black culture is an integral part of Western culture at large. You don't have Western (or American) culture without black culture. This is basically what Ralph Ellison wrote back in the 1950s.

This is why I don't totally buy the nationalist angle--because black culture doesn't fall along national boundaries, but American culture certainly does. "Culture" can apply to many different kinds of groups.
 
I'm not saying that black culture is nationalistic, I'm saying that the ideology of "that is cultural appropriation" and its obsession with reinforcing the boundaries around cultures is a nationalistic act. This is also why I said it is unintentionally nationalistic in my first comment.
 
No, I realize you're not saying black culture is nationalistic (unless we count black nationalism, which is one dimension of black culture). I'm merely calling into question whether cultural appropriation can be nationalistic if it's not appropriating something that falls along national boundaries.

But I think maybe I'm not entirely understanding the comparison. Are you intending this as a critique of the idea of cultural appropriation? If so, I'm not sure I follow the critique, since you seem to be comparing it to the "free movement" of immigration...? At least, that's how I understood it.
 
I'm comparing it to Classical Marxism and internationalism, which as far as I'm aware has always been opposed to rigid social-sectarianism which seems to be the dominant mentality now. By free movement I don't mean the actual EU policy itself but rather the spirit behind such a notion, that people shouldn't be trapped in their culture nor rejected from another's.

More egregious forms of what you and others call cultural appropriation (black, red, yellow and brown face for example) are not things I would defend even if I don't agree that those are examples of the concept but rather just low-brow forms of racist entertainment, but a white woman at a prom wearing a culturally Asian prom dress should be an utterly uncontroversial act and an attempt to put a stop to such a practice is IMO a fundamentally nationalistic act.

It's an aggressive reinforcement of rigid borders around cultures.

I'm merely calling into question whether cultural appropriation can be nationalistic if it's not appropriating something that falls along national boundaries.

For example, the implication behind telling a white American woman not to wear a Chinese dress is that she should dress to suit her nation and leave the Chinese dresses to those who are Chinese, aka their nationality. It's the same case with the more common example of Mexican clothing, whether it be a caricature (ponchos, sombreros etc) or genuine articles of clothing that exist outside of tacky Halloween costumes like a huipil. Why should someone be demanded to dress within the boundaries of their nation's fashion?

Anyway, I'm just spitballing. This common leftist practice of going on about cultural appropriation feels nationalistic to me and conforms to many similar things said in the white nationalist circles I sometimes find myself in.
 
No, I do understand what you're saying. I don't think it's wrongheaded, but I think there are more nuances to the comparison.

I'm comparing it to Classical Marxism and internationalism, which as far as I'm aware has always been opposed to rigid social-sectarianism which seems to be the dominant mentality now. By free movement I don't mean the actual EU policy itself but rather the spirit behind such a notion, that people shouldn't be trapped in their culture nor rejected from another's.

I think the more foundational idea of the "spirit," as you call it, is that people can practice their own culture anywhere they choose without being persecuted--not that people outside certain cultural practices can choose on a whim to move within them, somehow. Cultures aren't fixed in the same way that national borders are. When an American visits Australia, they're subject to abide by Australian law, but not to participate in Australian culture.

I think that over time people can change their culture. If a white person marries an Asian person and they move to Asia, maybe over time the white person adopts certain customs and practices. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a white person just acting Asian temporarily, or some such. That seems less respectful to me and more like entertainment, if not mockery.

I know that some might say that imitation is a form of flattery, but there's a difference between cultural appreciation and cultural amusement. More often than not, dressing up in Halloween costumes is a form of amusement that people by defend by calling it appreciation. To be crude, I think that's bullshit. In many cases, costumes are extremely stereotypical images of particular cultures that don't reflect widespread behavior or common practice. In other cases still, costumes may reflect what said cultures view as specialized practices that most members of that culture wouldn't--or couldn't--perform, much less someone dressing up for Halloween. It may even be the case that someone wearing a costume might intend it respectfully; but in that case, maybe the wearer should take the time to actually back up their "respect" with some research and realize that the costume itself is offensive and/or reductive in specific ways.

Finally, and from a more theoretical angle, while we see white people in America dressing up in various Latino or Asian costumes, we don't see Latinos or black people dressing up in "white American" costumes. It's the case that certain cultural images have been commodified, and commoditification can be read to reflect a cultural hierarchy whereby certain cultures only appear through various festivities, holidays, or costumes. I see this less as respect than as mere toleration, if not amusement.

I do see how criticizing cultural appropriation can be seen as nationalistic, and that might be a contradiction some leftists don't realize. I happen to think cultural appropriation should be criticized, just as I think that national borders are ultimately a necessary aspect of modern global development (fwiw, I wasn't trying to argue against borders in that last big showdown; I was just pointing out what I saw as a contradiction between nationalism and free market ideology).

More egregious forms of what you and others call cultural appropriation (black, red, yellow and brown face for example) are not things I would defend even if I don't agree that those are examples of the concept but rather just low-brow forms of racist entertainment, but a white woman at a prom wearing a culturally Asian prom dress should be an utterly uncontroversial act and an attempt to put a stop to such a practice is IMO a fundamentally nationalistic act.

I agree that this is a more questionable example, especially given that the wearer seemed to have more knowledge/respect for the culture. It wasn't a cheap Halloween costume, it was an expensive dress. And, if I recall, people in China actually weren't upset.
 
I don't really think it's a matter of integrating into a foreign culture, that kind of thing takes a lifetime. But I don't see why it's a problem to incorporate small elements of a foreign culture into your life in some way. Why should anybody be forced to remain within the boundaries of a culture they didn't choose?

Finally, and from a more theoretical angle, while we see white people in America dressing up in various Latino or Asian costumes, we don't see Latinos or black people dressing up in "white American" costumes.

Cowboys? Vikings? Also, I don't think I've ever seen someone complain about cultural appropriation when it's a non-white person appropriating a different non-white culture. It seems blatantly one-way.

And, if I recall, people in China actually weren't upset.

Most of the time the people in the country the appropriation is apparently happening to don't care, it would seem. At least, especially in the Asian examples.

Edit: I also think this is part and parcel of what has happened since the left abandoned Classical Marxism in favour of this weird intersectionalism or whatever you would call it. Essentially the abandoning of class politics, so much of what they propose is so utterly restricted to white majority western countries now. Very little of left-wing ideology today is universally applicable.

White privilege is meaningless outside of the west. Class privilege is relevant literally anywhere. Cultural appropriation similarly is an utterly useless and meaningless concept outside of the west.
 
Last edited:
I don't really think it's a matter of integrating into a foreign culture, that kind of thing takes a lifetime. But I don't see why it's a problem to incorporate small elements of a foreign culture into your life in some way.

But for what purpose and in what way, I guess is my main concern.

Cowboys? Vikings? Also, I don't think I've ever seen someone complain about cultural appropriation when it's a non-white person appropriating a different non-white culture. It seems blatantly one-way.

Ah, good points--cowboys at least, for sure. But I kind of feel like mostly white people dress up as cowboys... no? And furthermore, there were real black and Latino cowboys (maybe not Asian cowboys, but I'm not really sure).

You're right that it only goes one way, but this is where my progressive indoctrination comes into play and I have to point out that the modern image of the cowboy is part of the commodification system that produced all other cultural costumes. It goes one way because of that dynamics. White people don't care about it because they don't have to.

That's my take anyway.

Most of the time the people in the country the appropriation is apparently happening to don't care, it would seem. At least, especially in the Asian examples.

Speaking of systems of control, Asia is pretty high on that list. China, Japan, Singapore--they got that shit nailed down.