Younger but more arrogant crowd this year?

[frostypaw]

Ah now, the swastika is indeed an interesting one. That definitely IS a case of people taking a symbol (which has it's roots in Sanskrit and means "well-being") and changing it's meaning to something much less palatable for many. I think there are moves to start to reclaim it but I suspect that is a long road.

Dammit now you're making it complicated! But interesting - I pointedly avoided saying 'sun symbol' at the time as it's a tempting diversion.

There's been a lot of strong iconography used by governments not just oppressors over the years, has shifted a lot of their meaning.

Short hop to words and 'gay' - as a gay man I find it fascinating noticing which times people use it that make me jump and don't, apparently i'm kinda happy with it being an insult sometimes and not others

[stuartbert two hats]

I have mixed feelings about cultural misappropriation. There are examples such as the Native American headdress which seem pretty clear-cut; this is something that is held to be sacred being treated with a lack of respect. It’s a no-brainer really. Falls under the "don't be a dick" rule. However, should one group ever have a clear veto on another?

For example, what about sacred music? If a Christian or group of Christians took offense to a secular performance of a Gregorian chants, should this be cause for cancellation of the performance? What about less 'sacred' cultural artefacts that are nonetheless tied to a particular culture? Should Miley Cyrus be allowed to twerk? There have certainly been many ^{citation needed, I know!} who have said that this was unacceptable cultural misappropriation. What about hip-hop? Should Debbie Harry have been allowed to 'rap'? What about Vanilla Ice? Eminem? Should The Beatles and The Rolling Stones have been allowed to play blues based music? Was it ok for Dylan to go electric? After all, that offended people.

I don't think we can simply say that not causing offense is enough of a guiding rule on deciding whether to do something or not. It's more complex than that, although I've been personally unable to flesh out where those differences lie. It's tempting to say that Dylan was allowed to cause offense because his actions were intra-cultural, but even that is unsatisfying. That seems to suggest that no inter-cultural dialogue should take place for risk of causing offense, which just seems wrong.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against any of the examples given on this thread, I'm just finding it hard to come up with any guiding principles that never break down around the edges. I also recognise that some of the examples I'm giving are somewhat convoluted, but that's in order to example the principles in less clear-cut situations. I'm certainly not attempting to set up some kind of straw-man -well white men playing the blues is ok, so how can we object to feathers on your head - kind of argument. Someone wearing a sacred headdress because they think it looks cool is certainly not a significant cultural exchange.

As for bindis, I'm not sure, but I've always had the impression that polytheistic religions are considerably less up tight about strict use of symbols and the bindi itself appears to have escaped the confines of sacred use, so may be more likely to please than offend - I don't know. I remember my friends wearing bindis at the suggestion of our non-practising Hindu friend at Uni.

Finally, I think the headdresses can look pretty spectacular and would love to wear one if it was not an offensive act. However, it is, so I won't!

[stuartbert two hats]

Dammit now you're making it complicated! But interesting - I pointedly avoided saying 'sun symbol' at the time as it's a tempting diversion.

There's been a lot of strong iconography used by governments not just oppressors over the years, has shifted a lot of their meaning.

Short hop to words and 'gay' - as a gay man I find it fascinating noticing which times people use it that make me jump and don't, apparently i'm kinda happy with it being an insult sometimes and not others

That gets into very interesting territory. As a gay man, you're inside the culture that is the target of any offense. Should that give you free reign to use the words "gay", "queer", "poof" or even "faggot" as often as you like, in any context you like? It think the answer is almost yes. Clear homophobic language is still offensive no matter who says it, but reclaiming of words in appropriate contexts has clearly been successful.

A black man can say without offense "I am a nigger", but a white man cannot then reply "Yes, you are a nigger", without at least feeling deeply uncomfortable. I seem to remember a chat show recently where the guest was saying "Nigger", but the white host could only say "the 'N' word". Does anyone know what I'm talking about? I'll have a Google later.

EDIT: It was Samuel L

Edited August 5, 2014 by stuartbert two hats

[frostypaw]

Clear homophobic language is still offensive no matter who says it

You're quite right and I think the nub is in your quote above - I've heard almost every adjective used as a horrible insult and as just a word - it's all in how and why as much as what.

Hell I've heard black guys use nigger horribly in a way I was stunned to think they'd ever use it - I'm not sure anyone gets a free pass, but at the same time it's all sent skewiff by the more sensitive, and the more sensitive for others

No hard lines to be drawn, but I'll generally defend anyone's right to use any language they want if they've got a reasonable justification. it's unthinking misuse that does the real damage

[Glastonlocal]

Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Not really, to be honest.

[davefrompompey]

I'm just going to wade right into this brilliantly illuminating discussion to give my own take on it.

Firstly, wearing headdresses for decoration is ignorant and people should be discouraged from doing it.

I think that the problem with the discourse here is that people are quantifying the harm done by these activities in the wrong way. To me, the state of having taken offence is not really a quantifiable harm - or at least it's a very small harm.

The real harm comes from several factors - the mythicalisation (that's not a word) of the culture of native americans - which goes some way to preventing the resolution of their modern problems (alcoholism, poverty etc); the homogenisation of 'native american' cultures (we think of indians as one group, when in reality there are many amorphous tribes and sections of that whole); and the belittling of their spiritual and cultural identity, which again impacts on their ability to operate in the modern world.

Looking at it purely in utilitarian terms, the benefit of wearing headdresses is clear - somebody takes pleasure from it because it looks nice. The harm caused by it is not offence - it is that the practice contributes to a cultural evaluation of native americans which quantifiably affects their ability to pursue their own pleasure in modern American society. That harm is what leads to the offence, which might add a bit more disutility to the equation.

So from a Benthamite point of view, the utility and disutility can be compared and it's obvious that disutility wins and the ethical conclusion is that wearing a headdress for decoration is wrong. The offence taken by Native Americans and others on their behalf is simply a reflection of the gulf between the relative utility in wearing or not wearing a headdress.

If one avoids considering offence as a harm in and of itself then one can avoid the argument that 'well, x offends me, so you can't do that either'.

Another example - nobody should say 'some rape victims ask for it'. While this is likely to offend pretty much anyone who can think properly, it's not the offence that should be the motivation for avoiding this kind of statement. The offence is caused by the fact that statements such as these contribute to a culture in which certain kinds of rape are belittled, and therefore not discouraged or not acted upon. So the offence isn't the harm, it's the reflection of the actual harm - which is the disutility of the statement as measured by its effect on women, and men, in society generally.

Of course there is some utility to making a statement or taking an action which might offend somebody, in the form of a generalised utility attributed to freedom of speech or expression. This utility means that somebody can ethically do or say something which offends where the utility of the statement or action outweighs the disutility existent in the 'offence' taken, which is actually, I would suggest, minimal.

One last example - drawing Muhammed. People get offended when pictures are drawn of their Prophet, but I would argue that the utility of allowing people to express themselves freely is greater than the disutility of people being offended.

However, I'd say that drawing Muhammed with a bomb on his head (I know the actual circumstances of that case, it's just an illustrative, imaginary example) should be frowned upon. The utility in free expression still exists, as does the disutility in people being offended - so what's changed? What's changed, I think, is that there is now an extra disutility - a perversion of the cultural discourse surrounding Islam and violence which plays an active role in encouraging social division. When you add this quantifiable harm into the equation, you get a net disutility in drawing the picture.

So, what I'm actually saying is that Russy, et al. are correct to say that wearing a headdress is unethical. But they're wrong to say that the main reason for considering it unethical is because people take offence at it. Remove offence from the equation, see what actions and statements cause actual harm, compare that harm with the utility - be it pleasure or freedom or whatever - of allowing the action or statement, and then you can see the actions which should be discouraged and those which should not - and you avoid all this guff about 'nutjobs taking issue with things.'

My take on it - can you tell I'm procrastinating?

[stuartbert two hats]

Not really, to be honest.

[stuartbert two hats]

If one avoids considering offence as a harm in and of itself then one can avoid the argument that 'well, x offends me, so you can't do that either'.

Remove offence from the equation, see what actions and statements cause actual harm, compare that harm with the utility - be it pleasure or freedom or whatever - of allowing the action or statement, and then you can see the actions which should be discouraged and those which should not - and you avoid all this guff about 'nutjobs taking issue with things.'

Offense is harm in and of itself though. We might not be able to understand the root cause of that offense, so I don't think we can take offense out of the equation altogether.

Edited August 5, 2014 by stuartbert two hats

[davefrompompey]

Offense is harm in and of itself though. We might not be able to understand the root cause of that offense, so I don't think we can take offense out of the equation altogether.

OK, what I really meant is that offence in and of itself is a minor harm. The level of offence reflects the actual harm which acts in deeper ways on the societal level.

So perhaps don't remove offence entirely, but recognise that its value is overinflated.

I said remove because sometimes in statistics and things like that, values which are small enough not to count are treated as zero for simplicity's sake. I think you can probably do that with offence (unless it leads to further harms).

Edited August 5, 2014 by davefrompompey

[frostypaw]

My take on it - can you tell I'm procrastinating?

Absolutely cracking post - what are you mean to be doing? Must be serious

[Winslow Leach]

My take on it - can you tell I'm procrastinating?

This is what I was trying to say but wasn't calm/sober/talented enough to get across. It's not the actual offence per se, it's the broader, less immediately noticeable harm.

Well done for being better at the old 'writing words down' lark than me.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Winslow Leach

[davefrompompey]

Absolutely cracking post - what are you mean to be doing? Must be serious

Cheers - I'm meant to be writing a syllabus so I can teach this sort of bollocks to eighteen year olds who would rather be in bed, or in the pub, depending on what time their lecture is.

[frostypaw]

Can you edit that and pretend it was a course for adults so I don't feel like I shoulda been able to word it like that myself?

[davefrompompey]

Can you edit that and pretend it was a course for adults so I don't feel like I shoulda been able to word it like that myself?

Haha! It is a course for adults - it's a university course, just the majority of them are eighteen because it's basic (for a law undergraduate) legal philosphy, so they take it in their first year.

[tommyds]

For example, what about sacred music? If a Christian or group of Christians took offense to a secular performance of a Gregorian chants, should this be cause for cancellation of the performance? What about less 'sacred' cultural artefacts that are nonetheless tied to a particular culture? Should Miley Cyrus be allowed to twerk? There have certainly been many ^{citation needed, I know!} who have said that this was unacceptable cultural misappropriation. What about hip-hop? Should Debbie Harry have been allowed to 'rap'? What about Vanilla Ice? Eminem? Should The Beatles and The Rolling Stones have been allowed to play blues based music? Was it ok for Dylan to go electric? After all, that offended people.

Back when all that Miley Cyrus twerk shite was kicking off, I tried to have a civilised discussion several times (not on here) about post-racialism in music (and to a lesser extent dance) but such discussions usually deteriorated into shouting

I think we are reaching a point where "black" music has become such a large part of the musical landscape, and has been for so long, that it becomes part of everyone's culture. Miley Cyrus was born in 1992, I think it would be ridiculous (and ironically racist) to say that all her musical influences should be white.

Tom Waits occasionally gets accused of minstrelry and singing in a "black voice", I find this similarly ridiculous, if all his major influences are black then why wouldn't he emulate that style?

[frostypaw]

I hope that translates as the humour it's meant to be and doesn't cause offence, frosty.

*flounce*

[giantkatestacks]

Yes well done Dave, I agree wholeheartedly, its when others think the item in question is beyond culture, i.e. has entered the mainstream with a life of its own beyond its original symbolism so can be worn as fashion etc. the trouble is others are desperately trying to retake a culture that has ben degraded or disallowed or suppressed and need cultural signifiers to mean what they want them to mean, not just fashion.

They want the power to set their own cultural agenda, so not the warrior Indian, or latterly the wise Indian elder that others have made them but individuals within different tribes.

Frosty, I find it difficult to read the word gay as an insult without a kneejerk reaction, my 10 year old at school gets called it and bullied all the time for reading and liking music and hating rugby and it really boils my piss tbh.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

I'm just going to wade right into this brilliantly illuminating discussion to give my own take on it.

Firstly, wearing headdresses for decoration is ignorant and people should be discouraged from doing it.

I think that the problem with the discourse here is that people are quantifying the harm done by these activities in the wrong way. To me, the state of having taken offence is not really a quantifiable harm - or at least it's a very small harm.

The real harm comes from several factors - the mythicalisation (that's not a word) of the culture of native americans - which goes some way to preventing the resolution of their modern problems (alcoholism, poverty etc); the homogenisation of 'native american' cultures (we think of indians as one group, when in reality there are many amorphous tribes and sections of that whole); and the belittling of their spiritual and cultural identity, which again impacts on their ability to operate in the modern world.

Looking at it purely in utilitarian terms, the benefit of wearing headdresses is clear - somebody takes pleasure from it because it looks nice. The harm caused by it is not offence - it is that the practice contributes to a cultural evaluation of native americans which quantifiably affects their ability to pursue their own pleasure in modern American society. That harm is what leads to the offence, which might add a bit more disutility to the equation.

So from a Benthamite point of view, the utility and disutility can be compared and it's obvious that disutility wins and the ethical conclusion is that wearing a headdress for decoration is wrong. The offence taken by Native Americans and others on their behalf is simply a reflection of the gulf between the relative utility in wearing or not wearing a headdress.

If one avoids considering offence as a harm in and of itself then one can avoid the argument that 'well, x offends me, so you can't do that either'.

Another example - nobody should say 'some rape victims ask for it'. While this is likely to offend pretty much anyone who can think properly, it's not the offence that should be the motivation for avoiding this kind of statement. The offence is caused by the fact that statements such as these contribute to a culture in which certain kinds of rape are belittled, and therefore not discouraged or not acted upon. So the offence isn't the harm, it's the reflection of the actual harm - which is the disutility of the statement as measured by its effect on women, and men, in society generally.

Of course there is some utility to making a statement or taking an action which might offend somebody, in the form of a generalised utility attributed to freedom of speech or expression. This utility means that somebody can ethically do or say something which offends where the utility of the statement or action outweighs the disutility existent in the 'offence' taken, which is actually, I would suggest, minimal.

One last example - drawing Muhammed. People get offended when pictures are drawn of their Prophet, but I would argue that the utility of allowing people to express themselves freely is greater than the disutility of people being offended.

However, I'd say that drawing Muhammed with a bomb on his head (I know the actual circumstances of that case, it's just an illustrative, imaginary example) should be frowned upon. The utility in free expression still exists, as does the disutility in people being offended - so what's changed? What's changed, I think, is that there is now an extra disutility - a perversion of the cultural discourse surrounding Islam and violence which plays an active role in encouraging social division. When you add this quantifiable harm into the equation, you get a net disutility in drawing the picture.

So, what I'm actually saying is that Russy, et al. are correct to say that wearing a headdress is unethical. But they're wrong to say that the main reason for considering it unethical is because people take offence at it. Remove offence from the equation, see what actions and statements cause actual harm, compare that harm with the utility - be it pleasure or freedom or whatever - of allowing the action or statement, and then you can see the actions which should be discouraged and those which should not - and you avoid all this guff about 'nutjobs taking issue with things.'

My take on it - can you tell I'm procrastinating?

You've completely lost me on this post - I think I'm going to have to re-read it at a later date. Maybe a smoke will assist with achieving clarity.

Just another point to note in this area - I think 'intent' should be factored in as being of relevance. I'm sure the vast majority of those in this country who wear Native American headdresses do so in complete ignorance of any offence they have caused. To me this differs considerably from the cartoons of Kurt Westergaard where it would be hard to argue that he had not intended to offend Muslims.

[stuartbert two hats]

You've completely lost me on this post - I think I'm going to have to re-read it at a later date. Maybe a smoke will assist with achieving clarity.

Just another point to note in this area - I think 'intent' should be factored in as being of relevance. I'm sure the vast majority of those in this country who wear Native American headdresses do so in complete ignorance of any offence they have caused. To me this differs considerably from the cartoons of Kurt Westergaard where it would be hard to argue that he had not intended to offend Muslims.

I'm with you on intent, definately an important factor.

[Winslow Leach]

Yes well done Dave, I agree wholeheartedly, its when others think the item in question is beyond culture, i.e. has entered the mainstream with a life of its own beyond its original symbolism so can be worn as fashion etc. the trouble is others are desperately trying to retake a culture that has ben degraded or disallowed or suppressed and need cultural signifiers to mean what they want them to mean, not just fashion.

They want the power to set their own cultural agenda, so not the warrior Indian, or latterly the wise Indian elder that others have made them but individuals within different tribes.

Frosty, I find it difficult to read the word gay as an insult without a kneejerk reaction, my 10 year old at school gets called it and bullied all the time for reading and liking music and hating rugby and it really boils my piss tbh.

That is a great line! I might have to steal that for future use.

(Oh yeah, and i agree with your post as well)

[davefrompompey]

You've completely lost me on this post - I think I'm going to have to re-read it at a later date. Maybe a smoke will assist with achieving clarity.

Just another point to note in this area - I think 'intent' should be factored in as being of relevance. I'm sure the vast majority of those in this country who wear Native American headdresses do so in complete ignorance of any offence they have caused. To me this differs considerably from the cartoons of Kurt Westergaard where it would be hard to argue that he had not intended to offend Muslims.

Intent can be important when you're looking at ethics, but from a utilitarian point of view (which I don't necessarily espouse, but think is the most useful way of looking at this particular question), it rather doesn't matter because it's a consequentialist way of looking at the problem.

[Yoghurt on a Stick]

Intent can be important when you're looking at ethics, but from a utilitarian point of view (which I don't necessarily espouse, but think is the most useful way of looking at this particular question), it rather doesn't matter because it's a consequentialist way of looking at the problem.

Hold on dave, I haven't had my smoke yet so still don't know what you are talking about. lol

[zero000]

You've completely lost me on this post - I think I'm going to have to re-read it at a later date. Maybe a smoke will assist with achieving clarity.

Just another point to note in this area - I think 'intent' should be factored in as being of relevance. I'm sure the vast majority of those in this country who wear Native American headdresses do so in complete ignorance of any offence they have caused. To me this differs considerably from the cartoons of Kurt Westergaard where it would be hard to argue that he had not intended to offend Muslims.

Those cartoons were nasty and deliberately designed to inflame tensions but should they have been banned? They weren't even reproduced in the papers so people

could get some context about the story.

Equally we wouldn't think twice about similarly offensive cartoons ridiculing Christianity, though I guess that's probably because it's our culture to take the piss out of.

[DeanoL]

Nailed it.

It's really easy not to wear headdresses, so why would anyone do so in the knowledge they are causing offence? It's just plain obnoxious.

It's so easy to do it when it's not something you want to do. It's like how millions of people 'boycotted' Vodafone over taxes when they were already with other providers, then it turned out Amazon were doing the same thing and they were less keen.

Plus, at Glastonbury, I'd imagine there's a good chance you won't see anyone who will actually be offended by it. Whereas you might not wear one to a native American wedding. I'm not sure we've yet seen anyone actually offended on their own behalf, and not just on behalf of other hypothetical people that were not at the festival.

Plus, as a Viking, can you stop appropriating our names for the days of the week please.

[russycarps]

It's so easy to do it when it's not something you want to do. It's like how millions of people 'boycotted' Vodafone over taxes when they were already with other providers, then it turned out Amazon were doing the same thing and they were less keen.

Plus, at Glastonbury, I'd imagine there's a good chance you won't see anyone who will actually be offended by it. Whereas you might not wear one to a native American wedding. I'm not sure we've yet seen anyone actually offended on their own behalf, and not just on behalf of other hypothetical people that were not at the festival.

Plus, as a Viking, can you stop appropriating our names for the days of the week please.

is wearing a headdress something people really want to do then? even if they know it may cause offence? do they give super powers or something?

as for your 3rd nonsensical paragraph, have the vikings suffered massive and ongoing oppression then?