[Noisebridge-discuss] Oppressive Behavior

Charles Tang cjtang1 at asu.edu
Tue Dec 31 22:08:30 UTC 2013


Also, one may see that she could have been excluded for her lack of
whiteness.

Example, the use of the word to illustrate an example is non-prohibitive
for a white person? Because they diminished it's power somehow in a
politically charged discussion?

If the power of the word is inherent, regardless of context then how can it
be written or scripted. The OP would be excluded too, as the "Pejorative"
function of the word is inherently absent from the conversation. . . . it's
just the use of the word which is a problem. This is akin to allowing
whites to use words in the state of exception, a functional homosacar of
semiotic discourse.

A state of exception, rendering impossible an identity outside of
whiteness.

I think we are prohibiting identities here.



On 31 December 2013 13:58, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:

> ...and i'll attempt to interpret.
>
>
>
> There is a difference between appropriation and reappropriation.
>
>
>
> --Blacks appropriated the N word from whites. Now wiggers are
> reappropirating it.
>
>
>
>
>
> To me, both seem potentially liberating, depending. I also think some
> white people use Black idioms because they LOVE those idioms. As a person
> of Jewish descent, i'm not offended that everybody eats bagels.
>
>
>
> “Now wiggers are reappropirating it.” It depends if this person classifies
> herself as a wigger, white individual or even black individual. There is no
> defining characteristic until we ask the individual who uttered the words
> how they identify and why they identify. We cannot play essentialism when
> there is a clear intersectional becoming of identity. How can we say she is
> black or white, African American or Anglo American? Race goes well beyond
> skin color.  We don’t know which community she identifies with or even if
> she refuses identification all together. We also don’t know if she fluidly
> moves about in her identity between cultures.
>
>
>
> It really depends on how this individual identifies and how the group
> around identifies. I don't think language constructs a bright line. If we
> are to delve into semiotics here, there are too many experiences, life
> circumstances and abridging history of the word to come to a conclusion of
> exclusion.
>
>
>
> --Meaning, we cannot know if Sara meant to exclude Black people from
> Noisebridge, when she used the n word, and so we should not assume any harm
> was intended.
>
>
>
> I agree, and also (a) good sense and taking a moment to size up Sara
> (she's not very big) would lead one quickly to the obvious conclusion that
> she was not trying to exclude anyone from anything. And (b) we could ask.
> Asking might be a better first step, then shouting someone out the door.
>
>
>
> ^above.
>
>
>
> Take for instance the use of gendered pronouns. If one does not identify
> with conflated archetypes of sex, they may want to use a different pronoun
> to describe themselves. This upheaval is an attempt to rewrite a dominant
> cultural narrative as to who or what one can be conceived with relation to
> their body.
>
>
>
> --Meaning, if a person rejects social stereotypes about their gender, the
> person may try to get society to discard those stereotypes, by asking
> people to use "they" instead of "he" or "she".
>
>
>
> Yes, they might. I agree with and practice rejection of gender stereotypes
> that don't fit me. But, through living, not through syllables (hey, that's
> just me).
>
>
>
> "Conflated"?
>
>
>
> The point I am making is that racial identity is constructed in sex and
> gender. Conflated archetypes mean a becoming of a “being” and in the matrix
> of archetypes that constructs one’s identity. I’m trying to show the
> immediate parallels between the excluder’s implosions of gender through the
> subscription to an “E” pronoun to the potential for the implosion [or
> partial] of the exclusions’ race. If gender is fluid, then why isn’t race?
> They are both attempts to construct binary oppositions that make dominance
> possible (e.g. he/she and black/white). These dichotomies render impossible
> the idea that race and gender are not discrete, but fluid and reflexive
> understandings of self within the context of one’s experience.
>
>
>
> The same upheaval can be applied to archetypes of race, whereby one in
> their own whiteness or any other color or affiliation seeks to upheave
> their whiteness in an alternative racial narrative.
>
>
>
> --i THINK you mean, a white girl might use Black idioms to show she's not
> a typical white person.
>
>
>
> Yes, she might.
>
>
>
> No, what I’m saying is that race is fluid as is gender. There needs to be
> a conversation of intersectionality here that is largely being ignored.
> That skin color may not determine an individual’s race, and consequently
> this individual may be reappropriating the term within the identity this
> individual chooses to live in.  Consequently, this is more reason to engage
> in dialogue about the identities present in this argument.
>
>
>
> It comes down to if someone is using the term in a pejorative sense and if
> the instance it is cultural appropriation or a reappropriation entrenched
> in an alternative identity or schemata as to how one wants to be perceived.
>
>
>
> --what matters is: Was there intent to oppress, or intent to liberate?
>
>
>
> Having spoken with Sara at length, i would say her goal in life is to
> liberate others through laughter.
>
>
>
> Appropriation is an over identification with the symptomology of
> oppression. It makes possible the taking of the word and a translation of
> the power of oppression vis-à-vis its use by the oppressed or individuals
> who identify with the oppressed. Now, I’m suspectful of the liberation
> ideology because it would seem strange within your iteration of her
> identity. . . . and the fact that she likely is not going to liberate a
> class of people via a small joke between her and someone who doesn’t
> identify with any gender pronouns . . . .
>
>
>
> It’s really just a discourse that plays or diminishes power in a space.
>
>
>
> Now, if an individual was to exclude on perceptual appropriation...
>
>
>
> --You lost me there.
>
>
>
> Perceptual appropriation is the understanding that this person only
> identifies as white, has had privilege because of her whiteness and is
> using a term, which can only be used in an appropriative way because of
> that privilege. It excludes the understanding that this person may have an
> aspect or even identify with blackness or an alternative African American
> identity which allows her to reapproraite the word in a context that
> actually upheaves oppression, by taking the dominating power out of the
> word.
>
>
>
> ...reappropration should not exist for those who are not entirely
> classified by essentialist functions within a social space.
>
>
>
> And there. Sounds like you're saying "1/2 white people are not allowed to
> use the N word"?
>
>
>
> No, what I’m saying is that if we are to exclude off of this discourse, it
> could be used to justify the exclusion of others who cannot specifically
> identify in essentialist terms with a particular race. Being part of is not
> whole or ascribing to is not whole, both situations under this exclusionary
> framework disables alterity and refocuses power by prohibiting the
> subaltern from engaging in speech. It utterly destroys the agency of the
> Other discursively, rendering them voiceless absent exclusion.
>
>
>
> One cannot articulate an ontology in such a social space because of
> policing of boundaries.
>
>
>
> One? Or specificially persons of mixed race?
>
>
>
> Any individual who exists as a mixed race individual, ascribes to
> alternative cultural ways of knowing, or implodes categorical
> understandings of identity. Policing of boundaries is as intersectional as
> physical policing. The parallels and disparities exist for both. Imagine
> the world where more people of a certain class, race, identified race,
> gender, identified gender, identifying implosion get caught up in policing.
> Because these individuals do not concretely fit within categorical
> frameworks, they are lead to be marginalized.
>
>
>
> If the perception of identity functions in this fashion, then we are very
> wrong to exclude on this basis of speech.
>
>
>
> Clearly, this individual has embarked on minstrelization. Who is to say
> this individual can’t do this? Regardless, I don’t think this individual
> should have to justify their identity. It’s akin to asking a mixed person
> “what is your racial decent.” Translation: 'I don’t know who you are, why
> you act the way you do, and I must know about it because I wouldn’t
> understand your identity without such a justification.'
>
>
> On 29 December 2013 18:09, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  On 12/29/2013 4:42:41 PM, "Charles Tang" <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> ...and i'll attempt to interpret.
>>
>>
>> There is a difference between appropriation and reappropriation.
>>
>>
>> --Blacks appropriated the N word from whites. Now wiggers are
>> reappropirating it.
>>
>> To me, both seem potentially liberating, depending. I also think some
>> white people use Black idioms because they LOVE those idioms. As a person
>> of Jewish descent, i'm not offended that everybody eats bagels.
>>
>>
>>   It really depends on how this individual identifies and how the group
>> around identifies. I don't think language constructs a bright line. If we
>> are to delve into semiotics here, there are too many experiences, life
>> circumstances and abridging history of the word to come to a conclusion of
>> exclusion.
>>
>>
>> --Meaning, we cannot know if Sara meant to exclude Black people from
>> Noisebridge, when she used the n word, and so we should not assume any harm
>> was intended.
>>
>> I agree, and also (a) good sense and taking a moment to size up Sara
>> (she's not very big) would lead one quickly to the obvious conclusion that
>> she was not trying to exclude anyone from anything. And (b) we could ask.
>> Asking might be a better first step, then shouting someone out the door.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Take for instance the use of gendered pronouns. If one does not
>> identify with conflated archetypes of sex, they may want to use a different
>> pronoun to describe themselves. This upheaval is an attempt to rewrite a
>> dominant cultural narrative as to who or what one can be conceived with
>> relation to their body.
>>
>>
>> --Meaning, if a person rejects social stereotypes about their gender,
>> the person may try to get society to discard those stereotypes, by asking
>> people to use "they" instead of "he" or "she".
>>
>> Yes, they might. I agree with and practice rejection of
>> gender stereotypes that don't fit me. But, through living, not through
>> syllables (hey, that's just me).
>>
>> "Conflated"?
>>
>>
>>  The same upheaval can be applied to archetypes of race, whereby one in
>> their own whiteness or any other color or affiliation seeks to upheave
>> their whiteness in an alternative racial narrative.
>>
>>
>> --i THINK you mean, a white girl might use Black idioms to show she's not
>> a typical white person.
>>
>> Yes, she might.
>>
>>
>>
>>  It comes down to if someone is using the term in a pejorative sense and
>> if the instance it is cultural appropriation or a reappropriation
>> entrenched in an alternative identity or schemata as to how one wants to be
>> perceived.
>>
>>
>> --what matters is: Was there intent to oppress, or intent to liberate?
>>
>> Having spoken with Sara at length, i would say her goal in life is to
>> liberate others through laughter.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Now, if an individual was to exclude on perceptual appropriation...
>>
>>
>> --You lost me there.
>>
>>
>>
>>  ...reappropration should not exist for those who are not entirely
>> classified by essentialist functions within a social space.
>>
>>
>> And there. Sounds like you're saying "1/2 white people are not allowed to
>> use the N word"?
>>
>>
>>
>> One cannot articulate an ontology in such a social space because of
>> policing of boundaries.
>>
>>
>> One? Or specificially persons of mixed race?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131231/733e987a/attachment.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list