[Noisebridge-discuss] Oppressive Behavior

[Charles Tang]

There is a difference between appropriation and reappropriation.

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.

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.

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. 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.

Now, if an individual was to exclude on perceptual appropriation, we are
excluding others who cannot exist within the strict circles of racial
identity. For example, I'm half Chinese and half Irish. If we can exclude,
were am I allowed to exist in reappropiration. Specifically, where am I
allowed to take back power over my own identity? Perhaps this exclusion
would justify excluding me, as I do not have a discrete identity. What
words can I speak about whiteness, when I'm not entirely white? What words
can I speak about my Asian decent, when I'm not entirely Asian. Such a
discourse of impossibility of existence within the racial strata
articulates that I can't, because reappropration should not exist for those
who are not entirely classified by essentialist functions within a social
space.

The strictest definition and articulation of dominance comes from complete
censorship. One cannot articulate an ontology in such a social space
because of policing of boundaries. Much can be said of this function as
discourse does construct reality.  Where am I allowed to take back my
identity, where am I allowed to take back power over a word with relation
to my identity? Where does this policing recreate the boundaries it seeks
to police? And does the exclusion recreate the same social functions that
allow the dominant narration to exist in place.

Just my 2cents. Word boarders are hard to consecrate within frameworks,
because intended meanings are different to perceptual meanings.
Particularly with race narration, identity politics abounds and borders
become salient with relation to their own controversy. Conversely, it
repoliticizes these borders and depoliticizes attempts to strip the words
of their exclusionary value.


On 29 December 2013 16:02, Johny Radio <johnyradio at gmail.com> wrote:

>  On 12/29/2013 1:43:05 PM, "Jeffrey Carl Faden" <jeffreyatw at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> It mentions positive purposes.
>
> That's a really good point. I like that part of the verbiage.
>
>
> If you have a problem with the policy, please send a pull request to the
> GitHub repository or ask for help to do so.
>
> -we can change verbiage of a policy after it's been consensed on? (that
> could be a good way)
> -github, and not the nb wiki, is now the place we where collaborate on nb
> documents? (i don't object to cloud tools, but i would also be fine with
> 100% on-site nb services)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131229/362a88fb/attachment-0003.html>