[Noisebridge-discuss] Oppressive Behavior

Charles Tang cjtang1 at asu.edu
Tue Dec 31 21:58:36 UTC 2013


...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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131231/6b20b3da/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Noisebridge-discuss mailing list