[Noisebridge-discuss] Oppressive Behavior

[Charles Tang]

I am PRO YOKO ONO, as we share the same birthday. See the article above.


On 31 December 2013 14:09, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:

> Also:
> http://polyglot.lss.wisc.edu/aasp/faculty/Leslie%20Bow/articles/pdf/transracial%20%20Bow.pdf
>
>
> On 31 December 2013 14:08, Charles Tang <cjtang1 at asu.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20131231/4f27ddef/attachment-0003.html>