Cultural Heritage: Yay or Nay?

[stephyjh]

Tagging onto Stephy's post as well, the problem with using a "dictionary definition" is that most of the time those dictionaries are created by white people, who more often than not have a variety of other privileges, which results in them refusing to acknowledge certain terms (like cisgender and transmisogyny, f'ex) because they are privileged enough to not realize that NOT acknowledging them and putting them in hurts communities.

So like Stephy said, racial prejudice is a much more accurate word to use.

Also, the dictionary definition has not substantially changed since the beginning of the 20th century, when ideas about race were so different that interracial marriage was by and large illegal, and many minority groups weren't even allowed to vote. Thinking on the subject has changed immensely in the past century.

[iulla]

On the other hand, while people should be able to take whatever path they will, it's just much easier when that path is paved, marked with clearly painted signs, or at least visible. A lot of paths have been grown over, a few even blocked off, so-- I get the significance of culture and heritage, in spirituality, now, kind of.

Oh, I definitely agree with you there! I'm not saying that people shouldn't use their heritage as a springboard for choosing a path: I know of a handful of people who do, and it can be very rewarding. You are connecting with the gods and practices of your ancestors, and possibly your ancestors themselves - what could be better than feeling that connection?


Some paths are easier to see than others, that's very true. Following a path that you are at least somewhat familiar with makes the transition all the more easier, but learning about a new path can give you a whole new perspective.

Tagging onto Stephy's post as well, the problem with using a "dictionary definition" is that most of the time those dictionaries are created by white people, who more often than not have a variety of other privileges, which results in them refusing to acknowledge certain terms (like cisgender and transmisogyny, f'ex) because they are privileged enough to not realize that NOT acknowledging them and putting them in hurts communities.

So like Stephy said, racial prejudice is a much more accurate word to use.

I don't know...the sociological definition is just...

Call it what you will, if you are discriminating on someone based on skin color alone, if you are assigning characteristics that have nothing to do with skin color onto a person, and if you are of the belief that a group with a certain skin color is inferior (or superior) to yours, then, well, that's just ridiculous and wrong. Whether you are in the minority or not shouldn't matter. And I know that prejudice and power very often go hand in hand. It all just seems very...pedantic.

[LiminalAuggie]

Call it what you will, if you are discriminating on someone based on skin color alone, if you are assigning characteristics that have nothing to do with skin color onto a person, and if you are of the belief that a group with a certain skin color is inferior (or superior) to yours, then, well, that's just ridiculous and wrong. Whether you are in the minority or not shouldn't matter. And I know that prejudice and power very often go hand in hand. It all just seems very...pedantic.

Here's my two cents:
I can see how the specificity of this definition of racism can seem pedantic. I can totally see how the contrast of "well this is the sociology geek definition" and "this is the common parlance of the word" makes the former look, well, a bit stuffy and useless for everyday conversation. And when talking about other things I am generally all about looking at language as a fluid evolving thing and how it is fundamentally democratic and should not be locked up an ivory tower, and instead reflect the usage of the people, but.
But. Talking about racism.

My perspective is, I guess, a little bit different. I'm not a sociology geek. I don't have a PhD in this stuff. Despite that, I absolutely go with the sociological standard meaning of "racism" because that is the definition that reflects my everyday life experience. The racism I experience is not about individual people bearing enmity toward me (or my enmity towards other people) because of skin tone. Or, I should say, it's not just about that. The racism I experience includes a whole big system-wide series of hurts, of daily reminders that I am Other, of a whole collection of institutionalized bias that, because of my skin tone and my facial features and the texture of my hair, make it pervasively clear that the playing field is not level and that I do not have equal footing in the world.

So when I talk about racism I talk about a wider scope than individual skin-based prejudice, because the problem is more comprehensive than individual acts of hatred. And trying to fix that problem has to go deeper than just stopping people from hating each other for superficial reasons, because there are fundamental flaws in the structure of society. It's not about intellectualism and pedantry, it's about the difficulties vast swaths of everyday people face just trying to get by in the world.

I'm sorry, that turned into way more than two cents, that was like a dollar.

[triple_entendre]

Tagging onto Stephy's post as well, the problem with using a "dictionary definition" is that most of the time those dictionaries are created by white people, who more often than not have a variety of other privileges, which results in them refusing to acknowledge certain terms (like cisgender and transmisogyny, f'ex) because they are privileged enough to not realize that NOT acknowledging them and putting them in hurts communities.

So like Stephy said, racial prejudice is a much more accurate word to use.

I don't know...the sociological definition is just...

Call it what you will, if you are discriminating on someone based on skin color alone, if you are assigning characteristics that have nothing to do with skin color onto a person, and if you are of the belief that a group with a certain skin color is inferior (or superior) to yours, then, well, that's just ridiculous and wrong. Whether you are in the minority or not shouldn't matter. And I know that prejudice and power very often go hand in hand. It all just seems very...pedantic.

Not only does it distract from the principle of the conflict, (I think, less so than functioning as a crucial reminder about the slant of the landscape,) but I've witnessed the social justice definition fall apart pretty much whenever intersectionality is involved, or the approach of any power-shift tipping point, in a discussion.

The racism I experience includes a whole big system-wide series of hurts, of daily reminders that I am Other, of a whole collection of institutionalized bias that, because of my skin tone and my facial features and the texture of my hair, make it pervasively clear that the playing field is not level and that I do not have equal footing in the world.

So when I talk about racism I talk about a wider scope than individual skin-based prejudice, because the problem is more comprehensive than individual acts of hatred.

This still holds true, I certainly would not ignore this. I'd only opine that the redefinition of one word is far too simple to express and assert this experience and context.

[Jabberwocky]

Tagging onto Stephy's post as well, the problem with using a "dictionary definition" is that most of the time those dictionaries are created by white people, who more often than not have a variety of other privileges, which results in them refusing to acknowledge certain terms (like cisgender and transmisogyny, f'ex) because they are privileged enough to not realize that NOT acknowledging them and putting them in hurts communities.

On the flipside, much of the discussion that takes place round these issues is very much in a North American liberal identity politics framework. While it's often assumed to be universal, that isn't the case.

For a minor example of that, I got into an argument online for talking about "black people" as opposed to "people of colour". Thing is, "poc" is not a term that you should be using if you're in the UK- it will be met with incomprehension at best and hostility at worst. (I don't say this in a "poor me" kind of way. It's an irritant, not a major issue).

There are certain unrecognised issues of cultural dominance that come into play here. The UK is one thing- we're still pretty culturally prevalent so it's not that important. But I strongly suspect when you get outside of the Anglosphere, let alone outside of Europe, this is going to be even more of an issue.

[triple_entendre]

On the flipside, much of the discussion that takes place round these issues is very much in a North American liberal identity politics framework. While it's often assumed to be universal, that isn't the case.

For a minor example of that, I got into an argument online for talking about "black people" as opposed to "people of colour". Thing is, "poc" is not a term that you should be using if you're in the UK- it will be met with incomprehension at best and hostility at worst. (I don't say this in a "poor me" kind of way. It's an irritant, not a major issue).

There are certain unrecognised issues of cultural dominance that come into play here. The UK is one thing- we're still pretty culturally prevalent so it's not that important. But I strongly suspect when you get outside of the Anglosphere, let alone outside of Europe, this is going to be even more of an issue.

I watched a feature where Jane Elliott, an American schoolteacher who taught her kindergarteners why Martin Luther King was murdered, (they asked,) by dividing them by eye color and declaring that one was better than the other. The kids invented their own nasty ways of embracing their roles. The next week, she switched them around. The third week, they all agreed that judging whole groups of people by color (of skin, or eye) is bad.

The feature itself was more about how she taught adults this concept. It's the same way, but much harsher than (I hope) she treated her kindergarten students. It went pretty much like every flamewar on Tumblr when she was conducting this workshop with American college students.

But the workshop seemed to more or less find itself on shakier ground when applied to a group in the U.K.

[Darkhawk]

On the flipside, much of the discussion that takes place round these issues is very much in a North American liberal identity politics framework. While it's often assumed to be universal, that isn't the case.

I have seen that brought up in a context of the definition of "racism" before, as that format is very specifically American.

[Juniperberry]

My original post was aimed at those who have chosen a pagan religion over Christianity, and feel obligated to completely root out all traces of their former religion due to peer pressure or other illogical reasoning. I do not want anyone to have to suffer cultural loss, and *gasp*, think that should apply to former/current/half Christians as well!

I kind of get what you're saying here but it sort of makes me chuckle. Christianity is like a sponge that absorbs culture. Hispanic Catholicism differs from Irish Catholicism, Fire and Brimstone Baptists differ from the ambivalent Christian Wasps. So which Christian culture are you afraid of losing?

I actually think that those interested in cultural heritage find through research and deconstruction that there are notso much boxes and categories of religion in history but a thread of transition and acculturation that connects us from point a to point b. In fact, it all sort of comes around full circle.

[Nyktipolos]

On the flipside, much of the discussion that takes place round these issues is very much in a North American liberal identity politics framework. While it's often assumed to be universal, that isn't the case.

I've talked with a number of people about this definition of racism as well as the term PoC who live outside the US and do not always identify as having a liberal-slanted political view.

That being said, it is up to the individual on how they want to be identified, and that should be respected. That being said, 'PoC' is a political term, not necessarily a physical descriptor (although it is, too). It's why I know of Saami (both who live in Sweden and the UK) who identify as a PoC, even though their skin is white.

But I do recognize that much of the discussions on racism and privilege happen in North America. I can't speak for non-NA people on how they choose to identify, etc.

[Zythan]

Did you base your pagan path off of the cultures in your family tree or not?

Yes and no. I'm about half German, quarter Irish and a quarter French (I usually tend to forget about the French side in lieu of the Irish). I started out looking into Druidry because I felt a "click" there, and it also made sense with my Irish ethnicity. However, a couple weeks in I felt that I really needed a deity to connect with and never felt that with anything Celtic. I basically went out and did a meditation, as if to say "Hey deities, here I am." I had an experience which then led me to Odin, and ever since I've felt an extremely strong connection to Him and the Norse pantheon. I suppose that could be because of the German side? There's Scandinavian somewhere along the line (I know from my appearance, mainly eyes, and family tree).

Anyways, long story short, cultural heritage had a bit of an impact on what I started with, but as I went along it became less chosen by me.