dagblog - Comments for "Reflections--Somewhat Belated--on Israel's 70th Anniversary"

Cultural misappropriation is

rmrd0000 — Wed, 06 Jun 2018 13:49:30 +0000

In reply to So I looked at the wikipedia

Cultural misappropriation is a constant argument. A set of values that was not previously challenged is now being challenged. Black NFL players kneel to protest police killings. White society deems that unpatriotic. A team who did not kneel during the NFL season is no longer invited to the White House. Trump fumbles the words to “God Bless America”. The meaning of the kneeling gesture is redefined. A major reason we have battles about cultural misappropriation is that one group wants to have the final word on culture.

Arguably much less commercial

PeraclesPlease — Wed, 06 Jun 2018 12:25:54 +0000

In reply to The issue of Native American

Arguably much less commercial than Burning Man and I think longer lasting (and more nomadic)

The issue of Native American

ocean-kat — Wed, 06 Jun 2018 05:12:24 +0000

In reply to So I looked at the wikipedia

The issue of Native American ceremonies is a big controversy at Rainbow gatherings so it must be in the article. Of course I couldn't change everything and don't endorse everything in the article 100%. But there was some outrageously wrong information put in by a group of people who decided that if a Forest Service permit was signed it wasn't a "real" rainbow gathering. My main focus was stopping that. Signing the permit is a big controversy withing the rainbow family. They started a new "real" rainbow gathering, that no one went to, and lied about on the wiki page to try to fool people into going to their gathering. It really is an intergroup argument that most people here aren't interested in so no sense in getting into it too deeply

eta: For those who don't know the Rainbow Gathering is huge, 5,000 to 25,000 people show up in a National Forest with almost no organization and set up kitchens in the woods. Anyone can go to any kitchen and get food. There is one massive circle that kitchens bring food to once a day and thousands get feed there. Every night there's a bonfire and drumming circle that goes on for hours. In the early years during the anti-war and civil rights protests there were non violent resistance workshops and many activist were trained there. And so much more. Though lately it's deteriorated it was and still somewhat is an incredibly interesting sociological phenomenon.

So I looked at the wikipedia

artappraiser — Wed, 06 Jun 2018 04:38:44 +0000

In reply to Some people were making

So I looked at the wikipedia page in question and as per your story, it looks to be finely edited, but then I was looking over the headings and I see

Cultural misappropriation

and go: oh nooooooooooooooooooo

and then I click on it and read it and even though it is clearly factual, it makes me get my knickers all in a twist! oh nooooooo again:

In 2015, a group of Native American academics and writers issued a statement against the Rainbow Family members who are "appropriating and practicing faux Native ceremonies and beliefs. These actions, although Rainbows may not realize, dehumanize us as an indigenous Nation because they imply our culture and humanity, like our land, is anyone’s for the taking." The signatories specifically named this misappropriation as "cultural exploitation."[64]

I calmed down and then thought: well, the globalist capitalist way of dealing with this would be to launch an intellectual property law suit which might then go to the Supreme Court (yes, the very same one which just ruled on the power of wedding cake metaphors.)

I guess it just makes me wanna yell: do we really always have to have in an encyclopedia entry every single fact that might be related to something?! Cause if so, in the end, everything is related to everything else and we might just as well have run on for a gazillion pages.

End of primal scream.

Edit to add: no, not the end. Maybe the Roman Catholic Church should try an intellectual property "misappropriation" lawsuit against all Protestant faiths? Oh so many examples run through my brain....one man's inspiration is another man's mis-appropriation....the ownership of thought being ridiculous in itself, but we still sell it.

Well it's disgraceful to hide

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 22:35:15 +0000

In reply to Some people were making

Well it's disgraceful to hide behind a name that has nothing to do with who you are. I hope you take umbrage.

Okay, the United States might

Aaron Carine — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 20:47:44 +0000

In reply to Reflections--Somewhat Belated--on Israel's 70th Anniversary

Okay, the United States might have been induced to take in the Jews of Palestine, Europe, and other places, if they wanted to go. The Displaced Persons Acts of 1948 and 1950 would have allowed the Jewish DPs to get in pretty quickly. The 1952 immigration law(McCarran-Walter) would have theoretically allowed most of Palestine's Jews(the Yishuv) to get in. There might still have been a problem, namely the time factor.

It would take some time for the 600,000 Jews of the Yishuv to get in. The Jews in Arab countries--the Mizrahi--would probably have had to wait for the repeal of the national quota system in 1965, as not many of them would have qualified for the exemptions enacted in 1952, After 1965 Jews wouldn't haven't gotten all the annual slots, since the point of the 1965 law was to prevent favoritism. It would take a considerable amount of time for all the Jews who wanted to go to be gathered to America. During the interim, a number of bad things could happen, such as pogroms. There might still have been an argument for the partition plan, that it was quicker. The Jews of Palestine wouldn't have to budge, and the ones who went to the Jewish state would have benefited from the state's "Jews only, and get 'em in as fast as we can" policy.

I spoke of the partition plan as a "small injustice", but its justice is actually arguable.

Some people were making

ocean-kat — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 20:19:26 +0000

In reply to and he lives in the desert,

Some people were making changes to a wikipedia page I cared about. The Rainbow Gathering. I wanted to debate them on it but didn't want a name that was associated with any other name I use anywhere else. Ocean-kat is a name so out of style for me. There are some people on the other side that will sign you up for all sorts of spam if you cross them as well as other nefarious activity to shut you up. Even sending info to your employer if they can find them. The plan was to discard the account when the battle was over. I did end up discarding the account but I got used to the name so I began using it in other places.

By the way I won on every point and the wiki page was edited to my preferences. I'm very proud of that but only one person knows I did it. Even though Rainbow is a large "organization" and many people know what Ocean-kat did on the Rainbow Gathering wiki page. At the time there was a huge amount of speculation as to who Ocean-kat was and an effort to out me at the gathering. If only they could identify me. But I don't care about cudos from strangers and never bragged about my accomplishment, until now.

Most likely the kind and

ocean-kat — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 19:50:01 +0000

In reply to I don’t want to talk about it

Most likely the kind and gentle nature of my debate style is so decidedly feminine that some people just assume I'm female.

Michael, you're starting to

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 18:33:00 +0000

In reply to Also, Peracles is a

Michael, you're starting to warm to me (though technically vegetarian)

Also, Peracles is a

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 05 Jun 2018 14:14:49 +0000

In reply to Oops. I thought Kat was a

Also, Peracles is a carnivorous pond scallop