Zompist Bboard Again

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 7:33 pm Stuff like this is part of why I tend to strongly dislike the idea of 'cultural appropriation', because it strongly implies that races/ethnicities/cultures should be kept separate from one another and have things which are proprietary to themselves;

The second part is true to a limited degree; the first part isn't true at all. There's literally nothing about the concept of "cultural appropriation" which implies that cultures or people should be kept separate. Indeed, accepting the fact that they won't be is what gives rise to its demand for an ethical framework for the kinds of exchanges which take place when cultures interact. But I've already explained this countless times to you, Travis, and you simply refuse to accept it because the only approach to cultural exchange you appear to be interested in is "I should get to do whatever I want with no negative consequences."

In any case, as for the spread of y'all, I've noticed the same trend. First of all, I think it's unwarranted to presume that those who have recently adopted the usage don't interact on a regular basis with those for whom it is a native feature. As others have pointed out, people travel. (So many Canadians vacation in South Florida, for instance, that you can buy Canadian products in some of the grocery stores there.) Chicago, for instance, may be losing people overall, but our percentage of college graduates has been steadily increasing and many of them are recent arrivals from the South.

Moreover, as jal pointed out, y'all is a prominent feature of AAVE and there is plenty of evidence for AAVE influence on Standard English. A huge amount of current slang originates there, and with time slang words can become generally accepted in colloquial or even formal registers. Again, some of this may be spread via media, as malloc seems to suggest, but it is also the case the Black people are everywhere in this country and even many who don't use AAVE as a primary mode of communication codeswitch or port over particular usages. Thus there's a lot of potential exposure for nonspeakers who aren't living in segregated communities.[*].

In summary, y'all is familiar to everyone, has covert prestige due to its association with popular culture, is unambiguously gender-neutral, and is just easier to use. Southerners laugh out loud at the akwardness of trisyllabic "you guys's". It's really not too surprising to me that it's spreading.

[*] As it happens, I just recently rewatched this clip from 2012 featuring the Kondobolu brothers and Blue Scholars. All four performers are POC, but none of them are Black, and all except comedian Hari Kondabolu are involved in the hip hop scene. At one point, they start discussing a criticism of cultural appropriation (white festival goers wearing Plain Indian-style headdresses) made earlier in the same show. At the 3:10 mark, Hari's brother Ashok (of the novelty rap group Das Racist), says. "White people just wanna be included" and adds "'Oh, I'm with y'all now? FUCK THAT HEADDRESS SHIT!'"

It's a very interesting utterance for several reasons. One is that Ashok was born and raised in the Flushing neighbourhood of Queens to Telegu-speaking immigrant parents. It's a majority Asian neighbourhood, home to one of the largest Chinese communities in the USA. Historically, it was mostly white; currently only 4% of the population is Black. So we can probably conclude that Ashok didn't grow up with "y'all" as an ordinary feature of his speech but adopted it at some point (probably around the time he became involved in the NYC hip hop scene).

Equally interesting is how it's used here. He's doing an impression of a white person who wants to be accepted by POC who have perceived cool and one of the ways he signals that is by using "y'all". He's not imitating the usage of a white Southerner who natively has this feature but of a northerner adopting it deliberately to assert membership in a particular in-group.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 4:15 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 7:33 pm Stuff like this is part of why I tend to strongly dislike the idea of 'cultural appropriation', because it strongly implies that races/ethnicities/cultures should be kept separate from one another and have things which are proprietary to themselves;

The second part is true to a limited degree; the first part isn't true at all. There's literally nothing about the concept of "cultural appropriation" which implies that cultures or people should be kept separate. Indeed, accepting the fact that they won't be is what gives rise to its demand for an ethical framework for the kinds of exchanges which take place when cultures interact. But I've already explained this countless times to you, Travis, and you simply refuse to accept it because the only approach to cultural exchange you appear to be interested in is "I should get to do whatever I want with no negative consequences."

A good example of the first part is the idea that White people shouldn't do things that are seen as proprietary to other races/ethnicities/cultures; a good example of this is the aforementioned example of the idea that White people shouldn't play 'Black' music or, for that matter, do anything that PoC's tend to do more than White people. If saying that White people should only play 'White' music is not advocating cultural separatism, I don't know what is. (Obviously the people who say things like this don't realize that then White people ought to not play most American music made after the mid-19th century, considering the depth of the influence of music originated by Black people on modern music as a whole.)

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 4:15 pm In any case, as for the spread of y'all, I've noticed the same trend. First of all, I think it's unwarranted to presume that those who have recently adopted the usage don't interact on a regular basis with those for whom it is a native feature. As others have pointed out, people travel. (So many Canadians vacation in South Florida, for instance, that you can buy Canadian products in some of the grocery stores there.) Chicago, for instance, may be losing people overall, but our percentage of college graduates has been steadily increasing and many of them are recent arrivals from the South.

Probably the part of the reason why I don't hear y'all much here in Wisconsin is that Wisconsin tends to be relatively out of the way (there is a strong tendency of people who come to Wisconsin from elsewhere to be from Illinois or Minnesota) and it is very segregated, so if you are a White person there is a very good chance you primarily interact with other White people (unless you are a software engineer like myself, where then you probably also interact heavily with Indian and/or Chinese people). The only person I know who uses y'all much IRL is my ex partner, who incidentally is from Wisconsin as is her family and only lived outside Wisconsin for a short bit in Maryland. That said, many of my coworkers have come from all over the US as well as from India and China, as people tend to come to Wisconsin specifically to work for my company. They tend to either speak General American-type varieties or English as a second language.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 4:15 pm Moreover, as jal pointed out, y'all is a prominent feature of AAVE and there is plenty of evidence for AAVE influence on Standard English. A huge amount of current slang originates there, and with time slang words can become generally accepted in colloquial or even formal registers. Again, some of this may be spread via media, as malloc seems to suggest, but it is also the case the Black people are everywhere in this country and even many who don't use AAVE as a primary mode of communication codeswitch or port over particular usages. Thus there's a lot of potential exposure for nonspeakers who aren't living in segregated communities.[*].

In summary, y'all is familiar to everyone, has covert prestige due to its association with popular culture, is unambiguously gender-neutral, and is just easier to use. Southerners laugh out loud at the akwardness of trisyllabic "you guys's". It's really not too surprising to me that it's spreading.

I tend to react to y'all when used by someone who is not Black or a Southerner as being a bit of an affectation, as a form that is used intentionally in the place of whatever form is probably actually native to one's native variety (e.g. you guys) as if it were somehow hipper or more 'correct'* or like.

I should note that the typical plural of you guys here is your guys', even though I have heard your guys's. You guys's sounds rather odd to me myself.

* In the sense that you guys is not 'correct' because it is supposedly not gender-neutral, despite its actual usage by millions of North Americans.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 4:15 pm [*] As it happens, I just recently rewatched this clip from 2012 featuring the Kondobolu brothers and Blue Scholars. All four performers are POC, but none of them are Black, and all except comedian Hari Kondabolu are involved in the hip hop scene. At one point, they start discussing a criticism of cultural appropriation (white festival goers wearing Plain Indian-style headdresses) made earlier in the same show. At the 3:10 mark, Hari's brother Ashok (of the novelty rap group Das Racist), says. "White people just wanna be included" and adds "'Oh, I'm with y'all now? FUCK THAT HEADDRESS SHIT!'"

As an aside, of course, the problem with White people wearing Plains Indian-style headdresses is that they are reflecting a highly inaccurate stereotype of American Indians in a manner that ends up denigrating actual American Indians overall, as if all indigenous Americans are stereotypical Plains Indian chiefs, which is completely negating the realities of actual American Indians -- even actual Plains Indians back in the day for the most part did not wear those headdresses.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 4:15 pm It's a very interesting utterance for several reasons. One is that Ashok was born and raised in the Flushing neighbourhood of Queens to Telegu-speaking immigrant parents. It's a majority Asian neighbourhood, home to one of the largest Chinese communities in the USA. Historically, it was mostly white; currently only 4% of the population is Black. So we can probably conclude that Ashok didn't grow up with "y'all" as an ordinary feature of his speech but adopted it at some point (probably around the time he became involved in the NYC hip hop scene).

Equally interesting is how it's used here. He's doing an impression of a white person who wants to be accepted by POC who have perceived cool and one of the ways he signals that is by using "y'all". He's not imitating the usage of a white Southerner who natively has this feature but of a northerner adopting it deliberately to assert membership in a particular in-group.

Part of this is that 'Black' things in popular American culture often have connotations of coolness, which goes along with things like how White people have consistently adopted features of music created originally by Black people since the late 19th century.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 7:33 pm Stuff like this is part of why I tend to strongly dislike the idea of 'cultural appropriation', because it strongly implies that races/ethnicities/cultures should be kept separate from one another and have things which are proprietary to themselves

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:31 pm I tend to react to y'all when used by someone who is not Black or a Southerner as being a bit of an affectation, as a form that is used intentionally in the place of whatever form is probably actually native to one's native variety (e.g. you guys) as if it were somehow hipper or more 'correct'* or like.

I feel that there’s a bit of a contradiction between these two statements…

bradrn wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 6:29 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Sun Feb 09, 2025 7:33 pm Stuff like this is part of why I tend to strongly dislike the idea of 'cultural appropriation', because it strongly implies that races/ethnicities/cultures should be kept separate from one another and have things which are proprietary to themselves

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:31 pm I tend to react to y'all when used by someone who is not Black or a Southerner as being a bit of an affectation, as a form that is used intentionally in the place of whatever form is probably actually native to one's native variety (e.g. you guys) as if it were somehow hipper or more 'correct'* or like.

I feel that there’s a bit of a contradiction between these two statements…

Not exactly -- the issue I have with people who aren't Black, Southerners, or living in Real Life contact with Black people or Southerners so as to pick it up organically using y'all as an affectation is not that they are using something from another culture but rather that they see what is native to their own speech as not being cool or 'correct' enough so as to deliberately replace it with something foreign to themselves. I have no problem with people picking up and using y'all in an organic fashion.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:31 pmA good example of the first part is the idea that White people shouldn't do things that are seen as proprietary to other races/ethnicities/cultures; a good example of this is the aforementioned example of the idea that White people shouldn't play 'Black' music or, for that matter, do anything that PoC's tend to do more than White people.

Who the hell is advocating this?

I should note that the typical plural of you guys here is your guys', even though I have heard your guys's. You guys's sounds rather odd to me myself.

"You guys's" is not the plural of "you guys" (which is already plural); it's the possessive form.

As an aside, of course, the problem with White people wearing Plains Indian-style headdresses is that they are reflecting a highly inaccurate stereotype of American Indians in a manner that ends up denigrating actual American Indians overall, as if all indigenous Americans are stereotypical Plains Indian chiefs, which is completely negating the realities of actual American Indians -- even actual Plains Indians back in the day for the most part did not wear those headdresses.

I would say it's a problem with this behaviour. There are other issues as well, among them the fact that these headdresses ape war bonnets, which have a particular sacred roll within Plains Indian culture.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 7:51 pmNot exactly -- the issue I have with people who aren't Black, Southerners, or living in Real Life contact with Black people or Southerners so as to pick it up organically using y'all as an affectation is not that they are using something from another culture but rather that they see what is native to their own speech as not being cool or 'correct' enough so as to deliberately replace it with something foreign to themselves. I have no problem with people picking up and using y'all in an organic fashion.

What exactly do you think motivates people to pick up usages "in an organic fashion"?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:04 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:31 pmA good example of the first part is the idea that White people shouldn't do things that are seen as proprietary to other races/ethnicities/cultures; a good example of this is the aforementioned example of the idea that White people shouldn't play 'Black' music or, for that matter, do anything that PoC's tend to do more than White people.

Who the hell is advocating this?

I remember a thread on this very board where it was very much in earnest argued that White people stole rock music from Black people as a form of cultural appropriation.

Similar examples of this thing include the very common argument that White people wearing cornrows is cultural appropriation, with the underlying argument being that White people do not have an appreciation of the role of cornrows in Black culture, but which smacks of the exact sort of cultural separatism that I speak of (as White people simply wearing cornrows in and of itself has no negative impact on Black people, and using an argument about the attitudes of individual White people but then applying it to all White people who wear cornrows in general without regard for their individual motivations for wearing them ─ e.g. they may just have long, frizzy hair that they don't want to have to manage ─ indicates that those making this argument are simply trying to justify their own cultural separatism).

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:04 pm

I should note that the typical plural of you guys here is your guys', even though I have heard your guys's. You guys's sounds rather odd to me myself.

"You guys's" is not the plural of "you guys" (which is already plural); it's the possessive form.

I misspoke -- I meant possessive.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:04 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 7:51 pmNot exactly -- the issue I have with people who aren't Black, Southerners, or living in Real Life contact with Black people or Southerners so as to pick it up organically using y'all as an affectation is not that they are using something from another culture but rather that they see what is native to their own speech as not being cool or 'correct' enough so as to deliberately replace it with something foreign to themselves. I have no problem with people picking up and using y'all in an organic fashion.

What exactly do you think motivates people to pick up usages "in an organic fashion"?

Trying to sound like those around one in Real Life, especially people whom one would try to emulate? There is a difference between adopting the language features of those one is in direct contact with, which is perfectly normal and natural, and aping the language features of people one has little actual contact with.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:36 pmI remember a thread on this very board where it was very much in earnest argued that White people stole rock music from Black people as a form of cultural appropriation.

Which they did. That's not at all the same thing as saying "White people should not play rock music."

Travis B. wrote:Similar examples of this thing include the very common argument that White people wearing cornrows is cultural appropriation, with the underlying argument being that White people do not have an appreciation of the role of cornrows in Black culture

As usual, you're stripping this argument of all nuance. One of the fundamental problems is that white people often adopt Black hairstyles for very specific reasons which verge on minstrelry while at the same time Black people are prevented from wearing these same styles in "professional" situations. The harm is not abstract; white people[*] adopt aspects of Black culture in order to invoke certain associations and those associations are what prompt other white people to limit the access of Black people to certain opportunities and spaces.

Travis B. wrote:

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:04 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 7:51 pmNot exactly -- the issue I have with people who aren't Black, Southerners, or living in Real Life contact with Black people or Southerners so as to pick it up organically using y'all as an affectation is not that they are using something from another culture but rather that they see what is native to their own speech as not being cool or 'correct' enough so as to deliberately replace it with something foreign to themselves. I have no problem with people picking up and using y'all in an organic fashion.

What exactly do you think motivates people to pick up usages "in an organic fashion"?

Trying to sound like those around one in Real Life, especially people whom one would try to emulate?

And that's not due to "see[ing] what is native to their own speech as not being cool or 'correct' enough"? How exactly are you using "emulate" here?

Travis B. wrote:There is a difference between adopting the language features of those one is in direct contact with, which is perfectly normal and natural, and aping the language features of people one has little actual contact with.

So how much "actual contact" is required for people to adopt linguistic features in a "normal and natural" fashion? (Empirical studies would be nice.)

[*] Obligatory "not ALL white people", I guess, to anticipate your next predictable objection. But as the Irish Times article makes clear, it doesn't need to be all or even most white people to have a significant harmful impact.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:20 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:36 pmI remember a thread on this very board where it was very much in earnest argued that White people stole rock music from Black people as a form of cultural appropriation.

Which they did. That's not at all the same thing as saying "White people should not play rock music."

Saying that something is 'cultural appropriation' is tantamount to saying that the people alleged to be doing the appropriation should not do it. So if White people playing rock music is cultural appropriation, then naturally White people should not play rock music then? Or are you implying that cultural appropriation is okay in some contexts and not okay in others?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:20 pm

Travis B. wrote:Similar examples of this thing include the very common argument that White people wearing cornrows is cultural appropriation, with the underlying argument being that White people do not have an appreciation of the role of cornrows in Black culture

As usual, you're stripping this argument of all nuance. One of the fundamental problems is that white people often adopt Black hairstyles for very specific reasons which verge on minstrelry while at the same time Black people are prevented from wearing these same styles in "professional" situations. The harm is not abstract; white people[*] adopt aspects of Black culture in order to invoke certain associations and those associations are what prompt other white people to limit the access of Black people to certain opportunities and spaces.

The problem with arguing that, though, is if you extend it you could say very much the same thing about things like White people adopting things from AAVE or listening to hip-hop or wearing traditionally Black fashion then. How is White people wearing cornrows bad but White people who are not Southerners saying y'all not bad when you follow this line?

BTW, you didn't paste your link right.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:20 pm

Travis B. wrote:

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:04 pm
What exactly do you think motivates people to pick up usages "in an organic fashion"?

Trying to sound like those around one in Real Life, especially people whom one would try to emulate?

And that's not due to "see[ing] what is native to their own speech as not being cool or 'correct' enough"? How exactly are you using "emulate" here?

I mean emulate people they are in contact with in Real Life.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:20 pm

Travis B. wrote:There is a difference between adopting the language features of those one is in direct contact with, which is perfectly normal and natural, and aping the language features of people one has little actual contact with.

So how much "actual contact" is required for people to adopt linguistic features in a "normal and natural" fashion? (Empirical studies would be nice.)

I would put it simply as hearing features in the everyday world in social situations. For instance, for me, from people such as family members, people I work with, people I speak with at the checkout counter at the store, etc.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:20 pm [*] Obligatory "not ALL white people", I guess, to anticipate your next predictable objection. But as the Irish Times article makes clear, it doesn't need to be all or even most white people to have a significant harmful impact.

This implies a certain sort of collective responsibility, that all White people are responsible for what some White people do, regardless of their own actions or intentions.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:04 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:31 pmA good example of the first part is the idea that White people shouldn't do things that are seen as proprietary to other races/ethnicities/cultures; a good example of this is the aforementioned example of the idea that White people shouldn't play 'Black' music or, for that matter, do anything that PoC's tend to do more than White people.

Who the hell is advocating this?

I should note that the typical plural of you guys here is your guys', even though I have heard your guys's. You guys's sounds rather odd to me myself.

"You guys's" is not the plural of "you guys" (which is already plural); it's the possessive form.

I've heard "yous guys"/"youz guys"...but not "your guys"

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:04 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:31 pmA good example of the first part is the idea that White people shouldn't do things that are seen as proprietary to other races/ethnicities/cultures; a good example of this is the aforementioned example of the idea that White people shouldn't play 'Black' music or, for that matter, do anything that PoC's tend to do more than White people.

Who the hell is advocating this?

Millennials and younger generations.

EDIT: I began college in August 2009 and this sort of sentiment was rampant there. That was in Oklahoma; I wouldn’t be surprised to see more fervor from less conservative places.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 3:30 am

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:04 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:31 pmA good example of the first part is the idea that White people shouldn't do things that are seen as proprietary to other races/ethnicities/cultures; a good example of this is the aforementioned example of the idea that White people shouldn't play 'Black' music or, for that matter, do anything that PoC's tend to do more than White people.

Who the hell is advocating this?

Millennials and younger generations.

I ask about music and you show me articles about clothing?

I'll ask again: Who is saying that white people should not play "Black music"? Travis apparently believes that this is a real thing that is really happening. I'd like to see some evidence for that claim.

Man in Space wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 3:30 am

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:04 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:31 pmA good example of the first part is the idea that White people shouldn't do things that are seen as proprietary to other races/ethnicities/cultures; a good example of this is the aforementioned example of the idea that White people shouldn't play 'Black' music or, for that matter, do anything that PoC's tend to do more than White people.

Who the hell is advocating this?

Millennials and younger generations.

EDIT: I began college in August 2009 and this sort of sentiment was rampant there. That was in Oklahoma; I wouldn’t be surprised to see more fervor from less conservative places.

A good analysis of this incident is here.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:16 am

Man in Space wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 3:30 am

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:04 pm
Who the hell is advocating this?

Millennials and younger generations.

I ask about music and you show me articles about clothing?

I'll ask again: Who is saying that white people should not play "Black music"? Travis apparently believes that this is a real thing that is really happening. I'd like to see some evidence for that claim.

You yourself have backed up the assessment of White people playing rock music, which has its roots in blues music played by Black people, as being 'cultural appropriation'. If it is okay for White people to play rock music then, then it is okay for people to engage in cultural appropriation in some cases then. That raises the question of when is cultural appropriation is okay, and when is it not okay. Of course, one could argue that the original cultural appropriation of rock music was sufficiently in the past that it is not relevant to White people playing rock music today, which in its modern incarnations is often at considerable distance from its blues origins (even though on classic rock stations you will often hear songs played by White people which were originally played by or inspired by Black artists to this day).

(This shows the problem with the notion of 'cultural appropriation', as it is a very broad brush that covers many different things that are disparate in practice. For instance, in the case of rock music there is the cases of blues songs being played by White artists without crediting their original Black songwriters, i.e. plagiarism or at least not giving credit when due. This is a distinct matter from, say, White people wearing mock Plains Indian headdresses, which stereotypes indigenous Americans and is highly insensitive to their many different cultures. Yet both are commonly covered with the same heading despite differing in the details.)

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:44 pmSaying that something is 'cultural appropriation' is tantamount to saying that the people alleged to be doing the appropriation should not do it.

The appropriation is done. The early Black rock 'n roll pioneers who were sidelined in order to focus on white artists are all dead. There's no "giving back" what was taken from them. The best we can do now is promote awareness of their contributions and secure their legacy.

It's kind of like the situation with settler colonialism. Only fringe extremists say that, for example, all non-First Nations people should leave Canada. The vast majority accept that that is simply not an achievable or desirable goal. All most First Nations are demanding is for their land claims and tribal sovereignty to be recognised and defended by the settler colonist state.

Travis B. wrote:So if White people playing rock music is cultural appropriation, then naturally White people should not play rock music then? Or are you implying that cultural appropriation is okay in some contexts and not okay in others?

I'm saying it's complicated. I keep trying to insert nuance into this discussion and you keep stripping it out so you can make strawman arguments. It's getting real old. To whit:

Travis B. wrote:(This shows the problem with the notion of 'cultural appropriation', as it is a very broad brush that covers many different things that are disparate in practice. For instance, in the case of rock music there is the cases of blues songs being played by White artists without crediting their original Black songwriters, i.e. plagiarism or at least not giving credit when due. This is a distinct matter from, say, White people wearing mock Plains Indian headdresses, which stereotypes indigenous Americans and is highly insensitive to their many different cultures. Yet both are commonly covered with the same heading despite differing in the details.)

It's only a "problem" because you keep making it one. You could write this same paragraph about "sexism", "fascism", "democracy", "exploitation", or a hundred other terms. Yes, they're broad terms that cover a huge array of situations and practices. That doesn't invalidate them or the range or phenomena they cover. It means you need to be willing to engage in a good-faith discussion when they're invoked in order to understand what aspect of them is being explored and respond to that without resorting to one informal logical fallacy after another.

Travis B. wrote:

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:20 pm As usual, you're stripping this argument of all nuance. One of the fundamental problems is that white people often adopt Black hairstyles for very specific reasons which verge on minstrelry while at the same time Black people are prevented from wearing these same styles in "professional" situations. The harm is not abstract; white people[*] adopt aspects of Black culture in order to invoke certain associations and those associations are what prompt other white people to limit the access of Black people to certain opportunities and spaces.

The problem with arguing that, though, is if you extend it you could say very much the same thing about things like White people adopting things from AAVE or listening to hip-hop or wearing traditionally Black fashion then. How is White people wearing cornrows bad but White people who are not Southerners saying y'all not bad when you follow this line?

Well maybe don't extend it to the point of constructing a slippery slope fallacy?

There are criticisms of white people adopting AAVE. There's general acceptance that using common slang derived from AAVE is fine but that adopting a stereotypical "Blaccent" is offensive. Between those extremes, there's a lot of discussion about where to draw the line and a lot of disagreement.

But fundamentally you have to look at impact. I've explained how white people adopting Black hairstyles in order to signify transgressiveness harms ordinary Black folks who are just trying to wear the natural hairstyles that best suit their hair. Explain to me how white people saying "y'all" has the same sort of negative impact. It seems like you either don't understand how the causal connection works or you dispute the conclusion that there is in fact any negative impact, because otherwise I don't understand how you conclude that this argument is infinitely extensible.

BTW, you didn't paste your link right.

Fixed.

Travis B. wrote:

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:20 pm

Travis B. wrote:There is a difference between adopting the language features of those one is in direct contact with, which is perfectly normal and natural, and aping the language features of people one has little actual contact with.

So how much "actual contact" is required for people to adopt linguistic features in a "normal and natural" fashion? (Empirical studies would be nice.)

I would put it simply as hearing features in the everyday world in social situations. For instance, for me, from people such as family members, people I work with, people I speak with at the checkout counter at the store, etc.

So how do you come to the conclusion that certain people (who I don't suppose you are following around all day in order to see who they interact with) are "affecting" certain features rather than simply "emulating" someone? Note that it doesn't necessarily take a village; I think we can all attest to having picked up certain features from particular individuals in our lives whether or not we interacted with them on a daily basis.

Travis B. wrote:

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:20 pm [*] Obligatory "not ALL white people", I guess, to anticipate your next predictable objection. But as the Irish Times article makes clear, it doesn't need to be all or even most white people to have a significant harmful impact.

This implies a certain sort of collective responsibility, that all White people are responsible for what some White people do, regardless of their own actions or intentions.

I've never seen a soi-disant socialist have so much trouble with the idea of collective responsibility. You think we all need to come together to counteract the harm done by capitalism despite having no role in constructing that system yet the idea that we should do the same to counteract the harm done by white supremacy just makes you bristle.

Do you modify your behaviour around women because you know that some actions and situations are likely to be triggering to them based on their negative past interactions with other men who don't have the same pure intentions as you? Why or why not?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:16 am I ask about music and you show me articles about clothing?

Well, yes. It was not obvious you were asking about music specifically (emphasis mine):

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 8:04 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 5:31 pmA good example of the first part is the idea that White people shouldn't do things that are seen as proprietary to other races/ethnicities/cultures; a good example of this is the aforementioned example of the idea that White people shouldn't play 'Black' music or, for that matter, do anything that PoC's tend to do more than White people.

Who the hell is advocating this?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am

Travis B. wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:44 pmSaying that something is 'cultural appropriation' is tantamount to saying that the people alleged to be doing the appropriation should not do it.

The appropriation is done. The early Black rock 'n roll pioneers who were sidelined in order to focus on white artists are all dead. There's no "giving back" what was taken from them. The best we can do now is promote awareness of their contributions and secure their legacy.

Agreed. In this case, the real problem was not that White people played 'Black' music but rather that Black artists did not get the attention and credit that was due to them.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am It's kind of like the situation with settler colonialism. Only fringe extremists say that, for example, all non-First Nations people should leave Canada. The vast majority accept that that is simply not an achievable or desirable goal. All most First Nations are demanding is for their land claims and tribal sovereignty to be recognised and defended by the settler colonist state.

In this case this is easy to say because the replacement of native populations across North America is in the distant past, with all the parties directly involved being long dead. It becomes harder when one considers things such as the taking of land from native Black Africans in South Africa and giving it to Whites, where the people the land was taken from and/or the people the land was given to may still be alive today. This is why I tend to be ambivalent about 'expropriation without compensation' in South Africa rather than being diametrically opposed to it, as in the case of land received by Whites who are still alive today they really have no right to their land in the first place (and thus in those cases deserve to have their land taken away from them).

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am

Travis B. wrote:

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:20 pm As usual, you're stripping this argument of all nuance. One of the fundamental problems is that white people often adopt Black hairstyles for very specific reasons which verge on minstrelry while at the same time Black people are prevented from wearing these same styles in "professional" situations. The harm is not abstract; white people[*] adopt aspects of Black culture in order to invoke certain associations and those associations are what prompt other white people to limit the access of Black people to certain opportunities and spaces.

The problem with arguing that, though, is if you extend it you could say very much the same thing about things like White people adopting things from AAVE or listening to hip-hop or wearing traditionally Black fashion then. How is White people wearing cornrows bad but White people who are not Southerners saying y'all not bad when you follow this line?

Well maybe don't extend it to the point of constructing a slippery slope fallacy?

There are criticisms of white people adopting AAVE. There's general acceptance that using common slang derived from AAVE is fine but that adopting a stereotypical "Blaccent" is offensive. Between those extremes, there's a lot of discussion about where to draw the line and a lot of disagreement.

I agree, and in this case this goes along with what I was saying about people organically acquiring the features of the speech around them versus merely aping people who they don't actually have contact with, especially if it is based on a stereotype as opposed to the actual speech of real people.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am But fundamentally you have to look at impact. I've explained how white people adopting Black hairstyles in order to signify transgressiveness harms ordinary Black folks who are just trying to wear the natural hairstyles that best suit their hair. Explain to me how white people saying "y'all" has the same sort of negative impact. It seems like you either don't understand how the causal connection works or you dispute the conclusion that there is in fact any negative impact, because otherwise I don't understand how you conclude that this argument is infinitely extensible.

My original issue with the idea of White people wearing cornrows being 'cultural appropriation' is that it jumps from criticisms of White people wearing Black hairstyles to signify trangressiveness, which I agree is wrong, to blanketly stating that White people wearing Black hairstyles is wrong because Black hairstyles belong to Black people and White people can't understand anything belonging to Black culture, regardless of the actual actions and intentions of the White people in question, which shows underlying problems with the concept of 'cultural appropriation'.

About y'all what I was stating there is that the logic behind criticisms of White people wearing cornrows can easily be extended to criticizing anything where White people adopt things originally belonging to Black people to acquire their covert prestige when the same things are often deprecated in public (e.g. openly speaking AAVE at work) when done by Black people.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am

Travis B. wrote:

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:20 pm So how much "actual contact" is required for people to adopt linguistic features in a "normal and natural" fashion? (Empirical studies would be nice.)

I would put it simply as hearing features in the everyday world in social situations. For instance, for me, from people such as family members, people I work with, people I speak with at the checkout counter at the store, etc.

So how do you come to the conclusion that certain people (who I don't suppose you are following around all day in order to see who they interact with) are "affecting" certain features rather than simply "emulating" someone? Note that it doesn't necessarily take a village; I think we can all attest to having picked up certain features from particular individuals in our lives whether or not we interacted with them on a daily basis.

It would be affecting certain features if one day I started regularly using y'all despite having much contact with anyone who regularly uses it (while my ex partner uses it, she does not use it that often). It would not be an affectation if I moved to the South and picked up y'all from my neighbors or coworkers. And yes, I would call my phase of distinguishing whine from wine in my speech despite not knowing anyone who distinguishes the two phonemes an affectation on my part.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am

Travis B. wrote:

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 9:20 pm [*] Obligatory "not ALL white people", I guess, to anticipate your next predictable objection. But as the Irish Times article makes clear, it doesn't need to be all or even most white people to have a significant harmful impact.

This implies a certain sort of collective responsibility, that all White people are responsible for what some White people do, regardless of their own actions or intentions.

I've never seen a soi-disant socialist have so much trouble with the idea of collective responsibility. You think we all need to come together to counteract the harm done by capitalism despite having no role in constructing that system yet the idea that we should do the same to counteract the harm done by white supremacy just makes you bristle.

The difference is that one's social role is a choice -- no one is forcing one to be a capitalist -- whereas one's race is generally not a choice -- one is born into it after all. To me one is responsible for one's actions and omissions, and one chooses to act in a manner that reflects one's social class. On the other hand, one is not responsible for the actions of others who just happen to have the same race/ethnicity/nationality/gender/sexual orientation/etc. as oneself, unless one acted to promote their actions or did not act to prevent theirs in cases when it was feasibly within one's actual power to do so.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am Do you modify your behaviour around women because you know that some actions and situations are likely to be triggering to them based on their negative past interactions with other men who don't have the same pure intentions as you? Why or why not?

Yes, not because I am responsible for other men's actions in and of themselves (which I am not) but because it is my own actions that have an impact, even if it is indirectly because of others' actions.

And as for what you are getting at here, this kind of thing is why it would be very wrong for me to, say, go around in blackface, because the action of wearing blackface has an impact indirectly because the actions of countless people who have worn blackface in the past, even though I have had no control over the actions of those who wore blackface in the past, most of which was before my birth, and in most cases the people who did so are now either dead or very elderly.

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:49 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am It's kind of like the situation with settler colonialism. Only fringe extremists say that, for example, all non-First Nations people should leave Canada. The vast majority accept that that is simply not an achievable or desirable goal. All most First Nations are demanding is for their land claims and tribal sovereignty to be recognised and defended by the settler colonist state.

In this case this is easy to say because the replacement of native populations across North America is in the distant past, with all the parties directly involved being long dead.

This is simply not the case. Native populations are still being actively dispossessed of land, water, sovereignty, etc. The idea that it "all happened in the past" is one of the most harmful lies that liberal white society tells itself.

Travis B. wrote:About y'all what I was stating there is that the logic behind criticisms of White people wearing cornrows can easily be extended to criticizing anything where White people adopt things originally belonging to Black people to acquire their covert prestige when the same things are often deprecated in public (e.g. openly speaking AAVE at work) when done by Black people.

So you have grasped the basic argument behind cultural appropriation after all: It's all about relatively more privileged folks freely adopting features originating with less privileged folks (and often repeating reputational and financial benefits for doing so) while those folks are still penalised for practicing them.

I don't see how this arguments applies to "y'all', however, given that it is not now, nor has it ever been, a feature solely or predominately associated with Black people.

Travis B. wrote:It would be affecting certain features if one day I started regularly using y'all despite having much contact with anyone who regularly uses it (while my ex partner uses it, she does not use it that often). It would not be an affectation if I moved to the South and picked up y'all from my neighbors or coworkers.

So you can answer the question for yourself of whether something is an "affectation" or not because you know what you've been exposed to. But, as I said before, you can't answer it for someone else (except perhaps an intimate partner or close friend or family member) because you don't know their lives.

I feel like you're making an arbitrary distinction here between "changes I don't mind", which you are willing to label as "natural and normal", and "changes which bug me", which you are calling "affectations". The fact is, with language change, it's very hard to tease out the role of intentionality. Moreover, people deliberately choosing to make changes in their speech due to social pressure (either positive or negative) is so common I don't understand how you can say it's not a "natural and normal" practice,

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am I've never seen a soi-disant socialist have so much trouble with the idea of collective responsibility. You think we all need to come together to counteract the harm done by capitalism despite having no role in constructing that system yet the idea that we should do the same to counteract the harm done by white supremacy just makes you bristle.

The difference is that one's social role is a choice -- no one is forcing one to be a capitalist

You can't be serious. You think at some point I was given a free choice to opt out of capitalism? (I suppose I could have chosen to starve to death rather than sell my labour in order to acquire necessities.)

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am Do you modify your behaviour around women because you know that some actions and situations are likely to be triggering to them based on their negative past interactions with other men who don't have the same pure intentions as you? Why or why not?

Yes, not because I am responsible for other men's actions in and of themselves (which I am not) but because it is my own actions that have an impact, even if it is indirectly because of others' actions.

And as for what you are getting at here, this kind of thing is why it would be very wrong for me to, say, go around in blackface, because the action of wearing blackface has an impact indirectly because the actions of countless people who have worn blackface in the past, even though I have had no control over the actions of those who wore blackface in the past, most of which was before my birth, and in most cases the people who did so are now either dead or very elderly.

So you understand what cultural appropriation is, you understand why it's harmful, you are emphatically against engaging in some of the most harmful instances of it (even if that means that you, a white man, are being required to behave differently from others based on a racial categorisation you have no real control over)...so what's the problem here? Is it just the name you don't like?

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:37 pm

Travis B. wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 12:49 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am It's kind of like the situation with settler colonialism. Only fringe extremists say that, for example, all non-First Nations people should leave Canada. The vast majority accept that that is simply not an achievable or desirable goal. All most First Nations are demanding is for their land claims and tribal sovereignty to be recognised and defended by the settler colonist state.

In this case this is easy to say because the replacement of native populations across North America is in the distant past, with all the parties directly involved being long dead.

This is simply not the case. Native populations are still being actively dispossessed of land, water, sovereignty, etc. The idea that it "all happened in the past" is one of the most harmful lies that liberal white society tells itself.

I specifically was referring to the depopulation of indigenous people in North America and their replacement with Europeans, their Black slaves, and their descendants. I am well aware of the fact that indigenous people here still face loss of sovereignty, land and water rights, and like to this day.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:37 pm

Travis B. wrote:About y'all what I was stating there is that the logic behind criticisms of White people wearing cornrows can easily be extended to criticizing anything where White people adopt things originally belonging to Black people to acquire their covert prestige when the same things are often deprecated in public (e.g. openly speaking AAVE at work) when done by Black people.

So you have grasped the basic argument behind cultural appropriation after all: It's all about relatively more privileged folks freely adopting features originating with less privileged folks (and often repeating reputational and financial benefits for doing so) while those folks are still penalised for practicing them.

This is one kind of thing that is put under the heading of 'cultural appropriation', but the notion of cultural appropriation is used as a much broader brush much of the time.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:37 pm I don't see how this arguments applies to "y'all', however, given that it is not now, nor has it ever been, a feature solely or predominately associated with Black people.

It depends on whether one is adopting y'all to adopt the covert prestige associated with it in Black culture, or one is adopting it because, say, one listens heavily to country music and one wants to sound more like White country artists.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:37 pm

Travis B. wrote:It would be affecting certain features if one day I started regularly using y'all despite having much contact with anyone who regularly uses it (while my ex partner uses it, she does not use it that often). It would not be an affectation if I moved to the South and picked up y'all from my neighbors or coworkers.

So you can answer the question for yourself of whether something is an "affectation" or not because you know what you've been exposed to. But, as I said before, you can't answer it for someone else (except perhaps an intimate partner or close friend or family member) because you don't know their lives.

I feel like you're making an arbitrary distinction here between "changes I don't mind", which you are willing to label as "natural and normal", and "changes which bug me", which you are calling "affectations". The fact is, with language change, it's very hard to tease out the role of intentionality. Moreover, people deliberately choosing to make changes in their speech due to social pressure (either positive or negative) is so common I don't understand how you can say it's not a "natural and normal" practice,

It is not whether I personally mind the changes, e.g. to be completely honest I tend to try to avoid adopting spelling pronunciations when I am aware of them, but at the same time spelling pronunciations are practically natural for literate populations when they encounter in writing words that they are not familiar with in speech. Rather, it is adopting features from afar that one does not actually hear around oneself which makes a change unnatural. Adopting features that one hears because they are prestigious -- whether overtly or covertly -- and avoiding features that are not prestigious is an a natural aspect of language change.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:37 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am I've never seen a soi-disant socialist have so much trouble with the idea of collective responsibility. You think we all need to come together to counteract the harm done by capitalism despite having no role in constructing that system yet the idea that we should do the same to counteract the harm done by white supremacy just makes you bristle.

The difference is that one's social role is a choice -- no one is forcing one to be a capitalist

You can't be serious. You think at some point I was given a free choice to opt out of capitalism? (I suppose I could have chosen to starve to death rather than sell my labour in order to acquire necessities.)

The wealthy can act to opt out of acting as capitalists if they so see fit (even if they wouldn't stay wealthy for long) -- no one is forcing them to profit from the wage slavery of others. The common people do not the luxury to opt out of the capitalist system, on the other hand (capitalism wouldn't exist if they could).

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 1:37 pm

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2025 11:57 am Do you modify your behaviour around women because you know that some actions and situations are likely to be triggering to them based on their negative past interactions with other men who don't have the same pure intentions as you? Why or why not?

Yes, not because I am responsible for other men's actions in and of themselves (which I am not) but because it is my own actions that have an impact, even if it is indirectly because of others' actions.

And as for what you are getting at here, this kind of thing is why it would be very wrong for me to, say, go around in blackface, because the action of wearing blackface has an impact indirectly because the actions of countless people who have worn blackface in the past, even though I have had no control over the actions of those who wore blackface in the past, most of which was before my birth, and in most cases the people who did so are now either dead or very elderly.

So you understand what cultural appropriation is, you understand why it's harmful, you are emphatically against engaging in some of the most harmful instances of it (even if that means that you, a white man, are being required to behave differently from others based on a racial categorisation you have no real control over)...so what's the problem here? Is it just the name you don't like?

My fundamental problem with the notion of 'cultural appropriation' is that it groups together a disparate range of highly problematic behaviors, whether it is plagiarizing people's works, condemning the people from whom those works were plagiarized to obscurity, mocking the cultures of indigenous people with stereotypes, wearing facepaint that has been used to mock Black people so many times in the past, or like, that do not actually form a neat category, and then this notion is used to support ideas of cultural separatism even when the cultural exchanges in question are not actually harmful in most cases by associating them with many behaviors which are highly problematic without requiring those invoking it to explain how A and B actually belong in the same category. 'Cultural appropriation' becomes a neat label for saying 'I don't like it when White people borrow features from other races/ethnicities/cultures' that does not require one to say why such is actually bad.

Note that one of the key parts of the definition of "cultural appropriation" is that the culture doing the appropriation has current or historical dominance over the culture that's being appropriated. Also, the fact that you can point to subtypes of this behaviour doesn't mean the umbrella term can never be useful.

Also note that, although I respect the idea of cultural appropriation, I think it's problematic in general, as "culture" is in most cases not something you created or own. You were handed it down, you inherited it from your parents, family, society. So basically you are claiming something that isn't yours, other than that you have grown up in it. There are exceptions of course, like rap music which is a relatively recent phenomenon, and we can point to the actual black people that started that scene, or gay pride, which nowadays may be celibrated by more non-gays than gays (to the dismay of some gays, especially those that lived through the early years of pride).

So concluding, when it's indeed one of the "highly problematic behaviours" Travis points out, we can all agree that's a bad thing. Other cases aren't that black-and-white (no pun intended), and it's wise to analyze what part, if any, is problematic and what can be done about it.


JAL

jal wrote: ↑Wed Feb 12, 2025 10:28 am Note that one of the key parts of the definition of "cultural appropriation" is that the culture doing the appropriation has current or historical dominance over the culture that's being appropriated. Also, the fact that you can point to subtypes of this behaviour doesn't mean the umbrella term can never be useful.

Also note that, although I respect the idea of cultural appropriation, I think it's problematic in general, as "culture" is in most cases not something you created or own. You were handed it down, you inherited it from your parents, family, society. So basically you are claiming something that isn't yours, other than that you have grown up in it. There are exceptions of course, like rap music which is a relatively recent phenomenon, and we can point to the actual black people that started that scene, or gay pride, which nowadays may be celibrated by more non-gays than gays (to the dismay of some gays, especially those that lived through the early years of pride).

So concluding, when it's indeed one of the "highly problematic behaviours" Travis points out, we can all agree that's a bad thing. Other cases aren't that black-and-white (no pun intended), and it's wise to analyze what part, if any, is problematic and what can be done about it.


JAL

I had planned to stay out of this discussion, but I want to state that I mostly agree with this.