Any movement, goal, or idea that I don't consciously stand behind, yet I can't see how it's existence is hurting any individual’s freedom, I will remain silent about. With that in mind, there are a couple "liberal" concepts I have found I don't see the light behind, yet I don’t comment about actively because the defense of such is not actively harming anyone’s humanity or freedom. Admittedly, and obviously due to the title of this article, one of them was "Cultural Appropriation".
"Cultural Appropriation" is so close to that conscientious-line, I have remained silent for several years now ever since I've become aware of the concept. But apparently I feel like being slightly controversial tonight because I think I finally found the exact hair that I always felt was there to split. I find it hard for me to care about "Cultural Appropriation" because, on a case by case basis, it's seemingly always about arbitrary things that an individual is doing for fun. And when someone is found to be guilty of "Cultural Appropriation" it never looks like anything more than guilting someone into not doing something they enjoy. Simply due to "culture". From where I have stood since I was 18 years old, "culture", when used as a weapon, a.k.a. coercing someone to do, or not-do, something because of “tradition” or “religion”, has always looked like suppression. Just because “Cultural Appropriation” is coming from a different angle, doesn’t make it any more reasonable. "Culture" is, too often through history, dead-mans-baggage being used to tell people what they should and should-not do, disregarding changing circumstances, information or reason. Maybe you don't think of the world as I do, but I find "inspiration" and/or "motivation" to be the hardest things to capture in this world. I see the elusiveness of those goals as the biggest obstacle for most individuals in this lifetime, including myself. And anytime I see an argument about “Cultural Appropriation” it always looks like subjectively yelling at someone about how they shouldn't do something they enjoy, because..."culture". If someone feels like cooking a certain food, doing their hair a certain way, or creating a song with a certain technique, the idea that they are told NOT TO for the vague argument of "cultural appropriation" bites directly into an individuals inspiration and motivation and freedom. You know how hard it is to be a motivated person about something? To create something? I find it's really hard or really lucky to find inspiration. Therefor, it's hard for me not to see the use of this phrase, “Cultural Appropriation”, as much more than throwing dead-peoples-baggage at someone to hold them back. But like I said...this is from where I'm standing... It's been argued against me, when I've dared to somewhat state this opinion, that it is because I have the privilege of choosing not to care about my culture of origin that I can feel this way. Some argue that some people's ancestry was ripped from them through history's atrocities and that I am talking from a point of privilege. I find that argument against me provocative and not without merit, but overall does not speak against the core of my point. My point is talking about how this world is moving forward and we all operate on an individual level. Regardless of a percentage of people standing against the progressive movement of human culture, we continue to become a more interconnected world, a more information-based world, and inevitably a more blended world in all ways. And that's not a problem! So to attempt to tell people NOT to do certain things for the next 100 years or so (and at which point it will be futile to even attempt to decipher such differences) simply because of our short-sighted ideas of “culture”, is just silly. Splitting this hair may seem wrong, petty, obnoxious or ill-timed. But I feel the need to split this hair now because of the cultural rift we are currently experiencing. The fact that I am someone that is, by sheer goals and ethics, generalized as a “liberal” and/or “progressive”, I find it necessary to fight back against over-reaching “liberal” concepts such as the broad-stroke usage of “cultural appropriation”. It’s necessary to attempt to self-regulate from within because our true progressive goals -- i.e. protecting human rights, fighting for a functional government, acknowledging the progression of wealth-inequality with it’s effects on our economies and society, fighting for fact & science based decision making -- these goals get lost under a sea of finger-wagging, “liberal”, SJW-esque articles. And shame based, finger-wagging articles have become too synonymous with “liberals” for too many people. So when you add all the above arguments together, that’s why I finally found it necessary to say something. I’m not trying to say “Cultural Appropriation” is an unreasonable concept. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s helping our culture move forward, to wield it as a weapon or pressure point. By Chad BadChecker Becker *So there's that. I opened a box marked Pandora. What do people have to say? * I made this title “Life Lesson Memory 1” because tonight I realized I have a small handful of events from my first 20 years on this planet that have become solidified in my head over time. And whenever they occur to me, it is with a smile, for good reason, and because I learned something outside of myself in those moments. And my brain was lucky enough to take note and digest someone else’s wisdom...over time. So with that small intro, I reintroduce:
Life Lesson Memory 1: Jon Engels and Levity. October 1999 - Jenison Public Junior High School I’m in a locker room getting ready for soccer practice. I have a few established friends on this amalgam of a team, considering everyone on the team was combined from different elementary schools barely more than a year prior. On this particular day, I’m sitting directly next to one of my friends on the team, Jon Engels, putting on my shin guards. After the shin-guards come the socks, and for whatever reason, as I’m grabbing my yellow socks out of my bag, I see Jon grabbing his bright blue socks, and I suggest we trade a single sock for the fun of it. He’s a fun friend and he gladly takes me up on this and I exit the locker room wearing a combo of 1-yellow sock, 1-bright blue sock. Since anything out of the ordinary, even something as simple as mismatched socks, is likely to grab the attention of pubescent-barely-teens in middle school, within 1 minute my socks had caught the attention of the smart-mouthed, skilled soccer player of our team (who I admittedly was jealous of). Since I’m being honest, I bet he said nothing more than “Hey Chad -- what’s going on with the socks?” But being the small, unsure, un-confident, scared, middle school 13 year old that I was, I took such a question as “What do you think you are doing with weird socks you stupid fumbling Chad idiot?”. The reality is probably somewhere in between. But either way, those questions probably don’t seem like much, but back then, not being sure of anything, such a direct question about a “bold” move like mismatched socks, was enough to make me crack...like a 13 year old. My response was nothing better than “Nothing...Jordan. Uhhhh...you’re stupid. Uhhhh whatever. aghghhhh.” And with that response, I did not feel smart. I did not feel cool. I knew I was not having a good time, but I didn’t understand why. I only gave such a nothing, defensive response because I did not have it in me to defend or even engage with someone I perceived as superior to me, critiquing me, about something outside “the norm”. Not a highlight of my life... But luckily I ran into someone down the hall. No memory of who, or what, or why. But I was still in that hallway when Jon Engels walked out of that same locker room; 1-yellow sock, 1-blue sock, just the same as me. And at that moment, I had an accidental look into a “redo” of the situation I just walked through. I found myself a bystander to a rewind in time, like all of us have daydreamed of before. Jon walked out of that locker room, and Jordan asked him essentially the same slightly antagonistic question. Something like “What, are you color blind Jon?”. And in that moment, I watched a redo of my anxiety ridden, no-good-very-bad-day nothing-teenage-terrible-ramble moment, and I watched it turn into mutually beneficial laughter. Jon simply replied with a big cheezy smile and said “I think it’s pretty.” And they both had a small cackle, and both parties went on their way talking or walking or some such. It may not seem like much, but it stuck with me all these years. Anxiety, depression, stress; I think that was one of the first moments I realized that how I choose to digest a situation and react, is the common denominator of the rest of my life -- not the imaginary version of me I’m worried people pre-conceive me to be. I’m not saying I live my life by the lesson in this story. I’m just saying it was important enough for me to remember half a lifetime later. Complementary Quote: “Never Take Life Too Seriously, You Never Get Out Alive” - VanWilder Obviously not "every day", but you get the picture.
Below is a perfect example, published just earlier today, of biased journalism. It’s very short, I promise. Please take a moment to read it and then we will do a quick analysis of it’s journalistic integrity. http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/...
RED FLAG #1: The “quote” they put in the headline is not a quote at all. They actually used a single stroke parenthetical so they could paraphrase. That would be all well and good except an actual journalist, with journalistic integrity, would only paraphrase someone if they feel the paraphrase conveyed the intended message and tonality of the person they are paraphrasing. Not only is this paraphrase purposefully making the quote more divisive, they used it in the headline. They are doing this to garner more emotion from their readers, traction for the article, and therefor advertising dollars. RED FLAG #2: The first sentence chooses the phrase “reportedly issued an expletive-laden threat”. They have chosen the word “reportedly” so that they can now summarize what others have reported, regardless of fact, and simply call it fact. 24 Hour News cycles often use the phrase “some have said...” before saying something completely flagerent or agenda pushing. By doing so they are finding a way to say whatever they want, and often the only person they are quoting is simply the host of the previous hours show. But now that “someone” said it, it’s cannon. This article isn’t especially guilty of taking advantage of this to an extreme, but it’s an easy way to “cover your ass” when deciding to create an exaggerated narrative for clicks. RED FLAG #3: Exaggeration. They chose to state “expletive-laden threat” to evoke as much anger as possible. They don’t place the video on their page. They don’t offer a full quote to fully substantiate their summary. All of these are red flags that immediately told me watching this mans actual statement wouldn’t resonate at all as they describe. And it didn’t: http://bcove.me/w6d87prx To summarize that concern, with that one sentence in mind, as an expletive-laden threat is technically not false. But to describe his single use of the word “ass” as “expletive-laden”, and then summarize the statements so casually that one would assume he spoke at length in threatening fashion, is just blatant exaggeration and biased news making. RED FLAG #4: Lack of context. They give a quick summary of the painting describing only the point of contention without showing you an actual picture of the painting or giving more context. And to be honest, didn’t the way they describe it make it sound like it was a painting solely “depicting police officers as pigs”? But it’s not. It’s not something so obscene that it garners omission. Here, take a look: http://bit.ly/2jm8dxn We could break down at length the many messages one could take from this piece. Or how a black man being shown as a wolf could have it’s own negative meaning. Or how there is a second police officer not depicted as a pig in the painting. But obviously the main point is that this is a painting about so much more than the narrative this terribly bias “faux news” article is feeding readers. RED FLAG #5: More lack of context. They spend an entire ONE sentence explaining the context of “where?” “what?” “how?” “who?” and “why?” on behalf of the condemned side of the story. The obvious question of “why it was hung?” is brushed upon in that one sentence but really answers nothing. Especially considering the article at this point has led readers to believe it is simply a painting depicting police as pigs, and nothing more. Real news doesn’t look like this. Real news doesn’t leave obvious questions unanswered. If you are curious, like I was, about what the real full story was behind this divisive agenda building headline, here’s what an actual news article looks like: http://politi.co/2iBvyKz Now if you are someone who reads the news often, or could be described as a news junkie, I’m sure you recognized most of those red flags almost immediately. But since most people in this world are busy running their own lives, businesses and families, from all levels of educational backgrounds and career focuses, most people don’t have the time or experience to know when they are being fed a biased story-line. And with that concern in mind, all I can do is talk directly to you normal non-news-junkie people directly with a hard truth: Only you can change how you digest information. Only you can hold yourself responsible for understanding the integrity, motives and reality behind what you are choosing to digest. There is no quick solution. All I can do is help and hope you learn how to ask the next question. And when it seems someone is purposefully ignoring the obvious next question, or is purposefully denying you an answer to what is a very reasonable next question, that is when you should wonder the next most important question “Why?”. As a general rule of thumb, if someone is purposefully removing nuance from a story, conversation or debate, they are probably doing so in order to deflect from a losing argument they are more comfortable holding onto than discussing honestly. Or in the case of bias news organizations, they obscure facts to perpetuate a narrative that fosters easily mislead and emotional masses into clicking, watching and reading, so the organization can make more money. So with that in mind, be careful what you digest, because you are what you eat. - Chad Becker - "The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it." -Alberto Brandalini |
The Author
is a thirty-something guy who hasn't been able to look away from politics since 2010. Around the time he got tired of staring at religion. Archives
June 2020
Categories
|