nontroversies

DEAR CULTURAL APPROPRIATION BRIGADE

So it has been decided that locks cannot be worn by Asian men so reggae lover HaHa be warned. We know this because in Jackson Wangs Pepsi ad he’s seen with locks & poc k-pop fans were in attack mode on IG quickly typing that familiar excuse when ‘that’s cultural appropriation’ & if in my country I get dirty looks for wearing my natural hair than you sure as hell can’t show your love for it. Yes, it’s another nontroversy, but perhaps it’s time to stop this before it mutates into something more dangerous. So let’s get really pedantic: what ownership do African Americans actually have on locks? Answer is none, besides making it trendy for hippies, crusties & tramps locs have been around even before the pharaohs of Ancient Egypt. The first literary mention is said to be in the Hindu Vedic scriptures dating from around 1700BC. The God Shiva wore ‘matted’ dreadlocks. So it is perhaps the Asians who have the dubious honour of ‘inventing’ locks, and we could reasonably conclude that the Ancient Egyptians culturally appropriated locks from them. The ancient Greeks. In the Archaic period of 800-480BC, sculptures show men wearing dreads like the Spartan Hoplites & Ephors the Pre Columbian Aztec priests & Native Americans in also had them. In the Bible, James the Just 1st Bishop of Jerusalem was said to have his to his ankles I’m sure if he had IG back then we’d know for sure & Samson, perhaps the most famous of them all, had ‘seven locks’. Next came the Vikings, proving dreads weren’t always about peace and love, man. And Rastafarianism wasn’t even created until the 1930s in Ethiopia & they got their inspiration from The Nazarites of the bible. Locks have been worn for various reasons in each culture whether it be religious & spiritual or ethnic pride then for political reasons by the Rastafarians & Americans in the 70’s to modern times as a representation of a person’s free, alternative or natural spirit & don’t come with that mess that other cultures were invalid because they were dirty or didn’t have brushes, the comb has been around for about 5,000 years.

Originally posted by got7-garbage

ewingj  asked:

I think the interest of this story lies more in the stresses that the duckhunter's overplaying of his part evinces in his audience and presumptive followers. Consumption is identification, and DD fans know that redneck signifiers also imply reactionary attitudes, but making these attitudes explicit requires them to take a positive stance that perhaps they aren't prepared to make. Thus, as with Chick-Fil-A, the story is respun as a 1st amendment issue, and rich white men as an oppressed class.

You’re correct to note that the story lies in the levels of authenticity being explored by the redneck reality tv character.  Perhaps I need to flesh out my definition of white minstrelism.  The original minstrel shows represented blacks as stupid and happy-go-lucky but ultimately harmless and acceptable to white society as long as they stayed within this space.  The minstrel was certainly not the predatory rapist shown in Birth of a Nation.  Similarly, the rednecks of reality tv are shown as funny and eccentric simpletons whose more garish characteristics (bad taste, poor diet) are meant to elicit chuckles of superiority from their audience.  Of course, the viewing demographic is mixed and there are those folks who watch shows like Duck Dynasty or Honey Boo Boo because on a certain level they identify with the characters and feel vindicated by seeing people like them on television.  Similarly, there are people who watch Jersey Shore or Real Housewives because they identify or even aspire to be like those characters.  

The tv redneck cannot be threatening to liberal sensibilities in the sense that a real live redneck may so we get a sanitized version.  This is why the reality tv redneck character is trickier to represent for media producers than, say, the guidos of Jersey Shore.  As I’ve mentioned before, the rural white male, poor and socially conservative, is the real bugbear of progressives, not exploitive corporations or oppressive governments.  In fact, a great deal of progressive commentary is overwhelmingly concerned with provoking and belittling lower middle class people from towns you’ve never heard of.  This is where the real absurdity of the ‘controversy’ comes in.   As you mentioned in our private correspondence, a good deal of the redneck identity as it is practiced by individuals is fake and often more informed by media representations than regional traditions.  We also know that a good amount of Duck Dynasty viewers are watching the show because they seek to identify with the 'authenticity’ of the characters.  The characters themselves are, of course, actors who are being directed by liberal media people to be even more authentic.  This all reaches a fever pitch when things get a little too authentic, i.e. illiberal, and the whole thing comes crashing down.  In other words: fake rednecks watching even faker rednecks who are told to be more authentic by liberal media types which eventually produces content fit for a manufactured controversy.

Thought I’d share some more upbeat (albeit a bit old) news about James Rolfe.

Recently he hosted an auction where all of the money would be donated to The Shriner’s Children’s Hospital, an organization that means a lot to him since they helped his daughter when she was going through complications after she was born. He ended up raising $20,000. You can see the results here.

Just thought that people would like to hear some more positive news about him since so much of it is about this nontroversy.

@takashi0, @danguy96, @theswedishelf, thought maybe you’d be interested in this since I know you all seem to be a fan of James.

washingtonpost.com
Ezra Klein would like you to know that if you obsess over nontroversies – whether Etch A Sketches or dog meat – you're not normal.

I think most people in Washington believe voters would make better decisions if they spent more time following politics. But I spend a lot of time following politics, and quite often, I couldn’t be happier that voters are tuning out the inanities that obsess this town. Better that they worry about real mountains rather than hyped-up molehills.

The Washington Post columnist has it right. Sure, these stories are fun, but they’re distractions that conveniently fill air during dead periods of the news cycle.