Can you notice that it’s a bit leaning to the right?

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think any country would come asking questions if their political leaders were pictured with culturally sensitive stuff like this. Imagine if a mid tier US paper put modi in half Hindu half Muslim traditional clothing. To us it’s a quick way to talk about the two biggest religions in that country. Modi would be pissed though.

    • sunzu@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Using a muslim and hindus here is funny, those guys can get riled over nothing burger fake shit spread on via social media… these clowns are not serious people but they do cause serious violence.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Oh twisted takes! This is a fun game! Let me try!

            Did you just suggest Hindus and Muslims are degenerate people?

            • sunzu@kbin.run
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              The ones lashing out over dear leader depictions surely are!

              Zero respect for this pathetic behavior.

              Do you think they are justified in this savagery?

    • sudneo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      OK, but there is a context that can be analyzed 10 seconds before jumping to conclusions. To be clear, this newspaper is still shit, but the reason people are getting upset are superficial and based on a wrong interpretation.

      So the process for me is: oh this image looks racist/culturally insensitive -> let me understand how is it possible that such thing has been used -> the image is supposed to have something to do with westerns, which are a cultural feature of the people who used the image -> my cultural interpretation that made it racist or cultural insensitive does not specifically apply.

      So questions are definitely welcome, and I think people are right to question, but people (for example in this thread) didn’t look for questions, arrived already with conclusions, assuming that their cultural lens was the only appropriate one to look at this fact, without even understanding the context (not even the cultural one, just what is written on the page).

      • flicker@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        This argument holds no water.

        The idea that it’s exempt from accusations of racism because it’s unaware that it’s being racist just doesn’t track.

        • sudneo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I would say that racism is not something that exists in a vacuum and instead has intent, has an ideology behind and in many cases has also a goal. So yeah, I disagree with you fundamentally.

          • flicker@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            4 months ago

            Racism doesn’t have to have intent. Racism can’t exist in a vacuum- that’s true- but the only context it needs is the concept of race.

            A fantastic example would be rolling up all the Native American tribe into one group. Or attributing anything, even conceptually, to that group.

            You don’t have to be aware that this is incorrect for it to qualify as racism, and you don’t have to have an intent about making that attribution to be wrong in doing so.

            • sudneo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              In which way this image rolls up every Native American into one group, considering that is a cultural reference to some specific movie genre (so it has to do with the group represented in those movies)?

              Can you also point me to how you distilled this definition of racism? I just looked up https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

              And I see:

              • a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
              • the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
              • a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles

              To me in the definition above seems clear that there is some ideological scaffolding of racial superiority behind racism, or a precise goal of discriminate or oppress based on such ideology.

              Could you maybe elaborate how this image is racist? Would have been as racist if they used a western hat instead?

              • flicker@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                “Indians” don’t merely exist as a cultural concept in spaghetti westerns, and even if they did, fantastic racism is still racism.

                Buuuut for fun, I’ll engage with your pivot to definition, and I’ll just add this quote for context that appears in the link you provided. Juuuust below your listed definitions.

                Dictionaries are often treated as the final arbiter in arguments over a word’s meaning, but they are not always well suited for settling disputes. The lexicographer’s role is to explain how words are (or have been) actually used, not how some may feel that they should be used, and they say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word, much less the significance it may have for individuals.

                Isn’t that amazing? “They say nothing about the intrinsic nature of the thing named or described by a word.” Your authority explicitly states that they shouldn’t be used as an authority in this context! Remarkable…

                And now, in addition, I’ll provide the rest of that passage, which is also the absolute end of me interacting with you in this manner.

                When discussing concepts like racism, therefore, it is prudent to recognize that quoting from a dictionary is unlikely to either mollify or persuade the person with whom one is arguing.

                Not only not meant to be used as an authority, but also unlikely to settle any dispute you might have about the word.

                I’ll take their advice. You can reply however you like- my interest in this conversation has vanished. Hopefully someone more patient will come along.

                • sudneo@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  “Indians” don’t merely exist as a cultural concept in spaghetti westerns

                  But this is a referenced to those, specifically. You can’t make a reference and at the same time capture the plurality, can you?

                  even if they did, fantastic racism is still racism.

                  You can argue that western movies are racist, but using them as reference now that they are established culture is different.

                  Not only not meant to be used as an authority, but also unlikely to settle any dispute you might have about the word.

                  Sure, but you will have noticed that I first provided my own view and you provided yours - which I disagree with - so if we want to have a conversation, we need to have some fixed points, otherwise it’s impossible to understand each other if words mean different things to the both of us. I didn’t use the dictionary definition to build my argument, I have simply shown how the definition I use is consistent in some aspects (the intent, for example) with a formal definition.

                  At the same time, I asked explicitly to provide your own, and instead you spent all the time to quote a fairly irrelevant (in this context) passage, without ultimately showing why I should accept your definition that to me seems completely arbitrary, way too vague and generic.

                  So let’s just sit in this pit of ambiguity, in which anything can be anything, if you are creative enough.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s because there’s a large part of the US that’s done coddling racism. Whether it’s intentional, ignorance, or systemic. It’s 2024, the Internet is available. There’s no longer an excuse for this.

        • sudneo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think I am stopping one step before you. Which is understanding whether something is racist or not. Using purely your cultural understanding to define it is going to lead to misunderstandings. In this case, understanding the context and the real intent of the picture makes it pretty clear that race has nothing to do with it. If you choose not to understand the context and just mark as racist anything that if done in another context would be racist, be my guest, I will just disagree.

            • sudneo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              4 months ago

              Can you elaborate how?

              I provided at the very least an interpretation that is coherent, conscious of the cultural context and that makes sense considering the content of the text/article for what the image is used for.

                • sudneo@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  4 months ago

                  This doesn’t answer the question.

                  You said “it has everything to do with race”, how?

                  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    4 months ago

                    looks at picture of Black Woman in Native paraphernalia.

                    Looks at sudneo.

                    The Internet is right there man. Don’t be ignorant.