3 ms·
From piece in the guardian: >It was a monologue about the right to exploit the stories of “others”, simply because it is useful for one’s story. I thought the
by perfectfire 10y ago
From piece in the guardian:
>It was a monologue about the right to exploit the stories of “others”, simply because it is useful for one’s story.
I thought the talk was about fiction, which by definition is made-up stories, so how could they exploit the stories of others? Stories of other people would be non-fiction. I'm guessing the quotes around "others" is the key to the mystery here.
- gizmo686 10y ago"Others" in this context refers to your out-group. For example, if I am a straight white male, then it is kosher for me to write a fictional story about fictional straight white males because they are part of my group. But if I try writing about a fictional gay black women, then I am exploiting the groups of gays, blacks, and women.
- perfectfire 10y ago> exploiting the groups of gays, blacks, and women Ok, that I can follow (I don't really agree with it). But what she said was "exploit the stories" of your out-group. Since the work is fiction it's nobody's story. Not my group's nor my out-group's. I guess the claim is your "group" retains the exclusive right to produce works of art that feature a fictional representation of someone or something related to your group.
- int_19h 10y agoThe whole "cultural appropriation" thing is, essentially, an assertion that there's some kind of implicit intellectual property like relationship that one has with one's culture and its collective experiences. So when you need to "use" a culture that's "not yours", you have to ask for permission, and conform to the rules that the other party frames their grant of such around.
- hyperdunc 10y agoThat opinion piece in The Guardian was quite a read - a real view into how some progressives think. It was also mercilessly slammed in the comments section, which gives me hope that the dogmatic excesses of the left will not prevail.