The recent social media discussion over the work and legacy of Frida Kahlo, while somewhat interesting and entertaining, is in many respects disappointing. Some criticism argues that, because Kahlo came from a privileged upper class family, was comparatively light-skinned, and was not purely indigenous, that she had minimal right to use the iconography, imagery, and symbols associated with this culture. Even worse that Kahlo’s work harmed people of indigenous or Mestizo origins and was engaging in cultural appropriation.
Over the past several decades many people, organizations, and events have been accused of appropriating, co-opting, and fetishizing the symbols, icons, imagery, and styles of marginalized groups in order to commodify their work from which they profit. The appropriation, etc. critique, is especially used to criticize creative pursuits including cooking, dance, fashion, fiction, film, hair styles, music, theatre, and visual art.
However, sometimes this type of labelling is done by casual observers and activists with varying degrees of expertise, especially by people who have minimal knowledge in the subject matters that they feel compelled to voice their opinion.
The appropriation etc. argument, similar to the lived experience one, implies that regardless of the quality of the work, so-called “outsiders” should not borrow cultural symbols and only people, etc. with direct roots in the cultures, ethnicities, nationalities, races or religions (i.e., “Insiders”) should be allowed to create works using the icons, etc. of the marginalized groups that they belong to or come from.
All told, accusing an artist, etc. of appropriation, etc. is basically suggesting that they are engaging in cultural insensitivity and distorting the original meaning of the symbols, icons, and styles they use in their work.
These charges, however, are frequently applied to individuals, etc. in a haphazard way. For example, when a well-known and respected graffiti writer or street artist, borrows images, symbols or conventions from certain ethnic or racial groups, etc. rarely are they accused in the same manner as artists who show their work in galleries or museums. Likewise, few people voice concerns over appropriation, etc. when their friends or acquaintances adorn their bodies with Japanese sleeve tattoos, or Nordic or Maori symbol tattoos.
In many cases using the labels of appropriation etc. is justified, but in lots other situations the evidence supporting the charges is not present, it’s flimsy, and/or the logic surrounding the charges is seriously muddled.
Why should we care when this kind of critique is made?
Clearly there are more important challenges facing the world, but hurling the accusation of appropriation, etc. against creative people and organizations has the following interrelated negative consequences:
First, it frequently minimizes the hard work of creators.
Second, it implies that “outsiders” work is theft or unimportant.
Third, it diminishes the creativity of the work of the artist, writer, dancer, etc.
Fourth, the words appropriation, co-optation, commodification, and fetishization are subjective terms.
Fifth these labels are typically misapplied, or not applied correctly.
Sixth, using these terms it is often a manifestation of political correctness.
Seventh, it fails to acknowledge the resources that goes into producing a piece of work.
Eighth, the harm that the creative person is rarely specified.
Ninth, it ignores the realization that all creative work is derivative, and,
Tenth, this kind of criticism is frequently overly simplistic and plays into the current cancel culture trend.
Why then does this occur?
I think that the rush to criticize “outsiders” with appropriation, etc. can be linked to three principle reasons.
Judging from the criticisms, is It seems as the criticism does not reflect a deep understanding of the history of the creative activity that they are maligning.
Few critics understand the nature of creation. Almost all creative work is either consciously or unconsciously derivative (see, for example, Austin Kleon’s Steal like an Artist). People who understand this principle are even encouraged to understand their predecessors so they can build upon it.
The fact that a person can label an action engaged in by others as expropriating someone else or a culture is not sufficient. There should be concrete evidence and nuanced argumentation.
How can this situation be best addressed?
The frequent criticism that a person, organization or event is an example of appropriation, etc. should be challenged. It’s too simple to accuse an individual , etc. with this charge. The biggest way to combat this charge it to become knowledgeable, beyond a simple Wikipedia entry, about the subject area in ways the arm chair critic is not.
Photo Credit
Frida Kahlo,
Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird (1940),
Harry Ransom Center
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-07-11-at-12.53.43-PM.png362276Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-07-11 11:49:062024-09-15 12:14:52Misapplying appropriation, co-optation, commodification & fetishization
On the 246th anniversary of the signing the Declaration of Independence it may be helpful to reflect on an alarming trend.
During the presidency of Donald Trump numerous anti-democratic policies, practices, laws, and events in American society occurred. This happened not just at the federal level, but at the state level too. Despite the election of President Joe Biden, many of these undemocratic trends, like the Supreme Court’s recent repeal of Roe v. Wade, continue to this day.
Short of listing all of these actions, this situation naturally leads to a handful of interrelated important questions. These are:
A. Did we really have democracy before the election of Trump?
The United States and selected states have a rich history of anti-democratic politicians, movements, organizations, and events. Whether we are talking about gender discrimination, homophobia, inequality, or racism, the roots of these antidemocratic sentiments go deep. Meanwhile, compared to similar countries, since 2009, the United States has had one of the highest incarceration rates per capita in the world. In a somewhat similar pattern, undoubtedly highlighted by the increased presence of smart phones, and social media, we have seen numerous deaths of unarmed African-Americans under questionable circumstances.
B. What factors are causing or driving undemocratic tendencies?
C. Did the election of Trump serve as a catalyst for the undemocratic tendencies?
In a fairly short period of time, often through executive orders, Trump was able to scale back many pro-social public policies and legislation. And with the assistance of a Republican dominated Senate he dodged being convicted of impeachment twice, and install two supreme court justices who would tip the balance in significant court cases that provided protections to women and Native Americans tribes. Short of a full blown analysis, given the above, Trump was the right person at the right time to coalesce these anti-democratic trends, including people (e.g., political and news media pundits), organizations (e.g., Fox News, etc.), and tendencies in the Republican Party. He did this through his natural inflammatory rhetoric and sheer bravado which resonated with his followers. Trump was also able to recruit a number of true believers, enablers, and opportunists in to his orbit that would assist him in his mission.
D Are these undemocratic trends co-ordinated?
Although selected elements of these undemocratic trends are co-ordinated (e.g., the activities of high-ranking members of the Trump White House), it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that all of these trends and events were somehow co-ordinated. And any person or organization that espouses this belief should be questioned. Moreover, this kind of interpretation borders on some of the same conspiracy theory thinking that many (e.g., QAnon) in the MAGA camp use as the basis of their belief system.
E. Can we stop these trends or is it too late?
It’s still possible to frustrate many of the undemocratic trends. But it’s exhausting.
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/31983001167_d19b78b20e_c.jpg533799Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-07-04 09:33:262024-05-01 15:27:08The Unravelling of American Democracy?
The American justice system is imperfect. That’s why it’s constantly being reformed. Factor in the necessity to make decisions partially based on empirical evidence and consulting experts, but more importantly competing ideological and political forces, then you realize why the process is slow.
Over time there is change. Not wholesale change, and not always in the direction of the way that majority of the population wants.
Meanwhile some reforms are more pressing than others.
The recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision (June 2022) regarding Roe v Wade has numerous negative and devastating implications for women (and men) living in this country.
But let’s start with why this ruling occurred? We could blame larger forces that are present in American society such as patriarchy, Christian Fundamentalism, and the Republican Party. Or, we could point the finger at individuals such as former president Donald Trump, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, etc.
Regardless, we would probably not be in the position we are currently in if the method by which we chose Supreme Court justices, and the manner by which they serve their terms, were reformed.
To begin with, it is generally understood that the SCOPUS is responsible for ruling on the constitutionality of laws that are passed by the legislature and/or the executive. On the one hand, the public is told that the justices’ decisions are based on the law, including precedent, and thus relatively value free. And because there are several justices, and not simply one, its believed that the more extreme views can be held in check through the voting process. On the other hand, we also know that the justices are influenced by their political beliefs and considerations. In short, they are ultimately loyal to the political parties that secured their nomination and conferred their appointment.
The process by which Supreme Court justices are chosen, and the duration of their tenure mitigates against value free judicial decisions. How so? In general, when a Supreme Court justice position comes open, nominees for the position are put forward to a committee of the Senate on the judiciary, which is composed of representatives from the two major political parties. The committee vets the candidates in a highly charged primarily partisan manner. The recommendation then goes to the Senate and the political party that has the most amount of votes gets to choose their candidate.
Meanwhile, although there are valid arguments for Supreme Court Justices to occupy their positions for relatively lengthy time periods, the appointment as a SCOTUS justices is for life. In other words, the individual continues to rule on legal matters long after the current party in power controls the senate. And in most cases they rule on matters that align with the political party that put them into power.
Thus, how does one increase the fairness of the decision that SCOTUS makes?
Since the creation of the SCOTUS, many mechanisms have been developed to determine the appropriateness of job candidates. Some, but not all, might be used to determine the suitability of the Supreme Court judges, other than the ones we currently use
Most countries that have judicial review of the constitutionality of laws that are passed (or implemented), also have components similar to the SCOTUS built into their political fabric. They also have differing methods to choose the individuals that review the laws.
There are a number of recommendations that have been advanced that might improve SCOTUS, in particular the manner by which we appoint justices, and the terms of justices? They include:
Defund the Supreme Court. If we limit the resources that this fourth branch of government has access to, then This is a cute way of suggesting that if you restrain their resources they can’t do so much damage. In principle this may make sense but in the long run won’t work.
Increase the number of Justices. In principle, the greater the number of qualified people making an important decision, the higher the likelihood that the decision will be a good one. This is a suggestion that has been bandied around Washington for the past three years. But increasing the number of justices does not really help with the partisan obligations that justices feel, nor does it assist with putting a cap on lifetime appointments.
Direct vote Some may argue that justices should be elected based on the popular vote. The public, however, is not sufficiently qualified to judge judges knowledge and ability. Despite many jurisdictions in the United States ability to elect judges for lower court duties, being a Supreme Court justice is not a popularity contest. In other words, they must make tough decisions.
Term limits One of the most favorable options is limiting the length of time that they can serve as Supreme Court Justices. One suggestion might be, similar to the president of the United States, no longer than eight years.
Now that we have some suggestions, it’s time for President Biden and the Democratic Party to take the issue of SCOTUS reform seriously. This is not an easy challenge to solve or fight to win, but Biden has a little more than two years left in his term, and depending on the results in this November’s mid term election, he needs to initiate a more intense discussion and even some changes in the composition of the courts.
Photo Credit: Victoria Pickering
Roe overturned
In front of the Supreme Court as the decision announced in Dobbs that overturns Roe v Wade
https://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/52170073478_34a2450ac9_c.jpg525800Jeffrey Ian Rosshttps://jeffreyianross.com/wp-content/uploads/jeffrey-ian-ross-logo-04.pngJeffrey Ian Ross2022-06-27 12:21:052024-09-22 12:21:33The repeal of Roe v Wade highlights the need to change the way we choose Supreme Court justices and their terms of service
Misapplying appropriation, co-optation, commodification & fetishization
/by Jeffrey Ian RossThe recent social media discussion over the work and legacy of Frida Kahlo, while somewhat interesting and entertaining, is in many respects disappointing. Some criticism argues that, because Kahlo came from a privileged upper class family, was comparatively light-skinned, and was not purely indigenous, that she had minimal right to use the iconography, imagery, and symbols associated with this culture. Even worse that Kahlo’s work harmed people of indigenous or Mestizo origins and was engaging in cultural appropriation.
Over the past several decades many people, organizations, and events have been accused of appropriating, co-opting, and fetishizing the symbols, icons, imagery, and styles of marginalized groups in order to commodify their work from which they profit. The appropriation, etc. critique, is especially used to criticize creative pursuits including cooking, dance, fashion, fiction, film, hair styles, music, theatre, and visual art.
A lot of this critique of cultural appropriation is appropriate. Examples might include white rappers raised in the suburbs who sing songs with African American Vernacular English, nonindigenous performers wearing Native American regalia, and people with no connection to the Holocaust tattooing themselves with numbers used by the Nazis in internment camps.
However, sometimes this type of labelling is done by casual observers and activists with varying degrees of expertise, especially by people who have minimal knowledge in the subject matters that they feel compelled to voice their opinion.
The appropriation etc. argument, similar to the lived experience one, implies that regardless of the quality of the work, so-called “outsiders” should not borrow cultural symbols and only people, etc. with direct roots in the cultures, ethnicities, nationalities, races or religions (i.e., “Insiders”) should be allowed to create works using the icons, etc. of the marginalized groups that they belong to or come from.
All told, accusing an artist, etc. of appropriation, etc. is basically suggesting that they are engaging in cultural insensitivity and distorting the original meaning of the symbols, icons, and styles they use in their work.
These charges, however, are frequently applied to individuals, etc. in a haphazard way. For example, when a well-known and respected graffiti writer or street artist, borrows images, symbols or conventions from certain ethnic or racial groups, etc. rarely are they accused in the same manner as artists who show their work in galleries or museums. Likewise, few people voice concerns over appropriation, etc. when their friends or acquaintances adorn their bodies with Japanese sleeve tattoos, or Nordic or Maori symbol tattoos.
In many cases using the labels of appropriation etc. is justified, but in lots other situations the evidence supporting the charges is not present, it’s flimsy, and/or the logic surrounding the charges is seriously muddled.
Why should we care when this kind of critique is made?
Clearly there are more important challenges facing the world, but hurling the accusation of appropriation, etc. against creative people and organizations has the following interrelated negative consequences:
First, it frequently minimizes the hard work of creators.
Second, it implies that “outsiders” work is theft or unimportant.
Third, it diminishes the creativity of the work of the artist, writer, dancer, etc.
Fourth, the words appropriation, co-optation, commodification, and fetishization are subjective terms.
Fifth these labels are typically misapplied, or not applied correctly.
Sixth, using these terms it is often a manifestation of political correctness.
Seventh, it fails to acknowledge the resources that goes into producing a piece of work.
Eighth, the harm that the creative person is rarely specified.
Ninth, it ignores the realization that all creative work is derivative, and,
Tenth, this kind of criticism is frequently overly simplistic and plays into the current cancel culture trend.
Why then does this occur?
I think that the rush to criticize “outsiders” with appropriation, etc. can be linked to three principle reasons.
Judging from the criticisms, is It seems as the criticism does not reflect a deep understanding of the history of the creative activity that they are maligning.
Meanwhile, ease of access to social media, has enabled opine no matter how uninformed their opinions are.
Few critics understand the nature of creation. Almost all creative work is either consciously or unconsciously derivative (see, for example, Austin Kleon’s Steal like an Artist). People who understand this principle are even encouraged to understand their predecessors so they can build upon it.
The fact that a person can label an action engaged in by others as expropriating someone else or a culture is not sufficient. There should be concrete evidence and nuanced argumentation.
How can this situation be best addressed?
The frequent criticism that a person, organization or event is an example of appropriation, etc. should be challenged. It’s too simple to accuse an individual , etc. with this charge. The biggest way to combat this charge it to become knowledgeable, beyond a simple Wikipedia entry, about the subject area in ways the arm chair critic is not.
Photo Credit
Frida Kahlo,
Self-Portrait with Thorn Necklace and Hummingbird (1940),
Harry Ransom Center
The Unravelling of American Democracy?
/by Jeffrey Ian RossOn the 246th anniversary of the signing the Declaration of Independence it may be helpful to reflect on an alarming trend.
During the presidency of Donald Trump numerous anti-democratic policies, practices, laws, and events in American society occurred. This happened not just at the federal level, but at the state level too. Despite the election of President Joe Biden, many of these undemocratic trends, like the Supreme Court’s recent repeal of Roe v. Wade, continue to this day.
Short of listing all of these actions, this situation naturally leads to a handful of interrelated important questions. These are:
A. Did we really have democracy before the election of Trump?
The United States and selected states have a rich history of anti-democratic politicians, movements, organizations, and events. Whether we are talking about gender discrimination, homophobia, inequality, or racism, the roots of these antidemocratic sentiments go deep. Meanwhile, compared to similar countries, since 2009, the United States has had one of the highest incarceration rates per capita in the world. In a somewhat similar pattern, undoubtedly highlighted by the increased presence of smart phones, and social media, we have seen numerous deaths of unarmed African-Americans under questionable circumstances.
B. What factors are causing or driving undemocratic tendencies?
Numerous trends in American society facilitate undemocratic rhetoric and practices. These include lack of education, poor education, and a belief among some constituencies that formal education is a waste of resources. Add to this increased perceptions that experts are not to be believed, easy access to social media websites, and a tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. The constitutional protection of the right to free speech and the development of social media and its pervasive use is another contributing factor. Not only are informal collectivities (e.g., Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, etc.) doing their best to foment anti-democratic unrest, but the Republican Party refuses to hold anti-democratic members at bay, frustrate policies, practices and laws that would increase equality. Most people do not have a good understanding of democracy, the constitution, and believe that it is associated with having your own way. There is also a proliferation of escapist activities, that people can retreat to that mitigate citizen involvement, exhausted responding to the craziness and end up throwing in the towel. There is also a significant amount of outrage fatigue.
C. Did the election of Trump serve as a catalyst for the undemocratic tendencies?
In a fairly short period of time, often through executive orders, Trump was able to scale back many pro-social public policies and legislation. And with the assistance of a Republican dominated Senate he dodged being convicted of impeachment twice, and install two supreme court justices who would tip the balance in significant court cases that provided protections to women and Native Americans tribes. Short of a full blown analysis, given the above, Trump was the right person at the right time to coalesce these anti-democratic trends, including people (e.g., political and news media pundits), organizations (e.g., Fox News, etc.), and tendencies in the Republican Party. He did this through his natural inflammatory rhetoric and sheer bravado which resonated with his followers. Trump was also able to recruit a number of true believers, enablers, and opportunists in to his orbit that would assist him in his mission.
D Are these undemocratic trends co-ordinated?
Although selected elements of these undemocratic trends are co-ordinated (e.g., the activities of high-ranking members of the Trump White House), it is highly unlikely, if not impossible, that all of these trends and events were somehow co-ordinated. And any person or organization that espouses this belief should be questioned. Moreover, this kind of interpretation borders on some of the same conspiracy theory thinking that many (e.g., QAnon) in the MAGA camp use as the basis of their belief system.
E. Can we stop these trends or is it too late?
It’s still possible to frustrate many of the undemocratic trends. But it’s exhausting.
Clearly increased funding of public education may stem the tide of poor education. But simply throwing money at problems is not the solution. There must be a thoughtful approach to curriculum and instructional reform. Part of this includes the study and use of critical thinking skills. Another initiative has been the White House’s ambitious infrastructure bill, that was eventually scaled back by the senate. Although Biden and the Dems were not successful in getting everything they wanted, they did manage pass a substantial amount of things. The hope was that it would provide jobs and stimulate the economies of pro Republican districts, and thus appease the MAGA crowd. Regardless, continued vigilance, strategic planning, and being flexible are important approaches to dealing with the undemocratic challenges, like the ones we are currently witnessing and experiencing now.
Photo Credit:
Thomas Hawk
Democracy
The repeal of Roe v Wade highlights the need to change the way we choose Supreme Court justices and their terms of service
/by Jeffrey Ian RossThe American justice system is imperfect. That’s why it’s constantly being reformed. Factor in the necessity to make decisions partially based on empirical evidence and consulting experts, but more importantly competing ideological and political forces, then you realize why the process is slow.
Over time there is change. Not wholesale change, and not always in the direction of the way that majority of the population wants.
Meanwhile some reforms are more pressing than others.
The recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision (June 2022) regarding Roe v Wade has numerous negative and devastating implications for women (and men) living in this country.
The fact that 61 percent of the American public alone believe that abortions should be legal, means that the recent SCOTUS decision, in the context of Roe v Wade, is out of sync with the opinions held by a large number of Americans. This begs numerous questions.
But let’s start with why this ruling occurred? We could blame larger forces that are present in American society such as patriarchy, Christian Fundamentalism, and the Republican Party. Or, we could point the finger at individuals such as former president Donald Trump, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, etc.
Regardless, we would probably not be in the position we are currently in if the method by which we chose Supreme Court justices, and the manner by which they serve their terms, were reformed.
To begin with, it is generally understood that the SCOPUS is responsible for ruling on the constitutionality of laws that are passed by the legislature and/or the executive. On the one hand, the public is told that the justices’ decisions are based on the law, including precedent, and thus relatively value free. And because there are several justices, and not simply one, its believed that the more extreme views can be held in check through the voting process. On the other hand, we also know that the justices are influenced by their political beliefs and considerations. In short, they are ultimately loyal to the political parties that secured their nomination and conferred their appointment.
The process by which Supreme Court justices are chosen, and the duration of their tenure mitigates against value free judicial decisions. How so? In general, when a Supreme Court justice position comes open, nominees for the position are put forward to a committee of the Senate on the judiciary, which is composed of representatives from the two major political parties. The committee vets the candidates in a highly charged primarily partisan manner. The recommendation then goes to the Senate and the political party that has the most amount of votes gets to choose their candidate.
Meanwhile, although there are valid arguments for Supreme Court Justices to occupy their positions for relatively lengthy time periods, the appointment as a SCOTUS justices is for life. In other words, the individual continues to rule on legal matters long after the current party in power controls the senate. And in most cases they rule on matters that align with the political party that put them into power.
Thus, how does one increase the fairness of the decision that SCOTUS makes?
Since the creation of the SCOTUS, many mechanisms have been developed to determine the appropriateness of job candidates. Some, but not all, might be used to determine the suitability of the Supreme Court judges, other than the ones we currently use
Most countries that have judicial review of the constitutionality of laws that are passed (or implemented), also have components similar to the SCOTUS built into their political fabric. They also have differing methods to choose the individuals that review the laws.
There are a number of recommendations that have been advanced that might improve SCOTUS, in particular the manner by which we appoint justices, and the terms of justices? They include:
Defund the Supreme Court. If we limit the resources that this fourth branch of government has access to, then This is a cute way of suggesting that if you restrain their resources they can’t do so much damage. In principle this may make sense but in the long run won’t work.
Increase the number of Justices. In principle, the greater the number of qualified people making an important decision, the higher the likelihood that the decision will be a good one. This is a suggestion that has been bandied around Washington for the past three years. But increasing the number of justices does not really help with the partisan obligations that justices feel, nor does it assist with putting a cap on lifetime appointments.
Direct vote Some may argue that justices should be elected based on the popular vote. The public, however, is not sufficiently qualified to judge judges knowledge and ability. Despite many jurisdictions in the United States ability to elect judges for lower court duties, being a Supreme Court justice is not a popularity contest. In other words, they must make tough decisions.
Term limits One of the most favorable options is limiting the length of time that they can serve as Supreme Court Justices. One suggestion might be, similar to the president of the United States, no longer than eight years.
Now that we have some suggestions, it’s time for President Biden and the Democratic Party to take the issue of SCOTUS reform seriously. This is not an easy challenge to solve or fight to win, but Biden has a little more than two years left in his term, and depending on the results in this November’s mid term election, he needs to initiate a more intense discussion and even some changes in the composition of the courts.
Photo Credit: Victoria Pickering
Roe overturned
In front of the Supreme Court as the decision announced in Dobbs that overturns Roe v Wade