First, what is culture? Get there before any answer, or no answer will have merit. Have at it. I think the answer is older than you think.
Who first decided that culture could be cancelled?
Posts
Total:
29
-->
@fauxlaw
CULTURE is "an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups."
OSTRACISM was "a procedure under Athenian democracy in which any citizen could be expelled from the city-state of Athens for ten years. While some instances clearly expressed popular anger at the citizen, ostracism was often used preemptively. It was used as a way of neutralizing someone thought to be a threat to the state or potential tyrant. The word "ostracism" continues to be used for various cases of social shunning."
Who first decided that culture could be cancelled?
Athens.
-->
@oromagi
I think the phenomenon is older than that. However, and interesting side note to the Athenian culture relative to capital punishment [not related to this string in any way], is that every crime was punishable by death.
-->
@fauxlaw
Cancelling culture, would be cultural.....As would questioning the cancellation of culture.....As would something new that might be thought up tomorrow.
Inherited culture is persistent stuff that was thought up yesterday....Stuff that our predecessors don't want us to forget....So we get perpetually reminded of it.
-->
@zedvictor4
@oromagi
Culture is perpetuated more by language than it is by objects. Language is created by culture. Seems to me, the cancellation of culture is, first, an attempt to destroy language of a particular word or set of words, as if they never existed, as opposed to merely forgetting it/them, and as an effort to pretend the word or thing never existed in the first place. For example, the notion by Black Lives Matter, and the 1619 Project, that, in America, all Blacks were slaves, and all slaves were Black. Neither concept is or was not true, but the suggestion carries an agenda that is meant to be believed as a justification for the agenda. Self-serving in every respect.
A less-charged example is the invention of the computer peripheral device known as a "mouse," called such because, when invented, it was a wired device, which wire trailed from the front-end of the device, making a not-so-obvious comparison to the animal [the animal's tail is at the back-end] when, in fact, the the animal and the device have no relation to one another but for a vague visual similarity. However, the term is still used as a wireless device [without tail], so even that similarity is no longer the case. So one should not wonder when my grand daughter, now 10, asked me at 4 why the device presented to her as wireless, was called a "mouse." Perfectly curious question that can only be given a dumb answer. Since I still had [and have] a perfectly operating Macintosh [classic from 1985], I could show her the original concept of the wired device. She, appropriately, said, "That's silly. The tail is coming from it's head." Zounds, the innocence of youth!
Guess being born is a crime
-->
@fauxlaw
First, what is culture?
An individual or a group of people's mannerisms, way of acting, tradition, look, sound, whatnot.
Who first decided that culture could be cancelled?
What human 'first, American culture 'first, or 'modern America 'first?
Cause I'd imagine even Neanderthals had cancel culture at some point, wild speculation on my part though.
America culture, well, just look at us and many of the cultures we came from, especially the British. Though there's still a lot there.
Modern culture, eh, hard for me to pinpoint.
-->
@Lemming
I'll agree to the broad strokes of your definition of culture.
As for which culture, your reference to Neanderthals is a good proposal, and I agree they were certainly intelligent enough to decide one's colored stones probably had more substance [durability, therefore, worth?] than another's feathers, and would argue {?] for the cancellation of feathers as currency.
-->
@fauxlaw
-> @oromagi @zedvictor4Culture is perpetuated more by language than it is by objects. Language is created by culture. Seems to me, the cancellation of culture is, first, an attempt to destroy language of a particular word or set of words, as if they never existed, as opposed to merely forgetting it/them, and as an effort to pretend the word or thing never existed in the first place. For example, the notion by Black Lives Matter, and the 1619 Project, that, in America, all Blacks were slaves, and all slaves were Black. Neither concept is or was not true, but the suggestion carries an agenda that is meant to be believed as a justification for the agenda. Self-serving in every respect.A less-charged example is the invention of the computer peripheral device known as a "mouse," called such because, when invented, it was a wired device, which wire trailed from the front-end of the device, making a not-so-obvious comparison to the animal [the animal's tail is at the back-end] when, in fact, the the animal and the device have no relation to one another but for a vague visual similarity. However, the term is still used as a wireless device [without tail], so even that similarity is no longer the case. So one should not wonder when my grand daughter, now 10, asked me at 4 why the device presented to her as wireless, was called a "mouse." Perfectly curious question that can only be given a dumb answer. Since I still had [and have] a perfectly operating Macintosh [classic from 1985], I could show her the original concept of the wired device. She, appropriately, said, "That's silly. The tail is coming from it's head." Zounds, the innocence of youth!
I've complained a few times on this site that the term CANCEL CULTURE seems rather unmoored from its definition. CANCEL CULTURE is not "first an attempt to destroy language." The term quite explicitly criticizes the culture of cancellation, not the cancellation of culture. I would say that if you want to call it CANCEL CULTURE then you must be able to identify at least one human target for ostracism or boycott and at least one social circle or society from which that target has been excluded. Neither of your examples qualify.
- I certainly think the 1619 Project is vulnerable to criticism of overstating the influence of the slave trade on the causes of 1776 (as its authors have conceded) but I'm vague on what person is being exluded (or even which words are being destroyed) by that NY Times series. I haven't read those articles since they came out but can you point me to where in those articles it is stated that all blacks were enslaved and all slaves black? Seems to me that would have held my attention. I don't see any evidence for your claim.
- For accuracy, any responsible historian must certainly prefer the Times' 1619 Project to the Trump Administration's propagandized response in the 1776 Project. No history professor could try to teach that line of bullshit and expect to keep her job.
- No persons are being excluded from any social set because computer pointers no longer resemble mice.
I think the FOX News crowd is verging on diluting the meaning and intent of the term they invented until we're left with just another FOX News doubleplusungoodism devoid of dynamic worthy of discussion.
-->
@oromagi
if you want to call it CANCEL CULTURE then you must be able to identify at least one human target for ostracism
The following is excerpted from my book, “Faux Law,” Chapter 17, regarding the 13A:
“Perhaps a look at [an] article title will give a clue: “How the U.S. Census has measured race over 230 years.”[1] As noted [my] Chapter 2, the Constitution does not mention “race” until the 15th Amendment, about 80 years after ratification of our funding document. Why does the article assume it does? I suggest the article has an agenda much like the erroneous assumptions of the 1619 Project, and Black Lives Matter.[2]
“Also note the erroneous designation of the three types mentioned in the article [ref. [1]] by percentage, and note that there is a separation in count between the people-types alleged by the article: “That first Census tallied 3.9 million residents…” Further, the article says “…white people made up about 80 percent of the total population, enslaved black people represented 18% and other free people represented the remaining 2 percent.”[3] Wrong.
“We learned in Chapter 2 that not all Blacks were slaves, and those who were not were, therefore, counted as citizens, the “whole Number of free persons.” We do not have, from that 1790 Census, the separate racial counting of the “whole Number of free persons,” but it was clearly more than just white people. It included not only some Blacks, but taxed Indians, as well. It may have counted a few Asians, and perhaps others; who knows?
“However, such facts do not fit the article’s stated paradigm that the United States’ first Census had racial demographics. It clearly did not. According to Pew Research, the United States started self-identified racial demographics in the 1960 Census.[4]. Perhaps a return to the method applied in 1790 is warranted. The best way to solve a racial problem is to ignore race, not to try segregating it, even by counting.”
[1]https://www.sciencenews.org/article/Census-2020-race-history
[2]“By this scholastically-accepted definition, even a phrase like “Black Lives Matter” must be cast in suspicious light, particularly in light of the following statement as a policy of BlackLivesMatter.com: “We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.” [see https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/] - excerpt from “Faux Law” [my book, Ch. 2]
[2]“By this scholastically-accepted definition, even a phrase like “Black Lives Matter” must be cast in suspicious light, particularly in light of the following statement as a policy of BlackLivesMatter.com: “We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.” [see https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/] - excerpt from “Faux Law” [my book, Ch. 2]
[3]https://www.sciencenews.org/article/Census-2020-race-history
[4]https://www.sciencenews.org/article/Census-2020-race-history
-->
@fauxlaw
--> @oromagiif you want to call it CANCEL CULTURE then you must be able to identify at least one human target for ostracismThe following is excerpted from my book, “Faux Law,” Chapter 17, regarding the 13A:
None of this seems very connected to my complaint that what your describing is not CANCEL CULTURE. I'm still not seeing any ostracized person.
I asked,
"can you point me to where in those articles it is stated that all blacks were enslaved and all slaves black? "
and instead of the 1619 Project you try to misdirect us to some sciencenews.org article? I assume that means that the 1619 Project does not, in fact, teach that "all blacks were enslaved and all slaves black." Nor does this article. Contrary to your assertion, I don't see any assumption by the article's author that the US Constitution uses the word "race" prior to the 15A.
We do not have, from that 1790 Census, the separate racial counting of the “whole Number of free persons,” but it was clearly more than just white people. It included not only some Blacks, but taxed Indians, as well. It may have counted a few Asians, and perhaps others; who knows?
All of whom are included under ALL OTHER FREE PERSONS.
However, such facts do not fit the article’s stated paradigm that the United States’ first Census had racial demographics. It clearly did not.
I don't know man. You look at a population divided by WHITE MEN over 18, WHITE MEN under 18, WHITE WOMEN, SLAVES, and OTHER as the relevant political categories and see no racial demographics. I find that astounding because I see nothing but racial demographics.
- If you are white the government needs to know how many of you vote and how many will vote in the future.
- If you are not white, never mind.
Seems like a clearly delineated racial demographic to me.
I feel like we are drifting further from some kind of cognizable thesis. You are saying BLM, 1619 Project and Science News have CANCELLED the historic fact that some blacks were free and some slaves were not black. However, I have seen no evidence for your assertion and I don't think you are using the word CANCELLED correctly.
-->
@oromagi
I don't see any assumption by the article's author that the US Constitution uses the word "race" prior to the 15A.
The cited article does not make that claim; that is by my own research reading and analyzing the Constitution. It's easy to do, and I do so monthly for the past ten years, just to becpme familiar enough with the Document to have some scholarship about it. However, BLM does make the assumption, from their own website, that “We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.” BLM, therefore, speaks of the entire Black race, don't they? Project 1619 agrees. It is not a leap to understand that both consider the history of the US is that all Blacks were ostracized as slaves, because no where on either of their sites do they acknowledge that there were, antebellum, free Blacks. The assertion continues, even in the words of Hidin' Biden, that "unlike the African-American community, with notable exceptions, the Latino community is an incredibly diverse community." Remember? I will not engage grammatical quibble on this point further.
You look at a population divided by WHITE MEN over 18, WHITE MEN under 18, WHITE WOMEN, SLAVES, and OTHER as the relevant political categories and see no racial demographics. I find that astounding because I see nothing but racial demographics.
Good Lord, have you no sense of the content of the Constitution? That white men., white women bullshyte is not what the Constitution says, that's what 1619 project, and that article I cited erroneously claim the Constitution says. Get it??? Read: Article I, section 2, clause 3. You will find no mention of "Black," no mention of "White," no mention of "race." That's BLM and 16519 Project-speak. Try to keep up.
I don't think you are using the word CANCELLED correctly.
Most everybody's favorite site declares:
"Cancel culture (or call-out culture) is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those who are subject to this ostracism are said to have been "cancelled".[1][a] The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship.[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture"The notion of cancel culture is a variant on the term call-out culture and constitutes a form of boycotting involving an individual (usually a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner.[2][5][6][7][8] For those on the receiving end of cancel culture, the consequences can lead to loss of reputation and income, from which it can be hard to recover.[9]". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture
-->
@fauxlaw
It is not a leap to understand that both consider the history of the US is that all Blacks were ostracized as slaves, because no where on either of their sites do they acknowledge that there were, antebellum, free Blacks.
That's not just a leap, it is an entirely unwarranted invention.
- Black Lives Matter does not seem to be making any assertion about 18th century America period. When BLM says black people are being targeted, the term is inclusive of descendents of free blacks as well as postbellum migration. Why would BLM even bother to mention that not every black person 300 years ago were slaves? What's the relevance?
- 1619 Project does not deny that free blacks existed. In fact, I have already found multiple mentions of free blacks just scanning those articles.
- Daryl Pickney speaks of a black woman schoolteacher from Boston who's family is richer than either the union camp's colonel or surgeon.
- Nikole Hannah-Jones notes that Lincoln invited five of the most esteemed free black men to the White House to consult on the form and manner of the proposed emancipation proclamation
- Tyehimba Jess writes a poem from the 1816 perspective of free black Seminoles of Negro Fort, Fl.
- Therefore, it is false to say that the 1619 Project denies the existence of free antebellum black peoples.
- Science News notes that there were only three racial categories “white” people, “other free people” and “slaves.” Science News does not note that free black people were counted as other free people but that's a gigantic leap from your claim that Science News denies free antebellum black populations.
- We can be confidant that Science News does not deny the existence of antebellum free black populations because other recent articles by that magazine acknowledge the existence of free black peoples.
- For example, Bruce Bower mentions "free people of color" as one of the three major racially derived social divisions in antebellum New Orleans as part of his discussion of COVID in the context of historical plagues.
Good Lord, have you no sense of the content of the Constitution? That white men., white women bullshyte is not what the Constitution says, that's what 1619 project, and that article I cited erroneously claim the Constitution says. Get it??? Read: Article I, section 2, clause 3. You will find no mention of "Black," no mention of "White," no mention of "race." That's BLM and 16519 Project-speak. Try to keep up.
You are dodging.
- You said "thee United States’ first Census [clearly did not ] [have] racial demographics."
- I countered that 3 of first census' 5 categories specified a race ("white"). So you are wrong.
- You say well, what about the Constitution? Total non-sequitur.
- Your original claim that the first census did not have racial demographics is disproved.
Let's clarify that the 1790 Census is the source for the "white men., white women bullshyte" as ordered by Thomas Jefferson and signed by George Washington. Free blacks were included under the Constitutional distinction of "whole number of free persons" and I see nothing in the 1619 Project articles that disputes that.
I don't think you are using the word CANCELLED correctly.
Wikipedia is my definition of CANCEL CULTURE too. We circle right back to my initial complaint:
CANCEL CULTURE is not "first an attempt to destroy language." The term quite explicitly criticizes the culture of cancellation, not the cancellation of culture. I would say that if you want to call it CANCEL CULTURE then you must be able to identify at least one human target for ostracism or boycott and at least one social circle or society from which that target has been excluded. Neither of your examples qualify.
None of what you've said serves as an example of 1619 Project ostracizing some persons and therefore this is not an example of CANCEL CULTURE by our agreed definition.
Even if it were true (it ain't) that BLM, Science News, and the 1619 Project were trying to ignore the fact that some American blacks were free (and to a far less extent, some slaves were not black), misrepresenting history is not a boycott or an exile or any other example of cancel culture.
-->
@oromagi
CANCEL CULTURE is not "first an attempt to destroy language."
I am, personally, a victim of removal of a narration of my own poetry from YouTube because it's subject is Jesus Christ. Tell me poetry is not language
-->
@fauxlaw
> @oromagiCANCEL CULTURE is not "first an attempt to destroy language."I am, personally, a victim of removal of a narration of my own poetry from YouTube because it's subject is Jesus Christ. Tell me poetry is not language
Naturally, I am skeptical that Youtube bans videos because the subject is Jesus Christ if only because I can see literally millions of YouTube videos with Jesus Christ listed as subject. Whatever the details, however, this anecdote does serve as an example of CANCEL CULTURE because we have a human target, you, and social circle from which you are cast out, YouTube. That is a solid example of cancel culture, which computer mice and 1619 Project are not.
-->
@oromagi
computer mice and 1619 Project are not [cancel culture]
Here is why they are exemplary of cancel culture, and it relates to my argument of c.c. is its attack on language.
1. The mouse: The human nature of giving names to things is probably the first element of language culture ever produced. Words mean things; that is evident, or we would have never conceived of dictionaries. By extension, names mean things, and, just as we call a specific fruit an apple allows common understanding of the word, and what it means and implies in its extant condition. Thus, as we named things, and vocabulary grew, learning ,first, nouns, just a0s toddlers do today. Syntax, i.e., what a word means, and how it is used in context, is an ability toddlers begin to understand, even without formal education in that language. It is a phenomenon linguists are still trying to wrap their academics around. Thus, other types of words; verbs, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions... are learned, and vocabulary grows further. As we invent new things, we give them names: a rock, a club, a knife, a weapon. And we learn what verbs properly align with these nouns, and we learn we cannot say, "I stabbed him with my club." Thus, we invented other things, a wheel, a lever, a... Advance a few thousand years, we invent the computer, and. ultimately, peripherals, including a device to allow graphic user interface with the computer. We could have called it a guiper, I suppose, but, we thought we wold be cute to call it a "mouse" because it looks like one. We, therefore, ignored the potential to add a new, perhaps more descriptive word to the lexicon in favor of being limiting, and vague. I call that cancel culture of language.
2. 1619 project: by ignoring that the Constitution did not racially divide our 1790 Census, it attempted to cancel that history with the idea that is was racially divided. History is another thing that can be cancelled. A smart guy, Georges Santayana, told us that to do so was done at our peril of repeating history that should not be repeated.
I call both cancel culture. Cancelling the culture of words, not just people. As culture drives language, and it does, so cancellation of culture involves removal of its words as much as its people.
-->
@fauxlaw
I haven't read through the answers. My first guess would be ancient Egypt, they were always chiselling out the faces and names of previous pharoes,and building on top of other temples etc.
-->
@janesix
Yes, kind of like wanting to tear down historical statues. Cancel culture has been around a long time.
-->
@fauxlaw
Most of the most graphic historical incidents of cultural destruction involve Islamic invaders forcibly converting pre-Islamic Africa to Islam.
But it's not like it was limited to the Islamic world. The so called "Chinese Cultural Revolution" and similar phenomena under the Khmer Rouge were as violent as Islamic invaders ever were.
-->
@coal
Most of the most graphic historical incidents of cultural destruction involve Islamic invaders
Most? According to whom? According to when? According to why? My friend, I'd like to know who it was that taught you that nonsense. Virtually every culture practices ethnocentrism; generally, people do not even understand why or how they do it; they just "know" another culture is different than than theirs, and assume that other culture is inferior to theirs. Many of them turn to violence to prove it. Assume - that's a bad attitude. You don't understand to whom you make the claim that Islam is responsible for your "most." Just by your statement, you demonstrate the ethnocentrism bug. Take an aspirin and call someone who did not teach you that crap.
Yeah, I know, having been challenged, you're going to find a Wiki article that tells you, and you'll tell me, otherwise. But, first check the accuracy of Wiki. You might be disappointed by what you find. You can always find someone, even an assumed academic, to tell you what you want to hear. So, don't bother; I've likely been at this longer and more in depth than you. I do research by profession. I know how difficult it is to keep weeds out of my garden.
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you actually expect me to respond?
-->
@coal
Most of the most graphic historical incidents of cultural destruction involve Islamic invaders forcibly converting pre-Islamic Africa to Islam.But it's not like it was limited to the Islamic world. The so called "Chinese Cultural Revolution" and similar phenomena under the Khmer Rouge were as violent as Islamic invaders ever were.
Yes, yes and the Christian colonists were fucking angels amirite?
-->
@coal
Or what Russia has done in its original expansion and is still trying to do the entire Eastern Europe.
-->
@coal
@RatMan
Culture evolves.
Culture isn't static.
Interesting how you both view culture and cultural adaptation, as a religious issue........ Rather than issues of culture and cultural adaptation, including religion.
-->
@zedvictor4
I was countering a narrative that the user Coal had stated. His narrative was that Islamic and East Asian invaders were ruthless and tyrannical in their conquering. I reminded him that Caucasian Christians had been much the same in the same/similar period.
-->
@fauxlaw
Brilliant reply btw.
@RatMan.
Yes.....That is certainly the case.
Cultures have been cancelling each other for hundreds of millions of years.
28 days later
Execration texts en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execration_texts
Dating back to the 6th dynasty the ancient Egyptians used to write the names of enemies (usually asiatics) on objects which became known as the execration texts. Having ones name written on the execration texts was believed to act like a curse.
This could perhaps be one of the earliest known forms of cancelling another person, or people.