is r2 racist or discrimating religions

[AdaJames]

I can't even believe that you are taking him seriously when he is talking about rationinge equality and the like, Al.

Seriously, WTH? That is basically tyranny. ONE person or group gets to dictate to everyone else how, when, where, why, and what to do. I thought we moved the hell away from that ****!

At least we now know the real agenda of the minority interest groups.

[Alsatia01]

I can't even believe that you are taking him seriously when he is talking about rationinge equality and the like, Al.

Seriously, WTH? That is basically tyranny. ONE person or group gets to dictate to everyone else how, when, where, why, and what to do. I thought we moved the hell away from that ****!

At least we now know the real agenda of the minority interest groups.

Oh I wouldn't be surprised if it's a troll. I made a response to their very first post when they started rambling about all that kinda stuff, but I decided then they weren't serious so I decided not to post it. On the other hand, it's not really all that outlandish compared to some of the crazy ideas people seem to have nowadays, so it is fun to poke them with a stick.

Lol they actually thought you were some kind of genetic purist, enough said.

[AdaJames]

I am pretty sure that he was making stuff up by that point in order to maintain the fiction of the rightness of his outrage. It is what those professional outrage artists do when faced with reality. See it all the time. They will start verballing people, deliberately miscontruing what was said, outright lying in order to ensure they are right and everyone else is wrong.

That anyone would take these parasites on the hind end of the human race even remotely seriously points to the dire state of the intelligence of the human race.

[R27377783]

My point, is that they aren't necessarily his moves either. They might not be his or your.... heritage.

I don't appreciate how you hijacked my example. I clearly said "his" dance moves. They are his moves in this example not something he got from anyone else. We're talking about appropriation and here you go taking liberties, with someone else's folk tale to make your straw man points.

[R27377783]

And again, why do we need to learn all this <expletive> when we can just enjoy the holiday as it was given. The bleeding hearts are those who try to "correct" others with this nonsense. If you don't celebrate it or celebrate it differently, then power to you. However, don't spoil it for the rest who are trying to get down in enjoying something that probably won't come again in about 365.25 days. Whether it was religious or pagan, I really don't care. What I really care about is when people put different words into something that is already commonly known as.

But that's okay, I am on a nice streak of <expletive>ing people off with their own "political correctness" medicine on things they do not count on happening. Next up, "The Holiday of Old Women who have Kids". I think it's very catchy title. Don't worry, I will end at 2016.12.31 when I go over the casualty list of holidays mauled in the name of "Holiday Equality" on my final netcast of the year before 2017.

YOu don't seem to get it because you are a spoiled chauvinist. THe factthat you keep indicating that you don['t care is exactly why its appropriation. You don;t care what your celebrating so why do you care that someone else doesn't appreciate that its even a holiday at all? Are you a child? You don't care to think that it maybe shouldn't even be a ******* holiday because maybe its offensive! You keep reiterating how you don't care but you do care about someone making you feel like a **** for celebrating a ******** holiday! Except you don't really care you just mad someone ruin your entitled holiday. Why SHOULDN'T someone ruin your holiday fun if its ******* offensive omg you are a child, I wont keep trying to discuss this with a child.

[AdaJames]

Yeah, Mei. have your ruined holiday. I mean it is only, what? 1 month after the fact? Oh my, it's RUINED, I tell you! RUINED! All the fun you had, all the joy, all the laughter? All RUINED because a faceless, inconsequential, powerless someone on the Internet is unhappy with you a month down the track.

I'd giggle at the monstrous ego displayed by that said someone, but you know what? A belly laugh is far, far, FAR more appropriate.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[R27377783]

LOL you psuedo-scientist, race is NOT real genetically/biologically..logically. You need the social construction of races to assign genes to that group. Your concept is backwards. I can take a race of people and find genes common to them, that does not make that race a physiological reality, it is still only MY construct. When these races were invented their was no genetic science. The attempts of geneticists to prove racial groups by genetics failed miserably because most humans are to genetically similar meaning all the stuff people used to identify different "races" are just superficial changes in phenotype that only recently occurred on the scale of "evolution". Changes that occurred to a species that is essentially the same creature beneath the skin level! I can take a race and find common genetic markers but you can't do it the other way around, you can't take a set of genes and use it to define a "race" that even closely resembles anything racists came up with. Besides race is not a scientific term there is kingdom,order,genus,species and there is sub-species. IF it can breed it is part of same species. How can there be race when people can breed between them from two different parents?? The nationalistic world snatched up the idea of race because it made for easy population control and explained why people look and act different without need to complicate their own everyday values again we love our status quotas. .You are just trying to adapt your false and disproven paradigm.
All the rest of your reply is very straw man. IF your afraid of the measures required to create social equality then your are not for social equality. As for this "tyranny" your afraid of, its already in place, it helped create the messes we're talking about. so your objection to regulation is purely a straw man, or you simply haven't thought things through please reread my last reply to you again, and remove the assumption that you don't already have a government that assigns class groups and Yes will remove an artifact from a museum if necessary or given the right to by court order or mandates. Some of these tribes still exist by the way so yes they have advocates. Maybe study them when their extinct? Until then ******* ASK them/their curators about their stuff. Can you lower yourself to their level long enough to ASK Mrs superior culture? You are seriously out of time if you don't think cultural identities and class groups can't wield legal power. The good thing is though is that for legal class groups one generally has to voluntarily do something in order to be included, or they make ways to opt out. It should be the same for any cultural groups, since its all social constructs.

[R27377783]

Yeah, Mei. have your ruined holiday. I mean it is only, what? 1 month after the fact? Oh my, it's RUINED, I tell you! RUINED! All the fun you had, all the joy, all the laughter? All RUINED because a faceless, inconsequential, powerless someone on the Internet is unhappy with you a month down the track.

I'd giggle at the monstrous ego displayed by that said someone, but you know what? A belly laugh is far, far, FAR more appropriate.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

haha you think I give even a little bit of a shiest about a holiday? I do not celebrate that one..and can do without most of the rest, except Halloween. I'll probably celebrate the pagan versions of both Easter and Halloween. The only real moral defense of Cultural Appropriation, are: A.honesty yes I'm using elemnts of the culture your population group is associated with to enrich my own, maybe if you try hard enough some government agency will put a stop to my cultural theft or not. (notice how you don;t have to attack their right to call you out on your b.s.)
and B. I grew up in a culture that has already claimed parts of your culture thus culture vs culture noone is to blame directly for the workings of history.
C.(thisis thebest one but good luck with it) I don't recognize your claim of cultural appropriation because your ethnic or otherwise association with that cultural element is not a matter of record, nor can you prove that I am not similarly entitled to that cultural claim.
LOL
I only care about the ignorance in this forum. I'm going to be happy to call you out on so much of your **, you may want to get comfortable IF I'm not talking about the game I'll be taking about the ** spewed forth by certain aholes in this forum. For me right now at least THIS FORUM is the social reality. I'm not going to bring much of my own ** to the sociopolitical stuff unless it actually relates to the game. I'm just going to play off of yours and others who bring the b.s. Frankly this thread should have already been closed and deleted for being so offensive from the start imo, including some of the things I've written.

[R27377783]

Genetic purity? WTH? Stop making things up. I don't talk about genetic purity. Never have.

The only one with strawmen is you. Your previous post is full of strawmen. All you do is deliberately miscontrue what others say and then go on a rant about how oppressed you are.

Get a life, fool! Most of us don't give a flying rat's arse what you think or how you live your life. You are nothing to us, as are your feelings of "oppression".

What's wrong is the pollution to the human genepool.

Seriously, "appropriating someone else's culture"? WTH? Have you even considered the rammifiation of someone actually coming up with that as something to be outraged about? And YOU dare to call someone else a hillbilly? Really?

Someone get the chlorine already!

whatever. Heres the link:http://forum.r2games.com/showthread....=1#post1516048 You also before talked about breeding rights..Al thinks my going into the failures of Nazism was uncalled for so thats why this is being brought up. Also its hilarious to me that you think: A I made up the term Cultural Appropriation, B. you are so entilted as to think you get to decide what others can be outraged about. You can take a walk and also read my disclaimer for this thread and apply it to yourself.

[Meikura001]

No, I got it really good, mate. By your response, you're just ticked off at me for putting a real "spin" on things. I guess it's "okay" for you to spew all that "junk" about an origin of a holiday, but when someone else does it, you get into a "hissy" fit which I find very comical.

No worries, Ada, my holidays aren't ruined. Especially not by trolls like this fool who makes it his priority to try and "upstage" the rest of the world with whatever trash he wants just because he is the "almighty" or something. At least I know they exist.

Then again, I forgot one holiday just before the one I had stated in the political correct agenda (come on, it worked for them on Christmas, so why couldn't the others, right? LOL), but if I went forth on it, I am going to be branded a "racist" in saying so by this fool.

[matyre]

As an atheist, I find this thread funny~ the more funny thing is some ppl really got into serious discussion

always to ignite sth with religion and politics ：）

com'on no one's gonna give a hoot bout this game forum

[Meikura001]

As an atheist, I find this thread funny~ the more funny thing is some ppl really got into serious discussion

always to ignite sth with religion and politics ：）

com'on no one's gonna give a hoot bout this game forum

Now here's one with a very positive vibe on them. I like that and couldn't agree more.

[R27377783]

meh I went back to get one quote and winded up replying to most of the replies enough is enough though this convo was dead from the beginning really just a circle jerk of long time forum buddies posting about how they're so anti-pc. This anti cultural rhetoric is atrocious. I've dealt with "don't try to censor me" ** straw man rhetoric before its no real argument just a last resort to justify maintaining chauvinism in the face of radical policy changes in the world around them thats why I call it reactionary. SO anyway have fun!

I'm going to skip your rant about Ada, she can speak for herself.

how convenient you already came to her aid once why stop now?

My point, is that you basically just explained why Nazism is bad, when everyone already agrees that is the case. It's a pointless dialog, and I in no way attempted to influence your dialog or style of argumentation, aside from commenting that it is a colossal waste of time.

I don't know that everyone agrees and you don't know that either. Clearly Ada does not agree with the statement.

To make sure that you completely understand what I'm saying, allow me to reiterate. What I'm saying, is that someones 'race' is determined by a number of different factors, not limited to, but including, ethnicity, genetic makeup, and culture. Not just as a social construct, which is what you seem to be saying.

IF its not biological or genetic its a social construct and thus can be obviated by any given individual who objects to being part of the classification..but race cannot be defined by genetics/biology alone hence race is "just" a social construct. Albeit one that can arbitrarily attempt to use biology/genetics to help it along.

Common in what way?

They aren't necessarily politically, culturally, socially, or genetically similar, or anymore similar than a given white person in comparison to a black person. If you're suggesting otherwise, you're going to need to site some evidence to that effect. Or perhaps, you are suggesting that people perceive them to be similar simply because the color of their skin - if someone said that about two black people, wouldn't that be considered a racist statement? You'll have to be a lot more clear about exactly what you mean, I have no wish to put words in your mouth.

I don't really need to clarify this you basically re-iterated my point. Any race based similarities between two members of the same race are superficial or because they are part of a race based culture/community. People may have other non-race based similarities but they are not BECAUSE of their "race." Its the same with nationalism. You and I could be from the same nation, but how much is that really going to make us similar as individuals? We MIGHT have more in common with each other when compared to someone from another nation, maybe..but if the nation we are from isn't very nationalistic or socially homogenous/uniform Either of us might have more in common with that foreign person than with each other. If we were Chinese we might not even speak the same language.

Depending on what you mean by 'significant', the answer would be yes. Isn't science amazing? How do you think they determine that Navaho 'Indians' are indeed, Navaho 'Indians'? They use science, to determine their genetic distinction between them and the general population. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it does work, and there is a real distinction.

its alot of guesswork and assumption made easier by the fact that there is a large enough group of them that has been isolated as a people from the general population. Also the people existed long before science came along. Its an example of the existing and fairly isolated group making it possible to use science to define them genetically and then apply that sequence comparatively to make a strong educated guess about who else that are not in the isolated environment may be related to that group..but it doesn't really work the other way around you cant take a large widely distributed group and isolate their genes to identify an existing group. You have to start with an existing group and work from there to look for unique patterns from among the general population. It can't effectively be done the other way around. You can't start with the science and end up with an ethnic group. Your results would be all over the place or too narrow and end up being useless for population control/classification.

I can provide evidence of this, if you're so curious.

I'm not because its a straw man and a farce, perhaps others reading might be. Your essentially trying to tell me that there are no good examples of artifacts or cultural attributes that are unique enough to be considered for cultural appropriation and I know that is a farce, I have not nor do I believe the campaign of CA is generally attempting to say that human beings don't have similar cultural realities across the globe or examples of nearly identical customs. IF anything that is likely reason enough why it shouldn't be necessary to "appropriate". Yes thats arguable. As I've said I'm not an advocate against cultural appropriation generally, but I don't find the merits of the arguments of against CA entirely like your trying to do. The idea that nothing is sacred is imperialistic, and inevitably leads to exploitation of the individual the society that recognizes intellectual property for individuals must also accept the concept of class or cultural properties including intellectual ones or it advances hypocrisy. Hypocrisy in the state breeds anarchy.

IF what your saying is true then noone would bother appropriating from other cultures they have no dealings with, unless they were not in a position to not be able to identify with a culture of their own,feel that the culture is already somehow a part of their own culture from whatever means(this I feel is the case in point here), or for any reason choose not to identify with any culture but have a utilitarian need to "appropriate" something. Your essentially saying culture is nonexistant and/or is completely universal which is a fallacy. Your also saying that anyone can appropriate and identify with any culture as they see fit because its arbitrary or hard to characterize/define how an individual can be relevant to a cultural phenomenon. Thats not true by any means and you ignore the most obvious which is historic context not just hereditary. I've already explained how it can, will, and has already been done in some cases. And your thesis about race illustrates some of the other realities that would be used to classify a culture and its associates. Like you said of race it is not only genetic, but there are certainly other tests as well. DO I believe these processes are generally worth or fair to do regarding anything at all that can be deemed cultural? no definitely not...but do I think it can ever be appropriate in where there is a socially important context or issues and with any people's expressed concerns? Absolutely,yes. Just because its difficult or uncomfortable or non-libertarian doesn't make it invalid. Libertarianism being a ideology is also a sort of culture and in practice as far as nation's are concerned, it not a very popular one. quite unrealistic actually..in a nationalist and proprietary environment it also breeds hypocrisy.

I can provide evidence of this, if you're so curious.I've done no such thing. Citation.

your original reply was your own interpretation that AdaJames meant to call me an idiot, but there is nothing in his/her post that supports it therefore I conclude you were doing so by proxy. If you claim your not calling me that then so be it.

You do not have the right to always be respected.

To be clear, I don't mean you specifically, I mean people in general.

There is a difference between being respected and being treated with respect. In society I do have the right to expect to be treated with respect or at least the respect that the law outlines is due..and that is always in flux because people speak out for or against new or existing behaviors. "Getting along" respectfully is part of the basis of civilization. The balance collapses very frequently, sometimes even beyond what the law givers can impose. As for whether one is really respectful in their heart, thats their call and doesn't much concern me or the law.

I'll even bite a hook for you. Some cultures do not deserve respect. Some cultures are inferior. Some cultures deserve ridicule for their treatment of others. Again, to make sure you understand exactly what I'm saying, notice I said 'cultures', and not 'peoples who are part of some cultures', there is an important distinction there.

I wouldn't use such absolute terms but I can agree with your thesis there. In this example your more equating the term "cultures" with "behaviors" which I find to be the most accurate perspective, but where you and I disagree is that people can become attached to cultures voluntarily or by way of societal compulsion. The government classifies me as Foreign therefore I will wind up associated with other foreigners whether i like it or not. There are other vectors of association with cultures heritage, geographic location,residency. Non of these are all that impossible to determine which is another margin of difference between you and I, you seem to believe it is impossible(impractical?) to define a culture or those that are associated with it. That is a fallacy, even if similar behaviors occur in other places and people around the globe.

Allow me to ask you a question. Are you a cultural relativist?

I debating whether I should look it up just to be able to answer the question but since I'd have to do that to say yes, Ill say no. not very big on classifying myself to anything, I'm frivolous. Culture creative.

Is it cultural appropriation when a white person wears Navaho garb and dances like a Native American? What if I told you that same persons, great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother, was a Navaho? How much Navaho blood does this person have to have before they can have the 'bigot', or 'racist' label removed from them?

I don't deal in simple answers. for me intent makes a difference and circumstances. Does this personal normally consider themselves "white?" and not Navaho? IS the person doing it because they are pretending to be Navaho? or because they need to perform the dance for their own reasons? MOst like if the person hasn't been invited into the circle by someone who is self identified as Navaho or identified by circumstances as Navaho then they are probably appropriating. Would it bother me that they are appropriating? Not unless I thought they were doing it out of mockingly or out of spite. There are those that would be offended just because the person who is not considered Navaho is doing the customs in order to celebrate the culture..or because they cannot be shown to have Navaho parentage..this I have coined "Cultural Stanchioning." Still others would only be offended if hes/she is doing it wrong.

If you aren't liking that, allow me to reiterate. Since you have no ability to ascertain what someones background/ethnicity/culture is by looking at them, you have no basis for asserting they are stealing from you.

getting caught up on semantics is the issue here, appropriation is not simple theft and there are other modes of it. The bottom line is they are bastardizing it in some way. Sometimes I think CA is appropriate to the circumstances sometimes its not. I tend to relate it more in terms of grafitti artists. In grafitti culture you don't bite another artists style, or cross their work. When you do it could even become cause for violence, everyone knows it because of the wider graf culture. People do it anyway sometimes purposefully out of disrespect, and people also die...and even though it's taboo, styles still develop where there is similarity. Partly because the human element is real. partly because there are alot of style biters and also style toys. People also learn form their elders how to do it so they wind up doing it essentially the same way but always maybe just a bit different theres alot of room for creativity even within the wider style. When I used to I never had much success even staying close to the main style so mine was totally different form probably anyones. I stopped though because I ultimately decided I didn't like being a party to "vandalism." Even though I still like seeing good or comedic hits. Actually CA can actually result in diminishing reputation too if someone bites hard enough they can mimmick your stuff and give you a bad name/defame(in an a literal/ informal sense of the word) you. So our convo comes full cirlce Al.
Does the reality that influence is inevitable somehow say that its not still biting or adopting another person or gang or group's style when its done purposefully? NO its still borrowing or just learning,or stealing,or mocking. As an artist learning from other artists expanding the work, thats human, but if you can't even give credit where its due or go against the originator's wishes, thats biting, then your dead wrong and someone could call you on it at any time. In the human realm so much of everything really boils down to intent. Maybe most people aren't psychic but you'd better believe they are quick to decide for themselves about other people's intent, they don't always hesitate to make sure either. Is that a reason to stick to "your own" all the time and not be human and experience different cultural habits and people? Nope. Someone already implied the line between crying CA and being racist or chauvinist or (Cultural Stanchion) is thin. Just because its not always appropriate to call someone out for CA doesn't mean it is NEVER appropriate. Many cultural habits do have traceable roots, and living persons who can be classified or associated. Whenever you think CA is all fun, just think of gangs. Modern day cults that definitely have people defending them to the death. You really don't want to be caught in the wrong place "appropriating" their hand signs etc. "Confusion" and misunderstandings result when different gangs start using the same habits but they're not working together. ijs saying the whole thing can get pretty sickening,sickening but real. Humans really need to escape the cult-ish mindsets at least enough to realize and teach the young.."your humanity IS first, but you can also define yourself, maybe go beyond it."

[Meikura001]

Just one question: Do you ever sleep?

[Alsatia01]

IF its not biological or genetic its a social construct and thus can be obviated by any given individual who objects to being part of the classification..but race cannot be defined by genetics/biology alone hence race is "just" a social construct. Albeit one that can arbitrarily attempt to use biology/genetics to help it along.

If it is just a social construct, there would be no genetics or geneology to ascertain traits and genes. Which is why i said it is not just a social construct, it consists of several different factors, with arguably the largest factor being a social influence.

People may have other non-race based similarities but they are not BECAUSE of their "race."

In some ways it could be.

Any race based similarities between two members of the same race are superficial or because they are part of a race based culture/community. Its the same with nationalism. You and I could be from the same nation, but how much is that really going to make us similar as individuals? We MIGHT have more in common with each other when compared to someone from another nation, maybe..but if the nation we are from isn't very nationalistic or socially homogenous/uniform Either of us might have more in common with that foreign person than with each other. If we were Chinese we might not even speak the same language.

Agreed.

its alot of guesswork and assumption made easier by the fact that there is a large enough group of them that has been isolated as a people from the general population. Also the people existed long before science came along.

Irrelevant. The earth still revolved around the sun before science too.

Its an example of the existing and fairly isolated group making it possible to use science to define them genetically and then apply that sequence comparatively to make a strong educated guess about who else that are not in the isolated environment may be related to that group..

Agreed.

but it doesn't really work the other way around you cant take a large widely distributed group and isolate their genes to identify an existing group. You have to start with an existing group and work from there to look for unique patterns from among the general population. It can't effectively be done the other way around. You can't start with the science and end up with an ethnic group.

Actually you can to some degree.

Your results would be all over the place or too narrow and end up being useless for population control/classification.

Why would you wish to do either of those things?

I'm not because its a straw man and a farce, perhaps others reading might be. Your essentially trying to tell me that there are no good examples of artifacts or cultural attributes that are unique enough to be considered for cultural appropriation and I know that is a farce,

How ironic that in the very next statement after you accused me of using a straw man, you use one.

You are stating aspects of a culture belong solely to that culture, I'm saying you have no basis to support that assertion.

The idea that nothing is sacred

Which I didn't say.

and inevitably leads to exploitation of the individual the society that recognizes intellectual property for individuals must also accept the concept of class or cultural properties including intellectual ones or it advances hypocrisy.

Example?

IF what your saying is true then noone would bother appropriating from other cultures they have no dealings with, unless they were not in a position to not be able to identify with a culture of their own,feel that the culture is already somehow a part of their own culture from whatever means(this I feel is the case in point here), or for any reason choose not to identify with any culture but have a utilitarian need to "appropriate" something.

It seems like you're saying, that it is acceptable for someone to appropriate something from another culture, as long as its similar enough to their own culture. And that the real problem occurs whenever people who have no similarities, appropriate something.

The problem, is that you have no ability to ascertain what someomes culture is, and therefore no basis to assert they shouldn't be able to use it.

Your essentially saying culture is nonexistant and/or is completely universal which is a fallacy.

Not remotely what I said. Cultures exist, and they are indeed 'unique' enough to be distinctive between other cultures.

What I'm saying is, you can't take a single instance of a culture, assert its authorship, and then complain when other people use it. You cannot definitively say that they are indeed the author, and you have no ability to ascertain the cultures of the people who are appropriating it.

Which is even weirder, because you seem to say before that if aspects of two different cultures are similar enough its alright to appropriate them. Wouldn't that leave one to believethat those two cultures are going to merge pretty close together? As in, they can't appropriate from each other anymore?

Your also saying that anyone can appropriate and identify with any culture as they see fit because its arbitrary or hard to characterize/define how an individual can be relevant to a cultural phenomenon.

In a way, yes.

There is a difference between being respected and being treated with respect.

Eh, sort of.

People who are not respected generally do not get treated with respect, and you do not treat people with respect whom you do not respect.

I see what you're saying, but you don't have a right to either of those, at least where I live. I'm talking about rights here, not what's socially acceptable for a modern, civilized nation.

In society I do have the right to expect to be treated with respect or at least the respect that the law outlines is due..

Not where I live.

I'm going off the assumption that you mean you socially have that right, not legally. In which case, you're still wrong; you don't have either.

"Getting along" respectfully is part of the basis of civilization.

In a 'free' country, so is not getting along.

you seem to believe it is impossible(impractical?) to define a culture or those that are associated with it.

Yes and no.

Cultures are influenced heavily by one another. So for example, if you take the Indian culture, it is heavily influenced by both European and Asian cultures. Are they unique enough to be descernible between other cultures? Yes. Are they so unique, that the aspects of that culture are not seen anywhere else, and therefore belong solely to them? Largely, no.

There is no accurate and effecient way to determine what someones culture is, or what culture influences them. If you ask someone, they will at best, be able to tell you a small portion of how one culture has influenced them. At worst, they will lie, be wrong, or be oblivious to the other cultures that have influenced their own culture.

I debating whether I should look it up just to be able to answer the question but since I'd have to do that to say yes, Ill say no. not very big on classifying myself to anything,

Cultural relativism essentially boils down to, "It's their culture, so they can do whatever they want if it's part of their culture."

It is generally a term that refers to parts of those cultures that we see as.... egregious. Largely akin to moral relativism.

Does this personal normally consider themselves "white?" and not Navaho? IS the person doing it because they are pretending to be Navaho? or because they need to perform the dance for their own reasons? MOst like if the person hasn't been invited into the circle by someone who is self identified as Navaho or identified by circumstances as Navaho then they are probably appropriating. There are those that would be offended just because the person who is not considered Navaho is doing the customs in order to celebrate the culture..or because they cannot be shown to have Navaho parentage..this I have coined "Cultural Stanchioning."

It seems like you are saying -

1) People who do not have Navaho parentage, cannot use the Navaho culture.
2) People who do not have Navaho culture, cannot use the Navaho culture.
3) People who have Navaho culture, but do not have the Navaho ancestry, cannot use the Navaho culture.
4) People who have Navaho parentage cannot use the Navaho culture, unless it has remained their own culture.

You'll have to tell me how accurate you believe those to be, but if you believe they are all true, then you have essentially killed every culture. Every culture who doesn't remain 'pure' will slowly die off and degrade to fewer and fewer members.

The bottom line is they are bastardizing it in some way.

Cultures bastardize themselves. That's how they evolve.

I tend to relate it more in terms of grafitti artists. In grafitti culture you don't bite another artists style, or cross their work. When you do it could even become cause for violence, everyone knows it because of the wider graf culture. People do it anyway sometimes purposefully out of disrespect, and people also die...and even though it's taboo, styles still develop where there is similarity. Partly because the human element is real. partly because there are alot of style biters and also style toys. People also learn form their elders how to do it so they wind up doing it essentially the same way but always maybe just a bit different theres alot of room for creativity even within the wider style. When I used to I never had much success even staying close to the main style so mine was totally different form probably anyones.

My point, is that the people in NYC who claim their styles are unique, there are artists in Los Angeles whom have the exact same styles. They have no basis for asserting the style is theirs alone.

Actually CA can actually result in diminishing reputation too if someone bites hard enough they can mimmick your stuff and give you a bad name/defame(in an a literal/ informal sense of the word) you.

I'm not sure if I have an opinion of that or not. Maybe I just don't care that much.

Does the reality that influence is inevitable somehow say that its not still biting or adopting another person or gang or group's style when its done purposefully? NO its still borrowing or just learning,or stealing,or mocking. As an artist learning from other artists expanding the work, thats human, but if you can't even give credit where its due or go against the originator's wishes, thats biting, then your dead wrong and someone could call you on it at any time.

Sometimes, not only is it not done purposefully, it's not even original. People develop things on their own, independently sometimes.

Maybe most people aren't psychic but you'd better believe they are quick to decide for themselves about other people's intent, they don't always hesitate to make sure either.

You don't actually believe some people are psychic do you?

Whenever you think CA is all fun, just think of gangs. Modern day cults that definitely have people defending them to the death. You really don't want to be caught in the wrong place "appropriating" their hand signs etc. "Confusion" and misunderstandings result when different gangs start using the same habits but they're not working together.

What a great way to teach people that you're on the right side of an issue. Don't 'appropriate' things, or will beat you up, or possibly kill you.

Humans really need to escape the cult-ish mindsets at least enough to realize and teach the young.."your humanity IS first, but you can also define yourself, maybe go beyond it."

You seem to be saying the contrary. Your race/culture is first, but I guess you're human.