How might folklore help those in immigrant and ethnic groups create positive senses of self-identity and community? How might those in marginalized positions use folklore to contest mainstream prejudice?
How might folklore help those in immigrant and ethnic groups create positive senses of self-identity and community? How might those in marginalized positions use folklore to contest mainstream prejudice?
7
comments
Your connotation is of deep contempt. I don’t think you’ll find a satisfactory answer by looking at it as uneducated minorities making up fake stories and beliefs to get them through white man’s scientific dominion of reality. It’s not the question, but your whole paradigm that’s loaded. You’re giving the majority the benefit of the default.
How about reversing it? Assume that minorities just believe what’s true and works and it’s the white man’s folklore that’s holding them down and screwing their self-image. Afrocentric history is intentionally biased as heavily as Eurocentric history because drastic measures must be taken to unseat “default” beliefs and expose them as biased.
interesting that you would think of it that way
some questions on your comment:
1) “of deep comtempt” are you referring to my own feelings/perceptions on the subject, society’s, or your own?
2) isn’t the majority a default as far as being what makes marginalized/minority/immigrant/ethnic groups distinctive or different at all? is that not the logic behind affirmative action (or even national endowment of arts funds)– to offset the benefits of what is considered the majority or default culture?
3) do you mean to define folklore as fake stories and beliefs held by uneducated minorities? My use of the term folklore was meant to closely relate to the dictionary definition: “the traditional beliefs, customs, and stories of a community, passed through the generations by word of mouth, or a body of popular myth and beliefs relating to a particular place, activity, or group of people.” It could be for good or evil because it is a cultural tool, much like rhetoric or art.
I personally believe that “whiteman” and “blackman” both use folklore in their egocentric views of each other if we are talking about the age-old American cultural conflict of black power vs. white domination (Europeans could be thrown in here, too). I don’t think either extremist view will work, though, especially not to justify or unseat bias; it is inevitably unsustainable. As the cliche goes 2 wrongs do not make right, it only intensifies a problem by diverting instead of solving it. Truly it does not help out either “side” because it creates the same problem of division, only flipped. My view of folklore is that it is a self-affirming, community empowering activity that sustains culture and shows how alike humans are in our abstract tools to understand the world, find group identity, and cope with environments creatively. The difference in humans is not the physical or cultural state one is born into. It is in the different ways we go about the problems all living creatures face: how to survive and makes sense of chaos. EVERYone uses folklore to their own ends.
Within the question, the implication is for mainstream prejudice to be seen as another form of folklore, similar to marginalized people, that is how they could use it to offset the “mainstream” belief–recognizing the similarity and questioning why this view is indeed mainstream? If it is a culturally created belief or form of folklore what makes this one “better” than another? In essence recognizing human belief systems as coming from similar sources of human needs levels the playing field, so to speak. Prejudice will still be there, its power will be diverted, though. Belief is powerful, recognizing where it comes from is a way to understand power and so hopefully to utilize it with rhetoric. That is what black civil rights leaders have done. A prime example (hopefully it will never be a cliche) is Martin Luther King. He used the essential Christian beliefs of the culture he was indoctrinated into (with his own distinctive culturally influenced voice) to bring conscience to the mainstream public. He did not accomplish that by prounoucing the superiority African Americans. His message was that we are humans, of the same blood, we should not let our cultural tools be used against any member of us … call me an idealist but that is what i believe
interesting that you would think of it that way
some questions on your comment:
1) “of deep comtempt” are you referring to my own feelings/perceptions on the subject, society’s, or your own?
2) isn’t the majority a default as far as being what makes marginalized/minority/immigrant/ethnic groups distinctive or different at all? is that not the logic behind affirmative action (or even national endowment of arts funds)– to offset the benefits of what is considered the majority or default culture?
3) do you mean to define folklore as fake stories and beliefs held by uneducated minorities? My use of the term folklore was meant to closely relate to the dictionary definition: “the traditional beliefs, customs, and stories of a community, passed through the generations by word of mouth, or a body of popular myth and beliefs relating to a particular place, activity, or group of people.” It could be for good or evil because it is a cultural tool, much like rhetoric or art.
I personally believe that “whiteman” and “blackman” both use folklore in their egocentric views of each other if we are talking about the age-old American cultural conflict of black power vs. white domination (Europeans could be thrown in here, too). I don’t think either extremist view will work, though, especially not to justify or unseat bias; it is inevitably unsustainable. As the cliche goes 2 wrongs do not make right, it only intensifies a problem by diverting instead of solving it. Truly it does not help out either “side” because it creates the same problem of division, only flipped. My view of folklore is that it is a self-affirming, community empowering activity that sustains culture and shows how alike humans are in our abstract tools to understand the world, find group identity, and cope with environments creatively. The difference in humans is not the physical or cultural state one is born into. It is in the different ways we go about the problems all living creatures face: how to survive and makes sense of chaos. EVERYone uses folklore to their own ends.
Within the question, the implication is for mainstream prejudice to be seen as another form of folklore, similar to marginalized people, that is how they could use it to offset the “mainstream” belief–recognizing the similarity and questioning why this view is indeed mainstream? If it is a culturally created belief or form of folklore what makes this one “better” than another? In essence recognizing human belief systems as coming from similar sources of human needs levels the playing field, so to speak. Prejudice will still be there, its power will be diverted, though. Belief is powerful, recognizing where it comes from is a way to understand power and so hopefully to utilize it with rhetoric. That is what black civil rights leaders have done. A prime example (hopefully it will never be a cliche) is Martin Luther King. He used the essential Christian beliefs of the culture he was indoctrinated into (with his own distinctive culturally influenced voice) to bring conscience to the mainstream public. He did not accomplish that by prounoucing the superiority African Americans. His message was that we are humans, of the same blood, we should not let our cultural tools be used against any member of us … call me an idealist but that is what i believe
interesting that you would think of it that way
some questions on your comment:
1) “of deep comtempt” are you referring to my own feelings/perceptions on the subject, society’s, or your own?
2) isn’t the majority a default as far as being what makes marginalized/minority/immigrant/ethnic groups distinctive or different at all? is that not the logic behind affirmative action (or even national endowment of arts funds)– to offset the benefits of what is considered the majority or default culture?
3) do you mean to define folklore as fake stories and beliefs held by uneducated minorities? My use of the term folklore was meant to closely relate to the dictionary definition: “the traditional beliefs, customs, and stories of a community, passed through the generations by word of mouth, or a body of popular myth and beliefs relating to a particular place, activity, or group of people.” It could be for good or evil because it is a cultural tool, much like rhetoric or art.
I personally believe that “whiteman” and “blackman” both use folklore in their egocentric views of each other if we are talking about the age-old American cultural conflict of black power vs. white domination (Europeans could be thrown in here, too). I don’t think either extremist view will work, though, especially not to justify or unseat bias; it is inevitably unsustainable. As the cliche goes 2 wrongs do not make right, it only intensifies a problem by diverting instead of solving it. Truly it does not help out either “side” because it creates the same problem of division, only flipped. My view of folklore is that it is a self-affirming, community empowering activity that sustains culture and shows how alike humans are in our abstract tools to understand the world, find group identity, and cope with environments creatively. The difference in humans is not the physical or cultural state one is born into. It is in the different ways we go about the problems all living creatures face: how to survive and makes sense of chaos. EVERYone uses folklore to their own ends.
Within the question, the implication is for mainstream prejudice to be seen as another form of folklore, similar to marginalized people, that is how they could use it to offset the “mainstream” belief–recognizing the similarity and questioning why this view is indeed mainstream? If it is a culturally created belief or form of folklore what makes this one “better” than another? In essence recognizing human belief systems as coming from similar sources of human needs levels the playing field, so to speak. Prejudice will still be there, its power will be diverted, though. Belief is powerful, recognizing where it comes from is a way to understand power and so hopefully to utilize it with rhetoric. That is what black civil rights leaders have done. A prime example (hopefully it will never be a cliche) is Martin Luther King. He used the essential Christian beliefs of the culture he was indoctrinated into (with his own distinctive culturally influenced voice) to bring conscience to the mainstream public. He did not accomplish that by prounoucing the superiority African Americans. His message was that we are humans, of the same blood, we should not let our cultural tools be used against any member of us … call me an idealist but that is what i believe
interesting that you would think of it that way
some questions on your comment:
1) “of deep comtempt” are you referring to my own feelings/perceptions on the subject, society’s, or your own?
2) isn’t the majority a default as far as being what makes marginalized/minority/immigrant/ethnic groups distinctive or different at all? is that not the logic behind affirmative action (or even national endowment of arts funds)– to offset the benefits of what is considered the majority or default culture?
3) do you mean to define folklore as fake stories and beliefs held by uneducated minorities? My use of the term folklore was meant to closely relate to the dictionary definition: “the traditional beliefs, customs, and stories of a community, passed through the generations by word of mouth, or a body of popular myth and beliefs relating to a particular place, activity, or group of people.” It could be for good or evil because it is a cultural tool, much like rhetoric or art.
I personally believe that “whiteman” and “blackman” both use folklore in their egocentric views of each other if we are talking about the age-old American cultural conflict of black power vs. white domination (Europeans could be thrown in here, too). I don’t think either extremist view will work, though, especially not to justify or unseat bias; it is inevitably unsustainable. As the cliche goes 2 wrongs do not make right, it only intensifies a problem by diverting instead of solving it. Truly it does not help out either “side” because it creates the same problem of division, only flipped. My view of folklore is that it is a self-affirming, community empowering activity that sustains culture and shows how alike humans are in our abstract tools to understand the world, find group identity, and cope with environments creatively. The difference in humans is not the physical or cultural state one is born into. It is in the different ways we go about the problems all living creatures face: how to survive and makes sense of chaos. EVERYone uses folklore to their own ends.
Within the question, the implication is for mainstream prejudice to be seen as another form of folklore, similar to marginalized people, that is how they could use it to offset the “mainstream” belief–recognizing the similarity and questioning why this view is indeed mainstream? If it is a culturally created belief or form of folklore what makes this one “better” than another? In essence recognizing human belief systems as coming from similar sources of human needs levels the playing field, so to speak. Prejudice will still be there, its power will be diverted, though. Belief is powerful, recognizing where it comes from is a way to understand power and so hopefully to utilize it with rhetoric. That is what black civil rights leaders have done. A prime example (hopefully it will never be a cliche) is Martin Luther King. He used the essential Christian beliefs of the culture he was indoctrinated into (with his own distinctive culturally influenced voice) to bring conscience to the mainstream public. He did not accomplish that by prounoucing the superiority African Americans. His message was that we are humans, of the same blood, we should not let our cultural tools be used against any member of us … call me an idealist but that is what i believe
Your connotation is of deep contempt. I don’t think you’ll find a satisfactory answer by looking at it as uneducated minorities making up fake stories and beliefs to get them through white man’s scientific dominion of reality. It’s not the question, but your whole paradigm that’s loaded. You’re giving the majority the benefit of the default.
How about reversing it? Assume that minorities just believe what’s true and works and it’s the white man’s folklore that’s holding them down and screwing their self-image. Afrocentric history is intentionally biased as heavily as Eurocentric history because drastic measures must be taken to unseat “default” beliefs and expose them as biased.
Your connotation is of deep contempt. I don’t think you’ll find a satisfactory answer by looking at it as uneducated minorities making up fake stories and beliefs to get them through white man’s scientific dominion of reality. It’s not the question, but your whole paradigm that’s loaded. You’re giving the majority the benefit of the default.
How about reversing it? Assume that minorities just believe what’s true and works and it’s the white man’s folklore that’s holding them down and screwing their self-image. Afrocentric history is intentionally biased as heavily as Eurocentric history because drastic measures must be taken to unseat “default” beliefs and expose them as biased.