Keeping Promises

One thing politicians rarely do is to keep campaign promises.

Everyone knows it.

But the thing is, those promises serve an important purpose, which is to make the voters in those areas feel emotionally like their candidate really cares about their issues, and allow them to vote from their emotions rather than their logic.

So, it's become tradition in every American election for the candidates to descend upon their voter base and promise the sun, moon, and stars - or even better, as witness recently, to promise to Make America Great Again, which appeals to emotion, offers nothing substantive at all, and is easy to argue later.

That is not to say that the candidates have any intent whatsoever of keeping those promises; again, it's become tradition for campaign promises to be ignored after the election, to the point that it's become a cliche; "as solid as a campaign promise" being a good description of, say, quicksand.

So, I have to call out victories in that regard where I can. Hold onto that thought; the road to get there is going to be twisty.

California is currently in the throes of a number of various crises.

Homelessness has become a plague - indeed, it's such a massive problem that the CDC is worried that a literal plague might result.

Los Angeles has an immense trash disposal problem. In fact, California as a whole has a huge trash problem thanks to China changing the rules for recycling, which has resulted in huge amounts of formerly recyclable garbage being stranded in increasing strained facilities statewide.

Rats, and rat fleas, are becoming an issue.

The California pension system is collapsing.

The California budget is unsustainable.

The California deficit is almost half a trillion dollars.

So, California is a huge base of support for Democratic presidential hopefuls. Those electoral votes are required for any Democrat to win the Oval Office; without California, Democrats will simply outright lose every election.

Which means it is - or should be - obvious that Democrat presidential candidates should be devoting a huge proportion of their time to California, and ignoring states that they won't win in a hundred years.

It came as a bit of a shock, then, to the Democrat voters in California that the entire field of candidates for the 2020 election have been effectively totally silent on California's issues.

California voters are pissed off, and so are their newspapers.

They're important, dammit! Why aren't their candidates paying attention to them?!

The answer is a little involved, and I don't want to get ahead of myself, so let's take a detour into California history for a sec.

See, with only a couple of exceptions, the California governor has been a Democrat since 1978.

The California legislature has been majority Democrat since 1959 except for 4 years.

California has been almost exclusively under Democrat control for decades. This is why it's seen as such a bastion of electoral votes for the presidential election; California has voted for the Democrat candidate in every election since 1988. 

This, in fact, for a substantial part of the last several decades has been a trifecta control, in which one political party controls the state house and senate and the governorship at the same time; allowing that party to pass its chosen bills and legislation effectively without interference or meaningful opposition by the other party.

All to the good, you may be thinking; all the more reason for Democrats to be loyal to their constituents.

Wellllllllll, about that...

See, the policies and legislation that have brought California to its current state have, almost without exception, been Democratic policies.

You can't argue that; the Republicans haven't had a sufficient majority to pass legislation without the Democrats signing off on it since the 1950s.

So the problems California is facing aren't a product of a vast right-wing conspiracy, and that's a huge problem for the presidential candidates.

Those problems are a kiss of death for them, and they know it.

See, this is where I have to give credit where credit is due. The Democrats in California kept their promises, and that's why they're being ignored.

They kept their promises, and put in place the exact programs and ideas they promised to, and the results stand before us: their ideas don't work.

They result in homelessness.

Disease.

Vermin.

Trash.

Appalling debt.

Poverty.

Economic ruin.

In fact, the only reason the poverty numbers in California look as good as they do is that California has been steadily losing poor people, and gaining rich people, for years. Often by farming their poor out to Texas. This does make the poverty numbers - and the numbers on education - look better, but it doesn't do anything to address the problems, for example the fact that even wealthier people are now starting to feel the bite of California's outlandish housing costs.

California is in a massive crisis.

And the Democrats running for president can't touch it with a ten-foot pole.

Because they don't have any solutions for those problems.

Their campaigns - all of them - are predicated on exporting those same policies and ideas to the rest of the country.

As long as they can pretend those problems don't exist, they don't have to open themselves to a question they can't answer, which is "if it didn't work in California, why would it work for the whole country?"

And they know perfectly well that Californians will, again, wind themselves up in another election cycle, charge off to the ballot boxes, and vote for whichever Democrat ultimately gets the party nomination, regardless of whether that person has even touched base with them or not; regardless of whether that person has ever tried to help, or not; because anything is better than electing a Republican.

So, they don't care; they don't, because there's no compelling reason they should, and their political survival depends on them pretending California doesn't exist until Election Day.

If you're bankrupt, what you need more than anything else is a higher credit limit.

Maybe this is just me, but I'd be looking at California as a test case for anything the Democrat presidential candidates say on the campaign trail, because...

...This is what happens when they keep their promises.

Are those the promises you want kept?

Well, If You Don't Know...

So, for this post the usual warnings about the offensive nature of everything I write apply, but double or so.

And an additional disclaimer applies because I'm going to say some things that are going to offend a very broad selection of members of the audience.

So... Cope. This is a No Snowflake zone.






Now that we've gotten that out of the way...

So, I was inspired by multiple discussions I've had - and some I've seen but not participated in - surrounding culture issues.

In the last few years, a term has come into vogue that I absolutely hate, which is "cultural appropriation."

Now, if you look it up, there's a whole lot of verbiage surrounding what it actually means; there's a reason for this.

It's a smokescreen.

Back up a bit.

See, every culture borrows good ideas from its cultural neighbors. This is one of the main ways cultures grow and improve over time; the more insular a culture is, the more it stagnates, and ultimately while a small group of people might still adhere to it, that culture gets left behind. (Examples abound, and I'm not going to call any of them out because then I'd have to list all of them.)

So, it originally started as a way to distinguish respectful borrowing, and appreciation, of another culture, from disrespectful douchebaggery.

Visiting Japan, for example, and coming back with a new tea set and a bunch of how-tos on tea ceremonies, versus showing up to the costume party in blackface or being Rachel Dolezal.

You may not ever develop the skill and knowledge to truly perform a tea ceremony the "right" way, but you're showing appreciation by studying the process and trying to understand its meaning and why it's done a certain way. That's fine.

The thing is, as the term gained traction, it stopped being a distinguishing term, and started being a segregating one.

Suddenly, both the examples I described above became "appropriation," and began to be treated with the same contempt.

They're not the same.

They're not even close.

But they served an important purpose; they transformed the term itself. It originated as a means of distinguishing respectful cultural contact from disrespectful cultural contact; but now, it's been transformed into its own form of hidden bigotry.

See, a vibrant, living culture is strong. It can take disrespect; it can take mockery. And while those things are offensive, they don't threaten the existence of the culture itself.

But the cult of segregation doesn't think that way.

In the cult of segregation, the term itself applies to any use of a cultural element by the dominant culture.

And in every case, this translates to, "it's wrong when white people do it."

Well, that's douchey, but *shrug* resident in my palace of privilege, I don't actually care if you call me names, because I'm not personally so weak that your lack of approval threatens me.

But here's the thing - the anti-appropriators have a bit more on their plate than that. They vehemently oppose any cultural transfers by white people, because those transfers pose a threat to the integrity of the other cultures themselves.

So, what the term has transformed into, instead of being a tool for rational people to distinguish between respect and disrespect, is a blanket statement that other cultures are so weak, so fragile, by comparison to "white" culture - with fingerquotes because white people aren't exactly a monolithic culture block - that any use of cultural elements from those cultures by white people poses an existential threat to those cultures.

China, in other words, must be protected from white people, because Chinese culture might suffer irreversible damage if a white girl wears a Chinese qipao for a prom dress.

The inherent racism of that idea - the utterly incredible disregard for the value of those other cultures - should shock and offend you.

You ought to be offended by that idea.

Because what the cultural segregators are really saying is that it should be obvious that "white culture" is better than those other cultures - so much so that they need to be preserved, like zoo animals, because otherwise they will go extinct, like those zoo animals' wild equivalents.

I reject that idea in its totality.

Now, this doesn't - yet - relate much to the title, but I promise I'll get there.

Multiculturalism and appropriation cannot coexist, guys. You don't get both. You can't require appreciation for other cultures, and openness to their lessons and wisdom, and simultaneously declaim that any use of the lessons learned from those cultures is dangerous and disrespectful.

So, if an African designer and a Japanese designer get together and make a kimono line with African cultural flourishes, it's not appropriation; neither of them is a member of the "dominant" culture, so it literally can't be.

A white toddler wanting to wear a Moana costume, however, is an existential threat to the culture of Pacific Islanders.

Read that again, let it sink in. These are the literal responses from the Snowflake Brigade to these two events.

And they are leading up to the title, I promise.

See, the difference - the mission critical, worldshaking distinction between those two things, is ignorance.

The African designer was knowledgeable about Japanese culture and expressing appreciation.

The toddler was a toddler, didn't know the cultural meanings, and just said "that's awesome and I want that."

Let that soak in, too.

The Snowflake Brigade was angry at a literal child for this because the child didn't know enough about Pacific Island culture for it to be "legitimate."

First, if that's your standard for legitimacy, then no culture transfers should take place ever. Ever.

Anyone not Scottish, knock off with wearing kilts. You're not entitled to tartan.

Now, that's never been an issue; Scots don't chase people down in howling mobs, screaming about appropriation, because their culture isn't threatened by imitation.

Nor is yours, or anyone else's.

But this whole thing begs a question, which is, if you can't be exposed to other cultures because any use of any element of those cultures is "appropriation," how can you become educated enough about those cultures to be respectful in the first place?

Well, you can't.

Because that's the whole agenda of "appropriation" in the first place - isolation.

And here we come on the title.

Whose job is it to educate people about your culture?

See, if you're going to be offended at ignorance of your culture, then it is up to you to cure it. You don't get both; you don't get to say "you can't use my culture in any way because you're too ignorant about it" and when they say "well teach me about it" respond with "It's not my job to teach you," because you literally are your culture's ambassador.

You can be offended at ignorance; that's perfectly fine. I would be, too.

You can also choose to refuse the obligation to educate. You're super right; it's not your job to train a bunch of people in the ways of your people.

But you have to choose between them.

Otherwise, it's like if a Japanese girl married a man from Mexico, and at every meal his mom came over and griped about not having tamales, but then refused to teach the girl how to make tamales.

So, while thinking about that, I was trying to catch a thread; I remembered vaguely a conversation on that exact topic - the obligation, or lack thereof, of people in a marginalized group to educate others about their struggle.

Where have I heard that before?

Most recently, I read a lengthy, and not particularly well thought out screed from a transgendered person claiming that people needed to know, off the top of their head, the correct pronoun for them, avoid assuming gender, know that they're on a journey, and if they don't know any of those things because their contact with transgendered people has been very limited by virtue of the fact that transgendered people are a tiny, tiny minority of the population, then...

"Well, if you don't know, it's not my job to tell you."

Huh. (Note: link doesn't go to that post on Facebook because I couldn't find it again. Goes to a different example of the same thing - this time claiming that asking for education *is* oppression. Well played.)

So, you're the person who is on the spot, you're the person with the best chance to permanently cure some of that ignorance and marginalization, to remove some minor aspect of that discrimination for good, to create another ally, to advance your culture - and it is one - and your response is to shrug, because you have no obligation to teach people, and say "well if you don't know..."

Right.

So, here's the thing.

The concept of cultural appropriation is poisonous. It is simultaneously bigoted, condescending to the cultures it claims to represent, and really dangerous in terms of creating cultural isolation; terrible thinking.

And the cure for it is education.

You're not obligated to teach people.

But you're an asshole if you don't.

Not to the folks being ignorant; they're already ignorant of your struggle, and don't know they should care.

You're being an asshole to every member of your group that interacts with those people later on and experiences disrespect that you could have cured and didn't.

"Well, if you don't know..." is toxic.

Don't say it.

Don't use it.

If you're not willing to educate, keep your offense to yourself. The legitimacy of your platform to complain about any issue depends on the solutions to the problem.

Perfectly legitimate if you try to educate someone and they refuse to hear you; they're an asshole. It's a species all its own. You're 100% right to treat them, and their behavior, with disdain.

Not so much if you're yelling at someone for being wrong, and they ask you how to do it right and you refuse to tell them.

Not so much, again, if you think the solution to ignorance is to ban toddlers from buying Moana costumes.

If that's your thought process, you're the asshole.