Just Another Stupid Example of Cultural Appropriation

It is almost hard to believe that this kind of thing is happening in America. Not just happening, but defining who we are.

First let me say I don’t give a hoot about the Grammy’s, famous people, pop culture, autographs, of famous people or people who have won Grammy’s, etc. I don’t give even a fraction of a hoot. Don’t get me wrong: I have a warehouse full of high-quality hoots to give, but not to the things previous listed. HOWEVER, this stuff is too ludicrous not to mention.

J. Lo’s Motown Mess

Apparently, at last nights Grammy’s, Jennifer Lopez performed a medley of Motown hits. It’s Motown’s 60th anniversary, so Lopez and the Grammy’s pay tribute. Well, that got Twitter ablaze with criticism for J. Lo.

Now the writer of the InStyle.com piece summed it up this way,


The medley, which saw J. Lo shimmying and quick-changing to classics like “Dancing in the Street,” “Please Mr. Postman,” “Do You Love Me,” and “The Best Things in Life Are Free,” received criticism on Twitter on a very simple basis: she’s not a Motown singer.

That is simply not true. The reason for the criticism? J. Lo is not black.

You can find more Tweets like these here.

What is my point, you ask?

My point is to draw attention to the sheer idiocy of cultural appropriation. Think about what is being said here. Because J. Lo is not black, she shouldn’t perform songs made famous by black artists. Did anyone stop to think that the highest form of praise is imitation? In this case, J. Lo (certainly a star) pays tribute to Motown and its artists. What do people think “paying tribute means”? You don’t pay tribute to yourself, others who have appreciated you pay tribute to you for what you have done.

  • Do we really want only black artists to sing songs made famous by other black artists?
  • Do we really want to monitor whether young ladies are wearing Japanese kimonos to prom?
  • Is it ok if I cook Mexican if I am not Mexican?
  • Do we really want to segregate everything like that?

I’m telling you, future generations are going to examine Americans during this era and they are going to write volumes about how stupid we are!

The Diversity Lottery

In the wake of the latest NYC terror attack we all learned about something we didnt know existed called the diversity lottery. Leaving off the general rule that the odds are always against most who actually play lotteries, it raises other questions about fundamental differences of opinion concerning the role of diversity in the greatness of America.

My thoughts here are simple: It seems to me that the America I️ was taught about as a child was an America that welcomed to its shores the “tired…poor…huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” (Emma Lazarus, New Colossus), but that those who took us up American Racial Policyon that offer came because they wanted to blend into the American family. Consequently, the uniqueness of their own heritage flavored America, yes. But they wanted to be Americans.

Somehow, those who have been shaping our immigration policies pre-Trump have assumed that we could manually create a diverse society and that the process needed our help—that somehow all we needed was the presence of people of different color and culture for America to be great. So, you get the diversity lottery. (Nowadays, it seems that the left requires that a certain percentage of immigrants be illegal or legal but want to kill us.)

From another angle, we see a strange thing happening in America—not new but newly aggravated. On one hand, we go to war over racism. We are willing to shed blood, either proverbially or for reallys, at even the perception of racism. But on the other hand, we are going to never-before-seen lengths to make sure that

  • We identify ourselves in racial terms.
  • We make sure that no one appropriates our cultural images and identities.
  • We are at pains to be sure that every skin pigmentation is noted and protected.

So, ironically, we find ourselves saying “Treat me the same as you do everyone else while making sure you take note of every real or perceived difference.”

Another interesting phenomenon is happening somewhere, and that is that average white people are morphing into white supremicists. Of course, there have always been those groups, but now people are writing articles explaining how their kids should not be friends with white people. I thought generalizing people based on their skin color was racism.

I suppose my question is How can we ever get past racism when all we ever do is draw attention to race? I don’t see how we can ever arrive at Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of unity when we are constantly asserting our diversity.

Vanessa Hudgens Accused of Cultural Appropriation After Sharing Dreamcatcher Pic

I’m sorry, but the fact that Cultural Appropriation is a thing is another of the strange and ludicrous things happening in our culture today! It’s right up there with transgender bathrooms, same-sex marriage, and small land animals evolving into whales!

How many of the people who complain about this terrible offense are wearing crosses as earrings or necklaces, or have one tatooed on their body? How many of them wear clothing (a sports jersey, etc.) not because they are fans but because they like the look? Should I feel bad for wearing a Penn State Nittany Lions cap because I like the way it fits?

The bigger issue here, of course, is how fragile the people of Western Culture have become. We are so easily offended!

Source: Vanessa Hudgens Accused of Cultural Appropriation After Sharing Dreamcatcher Pic

Paths to an Acceptance of “Gay” Christianity

Here are some of the most prominent ways people find to support “Gay” Christianity with the Bible.

1) Re-translate the text.

See the following website for a treatment of the word physikos in Romans 1 where the writer claims that Paul is actually talking about people operating opposite to the way they were born. Thus, persons not born gay but engaging in homosexual activity are violating God’s law, suggesting to the writer that a gay person in relationship with another gay person is what God intends. All of this because the author claims that the word lying beneath “nature” or “natural” has been mis-translated.

http://www.thegodarticle.com/7/post/2011/10/clobbering-biblical-gay-bashing.html

http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/03/02/clobber-texts-a-new-reading-of-leviticus/

[The above links are now dead or have been reworked. Nevertheless, the website https://queerchurch.wordpress.com/ is still there.]

2) Re-interpret the text.

See James V. Brownson’s book, Bible, Gender, Sexuality, where the author reinterprets the texts by recovering the underlying “moral logic” of the text.

 

3) Apply the text differently in light of modern culture, particularly the view that “loving, monogamous, same-sex” relationship were not in view.

 

https://www.gaychristian.net/justins_view.php

http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/leviticus.html

http://www.matthewvines.com/transcript/

 

4) Agree with the text but dismiss it for the sake of modern sensibilities.

The Phyllis Tickle interview with Andrew Marin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOQQPC_SsEs&list=FLcqHu8ilKp75pBGfY-UxaAQ&index=11

“the Church itself is gonna have to come to grips with the fact that we have changed over the years, we have evolved, the law. We now admit divorce. Our Lord does not speak much about sexuality, but He’s very clear about divorce. It’s the only thing He’s really clear about. [As concerns sexuality?] And we have managed because out of compassion, and I certainly am for that change, out of compassion and out of common sense and out of a recognition that our times and ways of being are different from those. We have managed to get around the divorce issue and now even ordain divorced clergy, and that kind of thing. The same thing is going to happen with the gay issue. It’s in process.”

 

5) Marginalize the text as non-essential

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidhenson/2014/03/i-dont-blame-world-vision-i-blame-homophobia-and-hate/

“Evangelicals have a hate problem when it comes to homosexuality. Period. I know that’s extreme language. But it’s true. We can disagree over an issue and still find common ground in aiding the very poor and disenfranchised. We can work side-by-side in the work of Christ and not agree on every single marginal issue. And homosexuality, as it relates to the Bible’s message and meaning, is marginal. There are 31,000 verses. Only around 8 or 9 can really be said to have anything to do with homosexuality. (None are actually about homosexuality — monogamous, committed relations — as we understand it.) That’s around 0.026% of Scripture. And yet that fraction of Scripture has become central to the public identity of evangelicalism. They have placed homophobia at the center of the Gospel”.

 

6) Lessen the importance of the texts by emphasizing love, poverty, acceptance.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidhenson/2014/03/i-dont-blame-world-vision-i-blame-homophobia-and-hate/

“The way evangelicals treat LGBTQ+ people is wrong. It is extreme. It is sinful. It is hateful. And it is absolutely terrifying. In the past 24 hours, we just witnessed the extent evangelicals will go to keep LGBTQ+ people marginalized, to keep an organization from the simple thing of recognizing their already legal marriages. They will starve children. They will deprive impoverished communities of aid and help. So, no, I don’t blame World Vision. Its leaders did exactly what everyone urged them to do — both on the left and the right.They thought of how it would affect the children. Rather, I blame the far-right evangelicals who held World Vision hostage to their homophobic agenda. These evangelicals held a gun to the head of World Vision. They forced an organization to choose between aiding hungry children and offering a small step towards equality for gay and lesbian people who work for them. And no matter what World Vision chose, these evangelicals were always going to pull the trigger on one of the hostages.”

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davidhenson/2014/03/i-dont-blame-world-vision-i-blame-homophobia-and-hate/#ixzz3Iab25EDQ

 

7) Re-direct attention from the texts by focusing on what Jesus did not say.

“Hello, Scott.

I follow your distinction between pre-marital sex and adultery: in adultery, the partners are betraying their spouses and children. But- when two women love each other, there are no victims like that. I would say that therefore, because there are no victims, the sin is less- or nonexistent. I am delighted that my church lobbied the UK government to allow church weddings for gay people, and the Government will allow that for any denomination which opts in. Many churches will.

Jesus said that if a man look at a woman with lust in his heart, he had already committed adultery. He did not say the same if a man look at a man.” https://ccithink.com/2013/03/31/why-the-focus-on-homosexuality-abortion-evolution-arent-all-sins-the-same-in-gods-eyes-part-1/

 

8) Placate the text by compartmentalizing between principle and practice.

See the video featuring Justin Lee, president and founder of the Gay Christian Network

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/gays-and-christianity/3299076052001

[This link was dead a few weeks ago. The same sentiments are easy to validated through his writings.]

 

9) Maintaining a neutral position

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/formerlyfundie/death-of-evangelicalism/

Benjamin Corey wrote:

“We always knew that the sides against same sex marriage and the sides for same sex marriage would never see eye-to-eye (fine, there’s room for both of us), but what we saw yesterday went one step further: it was declared that Evangelicals are not allowed to take a neutral position on the issue. That’s the keyNo more neutrality allowed. It was declared that hiring a married homosexual shall now be considered as equally egregious to officiating the wedding yourself.”

 

 

The Scripture Bypass Defense

Many today are looking for ways to discount the Bible and all it has to say about how we should live. I have noticed a particular, observable progression in “reasoning” that reveals where many land when it comes to the Bible. I call it the Scripture Bypass Defense. Here it is:

  • Scripture does not say what we think it says.
  • Scripture says what we think it says but does not mean what we think it means.
  • Scripture says what we think it says, and it means what we think it means, it just does not apply to our modern situation.
  • Scripture says what we think it says, and it means what we think it means, and it applies to our modern situation, but it is just too difficult to obey so the Holy Spirit lets us out of it.