
Of kimono and cultural appropriation - nkurz
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/08/04/commentary/japan-commentary/kimono-cultural-appropriation
======
cthalupa
The fact that there are a not-insignificant number of Americans who feel like
any sort of cultural exchange is an appropriation that promotes division
bewilders me. The idea that this cross pollination of culture, art, fashion,
etc. somehow drives these cultures apart rather than bringing them together
doesn't seem to be any sort of logical sense.

Honestly, in this sort of situation, it seems racist on the part of the people
protesting. Outside of the outright division it promotes, it assumes a
patriarchal arrogance, that they (Middle class Americans in America) know
better than the Japanese in Japan. Are the Japanese so dumb as to be "duped"
by these museums? Is the rich history of the kimono actually so weak that it
will be destroyed by non-Japanese wearing them?

Of course, they, as Americans, understand the dangers of American culture and
the effects it has on the world, so they must protect other countries that
don't understand American culture and the danger it poses! They'll look out
for you, <Insert Other Country X That They Are Not From>, so don't you worry
your pretty little head about this. They know best.

What a bizarre and hypocritical stance to take.

~~~
wobbleblob
One of the perks of living in a diverse capital is that you can pick and
choose the various foreign influences that you like (try Turkish or Indonesian
cuisine!), while ignoring the ones you don't care for (I'm not going to fast
for a month each year, forget it)

The thing is, you can't tell other people they should or shouldn't be offended
by something just because you are or aren't. It just doesn't work that way. If
someone's feelings are hurt, their feelings are hurt, even if they shouldn't
be. If someone feels offended by a westerner wearing a kimono, you are going
to have to deal with that fact. You might conclude that you don't care about
offending them, but telling them they shouldn't be offended will only make it
worse.

~~~
cthalupa
If it was simply a matter of their feelings being hurt, it would be one thing
- but they are actively telling people what they can and cannot do.

In this case it was even more absurd, because the people who created the
kimono, the Japanese, were fine with it. Even the ultra nationalistic Japanese
that dislike foreigners thought the protesting against this was absurd.

Why should any of the people in America be in a position where they can tell
westerners they're not allowed to wear a kimono, when the people who invented
it, whom actually live in Japanese culture every day of their life, do not
feel that any harm is done to Japanese culture by westerners wearing the
kimono? It's an extremely arrogant stance to take.

I of course cannot tell people what they can and can't be offended by. But you
cannot create concessions for every single person who gets offended by every
single thing. My rights are not restricted just because it might offend you

------
ericdykstra
I think the last line is the key quote of the article:

 _Kaori Nakano, a professor of fashion history at Meiji University put it to
me this way: “Cultural appropriation is the beginning of new creativity. Even
if it includes some misunderstanding, it creates something new.” It may be the
key to the future of kimono fashion._

"Cultural Appropriation" seems to be oft-used in a negative term, but it's
just the spread of cultural ideas, traditions, fashions, etc. We're all just
individual humans, we're born without culture and we adopt the culture of
those we're raised by and those we surround ourselves with. Is it "whiteface"
cultural appropriation when Japanese baseball players wear American-style
uniforms with their names written out in Romaji on back instead of Kanji?

This kind of protest seems like the latest in outrage culture over something
that, in the end, is just human nature. Who gets to decide what is your
culture and what culture you choose is appropriation? If I'm 1/16 Japanese and
nobody in my family has been to Japan in 2 generations, can I wear a kimono?
If my parents are both Indian but I was born and raised in Japan, can I wear a
kimono? What if I'm white, born in America, but was adopted by Japanese
parents at age 8?

Professor Nakano has it right. Cultural appropriation should not be a dirty
word, it should be a sign of mixing of ideas to create new ones, and bringing
people together over something that they didn't know they had in common.

~~~
jboynyc
In his book _Hyperculturality_ (2005), the Korean-German philosopher Byung-
Chul Han distinguishes between "cultural appropriation" and "cultural
exploitation." He argues that appropriation _per se_ is not a problem (because
culture, after all, is generally not diminished by being appropriated), but
exploitation is. Exploitation occurs when there is a clear power differential
between appropriator and expropriated (think whites poking fun at blacks in a
society that used to be based on the slave labor of black people), but there
are plenty of examples where processes of appropriation do in fact lead to
"new creativity" (think Korean tacos).

~~~
vlehto
In your example, cultural appropriation is bad when it happens to be racism at
the same time. (Not to mention that making fun of someone can be asshole thing
to do in it's own right.)

Could you give example when cultural appropriation is bad without something
obviously bad shit being bundled with it?

~~~
vidarh
I think you're right, but sometimes it becomes easier for people to complain
about cultural appropriation because of the context.

E.g. consider how black women often get criticised for styles that are then
praised on white celebrities. Things like hairstyles that have been common in
black culture for a long time, like corn-rows, for example.

In those cases, it's easy for people to dismiss criticism of this as not
having anything to do with racism by saying that "oh, no we really didn't like
them, but _now_ someone has shown it can be cool, and it has nothing to do
with race" or something similar. Fashions change. It's a plausible excuse.
Sometimes.

Talking about cultural appropriation then becomes a way of criticising that
practice in a way where you make the "oh no it's not racism" excuse moot by
re-framing the debate.

In that way, it could be a useful way of attacking hidden racism.

The problem, of course, is that it works exactly because it ignores the
intentions of the people involved and becomes a weapon that hits equally hard
against people intentionally or unintentionally perpetuating hidden racism as
against people who are genuinely appreciative of something.

~~~
vlehto
I see your point.

If you allow dishonest stuff to pass because it combats racism, then there is
a risk that you just paint SWJ crowd dishonest.

If racism is well enough hidden, I don't see the point opposing it anymore. I
don't think people should be burned because of thoughtcrime.

We can agree that it's not cool behaviour to run around with plastick indian
headress while high. Or dunkenly sing Elvis songs in karaoke. But I don't
think it is immoral, and I don't think who does it matters too much.

------
quaunaut
Cultural appropriation is one hell of an issue.

I've never seen it defined in a way that doesn't seem ripe for this kind of
abuse. Some define it as someone of one culture adopting qualities of another
culture wholesale- which begs the question then, what's the difference between
that and appreciating another culture?

Others define it as adopting said culture in a disrespectful way. This ends up
closer to a mark I could understand and be on board with- but then you get
situations like that defined in this article, where so much of the complaints
seem to be on another's behalf.

In general, I'm not sure how the concept of cultural appropriation lasts into
the future as anything more than a way to steer people away from letting their
ignorance walk over another culture's traditions. Considering how quickly
sacred cows are slaughtered in modern pop culture, in nearly every
technologically-engaged culture on earth, it seems just so difficult to not
have the phrase lose what little meaning it might have.

Then again, I know that I'm ignorant on many pieces of this subject, despite
dozens of hours reading and trying to educate myself on it. If anything, that
in itself is my biggest frustration with identity politics- there's no easy
path to learning it or being pointed to the right resources, and yet it seems
like my own ignorance hurts others gravely. It's troubling.

~~~
deciplex
> _I 've never seen it defined in a way that doesn't seem ripe for this kind
> of abuse._

That's because any definition of it is ripe for abuse, because out of a very
specific context it's a dumb idea with no basis in fact or culture. Said's
thesis mentioned in the article is more about appropriation as a symptom of
wider oppression and prejudice, and more importantly it is more about
_incorrect_ , or exaggerated, perceptions of foreign cultures. The Japanese do
wear kimonos, mainly in August.

At worst, cultural appropriation reinforces existing prejudices - deal with
the prejudice, and cultural appropriation is a non-issue - but you can't
eliminate prejudice just by forbidding any cultural exchange at all.

------
chroma
I'm pretty sure the concept of appropriation is the end result of signalling
games. As racism waned in popularity, racists were forced to conceal their
racism with euphemisms and dog whistles[1]. Non-racists eventually figured
this out and increased the sensitivity of their racism detectors. Racists
concealed their racism even more. Repeat.

Eventually you get to today. Almost nobody is racist, but everyone's on a hair
trigger when it comes to racist language or behavior. And otherwise sane and
good people get angry about white people wearing kimonos. The process is
described much better by this blog post: [http://blog.jaibot.com/outcast-arms-
race/](http://blog.jaibot.com/outcast-arms-race/)

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-
whistle_politics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics)

Edit: When I say "racist", I mean consciously so. We're all prone to
unconscious biases, and it's good that we try to discover and correct for
them. But the signalling game I'm talking about? That happens with beliefs
that people are themselves aware of.

~~~
dasil003
Eventually almost no one is (or at least believes themselves to be) racist,
but systemic inequality is deeply ingrained and ensures that minorities will
feel the effects of racism even with entirely well-intentioned liberal actors.
This is where you get white people shouting "I am not and have never been a
racist!" and black people shouting "Check your privilege!", and then people
get wrapped up in polarized ideology and defensiveness. I think we're at a
point with racism where it can only improve by empathy and communication, by
real integration at the individual level, and actually talking and listening
to each other. The utopian ideal of the internet that we had in the 70s and
80s was that it would facilitate this kind of dialog and allow the best
information to spread; but instead what social media has proven is the
anonymity and borderlessness of the internet allows everyone to find their own
little micro-group of like-minded people and never have to speak to their
neighbors again.

~~~
vlehto
Everybody is little bit racist. It's about how much you act on it.

It's awfully like with Christian morals. Everybody is a sinner. Everybody
pretends to be Zealous. And everybody mocks everybody else for being sinners.
Donate money/buy indulgence, what's the difference? Just remember to be
ashamed of yourself.

I'm not sure if this is Christian cultural undertones finding a new way to
surface. Or did church just capture something very integral of human psyche
with their rhetoric. Hopefully this bullshit is eradicated if the idea of
"thought crime" becomes unpopular enough.

------
a_bonobo
I think what most comments in this thread (and the protesters) oversee is that
"cultural appropriation" usually happens in a setting of _oppression_. The
most common example is white Americans taking from black or native Americans.
The exchange isn't "open culture" as other comments express, it's too one-
sided, like Stockholm Syndrome. The hostage can only give.

You can see how some members of the "taken from" group take this in a bad
light, they've already had so much taken from them, and now to top it off
there's somebody who takes and ingests what made the "taken from" group unique
in the first place. It's not a far step from there to have people in the
"taken by" group try to make that stop, and in some cases these people go way
too far.

In OP's link this doesn't happen - Americans and the Japanese really don't
have much history of oppression (except for WW2 internment), so I'd say it
"doesn't count" as cultural appropriation.

Edit: I should say that there's not much history of _systematic_ oppression
between Japanese and Americans, that would exclude your day-to-day racism

~~~
chroma
> Americans and the Japanese really don't have much history of oppression
> (except for WW2 internment), so I'd say it "doesn't count" as cultural
> appropriation.

Yes, except for that time when the US forced Japan into treaties at
gunpoint.[1] And that time when they put everyone of Japanese ancestry into
prison camps. And the time they firebombed Japanese cities. And the time they
nuked Japan _twice_. And the time they occupied Japan and executed civilian
politicians.[2] Except for those things, there's not much history of
oppression.

I apologize for the snark, but your comment is completely disconnected from
reality. Cries of "appropriation" are only tenuously correlated with
oppression. For example: the French never oppressed the Maori, but people got
angry when a French ad used their facial tattoos.[3]

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition)

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dki_Hirota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C5%8Dki_Hirota)

3\. [http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-
style/fashion/44467](http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/fashion/44467)

~~~
woah
WWII was a war of American oppression?

~~~
chroma
No. You are putting words in my mouth.

~~~
cthalupa
You are being quite specific about American actions in WW2 being acts of
oppression.

------
Luc
My theory is that people are learning this stuff at Liberal Arts colleges.
They're operating within an intellectual framework (perhaps applying it badly)
that allows them to feel justified and rational.

It happens on Metafilter quite often. Someone posts a funny video and the
comments go on about intersectionality, cisgendered cissexual and
heteronormativity.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Well, if the video's "humour" rests on making fun of gay or trans people, of
course that will happen.

~~~
pluma
I'm still waiting for some rabid liberal arts types to point out how sexist
and racist Back to the Future is.

~~~
pluma
Just for the record: I'm not really kidding.

The first film only had a black mayor (who used to be a cleaner) and a group
of black musicians (who smoke weed out back during the break). Their entire
purpose, for the most part, is to serve as the butt of several jokes (e.g. the
cleaner being overly excited that he's going to become the mayor in the
future, the musicians scaring the ruffians by outnumbering them) and Marty
directly gets credit for the achievements of at least two black men (the
cleaner getting the idea and confidence to enter politics and run for mayor,
one of the black musicians calling Chuck Berry, giving him the idea for Johnny
B Goode when Marty is performing).

Martys girlfriend is left out of the majority of the first film's plot, spends
the majority of the second's film knocked out (both initially and again later)
-- pretty much only serving as an excuse to distract Marty and Emmet long
enough that bad things can happen, and then only returns at the very end of
the third film.

The only strong female character is the teacher in the third film, whose first
appearance is literally as a damsel in distress and who again ends up in
distress during the film's climax (so Emmet can save her). Heck, a lot of the
plot of all three movies is built around saving damsels in distress.

Don't get me wrong. Personally I think the three films make an awesome trilogy
and I understand why they have become the pop culture icon they are, but they
make incredibly easy targets if you want to call out racist/sexist stereotypes
in popular media.

------
HaloZero
I was actually having a discussion about this recently with a friend and
honestly I'm never sure where the line is and how to clearly define it. I
imagine it's dependent on the cultural tradition and context of what that
tradition is.

The most clear example of cultural appropriation that most people agree is
inappropriate is headdresses. Many cultures view the headdress as a sign of
respect but it's been used as a for musical festivals across the United
States. So I think that is cited as the most common cultural appropriation.

Where the lines draw would be something like a Kimono, where if you wear it
and use it then are you paying homage or respect if you use it correctly
within the culture? Can't you innovate and improve it?

The example that I was using that was I thought was odd was Yoga. It's
originally a very long tradition in India with a complicated history but it's
usually considered a religious and spiritual experience. In the West many view
it only for the physical and health benefits though and do not consider the
spiritual parts of it. The question is that appropriation?

~~~
vidarh
Yoga was introduced to the west by Indian yogi's. It would seem to be the
exact opposite of "appropriation": it was actively pushed upon the west in
multiple "waves" punctuated by periods of backlash against it.

------
fenomas
Cultural appropriation is one of those notions I've never quite been able to
grasp. Are there notable cases where it causes people real, tangible harm?

~~~
Alosio
I think examples of harm, would be how like in the 20th century African
American musicians had a much more difficult time selling their music, but the
same music would garner a much larger audience if played by white musicians.

Its not simply white people performing black music, that is wrong, but rather
that the white people filled a demand for black music that could have been
supplied by the original culture were the market not racist. Its like, no
direct racism, but making racism easier? If those white people had said "No I
will not play this music", then the market would either have had to listen to
black muscians or not get the music at all.

~~~
noobermin
To be honest, that might be confusing the consequent with the cause. To me,
that sounds like racism is the original issue, at blacks having their music
not listened to really is just a part of the larger society's racism towards
blacks in general. It's not that appropriation was the problem, but racism
will lead to appropriation.

~~~
Alosio
I think the the appropriation can still be said to be a problem in that the
people appropriating music might not even be racist, there is nothing
inherently wrong with playing or selling another cultures music.

But by doing so they are "aiding and abetting" a racist society by enabling
racists to listen to music they desire, from people they desire. If they
choose not to it makes it harder for racists to be racist.

------
StudyAnimal
Appropriation is bullshit, cultures should be allowed to freely copy from and
imitate each other without restriction.

~~~
exogen
It's very tempting to say that, but that's a bit of a privileged stance. ("I
wouldn't mind, so nobody else should mind either!")

Analogy: Let's say you take a free intro taekwondo class. They outfit you with
a white belt, obviously. But you think the red/black belt looks cool, so you
start wearing that instead - maybe not in the dojang even, but just around
town. You don't think martial artists should have a problem with that, maybe
even challenge you to a fight? And even non-martial-artists shouldn't think
you're kind of a poser?

~~~
ohsnap
Or say a foreigner is introduced to Jiu Jitsu. Then that said foreigner
appropriates it and develops a new system called Brazilian Jiu Jitsu. They
then issue belts based on their new interpretation of skill level. Perhaps a
few Japanese might have a problem with that and think your a 'poser' \- but
you would probably ignore them and just consider them a bigot.

------
Alosio
An author I like has a good post that clarified cultural appropriation to me.

[http://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/131242817286/ive-
noti...](http://theunitofcaring.tumblr.com/post/131242817286/ive-noticed-that-
youve-been-talking-a-bit-about)

------
Animats
This is likely to upset few people in Japan. Japan has a long history of
borrowing from other cultures, as shopping in Tokyo makes obvious.

~~~
cthalupa
There's also such things as kanji being pretty much a direct lift and shift of
Chinese hanzi as well ;)

------
PlzSnow
In this example, it seems that Indian/Chinese people told Japanese people that
other people are not allowed to wear Japanese clothes.

Unfortunately the protestors names are logged forever online, so their
stupidity will follow them for their entire lives.

I almost think that it is worth creating a disposable username for use in
real-life and not just online.

------
techterrier
As an aside, it's extremely sad that this art is in danger of being lost. It
seems comparable to how London's Saville Row became (an to an extend still is)
imperilled. Fingers crossed they manage to hang on in there until the fashion
winds change.

------
kiproping
Cultural appropriation is one of the many words coming out of the far left. I
never thought that the left could be radical.

I guess that's why it's important to have neither the right nor the left take
the hold on power for too long.

~~~
pluma
I'm not sure who said it but there's a witticism that goes something like "You
have to have gone to university to be this stupid".

If you look at anything closely enough, everything becomes problematic. But of
course the correct conclusion is that if you define everything as problematic,
the term "problematic" ceases to be a useful distinction, so you should dial
back a notch and figure out what problems actually matter.

------
mirimir
It's arguable that just about any sort of clothing has (or has had) some
significance for some culture.

------
archemike_
[http://nakedandfamousdenim.com/type/kimono-
shirt/](http://nakedandfamousdenim.com/type/kimono-shirt/)

kimonos are fashionable. I'm sure denim heads here will agree I have a few
from Quebec :)

------
RUG3Y
People are walking around with a hair trigger, just waiting for a reason to be
offended. As a society we've tolerated these agitators too long.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
While it would appear that the protestors were misguided in this instance
(though perhaps they weren't, I only know what the article tells me), the
near-fetishisation of Japanese culture in the West does bother me.

Japan's status in the West does seem to be different to that of other Asian
nations, probably because it's a 'developed' country. But then, isn't that
only because in the Meiji era, it rapidly 'Westernised' itself to appeal more
to Western tastes and be taken seriously?

~~~
krapp
Does the degree to which Japan consumes Western culture bother you as well?
Have you ever seen the amount of English they'll put on products because it's
cool, regardless of whether or not the words actually make sense?

If anything, Japan and the West (the US particularly) have a mutual fetish for
each other.

------
smtddr
So... I can't speak directly to the issue discussed in the article, but I am
reading a lot of HN comments that seem not to understand the term _" cultural
appropriation"_, think it's a non-existent problem and anyone complaining
about it is crazy. I just want to let people know that while there are a bunch
of _" Social Justice Warriors"_ running around complaining about anything and
everything, the issue isn't just fiction on the part of the offended,
particularly when it's erases, dillutes or mocks the actual source of the art
while celebrating their own rendition.

1\. [http://www.refinery29.com/cornrows-cultural-
appropriation](http://www.refinery29.com/cornrows-cultural-appropriation)

To the point, it's this kind of thing that annoying: _" It seems the more
popular cornrows have become among white women, the more they are drained of
their history. “Sometimes editors see something that someone pseudo-popular
does and they say it’s new, fresh, or edgy,” says India Jewel Jackson, an
editor at Hearst Publications. “But, when it was us doing it, it was ghetto.
Now that it’s someone blonde and blue doing it, it’s fresh."_

2\. [http://jezebel.com/what-the-hustle-looks-like-on-etsy-
in-201...](http://jezebel.com/what-the-hustle-looks-like-on-etsy-
in-2015-1726192097)

 _" “Hustling” as it presents itself in the 2015 economy erases the barriers
posed to wealth acquisition by sexism, classism, racism, cissexism and
ableism, instead chalking up a lack of financial success to a lack of
entrepreneurial spirit. It makes no acknowledgement that some people have to
hustle much, much harder than others._

This one isn't exactly cultural per se, but it erases the message the word use
to carry. Now I can no longer use the word "hustle" in tech circles because I
don't think it means the same thing to them as it does to me. When my parents
came to America from Nigeria, their stories of things they did and things they
saw in Oakland carry the definition of "hustle" that I know. While I'm sure
starting up a company is very hard work, it doesn't in general contain all the
facets of the historical hustle. Where one is constantly walking the tightrope
between homelessness and not eating for 2 days while playing a game that seems
pretty rigged against them. You certainly didn't have extra money to be buying
fancy pencils and coffee mugs with the word "hustle" printed on them.

Btw, this is extremely similar to the #AllLivesMatter hashtag that washes away
the original message. [http://fusion.net/story/170591/the-next-time-someone-
says-al...](http://fusion.net/story/170591/the-next-time-someone-says-all-
lives-matter-show-them-these-5-paragraphs/) \--- _" Imagine that you’re
sitting down to dinner with your family, and while everyone else gets a
serving of the meal, you don’t get any. So you say “I should get my fair
share.” And as a direct response to this, your dad corrects you, saying,
“everyone should get their fair share.” Now, that’s a wonderful sentiment —
indeed, everyone should, and that was kinda your point in the first place:
that you should be a part of everyone, and you should get your fair share
also. However, dad’s smart-@$$ comment just dismissed you and didn’t solve the
problem that you still haven’t gotten any!"_

~~~
cthalupa
And here is part of the problem - you believe that the word hustle has been
appropriated, yet the word has had the same meaning and connotation in these
circles for nearly 200 years.

We have recorded usage of it meaning "bustle, work busily, move quickly"
dating back to 1821. "to get in a quick, illegal manner"? 1840. "to sell goods
aggressively"? 1887. "pushing activity; activity in the interest of success"?
1891.

"The key-note and countersign of life in these cities [of the U.S. West] is
the word "hustle." We have caught it in the East. but we use it humorously,
just as we once used the Southern word "skedaddle," but out West the word
hustle is not only a serious term, it is the most serious in the language."
[Julian Ralph, "Our Great West," N.Y., 1893]

[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hustle](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hustle)

If we look at where the word came from, it's taken from a white European
language - meaning that it's use for you in Oakland growing up was
appropriated from elsewhere. And that's perfectly okay.

~~~
smtddr
This argument is similar to "gay" meaning "happy". Yes, we all know that was
the original definition but then it became associated with homosexuality then
people started saying "gay" when they're describing something that's "bad"....
and I hope we all see the problem here. I'm going to avoid pedantic debates on
HN, they're endless. All I wanted to do here is show that culture
appropriation is a real thing and can become a problem depending on the
context.

~~~
cthalupa
They're really not analogous situations, because hustle meant one thing, it
was modified to mean largely the same thing but a bit different, and people
are also continuing to use it with it's previous meaning... which seems to be
the part you take issue with. That is not at all what happened with the term
gay.

~~~
smtddr
To spell it out, the point I'm trying to make is that historically oppressed
and/or underrepresented groups trying to get a foothold in society, trying to
get an identity or trying to celebrate their culture... as soon as they get a
foothold, that foothold is taken from them by having its definition changed or
diluted into almost nothing.

 _> >it was modified to mean largely the same thing but a bit different_

To you it's a bit different. To me it carried the constant struggle of poor
minorities, including my parents, and that difference is huge enough that I
don't go just tossing the word around freely. You're definitely not going to
see me with coffee mugs & pencils with "hustle" engraved on it. Btw, _" The
Struggle"_ is also another term that carries significant weight in poor
communities.
[http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the+struggle](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=the+struggle)
...yes, you can show all the history of the word "struggle" but it now carries
a big definition with poor people, especially african americans. At this
point, there's nothing more I can say. This kind of thread never ends on HN
and eventually someone will come along and say something that requires a whole
school semester on history, culture and the different forms of oppression
throughout history to respond to.

------
pluma
Oh, come on. Everybody knows you can only be racist against brown people.

------
arm
_“Sorry, but your browser needs Javascript to use this site.”_

Wow, seriously? I enable JavaScript just to see what exactly on the page
requires JavaScript so badly that they have to replace all the content with
this message, and what do I see? A completely text-based article.

~~~
pmontra
Or open your dev tools and set

    
    
        .no-js .single .main_content #no_js_blocker
    

to display:none; and remove the max-height:400px from

    
    
        .no-js .single .main_content
    

That's all is needed to read the article. What the JavaScript is for? Who
knows.

~~~
Anthony-G
I use Firefox (with NoScript) and an even quicker/easier solution is to use
the Reader View feature. Some web pages look great in their original design
and some don't look any worse in Reader View but there are many more where
Reader View is a big improvement.

