Cultural Appropriation in Coldplay's Latest Music Video?

[polymorphism]

https://mic.com/articles/133869/col...-beyonc-is-as-colorful-as-it-is-controversial​

Rock giants Coldplay sparked a debate on Friday when the British band released the official video for "Hymn for the Weekend," an Eastern-infused cut with tinkering bells, swirling vocals and crescendos that also features powerhouse American artist Beyoncé. The video stars the band's frontman, Chris Martin, and the Coldplay crew galavanting around Mumbai, India, and reveling in a colorful and ancient Hindu festival called Holi, which is also known as the festival of love...

Is this cultural appropriation? If so why? Is cultural appropriation bad? Is cultural appropriation acceptable because of globalization?

 

[Thepowaofhax]

There is no such thing as "cultural appropriation", only a bunch of authoritarian leftists crying over jack-shit because of their social-collective attitudes about people. The adoption/use of elements from another culture just shows how culture evolves and is not necessarily a bad thing. Who even cares if it's a damned hair cut; does it really matter in the long scheme of things?

 

[Somewhere_]

Who cares if it is cultural appropriation? What is so bad about it? What harm is it causing? Just let people do what they want.

 

[illumine]

Speaking as an Indian, and admittedly Indians can be a bit indifferent to Coldplay in ordinary circumstances (so it's not unreciprocated distaste), the general point of the video itself would seem to be contrasting 'sophisticated' or 'intimidating' white culture, and artificially glamorous females, with a comparatively 'boring' or unfeminine Indian landscape, and it's not particularly flattering given that under the circumstances, with an image to look to and frivolous relationships with Western actresses to reinstitute, Coldplay are hardly going to identify with the Indians portrayed in contrast to that and as down-to-earth or whatever. At a certain point the question would seem to be whether similar archetypes occur elsewhere in media, implicitly directed towards the same targets, rather than the nature of the appropriation, as Coldplay are hardly going to make any particularly profound statements which would make this anything other than appropriation, ultimately. Assuming, as is the only reasonable option, that they aren't trying to subjugate themselves to the spirit of Holi (which might somehow involve girls acting Western, but then they wouldn't stop on other days), did they also just portray Holi as a bunch of people dancing to Coldplay songs? That's a peculiar conceit on their part, truly.

In any case, Coldplay do not have the capacity to write any form of serious 'celebration' of a half-decent culture quite distinct from them (which would presuppose more subtlety than they can enact), so perhaps they should just stick to celebrations of Jennifer Lawrence, Gwyneth Paltrow and Beyonce. They are appropriating. It's like expecting a celebration of Cathar culture from them, they have no connection and the rest would just be flavour.

But, more problematically, where were the Weeknd, which is surely what everyone was hoping to see from a video in this kind of genre.

There is no such thing as "cultural appropriation", only a bunch of authoritarian leftists crying over jack-**** because of their social-collective attitudes about people. The adoption/use of elements from another culture just shows how culture evolves and is not necessarily a bad thing.

Perhaps you mean your own culture, 'thepowaofhax,' which seemingly evolves into something completely opposite over the course of a sentence.

Anyway, what were you saying about leftist Pokémon masters with their evolving Pikachu? Let's all talk like Coldplay.

 

[Somewhere_]

Perhaps you mean your own culture, 'thepowaofhax,' which seemingly evolves into something completely opposite over the course of a sentence.

Anyway, what were you saying about leftist Pokémon masters with their evolving Pikachu? Let's all talk like Coldplay.

I think he is talking about cultural Marxism. Cultural appropriation is the result of the belief in cultural Marxism.

 

[Bay]

I also remember there was controversy with Coldplay and Rihanna's music video for Princess of China back in 2011. So this isn't the first time Coldplay got criticized for something similar.

Since I'm not Indian my personal thoughts probably won't matter in the grand scheme of things, but what illumine had said concerning Beyonce is what bothered me about this video. You have Beyonce in glamorous Indian attire with the other Indians looking on (in admiration, perhaps?). While I think it's fine to dress in attire from a culture different from yours if other people are fine with it, the video's execution didn't feel right to me. This is almost more or less my same feelings towards Princess of China,

 

[gimmepie]

Honestly - and let this be seen as one of the rare instances when I agree with Badsheep and Thepowerofhax - I think the people complaining about this are making mountains out of molehills.

I watch that video and I see a British band exposing the western world to aspects of Indian culture. If they're not showing you negatively - and I don't think they are - just appreciate the exposure and move along.

 

[for him.]

I see the video as Coldplay's way of respecting the culture, so I don't really see why it has gained this controversy.

If the video was about being transracial (I can't believe this term even exists) or had things like brown/yellow/black/ect. face, then I would have a problem.

 

[Bay]

Honestly - and let this be seen as one of the rare instances when I agree with Badsheep and Thepowerofhax - I think the people complaining about this are making mountains out of molehills.

I watch that video and I see a British band exposing the western world to aspects of Indian culture. If they're not showing you negatively - and I don't think they are - just appreciate the exposure and move along.

I too also think Coldplay's purpose for the video is exposing others to Indian culture and there's nothing wrong with that. There were some moments that actually did make me smile. Just some of the scenes with Beyonce and the other Indians looking on is what makes me scratch my head. Also since illumine mentioned they're Indian and they expressed some concerns, I' take their concerns in higher regard.

 

[Sun]

If this is cultural appropriation then what about Princess of China from years ago? :P

​

Just move on or not watch it. They aren't even showing anything inappropriate or offensive, to be real honest.

 

[illumine]

I think he is talking about cultural Marxism. Cultural appropriation is the result of the belief in cultural Marxism.

Cultural Marxism is a result of the cultural appropriation of Marxism, in addition to which to cultural appropriation of Marxism to the Frankfurt School by 'conservatives' which makes one suspect they're the only ones in thrall to such people, which in brief makes it a misnomer. It would be cool if Coldplay were a result of 'cultural Marxism,' but instead they're a result of Chris Martin, ew.

Just move on or not watch it. They aren't even showing anything inappropriate or offensive, to be real honest.

You could not watch it because Coldplay are old, there may be many reasons not to watch it and they're not all the same. But - you can't evaluate things? Surely our opting not to watch it or whatever is irrelevant to what it is.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Speaking as an Indian, and admittedly Indians can be a bit indifferent to Coldplay in ordinary circumstances (so it's not unreciprocated distaste), the general point of the video itself would seem to be contrasting 'sophisticated' or 'intimidating' white culture, and artificially glamorous females, with a comparatively 'boring' or unfeminine Indian landscape, and it's not particularly flattering given that under the circumstances, with an image to look to and frivolous relationships with Western actresses to reinstitute, Coldplay are hardly going to identify with the Indians portrayed in contrast to that and as down-to-earth or whatever. At a certain point the question would seem to be whether similar archetypes occur elsewhere in media, implicitly directed towards the same targets, rather than the nature of the appropriation, as Coldplay are hardly going to make any particularly profound statements which would make this anything other than appropriation, ultimately. Assuming, as is the only reasonable option, that they aren't trying to subjugate themselves to the spirit of Holi (which might somehow involve girls acting Western, but then they wouldn't stop on other days), did they also just portray Holi as a bunch of people dancing to Coldplay songs? That's a peculiar conceit on their part, truly.

In any case, Coldplay do not have the capacity to write any form of serious 'celebration' of a half-decent culture quite distinct from them (which would presuppose more subtlety than they can enact), so perhaps they should just stick to celebrations of Jennifer Lawrence, Gwyneth Paltrow and Beyonce. They are appropriating. It's like expecting a celebration of Cathar culture from them, they have no connection and the rest would just be flavour.

But, more problematically, where were the Weeknd, which is surely what everyone was hoping to see from a video in this kind of genre.


Perhaps you mean your own culture, 'thepowaofhax,' which seemingly evolves into something completely opposite over the course of a sentence.

Anyway, what were you saying about leftist Pokémon masters with their evolving Pikachu? Let's all talk like Coldplay.

If you get offended so easily over someone making a video showing another culture (yours) and believe in cultural appropriation, it's quite easy to say that you're easily a cultural marxist if you really believe that the evolution of culture from other influence such as culture is ultimately a bad thing.

If you don't know what Cultural Marxism is, (which is indeed not a "cool" thing as you say it is), it is essentially just like the toxic Marxists except for the fact that instead of their target being the have-nots and their enemy the have-nots, they target the minorities and their enemy is the majority. It ultimately leads to breaches of freedom of speech, a coddled generation of authoritarian leftists in Academia (the worst kind of authoritarian), greed (especially with how a lot of cultural marxists seem to be con-artists; see Anita Sarkeesian), etc. It's goal is to make everyone equal, but it stands on top of it's self when it's champions, just like real communism, are the same people who they were fighting (as many politicians and leaders in communist countries tend to be ridiculously rich) and leads to an anti-Meritocratic attitude and pro-Nepotism; great examples of this was when Stalin had fires his generals for ones that had the same/better ideology as his party, leading to a bunch of incompetent generals leading their armies into a meat grinder.

Now, where does this come in? Did I mention that cultural appropriation is just cultural marxist/SJW jargon? It's just a music video that shows Holi. You're the one who's trying to make it seem like they're undermining Holi by making it look like all they do is dance to Coldplay. This, my dear friend, is something the cultural marxist would say.

 

[Keiran]

I don't really see any cultural appropriation. They literally just shot the video in India.

Let me show you what cultural appropriation in music videos looks like:



Notice how it's not literally Egypt. And how almost none of the people in the video are obviously Egyptian. Notice how the aspects of Egyptian culture are either incredibly exaggerated, sexualized, or just completely misused. She literally used Egyptian culture and history as a prop. THAT'S cultural appropriation. It's a really gross video.

But ultimately the decision on whether or not Coldplay were culturally appropriative is up to the citizens of India.

 

[illumine]

If you get offended so easily over someone making a video showing another culture (yours)

I didn't say that I was offended, but in any case feelings are feelings and not to be equated to a doctrine.

If you don't know what Cultural Marxism is, (which is indeed not a "cool" thing as you say it is)

It can't be that bad compared to Coldplay.

it is essentially just like the toxic Marxists

This sort of seems like the weird image of Marx going on about how people's modes of production are defined by toxic relationships. Which also has no basis in Marx.

except for the fact that instead of their target being the have-nots and their enemy the have-nots

Well, I mean, that sounds enjoyable, but in any case none of these categories have much to do with Marxism, you're uncritically pedaling liberal class categories which have no relation to the overall relations of production. As, one could say, they wouldn't.

they target the minorities and their enemy is the majority.

Which is completely different, presumably. You basically just simplified 'Marxism' to make it sound like another doctrine, so that you could then say that they were similar. This is slightly ludicrous. In any case, 'the minorities' is an amorphous category which could hardly serve as much of a motivation, but it's great that you're basically just saying that people appropriated Marxism for completely different ends, but you're somehow going to blame Marxism and let them off the hook. You could just call it 'identity politics' like everyone else.

It ultimately leads to breaches of freedom of speech, a coddled generation of authoritarian leftists in Academia (the worst kind of authoritarian)

Academics are overwhelmingly liberal. The assumption that academics are serous leftists in any way is fairly humorous, what they actually did on a social level is try and prepare people for capitalism, and enforce this upon them. This was, then, the purpose of such institutions, or in brief their goal or motivation. You might rather call them 'relativists,' who are frequently in favour of 'negative freedoms' (eg. in the context of feminism or homosexuality), but obviously positivist in relation to social systems rather than anywhere near Marxist, which implied ethics and action.

greed (especially with how a lot of cultural marxists seem to be con-artists; see Anita Sarkeesian)

Sarkeesian is a joke, so to speak, but they were hardly associated with 'Marxism' in any form, and liberals don't become Marxists just because they're loud and enthusiastic.

Now, where does this come in? Did I mention that cultural appropriation is just cultural marxist/SJW jargon? It's just a music video that shows Holi. You're the one who's trying to make it seem like they're undermining Holi by making it look like all they do is dance to Coldplay. This, my dear friend, is something the cultural marxist would say.

No, someone else mentioned that, but thanks for asking. Anyway, they did mention Holi, but it's good that you don't take that seriously either. Unfortunately, Coldplay are known for taking themselves seriously, although with them it's something of a gimmick.

 

[Somewhere_]

I didn't say that I was offended, but in any case feelings are feelings and not to be equated to a doctrine.

It can't be that bad compared to Coldplay.

This sort of seems like the weird image of Marx going on about how people's modes of production are defined by toxic relationships. Which also has no basis in Marx.

Well, I mean, that sounds enjoyable, but in any case none of these categories have much to do with Marxism, you're uncritically pedaling liberal class categories which have no relation to the overall relations of production. As, one could say, they wouldn't.

Which is completely different, presumably. You basically just simplified 'Marxism' to make it sound like another doctrine, so that you could then say that they were similar. This is slightly ludicrous. In any case, 'the minorities' is an amorphous category which could hardly serve as much of a motivation, but it's great that you're basically just saying that people appropriated Marxism for completely different ends, but you're somehow going to blame Marxism and let them off the hook. You could just call it 'identity politics' like everyone else.

Academics are overwhelmingly liberal. The assumption that academics are serous leftists in any way is fairly humorous, what they actually did on a social level is try and prepare people for capitalism, and enforce this upon them. This was, then, the purpose of such institutions, or in brief their goal or motivation. You might rather call them 'relativists,' who are frequently in favour of 'negative freedoms' (eg. in the context of feminism or homosexuality), but obviously positivist in relation to social systems rather than anywhere near Marxist, which implied ethics and action.

Sarkeesian is a joke, so to speak, but they were hardly associated with 'Marxism' in any form, and liberals don't become Marxists just because they're loud and enthusiastic.

I think you are misunderstanding Marxism. Marxism is a system of economics and social hierarchy (or lack thereof). Cultural Marxism had nothing to do with Marx or Engels, but rather applying his economic "equality" socially. Powaofahax is not blaming Marxism, but he is blaming the SJW community.

Are you implying Capitalism must be forced? Because true Capitalism is a free market with no government, where every interaction is voluntary. Any government interference would be force. The goal of liberals was not to get society ready for Capitalism (this illogical because it was classical liberals and the founding fathers who used Capitalism- meaning we started with it). The goal of liberals (NOT classical liberals) has been to help the poor with welfare, healthcare, min. wage- as well as the environment with economic regulations.

The loud and enthusiastic liberals you all are talking about are the cultural Marxists. That statement is irrelevant. However, this is not to say all liberals are anything of the sort (i know many who are not at all).

 

[gimmepie]

It can't be that bad compared to Coldplay.

The fact that your arguments constantly take shots at the band doesn't help you. It makes it look like you're just getting grumpy because you don't like their music. You're much better off sticking to actual points.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

I didn't say that I was offended, but in any case feelings are feelings and not to be equated to a doctrine.

It can't be that bad compared to Coldplay.

This sort of seems like the weird image of Marx going on about how people's modes of production are defined by toxic relationships. Which also has no basis in Marx.

Well, I mean, that sounds enjoyable, but in any case none of these categories have much to do with Marxism, you're uncritically pedaling liberal class categories which have no relation to the overall relations of production. As, one could say, they wouldn't.

Which is completely different, presumably. You basically just simplified 'Marxism' to make it sound like another doctrine, so that you could then say that they were similar. This is slightly ludicrous. In any case, 'the minorities' is an amorphous category which could hardly serve as much of a motivation, but it's great that you're basically just saying that people appropriated Marxism for completely different ends, but you're somehow going to blame Marxism and let them off the hook. You could just call it 'identity politics' like everyone else.

Academics are overwhelmingly liberal. The assumption that academics are serous leftists in any way is fairly humorous, what they actually did on a social level is try and prepare people for capitalism, and enforce this upon them. This was, then, the purpose of such institutions, or in brief their goal or motivation. You might rather call them 'relativists,' who are frequently in favour of 'negative freedoms' (eg. in the context of feminism or homosexuality), but obviously positivist in relation to social systems rather than anywhere near Marxist, which implied ethics and action.

Sarkeesian is a joke, so to speak, but they were hardly associated with 'Marxism' in any form, and liberals don't become Marxists just because they're loud and enthusiastic.

No, someone else mentioned that, but thanks for asking. Anyway, they did mention Holi, but it's good that you don't take that seriously either. Unfortunately, Coldplay are known for taking themselves seriously, although with them it's something of a gimmick.

essentially similar =/= same. I said that because how it functions leads to similar results (I.E anti-Meritocracy, pro-Nepotism, generally Authoritarian Left with a need to attack individual rights and anyone outside of their collective/deemed the enemy, etc). And besides, these Cultural Marxists are already having input in the means of production/et cetera with gender quotas in companies (no matter if they are qualified or not; see Nepotism), and you seem to think that cultural Marxists are liberals. There is a MASSIVE difference.

A liberal would be pro-individual rights. The cultural Marxist would want everyone to be categorized into certain groups based on "oppression" and ultimately have no regard to individual rights. Some of them seem be be regressive while the liberal would still be pro-individual rights because of the fact that everyone is different.

It is completely different in the regards, but the reason why it is called cultural Marxist is because it is so similar to real Marxism with it's outcomes. They both see one thing that is the cause of inequality (money v culture), they both are an authoritarian leftist ideology, both are ruled by the same people they fight (the majority's culture vs the ruling elite), both are anti/Meritocratic/anti-Intellectual and, of course, pro-Nepotism. They are both collectivists, normal Marxist being of the economic and social kind whilst the cultural Marxist are social collectivists. Also, cultural Marxism's origin is in real Marxism in Frankfurt, a neo-Marxist school.

They are not "relativists". We have loudmouthed idiots attacking freedom of speech at Yale. We have a majority in these campuses who are against individual rights. They then, instead of a liberal, are a collectivist. By definition, the liberal is pro-individual rights while the collectivists have an emphasis on their collective; they are just like their communist and fascist cousins who were collectivists.

Sarkeesian is a cultural Marxist; she is not liberal because she only cares about her collective (the radical feminist collective) who will attack anything that is against her ideology or pro-individual rights. She cannot be a liberal if she is against individual rights.

 

[Grey Wind]

Who cares if it is cultural appropriation? What is so bad about it? What harm is it causing? Just let people do what they want.

Can y'all stop talking about things you don't actually know much about? It's so frustrating because every time there's a thread about these "SJW" concepts there's at least one person who makes a vague, detail-less post about how it's stupid, and the Damn Liberals ruin everything, and boo internet radicals or some other shit. "Who cares", "only a bunch of authoritarian leftists crying" etc. are not valid points or criticisms - it's just your (biased) gut reaction to anything and everything that remotely reminds you of "SJWs".

Like, have you actually educated yourself about cultural appropriation? Have you read any of the thousands of scholarly articles about it? What qualifies you to dismiss it so offhandedly? The only reason you ask "who cares" is because it doesn't affect you and because you know a lot less of the topic than you actually think.



Anyways. I don't know if I'd call the video outright appropriation. It definitely made me raise an eyebrow (Beyonce's use of the sari in particular) but I'd label it more as insensitivity than appropriation. I'm glad that it's creating a discussion around white artists' use of other cultures as a backdrop for their music, though. That's been coming for a while.

Perhaps you mean your own culture, 'thepowaofhax,' which seemingly evolves into something completely opposite over the course of a sentence.

Asjkgjk this is so funny I love you.

 

[Thepowaofhax]

Can y'all stop talking about things you don't actually know much about? It's so frustrating because every time there's a thread about these "SJW" concepts there's at least one person who makes a vague, detail-less post about how it's stupid, and the Damn Liberals ruin everything, and boo internet radicals or some other ****. "Who cares", "only a bunch of authoritarian leftists crying" etc. are not valid points or criticisms - it's just your (biased) gut reaction to anything and everything that remotely reminds you of "SJWs".

Like, have you actually educated yourself about cultural appropriation? Have you read any of the thousands of scholarly articles about it? What qualifies you to dismiss it so offhandedly? The only reason you ask "who cares" is because it doesn't affect you and because you know a lot less of the topic than you actually think.



Anyways. I don't know if I'd call the video outright appropriation. It definitely made me raise an eyebrow (Beyonce's use of the sari in particular) but I'd label it more as insensitivity than appropriation. I'm glad that it's creating a discussion around white artists' use of other cultures as a backdrop for their music, though. That's been coming for a while.



Asjkgjk this is so funny I love you.

>Liberal
>Cultural Appropriation comes from Cultural Marxists, who are social collectivists.

I'm not sure about you, but there's this magical thing called contradiction; a liberal cannot be a social collectivist because the collectivist doesn't support individual rights. Social Collectivists have always had trends towards authoritarianism and anti-liberalism; from far-right groups such as the Fascists to the far-left Communists. Social collectivism is toxic, just like the Cultural Marxists who endorse it.

And if you want to be technical, cultural appropriation is only used to attack the labeled "enemy" of cultural appropriation. Because logically, I could say that African Americans shouldn't speak English because the appropriated the English language, but of course that has to be an "exception" because Cultural Marxists believe that culture causes inequality and that the human psyche is easily malleable (by shit such as indoctrination). So naturally, they would only think that the white man is the only one who could ever do such a travesty to such poor, defenseless people (as they make everyone they defend out to be) who can't take a fucking word.

It's ridiculous that the collectivists hold a group of people more "accountable" just because they were born the "wrong" way, intoxicate communities, and make similar if not the same arguments of the alt-Right just because the person is either against their own ideology or happens to be a born enemy but hold up everyone else to a different standard where they are judged by how "oppressed" their group is. It's hypocrisy. There is nothing liberal when you say "cultural appropriation" and there is everything culturally Marxist when you say it.

 

[Kanzler]

Anyways. I don't know if I'd call the video outright appropriation. It definitely made me raise an eyebrow (Beyonce's use of the sari in particular) but I'd label it more as insensitivity than appropriation. I'm glad that it's creating a discussion around white artists' use of other cultures as a backdrop for their music, though. That's been coming for a while.

I don't know if that's a real issue. I'm not Indian myself, but grew up around a lot of people of South Asian descent, and to the extent of my knowledge a sari is just a piece of clothing.

I think I hear some South Asian influences in the music itself, so I don't think it's a big deal if the video matches the music. As for people watching Beyonce, well she's the featured artist and she was invited by Coldplay to sing the song, so I don't know if it's wise to look too much into that.