Cultural Appropriation

[Sektor]

To people using the food vs dress example, why is wearing tribal paint or a headdress worse than, say, eating sushi? I'm struggling to see the distinction between eating someone else's food and wearing someone else's clothing. If, as outlined in the OP, "Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of another culture." then why are the two being viewed differently? I'm seeing "one is inherently disrespectful" and things like that but not any real reason why. (I'd reply individually to you, Grey Wind, but it's a general question which fits your reply and others)

I like this. It perfectly marks the essence of our society as it currently stands. The pinnacle 'appropriation' of sushi comes in the form of the California roll. The California roll, while not created by the Japanese, is an extremely popular fusion item. Now, the California roll can be argued that it was a profitable or positive creation due to the surge in popularity sushi dishes saw soon after the creation of such a unique treat. Is the California roll appropriation?

My brother wore a head dress once to an EDM festival (even though raves aren't my thing, concerts are). Did he utilize Native American culture in a way that negatively impacts them? Does 'cultural appropriation' demand a restriction of free speech or freedom of what to wear? What if someone has a naked tattoo of Sacajawea on their bicep? Is that not allowed?

I'll bring up music again. Does Miley Cyrus have the freedom to absolutely butcher a beloved Kurt Cobain classic, effectively showing a disrespect? Does Kanye maintain the freedom to sing Bohemian Rhapsody in such a way that many fans of Queen would find reprehensible?

The more I read into it, the more I get the picture that Cultural Appropriation is being used more as a nefarious tool rather than a helpful one. For instance: The censoring of the word 'Squaw'. Just because something becomes offensive to some doesn't mean it should be erased. You should be able to talk bad to anyone and make a fool of yourself and make people dislike you or adore you. Everything short of starting riots and inciting murder should be accepted as free speech. It doesn't mean that if my brother went out mocking Native Americans that I'd let him pass me by without a smack to the back of the head.

As part Cherokee, I don't feel the need to attack things that are non-issues, just like I feel I shouldn't call for the burning of Kanye West at the stake even though his cover of the song made me want to shove rail stakes in my ears. Once we start policing what someone wears privately (wearing a 'fuck all them hoes n' bitches' T-Shirt to an elementary school is probably a big no-no for little Sasha), we're effectively placing restrictions on our freedoms.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Esper]

To people using the food vs dress example, why is wearing tribal paint or a headdress worse than, say, eating sushi? I'm struggling to see the distinction between eating someone else's food and wearing someone else's clothing. If, as outlined in the OP, "Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of another culture." then why are the two being viewed differently? I'm seeing "one is inherently disrespectful" and things like that but not any real reason why. (I'd reply individually to you, Grey Wind, but it's a general question which fits your reply and others)

No one really questions where sushi comes from or who knows it best and makes the best. It's Japan. You can't really appropriate it because no one is going to listen to you when you try to pass it off like it's something you invented/discovered/perfected because they know you didn't. All other things being equal, if you were offered the choice of sushi made in Chicago or sushi made in Osaka, probably most would take the second offer. That's often the case for food that's strongly tied to a culture. And for clothing, too, although clothing isn't often as well known as food so it's murkier, especially with mass produced clothing being a thing all around the world.

Can anyone say, off the top of their head, what nation a war bonnet comes from? I can't. I could at best make a guess.

You can say, oh, but we have Halloween costumes of generals and Jesus and the Pope and presidents so what's the big deal? We do that in a way that is, in some sense, mocking or parody. A devout Christian isn't likely to wear a Jesus costume and (someone correct me if I'm wrong) someone from a military family isn't likely to dress as a caricature of general for Halloween. But even if that weren't the case, there are enough examples in history, the media, in the public consciousness about what the Pope and Jesus and presidents are that we know what we're seeing isn't representative. What did anyone know about war bonnets before coming to this thread (or any similar discussion on appropriation)? I'll wager it isn't much. Probably we thought it was just part of the clothing people wore, and maybe we thought it was something that important people wore, like a crown or something. That's our background on it. So when we see someone wearing one to a rave we just see it as clothing or costume and it reinforces our (wrong) understanding of what it is.

tl;dr it comes down to who has the cultural power around an idea: if your culture doesn't control the public/media image of something from your culture it's probably been appropriated

 

[Psychic]

A big issue I'm seeing here is that nobody seems to understand what cultural appropriation actually is. Just reading past the first sentence of the Wikipedia article answers a lot of the questions that have been brought up in this thread.

The first sentence on the Wikipedia article, being used as a definition here:

Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of another culture.​

The rest of the paragraph:

Cultural appropriation is seen by some as controversial, notably when elements of a minority culture are used by members of the cultural majority; this is seen as wrongfully oppressing the minority culture or stripping it of its group identity and intellectual property rights. This view of cultural appropriation is sometimes termed "cultural misappropriation". According to critics of the practice, cultural (mis)appropriation differs from acculturation or assimilation in that the "appropriation" or "misappropriation" refers to the adoption of these cultural elements in a colonial manner: elements are copied from a minority culture by members of the dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressed, stated wishes of representatives of the originating culture.​

Emphasis mine.

In simpler terms, to quote one person,

Cultural Appropriation IS NOT: enjoying food from another culture, enjoying music from another culture, learning about another culture, or learning another language

Cultural Appropriation IS: using another culture as a costume, wearing religious articles as accessories when you are not a follower of that religion, using a race as a mascot, disrespecting religious or cultural practices.​

An example of cultural exchange/appreciation VS cultural appropriation:

Spoiler:

I'm Jewish. Judaism is a a very old, very rich culture. We have always been a minority, and our beliefs have resulted in us always being insular, even though we've suffered social ostracization as a result. We've battled for a long time to stay alive, never mind keeping our culture alive. Today, in my little section of Jewish culture, we are happy to share our history and what makes us who we are: our food, our traditions, our teachings, and more. The process of educating and discussing and sharing is meaningful to us, and that's something we can do with non-Jews.

That is not the same thing as outsiders having free reign to look at our culture, decide what parts of it they like, and just engaging in those things, taking what they want, and doing so without the guidance or permission of a Jewish person. It's pretty disrespectful, and it removes the possibility of having a meaningful dialogue and letting us decide what we want to share, how, and with whom. That shows that you aren't interested in learning from us or sharing - all you care about is getting our stuff, which has significantly more meaning and value for us than it does for you.

tl;dr: Most of us Jewish people are happy to share our culture as long as we are involved in that exchange and get to dictate the terms of that exchange. Our culture, our rules. Similarly, there are orthodox Jews who are still very insular, and if they don't want to share their culture, they don't have to, and you have to respect that.


I believe in globalism, and I think there is huge value in everyone being able to share their cultures! That said, I don't believe in erasing history by pretending that all parts of all cultures should automatically be given to every person on earth while ignoring its origins. History is important. We can also appreciate a culture without personally engaging in every single part of it (or, more realistically, the parts we like the most).

Part of the value of cultural exchange comes from understanding the rich history behind something and having it be shared with you by someone for whom it has real meaning. If people can't dictate the terms of an exchange of their own culture, that means there is a power imbalance, and is inherently unfair to them. This is why the needs of the minority needs to be placed above the desire of the majority.


There are a few posts here I wanted to reply to, but I'd like to have a conversation about the above first. Thanks,

~Psychic

 

[Somewhere_]

That does not answer how one owns a culture, or how it is theft to culturally appropriate. It mentions intellectual property rights, which I believe do not rightfully exist. To avoid debate about intellectual property rights, how the heck is a bunch of people within a geographical region wearing different clothes to represent the culture "ownership" of that style of clothing?

If they aren't owning the style, then anyone culturally appropriating has not committed theft.

Even if it is "theft" - which it isn't in any way - how is this oppressive? That is too subjective. How does it "strip" the minority culture of the identity? Their identity does not disappear. The people still practice the culture. Identify is self-determined and independent of outside thought, so you cannot say "it makes others view them wrongly."

What makes these representatives of a culture so special? Why do they get to represent the culture and not someone else? Why do they get to decide what is oppressive or not? Who are these representatives?

Finally, what makes everyone obligated properly represent another culture they are not even apart of? Because it is offensive to that group? Obligations are innate, contractual, or legal (depends in my opinion on the last one)- again independent from someone's feelings.

I would argue one has an obligation to behave according to the norms of his or her own culture (social contracts), but that is not the case for a different culture. If one were to move to China from the US, the american would be expected to behave in accordance to Chinese laws and customs. But the american is hardly responsible for behaving in accordance to Chinese laws and customs in his own country. In addition, cultural appropriation occurs only in majority cultures representing minority cultures. Well, the people in the majority culture are not part of the minority culture, and thus is not responsible for following or representing minority culture's customs.

 

[Psychic]

That does not answer how one owns a culture, or how it is theft to culturally appropriate. It mentions intellectual property rights, which I believe do not rightfully exist. To avoid debate about intellectual property rights, how the heck is a bunch of people within a geographical region wearing different clothes to represent the culture "ownership" of that style of clothing?

If they aren't owning the style, then anyone culturally appropriating has not committed theft.

I made no claims about "theft." It should go without saying that a lot of it is determined on a case-by-case scenario. There isn't always a clear and obvious line in the sand, so trying to make a hard and fast rule is challenging. That said, it's pretty common sense a lot of the time - if you're looking at it from the perspective of the minority instead of the majority, anyway, which a lot of people struggle to do.

Even if it is "theft" - which it isn't in any way - how is this oppressive? That is too subjective. How does it "strip" the minority culture of the identity? Their identity does not disappear. The people still practice the culture. Identify is self-determined and independent of outside thought, so you cannot say "it makes others view them wrongly."

The oppression comes from the fact that it's 1) a majority taking something from a minority, which happens all the time and is never not oppressive, 2) it's erasing the history and meaning of something that a minority holds dear just because the majority feels like it, and 3) it lets the majority play with the idea of being an oppressed minority, which they can put down and escape from whenever they'd like, while not actually having to face any of the daily consequences people of that minority experience and cannot escape from. I can probably research into other ways it's oppressive too, but those are the big ones imo.

This strips the minority culture of its identity because part of what makes a culture what it is is its differences from other cultures. For instance, it's specifically explained in Jewish scripture that we must differentiate ourselves from other cultures, which is done via our unique observances. A huge issue in modern-day Judaism is secularization and how that can erode Jewish identity (whether you agree or disagree). Identity does not exist in a vacuum - identity doesn't mean much if you don't look at the outside environment that your identity exists within.

What makes these representatives of a culture so special? Why do they get to represent the culture and not someone else? Why do they get to decide what is oppressive or not? Who are these representatives?

I think you're focusing a bit too much on this. A representative doesn't necessarily have to mean a cultural leader. It can often be dependent on the context. If I make Jewish food for my non-Jewish friends, I'm acting as a cultural representative in that moment. Of course I could never represent all Jewish people - even well-respected Jewish leaders can't realistically represent all Jewish people since we're such a diverse crowd - and there will surely be Jewish people who won't agree with me making Jewish food for my friends. Being a representative does not make me all-knowing, does not make me perfectly objective, and does not mean I will necessarily recognize oppression. It just means that I get to serve as a bridge between other people and my culture, which is beneficial both because of how it educates my friends and upholds my culture.

Finally, what makes everyone obligated properly represent another culture they are not even apart of? Because it is offensive to that group? Obligations are innate, contractual, or legal (depends in my opinion on the last one)- again independent from someone's feelings.

Because it's the right thing to do? Nobody is saying there is some legal, binding obligation. But if someone tells you "a lot of people want a piece of our culture, but in exchange for sharing it with you we should have some degree of control over how that happens and ask that you be as respectful as possible" then the very least you can do is believe them and do as they ask. It boils down to being a considerate human being. People have the freedom to ignore that, of course, but others in return have the right to call them on it.

I would argue one has an obligation to behave according to the norms of his or her own culture (social contracts), but that is not the case for a different culture. If one were to move to China from the US, the american would be expected to behave in accordance to Chinese laws and customs. But the american is hardly responsible for behaving in accordance to Chinese laws and customs in his own country.

I don't really see what your analogy has to do with cultural appropriation - that's just respecting the culture you currently reside within, and there are plenty of grey areas there as well in terms of cultural relativism.

In addition, cultural appropriation occurs only in majority cultures representing minority cultures. Well, the people in the majority culture are not part of the minority culture, and thus is not responsible for following or representing minority culture's customs.

That just goes back to "don't be a jerk, but if you do choose to be a jerk, people are free to call you on it." That said, when I hear something like this, all I can think is "wow, and you wonder why people might be hesitant to share their culture with you?" Cultural exchange requires some degree of respect, and if someone can't muster that, and I cannot imagine what they're doing in that situation to begin with.

As I said, you shouldn't divorce something from its history and ignore its context. Any given thing is enriched when it's shared willingly, and we get the story behind it. Otherwise, you're just taking something because you think it looks pretty, and that's pretty shallow.

~Psychic

 

[Kanzler]

I think cultural appropriation is generally a valid concept, but when it comes to something like art, it could be a lot more controversial.

 

[Her]

I think cultural appropriation is generally a valid concept, but when it comes to something like art, it could be a lot more controversial.

What kind of art are you thinking of? Just interested in your thought processes.

 

[Kanzler]

What kind of art are you thinking of? Just interested in your thought processes.

Art in general is self-referencing and involves exploring what's previously been done in different ways, but the example I had in mind was music. A lot of people cite hip hop and rap as genres where cultural appropriation is prevalent, but personally I find that argument pretty hard to make.

Nice new username by the way!

 

[gimmepie]

Part of the value of cultural exchange comes from understanding the rich history behind something and having it be shared with you by someone for whom it has real meaning. If people can't dictate the terms of an exchange of their own culture, that means there is a power imbalance, and is inherently unfair to them. This is why the needs of the minority needs to be placed above the desire of the majority.


There are a few posts here I wanted to reply to, but I'd like to have a conversation about the above first. Thanks,

~Psychic

Okay, I had other issues with your post, but they were much more minor than my disagreements with this particular paragraph, so out of pure laziness I'm just going to focus here. I think the idea that cultural appropriation has anything to do with an imbalance of power is quite misguided.

1. In order for it to be a power imbalance, the minority party would have to not have access to the majority culture. However, nobody is stopping people in India from wearing a suit and tie if they so desire and plenty of them do.

2. In order for it to be a power imbalance, the minority group would have to be stripped of their culture. This does not happen when a cultural trend is appropriated in a modern sense because the original "owners" of that culture are still completely free to practice their culture as originally intended. If this was back in the days of English imperialism fine, but that's not what the modern world is like. Nobody is forcing their culture on others or stripping minorities of their own - and the few that do try don't succeed.

3. Saying cultural appropriating is an imbalance of power automatically assumes that it's a one-way street and that minority groups cannot appropriate majority culture, they can. In fact, a general trend in this thread is that people automatically assume that cultural appropriation is white people stealing the culture of darker-skinned races. Which is a notion coloured by a stereotype and ignoring that nobody owns culture. No nobody has outright said that, but it's pretty clear if you read between the lines.


All this still ignoring that culture is not stagnant. It changes as time passes and as societies interact with each other. When one civilization meets another, parts of each's culture will inevitably be transferred to the other. That's how cultures grow, change and develop. Cultural appropriation is not some inherently evil or negative thing and it has nothing at all to do with power in a modern setting. That's why I hate the term, it carries such negative connotations now despite it not being an inherently negative thing.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

I think the term carries a negative slant because it's almost exclusively used to refer to negative examples, like the aforementioned native american headdress, and not things like words ect

To be fair though, a lot of examples of things people use do date back to assimilation from imperalistic periods because they're usually a material item, like Tea, rather than conceptual things that have meaning- like native american headresses

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Now's the time for me to mention that dreadlocks incident at the San Francisco University that happened early this year. That shows that cultural appropriation is not only seriously getting out of hand, but also shows that the woman doesn't know that dreadlocks did not originate from the African community. I'm sure the other cultures wouldn't care if a major culture is celebrating a part of their culture so long as it's accurate to their own group. The Native Americans, for example, would complain about the major cultures mixing culture from different tribes, since every tribe has its own traditional values.

 

[Psychic]

Okay, I had other issues with your post, but they were much more minor than my disagreements with this particular paragraph, so out of pure laziness I'm just going to focus here. I think the idea that cultural appropriation has anything to do with an imbalance of power is quite misguided.

You're right that not all views of cultural appropriation focus on whether or not there is a power imbalance, but I believe that discounting that imbalance entirely removes a lot of nuance necessary in this kind of conversation. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

1. In order for it to be a power imbalance, the minority party would have to not have access to the majority culture. However, nobody is stopping people in India from wearing a suit and tie if they so desire and plenty of them do.

Where exactly are you getting this? That doesn't really make any sense. Unless a minority is being segregated, minorities are generally expected to assimilate into the broader culture. Doing so has a lot of advantages socially - insular cultures are often looked down upon. The issue is that identity for a lot of minority groups comes from their individuality and the way they differentiate themselves. Again, this is a huge issue in Judaism, and in many sects of Judaism assimilation is often considered a bad thing. "Having access to the majority culture" just does not play into it, at least not in the way you're thinking.

What I think you're trying to get at is the concept of cultural exchange, which is something that most people think is great, but is different from cultural appropriation. Here is an article about what that difference is.

In response to your note about Indian people wearing suits, to directly quote the article:

Just because Indian Americans wear business suits doesn't mean all Americans own bindis and saris.

The fact is, Western culture invites and, at times, demands assimilation. Not every culture has chosen to open itself up to being adopted by outsiders in the same way.

And there's good reason for that. "Ethnic" clothes and hairstyles are still stigmatized as unprofessional, "cultural" foods are treated as exotic past times, and the vernacular of people of color is ridiculed and demeaned.

So there is an unequal exchange between Western culture – an all-consuming mishmash of over-simplified and sellable foreign influences with a dash each of Coke and Pepsi – and marginalized cultures.

People of all cultures wear business suits and collared shirts to survive. But when one is of the dominant culture, adopting the clothing, food, or slang of other cultures has nothing to do with survival.

I would also hesitate to make the argument that Indian people wearing suits isn't a big deal, so non-Indians wearing saris shouldn't be either, since suits have very little cultural meaning and aren't considered special, whereas my understanding is that that's not exactly the case for saris. Either way, though, context matters; Indian people wearing suits = assimilation and survival, and non-Indians wearing saris = wanting to try something "exotic" for fun, which has no meaning for them and which they can disassociate with whenever they want.

2. In order for it to be a power imbalance, the minority group would have to be stripped of their culture. This does not happen when a cultural trend is appropriated in a modern sense because the original "owners" of that culture are still completely free to practice their culture as originally intended. If this was back in the days of English imperialism fine, but that's not what the modern world is like. Nobody is forcing their culture on others or stripping minorities of their own - and the few that do try don't succeed.

I'm not sure where you're getting this, but that isn't a factor, either. There can 100% be a power imbalance without a group being stripped of their culture. A power imbalance can arise simply from the fact that one group is the majority and others are minorities - majorities get to make the rules, and that in itself is an imbalance of power. To use an extreme example, Jews in Nazi Germany were not (as far as I know) banned from practicing their religion, wearing traditional clothing, or eating kosher food, but there was still an unbelievable power imbalance there, and the government made life living hell even for Jews who were fully assimilated.

Regardless, your point is kind of proved wrong simply by the fact that most minorities have to hide aspects of their culture in order to assimilate with the majority and thrive in that culture. This includes not wearing their culture's clothing, black people having to hide or change their natural hair, not eating their culture's food, not speaking in their natural dialect, etc. all because those things are not considered "professional" in the modern West. Nobody is holding these people at gunpoint and telling them they cannot do these things, of course, but when your job requires that you "fit in," the results are the same.

3. Saying cultural appropriating is an imbalance of power automatically assumes that it's a one-way street and that minority groups cannot appropriate majority culture, they can. In fact, a general trend in this thread is that people automatically assume that cultural appropriation is white people stealing the culture of darker-skinned races. Which is a notion coloured by a stereotype and ignoring that nobody owns culture. No nobody has outright said that, but it's pretty clear if you read between the lines.

The thing is, it's not really appropriating when it's a minority adopting the majority's culture because again, that is considered assimilation. A black woman living in China and practicing Chinese customs is assimilating in order not to be an outsider, and to survive. We can have a more nuanced discussion if we're talking about when she then comes back home to the US and continues practicing those customs.

That said, I wouldn't exactly say it's a "stereotype" that white people steal other people's cultures - that is literally what has happened throughout the history of colonialism. Now, that does not mean all white people are responsible for colonialism and thus cannot enjoy other people's cultures, but it does mean we should educate ourselves, listen to what people are telling us, and be responsible and sensitive when it comes to cultural exchange in order to prevent is from becoming cultural appropriation.

It's very easy for cultural exchange to become a one-way street if we don't listen to and respect one another. We have to believe people when they tell us that cultural appropriation is a problem and is important to them - you cannot have the cultural exchange you want to badly if you can't even do that, don't you think?

To quote the article again:

When someone's behavior is labeled culturally appropriative, it's usually not about that specific person being horrible and evil.

It's about a centuries' old pattern of taking, stealing, exploiting, and misunderstanding the history and symbols that are meaningful to people of marginalized cultures.

All this still ignoring that culture is not stagnant. It changes as time passes and as societies interact with each other. When one civilization meets another, parts of each's culture will inevitably be transferred to the other. That's how cultures grow, change and develop. Cultural appropriation is not some inherently evil or negative thing and it has nothing at all to do with power in a modern setting. That's why I hate the term, it carries such negative connotations now despite it not being an inherently negative thing.

I said in my first post that I think globalism is great, but the issue is that this is conflating cultural exchange with appropriation. There is a difference, even if there isn't always a clear line in the sand. There needs to be respect when different cultures meet, and we need to face the facts that nothing happens in a vacuum. Western cultures need to be aware of the history of colonization and understand what a loot of minority cultures have gone through in order to have a meaningful and equal exchange.

I think the term carries a negative slant because it's almost exclusively used to refer to negative examples, like the aforementioned native american headdress, and not things like words ect

To be fair though, a lot of examples of things people use do date back to assimilation from imperalistic periods because they're usually a material item, like Tea, rather than conceptual things that have meaning- like native american headresses

Cultural appropriation isn't the only type of cultural sharing that exists. Cultural exchange is a widely-used concept that describes many of the positive ways that cultures have shared with one another in mutually-beneficial ways. (I hope I don't sound too much like a broken record at this point.)

~Psychic

 

[gimmepie]

You're right that not all views of cultural appropriation focus on whether or not there is a power imbalance, but I believe that discounting that imbalance entirely removes a lot of nuance necessary in this kind of conversation. Nothing exists in a vacuum.


Where exactly are you getting this? That doesn't really make any sense. Unless a minority is being segregated, minorities are generally expected to assimilate into the broader culture. Doing so has a lot of advantages socially - insular cultures are often looked down upon. The issue is that identity for a lot of minority groups comes from their individuality and the way they differentiate themselves. Again, this is a huge issue in Judaism, and in many sects of Judaism assimilation is often considered a bad thing. "Having access to the majority culture" just does not play into it, at least not in the way you're thinking.

What I think you're trying to get at is the concept of cultural exchange, which is something that most people think is great, but is different from cultural appropriation. Here is an article about what that difference is.

In response to your note about Indian people wearing suits, to directly quote the article:

I would also hesitate to make the argument that Indian people wearing suits isn't a big deal, so non-Indians wearing saris shouldn't be either, since suits have very little cultural meaning and aren't considered special, whereas my understanding is that that's not exactly the case for saris. Either way, though, context matters; Indian people wearing suits = assimilation and survival, and non-Indians wearing saris = wanting to try something "exotic" for fun, which has no meaning for them and which they can disassociate with whenever they want.


I'm not sure where you're getting this, but that isn't a factor, either. There can 100% be a power imbalance without a group being stripped of their culture. A power imbalance can arise simply from the fact that one group is the majority and others are minorities - majorities get to make the rules, and that in itself is an imbalance of power. To use an extreme example, Jews in Nazi Germany were not (as far as I know) banned from practicing their religion, wearing traditional clothing, or eating kosher food, but there was still an unbelievable power imbalance there, and the government made life living hell even for Jews who were fully assimilated.

Regardless, your point is kind of proved wrong simply by the fact that most minorities have to hide aspects of their culture in order to assimilate with the majority and thrive in that culture. This includes not wearing their culture's clothing, black people having to hide or change their natural hair, not eating their culture's food, not speaking in their natural dialect, etc. all because those things are not considered "professional" in the modern West. Nobody is holding these people at gunpoint and telling them they cannot do these things, of course, but when your job requires that you "fit in," the results are the same.


The thing is, it's not really appropriating when it's a minority adopting the majority's culture because again, that is considered assimilation. A black woman living in China and practicing Chinese customs is assimilating in order not to be an outsider, and to survive. We can have a more nuanced discussion if we're talking about when she then comes back home to the US and continues practicing those customs.

That said, I wouldn't exactly say it's a "stereotype" that white people steal other people's cultures - that is literally what has happened throughout the history of colonialism. Now, that does not mean all white people are responsible for colonialism and thus cannot enjoy other people's cultures, but it does mean we should educate ourselves, listen to what people are telling us, and be responsible and sensitive when it comes to cultural exchange in order to prevent is from becoming cultural appropriation.

It's very easy for cultural exchange to become a one-way street if we don't listen to and respect one another. We have to believe people when they tell us that cultural appropriation is a problem and is important to them - you cannot have the cultural exchange you want to badly if you can't even do that, don't you think?

To quote the article again:



I said in my first post that I think globalism is great, but the issue is that this is conflating cultural exchange with appropriation. There is a difference, even if there isn't always a clear line in the sand. There needs to be respect when different cultures meet, and we need to face the facts that nothing happens in a vacuum. Western cultures need to be aware of the history of colonization and understand what a loot of minority cultures have gone through in order to have a meaningful and equal exchange.



Cultural appropriation isn't the only type of cultural sharing that exists. Cultural exchange is a widely-used concept that describes many of the positive ways that cultures have shared with one another in mutually-beneficial ways. (I hope I don't sound too much like a broken record at this point.)

~Psychic

I'm just posting this to say that I personally think that cultural appropriation in the way you think it exists doesn't exist to any great extent in a modern context and is simply mislabeled cultural exchange.

I'll provide a more detailed response later when it's not after midnight.

 

[Esper]

I don't think there would be problems with cultural exchanges if we didn't have problems with racism. Kinda like: cultural appropriation = cultural exchange + racism or something. There are privilege issues at play, I think.

 

[Sektor]

Now's the time for me to mention that dreadlocks incident at the San Francisco University that happened early this year. That shows that cultural appropriation is not only seriously getting out of hand, but also shows that the woman doesn't know that dreadlocks did not originate from the African community. I'm sure the other cultures wouldn't care if a major culture is celebrating a part of their culture so long as it's accurate to their own group. The Native Americans, for example, would complain about the major cultures mixing culture from different tribes, since every tribe has its own traditional values.

Thanks for this. I just found out about this and I have to say I am incredibly disgusted with the trampling of someone's freedom's regardless what words were used or not. This is what she had to say for herself on the incident:

Triggered, I unconsciously move my arm holding the flyer further. He does not approach me to receive a flyer and continues on to his destination. Attempting to react to what triggered me, I jokingly say in a quiet voice 'Not with that hair' in the opposite direction of him. My intention was to collegially provoke thought within the man to critically think about his dreads and the racial implications it has as a non-Black person. During the entire incident including what was caught in the viral video, he never refers to the flyer, which he later would intentionally report to the police in order to create a 'hate crime' narrative over the flyer. Rather, he then verbally assaults me. He called me a '*****.' As a black woman, verbal assault by men comes easily as women are dehumanized, objectified, and over-sexualized by them. I look for the man, going into the building, naturally, to confront him about the verbal slur, tired of being silent. Tired of being docile. I asked him 'Did you call me a *****?' He denied having called me a '*****.' He then asked me why I said that about his hair.

Spoiler:

This is a prime example of the 'cultural appropriation' and offence and politically correct craze gone out of control. There are several people that believe they can do whatever they want with no repercussions and it is absolutely appalling. In the video, she is shown hanging onto him physically and preventing him from leaving. I'm by far no legal expert but I'd place that under false imprisonment by way of prevention. Her testimony of him calling her a bitch is shaky at best and does not excuse physically assaulting another person, which is against the law. Now, I doubt he walked up to her face, screamed 'bitch' at the top of his lungs and then waltzed away judging from his appearance and demeanor typical of that of some kind of beach-bum-weed-head, like, bro, like, chill out (it's a stereotypical trope, but I'm sure 'surfer bum' was brought to your mind as well)

I know that the discussion is mainly on the impacts of 'cultural appropriation' but I believe we can all agree that this is a prime example of how to go about things the wrong way. Placing your hands on someone and further physically and verbally harassing them and then saying "Don't put your hands on me" afterwards deserves a hard slap across the face by the hard dick of reality, apathy be upon her. Even after the man, whether he called her a ***** or not, attempted to diffuse the situation by leaving and moving away from the individual she prevented him from doing so. Her and many people like her utilize their skin tone, color, voice, rights real or fictitious or otherwise to harass whomever they deem unworthy of their kindness, and as evident it is seen that leaving isn't good enough for them and they will follow them until you apologize to them for your imagined wrongdoing.

This is an official anti-bullying campaign poster, advocating for standing up against bullies, and I am sure that the woman in the incident is full on guilty in more than one of these pools.

Spoiler:

What is alarming is that the people like and similar to this individual see nothing wrong with their behaviour or actions. They are justified by themselves and other like them because of some perceived slight that individual has made by just looking at the skin or the way they appear, clothed or otherwise.

I have made up my mind and am now filing cultural appropriation and it's 'cause' in the 'bad' folder. The kind of people that further push this as an issue are no longer validated by the actions of more than a few people that I have seen over the past few years. While it could have been a relatively good cause, it is not surrounded by poisoned clauses, bad ideas, and a kind of Borg assimilation that is no longer for the good of everyone as a whole.

Censorship, in any form, whether censoring pornography, books, clothing, ideas, food, music is not a thing of good. There are, of course, needs to 'protect' certain parties, mainly children, to prevent a kind of mental scarring that only a child might receive if she just so happened upon her father's tentacle porn. I understand that the argument for Cultural Appropriation is not about censorship, but when words and actions, clothing and even a fashion style is under fire for simply being than it ceases to be a vessel to protect the interests of the whole of the people, which is what such a goal should be to begin with. Cultural appropriation seems to be taking the stance against mainly whites from a coloured person's perspective. It seeps into other people's minds that they can get away with calling you stupid, dumb, racist, misogynistic or any other slew of half-truths, lies and rumours to the point where someone has to worry about their job for a cultural misstep.

It isn't such a small group that seems to garner such attention anymore. From a woman berating a 'poor white man, stupid fuck' (while he's actually asian) for having a hula girl on his dashboard to the ridiculous demands of Black Lives Matter whom block and shut down public use areas such as the I-5 or any other freeway. This behaviour is unacceptable, deplorable, and nihilistic in such a way that people scratched by this 'political correctness' craze are effectively infatuated or blinded by their true natures. We've seen it when someone hates and berates someone for wearing a shirt in Sydney University and saw a man get shamed for taking a stance for and defending scientific fact in New Zealand.

I know that the minority affects the majority, but in this instance I see the minority becoming the majority and its unfortunate I see it that way but in my opinion and vision for collaboration and cooperation it's true, and these views effectively sever those ties with rationale and consequence. I do not agree with those that point out someone's 'white privilege' but ignores their own rights and opportunities to tear down someone else's opinion. Calling homeless white men as privileged is sick and a completely grotesque statement to make. Being homeless is not a privilege, it sucks and if you're arguing that sleeping on the pavement underneath some public bench beneath a pile of newspapers Is a privilege is a new form of delusion. To further my stance on this issue, I would also like to note that those who denounce the homeless males in America are making their voices clear that they detest America's military veterans. Roughly one third of all homeless men in the United states is a military veteran, something to think about.

I don't agree that words should go away, or ideas shut down. It halts progress and results in a kind of stagnation akin to someone lying in a bed soaked with their own urine and fecal matter (not a very pleasant image). Ideas are collected and taken from every culture all over the globe. From Roman architecture; to French cooking, languages, and wine; Chinese medicine and herbal remedies, English and European Teas, German sciences and chocolate, American inventions, Japanese innovations, and Middle Eastern mathematics. All cultures are effectively intertwined within each other and one cannot claim to be fully sufficient without the others present.

When Ford visited South America for rubber, or when the German engineering put newer and brighter ideas to paper regarding space travel, when the telegraph, telephone, electricity and the automobile were created there was no short effort to retrieve as much as anyone could possibly grab to aid in the furthering of their lifestyles and science. We're all neck deep in a mire of inventions, cultural ideas, sciences and innovations and improvements. Telling us that we're wrong to use something another culture invented, telling us what we can or cannot wear, telling us how we can or cannot speak; all is wrong, and I'm not going to be a part of it or condone the usage of a thinly veiled, but horrible ideology is used to hurt and harm others? That's wrong and I hope you agree. Thank you.

 

[Caaethil]

I just wanted to point something out that you made me think of. In terms of 'appropriation' I don't think throwing on a head dress, making sounds with your mouth and saying "How" in a deep and mocking voice counts as an 'appropriation'. I doubt anyone would consistently utilize such an act privately and not for satirical purposes. I believe that a one off or even a two-off does not count as .appropriating. a culture. Disrespecting a culture, absolutely, but I feel that 'appropriating' would mean more like a long term kind of thing.

Pretty much what I'm trying to get across. Appropriation isn't an issue to me because most of the examples people seem to give aren't appropriation, they're just racist.

 

[Aliencommander1245]

Pretty much what I'm trying to get across. Appropriation isn't an issue to me because most of the examples people seem to give aren't appropriation, they're just racist.

Are they mutually exclusive concepts, though? Something that's racist can be appropriative, and generally is if it's mocking cultural elements (Like the headdress example that's continually brought up)

 

[Hands]

Now's the time for me to mention that dreadlocks incident at the San Francisco University that happened early this year. That shows that cultural appropriation is not only seriously getting out of hand, but also shows that the woman doesn't know that dreadlocks did not originate from the African community. I'm sure the other cultures wouldn't care if a major culture is celebrating a part of their culture so long as it's accurate to their own group. The Native Americans, for example, would complain about the major cultures mixing culture from different tribes, since every tribe has its own traditional values.

"one incident with one clearly irate and confrontational person shows that the whole thing is out of hand"

Not really.

 

[Rune]

Sigh cultural appropriation is stupid... I don't even know where to begin to find its faults.

First of all, how do you draw a line between one culture and another? All the world's cultures today are a melting pot of other cultures. Even from something obvious like American Pop Culture, to even the culture of even the most remote civilization of South America/Papua.

Humans have existed for more than 100,000 years and Hominins even earlier than that. The cultures that existed back then don't exist anymore. Heck, many cultures that existed a mere 1,000 years ago don't exist or blended into more modern culture. When was the last time you see somebody who is a Celtic Iberian or heck, Greek Anatolian?

Or, if those are boohoo white people, then how about the culture of indigeneous Japanese people? The Jomon people, don't even exist anymore and the Ainus, their descendants, have been mixed with the Yamato (ethnic Japanese people) for thousands of years that they're practically just an offshoot of the Japanese people. How about Ryukyuan people? Whose culture was absorbed into the major Japanese culture that they're just another Japanese culture.

How about China? Oh boy... 'China', as we know it today is far larger than China used to be back when China as a nation was founded. China used to only refer to the land between the Yellow River and the Yangtze River until Chinese Kings colonized nearby lands and absorbed them into what is now Han Chinese. Even within Han Chinese themselves, there are distinct characteristics of people of Northern, Southern, Western Chinese as well as Taiwanese Chinese, Hong Kong Chinese, Macanese Chinese, SE Asian Chinese and other Chinese diaspora!

Now... where does cultural appropriation begin? What if I stole a culture of say, Japan and made one of their historical figures to be this moeblob character. Would that be disrespectful? The Japanese are doing it themselves, many times over!

Okay, so let's say they have that privilege since it's their culture. Then damn them all for even using accoustic guitars, rock music, and everything in their pop songs! But wait, those things are white people culture so it's okay!

Wrong! Rock music came from Blues, which came from black American culture so this means they'd be appropriating from a minority culture. See how stupid this is? All cutures in the world are inspired by the culture that came before it, and what came before would be from all kinds of culture!

Also, as part of the "minority" myself. No really, I managed to be descended from the offshoot cultures of every major cultures that run in my blood (I'm Yemeni instead of Arab, Dutch instead of German, Sundanese instead of Javanese, and Minang instead of Malay, try googling them all!). I really think that cultural appropriation as a concept is a disease and the people who advocate for it, don't understand what they're talking about. This isn't just about white people vs the world!

Honestly, I can list off more reasons about why it's stupid; most importantly, as unscientific as race itself. If race is a 'bad' social construct, cultural appropriation is 'worse'. It doesn't exist, and this is coming from the guy whose country was willing to go to war over a 'stolen' culture by a neighbor. The Internet (or Western) brand of cultural appropriation is very tame compared to that!

 

[Caaethil]

Are they mutually exclusive concepts, though? Something that's racist can be appropriative, and generally is if it's mocking cultural elements (Like the headdress example that's continually brought up)

They are not mutually exclusive, I agree. But just because something racist could be considered appropriation, is appropriation bad? Just because something racist is said by a white person, are white people racist?

I think racist actions are very often appropriation. But appropriation is not an inherently bad concept, and as such I don't acknowledge it. When reasonable people talk about appropriation, they generally have good appropriation and bad appropriation, with bad appropriation being stuff that's racist, and good appropriation being dreadlocks or whatever. But if appropriation is only bad when it's racist, appropriation seems like a pointless term in the first place, because the problem lies in the racism, not appropriation as a concept.