Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Ytlaya
Nov 13, 2005

stone cold posted:

b) wow it almost reminds me of the intense anti rap sentiment and crackdowns that occurred in america, it’s almost like these are similar situations 🤔

If rap, even if made by Chinese people, is cracked down on by society, I'm really struggling to see how the creation of the rap itself is a bad thing (or at least a bad thing related to the aforementioned cracking down). If anything, it seems like a better path forward than allowing something stemming from black cultural products to be entirely silenced (and it might at least allow certain aspects of black American culture to become less stigmatized). There's still the problem of people profiting off of a black cultural product*, but 1. that's a separate issue and 2. as mentioned things get very fuzzy when you're talking about unique creations in a musical field as broad as rap/hip-hop.

* It's also only conceivably a problem if there are black people in China who are writing their own rap and can't succeed commercially as a result of racism. I'm just blindly assuming this is the case, because if it's not the entire argument against Chinese rap falls apart (since no one would be profiting at anyone else's expense).

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

quickly
Mar 7, 2012

OwlFancier posted:

I think I am probably arguing that there isn't a moral issue other than the degree to which the practice may materially harm people, which it primarily does via commodification, not use of a thing by individuals, or even the transfer of a thing from one culture into another without the involvement of Capital, because it is the commodification of a thing which harms it because it then gets sold back to places where its original meaning might still remain, as a commodity, which is devoid of meaning. If it just transfers into a new place not as a commodity then it acquires its own meaning there which may inherit from the original or not, but is no less valid.

Though I'm having a bit of difficulty figuring out what you're saying exactly.

I was arguing (badly) that cultural appropriation presents a moral issue when it negatively affects the relevant minority group, but those effects are not best understood in terms of appropriation, commodification or exploitation (i.e., in economic terms). In other words, the problem isn't that a cultural practice is appropriated, but that the minority group is negatively affected by the appropriated practice. My goal is to sidestep some common problems with liberal discourse about cultural appropriation (cultural ontology) and safeguard the concept from criticism that points to neutral or positive examples of cultural appropriation in an effort to undermine the entire discourse. I apologize for the unclear post.

quickly fucked around with this message at 10:57 on Aug 6, 2018

Phyzzle
Jan 26, 2008

Ytlaya posted:

It sorta comes back to what other people have mentioned where the real problem is "discrimination against (in this case) black people that results in them being less able to profit from the same music," rather than other groups creating and profiting from it.

...I'm not that comfortable with condemning the creation of the music itself (unless it's a very specific type of music with some specific cultural meaning, which isn't the case with something that is, as previously mentioned, as broad as rap/hip-hop).

I wish there were two terms, because cultural appropriation is used to mean two very separate things:

* A white culture not adopting the artistic achievements of a minority culture until after they are repackaged with white performers.

The first could be called "discrimination against minority performers", but it's happened often enough (Led Zeppelin) that there could be a shorter term for it.

* A dominant culture adopting important symbols of a minority culture in frivolous, unthinking ways.

This is the giant grey area that practically requires an organized movement to be sure about. If you ask someone from Peru, they might be a bit sore about getting priced out of their own staple food, quinoa, due to shifting diet fads in the U.S.. But lots of people from Peru are themselves quinoa farmers who are happy enough to buy themselves rice instead with their new buckets of money.

Grape
Nov 16, 2017

Happily shilling for China!

Barudak posted:

Youre aware I chose rap in china because a) rap in china predates Chinese economic programs in Africa*

Rap isn't African in cultural origin though, so uh...relevance?

Barudak
May 7, 2007

Grape posted:

Rap isn't African in cultural origin though, so uh...relevance?

Thats my point, African American culture isnt African culture, so Chinas relationship wirh one when the other is in question is irrelevant.

The issue is structural systems, not the purity of cultures

Sneakster
Jul 13, 2017

by R. Guyovich

Barudak posted:

The issue is structural systems, not the purity of cultures
That's white leftist class reductionism pal. The real the issue is the purity of racial souls and making stealing music of the wrong race, also the dangers of interracial relationships.

ate shit on live tv
Feb 15, 2004

by Azathoth

Phyzzle posted:

But lots of people from Peru are themselves quinoa farmers who are happy enough to buy themselves rice instead with their new buckets of money.
There is nothing glamorous about globalism, and most peruvian quinoa farmers are worse off. But this is 100% unrelated to the thread topic.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

TEEXXX
Nov 23, 2018

xrunner posted:

I don't know that I was making a specific argument, so much as sharing the emotional sentiment of somebody who is deeply involved in these issues. And that emotional sentiment is entirely valid. It boils down to the fact that it's anger inducing to see cultural touchstones used as kitsch, or sold for profit, or bandied about lightly as decoration when that culture was actively suppressed and the vast wealth out there was built on stolen resources. I guess I was trying to get across the emotional, individual and entirely authentic response of an individual, rather than argue for or against at a high level, if that makes sense, because I think we often have these conversations without really considering the individuals in these communities, diverse and scattered as they are across the political spectrum.

Sure, these conversations often deviate into odd places - arguing over who can make food or white-knighting some dominant culture, but there are specific communities that are impacted by this stuff, and whether the individual emotional responses hold up to your cold and calculated logical argument or not, they're something that should be considered and weighted.

I really do feel like these conversations get into odd places. I feel like when they do it deflects from the emotions that people feel when they see someone make a quick buck off of the culture that was at one point meant to be eradicated.

I am so happy you said this. Thank you.
Because this is the real heart of the issue.

Teach the REAL history in public education.
I want the meanings of iconic cultural symbols to be celebrated not monetized off of and just reduced to a “style.” It’s more than style, it’s more than features and beyond. It’s all about history and also about how much culture has been lost to greed, oppression and selfishness.

Cultural acceptance and a real education.
That’s all I really want 😢

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply