Effectronica posted:

There have been multiple people posting varied definitions of cultural appropriation, none of which you have responded to as far as I can see beyond this post saying that none of them satisfy your criteria. Well, is there anything that would satisfy your criteria? I suspect that nothing will ever convince you, because you have already made up your mind on the issue. So for example, this statement from the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples:


and this one from the Declaration of War Against Exploiters of Lakota Spirituality:


will not serve as evidence that it exists outside of a bludgeon by teenagers from livejournal. Instead, the forecast shows a 60% chance of nitpicking, with a substantial likelihood that you'll do some quick googling and declare that since UN Declarations aren't international law, it doesn't matter. Maybe you'll insist that the Declaration of War is irrelevant because you know better than the Lakota what their priorities should be.

fspades posted:

No, instead I will insist this is a very specific case of protecting certain spiritual practices only reserved for cultural insiders from commodification. It is something very, very different than Westerners wearing Chinese calligraphy tattoos and saris. Which is also different from early Rock artists aping from black musicians. And all of these are different from Redskins. I dare you to come up with a consistent definition of cultural appropriation that applies for all of these cases while also allowing cultural borrowing and interaction.

quote:

edit: nice snark and not-so-subtle accusation of racism btw

fspades posted:

This thread has failed to bring a coherent and clear definition for cultural appropriation. Ultimately all you claim is "I know it, when I see it." It's very easy (and satisfying, I bet) to throw empty platitudes about cultural sensitivity and not being a dick, but if you can't even define a problem how are you expecting to solve it?

Effectronica posted:

Maybe for the second one, but for the first? Did you even read it? Of course you didn't.

But in any case, "cultural appropriation" is defined by academics as any case where one culture takes something from another culture and uses it, which covers everything on your list!

quote:

Then they say that appropriation is only bad when it becomes damaging to the culture taken from! I, personally, in this thread, have said that appropriation is only this case of damaging to the culture borrowed from, because I consider the "appropriation" part to be important.

quote:

This also covers all of these things except hanzi tattoos, which I merely said were Orientalist, so long as we consider Indian-American culture as something distinct from Indian culture and also as a real culture.

quote:

Granted, you could argue that the overwhelmingly white nature of rock n' roll past the mid-50s is entirely coincidental, or that "Redskins" doesn't damage Amerindian cultures because you can't show that it causes exactly 12 units of cultural damage or whatever, or that Indian-Americans using the sari as a sign of their cultural identity is wrong, but then you've already accepted my terms.

fspades posted:

Who are these academics? Under what reasoning did they come up with this definition? Why they consider this term as useful, since it sounds incredibly vague and applicable to nearly anything? Let's see some citations. If we are going to talk about an academic subject, let's get academic.

Also, Redskins are emphatically not an example of cultural appropriation, even under this definition. You are confusing racist caricatures and racist speech with the appropriation of cultural artifacts. Maybe you could claim Redskins fans wearing feather headdresses is an example of cultural appropriation but that's not the real problem with Redskins isn't it?

quote:

What does this even mean?? In what way can a culture be damaged? How do you define a culture and where does the borders of a culture end and others begin? How do you distinguish benign cultural change from cultural destruction or degeneration?

quote:

...what?

quote:

No, that'd be stupid.

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Some of them certainly don't seem to mind.

Echo Chamber posted:

You're doing exactly what I described, by twisting it into a story about the PC police.

I get the impression that they're not even arguing about the thing supposedly in question but are instead displaying the tip of the iceberg of anxiety and resentment.

"Making fun of clueless weaboos and sinophiles? It's gone too far. This is where I draw the line."

fspades posted:

People are rightfully asking "is this really racist?" or "does this foster negative stereotypes?" because that's what they care about and they don't give two shits about academic subjects such as orientalism. That subject, btw, is much better discussed in a scholarly environment and not on the internet over dumb tattoos.

fspades posted:

I dare you to come up with a consistent definition of cultural appropriation that applies for all of these cases while also allowing cultural borrowing and interaction.

blowfish posted:

Nah, it's more "people need to chill out and stop getting pointlessly outraged over the stupidity of idiots"

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Effectronica posted:

James O. Young, professor of philosophy at the University of Victoria, and Susan Scafidi, professor of law at Fordham University, are two in particular who get cited fairly frequently in pop mentions.

quote:

Have you ever seen the Redskins' logo? Because your position, like many of the others you have expressed, seems to be based on major ignorance. Maybe you have them confused with the Cleveland Indians' old logo.

quote:

Okay, so if I were to burn down the Louvre, this would be a benign cultural change?

quote:

Just forestalling the response that it doesn't damage Indian culture, which has been used previously in this thread with regards to use of Japanese cultural artifacts. Didn't figure you'd go for insisting that all cultural change is necessarily neutral.

fspades posted:

Ok. From James O. Young we have Cultural Appropriation and the Arts. Looking at the reviews, he does not give a precise definition of culture and wants to focus on cultural appropriation during artistic production. Interestingly, he disagrees with your position and suggests a culture cannot claim ownership for an art product or artistic style, only individuals can, and only concrete objects at that. He also finds cultural harm argument weak as it can be done both by outsiders and insiders; also, cultural insiders would still have the ability to produce appropriated motifs and styles. Also causing offense to a cultural group might not necessarily be an ethically wrong thing to do. Basically a more comprehensive version of all the objections already given in this thread...

I couldn't get any review or summaries for Scafidi, so if you'd summarize her argument it'd would be helpful.

quote:

I'd say the really offensive part is the name, and that's where discussion revolves around.

quote:

That's not the question. The question is if I printed out copies of Mona Lisa and sold it for (to people who have never heard of Mona Lisa even) would that be objectionable action on the grounds that I distorted Renaissance era Italian culture and diminished the Louvre's standing? In fact, you could argue (and people do argue) Mona Lisa and everything else in the Louvre museum, including the artifacts that were explicitly stolen during the colonial period rightfully belongs to all mankind and not exclusively to this or that culture. Do you disagree with this view?

quote:

Whether cultural change is positive or negative depends heavily on someone's starting position. If I were a xenophobic cultural essentialist I could easily argue cultural appropriation is harmful... for the appropriators. It would be a logically consistent position if we agreed with its initial premises, but we don't have to. You, on the other hand, are making some controversial assumptions about culture but do not bother to back them up as if they were self-evident and anyone who disagrees with those assumptions is looking for an excuse to be a dick to minorities.

fspades posted:

Cultural appropriation is another trivial thing the worthless American left obsesses over while literally billions of "people of color" are suffering tremendously under poverty, exploitation and imperialism. The only reason why it is a hot button issue is because it involves Katy Perry and snotty college students.

Typical Pubbie posted:

I don't think cultural appropriation is real. Rather it's just another overwrought, psuedo-intellectual term created by dipshit leftists to perpetuate white guilt.

tsa posted:

How on earth is this thread 17 pages and just didn't end with this post. Although I suppose this topic is like the epitome of pointless 'progressive' hand wringing so it makes sense.


A good summary.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

This seems like an incredibly narrow definition of appropriation. If cultural appropriation only means literally wearing blackface or running around pretending to be japanese, it isn't an issue. Katy Perry wasn't pretending to be Japanese in her skit.

The problem is that all the examples I gave actually were cultural appropriation. The Mikado is practically a textbook case, it was literally "lol, japanese people are weird and funny", 1880's version. It included direct elements of Japanese music etc. It also is probably Gilbert and Sullivan's single greatest work, both in terms of lyrics and music.

quote:

When Prince Fushimi Sadanaru made a state visit in 1907, the British government banned performances of The Mikado from London for six weeks,[n 7] fearing that the play might offend him – a manoeuvre that backfired when the prince complained that he had hoped to see The Mikado during his stay.

Ghost of Reagan Past posted:

Suppose your family has some really special and unique holiday (say, Christmas) tradition. Maybe you all bake cinnamon rolls with your great grandmother's special recipe, and you've resolved to do it only once a year and never share them with people outside your family. It's your family's special thing, and it's very important to you that this be part of your family...but now look! Oh no! the recipe got outside your family! The rolls are delicious, so that's not too bad, but look! They're selling them year round and ignoring all the tradition that goes along with it! You complain, but everyone ignores you, because they're too busy eating cinnamon rolls.

You'd feel a little pissed off and disrespected, right?

Jarmak posted:

My issue is that it seems like the only "troubling" examples of cultural appropriation seem to be accompanied by secondary characteristics that are clearly the issue (eg racist caricature), or the basis of the complaint is a bunch of nativist nonsense that would be rightly treated with derision coming from any other source that didn't allow for an opportunity to cache progressive street cred.

7c Nickel posted:

Thanks for telling minorities where their priorities should really lie. This is totally advice they've never gotten before.

Jarmak posted:

My issue is that it seems like the only "troubling" examples of cultural appropriation seem to be accompanied by secondary characteristics that are clearly the issue (eg racist caricature),

Effectronica posted:

and this one from the Declaration of War Against Exploiters of Lakota Spirituality:

quote:

We especially urge all our Lakota, Dakota, and Nakota people to take action to prevent our own people from contributing to and enabling the abuse of our sacred ceremonies and spiritual practices by outsiders; for, as we all know, there are certain ones among our own people who are prostituting our spiritual ways for their own selfish gain, with no regard for the spiritual well-being of the people as a whole. 5. We assert a posture of zero-tolerance for any "white man's shaman" who rises from within our own communities to "authorize" the expropriation of our ceremonial ways by non-Indians; all such "plastic medicine men" are enemies of the Lakota, Dakota and Nakota people.

Armyman25 posted:

So why do the the opinions of the group of that wrote this declaration trump conflicting opinions held by other tribe members?

Effectronica posted:

That's not why I posted it, and, uh, I don't think you understand what their issue is. I would appreciate an example.

Armyman25 posted:

I don't have an example, you're the one who posted it. From what the statement says though, the writers are unhappy with how other members of the tribe are practicing their religion. It really reminds me of the possibly apocryphal story about how Bruce Lee had to fight a one on one match to earn the right to teach kung fu to non-Chinese. Just because you are a member of a group doesn't make you the arbiter of what is or isn't a real expression of that group's culture.

Armyman25 posted:

Just because you are a member of a group doesn't make you the arbiter of what is or isn't a real expression of that group's culture.

semper wifi posted:

Its not my job to educate you shitlord!! (and i'm too lazy to/incapable of defending my own position, but i'll call you dumb anyway)

ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:

Honestly I still haven't seen a definition of cultural appropriation that can't be just as easily categorized as gross insensitivity towards another culture or just good ol' fashioned racism.

Orange Fluffy Sheep posted:

That's sort of because cultural appropriation is gross insensitivity towards another culture or just good ol' fashioned racism. It's a particular form of those. You're complaining a chicken can't be defined completely independently of birds.

It isn't close to the worst thing one can do to a disadvantaged group, but it is one of the many, many ways the out-group can be exploited by the in-group.

Popular Thug Drink posted:

Haha people get thier panties so twisted about SJWs they start questioning the tenets of democracy, nice

"how can anyone ever really represent a group of people, that's like a hivemind. you're the real racist" -a shocking number of goons

http://www.wildhorsepassresort.com/culture posted:

The Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort & Spa is devoted to Cultural Sustainability. The property is owned by the Pima and Maricopa Tribes that comprise the Gila River Indian Community and their culture and heritage is woven into every aspect of the resort, offering an authentic and tangible cultural experience for guests and visitors.

For the traveler seeking a unique sense of place, we focus on Geotourism, or a version of tourism that sustains or enhances the geographical character of a place - its environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage, and the well-being of its residents. Located on the Gila River Indian Community, the Sheraton Wild Horse Pass Resort & Spa has long been a inspiration for how to respectfully and authentically share Native American culture at a luxury resort and has won multiple national awards for those efforts.

Our unique programming is highlighted by a variety of exceptional offerings including; a Cultural Concierge, a Storytelling and Song Program that shares ancient legends, culinary items from Gila River Farms and Gila Crossing Schools and by preserving and displaying Arts and Crafts of the Pima and Maricopa.

The integrity of our cultural authenticity is second to none and we hope that you will immerse yourself in the inspiring cultures and traditions during your stay with us.

dogcrash truther posted:

Look, cultural appropriation definitely exists, but don't you have to balance its negative aspects with its positive aspects? It seems like the argument is either "Cultural appropriation is obviously and only bad" or "cultural appropriation doesn't exist." But my feeling is that cultural appropriation's positive aspects more than make up for any negatives.

Powercrazy posted:

My disgust with current intellectual property law and disdain of corporate branding doesn't preclude me from calling out attempts at forcing a particular ~societal ideal~ using those systems.

And please "compliance with the law"?

Popular Thug Drink posted:

There can often be comorbid factors of oppression. Like redlining, the 'real' problem is lack of economic opportunity for minorities that gives them a lower real income but on top of that blanket refusals to provide loans are also pretty bad!

Trying to establish a priority list of which problem is realer than the other is a great way to dither and avoid addressing any problems at all though, which is the main reason anyone brings it up in this thread (aside from looking for an avenue to whine about strawman progressives).