Effectronica posted:

7c Nickel posted:

Ok, let's try something.

In 1993, at the Lakota Summit V, the assembled members unanimously passed the "Declaration of War Against Exploiters of Lakota Spirituality."

Now are the practices described in this document

A. Real problems with cultural appropriation that the council was attempting to address.

B. Real problems, but not cultural appropriation because *INSERT 50 PAGE TANGENT HERE*

C. Not actually problems and those dumb minorities should have better things to worry about.

quote:

7. We urge all our Indian brothers and sisters to act decisively and boldly in our present campaign to end the destruction of our sacred traditions, keeping in mind our highest duty as Indian people: to preserve the purity of our precious traditions for our future generations, so that our children and our children's children will survive and prosper in the sacred manner intended for each of our respective peoples by our Creator.

Omi-Polari posted:

hakimashou posted:

Cultural appropriation is bad because its dilutes the exotic authenticity of a culture, but a culture's exotic authenticity only matters to people outside it, because our own cultures aren't exotic to us.

So, cultural appropriation can only be bad from an outside perspective, since diluting or diminishing the exotic authenticity of another culture is only bad from the perspective of someone who values it because it is exotic.

So, for people who believe they are part of a culture but also are alarmed when its exotic authenticity is diminished, there is a contradiction. Somewhere along the line they identified with a culture but never really came to see or value it from an insider's perspective.

Fundamentally, if we think our own cultures have intrinsic values rather than extrinsic ones- for example "I like this about my culture because i think it is good" vs "I like this about my culture because only we do it-" then we can't possibly see cultural appropriation as wrong, since at worst, it is just people trying to imitate something we think is good, and we should want the best for one another.

VitalSigns posted:

Mmhmm, what a fresh new perspective.

Omi-Polari posted:

It just comes across as bread and circuses. It's about celebrities, Grammys, products in shopping malls -- those are the examples of cultural appropriation I see trotted out most often. Like Iggy Azalea was something of a hate figure for a little while among quite a lot of people on the online left. I'm not exaggerating.

I don't see why anyone should care. I mean, Iggy Azalea is going to take up most of your attention?

quote:

"I like to think that I’m gay in my art and straight in my life. Although, I’m also gay in my life up to the point of intercourse, and then you could say I’m straight. So I guess it depends on how you define gay. If it means whom you have sex with, I guess I’m straight. In the twenties and thirties, they used to define homosexuality by how you acted and not by whom you slept with. Sailors would gently caress guys all the time, but as long as they behaved in masculine ways, they weren’t considered gay."

[...]

"Maybe sex with a guy would change things, but I doubt it. Like I said, I’m gay in my art. Or, I should say, queer in my art. And I’m not this way for political reasons, although sometimes it becomes political, like when I voted for same-sex marriage, etc. But what it’s really about is making queer art that destabilizes engrained ways of being, art that challenges hegemonic thinking."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/18/james-franco-gay-interview_n_6893970.html

VitalSigns posted:

But she actually seems like a really good example of how appropriation perpetuates inequality to me. Here you've got an art form that was invented and refined by black artists, and a pretty white woman comes along, copies it, and starts making far and away more money than anyone in that genre ever had before. Why not use this as a perfect example of how the money flows, not to the creative pioneers, but to the first person of a skin tone palatable to the majority that was able to imitate it successfully. It's an example that is immediately accessible to anyone who has hears of her, why do you think it's a strange one to pick?

Yeah, she's just one example and in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter how much money Iggy Azalea gets. But it's one instance of a pattern that's repeated all the time and everywhere: the achievements of people of color are co-opted to benefit whites so the benefits of them can be transferred to and enjoyed by the white majority while the communities that created them are left impoverished.

VitalSigns posted:

While of course you're right that it isn't "strictly true" that every white rapper makes more money than every black rapper, but that's not a very useful way of evaluating trends. Is it "strictly true" that every white applicant always gets hired over every black one? Is it "strictly true" that every white defendant escapes the death penalty and every black defendant gets a capital sentence? Is it "strictly true" that every gay couple is rejected by landlords in favor of a straight couple? No, no, and no, but that doesn't mean these trends don't exist.

As for James Franco, well, I'd say the role of gay people in contributing to the fashions and tastes that are overall an aspect of the wider culture is a bit more complicated. For a counterexample, consider the criticism that Madonna gets for vogue: copying a style from the underground gay scene and profiting from repackaging and selling it to a middle America that is willing to buy it only when it's sold by a straight woman. The people who created are shoved aside, because to America they are worthless, but America is perfectly willing to enjoy what they created as long as they can feel that their money and attention are going to someone "worthy".

VitalSigns posted:

Why do you have to take reductio ad absdurdums as equally problematic situations? Those situations are by definition different, so we should expect to treat them differently.

Is it sexist if I go visit an old friend and bring their daughter I've never met a Cinderella doll? Sure. Is it necessarily a problem in this case? Well, no, it might turn out she really likes Cinderella and would have wanted that even if I had asked first instead of assuming. Or it might disappoint her and send her a message that this is what girls are "supposed" to want. Should we treat this kind of mild sexism as equally bad as if I threw out every résumé with a woman's name on it? No we shouldn't, that would be pretty hysterical and stupid right?

VitalSigns posted:

Can't some examples be bad and some be minor?

It might be sexist of me to open a door for a woman, but it would be pretty ridiculous of me to go "well well feminists, it doesn't harm a woman when I do that so I guess sexism doesn't exist"

VitalSigns posted:

As for James Franco, well, I'd say the role of gay people in contributing to the fashions and tastes that are overall an aspect of the wider culture is a bit more complicated. For a counterexample, consider the criticism that Madonna gets for vogue: copying a style from the underground gay scene and profiting from repackaging and selling it to a middle America that is willing to buy it only when it's sold by a straight woman. The people who created are shoved aside, because to America they are worthless, but America is perfectly willing to enjoy what they created as long as they can feel that their money and attention are going to someone "worthy".

VitalSigns posted:

1980's America would have rejected an openly gay performer regardless of how good his art was because filthy homos. Clearly this is the fault of gay people for being too lazy to be superstars or something.

quote:

7. We urge all our Indian brothers and sisters to act decisively and boldly in our present campaign to end the destruction of our sacred traditions, keeping in mind our highest duty as Indian people: to preserve the purity of our precious traditions for our future generations, so that our children and our children's children will survive and prosper in the sacred manner intended for each of our respective peoples by our Creator.

VitalSigns posted:

Liberace was closeted his whole life, and Freddie Mercury danced around the issue.

Are you really trying to imply homophobia wasn't real in the 1980s?

VitalSigns posted:

1980's America would have rejected an openly gay performer regardless of how good his art was because filthy homos.

TheImmigrant posted:

Liberace's sexuality was obvious in the 80s. Freddie Mercury's even more so. Coming out of the closet wasn't really a thing yet then, not for celebrities.

wateroverfire posted:

IDK. Elton John, Boy George, both were out during the 80's and had big success. Freddy Mercury. There were others, too. Not saying that prejudice wasn't a thing, of course.

Also Vogue dropped in 1990.

VitalSigns posted:

Both of whom became famous first. You asked why openly gay men didn't make vogue popular, as if the creators of an art just weren't as good as an imitator somehow.

Omi-Polari posted:

It just comes across as bread and circuses. It's about celebrities, Grammys, products in shopping malls -- those are the examples of cultural appropriation I see trotted out most often. Like Iggy Azalea was something of a hate figure for a little while among quite a lot of people on the online left. I'm not exaggerating.

I don't see why anyone should care. I mean, Iggy Azalea is going to take up most of your attention? It's a sign of a left that's deeply troubled. It feels representative of a left that is largely demobilized and has turned inwards on itself. It's largely performative and expressive but has no real grounding. It's very post-Occupy, though Ferguson had potential for being aimed at creating real changes. But that had to do with real and more important stuff.

VitalSigns posted:

What's the thrust of your argument. Because right now it sounds like "well yeah sure, some runners had their ankles chained together for the race, but there's a lot more to winning a race than not being chained, maybe all the unchained straight white people were just better runners anyway"

E: Vogue was just an example of a trend. If you recognize the trend exists, then why quibble about whether Madonna is a good example of it or not, ultimately that's unknowable without a time machine, but we can look at the whole context around this and other examples and see that powerful people making money off of the uncredited work of unpopular minorities happens and is bad. Which you seem to except, so why blow all this smoke about this or that specific instance?

wateroverfire posted:

I think here's where I disagree with you. If someone took a specific work of another artist, minority or not, and resold as their own creation, then that's a problem. If someone was inspired by a sound or look or etc and rolled that into their own work without copying a specific expression that's literally how art works and being butthurt about it seems inappropriate.

Gantolandon posted:

The main problem is how the industry chooses to promote or ignore certain artists, which is also dependent of characteristics such as race, though. It's not only about what people like, because they can only like what's presented to them in the first place. If black music is obscure, but there is plenty of well-known and advertised white artists who play nearly exactly the same thing, there is no reason to think they all succeeded or failed according to their skills or likability. The artists who were passed over just to see other people getting multi-million dollar contracts for derived work have every right to feel deceived.

steinrokkan posted:

no popular black artists out there, no siree! what's the quota for fair representation?

Omi-Polari posted:

It just comes across as bread and circuses. It's about celebrities, Grammys, products in shopping malls -- those are the examples of cultural appropriation I see trotted out most often. Like Iggy Azalea was something of a hate figure for a little while among quite a lot of people on the online left. I'm not exaggerating.

I don't see why anyone should care. I mean, Iggy Azalea is going to take up most of your attention? It's a sign of a left that's deeply troubled. It feels representative of a left that is largely demobilized and has turned inwards on itself. It's largely performative and expressive but has no real grounding. It's very post-Occupy, though Ferguson had potential for being aimed at creating real changes. But that had to do with real and more important stuff.

Crowsbeak posted:

This really describes how I see, why do we split hairs over this? When there are real issues that are causing people to be living in poverty, leading to homelessness, or even just allowing for the brutalization of the underclasses. We instead also take issue with some media mogul making lovely music that is a shallow copy of a minorities music. That's the hill we want to die on.

falcon2424 posted:

Why would ancient origins of Easter matter? It's a hypothetical. The whole situation is made up anyway, so we can just assert that the Non-Evangelicals got their Easter via the Evangelicals.

If so, it's quintessential appropriation, unless you're sticking in that hidden, "only 'exotic' stuff counts" clause.

And I agree that the Evangelicals clearly have a right to withdraw from broader culture if they want. I'm saying that I don't have any particular obligation to help. And I have no reason to be upset if a once-distinct Evangelical evangelical population starts merging with the mainstream.

rudatron posted:

Effectronica, I'm not trying to 'win' anything here. Do you think I care about pettiness? New ideas, ways of thinking, that is my crack-cocaine. You said they 'must' adopt, I challenged that, and challenged the reasoning that CA must be opposed because of that. That's not because I'm trying to spit in your face, I want more, more stuff, more words. I'm not asking for proof, I want the hidden assumptions, the rhetoric, the emotional investment, etc. Is the 'adoption' a matter of values simply changing, or values being imposed? Is there value inherent to diversity, or is that value derived from elsewhere? If from the value other subjects place in it, what are the limits of that value?

And if you want to be figurative, fine, but please make it relevant. In my mind, if a culture can die without it being forced on them, at some point the people who did value it stopped valuing it. Values can and do change over time, they aren't eternal. The values today should be respected, but not projected onto the future. You get me? So it's kind of important that you don't implicitly equivocate between the two, when I'm trying to push the difference between the two.

So don't go pretending you're somehow more enlightened than everyone else. Neither of us can see things 'as they really are'. We're both down here, you and me, stumbling in the dark and chasing shadows. I'm not going to give up my claims for the same reason you're not going to give up yours, it's all we have. You've never admitted you can support your claims, and you can't, otherwise you would have just done it. So come on then, discuss.

Now, for your two other points: Is this libetarianism? Nope, you protect the commons or collectivize something because of the real benefits you'd get from that, to real people, today. Not for, what, protecting the sanctity of something abstract. As for harm: can you measure harm? Who the gently caress knows! Does it matter? Not really, as long as you can make some kind of comparison you should be good to go.

Effectronica posted:

Well, then, you obviously don't have a problem with cultural appropriation, except when it's the right kind of culture being appropriated from, because you don't figure that the long-term effects are negative.

falcon2424 posted:

I don't understand your inclusion of the bold clause.

And I'm saying that the appropriated culture is still free to hold their original rituals if they want. In the hypothetical, this is "they can still attend church". It's up to the individual members to decide if they want to preserve a tradition.

If they don't then, evidently, they think that the benefits of their new practices outweigh the costs.

Gantolandon posted:

The main problem is how the industry chooses to promote or ignore certain artists, which is also dependent of characteristics such as race, though. It's not only about what people like, because they can only like what's presented to them in the first place. If black music is obscure, but there is plenty of well-known and advertised white artists who play nearly exactly the same thing, there is no reason to think they all succeeded or failed according to their skills or likability. The artists who were passed over just to see other people getting multi-million dollar contracts for derived work have every right to feel deceived.