|
Boing posted:I agree. So where is the line? What is it specifically that makes an instance of cultural 'borrowing' disrespectful? Like almost anything worthwhile in the world, there is no 'line'. Most of it is basic common sense. Dressing up like an 'indian', just an 'indian'? Obviously loving stupid as poo poo. Doing something and calling it a Hope medicine ritual when you're not at all Hopi and don't have any sort of understanding of the culture? Ugly and idiotic. Dressing up as a really faithful and well-researched recreation of a Chippewa Indian, and knowing about that tribe in depth? Questionable but at least there's some sort of argument to be made. Most of this stuff is obvious, the things that are right on the line we can leave to the actual people who might possible be directly affected to raise as an issue rather than go hunting for it.
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
Typical Pubbie posted:I wouldn't even call dressing up as an Indian cultural appropriation. If it's insensitive or mocking why not just call it racist? 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. It's meaningless to say it 'isn't real'. It's something describable: when people not from a culture who have no real understanding of it grab some trappings of it and use it for their own ends, usually just to gently caress around with. Whether this is really a bad thing is arguable, but that it actually occurs really isn't, which is pretty obvious. But sure, at the crudest levels, it's 'just' racism. But then you get the parts where the people are earnest, they really like the culture they're appropriating from, but they still divorce whatever cultural object it is from the context. Again, whether or not this is a bad thing is completely arguable but it definitely happens. What are some over overwrought pseudo-intellectual terms created by disphit leftists to perpetuate white guilt? This seems like maybe your speciality area, and I'm curious.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:In any case why do people rail against "appropriation" and not against "bigoted mockery"? They do rail against bigoted mockery. Why do variations of this question keep getting asked when the answer is obvious?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2015 12:14
|
|
|
Cole posted:i'm glad you agree that constant use of a word robs it of its power. so we can stop talking about the redskins needing to change their name then? Actually, the repeated use of a word despite the objections of the group it denigrates actually inculcates it with more, not less power.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
This is pretty simple. You're actually learning Chinese. So it's not appropriation. Most of the problems people have in this thread with the concept of cultural appropriation (But isn't it just racism? Yes, it often is. So what? Am I appropriating if I become a professor of Chinese and name my house something in Chinese? No, you didn't appropriate, you participated) would be solved by thinking about it for five seconds before posting. The tattoo thing is trivial. It's a trivial annoyance. it's still an annoyance. A very mildly racist thing is still racist. Nobody is saying that any bit of cultural appropriation is just as wrong as some huge gigantic bit of it. The person who said that it doesn't matter because people are far away is still my favorite, that poo poo was hilarious. And who used 'but the Japanese appropriate culture so it must be okay', that was also a knee-slapper.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I guess then I'm not sure of the usefulness of the term "cultural appropriation." Why are you evaluating it for 'usefulness'? Is 'racism' a useful term? I haven't seen any objections, at all, to 'cultural appropriation' that couldn't be levelled at 'racism'. You seem to be evaluating language like it's some kind of magic. quote:It seems to lump a lot of good, neutral, and bad things together. It doesn't lump anything good together with anything, no. Can you come up with something that's cultural appropriation and is 'good'? I don't mean good for the person doing it. quote:And the bad things already have terms to describe them like "bigotry" or "mockery" or "desecration" or "erasure", so I don't really see what a kind of umbrella term is good for other than creating confusion. Because it describes a systematic and common way that those things happen, often in concert. Again, it feels like this is a problem you could have resolved for yourself by thinking about it for five seconds. quote:But making the basic, basic phenomenon of humans copying other humans into a pejorative, well, like I said we already have pejoratives for the bad ways of imitating others. That's not what cultural appropriation is. It's inauthentic, misjudged, disrespectful, out-of-context imitation. I think the term isn't making sense to you because you're determined to not understand it. Do you get why someone who went to China and learned Chinese getting a Chinese tattoo wouldn't be cultural appropriation? You didn't respond in any meaningful way to my explanation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
I didn't draw a line anywhere. I have no idea what you mean by " This stuff is extra dumb if people want to start talking about Japanese culture specifically since much of its current levels of popularity is due to the fact they've been actively exporting it for decades." What 'stuff'?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Between participation and appropriation. You think that discerning between 'actually learning the language' and 'not speaking the language at all' is an arbitrary line? Is there any line that isn't arbitrary, by that understanding? quote:And by "stuff" I meant bitching about people getting tattoos, wearing kimonos, etc. I think maybe you need to read what I said again because I'm not in any way talking about people bitching about wearing kimonos when I referenced how silly it is to defend cultural appropriation by saying that the Japanese do it. quote:edit: I see we're back to the definition being "cultural exchange that I don't like" Nope. It's not an exchange, and it's not about what I like.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Well I guess I would say that criticisms of racism as not a thing are all bullshit, and are done by people determined not to understand the term How was that a response to what I said? You seem to have just dodged it without addressing it at all. In what way can your objection to 'cultural appropriation' not be applied to racism? quote:These are certainly sacred symbols repurposed to have a different meaning, so I don't see how they wouldn't qualify, unless "downtrodden minority" is part of the definition. It's certainly inauthentic, certainly disrespectful, certainly out-of-context, "misjudged" is perhaps a bit too subjective. Nope. They're only powerful because the artist actually understood the symbols. This seems really obvious to me. quote:Yeah under your definition, sure. But it seems to require a bit of mind-reading, since in that case if you see a random white person with an Asian tattoo, you can't immediately tell whether it's offensive. Unlike say, blackface, which is always offensive. Can it be oppressive or harmful if one can't decide whether he's just been harmed or not without investigating (serious question, please educate me if so)? Yes, you can't immediately tell whether something is cultural appropriation. This is very apparent and a very critical issue among American Indians, for example, because many members of tribes are 1/16th or what have you, genetically, American Indian but identify culturally and have participated in that culture since birth. So there's plenty of people who have completely authentic American Indian culture who look completely 'white', and you can't tell just by looking. You can't tell a lot of important things in this life just by looking at them, we even come up with sayings to convey this. I'm not sure why anyone would think that it'd be a necessary component that you can tell from a glance whether or not something is appropriation. This is true with many things: you need to actually understand the use of it to judge the use of it. So, someone might be offended by something someone else does at first glance and then later realize that person actually did have a knowledge and understanding of their culture, and no longer be offended. The world is imperfect that way. This isn't a problem with cultural appropriation as a concept or a term.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, its a completely arbitrary line, and no I think there isn't any line to be drawn that isn't arbitrary, that's the entire point of my objection. Okay then, if all lines are arbitrary, then no objections can be made to anything, at all, right? quote:Exactly how much Chinese do you have to know before having a Tattoo in Chinese characters is participation? I dunno, that seems like a really arbitrary line. I think that the intent matters more: someone actually intending to and making the effort to learn Chinese is really different from someone who thinks "China is cool". But yeah, to you that's an arbitrary line. quote:These are all subjective judgement based on personal beliefs, based on things like taste and what people consider respectful (or racist!) or not, things we already have words to describe. What is the problem with having multiple words or phrases for something? Of all your objections, this is the weirdest one, though the whole 'you can't object to that, it's arbitrary, by the way, everything is arbitrary' is a close second. quote:Is a Japanese kid with an anglicized name from middle America who's never heard a word of Japanese spoken in his life participating in Japanese culture by getting a Japanese tattoo more then some white anime nerd? Getting tattoos is not something that is really part of Japanese culture except for some subcultures in Japan, so that wouldn't really be participating in Japanese culture unless the kid is from one of those subcultures. You see, doing things that are part of a culture with understanding of the culture is participating in the culture. Simply lifting the iconography and using it out of context is appropriation. I mean really I think 'loving up an attempt to participate' would be what I'd call that, but so is a lot of cultural appropriation. Similarly, you may have noticed some black people who grew up dirt poor in the ghetto get angry at middle-class black people who co-opt ghetto culture. Hey, you edited in earlier something about 'cultural exchange'. Can I ask you to think about what the word 'exchange' means, and how 'appropriation' and 'exchange' are different? When someone with no understanding or knowledge of the culture wears an Arapaho headdress to cheerlead at a football game, what do the Arapaho get out of that? Jarmak posted:Did you really just jump from chastising people because you can tell if its cultural appropriation if you just "think about it for 5 seconds before you post" to chastising people that they're stupid for thinking it would be obvious? There's no contradiction there at all, and I never said that you can always tell if its cultural appropriation if you just think about it for five seconds. you're pretty bad at reading what I actually wrote. I said in that particular case you could, because the difference between actually learning the language and not is a really obvious one (except to you, where it's a totally arbitrary line). VitalSigns posted:drat, this is a really, really good point. Cool, thanks for taking the time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:How does your definition hold up to Americans with Japanese ancestors who barely even know katakana, but still feel obliged to defend the sanctity of their people's mysterious, inscrutable character set? It's not about 'sanctity' at all, or about actually using it. One of the aspects of the integration of the Japanese into American society was that Japanese were forced to abandon their culture, language, etc. in order to integrate into the US. Part of this is natural assimilation, but a lot of it was due to intense hostility to Japanese culture--and lack of sufficient numbers/constant immigrants to refresh the culture. So it acts as a reminder that the reason they've lost this connection is that there was a huge social and cultural penalty to their ancestors here in the US for acting/speaking Japanese.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Gantolandon posted:It seems that their connection to Japanese culture is very tenuous and the reason of their outrage is that they didn't get to participate in it? Well, I don't know. Maybe the particular person objecting is just an rear end in a top hat who is just looking to be outraged. But yeah, some people are annoyed because it shows their culture has been reduced to just random characters. quote:Wasn't cultural appropriation supposed to be bad because it takes away the control over a particular culture from the people who actually use it and changes it without their consent? And because it has the effect of erasing that culture, so that it makes it harder and harder to actually maintain authentic links to the culture. Which, again, seems like a really obvious conclusion to me. Does this not make sense to you, or are you just complaining because whatever original definition you're working from didn't focus on erasure enough?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:It has produced a hell of a lot of great art. Was the art great because of the cultural appropriation? Like, is rock and roll better because we had a super-racist period where black people couldn't get radio time and so white people took it over? What would rock and roll be like now in the US if it hadn't been that way and the original black performers could actually get up and do it on radio and fill stadiums and stuff? Like, imagine if rap and hip-hop had to only be performed by white people. A sea of macklemores floating before the eyes.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Culture is tied to blood magic? There are plenty of 3rd and 4th generation Japanese with strong cultural ties to their ancestry. I can introduce you to many of them, in San Francisco. Those who lack that connection normally do so not because their parents decided to just give up their own culture (something people rarely do) but because it was clear that to assimilate and be accepted in the US, they had to. Ironically, given that the US is still p. racist, those who lack the cultural connection actually probably have better prospects, non-locally. Minorities still do better the whiter they are, the more they display non-white culture the more they get discriminated against. quote:Is it cool to speak as an Irish person because my grandmother was born in Belfast? I mean I grew up in a Toronto suburb and have no personal experience with Ireland but I do have "Irish blood" and grew up with Irish culture as taught by my grandma. Speak as someone who grew up in Toronto but experienced Irish culture as taught by your grandma. You're not limited in the number of words you get to explain yourself, and they're free, which is cool. And to maybe help get sympathy with others on this, imagine if someone took one of the traditions of your grandma that you know meant a lot to her, and they just hosed it all up and did it stupid and were selling it for $8.88 at Walmart. The really basic version of this is my grandfather getting irritated at storebought "Swedish Christmas Cookies" as being inauthentic especially when they were sold not in a variety of seven. Please note my grandpa was not in any way a social justice warrior and pretty much on the other side of that whole fight (except for unions, which he was pro), but he still got annoyed at cultural appropriation. This is not something that was invented at all recently as a concept--people have pointed out various aspects of cultural appropriation like erasure that have been talked about for a long time--but the system of it as a whole is more neatly encapsulated by a (necessarily imprecise, like 'racism') term. This apparently infuriates people, why I have no idea. If you're into the whole brevity thing and want a way to refer to yourself, you can say you're "Irish-Canadian" which is basically shorthand for "Some significant percentage of my heritage is Irish, and I have some connection to the culture, though this might be limited by erasure and whatnot". Interestingly, French Canadians who had grandmothers who were actually French can explain they have French heritage as well as French-Canadian heritage, so they're like, double-French-Canadian or something. We'll discuss that at the next meeting of social justice superfriends. unlimited shrimp posted:Japanese culture (as in, the culture of Japan and its inhabitants) kept growing and developing after their ancestor left. They may have a Japanese-American identity tied to an antiquated Japan but they have no claim to modern Japanese culture. I could introduce you to a lot of 2nd or 3rd generation Chinese or Indian-Canadians who go back to China or India and feel like (and are treated as) strangers and foreigners. Weirdly they weren't prevented from contacting people in Japan, so culture doesn't just diverge completely after people emigrate; some will diverge more, some less. There are also lots of 2nd or 3rd generation Indian immigrants from the US that I know that go back and don't feel like or are treated as strangers or foreigners, but have their own particular place in Indian culture because they've been doing this for generations. And again, there are plenty of places inside India where if people from one group go they'll be treated as strangers and foreigners, and yet there is still something called "Indian" culture. And I didn't claim that Japanese and Japanese-American culture were synonymous, so what the hell are you talking about? They're not claiming modern Japanese culture--what the hell does it mean to 'claim' a modern culture? They're objecting to something that is part of Japanese-American culture, so the status of modern Japanese culture doesn't matter at all. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 00:08 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
dogcrash truther posted:Yes. It was great because the artist had a different -- maybe even ignorant, maybe even insulting -- perspective on certain symbols and relationships than cultural insiders do. And it was necessary to erase the cultural insiders in order to do that? Because otherwise, it'd have been participation. In fact, for a lot of the white musicians, it was participation. Some of them were assholes who never thought or considered that they were stepping all over black people by doing what they were, but a lot of them were incensed by it. Some put their heads down because, well, they couldn't figure out a way to fight the system, but a lot pressed for integration, talked about the importance of the black musicians, revered them, and fully participated. But the system itself is what culturally appropriated, not the artists. I think you're confusing the two. Jarmak posted:This is absolute nonsense, most people don't live in ethnic enclaves and they become part of the culture they grow up in. Sure lots of people like to hold to icons of their heritage because they consider it part of their identity, this is not the same thing as being part of the living culture of a place they've never been. I didn't say they were part of the living culture. How can you read the word 'ancestry' and read 'living culture'? quote:Even in ethnic enclaves like San Francisco there is a unique culture distinct from China or Japan. What I said: "strong cultural ties to their ancestry." That doesn't mean "1:1 correlation with modern Japanese culture". No idea what you'd both read it that way, except you're repeatedly displaying a kind of willful misinterpretation of everything around this subject. unlimited shrimp posted:If we're not discussing different cultures then why do the grievances of Japanese-Americans carry more weight than the apathy of Japanese-Japanese? Why does it matter that Japanese-Japanese aren't offended, if Japanese-Americans (who have their own culture) are?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:For the same reason I'd be more interested in what an Elder has to say about using the Medicine Wheel than some new age neo-pagan. It gets to the question of whether or not a grievance is legitimate. Holy poo poo. A neo-pagan has no actual connection to the medicine wheel. At all. They're just making up a connection. Japanese-Americans are not making up their connections to Japanese ancestry. In fact, they can often embody bits that get lost, culturally, to their homeland. Can you please think about this, that you just compared a third-generation Japanese person who kept up cultural traditions to a neo-pagan? Also the Japanese-Canadian person is actually part of your nation and the Japanese person isn't. Wow, new favorite post in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:At the risk of sounding redditathiest that how religon works. The elder has no more right to monopolize use of the medicine wheel than the pope has to dictate communion. Religion works like the rest of culture does. You can completely culturally appropriate via religion, too. If you're talking about theological validity, I don't give a poo poo. If you're talking about legal right, then sure. But religion isn't just religion, it's also culture. Completely secular Jews are going to react badly to the Star of David being used for some random new religion a guy starts, because religious symbols are also cultural symbols. I guess that yeah, you were pretty redditathiest there. I'm a complete atheist, but i think that means recognizing religion is just another part of culture and not giving it special status. unlimited shrimp posted:I don't see a difference between a neo-pagan child, born and raised with their neo-pagan beliefs, and a Japanese-American child born and raised with a strong sense of Japanese identity, no. This is getting pretty close to 'why is culture important to people at all/are people dumb for valuing their culture'. So can I ask you, do you think culture has value? Do you think someone who continues to uphold cultural practices and traditions (stipulating these aren't of the beat your women kind) are just dumb, and there's no point in doing that vs. adopting entirely new traditions? Ah, I see your edits: quote:Are you scoffing because the neo-pagan doesn't have Indigenous blood in their body, or because the causal chain of of the neo-pagan consciously adopting certain cultural practices is much clearer? Or is a culture only legitimate when time has forgotten where the current practice was appropriated from? Or does it need to reach a critical mass in population? I'm curious. I think that a neopagan who knows their culture, and knows it was invented by someone one generation ago, is going to have a very different association with it. In general, ad hoc invented cultures like this tend to stay very small and typically within families, and it's more about a family association than a cultural one. Obviously there's no clean answer to 'what is a culture' nor is there any dividing line, it depends on your definition. You can make an argument for American Indian culture that includes distaff stuff like neo-pagans, but in any explanation of it it will include that, on the one hand, this guy had his traditions passed down to him by people who actively participated in them with others for generations, and this guy over here had it passed down by Mr. Stevens who decided it was cool and inspirational back in 1957. That latter origin story is, really, not as compelling to people. This is why new cultures often start with new religions, because religion is a very strong and transformative cultural element. It also can happen with strong levels of oppression, both because the original cultural ties get more fractured and because holding onto cultural ties becomes more important. If what you're saying is "But to the son of the guy who invented the religion, it's going to be super-important" then that's true, but it would be important to him no matter what his dad did. The way humans operate is that we have a thing called culture and we do draw a distinction between cultural traditions that were just grabbed up at some random point by someone who thought they were cool, and ones that were either passed down or came through cultural exchange. Lots of things are highly significant parts of cultures despite being gained through exchange, which again, is different than appropriation. It helps if you think about culture the way that people think about it, and not as an abstraction. Think about the way that culture actually operates and matters to people. You can call it irrational that people get attached to cultural traditions and think that because ancestors and their friends and family did stuff it's important, but humans actually do. That is universal to all cultures, though some are more tradition-bound and others are less--though this tends to vary highly, with cultures going through periods where they become more or less flexible. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:That would be unadulterated bigotry. Bigotry? Sorry, I think this is actually an example where it'd be cultural appropration without being clearly bigoted. What's the bigoted belief or effect here? Anyway, to clarify for the objection that it's a special case: A secular Sikh could be annoyed at someone doing the dagger-in-the-hair thing as a fashion accessory. Most secular sikhs still wear the 'religious' symbols of their faith because they are, in fact, cultural symbols, because religion is just culture.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Demanding that other people obey your perceived religious exclusivity in ritual is putting your religion above others. There's no way I can reduce that fact more simply. It's not a religious exclusivity, it's a cultural one. It's 'don't use that, it's part of my culture'. quote:This does exemplify the attitude of the people baying about appropriation: Culture is something created in the mists of time, does not change, and is exclusive to certain bloodgroups. Religion is not primarily a (evolving) relationship with the divine but rather some rituals done while the National Geographic cameras are rolling. If you read my posts, I'm clearly talking about culture that's evolving--thus the whole bit about how Japanese-American culture is different from Japanese culture, and my big post above about the way culture changes. So what the hell are you talking about? Who are the people you're talking about who are baying about appropriation? And no, religion isn't an evolving relationship with the divine, because there's no reason to believe the divine exists. In all ways, though, religion acts like culture; there is no way religion operates that is not like culture. Also, not all religions have a concept of the divine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Well, you seem to be claiming that a neo-pagan's culture is somehow illegitimate but a Japanese-American's culture is, with the only denominator being the bloodline. So you're not talking only about culture that's evolving, you're talking about perceptions of legitimacy too. No, as I explained (at length) the denominator is not the bloodline. unlimited shrimp posted:Cool, good to know I can roll my eyes and correct the next person who says I'm not "really" German, when I - a 10th generation German-Canadian on my father's side who has never set foot in Germany - complain about Oktoberfest being a caricature of my proud heritage. Just to make it clear, you'd be lying if you said you felt this way, right? Because you don't really feel you have a connection to your German heritage? Or do you feel like you have a connection? Also we're not arguing about who is 'really' German, and I'm not sure why you think we are.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Does it matter? Why? Yes, whether or not you're lying about whether you're affected by something matters, because if you are lying about it then it doesn't matter, because you're not actually affected by it. Not sure why you needed to ask that question. quote:No, we're talking about who 'really' has a right to a grievance. I'm not. I don't think that sentence really makes any sense. I think maybe you skipped reading the edits to my post in response to the post you heavily edited? because you're asking a bunch of questions repeatedly that I already addressed, at length. quote:Neither have any direct connection to the source of that 'culture', only received knowledge. Also really unsure what you think is the 'source' of a culture. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 01:30 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:So I did! What are you talking about with treating symptoms and disease? I'm lost in this analogy. What's getting treated? Medical edit: Also, you treat a lot of diseases by treating the symptoms, which has always annoyed me about that analogy. That's not what confused me though, I really don't get what's being treated here. What does it mean to 'respect a grievance'? Like, to acknowledge that rock and roll come from black forms of music, and that the modern form evolved because black performers were suppressed from playing? Or do you think it means that people are saying white people shouldn't play rock and roll anymore? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:If a grievance is legitimate, that implies something should be done to redress it, whether it means reparations or a cessation of some action or whatever. If a grievance is unfounded, that implies that it should be disregarded. What effort will be wasted? Can you name some claim of cultural appropriation that was invalid, that is actually something being requested of someone rather than something popping up on tumblr? LIke, my examples of various complaints and remedies: Complaint--using 'redskins' as the name of a football team, having fans dress up in "Indian" outfits. Solution- (realistic)--change the name, have the team discourage people who do that poo poo/have the players ask the fans not to do it. Solution- (unrealistic)-change the name and all fans of the team actually learn about American Indian culture. Problem--many histories of rock and roll whitewash or don't talk about the suppression of black musicians during the blues/jazz era and continuing into the rock and roll era. Solution--update that poo poo. Lots of this has been done already. Can you cite me some actual complaint you'd like to nominate as an invalid grievance and the suggested solution? quote:The differentiation between cultural appropriation and cultural exchange has already been made in this thread. If the only required proof of cultural appropriation is that someone feels something earnestly, then we'll never get to an accurate definition of appropriation. You yourself have drawn a distinction between my neopagan example and a Japanese American. It's not that someone feels something earnestly. There is no one 'accurate' definition of appropriation. There is something that happens, which I'm saying right now is this: a majority culture takes stuff from a minority culture and in doing so both misuses it and helps to erase that original minority culture and makes people from that minority culture feel emotions apparently common to all humans no matter what culture, which is kind of pissed off/annoyed/like outsiders. Now, that's my working definition. someone else may argue that another definition is better that has something else in it. That's fine. Just like we can use pretty much any term whatsoever without immediately bogging down into 'but what do you mean', the important thing is we recognize the actually thing occurs, which most people do. quote:Of course, that implies my differentiation between a legitimate and an illegitimate grievance is accurate. If it's inaccurate, and there is no such thing as an illegitimate claim of cultural appropriation, then I guess I'm done with this thread. Well, I guess I'd feel it would be invalid if you were lying about what you were feeling, but like your neo-pagan kid example, I think he really feels the emotion he feels but there's not a lot we can do about it. No matter how hard we try nobody is going to convince themselves that his connection to a culture is the same as someone whose got the connection through their heritage. It's not because of blood, it's because that's something that's held by the vast majority of humans no matter what culture. If someone was raised to believe something really strongly by their dad, though, we understand that it's really important to them and we'll try not to be assholes about it, but we aren't going to treat it the same, and most would argue it isn't actually the same. Let us English posted:That's the problem with talking about CA. There is a reasonable understanding and definition of Cultural Appropriation as a thing that happens and needs to be addressed. Idiots online quickly turn "Led Zeppelin copied black musicians and found success their sources never could because of racism in American and Europe" into "You're a racist because you like Stairway." There is no exact definition of cultural appropriation. There is no exact definition of pretty much anything interesting. There's no exact definition of culture. It's a fun world. I think a lot of people's problem goes beyond just confusing the latter for the former, since nobody in this thread has said anything remotely like the latter, and yet there's still been a lot of argument against the idea. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 02:07 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:Yes. The example in the op -- Palash Ghosh being upset that non-Indians are wearing saris. Yeah, that remedy doesn't make any sense. That he feels that way is probably true. I haven't heard any other Indian-American talk about this, though I have heard some Pakistani girls complain about western women wearing some 'hosed-up' saris that look 'lovely', but these are incredibly judgemental 19 year olds, so their remedy is telling those women that their saris are 'hosed up' and 'look lovely'. I don't think they'd really want those women to participate fully in Pakistani culture. I'll ask them if you like. I think a western woman wearing a sari is probably mildly pissing off a variety of cultures by doing so. If I wore that kind of long-shirt thing Indian guys wore, I'd expect indians to go "Why are you wearing that" and if I went "I think it looks cool" I still expect some of them would be kind of miffed. I can call them idiots for feeling miffed but they would actually be miffed and I'd rather not miff people just to wear something when I can just not wear the thing. Maybe it's 'wrong' for them to be miffed but I don't really care about that evaluation, it bores me. quote:I don't care what most would argue, I care about whether or not it is the same. If it's not the same because of "heritage"/blood/their own culture's history of appropriation being lost to time, then that seems like a huge problem to me. You dismissed it, but it goes back to how earnestly someone believes something. I could earnestly believe that some kid down the street stole my mail, but that doesn't mean they should be convicted for it. If you don't care what others think, then you're not really going to make any headway nor convince anyone that they shouldn't actually feel this connection to their culture. quote:To your point that "the important thing is we recognize the actually thing occurs," I'm not convinced that cultural appropriation actually occurs in large enough numbers for it to be considered a systemic problem or even something to be worried about. Okay, well, cool for you. Are you being asked to do/not do anything because it's cultural appropriation? You can always do the thing anyway and probably the worst that's going to happen is people are going to criticize your decision and explain why. quote:You can cite a few examples of bona fide appropriation, but the majority of the examples I've seen, whether it's white girls wearing saris or non-black people wearing dreadlocks, or white people with tattoos of Asian characters, seem far more benign than harmful. What about the examples of jazz, rock and roll, and to some extent hip-hop and rap being appropriated from black America--with the note that a lot of the musicians legitimately got into the culture and weren't appropriating, and that something can be appropriated and still be great art? And what about the examples of people wearing Native American headdresses at football games?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 02:42
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Bitching about Kanji tattoos. I mean, people shouldn't get them because they're dumb, but they're not a threat to Asian Americans anymore than Engrish T-shirts are a threat to English speakers living in Asia. You just bitched about them. It seems okay to bitch about them. What's the harm in bitching about them? What negative effect happens? quote:Most of the examples in this thread point out issues that don't need the label "Cultural Appropriation" to recognize as problematic and fix. Why is this an objection to the term? You don't need to label lots of stuff to fix it. You can call stuff 'the troubles' and fix it. quote:Dressing up in an Indian costume at a football game or on Halloween reduces a living culture to a stereotype and conflates all native cultures. Erasure of the contributions of black musicians has been a problem and writing histories that point this issue out is good, but erasure of historical contributions by marginalized groups is an issue that goes far beyond cultural appropriation. Yes, there other problems that have to do with making GBS threads on minority groups that are not covered by 'cultural appropriation'. How is this an objection? If you guys don't find the term useful, don't use it. If you say "It's loving racist as poo poo that black americans had their work stolen and monetized and they didn't see a dime for it", nobody is going to cough and say "I believe you mean that was cultural appropriation". Likewise, if you say "I think kanji tattoos are dumb', someone might respond to that with, 'yeah, that's lovely cultural appropriation', and if you really want you can say 'no it's not' to them, but then they may ask 'wait, why do you think it's dumb?' and I'd be interested in hearing your response to that. Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Here's a really good example of that, for the sake of concreteness. Ironic that happened to Brubeck since he was a big fighter against segregated audiences, wouldn't play for black-excluded audiences, and insisted his black bass player be allowed to both play on stage and share the same hotel facilities. This meant he couldn't play most of the South. He did play some only-black places. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
unlimited shrimp posted:That's not the point. Let's establish some principles, we can develop the strategies later. Sorry, it is the point to me. I like actually achieving things, I find it fun. quote:"Appropriation" implies that white people utilizing those forms of expression did/does some damage. I would argue that they're only symptomatic of the real problem, and that the "appropriation" itself was harmless in comparison. Yep, the main reason cultural appropriation happens is because of racism. If white people hadn't 'intervened'--that is, if the white people who perpetuated racism in the US hadn't done so--black people would have been recognized for those accomplishments and would probably still be participating in rock and roll in large numbers today, instead of having been ostracized from it. Not sure what your point is with the first sentences in this part of your post, I can't understand them. You seem to be saying "Yep, cultural appropriation happened here because of racism", and yet you're confused as to why people want to talk about it. Again, a lot of musicians didn't appropriate, but participated--like Brubeck. This seems like a 'this is covered elsewhere' objection, but that objection is kinda silly because lots of stuff has overlap when you're talking about concepts. If you don't find it useful, just don't use it. And again, I really don't feel like you're reading my posts. You keep being majorly off. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 03:28 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Which is why you're talking about social issues on a comedy website. Any response to the stuff I answered your questions with? Or just this? I really am genuinely interested in this bit: If you say "I think kanji tattoos are dumb', someone might respond to that with, 'yeah, that's lovely cultural appropriation', and if you really want you can say 'no it's not' to them, but then they may ask 'wait, why do you think it's dumb?' and I'd be interested in hearing your response to that. Why do you think kanji tattoos are dumb?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Let us English posted:Had work to do, didn't have time for a full reply. Congrats, you're upset about cultural appropriation. And yes, Kanji isn't a really big deal, just kind of dumb. Also, cultural appropriation isn't something only done in the US, so saying poo poo is done in other countries isn't really significant or worth arguing about. Squalid posted:So has anyone proposed a solution to cultural appropriation yet? Yeah I made a post that literally had a couple of problems and solutions in it. quote:Assuming it exists how can we use the law to protect bindis, lebkuchen, ska, etc from appropriation? Don't use a law for that, that's dumb. Edit: We did make a law that you can't trademark something that's denigrating, so that's one example of an actually efficacious law. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Let us English posted:I'm not upset, nor do I think this situation bears any resemblance to earlier examples of black musicians or native-themed sports teams. Trying to put all three situations under the same label seems ridiculous. Okay. You're not upset, you just think it's dumb. Luckily, my 'remedy' for the problem of cultural appropriation that is kanji tattoos is people expressing the opinion that said tattoos are dumb, so we're kind of good here, except what you're actually upset about is that I'm calling it cultural appropriation. Like I said before, it's a tiny, trivial bit of cultural appropriation. You can also have tiny bits of racism, that aren't nearly as bad as serious racism. "Cultural appropriation" doesn't imply anything about scale, just as racism doesn't. Just like someone putting on a bit of a black accent and saying "Man" a lot nervously while talking to a black guy is racism, but is not as significant racism as was that black musicians weren't allowed to play for white audiences at major venues.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 05:08
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Okay I looked through your post history and we're supposed to wag our fingers and shake our heads disapprovingly at those drat teens and their saris. Sounds like an effective strategy. What would you suggest instead?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 05:10
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Nothing. Cultural transmission is inevitable, out-of-control, and irreversible. Yeah, cultural appropriation is different, though. Getting Kanji tattoos is not cultural transmission, or if it is, then cultural appropriation is a subset of cultural transmission, with that whole 'appropriation' method of transmission. quote:Although we may be able to positively effect the incidence of "appropriation" vs "exchange," however one likes to define these terms, by dismantling race/culture based power structures. I have no interest in meaningless hand-wringing. Okay, well don't do the 'hand-wringing' then. Glad you're on board with dismantling race/culture based power structures. You on board with dismantling race/culture based power structures by not allowing denigrating names to be trademarked? quote:Oh well, I guess I can sympathize. For example I recently saw this French Vanilla Nescafe instant coffee bullshit. As an American of French heritage, it really pissed me off Nestle was exploiting my culture with this garbage. How do they get away with this poo poo! It didn't actually piss you off, right? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Right. To consider 'cultural appropriation' a uselessly nebulous concept is per se racism. What does it mean to be 'useful', in this context? Is 'racism', or, really, any abstract concept, free from this charge of uselessness?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:Question for the thread (and I swear to god I'm genuinely curious and not concern-trolling): what, exactly, is the harm of cultural appropriation? This has been answered repeatedly. It has the effect of erasure, removing the original culture, and usually means that, in whatever way there is a profit or a living or anything of that sort to be made from the culture, it goes to the white majority and not the minority from whom the culture is appropriated. This has been heavily, heavily covered in terms of rock and roll (and blues and jazz) being appropriated. You could find those posts and read them. In non-economic terms, the idea that cultures will just 'come up with a new unique thing' is kind of silly, because that's not how cultures work. And why would a culture stagnate if things weren't being appropriated from it? Your post doesn't really make a lot of sense, and kind of seems like you haven't really read much of the thread. TheImmigrant posted:
Hey, you never answered why 'racism' isn't a uselessly vague term but 'cultural appropriation' is. Could you go into that hypothesis of yours? It seems completely unsupported and arbitrary to me. TheImmigrant posted:No, I can't. Do you understand that other people do feel this way, and that it has in fact been part of the typical immigrant (hah) lament to the US, that old traditions often have pale imitations in American culture? Like the example of my Swedish grandfather above? And again, he didn't like cuss up a storm about it, but it was something that bugged him and served to remind him that his culture was being appropriated rather than actually amalgamated. And remember we're talking about a dude who was the opposite of a SJW. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:Do you have an example of this erasure that isn't 60 years old? Why do you need one? But sure, the ongoing erasure of Native American cultures in various ways, and the use of Native American iconography and legends and all kinds of stuff to sell poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I fail to see a) why you use the term 'erasure' (clear implication of cultural deletion) Yeah,. before I take any complaints you have about terms credibly, I'll need to learn why you think 'racism' is a useful term but that 'culturally appropriation' is uselessly vague. quote:how Native American cultures are fungible, and subject to depletion through overuse. No one worries about US culture being depleted (on the contrary, actually). Nobody has claimed that the culture is fungible or subject to depletion. I forget, are you a gimmick? You seem like a gimmick.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Another fascinating position insinuated in this thread is that culture and ethnicity/blood/race are coextensive. This is also something that has not only not been said, this accusation has already been raised and addressed. Also ethnicity/blood/race isn't immutable. You are whiffing a lot, like some sort of auto-wiffler.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
TheQat posted:Did you read the whole thread? PTD has given an explanation like two or three times I think I've given it like twice. But it kinda seems like theimmigrant is just a shitposter, since he's not bothering to defend anything he says, just making new claims. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Mar 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:I asked for a modern example to see if it was something that still needs to be worried about or if it was an artifact of history. That's not what I was talking about, though. Really, I totally agree there's lots to argue over about what is cultural appropriation, what is harmful about it, how it differs from cultural transference, but just ignoring what gets written isn't a very effective argument. Nobody has claimed that cultural appropriation takes away from the ability of Native Americans to record their belief or culture. But that's not what I wrote, so maybe try responding to what I wrote? And why on earth would you think cultural appropriation would be an artifact of history? What would have changed?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Armyman25 posted:People's attitudes. People in the thread keep bringing up black rock and roll singers from the 50s and i don't think that that is circumstance that will repeat itself. There are outlets for every kind of cultural expression. What do you mean by 'people's attitudes'? Are you thinking that racism is now below some threshold, so cultural appropration can't take place? quote:As far as the fading of NA culture, that is something that may or may not happen. In the past there were deliberate efforts directed at erasing those cultures. The erasure you are talking about doesn't seem to be deliberate though, but just a side effect of using NA imagery. I mark that as a different thing, and I would argue the use of that imagery by non-natives is not the cause for the erasure of culture, but that any minority group is likely to see their culture subsumed by the majority. Okay, make the argument that the use of that imagery by non-natives is not a cause of the erasure of culture. Right now, you just asserted it. quote:If you have a group living with in a larger group, unless the smaller group goes to a lot of deliberate effort to maintain what makes them different from the majority, their distinctiveness goes away. My grandparents all lived to at least their 80s. Speaking with them about their childhoods in the mid-west and about their memories from when they were younger revealed that things were much more divided in the past. Ethnic differences like Irish versus German versus Bohemian (Czech) and religious differences such as Catholic vs Protestant vs Jewish were much more important than they are to my generation. The differences faded away and were replaced by a common culture that developed in the areas that all these people lived in. i am sure that some traditions and customs and parts of cultures disappeared, but they were replaced by a what came after. It is a thing that happens. This doesn't in any way serve to argue cultural appropriation isn't a big part of the mechanism of action here. Do you realize that? Part of what you're saying is"The culture got subsumed into the majority of culture for most immigrants" and yes, that is part of the claim of 'cultural appropriation'. Talking to various people about their impressions, that sort of convenience sample qualitative research, isn't really very good, by the way. It's not a great way to gather data on a subject. It's a nice way to add color and depth to quantitative information, but it can't replace it. I lived in Chicago, where what you're claiming is definitely not true: There are Polish neighborhoods with 3rd generation Polish people who have a very observably different culture from the Greek neighborhood with the 2nd and 3rd generation Greeks. Here in NYC, we have third-generation Dominicans and Puerto Ricans up in Harlem with a deeply different culture than the Jewish neighborhood of Menlo Park. Are the differences less than previously? Almost certainly. Did the differences fade away, to be replaced by a common culture? Not for many people in many neighborhoods throughout the US. It really seems like you're avoiding looking straight on at what cultural appropriation is, and trying to just talk around it, as though by not talking about it directly it won't also be 'a thing that happens'. Nobody has claimed that cultural appropriation is the only mechanism whereby minority culture gets erased and oppressed, either, and that's all you're arguing against here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 12, 2024 12:26 |
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:Yeah, and when rock and roll and blues and jazz got appropriated, hip-hop became a thing. Actually, no, it was doo-wop, which then got appropriated, disco, which then got appropriated, etc. etc. Music is a part of culture that evolves pretty quickly, but even then it's a constant stream of economic exploitation via appropriation. Why isn't this problematic for you? quote:And it's not like anyone 'took' black music styles, they just made those same things palatable for a white audience. RIght, which is the appropriation bit. quote:I don't even think Jazz was ever appropriated. Please read the section of the thread on Brubeck. Simply put, you're factually wrong. In addition to Brubeck, have you ever heard of a gentleman named Glenn Miller? He's kinda important. I'm going to go ahead at this point and conclude you don't actually know much about the history of jazz. quote:Like try to list famous black early jazz artists and famous black early rock & roll artists and see which list is longer. What is this supposed to achieve, exactly?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2015 21:29
|
|