Is Cultural Appropriation Real?

[Communist Xomaniax]

Nah.

[Jochizyd Republic]

Yes. But people should care less.

[Krasny-Volny]

What's cultural appropriation?

[Grinning Dragon]

What's cultural appropriation?

I'd go with a made up buzzword of the day that people use or justify to be triggered or some such.
I myself find the whole thing fucking stupid/inane.

[New confederate ramenia]

What's cultural appropriation?

A new thing where people can call you imperialist and racist for eating Chinese food.

[Uiiop]

What's cultural appropriation?

Other people answered but honesty
Either
A: You take elements from other cultures
B: You do A but wrong
What is meant by wrong can vary in meaning and therefore reasonability. The previous posters seem to assume the majority who use this define the wrong in B as doing A at all(possibly while white) but that's not really the case for all of it.

[Aapje]

Of course. dozens of cultures have been appropriated and/or forcibly assimilated into the white male dominant culture for hundreds of years. European colonialism began the trend, and we still see t today with minority groups cultures also being forced into extinction at the hands of a white supremeist system.

Chinese colonialism of Vietnam started in 200 BC, way before European colonialism.

I understand that you hate white men and just like most Stormfront people, want to pretend that your bigotry is objectively supported by history. However, you might want to pick examples that are not so easily to debunk, because while people on social justice forums don't tend to check these kinds of claims and let you get away with this nonsense, you won't get the same courtesy here.

[Aapje]

Fourthly, it has been very clear that when I talk about appropriation I see it as claimative rather than acceptive (appropriate vs distribute).

It's amazing that you wrote so long a comment with so little actually being said.

Frankly, I don't care about your vague theoretical hand waving about what appropriation ought to be. The Social Justice movement is full of Motte and Bailey arguments, where they start off to define a problem in a very limited and strict way, but then give examples that don't actually match that description. Separately these things make sense. The strict definition is correct and the things they point out happen, but the examples don't actually match the definition, so the argument as a whole doesn't work:

1. X, which is defined in a very limited way to include only worst things is bad <- Makes sense
2. Western society does A, B and C <- which is true
3. A, B and C are examples of X <- this is a big fat lie where they abandon the strict definition from step 1, but still claim that the examples are just as bad, which makes zero sense.

So they'll define appropriation like you do, but then give examples like white people with dreadlocks or sports fans wearing plastic and clearly fake feathered war bonnets.

You avoid that issue by remaining strictly in the theoretical realm, saying very little in many words. Get concrete. In which ways are Western people doing cultural appropriation that fit your definition?

[Communal Ecotopia]

It's true that cultures adopt things from other cultures. What is absurd and anti-freedom is the idea that only one culture has the right to eat pizza or wear dreadlocks.

The most amusing part is that the people who complain about these things tend to be of non-Western origin, but live a thoroughly Western life. So they 'appropriated' way more things from the West than the West adopted from their (origin) culture. If they were intellectually honest, they would abandon all that stuff.

Wait. I thought the standard complaint was precisely that we who complain are Western.

[Communal Ecotopia]

Is, for example, electricity really a cultural artefact?

There isn't a strict distinction between technology and culture. For example, dreadlocks are fashion, but they also have practical advantages.

I've seen people complain about cultural appropriation of dreadlocks, yet those people undoubtedly were wearing western clothing, which is a similar mix of function and style. In most of these complaints there is this double standard where the complainer reserves the right to appropriate, but Western/white people aren't allowed to do so. Usually the complaints are racist as well, where the assumption is that people's skin color determines what culture they belong to and thus what they are allowed to do.

And then we must look at what that Western Tradition that initially developed and spread, e.g. electricity or rugby, actually was. Two big, big words. Colonialism. Imperialism. What do these involve? Well, from time to time (e.g. Stolen Generation), they are genocidal.

There is a lot of evidence of very nasty behavior, including genocide, by non-Westerners. The idea of some original sin that Westerners/white people have, while other cultures/races are perfect and noble, is ahistorical and very discriminatory. If your 'anti-racist' argument requires discriminatory beliefs, then that is rather problematic.

This is fundamentally not cultural appropriation... for it to be so it would stretch words beyond all meaning.

The problem with that argument is that examples of 'real' cultural appropriation invariably don't restrict the people from the source culture from doing their thing, so I don't see any oppression. I truly see no logic behind the term, aside from the obvious: social justice people tend to believe that Westerners/white people are oppressing everyone else, but there is the small issue that most Westerners/white people do very little that consciously oppresses others. So the victim narrative then falls apart due to lack of evidence.

The solution: completely overreact about the most minor things, while ignoring the far worse things that happen but don't fit the narrative (this is a very common pattern in Social Justice, btw).

to the extent we'll probably be talking about cultural imperialism within the next three months.

There are and have been cases where cultures are suppressed by another culture (China & Tibet for example), yet the weird thing is that these actual cases of oppression don't seem to be an major issue in the eyes of the social justice people who complain about cultural appropriation.

I'm calling Students for a Free Tibet bullshit right here...

Insofar as my posts are the only ones in the last two pages to have bothered with establishing the nature of what we're talking about. Big claim, but luckily not one I am actually making... it's more a thinking point about disingenuous rhetoric.

I've not seen you offer a good definition, nor do I think there can be one, as the term is inherently not (meant to be) logical and fair.

[Communal Ecotopia]

Of course. dozens of cultures have been appropriated and/or forcibly assimilated into the white male dominant culture for hundreds of years. European colonialism began the trend, and we still see t today with minority groups cultures also being forced into extinction at the hands of a white supremeist system.

Cultures have been appropriated since before European colonialism was even a thing. The Japanese appropriated from the Chinese, the Koreans from both. Western culture is being appropriated by a majority of the world. None of this is new.

Western culture is being exported...whether that's appropriation, we can discuss based on active and passive actors.

[Forsher]

Fourthly, it has been very clear that when I talk about appropriation I see it as claimative rather than acceptive (appropriate vs distribute).

It's amazing that you wrote so long a comment with so little actually being said.

We might summarise my previous post as:

(i) Appropriation is a mechanism of transfer.
(ii) Specifically, appropriation is a mechanism which involves taking.
(iii) Aapje has misunderstood/misrepresented the point of the "is that even a cultural artefact?".
(iv) Aapje has deceptively quoted my post. (Which, incidentally, is why this list exists, because it has happened again.)
(v) Aapje has read/responded to an (and consciously past my) argument of victim narratives.
(vi) Appropriation is one of several mechanisms currently extant.
(vii) Aapje has paused to take pot-shots at some other people while superficially responding to my post.
(viii) Aapje has irrationally approached the subject.
(ix) I provided a definition (which Aapje requested).
(x) The above statement (which, befitting a conclusion-esque post section, summarised some of the prior discussion).

There was also, as an aside, an entertainment of the proposition that cultures could have agency.

A lot of these comments are not substantive. I'm not sure what Aapje's intent is, but the consequent impression of the selective quoting and, shall we say, curious interpretative remark ("said so little") is to ignore that there were some extremely fundamental disagreements in such a way as to make it appear that they never existed.

Frankly, I don't care about your vague theoretical hand waving about what appropriation ought to be. The Social Justice movement is full of Motte and Bailey arguments, where they start off to define a problem in a very limited and strict way, but then give examples that don't actually match that description. Separately these things make sense. The strict definition is correct and the things they point out happen, but the examples don't actually match the definition, so the argument as a whole doesn't work:

1. X, which is defined in a very limited way to include only worst things is bad <- Makes sense
2. Western society does A, B and C <- which is true
3. A, B and C are examples of X <- this is a big fat lie where they abandon the strict definition from step 1, but still claim that the examples are just as bad, which makes zero sense.

So they'll define appropriation like you do, but then give examples like white people with dreadlocks or sports fans wearing plastic and clearly fake feathered war bonnets.

You avoid that issue by remaining strictly in the theoretical realm, saying very little in many words. Get concrete. In which ways are Western people doing cultural appropriation that fit your definition?

This is the problem with basing your concepts of validity of arguments by people who, by definition (or, at least, Forsher's) that do not understand what they are talking about.

As regarding the theoretical realm... I made a substantially longer post whose main argument was that this thread needed firmer (indeed, some) theoretical foundation in which to begin the discussion. This then blended into a critique of the inferred theory posited in the OP (using several examples), including, importantly, what has been my primary point in this thread: cultural appropriation is one mechanism. It is curious, in the light of this context, and even more curious given that (as we see above) Aapje's theoretical conceptions were also critiqued and (as per the above) regardless of what Aapje's formatting suggests that discussion was not resolved (although, clearly, I am right and Aapje wrong).

Let us, for a moment, gather our thoughts here as I have had to sidetrack to point out the highly veiled and/or ulterior nature of half this "conversation." Appropriation involves (metaphorically/symbolically) "taking" a cultural artefact, and then presenting it in a different context (which alters its meaning). It is pretty easy (with prompts) to think of examples of such, and I have linked/quoted several times to posts of mine which have included consideration of such:

here
here (bit misleading, this is the same example as the above link plus yet another criticism of a false charge of cultural appropriation)
here (again misleading, part of a quote chain)

You do not do cultural appropriation, except in the same way you do driving a car. It is one way of how you do something (i.e. transfer cultural artefact, move from A to B)... see, the theory matters.

This is a complex topic. It is one thing for me, as an artist, to take koru (e.g. here*) and incorporate that into an artistic work (with a different context). It is another thing for me to take [some motif from some other country] and do so. Are either of these problematic? Well, it's easier to defend the former (there's a reason why the Flag Panel was criticised for its lack of koru) and more difficult to defend the latter... I could put it into my art in a way that claims some kind of authenticity (problem) or I could somehow acknowledge its ancestry (fine).** If I did this and then tried to commercialise it with an inconsistent meaning... And what about with an offensive meaning (e.g. the quote chain example).

Have I just moved away from the "acontextual" part of things? Yeah, to an extent. I am proposing that there are degrees of bad (i.e. there is a varying point where we get up and say, "Woah, hold on, that's not on"). It's not something we can reduce to a hard and fast rule, and much like the obsession with uniqueness, this is an unhealthy idea.

And, sometimes, it is as simple as whether or not it looks good. Much like humour, where people will forgive all sorts if it actually is funny. But it is hard to make something that looks good with fake authenticity.

*Possibly too blurry to actually see the koru properly. Authentic depiction it is not, pretender to authenticity it clearly isn't either.

**These concepts are, for reference, fundamental parts of commercial law and scholastic/academic integrity.

tl;dr -- don't ignore quote chains

Cultures have been appropriated since before European colonialism was even a thing. The Japanese appropriated from the Chinese, the Koreans from both. Western culture is being appropriated by a majority of the world. None of this is new.

Western culture is being exported...whether that's appropriation, we can discuss based on active and passive actors.

It absolutely isn't. No debate required. (Because I have, at length, already provided the reasons why.)

[Aapje]

It's true that cultures adopt things from other cultures. What is absurd and anti-freedom is the idea that only one culture has the right to eat pizza or wear dreadlocks.

The most amusing part is that the people who complain about these things tend to be of non-Western origin, but live a thoroughly Western life. So they 'appropriated' way more things from the West than the West adopted from their (origin) culture. If they were intellectually honest, they would abandon all that stuff.

Wait. I thought the standard complaint was precisely that we who complain are Western.

I think that the standard complaint is more that it is hypocritical and stupid.

[Aapje]

We might summarise my previous post as: ...

Your list of complaints about me could also be indicative that your writing is poor and partly incomprehensible. If I misunderstood you, I'd say that faults in your writing are at least partly to blame.

For example, you asked me whether electricity is a cultural artifact, while that is clearly a cherry picked example that is the least cultural of the many things that non-Western people have adopted from the West. That immediately told me that you were either arguing in bad faith or so biased that you would be hard to debate. Then you jumped to "Colonialism. Imperialism," as somehow being what separates appropriation from non-appropriation, but one of the major disagreements between social justice people and critics like me is that the former define colonialism & imperialism in ways that I find absurd and dismissive of the agency of non-Westerners (which ironically is colonialist thinking). So your statement appeared to me as nothing more than an tribal statement: a statement that is seen as a fair explanation merely by people who already share your beliefs. As such, it is a form of non-debate.

This is the problem with basing your concepts of validity of arguments by people who, by definition (or, at least, Forsher's) that do not understand what they are talking about.

I think that you simply misunderstand my argument here. I'm not saying that all definitions/examples of cultural appropriation are automatically incorrect, but rather, that the working definition that is used by almost all people who use the term to push policies is wrong.

So if I would say 'cultural appropriation is not real,' that doesn't mean that I deny that there are definitions that I would consider real, but rather that I reject the definition that is used by 'society.'

As regarding the theoretical realm... I made a substantially longer post whose main argument was that this thread needed firmer (indeed, some) theoretical foundation in which to begin the discussion.

Your theory was built on quicksand due to your simplistic references to colonialism and imperialism as somehow providing that foundation, while in actuality, these terms are badly misused by social justice people.

Appropriation involves (metaphorically/symbolically) "taking" a cultural artefact, and then presenting it in a different context (which alters its meaning).

1. It's not a given that the meaning is altered when it is shown in a different context. I think that most people are perfectly capable of understanding that a proper native American headdress has a different meaning than a sports fan wearing a plastic variant.
2. Many of these complaints are not about the meaning in the originating culture itself, but rather about how others look at that culture or react to part of that culture. I don't see why people in one culture have the right to demand that another culture regard them in a certain way.
3. People are not born with an understanding of other cultures. If people in a culture want people who belong to other cultures to understand them, the burden is on them to educate people of other cultures.
4. If the new meaning replaces the original meaning, then that is usually because the people in the originating culture choose to 'borrow' the changed cultural artifact. I respect this choice, as I respect the agency of the people of the originating culture.

Of course, there are and were examples where the original culture was suppressed, which is/was wrong and a valid reason to complain about 'cultural genocide.' However, none of the claims that I've seen of contemporary cultural appropriation fall under those, while the actual examples that are happening in the world right now never seem to be talked about among social justice people.

It is pretty easy (with prompts) to think of examples of such, and I have linked/quoted several times to posts of mine which have included consideration of such:

here
here (bit misleading, this is the same example as the above link plus yet another criticism of a false charge of cultural appropriation)

The swastika fails as an example, because the symbol was adopted by Nazism, but with no intent to overwrite the original meaning. The cultures where the swastika has its own meaning are still using the symbol. The main complaint is that people outside those cultures misunderstand the symbol, but this is a bad complaint, because:
1. People in a culture have no right to have their culture be understood by others
2. Effectively, the demand is that the West has to eliminate part of it's culture (where the swastika has a certain association) and instead adopt part of other culture (where the swastika has a different association).

This kind of cultural puritanism (a cultural artifact may only exist with one meaning and other cultures are not allowed to have their own meaning) is anti-freedom. When Western culture is singled out (the swastika has different meanings all over the world, but only the association that it has in the West is criticized), it's no more than hatred of Western culture.

BTW. In your links, I see no examples beyond the swastika one. Your comment seemed to indicate that you would link to multiple examples.

It is one thing for me, as an artist, to take koru (e.g. here*) and incorporate that into an artistic work (with a different context). It is another thing for me to take [some motif from some other country] and do so. Are either of these problematic? Well, it's easier to defend the former (there's a reason why the Flag Panel was criticised for its lack of koru) and more difficult to defend the latter... I could put it into my art in a way that claims some kind of authenticity (problem) or I could somehow acknowledge its ancestry (fine).** If I did this and then tried to commercialise it with an inconsistent meaning... And what about with an offensive meaning (e.g. the quote chain example).

I would consider neither a problem, because you would be creating something new that takes nothing away from what exists. I don't think that the Maori have any exclusive right to koru, nor that cultures are required to avoid offending other cultures. If some Maori are upset about seeing women with those clothes around, they can voice disapproval or try to get the NZ government to ban that. However, their culture which disallows that is not automatically better than a culture which allows that. Those cultures can coexist, as long as there is tolerance. Banning things because of 'cultural appropriation' is the opposite of tolerance.

The irony of social justice is that it commonly preached intolerance, but claims it is a solution to get more tolerance.

I am proposing that there are degrees of bad (i.e. there is a varying point where we get up and say, "Woah, hold on, that's not on"). It's not something we can reduce to a hard and fast rule, and much like the obsession with uniqueness, this is an unhealthy idea.

'Cultural appropriation' is an obsession with uniqueness. It assumes that one culture has exclusive rights to give meaning to a cultural artifact.

**These concepts are, for reference, fundamental parts of commercial law and scholastic/academic integrity.

Those are pretty much the opposite of complaining about 'cultural appropriation.' Commercial law and scholastic/academic integrity disallow exact copies without changing the meaning of something or (significantly) altering it, while 'cultural appropriation' complains that the copies give the cultural artifact a different meaning because they are too different.

Furthermore, commercial law and scholastic/academic integrity are individualistic and give special rights only to the person who created something. 'Cultural appropriation' is collective and gives special rights to a group based on their race/gender/etc. This is an immense difference, that turns the latter into discrimination based on race/gender/etc.

[Jello Biafra]

Yes, cultural appropriation is real. It is a problem when it is done with the intent of mocking another culture. Appropriating an item of cultural significance because it's pretty can be seen as mockery, as it reduces important cultural attributes to simple fashion statements.

[Aapje]

It is a problem when it is done with the intent of mocking another culture. Appropriating an item of cultural significance because it's pretty can be seen as mockery, as it reduces important cultural attributes to simple fashion statements.

I think that it is completely unfair to say that people who adopt something pretty are thereby mocking it, when they have no actual intent to mock.

That is really bad faith on your part.

[Jello Biafra]

It is a problem when it is done with the intent of mocking another culture. Appropriating an item of cultural significance because it's pretty can be seen as mockery, as it reduces important cultural attributes to simple fashion statements.

I think that it is completely unfair to say that people who adopt something pretty are thereby mocking it, when they have no actual intent to mock.

That is really bad faith on your part.

They don't intend to find out if the object has cultural significance or not. Adopting an item of cultural significance as though it is insignificant is mockery. Ergo, they intend to mock.

[Frenline Delpha]

How about "I'd prefer that you didn't wear that hat because it's been used by too many white people to denigrate and stereotype people of my background in horribly racist ways."?

But I mean, what if a person genuinely enjoys wearing the clothes of another culture, or anything of another culture? I love kimonos, I would love to try to wear one. I think Spanish names, such as 'Guadalupe', are beautiful. I love Italian food.

It's certainly one thing if a person goes around actually being racist, dressing in a sombrero and a poncho and naming themselves "Pablo the Illegal Immigrant". That's stupid and should be addressed as being stupid. However, if a person does love actually sombreros and ponchos, and finds them comfortable, let them wear them.

The beautiful thing about a country like America is that so many cultures are able to interact with, to learn about, and to appreciate each other. Saying, "You can't have this if you're not Spanish/French/Italian/German/Japanese," undermines the ability of a person to be able to learn about and to love the cultures of our neighbors, which is the only way we can actually have peace in our country. Shouting, "This is cultural appropriation!" builds walls between cultures, between communities, and eventually between people, to the point where a person can say to their neighbor, "Hey, you're from New York, you can't borrow my Tim McGraw CD, you city-people don't listen to country." Which is utterly ridiculous. If you're from the city and you want to listen to my Tim McGraw CD, LISTEN TO IT AND SEE HOW AWESOME THE MUSIC IS AND WHY I LOVE IT SO MUCH!!!

I couldn't agree more.

[Pirelin]

No, it isn't. Besides, if it was, blacks have been appropriating white culture for decades.

[The Lone Alliance]

I find the whole thing stupid personally, it's a good sign of the chronically offended to find people whining about Cultural appropriation.

How about "I'd prefer that you didn't wear that hat because it's been used by too many white people to denigrate and stereotype people of my background in horribly racist ways."?

Why should a person be held responsible for the actions of other people?

[Greater Orensta]

no

[Forsher]

We might summarise my previous post as: ...

Your list of complaints about me could also be indicative that your writing is poor and partly incomprehensible. If I misunderstood you, I'd say that faults in your writing are at least partly to blame.

One problem with this... it would not explain several aspects of those complaints... "deceptively quoted". Normally, at least, when I am confronted with honest conversation, I would be inclined to agree with you.

For example, you asked me whether electricity is a cultural artifact, while that is clearly a cherry picked example that is the least cultural of the many things that non-Western people have adopted from the West. That immediately told me that you were either arguing in bad faith or so biased that you would be hard to debate.

I have told you several times that the point of the electricity example was to illustrate that not everything that non-Western people use is necessarily cultural. At the same time, what we'd understand as a "thoroughly Western life" does require electricity. Furthermore, I pointed out that just because the concept of electricity is acultural, that doesn't mean that it cannot become part of a cultural understanding.

You would, then, have it that no-one ever choose clear examples to illustrate points because this is "cherry picked". Either that's extremely disingenuous or you don't understand the point of "cherry picking"... i.e. that when you want to show something as being representative (unlike me), you don't actively choose an example. Also, if it was cherry picking I would not have immediately (once I had used electricity to develop the concept of acultural) included something obviously cultural, i.e. a sport.

If you are having difficulty following, I suggest you ask for clarification rather than chopping out stuff or making posts with the subtext like this. Also, notice how I have not changed the meaning with this paragraph split.

Then you jumped to "Colonialism. Imperialism," as somehow being what separates appropriation from non-appropriation, but one of the major disagreements between social justice people and critics like me is that the former define colonialism & imperialism in ways that I find absurd and dismissive of the agency of non-Westerners (which ironically is colonialist thinking). So your statement appeared to me as nothing more than an tribal statement: a statement that is seen as a fair explanation merely by people who already share your beliefs. As such, it is a form of non-debate.

I'm really not sure how I can explain this to you more clearly: you still haven't got that you're not understanding this paragraph. I mean, I've told you that as simply as it can get. If you were engaged in "non-tribal" statements, this paragraph-ending wouldn't exist.

Colonialism and Imperialism were specifically linked to (a sentence so easy to understand I got a dog to write it) the following sentence:

Always and necessarily they involved the export of culture, cultural forms and cultural users.

You have now ignored this sentence three times. That's hard to construe as my being unclear. I also, because you are so fascinated by concrete examples, initially connected this to a clear example (i.e. that of rugby). If you want to understand why the modern world looks the way it does, you have to understand imperialism and colonialism. If you want to understand the influence of Western culture in the 21st Century, you have to understand Maritime Colonial Empire. If you do understand these things, you would understand the difference between accepting something you are desired to take, and between taking something which may or may not be intended to being taken.

You seemed to understand claimative vs acceptive before... now it becomes "somehow". You can either not understand and be honest, or you can be dishonest... your posts are inconsistent but internally coherent => dishonest (i.e. veiled and ulterior), which generally suggests you understand (but maybe you're just happy to use heuristics to fill in the blanks).

This is the problem with basing your concepts of validity of arguments by people who, by definition (or, at least, Forsher's) that do not understand what they are talking about.

I think that you simply misunderstand my argument here. I'm not saying that all definitions/examples of cultural appropriation are automatically incorrect, but rather, that the working definition that is used by almost all people who use the term to push policies is wrong.

So if I would say 'cultural appropriation is not real,' that doesn't mean that I deny that there are definitions that I would consider real, but rather that I reject the definition that is used by 'society.'

Firstly, we're clearly not talking about the same things here. I meant to include a link to several definitions of SJW.

Secondly, insofar as we are talking about the same thing:

"I've not seen you offer a good definition, nor do I think there can be one, as the term is inherently not (meant to be) logical and fair."

Ouch.

As regarding the theoretical realm... I made a substantially longer post whose main argument was that this thread needed firmer (indeed, some) theoretical foundation in which to begin the discussion.

Your theory was built on quicksand due to your simplistic references to colonialism and imperialism as somehow providing that foundation, while in actuality, these terms are badly misused by social justice people.

Three problems here:

(i) You've completely misunderstood the role of imperialism/colonialism in my discussion, probably by ignoring core sentences.
(ii) Whether or not the "social justice people" misuse those terms has no bearing on my discussion/use.
(iii) My theory proceeded from (a) the nature of culture and (b) what appropriate means.

Why are (i) and (iii) different? Well, because imperialism entered the discussion at the first instance to point out that ideas of cultural appropriation and cultural imperialism both exist and that they describe different mechanisms of cultural transfer/diffusion/exchange. (They aren't an exhaustive set either.) Colonialism and imperialism (together) were brought up insofar as they were the primary mechanism in which Western Culture initially spread, possibly a way that they still are today (a question for a different thread) and because they are, theoretically, a very clear illustration of an alternative model of exchange, within the context of Western Culture's presence in non-Western areas. Subtle.

Appropriation involves (metaphorically/symbolically) "taking" a cultural artefact, and then presenting it in a different context (which alters its meaning).

1. It's not a given that the meaning is altered when it is shown in a different context. I think that most people are perfectly capable of understanding that a proper native American headdress has a different meaning than a sports fan wearing a plastic variant.

Your example is one of a different meaning. I would imagine that most examples which preserve meaning will be academic, which doesn't count... I guess, maybe, I should rephrase that as "such that it" but I am not sure this is necessary.

2. Many of these complaints are not about the meaning in the originating culture itself, but rather about how others look at that culture or react to part of that culture. I don't see why people in one culture have the right to demand that another culture regard them in a certain way.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to what I am saying. But good for you. Be about your business, citizen.

3. People are not born with an understanding of other cultures. If people in a culture want people who belong to other cultures to understand them, the burden is on them to educate people of other cultures.

People aren't born with an understanding of any culture. I explained this in my first post. The burden to understand something, generally, ought to fall on the part of those trying to understand... hence why here you ought to try and understand my posts and I ought to try and write for meaning. I am not really sure why we are imposing a burden to educate on people who are unaware that they are trying to be understood. It doesn't make sense with contemporary Western thought.

You're able, on reflection, to impose the burden because you have got things backwards. Don't do that.

4. If the new meaning replaces the original meaning, then that is usually because the people in the originating culture choose to 'borrow' the changed cultural artifact. I respect this choice, as I respect the agency of the people of the originating culture.

Replacement, extinction etc. not really a specific part of this conversation (hence the issue with your response to the swastika) example. Replacement of the original meaning, within the new context is as far as we need to go.

Whether or not people actually choose cultural meanings is an interesting question and one that will, generally, fall against human agency, given the nature of culture. Basically, culture is learnt. However, culture is something we're not generally conscious of (hence why we talk of culture shock). And, indeed, enculturation (see my first post in this thread) is largely unconscious (cf. aculturation; in my initial post here I get the two words the wrong way round), which implies limited agency.

Of course, there are and were examples where the original culture was suppressed, which is/was wrong and a valid reason to complain about 'cultural genocide.' However, none of the claims that I've seen of contemporary cultural appropriation fall under those, while the actual examples that are happening in the world right now never seem to be talked about among social justice people.

I don't care. As I have pointed out, I don't think this is appropriative, i.e. irrelevant. Your constant need to attack people not in this conversation is getting tiresome too.

It is pretty easy (with prompts) to think of examples of such, and I have linked/quoted several times to posts of mine which have included consideration of such:

here
here (bit misleading, this is the same example as the above link plus yet another criticism of a false charge of cultural appropriation)

The swastika fails as an example, because the symbol was adopted by Nazism, but with no intent to overwrite the original meaning. The cultures where the swastika has its own meaning are still using the symbol. The main complaint is that people outside those cultures misunderstand the symbol, but this is a bad complaint, because:
1. People in a culture have no right to have their culture be understood by others
2. Effectively, the demand is that the West has to eliminate part of it's culture (where the swastika has a certain association) and instead adopt part of other culture (where the swastika has a different association).

This kind of cultural puritanism (a cultural artifact may only exist with one meaning and other cultures are not allowed to have their own meaning) is anti-freedom. When Western culture is singled out (the swastika has different meanings all over the world, but only the association that it has in the West is criticized), it's no more than hatred of Western culture.

As I have already discussed, replacement of meaning is irrelevant. You also claim that the obsession with uniqueness is ant-West. No, it's just moronic... as I pointed out long ago now (and was one the reasons for the theory).

The swastika is raised as a problem because it altered the meaning (i.e. not because it replaced the meaning). This is viewed as a problem because one expects, in contemporary society, that we'd preserve original meaning or, at least, acknowledge it. In other words, it is a denial of agency and when we deny agency, we deny someone's freedom (you shall have liberty to the extent it does not infringe someone else's) and we really shouldn't be listening to people with twisted-views of basic Western thought and simultaneously believe in their goodness.

Whether or not we actually consider the ability to alter meaning to be bad depends, almost entirely, then on our view of agency. I don't like yours. I don't think standard Western Philosophy likes yours. I don't, frankly, care. What matters is the Nazi swastika is a classic example of cultural appropriation, we know it is problematic (because of the meaning change) and from there whether or not we actually decide it is bad is another question... and this distinction between "yes it's appropriation" and "yes it's bad" was raised in my later discussion. I suspect we were building simply to:

BTW. In your links, I see no examples beyond the swastika one. Your comment seemed to indicate that you would link to multiple examples.

You have chopped out one of them. Yay. Honesty.

Also, notice, I said with prompts. As with so many other things, cold thinking is not particularly easy.

It is one thing for me, as an artist, to take koru (e.g. here*) and incorporate that into an artistic work (with a different context). It is another thing for me to take [some motif from some other country] and do so. Are either of these problematic? Well, it's easier to defend the former (there's a reason why the Flag Panel was criticised for its lack of koru) and more difficult to defend the latter... I could put it into my art in a way that claims some kind of authenticity (problem) or I could somehow acknowledge its ancestry (fine).** If I did this and then tried to commercialise it with an inconsistent meaning... And what about with an offensive meaning (e.g. the quote chain example).

I would consider neither a problem, because you would be creating something new that takes nothing away from what exists. I don't think that the Maori have any exclusive right to koru, nor that cultures are required to avoid offending other cultures. If some Maori are upset about seeing women with those clothes around, they can voice disapproval or try to get the NZ government to ban that. However, their culture which disallows that is not automatically better than a culture which allows that. Those cultures can coexist, as long as there is tolerance. Banning things because of 'cultural appropriation' is the opposite of tolerance.

It is completely unreasonable for me to believe my writing is incomprehensible when you misunderstand a newspaper article... that was controversial because it was commercialisation of Samoan tattoos which, in Samoan culture, are reserved for men and here were being paraded as authentic (enough) for women. This is quite possibly illegal (misleading representation).

And if you cannot see how offering conflicting "authentic" views takes something away, you shouldn't be commenting on subjects like this one.

The irony of social justice is that it commonly preached intolerance, but claims it is a solution to get more tolerance.

Get a blog.

I am proposing that there are degrees of bad (i.e. there is a varying point where we get up and say, "Woah, hold on, that's not on"). It's not something we can reduce to a hard and fast rule, and much like the obsession with uniqueness, this is an unhealthy idea.

'Cultural appropriation' is an obsession with uniqueness. It assumes that one culture has exclusive rights to give meaning to a cultural artifact.

It doesn't assume this. It assumes that it is possible to take a cultural artefact and alter its meaning. Whether or not this is morally bad draws on other concepts, such as self-determination and (critically) authenticity.

When you take koru, stick it on a very morbid and fatalistic artwork and do so in such a way as to make that look like an authentic use, we've got a problem because you are denying alternative points of views. If you do this and don't make it look authentic, then you're probably okay.

**These concepts are, for reference, fundamental parts of commercial law and scholastic/academic integrity.

Those are pretty much the opposite of complaining about 'cultural appropriation.' Commercial law and scholastic/academic integrity disallow exact copies without changing the meaning of something or (significantly) altering it, while 'cultural appropriation' complains that the copies give the cultural artifact a different meaning because they are too different.]

Furthermore, commercial law and scholastic/academic integrity are individualistic and give special rights only to the person who created something. 'Cultural appropriation' is collective and gives special rights to a group based on their race/gender/etc. This is an immense difference, that turns the latter into discrimination based on race/gender/etc.

You don't understand the points being raised.

In commercial law, you cannot represent something as being made by, say, hp when it is, in fact, not. This is trademark. The claiming of false-authenticity (where this "footnote" was attached) is doing pretty much the same thing. It's misleading.

If you tried to represent, say, Richard Huscroft's The Norman Conquest as claiming that Eadmer's description of why Harold went to Normandy makes complete sense and 'has a lot going for it' then you'd be in big trouble. This is actually the view of David Bates. Scholastic/academic integrity is all about acknowledging the descent of your views and accurately representing your sources/intellectual ancestors. When you don't do this (e.g. Fogel and Engermann, Time on the Cross) you will be pilloried (e.g. by Kenneth Stampp). This "footnote" was attached to a bit about acknowledging ancestry.

And your views are inconsistent. Either your accept the concept/principles of intellectual property or you don't. There is no consistent way to believe that you cannot jointly own IP when you can jointly own physical property. In fact, if anything, you could make the distinction the other way more easily. I am not suggesting that we give culture's IP rights over, say, koru, but I am suggesting that we acknowledge the only reason why we might not be able to is simply some quibbling over principals and agents, and duration... rather than the inherent nonsense of the idea.

Incidentally, it is much easier to defend the concept of cultural appropriation when you are sure the people you are defending it from accept property notions.

Quite aside from people, rightly, pointing out that there are ways of taking cultural artefacts which are inappropriate (if only for IP reasons, which NSG hates so whatevs there)

Which is why I alluded to such before.

[The Horror Channel]

To answer OP, no.

[Des-Bal]

They don't intend to find out if the object has cultural significance or not. Adopting an item of cultural significance as though it is insignificant is mockery. Ergo, they intend to mock.

Fuck their culture. If you think something looks nice, wear it. If you think something looks fun, do it. If someone says that what you're wearing or doing is actually a really important and significant in their culture feel free to file that under trivia because you don't get to tell people what they do and do not consider important.

[Oil exporting People]

If its real, then Multiculturalism cannot exist. Basically any proponents of it argue themselves out of existence by adopting such a position.