Is Cultural Appropriation Real?

[Luminesa]

Well, consider what you just said. We're the "cultural parasites" whose ancestors have hurt these people, and we should feel bad for what our ancestors did, exploiting these people. Did colonial exploitation take place? Certainly, nobody is denying that. Are many workers in third-world countries exploited, underpaid, and unprotected from the dangers of working in factories and other manufacturing places? Yes, and something should be done about that, as there are indeed genuine human rights violations happening in many of these countries, especially in places like China.

The colonizer-colonized contradiction is global, not regional, and it defines the current epoch as much as it defined "our ancestors" epoch. The fact that you're talking about "what our ancestors did" is a dead giveaway that you don't understand how the past informs the present, and how colonialism is actively being reasserted by the first world. We're not talking about lingering inequality, in fact the situation has been getting worse.

However, at the same time, you're most likely wearing a shirt, using a phone/computer, and living in a house made with parts that are not from the USA. Meanwhile, many people in Far Eastern countries enjoy dressing in decidedly American ways, eating American food, and listening to American music. If you're going to complain about how "the evil whites" have appropriated the cultures of these poor, downtrodden countries, then you also have to tell a Chinese person who happens to like Michael Jackson, "Hey, you can't listen to my American music, that's cultural appropriation!" or a Japanese kid who really likes baseball, "Hey, you can't play that, that's an American sport!" You see how this works? The world has become so globalized that the countries that were oppressed by colonists now have taken an interest in the culture of the colonials themselves, and have thus "borrowed" things that they like from that culture.

"But third worlders wear blue jeans!" is missing the point. Cultural exploitation vitiates, reduces, and humiliates the colonized nation. It subjects the cultural development of the colonized nation to outsized foreign influence and pushes it in a commercially profitable direction. It is not reciprocal cultural exchange. It is a method of ideological and mental control. It slowly destroys the colonized culture.

Finally, considering you probably own all of those things-a shirt, phone, computer, and other items with parts made in China, or Japan, or Korea, or sometimes even India, if you hate "cultural appropriation" so much, would you be willing to part with those items to take a stand against borrowing parts of other peoples' cultures by letting go of all of the things in your house that say "Made in China", "Made in Japan", "Made in Korea", and whatnot?

This is such a cheap and thoughtless argument, and I can't really see what it has to do with what I'm talking about. You show a faint awareness that the lifestyle of first worlders is furnished by a one-way supply of commodities from exploited nations, but it hasn't hit you that this builds my case more than it does yours.

Of course I know how the past informs the present. We look at events in the past and see how they give the events of the present time their significance. It's why we know now that Hitler going into Russia was a bad idea, because all of the other times rulers went into Russia they failed epically. Or how the McCarthy era was comparable to the witch hunts of the Middle Ages, in which people were accused of crimes and hung based-off very shoddy, non-factual, and usually hysterical "evidence".

Yes, there are companies and people that do exploit third-world countries for gain. However, the common American person, by listening to world music or by wearing dreadlocks, is not oppressing anyone. If a person appreciates the culture of another country, and enjoys things of their culture, that's how the world should be. We share with each other, both on a personal and on a global level, the things that are important in our lives and that represent important higher concepts in our lives.

Of course, you do have global products like McDonald's. Or Coca Cola. American products that exist around the world. There are pros to such things, and there are cons. Of course, building a McDonald's in a small town is going to take from the regional culture, by drawing people toward the fast-food chain and away from local cuisines. However, at the same time, places like McDonald's, where everyone can go to and mingle with other people, also allows for people to get to know each other's cultures and to share them.

An even better example would be Disney World. There are Disney Worlds all over the world. Disney does a great job of drawing people from many different cultures toward them, though one could very well argue there are probably very few corporations that are as greedy and soulless as Disney currently is. I would not argue with them, I would agree. However, places like a Disney World also provide a place for people from all over the world to get to know each other and their cultures, even if it is on a personal scale and not on a regional scale. From spending a week in Disney World, I met a family from London, a girl from Shanghai, and a Chinese shopkeeper who taught me about the different depictions of Buddha in art. Considering the admittedly tiny world I live in of a town of maybe 1,500 people or less, this was incredible to me, and that's how it should be. Global places like these often indirectly open us to parts of the world we never would have thought about otherwise.

[New Edom]

I disagree. I straddle two cultures in background so I've given this a lot of thought. It's far better to have a general standard for how people in general ought to be treated. When I see people sucking up to others when they're from the dominant culture, I tend to think that unless the offenses they're focusing on are holding people back, it's worthless.

Of course I'm a pretty unsentimental person. A lot of other people need for some reason to have a lot of emotional hurdles before they really feel sympathy, and I tend to prefer principles and values.

It's really not so much a matter of sentimentality to me as it is a desire to not come across as a dick so long as there's no particular reason to do so (Not that I'm always successful in this endeavor, as people have seen in some of my snippier replies here). I'm not going to wear a war bonnet for the same reason that I'm not going to wear a black belt: It's not something that I've earned, and if I'm using it as a fashion accessory, then I'm both claiming something that isn't mine to claim, and insulting others who have done so. I'm not going to wear a sombrero for the same reason that I'm not going to wear an afro comb: There's a pretty good chance that it'll annoy people who don't necessarily deserve to be annoyed by me, and wearing either isn't important enough to me to cause unnecessary annoyance. That's not sentimentality. It's a baseline level of empathy.

Really? How is that empathy? I watched this young actress talking about how wearing cornrows is disrespectful towards Black people when White women wear them. I thought that was ridiculous. What, because it's some kind of uniform? No, it's a hairstyle. It's not a religious article, it's not sacred, it's just something people wear their hair in. If they're annoyed, too bad. Let them be annoyed by things that actually mater, like not being hired for jobs, not being allowed to date who they want, allowed ot worship as they like, start businesses, speak in public. If some Black people or Mexican people want to be separate from the mainstream culture, good for them. It doesn't in my opinion make them stronger or more capable, it actually makes them weaker as a people by singling them out, emphasizing difference and different interests. Yet at the same time they want to be treated like citizens of the dominant culture.

If this is your preferred way of dealing with such issues, that's up to you, and i won't condemn it. What does concern me is when people who are arguably richer and more influential than I am insist that everyone has to do that, and accuse people who won't of racism.

[Novsvacro]

Eh, cultural exchange tends to be benign to positive, but it can be in bad taste (in the form of adopting stereotypes), as many have mentioned.

[Nariterrr]

No.

[Novsvacro]

Well, consider what you just said. We're the "cultural parasites" whose ancestors have hurt these people, and we should feel bad for what our ancestors did, exploiting these people. Did colonial exploitation take place? Certainly, nobody is denying that. Are many workers in third-world countries exploited, underpaid, and unprotected from the dangers of working in factories and other manufacturing places? Yes, and something should be done about that, as there are indeed genuine human rights violations happening in many of these countries, especially in places like China.

The colonizer-colonized contradiction is global, not regional, and it defines the current epoch as much as it defined "our ancestors" epoch. The fact that you're talking about "what our ancestors did" is a dead giveaway that you don't understand how the past informs the present, and how colonialism is actively being reasserted by the first world. We're not talking about lingering inequality, in fact the situation has been getting worse.

However, at the same time, you're most likely wearing a shirt, using a phone/computer, and living in a house made with parts that are not from the USA. Meanwhile, many people in Far Eastern countries enjoy dressing in decidedly American ways, eating American food, and listening to American music. If you're going to complain about how "the evil whites" have appropriated the cultures of these poor, downtrodden countries, then you also have to tell a Chinese person who happens to like Michael Jackson, "Hey, you can't listen to my American music, that's cultural appropriation!" or a Japanese kid who really likes baseball, "Hey, you can't play that, that's an American sport!" You see how this works? The world has become so globalized that the countries that were oppressed by colonists now have taken an interest in the culture of the colonials themselves, and have thus "borrowed" things that they like from that culture.

"But third worlders wear blue jeans!" is missing the point. Cultural exploitation vitiates, reduces, and humiliates the colonized nation. It subjects the cultural development of the colonized nation to outsized foreign influence and pushes it in a commercially profitable direction. It is not reciprocal cultural exchange. It is a method of ideological and mental control. It slowly destroys the colonized culture.

Finally, considering you probably own all of those things-a shirt, phone, computer, and other items with parts made in China, or Japan, or Korea, or sometimes even India, if you hate "cultural appropriation" so much, would you be willing to part with those items to take a stand against borrowing parts of other peoples' cultures by letting go of all of the things in your house that say "Made in China", "Made in Japan", "Made in Korea", and whatnot?

This is such a cheap and thoughtless argument, and I can't really see what it has to do with what I'm talking about. You show a faint awareness that the lifestyle of first worlders is furnished by a one-way supply of commodities from exploited nations, but it hasn't hit you that this builds my case more than it does yours.

Not all cultures are created equal. Cultural domination is basically a timeless aspect of human existence and probably will be forever.

As Dio has said,"Some cultures must be colonized."

[New Edom]

Eh, cultural exchange tends to be benign to positive, but it can be in bad taste (in the form of adopting stereotypes), as many have mentioned.

Exactly. Presuming it is always some form of contempt encourages distance between cultures. And by the way, the business suit was developed by Westerners--should we deny it to immigrants who come from cultures where they don't wear ties and jackets? Of course not. It's a silly bone of contention.

[Partybus]

Question, which is worse for a white American guy...

wearing a Jamaican style tam, made in Guatemala, or wearing an African style Dashiki, made in Indonesia?

[Greed and Death]

people that think cultural appropriation doesn't exist are free to, if not actively encouraged to, walk around with a swastika in their forehead and see how it goes

hint: most people won't be assuming you're a monk

Depends on where you are, your demeanour, your clothes, if the swastika is slanted, if the swastika has designs around and what designs they are, where the swastika is on your body etc.

For example if I walked into a room wearing all white with a swastika pendant that was not slanted, had dots near the arms and also contained the Hand of Ahimsa, people woukd assume I'm Jain. If I swaggered in with a shaved head, black and red clothes and a cocky grin, then I'd get kicked in. Its all about context.

You know the neo nazis are now using the one with dots and hand of Hand of Ahimsa.

[Novsvacro]

Depends on where you are, your demeanour, your clothes, if the swastika is slanted, if the swastika has designs around and what designs they are, where the swastika is on your body etc.

For example if I walked into a room wearing all white with a swastika pendant that was not slanted, had dots near the arms and also contained the Hand of Ahimsa, people woukd assume I'm Jain. If I swaggered in with a shaved head, black and red clothes and a cocky grin, then I'd get kicked in. Its all about context.

You know the neo nazis are now using the one with dots and hand of Hand of Ahimsa.

Hitler was a cultural expropriator.

You eating Lebanese food is cultural expropriation.

You are literally Hitler.

*nods*

[New Owca]

Depends on where you are, your demeanour, your clothes, if the swastika is slanted, if the swastika has designs around and what designs they are, where the swastika is on your body etc.

For example if I walked into a room wearing all white with a swastika pendant that was not slanted, had dots near the arms and also contained the Hand of Ahimsa, people woukd assume I'm Jain. If I swaggered in with a shaved head, black and red clothes and a cocky grin, then I'd get kicked in. Its all about context.

You know the neo nazis are now using the one with dots and hand of Hand of Ahimsa.

The Hand of Ahimsa literally stands for "non violence". Thats ironic as hell - it's like Wall Street flying the Red Flag.

[Greed and Death]

You know the neo nazis are now using the one with dots and hand of Hand of Ahimsa.

The Hand of Ahimsa literally stands for "non violence". Thats ironic as hell - it's like Wall Street flying the Red Flag.

You know that several of the buildings on wall street were adorned with hammer and sickles motifs by communist designers they hired.

[Nikolai the Russian Guy]

Yes, but it's not what you think.

For example, being English and wearing a viking helmet isn't cultural appropriation. There aren't many examples of actual cultural appropriation, as it's rarer than some would assume, but the first that comes to mind for me is the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, which steals Greek Macedonian imagery and symbols and appropriates them as part of their inane claim that they are the "real" Macedonians, whom were Slavic, and Alexander the Great was a Slav.

That is both cultural appropriation AND historical revisionism, and you can thank Josip Broz Tito for that.

[Crockerland]

However, at the same time, you're most likely wearing a shirt, using a phone/computer, and living in a house made with parts that are not from the USA. Meanwhile, many people in Far Eastern countries enjoy dressing in decidedly American ways, eating American food, and listening to American music. If you're going to complain about how "the evil whites" have appropriated the cultures of these poor, downtrodden countries, then you also have to tell a Chinese person who happens to like Michael Jackson, "Hey, you can't listen to my American music, that's cultural appropriation!" or a Japanese kid who really likes baseball, "Hey, you can't play that, that's an American sport!" You see how this works? The world has become so globalized that the countries that were oppressed by colonists now have taken an interest in the culture of the colonials themselves, and have thus "borrowed" things that they like from that culture.

"But third worlders wear blue jeans!" is missing the point. Cultural exploitation vitiates, reduces, and humiliates the colonized nation. It subjects the cultural development of the colonized nation to outsized foreign influence and pushes it in a commercially profitable direction. It is not reciprocal cultural exchange. It is a method of ideological and mental control. It slowly destroys the colonized culture.

Unfortunately for you, it's no longer 1912, and there are no longer colonized nations

[Auristania]

Brits learnt drinking tea from the Indians, you gonna try stopping us from drinking tea?

especially now, after Brexit when we are free and independent by the Grace of God , Amen

I ain't holding my breath.

Likewise, Europeans leant drinking coffee from the Turks; you gonna stop them?

I like Cossack dances and often watch them on the Internet. Are you going to replace the Internet with the Nationalnet? The only dances Brits are allowed to watch are Clog and Morris? Well at least Brits will be forbidden to disco, so there is a silver lining.

What is the difference between "Cultural Appropriation is bad" versus "the Nation must keep its Culture pure?"

[Nationalist Gold Union]

noper

[New Owca]

The Hand of Ahimsa literally stands for "non violence". Thats ironic as hell - it's like Wall Street flying the Red Flag.

You know that several of the buildings on wall street were adorned with hammer and sickles motifs by communist designers they hired.

Perhaps that was the wrong comparison XD

[Lady Scylla]

Well, consider what you just said. We're the "cultural parasites" whose ancestors have hurt these people, and we should feel bad for what our ancestors did, exploiting these people. Did colonial exploitation take place? Certainly, nobody is denying that. Are many workers in third-world countries exploited, underpaid, and unprotected from the dangers of working in factories and other manufacturing places? Yes, and something should be done about that, as there are indeed genuine human rights violations happening in many of these countries, especially in places like China.

The colonizer-colonized contradiction is global, not regional, and it defines the current epoch as much as it defined "our ancestors" epoch. The fact that you're talking about "what our ancestors did" is a dead giveaway that you don't understand how the past informs the present, and how colonialism is actively being reasserted by the first world. We're not talking about lingering inequality, in fact the situation has been getting worse.

However, at the same time, you're most likely wearing a shirt, using a phone/computer, and living in a house made with parts that are not from the USA. Meanwhile, many people in Far Eastern countries enjoy dressing in decidedly American ways, eating American food, and listening to American music. If you're going to complain about how "the evil whites" have appropriated the cultures of these poor, downtrodden countries, then you also have to tell a Chinese person who happens to like Michael Jackson, "Hey, you can't listen to my American music, that's cultural appropriation!" or a Japanese kid who really likes baseball, "Hey, you can't play that, that's an American sport!" You see how this works? The world has become so globalized that the countries that were oppressed by colonists now have taken an interest in the culture of the colonials themselves, and have thus "borrowed" things that they like from that culture.

"But third worlders wear blue jeans!" is missing the point. Cultural exploitation vitiates, reduces, and humiliates the colonized nation. It subjects the cultural development of the colonized nation to outsized foreign influence and pushes it in a commercially profitable direction. It is not reciprocal cultural exchange. It is a method of ideological and mental control. It slowly destroys the colonized culture.

Finally, considering you probably own all of those things-a shirt, phone, computer, and other items with parts made in China, or Japan, or Korea, or sometimes even India, if you hate "cultural appropriation" so much, would you be willing to part with those items to take a stand against borrowing parts of other peoples' cultures by letting go of all of the things in your house that say "Made in China", "Made in Japan", "Made in Korea", and whatnot?

This is such a cheap and thoughtless argument, and I can't really see what it has to do with what I'm talking about. You show a faint awareness that the lifestyle of first worlders is furnished by a one-way supply of commodities from exploited nations, but it hasn't hit you that this builds my case more than it does yours.

If we're going to combat cultural appropriation, then we may as well build a time machine, go back in time, and stop humans from ever evolving.

[The Trump Galactical Empire]

Obviously not.

[Arumbia67]

No it isn't. It's a buzzword used by pissy white liberals.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It's a pretty well established byproduct of colonialism dating back to Columbus. Colonial conquerors crib practices, ideas, and aesthetics that they find charming or quaint, and build up a repertoire of stolen goods and artefacts from the civilizations they tear down. When capitalism came into being, and colonialism transformed into imperialism, conquerors no longer simply stole artefacts, they put them up for sale. Everything in the colonized culture is monetized, even aesthetics, and rich colonizers and tourists pay good money for an 'authentic' experience of culture. India, Algeria, China, Korea, you name it, are made into muses for the colonial imagination, host cultures for the colonial parasite to enjoy and discard at will. "Cultural appropriation" is just a trendy new name for an old practice. The land, products, and people of colonized nations are treated as resources for commercial exploitation, so why should their culture be any different?

Here's a challenge for you, then. I challenge you to get rid of everything in your house that says, "Made in China."

Lumi, that's idiotic. A product made in China has nothing to do with cultural appropriation, per se. I don't think you read Lies and Ignorance's post correctly.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's really not so much a matter of sentimentality to me as it is a desire to not come across as a dick so long as there's no particular reason to do so (Not that I'm always successful in this endeavor, as people have seen in some of my snippier replies here). I'm not going to wear a war bonnet for the same reason that I'm not going to wear a black belt: It's not something that I've earned, and if I'm using it as a fashion accessory, then I'm both claiming something that isn't mine to claim, and insulting others who have done so. I'm not going to wear a sombrero for the same reason that I'm not going to wear an afro comb: There's a pretty good chance that it'll annoy people who don't necessarily deserve to be annoyed by me, and wearing either isn't important enough to me to cause unnecessary annoyance. That's not sentimentality. It's a baseline level of empathy.

Really? How is that empathy? I watched this young actress talking about how wearing cornrows is disrespectful towards Black people when White women wear them. I thought that was ridiculous. What, because it's some kind of uniform? No, it's a hairstyle. It's not a religious article, it's not sacred, it's just something people wear their hair in. If they're annoyed, too bad. Let them be annoyed by things that actually mater, like not being hired for jobs, not being allowed to date who they want, allowed ot worship as they like, start businesses, speak in public. If some Black people or Mexican people want to be separate from the mainstream culture, good for them. It doesn't in my opinion make them stronger or more capable, it actually makes them weaker as a people by singling them out, emphasizing difference and different interests. Yet at the same time they want to be treated like citizens of the dominant culture.

If this is your preferred way of dealing with such issues, that's up to you, and i won't condemn it. What does concern me is when people who are arguably richer and more influential than I am insist that everyone has to do that, and accuse people who won't of racism.

I'm sure that black people are just as grateful to you for telling them what qualifies as a real thing to be concerned with as they are when white folks screaming about cultural appropriation do it.

[United Sates of Merica]

no

[Ipland]

Technically yes, but it is in NO WAY a bad thing. Cultural appropriation is just adopting parts of another culture. That's it. Nothing bad about it.

[New Edom]

Really? How is that empathy? I watched this young actress talking about how wearing cornrows is disrespectful towards Black people when White women wear them. I thought that was ridiculous. What, because it's some kind of uniform? No, it's a hairstyle. It's not a religious article, it's not sacred, it's just something people wear their hair in. If they're annoyed, too bad. Let them be annoyed by things that actually mater, like not being hired for jobs, not being allowed to date who they want, allowed ot worship as they like, start businesses, speak in public. If some Black people or Mexican people want to be separate from the mainstream culture, good for them. It doesn't in my opinion make them stronger or more capable, it actually makes them weaker as a people by singling them out, emphasizing difference and different interests. Yet at the same time they want to be treated like citizens of the dominant culture.

If this is your preferred way of dealing with such issues, that's up to you, and i won't condemn it. What does concern me is when people who are arguably richer and more influential than I am insist that everyone has to do that, and accuse people who won't of racism.

I'm sure that black people are just as grateful to you for telling them what qualifies as a real thing to be concerned with as they are when white folks screaming about cultural appropriation do it.

Either people can accept fairness--in which case a person claiming that they meant no offense has to be taken as seriously as someone claiming offense--or it's a bunch of crap. Do you accept that as fair?

[United States of Conner]

TBH there's a fine line between racist and simply having fun.

If I'm wearing a sombrero, that's fine.

If I wear a sombrero, call myself Juan, and implying I run with the cartels, that would be playing off stereotypes. Now, when it's clear that that's humor, and it's clearly a joke, that's one thing, but when it's serious, that's kind of racist.

Also, there's a reason that Vanilla Ice and Iggy Azalea are called out for "cultural appropriation" more than Eminem or the Beastie Boys. There's a difference between stealing a culture and appreciating it. It's not racist to like, enjoy, and even produce hip hop, as an example, but what people generally define as cultural appropriation would be to walk around talking with a blaccent and acting like a stereotype of "hood gangster" in an unironic way if you really aren't.