Advertisement
by Communist Xomaniax » Mon Aug 29, 2016 2:28 pm
by Jochizyd Republic » Mon Aug 29, 2016 6:13 pm
by Krasny-Volny » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:04 pm
by Grinning Dragon » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:09 pm
Krasny-Volny wrote:What's cultural appropriation?
by New confederate ramenia » Mon Aug 29, 2016 7:10 pm
Krasny-Volny wrote:What's cultural appropriation?
by Uiiop » Mon Aug 29, 2016 8:41 pm
Krasny-Volny wrote:What's cultural appropriation?
by Aapje » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:56 pm
Equalaria wrote: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.
by Aapje » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:14 am
Forsher wrote:Fourthly, it has been very clear that when I talk about appropriation I see it as claimative rather than acceptive (appropriate vs distribute).
by Communal Ecotopia » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:33 am
Aapje wrote: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.
by Communal Ecotopia » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:38 am
Aapje wrote:Forsher wrote: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.
by Communal Ecotopia » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:41 am
Republic of Canador wrote:Equalaria wrote: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.
by Forsher » Tue Aug 30, 2016 1:15 am
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?
Communal Ecotopia wrote:Republic of Canador wrote: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.
by Aapje » Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:30 am
Communal Ecotopia wrote:Aapje wrote: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.
by Aapje » Tue Aug 30, 2016 6:11 am
Forsher wrote:We might summarise my previous post as: ...
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.
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)
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 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.
**These concepts are, for reference, fundamental parts of commercial law and scholastic/academic integrity.
by Jello Biafra » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:01 am
by Aapje » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:11 am
Jello Biafra wrote: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.
by Jello Biafra » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:29 am
Aapje wrote:Jello Biafra wrote: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.
by Frenline Delpha » Tue Aug 30, 2016 8:29 am
Luminesa wrote:Yumyumsuppertime wrote:
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!!!
by The Lone Alliance » Tue Aug 30, 2016 12:25 pm
Yumyumsuppertime wrote: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."?
by Forsher » Tue Aug 30, 2016 4:34 pm
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.
Forsher wrote: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)
by Des-Bal » Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:14 pm
Jello Biafra wrote: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.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Oil exporting People » Tue Aug 30, 2016 9:26 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Cerespasia, Cerula, Cyptopir
Advertisement