I feel like there are two very different things that get conflate here.
One is trivializing important cultural elements for fun, or as a short cut for “exotic”. This is tacky and reveals a subconscious devaluation of other cultures.
The other a tendency to cut out non-white content creators (from artists to actors to writers) while producing often highly-profitable media inspired by non-white cultures. This is just a new form of extractive economy. Like taking the mineral wealth from a country and leaving it in shambles, this uses the leverage of pre-existing media production wealth to not only make very profitable products, but to prevent anyone else from doing the same.
Both these things are bad. Both these things are exploitative. But they aren’t the same, really. Not even saying one is worse or better, just they come from different places and motivations. By lumping them both as “cultural appropriation”, I think it creates an impression that anything to do with being inspired by another culture must lay somewhere on the spectrum between these two very different points.
To some extent, I think it just depends on the people making the argument.
A while back I watched a disagreement play out on facebook over a (blonde haired, blue eyed) white person being cast as a Native American in a TV show. Someone asked this person why they should be able to decide what is and what isn’t cultural appropriation since they’re not part of the oppressed party. The person cited a bunch of articles about this specific character and how insensitive it was for the show not to give the part to an actual Native American. A moment later, the other person said ‘well, if all you need to make your point is an article…’ and cited someone from that specific NA Tribe saying that they were not offended by the TV show or the character and it’s actually helped them out. It’s resulted in some extra tourism and publicity that they needed.
So, if you have a white person telling you that you’re wrong to do something they feel is a slight to another culture and people from that culture saying ‘nope, it’s fine’. Which is it? What if people from that culture are telling you it’s a problem and other people from the same culture are saying it’s not. At some point you do bump up against the ‘can’t make everyone happy’ issue.
I can’t speak specifically to Japan-American relationships/politics, but to some extent I can see the issue with using componants of an oppressed culture for entertainment, especially if it could be considered to be mocking them. That’s a big reason why blackface is a problem. It’s not just that they painted their face black, it’s that they do it in a sterotypical way and do sterotypical things to be funny.
The concept of cultural appropriation can be stupid and at the same time people can be respectful of other cultures and understand that stealing is wrong.
And why isn’t it called ‘cultural misappropriation’? Who names things these days? It’s hard to maintain any argument against misappropriation. The question would be what actually constitutes misappropriation instead of inane discussion about what the question itself means.
I was going to reply with pretty much the same as this, but will quote instead:
Also agreed - however, you can do it the right way and still be accused by loud idiots of ‘cultural appropriation’. There is ignorant and angry critique aplenty on the internets.
When I hear the phrase “cultural appropriation” I want to scream. It is nonsense. Blackface and swastikas are different because it is ridicule in one case and hate symbols in the other. Should Italians (and all other Europeans) give up using corn, tomatoes, and potatoes? Should Negros be forced to stop singing spirituals, at least some of which were based on Jews enslaved in Egypt? What about Christians appropriating the Old Testament?
This is an excellent post that folks should not ignore. The extractive quality of a lot of appropriation is qualitatively different from an equal exchange of ideas.
Christian Yoga is an example of malicious appropriation of another culture. If Christians are concerned - rightly or wrongly - that Yoga as developed in ancient India is a pagan or heretic practice incompatible with Christianity, they are welcome to stay away from it. Diluting the philosophy of Yoga, modifying practices, inventing Christian terminologies to describe Yogangas is vilification of the practice of Yoga and also the culture that developed it over millennia.
OTOH people - Christians or otherwise - who wish to practice Yoga while remaining true to its underlying ethos and principles are more than welcome to do so. India has not taken a patent on Yoga and its systems. Yoga by its very nature is universal in scope and meant for all humanity. However I resent the fact that some Christians have stolen this great body of knowledge and are now working to appropriate what they can, discard the rest, and vilify the culture that gave rise to it.
Are there not parallels to how the Japanese acquired and converted Chinese martial arts forms to what is more contemporary Karate and Judo? In doing so, did the Japanese undermine the Chinese martial arts underlying ethos and principles? And so what if they did?
I strongly disagree with this. Atheists celebrate Christmas (which itself has some borrowed traditions) but take out the christianity and I don’t see any problem with this. I don’t think anyone can claim sacrosanct traditions or beliefs.
Sort of, kind of related to all of this discussion, I’ve watched many episodes of restaurant makeover shows like Kitchen Nightmares and Restaurant Impossible. In both shows, the chef who hosts the show (Gordon Ramsay and Robert Irvine, respectively, and coincidentally both Brits) advise restaurants in trouble how to set things right. Often this involves menu changes. I’m amused when it’s the restaurant is Greek/Italian/Indian/Cajun/whatever and the chef/host suggests new or improved Greek/Italian/Indian/Cajun/whatever menu items. The restaurant owners/chef are usually Greek/Italian/Indian/Cajun/whatever and yet, they seem happy to get advice from this British person how and what they should serve. I’d think they would be embarrassed, at being shown by a non-native how to do their own cuisine.
I have a feeling a lot of them are really embarrassed to be asking for help (on this scale and in the public eye) to begin with. But a lot of those restaurants are very close to shutting down and are willing to take advice from just about anyone. Plus, I’m guessing they don’t see him as a ‘brit’ but rather as a successful chef and business/restaurant owner. There’s already tons of consultants that do this, and plenty of them aren’t industry specific. A lot of people just have a head for running a business whether it’s a small restaurant with 10 employees or a cleaning business with 500.
As we talk about all this restaurant stuff, I think about how many Mexican places are owned by Greeks in my area. A new place just opened up that, based on their name, has a menu made up of Brazilian Pizzas (no idea what that means though). The owners are, IIRC, of middle eastern descent.
Native Americans don’t own the concept. No-one does.
But in any case no-one is “taking” anything from them. They retain the ability and the right to create them themselves. I assume the genuine ones they make and treasure hold greater signficance than the facsimilies sold at roadside stalls and nothing that anyone else does can diminish that.
It’s not just about offending one person. It’s that Native Americans almost can’t be actors, because if a part was written for a white person, generally only a white actor is even considered: no one is going to use extraordinary make up to make a Native American “white enough” for a part they’ve decided needs to be played by a white person (often it’s more “by a normal person”, which is white). So if Native Americans can’t play white people, and the vanishingly few roles for Native American characters are filled by white people in make up, that blocks a whole career path for the Native American actor (or writer or whatever) The studio will make money telling a story about a people, while persisting in a system that prevents those people from participating.
What is the “big difference” between the two?
At a basic level you have people taking influences from another culture and putting their own spin on it.
