(I should probably confess that I know basically nothing about the taco situation, having not bothered to look into it, because stupid waves are emanating off of it that I don’t want to get too close to, and also it seems over and done with. I suppose there’s a possibility that there were legit complaints about some things they did other than just making tacos, which might have been interpreted by native taco-eaters as legitimately offensive. But the mere act of white people making tacos? If that were considered offensive Taco Bell would have been firebombed by now. And if the problem wasn’t just that they were making tacos it would be pretty disingenuous to imply that sharks had been jumped due to tacos.)
It has jumped the shark.
I saw nothing about sharks in your cite, nor jumping.
It’s an idiom.
For what it’s worth, lot of people at my job are dog lovers whereas I am not a dog lover. (I don’t hate them, but I don’t particularly like being around strange dogs). Whenever there’s an excuse for people to bring dogs into work, I’m knee-deep in odd dogs and women going"PUPPER!"
Now, I could speak up and say “Excuse me, I don’t really like dogs all that much and I’d prefer a work environment which didn’t involve them” but since I’m vastly outnumbered by people who heart teh doggies and the dogs’ presence isn’t causing me any actual harm, I just put my headphones in and get on with my work.
I suggest the same should apply to a lot of instances of “cultural appropriation” - if no-one is being harmed (and I don’t mean hurt feelings) then unless it’s something serious just Le Sighing and getting on with life is probably a more productive course of action IMHO.
It’s idiotic. To the degree that I can parse what you’re saying, you’re saying that cultural appropriation is ‘not cool’ now because one apparently really stupid thing happened that people are calling cultural appropriation. And presumably based on this people should stop taking cultural appropriation seriously forevermore into the future. By this logic we also need to abandon marriage, swimming, walking, and (of course) the republican party.
Whereas I speak up a lot because I have a literal phobia and I really shouldn’t be forced to deal with the beasts at my workplace. Which is to say, “hurt feelings” can indeed make a difference depending on how much they hurt and how you feel it effects you.
But I’m sure you wouldn’t agree, because it doesn’t particularly bother you.
One? The concept as a whole is stupid. That’s just one of the more absurd examples. Did you not read the approved list of restaurants?
Phobias aren’t “hurt feelings” and if someone is genuinely scared of dogs, then I’d say making arrangements for that person to work elsewhere in the building or from home that day would mean everyone else can enjoy the dogs while the phobic person doesn’t have to be exposed to them.
The problem comes down to “at what point do we say ‘sorry, you’re in the minority so you’re just going to have to deal with this thing that almost literally everyone else is OK with’”?
Fine, content yourself with the belief that it has never happened in the past if you must.
You may think that the borrowing from other cultures never happened (frankly unbelievable) or that the concerns or offence of the cultures borrowed from was not voiced or heard (possible but highly unlikely).
Let me give you one small phrase to churn over in your mind, “translation of religious texts”
Let’s not. It is, after all, a central point of my argument. That material harm is of a different category to “offence” and if “cultural appropriation” deals purely with the latter category then it is far, far lower down the scale of things to be bothered about…i.e. right down with all the other things that cause offence…i.e. pretty much anything and everything.
In all the discussions about “cultural appropriation” I simply don’t see any examples that make me think the term has any special validity. If you have any then do please share.
Let’s do, because your point is made. You think that cultural appropriation is a lesser crime than beating the living shit out of somebody and taking their possessions. Good for you! I agree! And it’s completely irrelevant.
The fact that there is a worse crime than something does not mean that the lesser crime is completely okay to do. Obviously. If your line of argument was not completely invalid then virtually every heinous act would be okay, because it’s not the one complete worst thing ever possible. I do not think this is the case (in part because a complete collapse of society would make it hard for me to get DVDs), and so this “central point” of your argument must be rejected.
Okay, that done, that does leave us with the fact that cultural appropriation has, well, some level of badness, which after long and contentious discussion I believe we can both agree is less than committing genocide. So the question is, how bad is it? Is it completely irrelevant when you offend people and make them feel like their culture is being demeaned or destroyed? Does the alleged improvement to your own culture justify doing it?
It falls to each person to decide this for themselves, about each specific example of cultural appropriation that occurs. I’m valiantly trying to resist making value judgments about the sort of person who cares nothing about offending others here, lest I veer into territory inappropriate for Great Debates, so I’ll leave it at that.
However, people who reject the entire idea of cultural appropriation as something that exists and occurs, whether it’s a good thing it happens or not, are being deliberately disingenuous, and I can only assume they’re rejecting its existence because they want free reign to be assholes without being criticized for it later. (Why am I suddenly thinking about the president?)
exhibit a
exhibit b
Please note, I am not the one pushing the language to the extremes here. I have not used “beating the living shit” out of anyone and have not resorted to using “committing genocide” and I resent you inserting those terms to make it seem like I am saying “because it is not a physical attack or genocide it is OK” That is not my position.
What I contend is clear from my previous posts, the line I draw is clear from my previous posts and I invite anyone to go back and read them.
I’ve nothing new to add and as you’ve now deliberately misrepresented my position I don’t think you are debating in good faith. I’m long enough in the SDMB tooth to know that I should leave it there.
Your position is that you think that cultural appropriation is not as bad as theft of a physical possession.
NO FUCKING KIDDING.
Cultural appropriation is not legally a crime and never was, and nobody is saying it should be.
Now stop arguing from bad faith and respond to the part of my post starting with “Okay, that done,”. Or don’t, because honestly, aside from your disingenuous and flagrantly fallacious argument that the fact that theft is worse than cultural appropriation makes cultural appropriation ‘okay’, it very much seems that you have nothing to say.
Sorry for the delay in responding.
“Jumping the shark” is about a single, solitary event that marks the point where the thing in question (read: the TV show) has ceased to be any good. When you talk about shark jumping, you are very much limiting yourself to a single example.
Regarding the idea that some nonzero percentage of cases that don’t represent real cultural appropriation relegate the entire idea of cultural appropriation to shark-filled waters - I reject it. By that logic, the fact that there are nonzero mammals that aren’t cats means that cats are passé. If you want to declare that cultural appropriation is “stupid”, or whatever this odd approach is, you’d have to argue that no legitimate examples of it occur. Good luck with that.
Perhaps you could answer the question above, and provide some examples of “cultural appropriation” that you think are valid?
I don’t see how that’s necessarily the case. I think that using the concept of cultural appropriation is – well maybe not stupid, but unnecessary. Blatant cases like using sacred symbols of another culture to intentionally shock or be edgy or where you claim to know more about someone’s cultural symbols than they do are legitimate examples, but in those cases, other concepts like “insensitivity”, “offensive”, or “stupid” work just fine. In other cases where it isn’t as bad, “cultural appropriation” makes it sound worse than it actually is.
How have I came to this conclusion? I usually don’t see the aforementioned blatant cases labelled as CA, but rather as one of my other alternate words. ISTM that the term is only used when someone takes offense but can’t find anything else to support that feeling.
So do we count the hilariously tacky Shem’s Snack Shack as cultural appropriation?
Come on! “2/3 of a cubit of hot dog goodness” is one helleva advertisement!
Perhaps I already did.
Words are weird.
I have the massive personal failing of being something of a pedant, and hewing rather enthusiastically to what I believe are the accurate definitions of words. For one example that I’m sure one of these days will piss someone off, I’m of the opinion that agnosticism isn’t the space between theism and atheism. There is no space between theism and a-theism. Which leads me to the possibly controversial conclusion that most self-identified agnostics are just atheists who don’t like the term “atheism”. (The rest, in case you’re curious, are theists who don’t wish to sound dogmatically overconfident.)
So with that in mind, I am profoundly unimpressed by the claim we should preemptively abandon the term “cultural appropriation” to linguistic drift. Contrary to the protests of the heartless, there are certainly legitimate examples of situations that fit what I believe is the definition of the term “cultural appropriation”. It is of course up to each individual person how they want to react to these situations -wanting to correct the offense, glee at the fact people were offended, stoic apathy, whatever- but these situations do occur and they do merit the term. Just because in some cases the term is misused does not strike me as reason to declare it verboten, just yet.
…I’m a photographer.
I make a living by licencing my intellectual property. My ability to make money is incumbent on the belief that intellectual property has value: that people have to ask me permission to be able to use it, that I can exchange the right to use my intellectual property in exchange for money, or for services, or for absolutely nothing at all.
In Western society we have systems, laws and treaties in place to protect my intellectual property rights. Most countries are signatories to the Berne Convention, which fundamentally protects the rights of the creator. So if someone uses my work without my permission or consent, I have the ability to take action to either stop them using my work, or to pay me for the right to keep on using it. Different countries have different processes. In America, I need to register my work with the US copyright office in order to be able to sue for statutory damages or attorney’s fees. In New Zealand, the work belongs to the commissioner unless negotiated prior the photographs being taken.
If you don’t believe that intellectual property has value, then you are unlikely to believe that cultural appropriation is a “thing.” But even if you do believe that intellectual property has value, you probably still will struggle with the concept of cultural appropriation. Because the concept that a culture can have “ownership” of intellectual property isn’t one that has been widely adopted in western society. But if I can protect my intellectual property, and if a corporation can protect its intellectual property, then why can’t a tribe, or a culture?
Most people around the world are familiar withtheHaka. It is a Maori ceremonial war dance. Most people are familiar with the version that the All Blacks perform before every game. But that haka is only one of many. The (original) All-Black haka Ka Mate was composed by Te Rauparaha in 1820. Attribution is governed by an act of parliament. Ka Mate has both symbolic and commercial value to Ngāti Toa and to the people of Aotearoa.
Cultural appropriation, simply put, is the use of cultural intellectual property without permission of the respective tribe/culture. There is no “Berne Convention” for culture. And there is very little legal protection worldwide for cultural intellectual property. So when something is appropriated, we often only hear about it because the only outlet for expressing displeasure is not in the courts, but over the “airwaves”. Whereas I can sue someone who is using my works without permission, Maori have to resort to talking about it loudly on facebook and twitter.
So it might seem to you that “cultural appropriation” is a term is “only used when someone takes offense but can’t find anything else to support that feeling”. But are you basing that on anything else other than your personal observations and a few hyped up media stories? Because from where I sit it doesn’t look that way at all.