Sorry; I screwed up the coding towards the end there and didn’t realize until after the edit window was gone. I fixed it here:
That culture has been defined, perhaps, but not “what is a culture” and not “how do we determine who is a member of a culture”. Again, you keep pointing to this specific culture, without considering any of the over-arching questions about how this could or would be applied in general.
…of course I’m talking about a specific group, because what you are claiming would happen doesn’t happen. What have been the consequences of Ka Mate belonging to Ngati Toa? Nothing I hear you say? What do you think these consequences are going to be, and why hasn’t it happened yet?
I’m not expecting you to be impressed at all. I don’t want you to be impressed. I want you to be informed.
I’d explain to you why ancestors matter in Maori culture, but fuck it. Do you really want to know? Because I’ve provided a fuck load of cites already in this very thread. Here’s another one. Its obvious ancestors aren’t important to you. But in Maori culture they are very important. Your culture and Maori culture are different. There have different beliefs, different priorities.
Well WTF do you want me to do about that? This thread asks the question “So wtf is cultural appropriation exactly?” I’ve answered that question.
This is the fundamental difference between (most) western cultures and Maori culture. Understanding the difference is essential. Whanau is fundamental. The bond between your father’s sister’s daughter’s son’s son’s daughter’s son is important. Its so very important. This isn’t a loose bond. Its a completely different paradigm that you are simply unwilling to invest any time into understanding. You simply don’t know what you are talking about. What you call “laughable” is the fundamental nature of how Maori define themselves.
You’ve given no reason why this allegedly “massive effort” will fail. I understand history perfectly fine.
Of course not. Because you are asking a general question that has specific answers. How do you determine who is a member of a culture? Society determines that. They determine that in a number of different ways. I’ve laid out how it happened here in NZ. A different answer would apply somewhere else. I’m not going to do your homework for you. If you are genuinely interested in finding out (and I’m not sure you are) then google can be a great help.
I’m using this particular culture as an example because it is very much part of who I am. I’m not knowledgeable enough to speak on behalf of other cultures, so I do not. If there are over-arching question about how this can be applied “in general” then you should have exactly zero problems applying those “questions” to the specifics that I’m talking about. New Zealand is one of the most progressive countries when it comes to indigenous people: principally because our founding document is a treaty between the Crown and various Maori Chiefs. You would be pointing out the problems. But the very best you can do is a gish gallop of hyperbolic examples like chopsticks, movies, jazz and fireworks. The best this thread can do is something about a food-truck. So far I’m not very impressed with the scale of this alleged problem.
Those examples were in response to a statement where I clearly said that (in most cases) things were non-binding. Non-binding things don’t make a shitty world.
And you do realize that indigenous people generally live in a pretty shitty world right now don’t you? I don’t think there is a single metric, be it incarceration, healthcare, education, wealth, I can’t think of a single one that shows that indigenous people are thriving. Your version of a fucked up world: where a random person on the internet suggests “don’t use fireworks because you aren’t chinese”, and my version of a fucked up world, where 25% of prisoners in Australia are aboriginal (and its going up), are poles apart.
Ka Mate is not an idea.
I have never thought “that’s the way it’s always been done” to be a good excuse for anything. The way that in the past you would see “humans work” would often involve a group of them becoming a majority and that majority would usually go about oppressing the minority groups.
This can be as horrible as killing them or enslaving them. But there are other, more subtle and insidious things that a majority group can do to ensure that those in the minority always know where their place is and are always aware that they will never move beyond that place.
A black motorist who is targeted due to his skin color doesn’t need to be shot dead for the message to hit home. You get stopped more, frisked more (cite), and these small injustices do not go unnoticed by the minority groups constantly getting that reminder.
Cultural appropriation is just another subjugation of minority classes by a majority. Even when meant to be complimentary. It used to be acceptable to barge into a territory and take the land of it’s indigenous inhabitants; it used to be business as usual to ship off humans from Africa to become slaves in North America. Even the biggest lunkheads can seem to grasp that what was done to Native Americans and African Americans was wrong, so maybe in another century we’ll be enlightened enough to get the point that the other forms of appropriations also deserve ridicule, not excuses.
Yeah, that’s what humans do. But maybe we shouldn’t. Maybe we should strive to be better.
But when the majority cannot acknowledge that it’s even a problem, that they feel comfortable pointing to the most ludicrous examples and using that to write off every claim to legitimacy… Well, that’s what humans do too. Yay, us.
A friend of mine, a black kid who was firmly integrated into a “white” world, is congenial and friendly, a hell of a nice guy. He made the mistake of posting his thoughts about BLM and the like, using data like in the link above but also his own unembellished anecdotes about how he was treated by the police when he became a semi-regular at a poker game in a neighborhood that many young black males didn’t ever go.
A girl he went to school with years ago saw this post and literally said “It’s not like you’re in chains or anything.” The bar for her was literally so low that as long as blacks were not brutally enslaved, everything was fine.
Which is what this thread has devolved into, I’m afraid (which I predicted in my other post in here, but it didn’t take Nostradamus to see it coming). I am pretty sure that someone will see that I mentioned murder and enslavement above and asking if I feel that cultural appropriation is as bad as those things, even though that’s not what I said and my evidence is that it has already happened in this thread.
Speaking of which, the whole “look at these snowflakes complaining about white people making burritos! Let’s spend zero time considering more thoughtful and legitimate examples of cultural appropriation because the extreme things allow us to laugh at every claim of cultural appropriation” that has happened in this thread? I’m not sure if it’s an appeal to extremes or Reductio ad Absurdum but regardless it’s certainly fallacious and should be discouraged.
Let’s try and start over.
I agree that Ka Mate is not an idea.
War dances are an idea. Do you agree or disagree?
…A “war dance” is a dance.
Okay, I guess we’re at an impasse, then.
If you can’t see that “war dance” is a concept, then this will never be a fruitful conversation for either of us.
…a war dance is not a concept. A war dance is not an idea.
What on earth are you going on about?
Dance is a performing art form consisting of purposefully selected sequences of human movement.
Not “a war dance”; just “war dance”. Do you not see the difference between the two phrases?
Let’s try this: is it possible for a war dance to exist that is not Ka Mate?
…if you are going somewhere with this: then just spit it out. This rhetorical game you are attempting to play isn’t a very good one. If you think “A war dance” and “War Dance” have two different meanings, then just tell me what you consider them to be. Stop playing games.
Ka Mate is merely one example of a haka. Kapa O Pango is another. Ara Ngāpuhi e is the haka of my iwi. My college had its own haka. The New Zealand Defense Force haka is called He taua is a haka taparahi. We don’t generally refer to the haka as a war dance. We just call it the haka. What sort of war dance are you referring too?
He is actually being clear, not playing games. “A War Dance” verses “War Dance” is the difference between having a copyright on “War and Peace” and having a copyright on “putting squiggles of ink on sheets of paper and binding them together in a volume.” It is a specific book verses the idea of a “book”.
Okay, from the context of your post, you do understand that “war dance” is a concept, an idea. I say this because your post seems to indicate that you understand that “haka” is a concept and that different things can be “a haka”. So let’s talk about that.
I am not from New Zealand. My ancestry is not Maori. Can I create a haka?
ETA: Thank you, Darren; your post is spot-on.
…as we aren’t discussing copyright, and as no-one is trying to copyright either “a war dance” nor “war dances” then he isn’t being very clear at all. Because nobody is trying to stop the idea or the concept of a war dance. Its not happening. Its a strawman. And if that is his intent then he is simply wasting his time.
If you want to understand what I’m talking about: I would suggest (as I have suggested to Snowboarder Bo) that you start by reading my posts in this thread.
…the haka is not an idea. I’ve linked to several different definitions of what the haka is. It isn’t a concept. Its a very specific thing.
You can do whatever the fuck you like. Have you not read my posts? Can I suggest you take the time to actually read them? I mean for fucks sakes. Is this a serious question?
Except he is completely wrong.
Okay, we’re at an impasse.
…you are at an impasse: not me. My position has been consistent throughout this thread. Indigenous intellectual property is a very important thing for indigenous people. Intellectual property is regarded differently by most indigenous cultures: there is less value on the individual and a greater emphasis on the collective. There (by and large) are no legal protections for indigenous IP around the world. The only thing that indigenous people can do to enforce their IP is to educate, to inform, to ask, and (in the worse case scenarios) apply pressure through social media if need be. My point in this thread has never been to argue that this should change. It has been to inform. To help understand the difference in paradigm. The difference is so big its instructive to understand it: and it disappoints me that you haven’t put any effort into trying to understand the differences.
If you want to create your own haka: then fucking go for it. I only ask that you do your due diligence: that you contact the appropriate people and you try and make it as authentic and as true to the spirit of the haka as you can. I hope that you make the best haka ever. But we can’t force people to do that and if people decide to be dicks about it then there really isn’t much we can do except to get very loud. And by and large this method has been quite effective.
This is a recent advertisement in Germany. A few people were outraged. But the company did the right thing. They consulted experts: this wasn’t a mockery, it was a completely new invention and I thought it was fucking awesome, and I wasn’t alone in thinking that. This here? Fucking awesome. This here? Fucking awesome. Read the comments.
You’ve completely misunderstood my position here. Complete and utterly gotten things wrong. As I said in my very first post here: “Cultural appropriation, simply put, is the use of cultural intellectual property without permission of the respective tribe/culture.” Simply deciding you are going to create your own haka in itself is not appropriation. If you contact local iwi, work in consultation with experts, and then create something amazing and magical then you haven’t appropriated our culture at all.
But if you don’t do that. Then guess what? Appropriation. And the punishment for that? You are going to get a lot of Kiwi’s riled up. They will do this. And that’s really about it.
Your continued assertions that I have not read your posts or “put any effort into trying to understand the differences” are rude and insulting. They do nothing to further the discussion and, in fact, do much to shut it down.
Which is kind of the whole point of the concept of cultural appropriation, isn’t it?
…you haven’t made an effort to understand the differences. You’ve said in this thread: “Why should anyone’s ancestors matter?” You said " My father’s sister’s daughter’s son’s son’s daughter’s son is someone I may meet at a family reunion, but to call us a “close-knit” group would be laughable." But these two key things are the major differences between Maori culture and (to be specific) US culture. You put zero effort into trying to understand the difference in paradigm. In the time it took you to respond there was no way you could have read the cites I posted. You didn’t ask for clarification.
I’m not being rude or insulting and if you think I have been then report me. I’m just calling it as it is. Are you starting to understand the differences now? Do you want me to clarify anything?
If you had of read my posts then you wouldn’t have asked me “is it possible for a war dance to exist that is not Ka Mate?” You would have known that the intellectual property that I was referring to was not a “war dance” but the specific haka: be it Ka Mate, or Kapa O Pango or Ara Ngāpuhi e. Each haka has its own oral history. It is tied to the particular iwi or hapu or organization. I’m not trying to insult you. Its just I’ve already made my position in this thread crystal clear: but you seemed to think that I had another position entirely.
Nope. No it isn’t.
qft. +1
…would you mind elaborating here just a little bit?
Did you think my posts were rude and insulting? Did you report them?
Did you think that they were inaccurate? If so, what did you think was inaccurate?
Do you think I was trying to shut down discussion? I think that is a completely unfair allegation. This is the straight dope. We are in great debates. I’m holding the minority opinion. I’ve been here since 2002. I’ve never seen a single poster with the super-power to magically shut down discussion. Do you think I have that super power? I’m flattered: but I don’t think that’s true.
Do you think that “shutting things down” is the point of cultural appropriation? The “point” of cultural appropriation is to take things from other cultures without asking permission, is it not? “Opposing cultural appropriation” would better fit the descriptor “shutting things down” don’t you think? I wouldn’t agree with that statement either: but at least that makes a bit more sense.
Because “qft +1” doesn’t really say a lot. If you could elaborate: that would be awesome.
“qft. +1” is sacred to my culture. We don’t elaborate on it to outsiders.