I think a lot of the objection (or at least some) can be summed up as “White people have already taken so much from my ancestors: their land, their freedom, their money… Can’t we just have this one goddamn thing?!” There is a context here.
Another thing I see a lot is when a style is derided on minorities as too ghetto or what have you, but widely praised when it’s done by white people.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure that if most people on this thread could directly asked those who object to cultural appropriation, especially on an issue in which their native culture is directly involved, they might not agree with the ensuing responses, but they’d at least understand, and not dismiss it as readily. (Making room, of course, for the very real possibility of asking someone who hasn’t fully thought the issues through, but is just parroting what someone else said.)
So there’s also no difference between “cracker” and “n*****”? A context of racism/colonialism makes absolutely no difference to these kinds of discussions? (Not that you can’t think so, but that might as well be clear, since these debates come from much the same place.)
I happen to disagree. There’s a difference, I think, in dressing up in a war bonnet (considered important and sacred) and a Protestant priest BECAUSE one is the majority culture and the other is not, never mind the sticky history this country has with Native Americans (which I do think matters when talking about this).
Are the French knife makers you later mention make their knives in the context of a culture that was actively oppressed and suppressed by outside forces for their own benefit? Again, I think that matters, and the fact of them, again, being a majority culture in their country to begin with. In fact, it occurs to me that this disagreement about the importance of this context is the basic source of a lot of debate on a wide range of topics like this to begin with.
Actually, I’m uncomfortable talking about this, because there are others who believe strongly in the concept of cultural appropriation who actually do belong to the cultures in question, and could defend their viewpoint a lot better than I do, just repeating half remembered arguments secondhand. But those kinds of rational reasons are out there.
Being treated as equals means being treated as equals. Don’t like cultural appropriation? Well, live as your ancestors did. Otherwise stop bitching about what ought to be more accurately labeled cultural diffusion.
In each case above what is the intent of using the word? But my short answer is no. Both are made up of letters and can be used in benign ways and malicious ways. The use a specific word is never a problem in and of itself.
Are you passing yourself off as something you are not?..in which case the deception is the issue.
Is the war bonnet a fake? in which case it is not a “War Bonnet” in any meaningful sense
Is it real but stolen? then the theft is the problem
or real but sold to you for money? then how sacred is it if money can change hands? And if it was sold with conditions of usage that you agreed to, then breaking your word is the problem.
All the above rationale applies to the example of the priest.
Back in pre-colonisation times, there must have been point when a minority tribe copied the war bonnets, dances and rituals etc. of a majority and more powerful tribe. Would that have still been wrong based on the nature of the artefact? Or fine because they were the minority? Is it only the power inequality which makes it a problem.
One could easily argue that small scale artisanal knife making can be a culture defining trade and external big business a malign oppressive force. I think also of remote hill-farmers from my own background that see themselves very much as a culture apart and under the heel of government and big business but it would be ridiculous to say that an “outsider” buying a sheepdog off them and training it to herd sheep in their “style” is somehow a bad thing.
Are they the majority culture? A group can share a passport, country of residence, skin colour, genetic background, language, laws and whole load of cultural practices and yet still be a minority culture by dint of the very same practices that are being “culturally appropriated”. Which makes a nonsense of trying to navigate the question of power imbalance as a mitigating factor.
Perhaps, I don’t think it important and you do.
I too think it would be helpful to have someone put their personal view and debate the specifics of a malign cultural appropriation incident.
Why the hell would you bring something that’s not part of your culture? Are you under the mistaken impression that culture is tied into DNA?
Bring whatever it is that is an important dish in your family.
That’s racist, slee. No, not the same “group of folks.” As the first quote in your citation says, “There are millions of people in the Pacific.” There are some people who are Pacific Islanders and support the film, and there are some people who are Pacific Islanders who object to the film. It would be astonishing were that not true.
Your reductivist approach–to see them all as the same, as having a single opinion since they have similar appearances or something–is inaccurate, to put it mildly.
You fell short with that remark, behind every person that complains about “cultural appropriation” there’s a sea of cultural appropriations reaching back to a time before there were any humans on Earth, that made them (and everyone else) what they are today.
The very fact that we are able to extend and evolve our culture in that way is what made us humans in the first place.
No difference from my point of view. Either all sacred symbols should be granted respect (and I would disagree) or none. If someone is hurt that his symbol of choice isn’t taken seriously, he isn’t less hurt becomes his culture is dominant. There’s no reason you should be fine with hurting the feelings of person A and don’t give a shit about hurting the feelings of person B.
As a matter of fact, you could say that the knife makers belong to a culture that has been oppressed and suppressed (the Occitan culture). Does it seriously change your point of view?
And anyway, again, it doesn’t matter. If people are hurt because their craftmanship is cheapened, they’re exactly as hurt whether or not their culture has been oppressed.
If you feel guilty about your ancestors having opressed someone else ancestors or suppressed the culture of someone else ancestors, then open your wallet and fund their cultural centers, or pack up and give them back their lands, or whatever. But don’t try to tell me that I should give an extra special respect to their feelings that other people somehow don’t deserve.
And if you find someone from this culture who doesn’t believe in the concept of cultural appropriation, what then? You will contradict and lecture him? You will stop supporting the concept? You won’t dare having an opinion?
No, they can’t. Cultural elements have always be appropriated. And it’s a damn good thing. One of the best thing there is, in fact.
On top of which, I’m white, and I have exactly zero responsibility in whatever long dead people who weren’t even my ancestors have taken away from their ancestors. Having no responsability, there’s no reason that I should have special obligations towards them. I don’t believe in collective responsibility to begin with, and most certainly even less if you try to base it on my production of melanin.
I’m not fucking number or a skin colour, and I bear no guilt for the actions of people who have the same shoe size I do.
This one I can answer fairly quickly with a POV I can actually understand and sympathize with.
For the people who feel strongly about this issue, this is sort of like a guy saying that as long as he isn’t personally sexist or directly contributing towards rape culture, that he’s completely free of any and all responsibility towards women in general. Or if a white person personally isn’t racist, he can shrug and ignore people telling racist jokes or being casually racist to customers because hey, he’s not the one doing it, so his hands are clean, why should he get involved?
No, they say. You should actively be working to stop the bad stuff. People in the majority culture will actually listen to you, being one of them. Support the people who feel that they’re being reduced to a set of slant eyes or a war bonnet. Amplify their voice and let them be heard. That sort of thing.
(Not you personally, of course, since you already disagree with the whole premise.)
What do you mean by “responsibility towards women in general”? And what is “contributing towards rape culture”?
No. In both cases, that is like not having to apologize for what someone else did or said, be it the sexist or the racist comment. You understand the concepts of autonomy, individual responsibility, agency?
“Guy”, “white person”…Why is it again that being of a specific gender or having a specific skin colour transfer the guilt of people of the same gender or skin colour to me? Again, does it also apply to people with the same shoe size?
“They” say what they want. I’m not going to support or amplify an opinion I completely disagree with.
And : people listening or not to me doesn’t depend on my gender or skin colour, either. People will listen to a black, female celebrity long before they will listen to me. Even though, on average, a white man is more likely to be in a position to be heard, it means nothing on an individual basis.
If someone has such a responsibility as you describe, it’s the person who has the power and influence. So, tell that to the powerful with influence, not to the pale with a penis. Once again, you want people to carry special obligations purely on the basis of their skin colour or gender, without regard to their actual circumstances, their actual responsibility, and their actual abilities. Skin colour is only one of the many, many, many factors that gives someone influence, and not by far the most important. Height, beauty, health are also factors. Intelligence, ability to express oneself much more so. Social origin, wealth, job, vastly more so. A black female who is a wealthy, highly educated lawyer with family connections has vastly more influence than 200 white male blue collars from a poor background will ever have. If someone must carry special responsibilities, it’s her, the privileged, influential, powerful person. Not them.
Stop saying that people have obligations, duties, responsibilities simply by virtue of belonging to a group. Especially a group based on the shape and colour of their genitals. Respect the individuality of people. Judge them according to what they are as individuals, lay obligations at their feet according to what they have done or according to what they can actually achieve, as individuals, not on the basis of some nebulous collective guilt or responsibility based on something they have absolutely no control over.
Then it’s pretty clear there’s a fundamental disagreement about society that likely affects a lot more than this particular topic, if it wasn’t already.
What? How about people get on with their own lives and stop being so ridiculous with critiques about what people wear, eat, and listen to? Cultural appropriation is pure nonsense. What culture came up with the concept of cultural appropriation and are you a member of that culture or are you appropriating appropriation?
“Any and all” is pretty strong language. I’d say that innocent men have exactly as much responsibility toward women in general as any other random person does, not more. Speaking out may change minds, but I don’t think that men have the ear of other men more than anyone else since they could be dismissed as SJWs, while at the same time it’s true that often they could offer more support than they currently do because it doesn’t personally affect them as much.
You have a fundamental disagreement with the idea that people should have duties and responsibilities on the basis of their own actions and/or own power and influence rather than on the basis of their skin colour?
I seriously hate this sort of counter–enlightenment thinking. Instead of trying to judge the opinions by the people who hold them, how about judging the opinions on their merits?
Certainly, you may give extra consideration to the opinions of people whose life experiences make them more familiar with the issues, and the intricacies of the issues. But in the end, nobody’s life experience makes their opinion correct or incorrect.
Never heard that phrase before, what does it mean?
but if you go down that road aren’t you explicitly suggesting that some arguments hold greater merit by dint of who the people are that hold them?
So to my question above that seems to be a yes and we are no further forward.
The above muddled thinking is part of the reason why I say that no decision is needed because cultural appropriation is not something worthy of consideration, you seem to be suggesting it is.
Syncretism: That which allows one group of humans to adopt beneficial or desirable customs and traits from other groups of humans.
See also: The introduction of horses to the American southwest and how that fundamentally changed native american societies.
“Hey, that (object/custom/belief/music/etc) is OURS! You can’t use it!” is, in the realm of Human History, a goddamned stupid idea.
