From whom in the Black community should Kylie Jenner have sought permission to braid her hair?

[Metaphor]

elements are copied from the minority culture by a member of the dominant culture, and then these elements are used outside of their original cultural context - sometimes even against the expressed, stated wishes of representatives of the originating culture.[1][3][6][7][8][9] Often in the process, the original meanings of the cultural elements are distorted, and can even be desecrated.

So what? Who elected the 'representatives' of the 'originating' culture? Do they hold the copyright on their ancestor's ideas? Why?

The use of the word 'desecrated' is a sure sign of magickal thinking. Ideas and symbols are not sacred.

Well if you can show what heterosexual culture is and that homosexual culture differs significantly from heterosexual culture and that homosexual culture is using marriage as a fashion statement, then you might have a comparison. Can you prove these things?

It wouldn't matter if I could or I couldn't. Even if every last homosexual wanted access to marriage for the sole purpose of parodying it, that does not mean they don't deserve access to marriage. We deserve access to marriage because nobody owns the idea of marriage and it is not any other person's business.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So what? Who elected the 'representatives' of the 'originating' culture? Do they hold the copyright on their ancestor's ideas? Why?

The use of the word 'desecrated' is a sure sign of magickal thinking. Ideas and symbols are not sacred.

Well if you can show what heterosexual culture is and that homosexual culture differs significantly from heterosexual culture and that homosexual culture is using marriage as a fashion statement, then you might have a comparison. Can you prove these things?

It wouldn't matter if I could or I couldn't. Even if every last homosexual wanted access to marriage for the sole purpose of parodying it, that does not mean they don't deserve access to marriage. We deserve access to marriage because nobody owns the idea of marriage and it is not any other person's business.

This isn't about copyrights (although it can be)

But you know that.

And if your opinion of the opinion of people who find CA a legitimate concern is, and I quote, "So what?" then why bother discussing it?

ALSO, who is being denied anything? Did Jenner have her braids unbraided? You can buy native head dresses, you can wear afro wigs, you can get tribal tattoos. The problem seems to be that you can't get things without someone commenting on them and saying things that hurt feelings. Is that the problem?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This seems to fit this thread.

 

[RavenSky]

I've been reading this discussion with interest because I think both sides of the argument have good points, and I really don't know where I stand on the issue.

On the one hand, I do think there is something obnoxious and insulting about the wholesale parody of cultural icons - the debate over "redskins" for a sports team, or the "sexy geisha" Halloween costume. There was the discussion (don't remember if it was this board) about the Palm Beach, Florida group that had a "Florida Cracker" themed fundraiser, and the jackasses showed up in costumes that included western cowboy clothing with baby dolls pinned to them or blackface or Mexican costumes - generally showing their utter ignorance of and disdain for the genuine historic culture of "Florida Cracker".

On the other hand, there was a recent flap about Katy Perry wearing "gelled baby hair" which didn't make any sense to me because the style - however much it may have recently been "borrowed" by black women - was one of the popular hairstyles in the Roaring Twenties. I think there is very little in fashion and cultures that haven't already been "borrowed" from elsewhere so I am not sure how anyone is supposed to draw the line, particularly if such "borrowing" is done from a position of respect or admiration.

 

[EricK]

This seems to fit this thread.

Because they're performing in a style which didn't originate in their own culture?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Mocking a culture and being racist about it is rude. Making fun of Chinese people by stretching your eyes sideways or talking to black people in a way meant to mock them is rude, because mocking and insulting people is rude.

Borrowing ideas or concepts or music or looks from cultures is fine. Nothing wrong with that at all. There is nothing wrong with a latino guy training in Karate. There is nothing wrong with a black girl dancing ballet. There is nothing wrong with a white rapper (aside from the fact that he's a rapper and rap sucks). If white kids want to look "gangsta" and turn their hats sideways and have their pants down to their knees or whatever, that is stupid, but it isn't "wrong". If Asian women get surgery to change their eyes and "look white", I personally find that a tragedy, but no more than when women get breast implants (I find both make the women less attractive, and I have friends who had done both to themselves). There's also nothing wrong with a white guy wearing cornrows or a kimono or eating with chopsticks.

The "cultural missappropriation" hubub is just another case of hypersensitivity.

 

[laughing dog]

What claim?

This one - "Opposition to "cultural appropriation" upsets me, because it seems to me opposition to it is populated by whiny, infantile, prejudiced people with an astonishing sense of entitlement and a totally warped, selfish, oblivious, and racist viewpoint."

Who owns hip hop culture? Is it the people who have contributed to it? Or is it determined by the colour of your skin, whether or not you've contributed anything to it?

Your obsession with "ownership" warps your view.

Any of those three? Do you think she did something morally wrong? Something objectionable? Something in poor taste?

Until you asked, I had not thought about it at all. Frankly, to call this specific situation a trivial issue embellishes its importance. IMO, it is not morally wrong. The only reason I could find it objectionable is that it caused a silly brouhaha over someone's hair arrangement. I suppose if pressed I would find it in poor taste if I bothered to see a photograph of her, because I doubt they improve her looks according to my tastes.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I've been reading this discussion with interest because I think both sides of the argument have good points, and I really don't know where I stand on the issue.

On the one hand, I do think there is something obnoxious and insulting about the wholesale parody of cultural icons - the debate over "redskins" for a sports team, or the "sexy geisha" Halloween costume. There was the discussion (don't remember if it was this board) about the Palm Beach, Florida group that had a "Florida Cracker" themed fundraiser, and the jackasses showed up in costumes that included western cowboy clothing with baby dolls pinned to them or blackface or Mexican costumes - generally showing their utter ignorance of and disdain for the genuine historic culture of "Florida Cracker".

On the other hand, there was a recent flap about Katy Perry wearing "gelled baby hair" which didn't make any sense to me because the style - however much it may have recently been "borrowed" by black women - was one of the popular hairstyles in the Roaring Twenties. I think there is very little in fashion and cultures that haven't already been "borrowed" from elsewhere so I am not sure how anyone is supposed to draw the line, particularly if such "borrowing" is done from a position of respect or admiration.

Well I think of it like this. There are, broadly speaking, cultural appropriation, cultural appreciation, and cultural exchange. Cultural exchange is when both sides enter into relationship as equals and both sides give and take, and both sides benefit. Ex. When trade routes first open between countries. Cultural appreciation is when one engages in the cultural practices traditional to another group of people not as parody or commodity but in deference and as an act of respect. Ex. A business associate from another country in having dinner in your home and you cook dishes from her native country or you perform a ritual custom like the Japanese tea ceremony. And then there is cultural appropriation, which includes such things as using native cultures as sports mascots, having ghetto themed black-face parties, or stereotypical representations of Arabs in action films. What appropriations have in common is that they use the culture archetype, ritual or artifact in a incorrect or even deliberately disrespectful way.

Now any combination of those three classifications can occur at the same time and both the borrower and the borrowie can get their signals crossed. Hence the contention.

 

[RavenSky]

I've been reading this discussion with interest because I think both sides of the argument have good points, and I really don't know where I stand on the issue.

On the one hand, I do think there is something obnoxious and insulting about the wholesale parody of cultural icons - the debate over "redskins" for a sports team, or the "sexy geisha" Halloween costume. There was the discussion (don't remember if it was this board) about the Palm Beach, Florida group that had a "Florida Cracker" themed fundraiser, and the jackasses showed up in costumes that included western cowboy clothing with baby dolls pinned to them or blackface or Mexican costumes - generally showing their utter ignorance of and disdain for the genuine historic culture of "Florida Cracker".

On the other hand, there was a recent flap about Katy Perry wearing "gelled baby hair" which didn't make any sense to me because the style - however much it may have recently been "borrowed" by black women - was one of the popular hairstyles in the Roaring Twenties. I think there is very little in fashion and cultures that haven't already been "borrowed" from elsewhere so I am not sure how anyone is supposed to draw the line, particularly if such "borrowing" is done from a position of respect or admiration.

Well I think of it like this. There are, broadly speaking, cultural appropriation, cultural appreciation, and cultural exchange. Cultural exchange is when both sides enter into relationship as equals and both sides give and take, and both sides benefit. Ex. When trade routes first open between countries. Cultural appreciation is when one engages in the cultural practices traditional to another group of people not as parody or commodity but in deference and as an act of respect. Ex. A business associate from another country in having dinner in your home and you cook dishes from her native country or you perform a ritual custom like the Japanese tea ceremony. And then there is cultural appropriation, which includes such things as using native cultures as sports mascots, having ghetto themed black-face parties, or stereotypical representations of Arabs in action films. What appropriations have in common is that they use the culture archetype, ritual or artifact in a incorrect or even deliberately disrespectful way.

Now any combination of those three classifications can occur at the same time and both the borrower and the borrowie can get their signals crossed. Hence the contention.

I think you present an excellent illustration of the differences, and I tend to agree with you.

What I am having more of a difficult time with is how something like cornrows or "gelled baby hair" is cultural appropriation as opposed to a form of cultural exchange.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Well I think of it like this. There are, broadly speaking, cultural appropriation, cultural appreciation, and cultural exchange. Cultural exchange is when both sides enter into relationship as equals and both sides give and take, and both sides benefit. Ex. When trade routes first open between countries. Cultural appreciation is when one engages in the cultural practices traditional to another group of people not as parody or commodity but in deference and as an act of respect. Ex. A business associate from another country in having dinner in your home and you cook dishes from her native country or you perform a ritual custom like the Japanese tea ceremony. And then there is cultural appropriation, which includes such things as using native cultures as sports mascots, having ghetto themed black-face parties, or stereotypical representations of Arabs in action films. What appropriations have in common is that they use the culture archetype, ritual or artifact in a incorrect or even deliberately disrespectful way.

Now any combination of those three classifications can occur at the same time and both the borrower and the borrowie can get their signals crossed. Hence the contention.

I think you present an excellent illustration of the differences, and I tend to agree with you.

What I am having more of a difficult time with is how something like cornrows or "gelled baby hair" is cultural appropriation as opposed to a form of cultural exchange.

Like I said, they can all occur at the same time.  Cornrows have traditional been not just a way to do hair, however.

A traditional way of styling hair in various global areas. Depictions of women with cornrows have been found in Stone Age paintings in the Tassili Plateau of the Sahara, and have been dated as far back as 3000 B.C.[2] This tradition of female styling in cornrows has remained popular throughout Africa, particularly in North Africa, the Horn of Africa and West Africa. Historically, male styling with cornrows can be traced as far back as the early nineteenth century to Ethiopia, where warriors and kings such as Tewodros II and Yohannes IV were depicted wearing cornrows.
Cornrow hairstyles in Africa also cover a wide social terrain: religion, kinship, status, age, ethnicity, and other attributes of identity can all be expressed in hairstyle. Just as important is the act of braiding, which transmits cultural values between generations, expresses bonds between friends, and establishes the role of professional practitioner.[1]
Cornrows made a comeback in the 1960s and '70s, and again during the '90s, when NBA basketball player Allen Iverson repopularized this hairstyle.

Gelled baby hair doesn't have that strong a cultural history.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

This seems to fit this thread.

Because they're performing in a style which didn't originate in their own culture?

No.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think you present an excellent illustration of the differences, and I tend to agree with you.

What I am having more of a difficult time with is how something like cornrows or "gelled baby hair" is cultural appropriation as opposed to a form of cultural exchange.

Like I said, they can all occur at the same time.  Cornrows have traditional been not just a way to do hair, however.

A traditional way of styling hair in various global areas. Depictions of women with cornrows have been found in Stone Age paintings in the Tassili Plateau of the Sahara, and have been dated as far back as 3000 B.C.[2] This tradition of female styling in cornrows has remained popular throughout Africa, particularly in North Africa, the Horn of Africa and West Africa. Historically, male styling with cornrows can be traced as far back as the early nineteenth century to Ethiopia, where warriors and kings such as Tewodros II and Yohannes IV were depicted wearing cornrows.
Cornrow hairstyles in Africa also cover a wide social terrain: religion, kinship, status, age, ethnicity, and other attributes of identity can all be expressed in hairstyle. Just as important is the act of braiding, which transmits cultural values between generations, expresses bonds between friends, and establishes the role of professional practitioner.[1]
Cornrows made a comeback in the 1960s and '70s, and again during the '90s, when NBA basketball player Allen Iverson repopularized this hairstyle.

Gelled baby hair doesn't have that strong a cultural history.

But even if it has that cultural history, how is it cultural appropriation for someone to say that they like it and want to incorporate it into their own look?

When henna tattoos were popular, there wasn't an outcry about people appropriating Indian culture, it was just that exposure to Indian culture had people find an aspect of it that they liked and wanted to use. Any deeper meaning that could be conveyed by particular types of tattoos weren't important to the fashion trend and it was simply an inspiration for getting pretty designs on your skin. I don't see why cornrows would be all that different.

 

[Trausti]

When henna tattoos were popular, there wasn't an outcry about people appropriating Indian culture, it was just that exposure to Indian culture had people find an aspect of it that they liked and wanted to use. Any deeper meaning that could be conveyed by particular types of tattoos weren't important to the fashion trend and it was simply an inspiration for getting pretty designs on your skin. I don't see why cornrows would be all that different.

Think of when a non-European woman uses a European braid, like the French Braid, or bun, or fishtail. Such cultural appropriation is frowned upon in our society and a non-European woman would never, never, be so insensitive to braid her hair in an culturally European way. Or maybe I'm wrong about that. And this "controversy" is just naked hypocrisy.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Like I said, they can all occur at the same time.  Cornrows have traditional been not just a way to do hair, however.

A traditional way of styling hair in various global areas. Depictions of women with cornrows have been found in Stone Age paintings in the Tassili Plateau of the Sahara, and have been dated as far back as 3000 B.C.[2] This tradition of female styling in cornrows has remained popular throughout Africa, particularly in North Africa, the Horn of Africa and West Africa. Historically, male styling with cornrows can be traced as far back as the early nineteenth century to Ethiopia, where warriors and kings such as Tewodros II and Yohannes IV were depicted wearing cornrows.
Cornrow hairstyles in Africa also cover a wide social terrain: religion, kinship, status, age, ethnicity, and other attributes of identity can all be expressed in hairstyle. Just as important is the act of braiding, which transmits cultural values between generations, expresses bonds between friends, and establishes the role of professional practitioner.[1]
Cornrows made a comeback in the 1960s and '70s, and again during the '90s, when NBA basketball player Allen Iverson repopularized this hairstyle.

Gelled baby hair doesn't have that strong a cultural history.

But even if it has that cultural history, how is it cultural appropriation for someone to say that they like it and want to incorporate it into their own look?

Like I said, it doesn't have to be. AND LIKE I SAID, both sides of given occurrence can get it wrong. AND LIKE I SAID, this whole thing with Jenner is a tempest in a teapot.

BUT ...

a people who have been stolen and stolen from for centuries AND KNOW THEIR HISTORY AND DON'T WANT TO PRETEND ALL THINGS HAPPEN OUTSIDE OF HISTORY, might, MIGHT MIND YOU, find something they do and hold as special being used as something with no more meaning that a fashion statement just as just one more disrespectful thing done to them by a majority that has a long history and habit of doing disrespectful things.

When henna tattoos were popular, there wasn't an outcry about people appropriating Indian culture, it was just that exposure to Indian culture had people find an aspect of it that they liked and wanted to use.

Actually there was and is an outcry, but do go on.

Any deeper meaning that could be conveyed by particular types of tattoos weren't important to the fashion trend and it was simply an inspiration for getting pretty designs on your skin. I don't see why cornrows would be all that different.

They aren't. and the reactions aren't different either.

BTW, I would really appreciate it if every time race or culture are discuss if we all would stop acting like we brand new.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

When henna tattoos were popular, there wasn't an outcry about people appropriating Indian culture, it was just that exposure to Indian culture had people find an aspect of it that they liked and wanted to use. Any deeper meaning that could be conveyed by particular types of tattoos weren't important to the fashion trend and it was simply an inspiration for getting pretty designs on your skin. I don't see why cornrows would be all that different.

Think of when a non-European woman uses a European braid, like the French Braid, or bun, or fishtail. Such cultural appropriation is frowned upon in our society and a non-European woman would never, never, be so insensitive to braid her hair in an culturally European way. Or maybe I'm wrong about that. And this "controversy" is just naked hypocrisy.

What really pisses me off is when a woman puts her hair up like Princess Leia.

You didn't lose family on Alderaan, bitch, so stop trying to appropriate their culture.

 

[RavenSky]

I think you present an excellent illustration of the differences, and I tend to agree with you.

What I am having more of a difficult time with is how something like cornrows or "gelled baby hair" is cultural appropriation as opposed to a form of cultural exchange.

Like I said, they can all occur at the same time.  Cornrows have traditional been not just a way to do hair, however.

A traditional way of styling hair in various global areas. Depictions of women with cornrows have been found in Stone Age paintings in the Tassili Plateau of the Sahara, and have been dated as far back as 3000 B.C.[2] This tradition of female styling in cornrows has remained popular throughout Africa, particularly in North Africa, the Horn of Africa and West Africa. Historically, male styling with cornrows can be traced as far back as the early nineteenth century to Ethiopia, where warriors and kings such as Tewodros II and Yohannes IV were depicted wearing cornrows.
Cornrow hairstyles in Africa also cover a wide social terrain: religion, kinship, status, age, ethnicity, and other attributes of identity can all be expressed in hairstyle. Just as important is the act of braiding, which transmits cultural values between generations, expresses bonds between friends, and establishes the role of professional practitioner.[1]
Cornrows made a comeback in the 1960s and '70s, and again during the '90s, when NBA basketball player Allen Iverson repopularized this hairstyle.

Gelled baby hair doesn't have that strong a cultural history.

Good point about the cornrows. From what little I know on the topic, they do seem to have a historic significance that 'gelled baby hair' doesn't, but that didn't seem to stop the outcry against Katy Perry for the latter. As for Kylie Jenner (good grief I can't believe I am even discussing that ridiculous family :/ ), her faux-dreads have a much less cultural history than the cornrows, too, yet here we are discussing whether she is guilty of cultural appropriation

I definitely agree that the cultural parodies should be soundly rebuked. Appropriating hairstyles? Not so much. Caring for each other's hair seems to be a bonding experience across cultures regardless of the resulting style. I do think there was/is a lot of outright racist nonsense wrapped up in black women's hair (workplaces forbidding cornrows and/or afros for instance) that white women haven't had to deal with. But I also think the assumption that white woman don't get the bonding/identity aspects of hairstyles is incorrect.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here is the thing about black hair and why it can be a very touchy subject

First a VERY abbreviated timeline of the history of black hair in Western Culture.

1444: Europeans trade on the West Coast of Africa with people wearing elaborate hairstyles, including locks, plaits and twists.


1619: First slaves brought to Jamestown; African language, culture and grooming tradition begin to disappear.


1700s: Calling black hair “wool,” many whites dehumanize slaves. The more elaborate African hairstyles cannot be retained.


1800s: Without the combs and herbal treatments used in Africa, slaves rely on bacon grease, butter and kerosene as hair conditioners and cleaners. Lighter-skinned, straight-haired slaves command higher prices at auction than darker, more kinky-haired ones. Internalizing color consciousness, blacks promote the idea that blacks with dark skin and kinky hair are less attractive and worth less.


1865: Slavery ends, but whites look upon black women who style their hair like white women as well-adjusted. “Good” hair becomes a prerequisite for entering certain schools, churches, social groups and business networks.

1880: Metal hot combs, invented in 1845 by the French, are readily available in the United States. The comb is heated and used to press and temporarily straighten kinky hair.


1900s: Madame C.J. Walker develops a range of hair-care products for black hair. She popularizes the press-and-curl style. Some criticize her for encouraging black women to look white.


1910: Walker is featured in the Guinness Book of Records as the first American female self-made millionaire.


1920s: Marcus Garvey, a black nationalist, urges followers to embrace their natural hair and reclaim an African aesthetic.


1954: George E. Johnson launches the Johnson Products Company with Ultra Wave Hair Culture, a “permanent” hair straightener for men that can be applied at home. A women’s chemical straightener follows.

1963: Actress Cicely Tyson wears cornrows on the television drama “East Side/West Side.”

1966: Model Pat Evans defies both black and white standards of beauty and shaves her head.


1968: Actress Diahann Carroll is the first black woman to star in a television network series, “Julia.” She is a darker version of the all-American girl, with straightened, curled hair.

1970: Angela Davis becomes an icon of Black Power with her large Afro.


1971: Melba Tolliver is fired from the ABC affiliate in New York for wearing an Afro while covering Tricia Nixon’s wedding.

1977: The Jheri curl explodes on the black hair scene. Billed as a curly perm for blacks, the ultra moist hairstyle lasts through the 1980s.


1979: Braids and beads cross the color line when Bo Derek appears with cornrows in the movie “10.”


1980: Model-actress Grace Jones sports her trademark flattop fade.


1988: Spike Lee exposes the good hair/bad hair light-skinned/dark-skinned schism in black America in his movie “School Daze.”


1990: “Sisters love the weave,” Essence magazine declares. A variety of natural styles and locks also become more accepted.


1997: Singer Erykah Badu poses on the cover of her debut album “Baduizm” with her head wrapped, ushering in an eclectic brand of Afrocentrism.


1998: Carson Inc., creator of Dark & Lovely and Magic Shave for black men, acquires black-owned beauty company Johnson Products of Chicago in 1998. L’Oreal purchases Carson two years later and merges it with Soft Sheen.


1999: People magazine names lock-topped Grammy award-winning artist Lauryn Hill one of its 50 Most Beautiful People.


2001: Rapper Lil’ Kim wears a platinum blonde weave, while singer Macy Gray sports a new-school Afro. Some black women perm, some press, others go with natural twists, braids and locks.


2006: Black hair care is a billion-dollar industry.

absent from this timeline are many things, not the least of which is the ruler test, a particularly nasty practice black folk perpetrated on themselves. It was the custom among certain historically black fraternal orders (specifically college greeks) to exclude pledges whose hair was not straight as a ruler

Hair for black folk living in western cultures is not now nor ever has been just about the fashion. It is everything from a pronouncement of lineage to a political statement. Even today, locks and braids can get you fired or not hired.

 

[Metaphor]

This one - "Opposition to "cultural appropriation" upsets me, because it seems to me opposition to it is populated by whiny, infantile, prejudiced people with an astonishing sense of entitlement and a totally warped, selfish, oblivious, and racist viewpoint."

That wasn't hyperbole. That's an accurate description of my feelings. It describes Stenberg and some other people who have expressed their views about CA over the years.

Your obsession with "ownership" warps your view.

Ownership is central to the question. But if nobody owns it, who 'belongs' to it?

Look at Azeala Banks (AB)'s feud with Iggy Azalea (IA). It's evident that Banks believes hip hop culture belongs to her and other black people, and whities like IA need not apply. But why does it? What did AB do to earn membership of the hip hop group, and what has IA done to be excluded from it?

 

[laughing dog]

Ownership is central to the question. But if nobody owns it, who 'belongs' to it?

Since appropriation does not require ownership, ownership is not central to the question.

Look at Azeala Banks (AB)'s feud with Iggy Azalea (IA). It's evident that Banks believes hip hop culture belongs to her and other black people, and whities like IA need not apply. But why does it? What did AB do to earn membership of the hip hop group, and what has IA done to be excluded from it?

I think this another example of an extremely trivial issue that really does not merit attention.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Ownership is central to the question. But if nobody owns it, who 'belongs' to it?

Since appropriation does not require ownership, ownership is not central to the question.

True, origination is central to the question and if you will notice, one side of this debate has not mentioned origination and, if allowed, WILL NOT mention origination.

Look at Azeala Banks (AB)'s feud with Iggy Azalea (IA). It's evident that Banks believes hip hop culture belongs to her and other black people, and whities like IA need not apply. But why does it? What did AB do to earn membership of the hip hop group, and what has IA done to be excluded from it?

I think this another example of an extremely trivial issue that really does not merit attention.

Has anyone here, besides me, actually listened to Iggy Azalea?