Why 'cultural appropriation' is an incoherent concept, but the damage from the peddlers of the concept is real

[Metaphor]

“Let’s start at the very beginning; a very good place to start”.
—Oscar Hammerstein II

“Cultural appropriation” is an incoherent concept, and the purveyors of cultural appropriation mythology impoverish all of humanity by jealously hoarding ideas and concepts they have no moral claim over, whilst simultaneously claiming to be victims. The purveyors of cultural appropriation discriminate by race and ethnicity. The purveyors of cultural appropriation have allies among those that do not agree that they are right, but refuse to denounce them as wrong.

“Cultural appropriation” is when a member of a ‘dominant’ culture uses the ideas, concepts, beliefs, and aesthetics of a culture that is not ‘their’ culture. This is regarded as morally wrong, and something one ought not do. No amount of ideas, concepts, beliefs or aesthetics copied by a minority culture from a dominant culture is cultural appropriation; the purveyors have defined their transgressions out of existence.

What do people mean when they say ‘this culture is mine’? Most often, they mean they were raised in an environment and community where their parents and community members copied the ideas and concepts of previous generations. Copying the ideas of previous generations is not regarded as problematic. In fact, it is celebrated. Good ideas should be copied, and bad ideas should be discarded. Cultures contain a mixture of a lot of good and bad ideas, but there is nothing inherently wrong with copying ideas. Ideas cannot be appropriated because appropriation requires a rightful owner to be deprived of the original idea. There are no rightful owners of ideas conceived long ago by people long since dead, and copied ideas are copied, not ‘appropriated’. Otherwise, every single person on earth is appropriating the very culture they were raised in.

But cultural appropriationists do lay moral claim to ideas they’ve copied. They believe that people they deem outside their community have no moral right to copy or develop those ideas. The usual demarcation of ‘outsider’ is ethnicity or race, but not always. And so we get an ethnically white person petrified of celebrating Día de Muertos because she might be seen to be culturally appropriating, even when that person considers themselves an owner of the same culture (because they were raised in it). But any person with Mexican ancestry will never be accused of cultural appropriation of Día de Muertos, even if they were not raised in that culture.

Copying good ideas enriches humanity. A good idea can be a concept, a story, an architecture. Braiding your hair in an aesthetically pleasing way is a good idea. Stories about creatures that appear human but are really scary monsters can be good stories. Nobody alive today can claim they originated these concepts. Nobody alive today can claim moral ownership of these ideas. Nobody alive today has a good reason to take offense if someone copies or reimagines these ideas, because they are not the originators. Even when we can define somebody as the originator of a realised idea (like a song or novel) we don’t allow her descendants to profit exclusively from that idea forever. (Apparently, 50 years after the death of the last collaborator is the agreed period).

When people object to others using ideas they claim to own, they impoverish humanity’s use and enjoyment of those ideas. Ideas are not sacred.

JK Rowling re-imagining ‘skin walkers’ for her book was not morally wrong. The people who object to her re-imagining believe they own the concept, but they do not, because nobody does. JK Rowling including re-imagined skin-walkers in her book will be another element that will bring joy to her readers, especially if these readers have not encountered a similar idea before.

The purveyors of cultural appropriation mythology and their allies would stamp out this joy. They impoverish everybody with their selfish, misguided sense of entitlement. They discriminate by race and are proud of it.

They are not the music makers or the dreamers of dreams. They want to stop the people who are.

 

[lpetrich]

I agree that that's taking cultural sensitivity to excess. The best thing I've seen about it is this: Some Thoughts on Cultural Appropriation by Adam Lee

... There’s no high arbiter of culture to rule on what’s acceptable and what isn’t. Some people may be happy to see their cultural innovations appreciated and adopted by outsiders; others may be staunchly opposed; still others may be indifferent. None of these opinions are more right or more wrong than the others, and if it seems wrong to mock or fetishize another culture, it seems equally wrong to grant a heckler’s veto to anyone in the world who wants to stake a claim on the matter.

It’s always a good idea to approach cultures not your own with respect and sensitivity. But an overly rigid insistence on sharp lines of demarcation strikes me as suspect. It perpetuates the essentialist fallacy that cultures are distinct and homogeneous groups of people who are all like each other and unlike everyone else. ...

But the point I want to emphasize the most is that, while cultural sensitivity is generally a good thing, it can be taken to a harmful extreme. Calls for respecting cultural purity become positively evil when concepts like LGBT rights, women’s equality, free speech, democracy, or atheism are denounced as “Western” values being imposed on societies that don’t believe in them and don’t want them.

Atheist Dudebros Don’t Know What Cultural Appropriation Is by Richard Carrier is another good one.

Kuo defined “cultural appropriation” correctly “as when members of a dominant culture adopt parts of another culture from people that they’ve also systematically oppressed” and then “start to fetishize or commercialize it” or “hoard access” to it.

 

[Derec]

Atheist Dudebros Don’t Know What Cultural Appropriation Is by Richard Carrier is another good one.

Sorry, but I can't take anybody seriously who uses terms like "dudobro" unironically.
This actually makes me think far less of Carrier. He is trying too hard to ingratiate himself to the progressive left dominating "freethought" blogs.

Kuo defined “cultural appropriation” correctly “as when members of a dominant culture adopt parts of another culture from people that they’ve also systematically oppressed”

I.e. it's a double standard combined with an unhealthy dose of white guilt.

and then “start to fetishize or commercialize it” or “hoard access” to it.

How do you "hoard access" to culture? And isn't that what anti-cultural appropriation SJWs want to do - hoard a culture against those dastardly white male "dudebro" appropriators.

 

[Metaphor]

Kuo defined “cultural appropriation” correctly “as when members of a dominant culture adopt parts of another culture from people that they’ve also systematically oppressed” and then “start to fetishize or commercialize it” or “hoard access” to it.

I understand the definition. I understand that with that definition, the purveyors define their transgressions out of existence. It is defining away that happens when 'racism' can only be perpetrated by the 'dominant culture' (always white people, obviously).

I understand what they're saying. I reject what they're saying.

 

[dismal]

Kuo defined “cultural appropriation” correctly “as when members of a dominant culture adopt parts of another culture from people that they’ve also systematically oppressed” and then “start to fetishize or commercialize it” or “hoard access” to it.

So, I guess it's not "cultural appropriation" when people from the non-western world adopt our Hollywood movies, polio vaccines and antibiotics.

This sort of transparently agenda-driven definition parsing is almost as amusing as the desperate quest for victimhood.

 

[prideandfall]

so, metaphor and dismal and derec and LP and everyone else who regularly shits their pants any time some uppity non-white non-male has the audacity to speak up in public, here's a question for you that has raised itself multiple times over the years during your incessant tirades:
what tangible harm does any of this do to you or to anyone, anywhere, ever?

yes yes, i get that it gets your knickers in a mighty twist that these non-white non-male chattel have the gall to have spurious ideas about what's offensive and then to speak them openly in public, but aside from your repeated assertions that these people give you a case of the vapors something awful, what actual harm or damage has ever been done?
i'm looking to see if you have any viable tangible evidence of these monstrous savages breaking down the walls of society, like you think they're doing - because thus far it seems like all you've managed to prove is that you're vulnerable to flights of panic.

 

[Derec]

so, metaphor and dismal and derec and LP and everyone else who regularly shits their pants any time some uppity non-white non-male has the audacity to speak up in public,

Nobody has any problems with people we disagree with (or having a different race or gender) speaking in public.
And your hyperbolic personal insults and ad hominems are merely showing you have no real arguments.

what tangible harm does any of this do to you or to anyone, anywhere, ever?

What tangible harm does so-called cultural appropriation do to anyone, anywhere, ever?
And why should we be silenced and not be allowed to express our opinion on the issues of the day just because our opinion does not fit the left wing orthodox views?

yes yes, i get that it gets your knickers in a mighty twist that these non-white non-male chattel have the gall to have spurious ideas about what's offensive and then to speak them openly in public, but aside from your repeated assertions that these people give you a case of the vapors something awful, what actual harm or damage has ever been done?
i'm looking to see if you have any viable tangible evidence of these monstrous savages breaking down the walls of society, like you think they're doing - because thus far it seems like all you've managed to prove is that you're vulnerable to flights of panic.

Wow, you could be speechwriter for Bizarro Trump.

 

[untermensche]

This is the fringe.

It is not the core or majority opinion of thinking from the left.

In terms of culture, the left sees every culture as a potential reservoir of knowledge.

And knowledge needs no permission to be appropriated.

 

[ronburgundy]

Kuo defined “cultural appropriation” correctly “as when members of a dominant culture adopt parts of another culture from people that they’ve also systematically oppressed” and then “start to fetishize or commercialize it” or “hoard access” to it.

That is as intellectually vacuous a definition as those who try to claim that "racism" is defined in a way that only applies to members of a politically dominant majority.
That may be the only context in which appropriation is deemed wrong but those with a particular political agenda, but the fact that it confounds the thing with a context and with a moral judgment is glaring proof of its invalidity on intellectual grounds. Appropriation, as any kind of meaningful behavior, exists independent of who is doing the appropriating. First, there are no objective dividing lines between cultures, and every cultural practice has countless appropriated variants even within anything that could be claimed to be a cultural unit. Second, appropriation is a natural, constant, and automatic phenomena inherent to human interactions that occurs in all directions relative to the abstract "group" categories people can be classified into.

The inclusion of a bullshit, non-objective, pseudo-intellectual notion like "fetishize" is another red flag of post-modern drivel. It abuses and distorts the psychological meaning of the term, which is about an clinically diagnosed obsession with sexualizing inanimate non-sexual objects.

As for "commercializing" something, virtually all things in modern society are commercialized. Thus, everything from the past brought into the present context can be claimed to have been commercialized as a result. That makes the notion that commercialization is a negative form of appropriation absurd, something that cannot be avoided, and thus a "problem" not to be taken seriously.

 

[Metaphor]

so, metaphor and dismal and derec and LP and everyone else who regularly shits their pants any time some uppity non-white non-male has the audacity to speak up in public,

You've got my number. I've never criticised any white males no matter how strange their ideas. I'd be kicked out of the secret meetings in a second.

here's a question for you that has raised itself multiple times over the years during your incessant tirades:
what tangible harm does any of this do to you or to anyone, anywhere, ever?

Humanity benefits and is enriched when good ideas are copied, modified, and improved. Humanity is the poorer when people claim ownership of ideas they have no moral claim over, and they try to cow, shame, and bamboozle others into complying.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think a line needs to be drawn between copying ideas and practices because they are seen in a positive light, admired and worth copying, and mocking a culture (any culture) and by extension people who are shoehorned into it. As an Asian person, I take no offence when white people learn martial arts or use chopsticks etc. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with them seeing it as cool or fun or exotic. But if they do it in a mocking way, stretch their eyes out while squinting and make silly noises meant to sound like Asian languages... that is rude. I still wouldn't ban it... but I would call it rude. Another example would be tanning vs blackface. One is done because the person genuinely admires and wants to copy. The other is done to mock and exploit.

 

[dismal]

I think a line needs to be drawn between copying ideas and practices because they are seen in a positive light, admired and worth copying, and mocking a culture (any culture) and by extension people who are shoehorned into it. As an Asian person, I take no offence when white people learn martial arts or use chopsticks etc. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with them seeing it as cool or fun or exotic. But if they do it in a mocking way, stretch their eyes out while squinting and make silly noises meant to sound like Asian languages... that is rude. I still wouldn't ban it... but I would call it rude. Another example would be tanning vs blackface. One is done because the person genuinely admires and wants to copy. The other is done to mock and exploit.

As I mentioned in the other thread, if something is "rude" or "racist" we already have well-recognized and commonly understood words that apply.

There is no need to invent this thing called "cultural appropriation" to express them in a less efficient way.

 

[ronburgundy]

I think a line needs to be drawn between copying ideas and practices because they are seen in a positive light, admired and worth copying, and mocking a culture (any culture) and by extension people who are shoehorned into it. As an Asian person, I take no offence when white people learn martial arts or use chopsticks etc. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with them seeing it as cool or fun or exotic. But if they do it in a mocking way, stretch their eyes out while squinting and make silly noises meant to sound like Asian languages... that is rude. I still wouldn't ban it... but I would call it rude. Another example would be tanning vs blackface. One is done because the person genuinely admires and wants to copy. The other is done to mock and exploit.

As I mentioned in the other thread, if something is "rude" or "racist" we already have well-recognized and commonly understood words that apply.

There is no need to invent this thing called "cultural appropriation" to express them in a less efficient way.

Agreed. That isn't cultural appropriation or what is being complained about most of the time when the appropriation is being accused. That's just racist mockery, for which "appropriation" is neither neccessary nor sufficient.

BTW, besides giving us a vacuous definition of the concept, Carrier also gives us a list of 9 things related to food that he agrees with Rachael Kuo are the "don'ts" of cultural appropriation. At least 8 of 9 are not appropriations even by his absurd definition, and some are not wrong by any reasonable standard, such as referring to food as "exotic" even though it is by definition "exotic" . Exotic is an inherently relevant term. It simply means originating from a land that is distant from oneself. The same goes for "weird", which is used in relation to food as simply being unfamiliar to oneself.

 

[Axulus]

Kuo defined “cultural appropriation” correctly “as when members of a dominant culture adopt parts of another culture from people that they’ve also systematically oppressed” and then “start to fetishize or commercialize it” or “hoard access” to it.

That is incoherent. It's not a "dominant culture" that commercializes it. It is individuals who may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with "systematic oppression". It is impossible to "hoard access" to a culture because there is not a limited supply of an idea or a practice. Each additional copy of an idea does not prevent or diminish anyone else's ability to do the same.

Additionally, WTF is the "dominant culture"? Large numbers of people across all races and ethnicities in the US watches Hollywood blockbuster movies, for example. Does that make everyone part of the dominant culture?

 

[Bronzeage]

I ca't take any talk of cultural appropriation seriously. I always wonder what the real problem could be, since this idea is obviously constructed from nothing.

No one complained when Britain became a nation of tea fetishists. There is not a single tea leaf grown on the British Isles, yet this drink is the center of their existence. They had to have gotten it from someone else. Why isn't someone going around preaching the cultural heritage of whatever the original blue skinned barbarians drank when the Romans showed up.

Speaking of Romans, they all wore togas. Where did they get the idea of wearing pants? Aha! Another cultural appropriation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

At least 8 of 9 are not appropriations even by his absurd definition, and some are not wrong by any reasonable standard, such as referring to food as "exotic" even though it is by definition "exotic" . Exotic is an inherently relevant term. It simply means originating from a land that is distant from oneself. The same goes for "weird", which is used in relation to food as simply being unfamiliar to oneself.

Careful, in some parts of the world, a hot dog could be considered exotic cuisine.

 

[dismal]

At least 8 of 9 are not appropriations even by his absurd definition, and some are not wrong by any reasonable standard, such as referring to food as "exotic" even though it is by definition "exotic" . Exotic is an inherently relevant term. It simply means originating from a land that is distant from oneself. The same goes for "weird", which is used in relation to food as simply being unfamiliar to oneself.

Careful, in some parts of the world, a hot dog could be considered exotic cuisine.

Sure, these girls appear to be fascinated while appropriating some of our culture:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWKOUxF-Dso

Of course in Texas culture you would not consider "pulled pork" a staple of BBQ.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What could possibly be wrong with taking opportunities away from oppressed people? I mean it's not like it is wrong to scream loudly over a person screaming for help. It's a right of free speech for individuals. Freedom isn't power or privilege, everyone really has it equally and nothing any individual does has any affect on the opportunities of another person. So there!

 

[Malintent]

so, metaphor and dismal and derec and LP and everyone else who regularly shits their pants any time some uppity non-white non-male has the audacity to speak up in public, here's a question for you that has raised itself multiple times over the years during your incessant tirades:
what tangible harm does any of this do to you or to anyone, anywhere, ever?

yes yes, i get that it gets your knickers in a mighty twist that these non-white non-male chattel have the gall to have spurious ideas about what's offensive and then to speak them openly in public, but aside from your repeated assertions that these people give you a case of the vapors something awful, what actual harm or damage has ever been done?
i'm looking to see if you have any viable tangible evidence of these monstrous savages breaking down the walls of society, like you think they're doing - because thus far it seems like all you've managed to prove is that you're vulnerable to flights of panic.

Well, one bit of harm is how they got you all up in a spittle over it..
The issue (obviously) is not that they have an opinion.
The issue is that they are trying to call it racism under the guise of 'cultural appropriation'. the topic (in case you want to join the actual discussion), is about what cultural appropriation really is, if it is even a valid thing to be upset about, and if using mythological characters in a modern book is somehow falling under that category of thing...

 

[Metaphor]

What could possibly be wrong with taking opportunities away from oppressed people?

What 'opportunities'? When Kylie Jenner braided her hair, did she prevent other women from braiding their hair? Did her act of taking some strands of hair and folding them over other strands systematically oppress people of colour?

When JK Rowling reimagined skin-walkers, who has she prevented from using the concept of skin-walkers? If anything, JK Rowling will increase opportunities for Native American (and any author of any ethnicity) to use 'skin-walkers' in their fiction, because skin-walkers will suddenly have pop culture relevance.

Ah! But the Native Americans don't want to profit from their religious ideas, you say (they'd be the first people in history). Then JK Rowling isn't preventing them from not monetizing the ideas of their ancestors, since not monetizing something is pretty easy to achieve.