Do you understand the following?

[thebeave]

Huh. I was always told that diversity and multiculturalism is a positive for society. Sounds like it has a tendency to create animosity, division and resentment instead. Oh well, it was a nice thought anyway.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I understand the OP in the sense that it is trying to make a particular distinction. I don't agree that it actually succeeds in making that distinction.

Maybe I'm looking at this in too simplistic a fashion, but it seems to me that the problem with cultural appropriation is the appropriation bit - treating someone else's culture as if it were your own. It's a problem that is particularly prevalent in the US, where the native culture there makes a number of unfortunate culture assumptions - that all the world works on the same the principles and values and can be judged and evaluated according to those values, and that symbols are a tremendously important part of what they represent. Add that to the typical rich country problem of being able to afford mass transport and enabling mass appropriation in a way that can swamp the origin culture, and you have a potential problem, and may offend people.

But the problem is not the fact of person A using symbols or items native to another culture, since there's a great deal of positive that can come from that. The problem is the manner in which they are doing it. People in the US getting excited about Peruvian history and the Nazca lines is a good thing. Combining that with American Mysticism and UFO culture is probably harmless, at least to the Peruvians. Travelling to Peru en masse and ensuring that any local guide that doesn't indulge in US-style UFO theories can't keep their business, is more of a problem. But again, it's the manner of cultural interaction, not the fact of it.

What I don't have much patience with is the idea that certain symbols and practices somehow 'belong' to particular sub-cultures within America - particular hairstyles, particular icons, particular clothing - and that people who aren't of that culture are somehow not entitled to use them. Because that is cultural appropriation, and of a particularly nasty and virulent kind.

But at the same time, the origination of these hairstyles, icons, and clothing inside a certain culture is a big part of what makes these hairstyles, icons, and clothing tempting to other cultures. Fans of a cultural product will say that it's not enough that an artifact is pretty or fully functioning but it much also be "authentic."

 

[ronburgundy]

I suppose I understand what the author intended to say, but don't agree. What's wrong with engaging in practises of another culture as a commodity or "incorrectly"? Sometimes, that kind of appreciation creates a completely new and interesting mix that's worthy in its own right.

^^THIS^^ To expand on it, the OP wrongly presumes that culture is a stable thing and that their definitive boundaries of who and what is within and outside each culture. Every "culture" is fluid, fuzzy, changing, and practiced in highly variable ways. Only with top-down oppressive authoritarian control is it otherwise. Ei
IOW, appropriation is inherent to the culture. IT is analogous to genetic variation. Some of it is good, some bad, most neutral, but in the aggregate it is a positive thing and vital to cultural evolution.

Where does the OP presume that culture is a stable thing?

It is presumed by the entire notion that variations from normative manifestations of culture are "incorrect ways".

Where did I say that? Where has anyone said that?

The OP said it.

Since there is no other referent, incorrect must mean they are outside of culture,rather than just the inherent variance and instability that is part of culture.

Why "must" it mean "That they are outside the culture?"

Because their is no other plausible meaning of an "incorrect way" to use a symbol. It is equal to saying that an abstract painting is "incorrect". There is zero objectivity to it. Objectively, it is just a variation. "Borrowing" (and sometimes using without consent) are inherent to the meaning of the verb appropriate, and can only be done if something is presumed to be owned and then used by someone outside that ownership. So when appropriation is claimed to be defined as using something in "an incorrect way" (as the OP explicitly does), it can only mean that it is defining "incorrect" as a variant that falls outside the culture, a purely subjective and imaginary boundary declared as fact by whatever self-appointed authority is making the claim of appropriation.

The reality is that so-called "incorrect" variations happen all the time by people within a culture but are often viewed positively or ignored, and not attacked as incorrect or appropriations, unless the person doing it is presumed a different race from those presumed to "own" that cultural practice manifestation, etc..

It's not about ownership but origination.

Their are no origins to culture other than the origins of the human mind. If culture can be appropriated in any meaningful sense, then everything that exists as part of any culture was an appropriation, and thus appropriation is a generally positive thing and not "incorrect" or insulting.
In sum, the charge of cultural appropriation rest on the presumption of cultural ownership, which being a completely bogus notion makes the notion of appropriation bogus.

 

[Togo]

I understand the OP in the sense that it is trying to make a particular distinction. I don't agree that it actually succeeds in making that distinction.

Maybe I'm looking at this in too simplistic a fashion, but it seems to me that the problem with cultural appropriation is the appropriation bit - treating someone else's culture as if it were your own. It's a problem that is particularly prevalent in the US, where the native culture there makes a number of unfortunate culture assumptions - that all the world works on the same the principles and values and can be judged and evaluated according to those values, and that symbols are a tremendously important part of what they represent. Add that to the typical rich country problem of being able to afford mass transport and enabling mass appropriation in a way that can swamp the origin culture, and you have a potential problem, and may offend people.

But the problem is not the fact of person A using symbols or items native to another culture, since there's a great deal of positive that can come from that. The problem is the manner in which they are doing it. People in the US getting excited about Peruvian history and the Nazca lines is a good thing. Combining that with American Mysticism and UFO culture is probably harmless, at least to the Peruvians. Travelling to Peru en masse and ensuring that any local guide that doesn't indulge in US-style UFO theories can't keep their business, is more of a problem. But again, it's the manner of cultural interaction, not the fact of it.

What I don't have much patience with is the idea that certain symbols and practices somehow 'belong' to particular sub-cultures within America - particular hairstyles, particular icons, particular clothing - and that people who aren't of that culture are somehow not entitled to use them. Because that is cultural appropriation, and of a particularly nasty and virulent kind.

But at the same time, the origination of these hairstyles, icons, and clothing inside a certain culture is a big part of what makes these hairstyles, icons, and clothing tempting to other cultures. Fans of a cultural product will say that it's not enough that an artifact is pretty or fully functioning but it much also be "authentic."

Hm.. Don't agree. What makes them tempting is that they are a well-defined and complete concept that is novel to the receiving culture. The reason why fans demand an 'authentic' product is because a cheap imitation of anything is generally seen as undesirable, will often consist of the bare minimum of unfamiliar parts, and will generally not contain the novelty that drew them in the first place. For example, my local corner store sold 'oriental vegetable mix', which was basically frozen peas, frozen carrots, and a few bean sprouts. Carrots are not noticeably oriental. Peas and carrots is not a particularly oriental combination, and simply adding beansprouts to it doesn't make it oriental. The reason why this is a negative is not because I desperately want care whether, somewhere in the entirety of East Asia, there may or may not be a small village that quite enjoys peas and carrots, thus making my selection 'authentic' but simply because it isn't very different from the normal vegetables.

And I've found 'authentic' to be a very fluid concept. I'm fond of Indian food from the East End of London. It's a good place to take anyone visiting from India, because they've generally never had anything like it. 'Indian Food' is not what they eat in India. It's more technically Food of the Indian Diaspora, it has it's own history, and it's not very similar. Technically speaking, most 'ethnic foods' from pizza to Italian to Thai would all fit the definition of cultural appropriation. The restaurants show little or no respect for the culinary traditions of the various regions from which each dish comes, they take several hundred years of disparate traditions and genericise them into a small handful of cooking techniques, and then alter the end result to fit Western tastes. Is that respectful or authentic - not at all. Is the world better off for having the American Pizza? I'd say it is.

 

[zorq]

Hi, AA.
I didn't notice this thread until just a couple hours ago because it's title was not particularly provocative. In general Athena, when someone indicates that they have issues with what you have said, a productive path includes responding to their questions. A non productive path involves repeating yourself over and over again as if the other person were refusing to read your words or deliberately misinterpreting them. I'm sorry I didn't explain to you SPECIFICALLY what I found to be confusing, contradictory, and ambiguous about your comment in the other thread and I'm sorry that that distressed you enough to start this thread.

But, surely there has been enough discussion in this thread about people who have issues with your definitions for you to see that they are not beyond scrutiny.

 

[Metaphor]

I still have unanswered questions, so I'll repost them.


Who decides who is an insider and an outsider to a culture? What makes AB think she is a hip-hop "insider" and IA a hip-hop "outsider"?

Please note you don't have to answer for AB. Answer for yourself. Who is a hip-hop insider, and who is an outsider?

 

[ZiprHead]

This whole concept of "cultural appropriation" strikes me as similar to that of the "sacred". If I think aboriginal beads look cool and decide to wear them and they come into fashion, and I have no appreciation of native heritage, I see nothing wrong with that. Same as if I decide to draw a cartoon including Mohammed or eat pork in the presence of a jew. I wouldn't do it for the sole purpose of upsetting them, but I woudln't refrain from doing it just to please them. If I want to sing blues music and wear a poncho, I will.

Led Zeppelin, nuff said.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I still have unanswered questions, so I'll repost them.


Who decides who is an insider and an outsider to a culture? What makes AB think she is a hip-hop "insider" and IA a hip-hop "outsider"?

Please note you don't have to answer for AB. Answer for yourself. Who is a hip-hop insider, and who is an outsider?

The cultures decide. But you knew that.

As for who is and is not inside hip-hop culture, there is and has been lively debate on that subject for years and if you are truly interested, the google works wonders. But I doubt you really are interested. If you were, you wouldn't ask the question. You would already know.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Hi, AA.
I didn't notice this thread until just a couple hours ago because it's title was not particularly provocative. In general Athena, when someone indicates that they have issues with what you have said, a productive path includes responding to their questions. A non productive path involves repeating yourself over and over again as if the other person were refusing to read your words or deliberately misinterpreting them. I'm sorry I didn't explain to you SPECIFICALLY what I found to be confusing, contradictory, and ambiguous about your comment in the other thread and I'm sorry that that distressed you enough to start this thread.

But, surely there has been enough discussion in this thread about people who have issues with your definitions for you to see that they are not beyond scrutiny.

I have been going round and round in a nursery rhyme with several posters here for a very long time. I have tried civility, explaining, explaining, and explaining again. I have and do provide links, definitions, examples, tables, graphs, etc. I have done everything to make myself clear outside of taking a hatchet, splitting heads open and laying the my words directly on these people's brains.

I'm tired.

I will make my arguments, and not defend or even answer what others think I have said, wish I have said, or need for me to have said in order to fit their pre-conceived ideas of what they think they know about me or wish for me to be.

Am I clear?

 

[Metaphor]

The cultures decide. But you knew that.

You are begging the question. How do I know who is inside a culture so that I know that their decision represents the culture's decision? I suggest you google 'begging the question' since you're so fond of telling me to google things.

As for who is and is not inside hip-hop culture, there is and has been lively debate on that subject for years and if you are truly interested, the google works wonders. But I doubt you really are interested. If you were, you wouldn't ask the question. You would already know.

I knew you wouldn't answer. I asked a specific question: why is IA considered an 'outsider' to hip hop culture, and AB an 'insider'? If you don't know why, feel free to admit it.

I don't know why, either.

 

[Rhea]

Not asking if you agree or disagree,

do you understand it?

"Traditional to another group of people"
"Both sides".

How do you define a culture and how do you decide who's the outsider?

I was raised a Catholic and my entire family is Catholic. What if I used the symbols of Catholicism, not as respect or because I liked the aesthetic, but as parody or criticism of Catholicism? Am I safe from the accusation of 'cultural appropriation'? Isn't the using of the symbols in a hurtful way what's wrong, not that I do, or do not, belong to the culture?

What if I use something not in a way that's mutually beneficial, and not out of 'respect' or 'deference' but because I like the way something looks?

You mean, like,

"Jesus Christ, what the Hell are you doing? Goddamn people." and that's kind of the crux of the matter, right?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You are begging the question.

No I am not.

How do I know who is inside a culture so that I know that their decision represents the culture's decision?

Ask an anthropologist. Ask a hip-hop artist. GOOGLE THE WORDS HIP-HOP CULTURE!

I googled and here is what I found

Introduction: Hip Hop in History: Past, Present, and Future

You can read it online for free.

That is, if you really want to know.

How do you know who is inside a culture and who isn't in a generic sense of the word? You look for the generally accepted characteristics of culture and if that person fits within the defined parameters of a given culture with regard to those characteristics. I.E. If you want to know if a person a member of the "hip-hop culture" you would ask yourself these questions: is this person exhibiting the mores, norms, and dress of the hip-hop culture? Does the person share a common history, language, geographic origin, religion, art, music, food, etc., with others members of the hip-hop culture? Does this person share a common ancestry with other members of the group, a common understanding of the world with other members of the group? is the grouping itself distinct from other groups to the point it can be recognized as different unto itself?

You know, what you do and have been doing all your life, every time you recognize a person, artifact, or expression as belonging to a particular culture. Unless of course you generally confuse the French with Nigerians, Country music with Slavic folk songs, Catholicism with Taoism, bangers and mash with sushi, etc.

I suggest you google 'begging the question' since you're so fond of telling me to google things.

As for who is and is not inside hip-hop culture, there is and has been lively debate on that subject for years and if you are truly interested, the google works wonders. But I doubt you really are interested. If you were, you wouldn't ask the question. You would already know.

I knew you wouldn't answer. I asked a specific question: why is IA considered an 'outsider' to hip hop culture,

Not everyone considers her outside the culture and those who do should be the ones to answer that question. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say it is because her accusers believe she hasn't lived the life those who originated the music, style, and general composition of what is called hip-hop culture have lived. She doesn't share those experiences. Hip hop comes out of the experience of growing up black in America, growing up poor in america, and being fucked over because you were not white and/or financially secure and/or willing to buy into a blinding belief in right and righteousness of Leave It to Beaver. IA is seen as someone who hasn't paid her dues, she is seen as a prepackaged Barbie suitable to be sold to a white-bread public. She is today's Pat Boone.

That is to say, If I were to hazard a guess.

and AB an 'insider'?

Not everyone buys that she is all that either. AB loves calling all kinds of people fake and and all kinds of people love calling her fake in return. The "who is fake" and "who is the real deal" arguments are probably the longest running thread in the history of hip-hop. But again, you would know this already is Hip-Hop really interested you.

If you don't know why, feel free to admit it.

I don't know why, either.

If you don't know why either, then how could you possibly know any answer given to you is the truth? Surely you must have some idea.

But then again, this ain't about hip-hop or azaleas, now is it?

BTW, why not compare IA to Eminem?

Wouldn't that be a better comparison if what you are going for is who is and is not in the CULTURE? unless that's not what you are going for at all.

 

[arkirk]

I am not sure just what I think of what is being called culture. Between true friends, a lot of this culture stuff drops off. A rigid enforcement of almost any arbitrary cultural meme can be as troublesome as a humorous assault on cultures. There problem is actually not a matter of culture but a matter of people on one side or the other of a cultural dividing line assigning an elevated value to that side's particular take on matters. Let me illustrate:

A native American tribe may assert that a particular mountain is sacred and that there are spirits in it that require our respect. A Canadian mining company can decide that this mountain needs to be ground up and cyanided for its gold content. Issues like this occur all the time. Both sides of the issue are cultural views and the choice is between two ideas that are both fundamentally wrong. The native Americans cannot convince the would be mountain destroyers of their specific evaluation of the mountain and vice versa. Along comes another cultural value....the bureau of mines or the BLM or San Bernardino Country and rides roughshod over the native american view and issues a permit to destroy the mountain. I regard this situation as a battle between two sides neither of which are cognizant of the appropriate parameters to make an good environmental decision, though generally, if the native American position were taken on the mountain, the result would be environmentally more friendly...it still is a decision based on cultural values that are in a great degree not based on scientific evaluation.

The mining company counts projected dollars in versus profits and declares that its culture and system of values must reign supreme. They often win these battles because the spiritual arguments of the native Americans do not honor mining company values and white social realities. In reality, the mountain (almost any mountain) hosts an extremely valuable community of organisms and is in fact an ecosystem, the proper value of which cannot be found in either culture vying for control in the matter.

At risk of wiping everything out, both sides in these matters are failing to conceive of the ecological services the mountain renders without anybody touching it, without the prayers of the natives, and without the earth movers of the miners.

Miners seem to all have a kind of contempt for communities their mines impact. The same can be said for factory owners, and agribusiness. These cultures however are flawed with incomplete models of reality which assumes nature forgives our mistakes. The native American view does not make this mistake, though its view of things may contain a lot of mythical elements. I think a secular view provides a better basis for considering most matters people seek to encapsulate in cultural jargon.

 

[Metaphor]

If you were, you wouldn't ask the question. You would already know.

Sometimes, questions are asked to springboard a debate, not because the answers are not known.

Not everyone considers her outside the culture and those who do should be the ones to answer that question. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say it is because her accusers believe she hasn't lived the life those who originated the music, style, and general composition of what is called hip-hop culture have lived. She doesn't share those experiences. Hip hop comes out of the experience of growing up black in America, growing up poor in america, and being fucked over because you were not white and/or financially secure and/or willing to buy into a blinding belief in right and righteousness of Leave It to Beaver. IA is seen as someone who hasn't paid her dues, she is seen as a prepackaged Barbie suitable to be sold to a white-bread public. She is today's Pat Boone.

That is to say, If I were to hazard a guess.

Since it is an ontological impossibility for IA to have grown up black in America, that means she can't ever pay her dues, she can't ever be part of hip-hop culture, no matter what she contributes to it. Okay, good to know.

If you don't know why either, then how could you possibly know any answer given to you is the truth? Surely you must have some idea.

But then again, this ain't about hip-hop or azaleas, now is it?

BTW, why not compare IA to Eminem?

Wouldn't that be a better comparison if what you are going for is who is and is not in the CULTURE? unless that's not what you are going for at all.

Why would it be a better comparison? Is it because Eminem is definitely a hip-hop insider in a much less ambiguous way than AB? Since Eminem did not grow up black in America, it seems to me that growing up black in America can't be a criterion for belonging to hip-hop culture.

Or is it just that those with nonblack skin can still overcome their exclusion if they are far more talented than the average hip-hop musician?

This reminds me of your grandmother telling you you'd have to work twice as hard because you're a girl, and twice as hard again because you're black, just to be treated on par.

That strikes me as unfair, and something that should be discouraged -- giving people with different skin colours different and harder hurdles for the same reward.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Sometimes, questions are asked to springboard a debate, not because the answers are not known.

Not everyone considers her outside the culture and those who do should be the ones to answer that question. If I were to hazard a guess, I would say it is because her accusers believe she hasn't lived the life those who originated the music, style, and general composition of what is called hip-hop culture have lived. She doesn't share those experiences. Hip hop comes out of the experience of growing up black in America, growing up poor in america, and being fucked over because you were not white and/or financially secure and/or willing to buy into a blinding belief in right and righteousness of Leave It to Beaver. IA is seen as someone who hasn't paid her dues, she is seen as a prepackaged Barbie suitable to be sold to a white-bread public. She is today's Pat Boone.

That is to say, If I were to hazard a guess.

Since it is an ontological impossibility for IA to have grown up black in America, that means she can't ever pay her dues, she can't ever be part of hip-hop culture, no matter what she contributes to it. Okay, good to know.

If you don't know why either, then how could you possibly know any answer given to you is the truth? Surely you must have some idea.

But then again, this ain't about hip-hop or azaleas, now is it?

BTW, why not compare IA to Eminem?

Wouldn't that be a better comparison if what you are going for is who is and is not in the CULTURE? unless that's not what you are going for at all.

Why would it be a better comparison? Is it because Eminem is definitely a hip-hop insider in a much less ambiguous way than AB? Since Eminem did not grow up black in America, it seems to me that growing up black in America can't be a criterion for belonging to hip-hop culture.

Or is it just that those with nonblack skin can still overcome their exclusion if they are far more talented than the average hip-hop musician?

This reminds me of your grandmother telling you you'd have to work twice as hard because you're a girl, and twice as hard again because you're black, just to be treated on par.

That strikes me as unfair, and something that should be discouraged -- giving people with different skin colours different and harder hurdles for the same reward.

So black people are being unfair to the white girl and that's unfair. It's RACIST!!

The creation, the INDUSTRY that is IA, is based on her race (It sure ain't her talent). That is what has made her popular. And she has proven herself to be down with that. She plays on that. Her whole shtick is "Look at me! See what a cool white girl I am! Buy my stuff and you can be cool and still be white too. All the affectations with none of the discrimination!"

If the unfairness of racism is your problem with the reception IA has received, the first people I would take that up with would be her manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, and retailers. Hip-Hop culture has nothing to do with that.

 

[Metaphor]

So black people are being unfair to the white girl and that's unfair. It's RACIST!!

No, not 'black people'. Individuals like AB and the cultural appropriation warriors baying for IA's blood are being unfair.

The creation, the INDUSTRY that is IA, is based on her race (It sure ain't her talent). That is what has made her popular. And she has proven herself to be down with that. She plays on that. Her whole shtick is "Look at me! See what a cool white girl I am! Buy my stuff and you can be cool and still be white too. All the affectations with none of the discrimination!"

So, she hasn't had any good songs? The people in the hip hop community are such sheeple they can be told what they like, devoid of any connection to musical quality?