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

[Metaphor]

"Cultural appropriation", as far as I'm able to understand it, does not upset me. 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.

You should have started off with that. Then this whole trip around Robin Hood's barn would not have been necessary.

I'm not familiar with the analogy, but I certainly reject the idea that I was being deceitful in my OP. I've already read widely on 'cultural appropriation' and felt there was something I must be missing, because the supporters of the concept of cultural appropriation as a concept and its moral wrongness all appear to beg the question.

 

[Metaphor]

It also strikes me how similar the 'cultural appropriation' believers are to the 'save traditional marriage' believers. The save traditional marriage believers would argue that marriage belongs to a heterosexual culture and gays (who are, of course, outsiders to heterosexual culture) have no business borrowing from or horning in on this institution. That gays don't understand the institution and it's insulting to the traditionally married to have gay couples use the trappings of marriage without really being heterosexual.

No doubt there'd be a case of special pleading to finagle one's way out of this conclusion, like that heterosexual culture is the dominant culture and there's no problem borrowing from the dominant culture.

But here's a more radical idea: the idea of marriage doesn't belong to any one culture and nobody has the right to be offended if it is appropriated, misappropriated, parodied, ridiculed or transformed based on the idea that they own it.

 

[untermensche]

The concept of "cultural appropriation" is pure nonsense.

All humans appropriate their styles and self expressions.

Nobody creates in a vacuum.

And people who are famous for simply being famous are not the people I want expressing their opinions on serious issues of the day.

And only an idiot would call them out for not expressing them.

 

[RavenSky]

A bunch of radfems no doubt.

Derec being anti-woman again

 

[laughing dog]

Would say that about complainers from a culture that used the swastika before the Nazis?

Since the swastika has been around for thousands of years and used by dozens of cultures, frankly, no group does have prior purchase on the swastika.

Do you think the swastika belongs to somebody?

Nice evasion. The Nazis appropriated the swastika. Would you call anyone from one of those groups as whiner if they complained?

 

[Metaphor]

Since the swastika has been around for thousands of years and used by dozens of cultures, frankly, no group does have prior purchase on the swastika.

Do you think the swastika belongs to somebody?

Nice evasion. The Nazis appropriated the swastika. Would you call anyone from one of those groups as whiner if they complained?

I'm not going to answer a question that concedes the legitimacy of the question.

Nazis did not appropriate the swastika, because there was nobody who owned it from whom it could be appropriated. I reject the coherence of the question.

But let's say some Hindus complained (just one of the many groups who used the swastika before the Nazi party). Do the Hindus who complained speak for all Hindus? What gives them that right?

But Hindus who complain about use of the swastika by the Nazi party have a good reason to complain: a symbol that holds significance for them will now forever be marred by association with the Nazi party and its atrocities. But does Stenberg have a good reason to complain about Kylie Jenner? What’s that good reason?

It also strikes me that neo-Nazis turn around and offer the exact same argument. That Hindus who continue to use the swastika are disrespecting the Nazi use of the symbol, since it is far more (in)famous as a Nazi symbol.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Interesting that you should bring that up

Cultural appropriation in America can be audacious. Just look at the Ku Klux Klan

The late professor William D Piersen began to unravel the relationship between the Klan mask and the West and Central African spiritual tradition 22 years ago years ago in his classic book Black Legacy. Since then, the work of scholars like Elaine Parsons has further established the connection between early Klan costumes and African and Afro-Caribbean behavior and masquerading traditions in the colonial and antebellum South.

Like so much of American culture with African roots, the early Klan history is conveniently forgotten to obfuscate the contributions of enslaved people and to render them passive rather than active actors in their own narrative.

As a result, few know that the Klan unashamedly co-opted and perverted African spirituality, aesthetics and culture in their mission of restoring white supremacy to the American South. To this day, much of the Southern culture as practiced by many Klan members reflects this history: the banjo playing, soul-food eating and so-called rebel-yell (an imitation of the African/blues yodel) all serve as a reminder of how much culture was “borrowed” from the very people they had enslaved.

This is getting absurd. Are we now comparing braiding one's hair to organised terror and violence against a race of people?

You may be, but I am not. I just happened to be reminded of an article on CA. You see, CA is BIIIIIIIIIGGGGG subject on which entire books have been and are now being written.

It seems to me that the problem with the KKK is the organised terror and violence, not that they 'borrowed' cultural traditions to add an additional psychological layer to the organised terror and violence.

So no one should ever mention "that they 'borrowed' cultural traditions?" Not even in a thread that is supposed to be dedicated to questions about such "borrowing?"

- - - Updated - - -

It also strikes me how similar the 'cultural appropriation' believers are to the 'save traditional marriage' believers. The save traditional marriage believers would argue that marriage belongs to a heterosexual culture and gays (who are, of course, outsiders to heterosexual culture) have no business borrowing from or horning in on this institution. That gays don't understand the institution and it's insulting to the traditionally married to have gay couples use the trappings of marriage without really being heterosexual.

No doubt there'd be a case of special pleading to finagle one's way out of this conclusion, like that heterosexual culture is the dominant culture and there's no problem borrowing from the dominant culture.

But here's a more radical idea: the idea of marriage doesn't belong to any one culture and nobody has the right to be offended if it is appropriated, misappropriated, parodied, ridiculed or transformed based on the idea that they own it.

How much study have you done on either subject, traditional marriage activism or the study of CA?

- - - Updated - - -

You should have started off with that. Then this whole trip around Robin Hood's barn would not have been necessary.

I'm not familiar with the analogy, but I certainly reject the idea that I was being deceitful in my OP. I've already read widely on 'cultural appropriation' and felt there was something I must be missing, because the supporters of the concept of cultural appropriation as a concept and its moral wrongness all appear to beg the question.

I did not say you were deceitful. Did anyone? Until now?

 

[laughing dog]

Nice evasion. The Nazis appropriated the swastika. Would you call anyone from one of those groups as whiner if they complained?

I'm not going to answer a question that concedes the legitimacy of the question.......

It is a legitimate question. And after some hemming and hawing you did answer it. And answer it well. Complainers of "cultural appropriation" may have legitimate concerns, contrary to your initial claim.

It also strikes me that neo-Nazis turn around and offer the exact same argument. That Hindus who continue to use the swastika are disrespecting the Nazi use of the symbol, since it is far more (in)famous as a Nazi symbol.

They could but they would be wrong because the Hindus used it long before Nazis were a twinkle in Hitler's great-great-great grandparents' eyes.

IMO, this particular situation with the Kardashian is so trivial that it deserves no notice by anyone.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

IMO, this particular situation with the Kardashian is so trivial that it deserves no notice by anyone.

 

[Metaphor]

So no one should ever mention "that they 'borrowed' cultural traditions?" Not even in a thread that is supposed to be dedicated to questions about such "borrowing?"

You can mention it all you like. What I'm suggesting to you is that the act of 'borrowing', in and of itself, is not harmful. And well may you put 'borrow' in quotes, seeing as nobody owns a cultural tradition or idea so there is nobody to borrow it from.

How much study have you done on either subject, traditional marriage activism or the study of CA?

It depends on what one means by 'study', surely? But whatever you think of my qualifications, would you care to address my question?

The idea of gays 'aping' heterosexual marriage is not something I manufactured from whole cloth, it's straight from the 'traditional marriage 101' playbook.

So, is it okay for gays to appropriate marriage?

- - - Updated - - -

I did not say you were deceitful. Did anyone? Until now?

I don't understand what a 'trip around Robin Hood's barn' meant, so I guessed it meant being deceitful about real intentions.

 

[Metaphor]

It is a legitimate question.

It's neither legitimate nor coherent. I don't believe an idea can be appropriated from a culture, because a culture cannot own an idea, so when you ask me what I think of the Nazis appropriating the swastika, I cannot tell you, any more than I can tell you what hair colour is bald and what is north of the north pole.

And after some hemming and hawing you did answer it. And answer it well. Complainers of "cultural appropriation" may have legitimate concerns, contrary to your initial claim.

What was Stenberg's legitimate concern?

They could but they would be wrong because the Hindus used it long before Nazis were a twinkle in Hitler's great-great-great grandparents' eyes.

Do they own it?

IMO, this particular situation with the Kardashian is so trivial that it deserves no notice by anyone.

Did Jenner do something wrong?

 

[Derec]

Derec being anti-woman again

How is pointing out that a radical feminist blog is most likely being moderated by fellow radical feminists "being anti-woman"?
It's about as offensive as suggesting that the moderators on an atheist forum like this one will very likely be atheist.

 

[Derec]

I think it can be bought and sold.

No, it can't since nobody owns the copyright. You can own a particular song or a recording of a particular song but you can't own rock music or rap music.

I think you can purchase a certain outfit or hair style and understand and reasonably expect others in your orbit to understand that you are going for a particular look that makes a certain cultural statement.

You can purchase something concrete. A hair braiding service. A flat iron. Hair coloring. But you can't buy the concept of braiding hair or straightening hair or coloring hair.

Or do you not agree? Do I think you can stop someone from wearing what they want? No. Do I think you should by able to? No. Do I think whole Jenner thing is a tempest in a teapot? Yes. Do I think the inability of people to understand or the righteous indignation expressed at the mere mention of C.A. is a little bit valid and a whole lot of BS? Oh yeah

We had a "cultural appropriation" before when some activists fumed that she couldn't stand white belly dancers. Imagine if a white person wrote how they could not stand black ballet dancers? What's the difference except double standards?

Cultural appropriation is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of a different cultural group, especially if the adoption is of an oppressed people's cultural elements by members of the dominant culture.

The latter part makes it double standard. Also, the overuse of "oppressed" is really galling. Anybody non-white == oppressed according to some.

Cultural appropriation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The wikipedia article also has a section on criticism of the concept.

Oh I think you can understand how they can exist, because you started a thread about it and something about the concept upsets you. If you didn't understand it, how could you disagree with it?

I can be upset that people would take the concept of a "square circle" seriously and still reject the notion that those words can belong together.

 

[Derec]

Then how does one sell culture?

It's impossible. You can't sell or buy the concept of rap music or of ballet or of hair braiding. What you can sell are particular instances. One can sell "Lose Yourself" by Eminem (is he an appropriator?) or a particular recording or performance of the "Swan Lake" or braid somebody's hair. Once something achieves the status of a "culture" however it's so diffuse nobody can own it and thus it cant' be bought and sold as such.

Unless you are saying no one is doing that. Are you saying that? Are you saying that people dont consider cornrows a "black thang?"

So what? It doesn't mean anybody owns it.
Who owns copyright on black thangs? And who owns copyright on thangs considered white?

Because if you want to deconstruct an argument, you need to first acknowledge its existence and understand the whys and wherefores of said argument.

You can also reject its very premises.
And if you want us to discuss the argument, please present it as a whole instead of just throwing out concepts like "commodification of culture".

Then what is the problem?

Exactly. No problem. People should be free to wear what they like, make music they like and dance in the fashion they like.

Do you want to get why? I don't think you do.

Please enlighten me. But what I read so far from cultural appropriation crowd has been very unimpressive.

because controversies do not spring fully formed from the mind of Zeus.

Are you culturally appropriating Greek culture now? Please transfer some royalties to their treasury asap.

It does not make sense or it doesn't make sense to you? Or is doesn't agree with you?

It relies of indefensible assumptions, like that there is ownership of culture.

 

[Derec]

(these many contradictory white supremacist intentions are listed at EverydayFeminism.com).=

I wonder why "cultural appropriation" is such a big deal among feminists. Everydayfeminism.com, feministing.com, freshfeminism.tumbler.com - it just seems a bit odd.
And speaking of Jenners, is Caitlyn appropriating female culture by wearing dresses and makeup?

 

[laughing dog]

It's neither legitimate nor coherent.

You understood it, so of course it was coherent. And the question was legitimate given the hyperbolic nature of your claim.

I don't believe an idea can be appropriated from a culture, because a culture cannot own an idea, so when you ask me what I think of the Nazis appropriating the swastika, I cannot tell you, any more than I can tell you what hair colour is bald and what is north of the north pole.

Your response is based on narrow interpretation of the term "appropriate". Appropriate can mean to take for one's own use, so an idea can be appropriated. Moreover, your belief is irrelevant to the issue whether something is coherent.

What was Stenberg's legitimate concern?

No.

Do they own it?

Irrelevant. (see above)

Did Jenner do something wrong?

Do you mean wrong as in immoral, or objectionable or poor taste? Frankly, the issue is so trivial I wonder why anyone would care what she did or what someone said about what she did.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

You can mention it all you like.

Thank you, I will.

What I'm suggesting to you is that the act of 'borrowing', in and of itself, is not harmful.

Will white folk cornrowing their hair cause black folk to bleed? No. But that isn't the contention. Wearing aspects of a culture as a fashion statement can seen as disrespectful if not . That is the problem.

And well may you put 'borrow' in quotes, seeing as nobody owns a cultural tradition or idea so there is nobody to borrow it from.

Hmmmm. Interesting.

From the Wiki

Cultural appropriation may eventually lead to the imitating group being seen as the new face of said cultural practices. As minority cultures are imitated by the dominant culture, observers may begin to falsely associate certain cultural practices with the imitating culture, and not with the people who originated them. This is often seen in cultural outsiders' use of an oppressed culture's symbols or other cultural elements, such as music, dance, spiritual ceremonies, modes of dress, speech and social behaviour, among other cultural expressions.[3][4][5]
Cultural appropriation differs from acculturation or assimilation in that "appropriation" or "misappropriation" commonly refers to the adoption of these cultural elements in a colonial manner: 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.​

How much study have you done on either subject, traditional marriage activism or the study of CA?

It depends on what one means by 'study', surely?

I mean outside of maybe a few articles on the internet, have you actually read any book on the subject? Taken any classes? Are you familiar with the leading thinkers on the subject.

But whatever you think of my qualifications, would you care to address my question?

The idea of gays 'aping' heterosexual marriage is not something I manufactured from whole cloth, it's straight from the 'traditional marriage 101' playbook.

So, is it okay for gays to appropriate marriage?

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?

- - - Updated - - -

I did not say you were deceitful. Did anyone? Until now?

I don't understand what a 'trip around Robin Hood's barn' meant, so I guessed it meant being deceitful about real intentions.

Your Google Broke?

 

[RavenSky]

Derec being anti-woman again

How is pointing out that a radical feminist blog is most likely being moderated by fellow radical feminists "being anti-woman"?
It's about as offensive as suggesting that the moderators on an atheist forum like this one will very likely be atheist.

1. Your words were "a bunch of radfems" - a derogatory offensive phrasing, not a factual statement.
2. Your "observation" was entirely unneccessary and contributed nothing to the actual discussion here. Especially if, as you claim, it should be completely obvious that "radical feminists" would run what you claim is a "radical feminist" blog. If it should be that obvious, then it didn't need to be said, but the fact that it was said in your typical derogatory manner shows my point - you insert your anti-women venom into every thread at every opportunity.

Radical feminism is a branch of feminism distinguished by its study of patriarchy as an end in itself rather than a secondary aspect of some larger system. Contrary to what the name may suggest to some people it is generally not just insane or hateful feminism.

The term is also used as a snarl word for any feminist or feminist idea that threatens the user's sense of what women should be and do, oftentimes ideas that are not radical at all.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Radical_feminism

/derail

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No, it can't since nobody owns the copyright.

Sometimes somebody does

A few tribes have taken advantage of trademark law, like the Navajo Nation — that's why they were able to send Urban Outfitters a cease-and-desist letter. You can use the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) to search the 500+ tribes to see if they're trademarked.

http://jezebel.com/5959698/a-much-needed-primer-on-cultural-appropriation

 

[Metaphor]

You understood it, so of course it was coherent. And the question was legitimate given the hyperbolic nature of your claim.

What claim? That nobody owns a culture?

Your response is based on narrow interpretation of the term "appropriate". Appropriate can mean to take for one's own use, so an idea can be appropriated. Moreover, your belief is irrelevant to the issue whether something is coherent.

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?

Do you mean wrong as in immoral, or objectionable or poor taste? Frankly, the issue is so trivial I wonder why anyone would care what she did or what someone said about what she did.

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