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

[Metaphor]

Sorry but your conclusions do not follow. And, as you admitted earlier, Hindus would have a morally sound argument against Nazi appropriation of the swastika, which means there are occasions in which there is a morally coherent reason to reject participation of some people but to allow others free reign.

I did not say they had a morally sound argument. I said they had reason to complain.

But Hindus don't own the swastika and don't have any special say in who is allowed to use it and who isn't. Nobody owns an idea or symbol.

 

[laughing dog]

I did not say they had a morally sound argument. I said they had reason to complain.

Fine. They have a good reason to complain. A moral reason to complain.

But Hindus don't own the swastika and don't have any special say in who is allowed to use it and who isn't. Nobody owns an idea or symbol.

Your position is based on a fallacy about the necessity of ownership for appropriation. Repetition of the fallacy does not help your case, but makes it obvious that you have no logical foundation for it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm not sure which 'side' you're referring to, since I have already mentioned 'origination', and think it's entirely irrelevant.

Other people don't. And origination is what every article on the subject mentions. Copyright and Trademark, not so much. Your insistence on "ownership" is therefore somewhat disingenuous to say the least, and don't count on least.

Do you think people of Chinese ethnicity own Chinese cuisine?

Do you know that much of what passes for Chinese cuisine in the west does not in the east? Also Chinese cuisine, or what most westerner consider CC was developed overtime by Chinese immigrants to sell to westerners. And since you brought up Chinese people, Suzy Wong -- not a good thing.

Are you horrified, Athena, that KFCs (fried chicken of a particular type originating in the American south) are wildly popular in China and Japan? Is that cultural appropriation?

I am horrified that KFC thought slapping a piece of cheese product between two fried piece of chicken breast constituted a sandwich.

Selling food, which is something all cultures do both within and between cultures, does not compare in anyway to blackface parties or the mascoting of natives.

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

Why would it matter?

If you had listened to her, or at least done a cursory survey of her career, you would know that there is much more to the criticism of IA than just CA.

 

[Metaphor]

Other people don't. And origination is what every article on the subject mentions. Copyright and Trademark, not so much. Your insistence on "ownership" is therefore somewhat disingenuous to say the least, and don't count on least.

Nobody has been able to tell me why 'origination' matters, morally speaking, and who 'belongs' to a culture and who is an 'outsider', and why belonging to a culture matters in any sense at all.

Do you know that much of what passes for Chinese cuisine in the west does not in the east?

then
Who cares? If there's a market for 'authentic' (whatever that means) food then someone will cater to that market. If westerners want 'inauthentic' food then people will cater to that market, too.

I'm seriously puzzled as to why anyone thinks it makes, or could possibly make, any kind of moral difference how westerners or anyone, wants their food.

Also Chinese cuisine, or what most westerner consider CC was developed overtime by Chinese immigrants to sell to westerners. And since you brought up Chinese people, Suzy Wong -- not a good thing.

I don't know who she is or why it could possibly matter.

Selling food, which is something all cultures do both within and between cultures, does not compare in anyway to blackface parties or the mascoting of natives.

So is it the intentions of the person doing the 'appropriating' that makes a difference?

There are plenty of Asian takeaways in Australia, and most of them have menus that have dishes from more than one kind of culture (e.g. Chinese, Thai, Korean, etc).

Do you know what I've never done? I've never stormed into the kitchen to make sure the chef is from the appropriate ethnic origin to prepare my meal, nor in fact could I give a shit how 'inauthentic' anything on their menu is. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

If you had listened to her, or at least done a cursory survey of her career, you would know that there is much more to the criticism of IA than just CA.

I'm interested in her status as a cultural appropriationist. Presumably, AB thinks IA is an appropriationist no matter how good or bad her music is. Presumably also, AB could never be accused of being a CA, no matter how good or bad her music is.

 

[Metaphor]

Your position is based on a fallacy about the necessity of ownership for appropriation. Repetition of the fallacy does not help your case, but makes it obvious that you have no logical foundation for it.

Who decides when something has been 'appropriated', what qualifies them to make that decision, and why is appropriation morally wrong?

 

[One]

They study among the culture of 'Chinese food chefs' or they study only under the ethnically Chinese?

The ones who are considered the best in this city have gone abroad to study directly with Chinese food chefs within Chinese culture.

Yes, I am quite familiar with the manufactured outrage over 'westernised' versions of dishes being prepared. The fact that the outrage exists does not mean it is rational.

Moving goalposts. See my response below regarding reason/rationality. And I don't think that outrage is manufactured. It's quite real. Mexican food does not equal Taco Bell. Olive Garden is not Little Italy. The Outback is not Australian dining at its finest.

Half of wine connoisseurs can't tell the difference between white wine with red food colouring, and actual red wine.
Many wine connoisseurs will rate the exact same wine differently where the only difference is a serving temperature variation of 3 degrees.

Wine is tasted and sampled by a small network experts in the industry with extraordinary senses of smell and taste, then rated as such.
These people are just as rare as those in the perfume industry with this same skill set.
The buyer may not be a true connoisseur, but the vintners are a different story.
But since I love wine...I will easily get sidetracked by this bit of your post. So moving on:

People often act irrationally and the more you point this out, the tighter they cling to their irrational beliefs and behaviours.

Belief is not formulated with reason.
Reason sculpts belief.
It does not produce it.

"Studying in France" is not the same as 'studying French cuisine'.

This is splitting hairs. You can study French cruisine right here in the states. But these chefs choose to go to France. Why? To study French cuisine in French culture.

Do you believe French cuisine can only be cooked by the ethnically French?

No. But I believe that if you want to learn how to do it right, go to France and study with the French.
Cooking cuisine is not just about the food. It represents a culture, a palette of flavors unique to that group.

Japanese cuisine, again as an example - from presentation to execution is an experience in Japanese culture and tradition. The way the utensils are held, the items placed on the table, the ingredients used that are specific to certain regions of Japan...it all means something. A person can go learn how to make a sushi roll, but it won't be cuisine until they understand what it signifies. This is the difference between just preparing a meal and the culinary arts.

So, 'appropriation' can happen but it's okay?

Yes. Appropriation happens all the time. It becomes a problem with the original culture is not mentioned, is dishonored or marginalized by its usage.

And yet IA's talent was not enough to save her from accusations of 'cultural appropriation'. Yet nobody can explain to me who counts as an outsider to a culture and why it's morally wrong for it to be 'appropriated'.

I don't recall ever saying appropriation is a moral wrong.

Iggy has to prove herself to the culture she wants to be a part of in order to be accepted. And she needs that because this is her prospective audience that will listen to her.
I think the only moral wrong would be to stop her from trying..

 

[One]

Of course they do. Any person of any ethnicity is morally entitled to wear henna or wave a riji, whether they know anything about anything in the originating culture.

No, I don't believe they are. The reason why so many cultures get upset in the first place is due to misunderstandings of this nature.
A riji is a piece of Aboriginal attire that covers the male genitals. Waving one around at a party is probably unwise and looks bad from a cultural standpoint on many levels. Henna is more benign now because it is mainstream, but it used to be associated with religious and bridal traditions. Therefore, its use outside of the culture was considered offensive.

Knowing this gives one knowledge about how you come across to others.

It is the people who want to restrict and exclude others from copying ideas from (and contributing to) a culture that they themselves have copied that are the intolerant bigots and worthy of moral condemnation.

I don't think this applies most of the time. People are usually okay with appropriation as long as it is not done offensively.
I wear Tibetan attire, for example, and the traditional silks. This is because I've worked among Tibetan refugees. Now if I had just put on the clothing, then went parading around with these silks tied around my neck - totally different reaction. They consider those silks holy. I don't expect them to be okay with my usage of something that matters to them. This is the same reason why I do not flaunt my Indian attire outside of the community here - I know it bothers them.

Can we do these things? Yes. But it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to be considerate when we do. That's the issue.

Some people feel that way about hip-hop. I don't agree. I think artists in an unfamiliar genre need to prove their talent, certainly. But I don't think that music belongs to anyone. Music itself doesn't have a color.

I agree with you mostly, it's just that you seem to like splitting hairs about silly things. Like your comment below:

I am not disagreeing with you. My only point was that what you see with Iggy also exists in the reverse.

But the fact is that large-scale opportunity has been denied many ethnic artists in the field of "high music" far more often than any white person rapping with a mike.

No artist is 'ethnic'. Everyone has an ethnicity.

But, so what? It's a bad thing to exclude people solely because of their ethnicity. This used to be called 'racism'.

The original point entailed disagreeing me with that a black soprano singing Italian opera would get any flack. But that's racism, so what? Silliness.
Today, nobody is keeping Iggy from getting any money. And I bet that Jenner girl would have kept those cornrolls in a lot longer if it equaled more $$$ - that's what their entire family is about - generating controversy to keep their names in the news.

Racism is just an overt, aggressive form cultural appropriation, btw. It forces the oppressed to appropriate favorable traits of the oppressor to survive at the cost of their own cultural identity.

 

[One]

If you had listened to her, or at least done a cursory survey of her career, you would know that there is much more to the criticism of IA than just CA.

I read some of the write-ups on this, even the article in the Washington Post.

I remember when controversy actually had substance. Eminem had a backlash because they tied his music to the Columbine shooting in '99. He had violent lyrics, homophobic lyrics, insulting lyrics, racist lyrics. He also said alot of stupid shit in public. But then he's there with Marilyn Manson saying parents need to take responsibility for their dysfunctional offspring instead of blaming him. That's controversy.

This? To my mind, folks in this situation are being catty. Nicki Minaj says she wrote her own lyrics. I'd be sooo very proud, especially since my middle school sister was running around last fall talking about her Anaconda - all the kids were. If that's her writing, then it's not her finest moment whatsoever. And I say this with affection because she kills it on "No Love" with August Alsina. That's been my hook since it came out. But a lot of this music is not well-written today. It lacks substance as much as meaning.

The thing with Iggy is that it was different. She's freaking Australian and listening to her nobody could tell. That's what tripped people out about her. That's also why she got her 15 minutes. If she was as bad as they claim, nobody would have said, "Damn, did you hear this chick? She's white!!" That's all I heard in every city I traveled to (and I was in a different city every week for the last year pretty much.) I thought it was fascinating. Same thing with Macklemore. This dude is rapping about $20 and going in a thrift shop - that is the life my friends and I have. Yes, it was - as he says- fucking awesome. People thought it was hilarious, funny and different. That's the appeal.

The Grammys - I feel that. I didn't watch the Oscars because I found it hard to believe they could find not a single person that wasn't white with an outstanding performance in the entire year. That struggle is very real. I hear it, I acknowledge it.

But I'm not going to pretend that some of these people shooting darts at Iggy aren't simultaneously getting a fat paycheck off a decent hook and lyrics that are subpar. That's why rap mostly lost me when T-Pac and Biggie died. Felt like an endless stream of people trying to be them and failing miserably.Then there's all this mess about how she's not authentic. Hell, Drake didn't suffer in the down & dirty either. He's still getting paid, has street cred and a following. These days it seems to me like if you have three dudes throwing some bills the camera and talking about what they want to do to a sista in the studio - the dirtier, the better- instant fame. I don't get it.

But the main issue with Iggy's canceled tour was summed up in the comments section of that article: You can't sellout seats with only 2 or 3 good songs. And you can't do it with a cat parade following you around everywhere. I think this type of treatment is only tolerated this much because she's a female in an industry that is male-dominated. The females don't put people in seats nearly as much as the men do. But everybody loves to watch a catfight on the sidelines.

 

[TSwizzle]

I'm sure Rachel Dolezal would have given permission so it's all good.

 

[laughing dog]

Your position is based on a fallacy about the necessity of ownership for appropriation. Repetition of the fallacy does not help your case, but makes it obvious that you have no logical foundation for it.

Who decides when something has been 'appropriated', what qualifies them to make that decision, and why is appropriation morally wrong?

You make it sound like there is some sort of cultural appropriation code that is administered by some sort of CA police with a CA court.

Anyone can make such a claim, based on facts and reason. It is up to the court of public opinion to accept, deny or ignore such a claim.

I think CA is more an issue of (dis)respect or taste rather than morality.

 

[Playball40]

“What would America be like if we loved black people as much as we love black culture?”

That pretty much sums it all up, doesn't it?

It does. And it would be nice to live in Utopia too. I think this young lady is intelligent, articulate and an adorable actress to boot, but I'm still having a hard time here. I love braids and dreads on many guys (black and white). I like sugar skulls and think they are beautiful and artistic (I also think the Day of the Dead traditions are beautiful). But I've been accused more than once of "cultural appropriation". I completely get that the styles come from cultures that have been and continue to be oppressed and discriminated against - but how can I possibly end that? One way I think is having my own children see me appreciate and respect, not just the styles, but the people within that culture. Speaking out against oppression and racism, embracing both in my culture AND my family people of many races and ethnicities. But instead I'm accused of 'cultural appropriation' by some college-aged hipsters - basically told I don't know what I'm talking about and because I'm white (and not Mexican, Cuban or Black) I cannot have a say or an opinion.

I think I'm missing something. What am I not seeing?

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So, I have to wonder. From whom did Jenner steal cornrows (thus depriving that person of them), and from whom should she have asked permission to wear cornrows?

From somebody who gives a fuck.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

But instead I'm accused of 'cultural appropriation' by some college-aged hipsters - basically told I don't know what I'm talking about and because I'm white (and not Mexican, Cuban or Black) I cannot have a say or an opinion.

I think I'm missing something. What am I not seeing?

Unless you have a cultural background in some of these things in a real and concrete way (e.g. you have relatives or extended family who are Mexican, Cuban or Black) they just assume that you're a poser or some kind of multicultural hobbyist. The implication being that you couldn't be bothered to actually immerse yourself in the culture you're borrowing from but because you read a book about it you feel comfortable dabbling with it anyway. That, I sometimes think, is the issue with Iggy Azalea: She is pandering to -- and imitating the style of -- a culture she has no connection to at all and hasn't made any serious effort to integrate with.

It's not always fair to be tagged as a poser just because you appear to be operating out of your culture zone, but it's also not uncommon.

The world needs wannabes.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If you had listened to her, or at least done a cursory survey of her career, you would know that there is much more to the criticism of IA than just CA.

I read some of the write-ups on this, even the article in the Washington Post.

I remember when controversy actually had substance. Eminem had a backlash because they tied his music to the Columbine shooting in '99. He had violent lyrics, homophobic lyrics, insulting lyrics, racist lyrics. He also said alot of stupid shit in public. But then he's there with Marilyn Manson saying parents need to take responsibility for their dysfunctional offspring instead of blaming him. That's controversy.

This? To my mind, folks in this situation are being catty. Nicki Minaj says she wrote her own lyrics. I'd be sooo very proud, especially since my middle school sister was running around last fall talking about her Anaconda - all the kids were. If that's her writing, then it's not her finest moment whatsoever. And I say this with affection because she kills it on "No Love" with August Alsina. That's been my hook since it came out. But a lot of this music is not well-written today. It lacks substance as much as meaning.

The thing with Iggy is that it was different. She's freaking Australian and listening to her nobody could tell. That's what tripped people out about her. That's also why she got her 15 minutes. If she was as bad as they claim, nobody would have said, "Damn, did you hear this chick? She's white!!" That's all I heard in every city I traveled to (and I was in a different city every week for the last year pretty much.) I thought it was fascinating. Same thing with Macklemore. This dude is rapping about $20 and going in a thrift shop - that is the life my friends and I have. Yes, it was - as he says- fucking awesome. People thought it was hilarious, funny and different. That's the appeal.

The Grammys - I feel that. I didn't watch the Oscars because I found it hard to believe they could find not a single person that wasn't white with an outstanding performance in the entire year. That struggle is very real. I hear it, I acknowledge it.

But I'm not going to pretend that some of these people shooting darts at Iggy aren't simultaneously getting a fat paycheck off a decent hook and lyrics that are subpar. That's why rap mostly lost me when T-Pac and Biggie died. Felt like an endless stream of people trying to be them and failing miserably.Then there's all this mess about how she's not authentic. Hell, Drake didn't suffer in the down & dirty either. He's still getting paid, has street cred and a following. These days it seems to me like if you have three dudes throwing some bills the camera and talking about what they want to do to a sista in the studio - the dirtier, the better- instant fame. I don't get it.

But the main issue with Iggy's canceled tour was summed up in the comments section of that article: You can't sellout seats with only 2 or 3 good songs. And you can't do it with a cat parade following you around everywhere. I think this type of treatment is only tolerated this much because she's a female in an industry that is male-dominated. The females don't put people in seats nearly as much as the men do. But everybody loves to watch a catfight on the sidelines.

being able to sound black doesn't replace having to have talent. IA doesn't impress me, not because of her sound, but because like you said, she has a couple of catchy songs and after that there is no there there. And no, it is not fair. There are way too many no talent hacks in the music business who get passes that IA won't and that is because they are males and she isn't. I get that, but here's the deal. She can't keep saying stupid shit and expect to win friends and influence people. She has to actually be able to freestyle not because it is cute but because it is a requirement of job. And she has to manage her image better. I know she's young but she knew that when she got into this. I think she needs to take this tour cancellation as a break to reassess and get herself together. She can make go of this, but not if she doesn't her shit straight.

 

[Malintent]

Did the black community demand she ask permission? If the black community didn't, what's your point?

If you are mad at The Guardian or Feministing, shouldn't they be in the article title?

I did not imply 'the black community' demanded she ask permission. Particular individuals have implied that either she ought not to have done it, or she should only have done it with certain conditions (both Stenberg and this person say that she should vocally and visibly support the black community before she is allowed to 'appropriate' culture).

'Cultural appropriation' is an idea with widespread currency, but it seems to me to be a vapid and intellectually incoherent buzzword, casually fired upon white people who appear to achieve success with aesthetics and ideas that originated in, or are more dominant in, particular cultures (e.g. Azealia Banks having repeated hissy fits over the success of Iggy Azalea).

But why does Azalea being successful in hip hop steal from Banks? Banks even has the hide to say that 'hip-hop' is something she created for herself!

oh, is that like how black people 'appropriated' the term 'Nigger' for their own use. Did they get permission from da massa to do that?

I happen to love fried chicken, watermelon, and I don't mind koolaid so much... Is that "allowed"?

 

[KeepTalking]

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

I saw her perform on SNL, does that count?

 

[zorq]

Why does a person need a 'real' 'connection' to a culture in order to use aspects of (or even the whole kit and kaboodle of) that culture?

If I am completely white but my cousin is half Eskimo, can I wear mukluks? What if my cousin isn't an Eskimo but I went to Alaska, hunted and skinned a seal myself, tanned the leather and crafted them with bone tools myself making a museum quality example of Mukluks, but I never once actually talked to an Eskimo person?

What if I am genetically 100% Inuit but was adopted and raised by white people living in Florida and have never even read a Wikipedia article about Eskimos Alaska, Canada, or even Siberia? Can I wear Mukluks without someone accusing me of cultural appropriation?

There is no such thing as a cultural ownership. There can be no authority on who gets to use what. People who are upset that I am using things that they think are special to them in the wrong way are out of line. If it is cold outside and I want to have warm feet I will put on my mukluks. If I feel selfconscious about my small head and I want to style my hair into an afro, then I will head on down to the salon. It doesn't matter what my apparent or actual connection to either of these cultures may be, I don't deserve any criticism.

If I squint my eyes and mockingly interchange my R's and L's when I talk to an Asian looking person I am being a rude, disrespectful, racist, ass and I deserve a great deal of criticism.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

Why does a person need a 'real' 'connection' to a culture in order to use aspects of (or even the whole kit and kaboodle of) that culture?

When a person wants to be taken seriously by members of said culture. If you don't care about that sort of thing, it doesn't really matter.

I could walk around dressed like a Samurai all day despite the fact that I have little or no training in swordsmanship or martial arts, am not Japanese, and am clearly not a samurai or descended from one. Japanese people who see me walking around dressed like a Samurai will probably roll their eyes and think of me as some kind of poser. (Lord only knows what everyone else thinks). If I don't care what Japanese martial artists think of me, though, then my not having any connection to Japanese culture isn't a problem; I'm just an asshole in a costume for reasons all my own. If, on the other hand, I actually spend the requisite number of years learning Kendo and other forms of swordsmanship, study bushido under a master and spend a few years in Japan being acculturated to Samurai traditions, they would be LESS INCLINED to write me off as a poser since at least I have some connection to it.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why does a person need a 'real' 'connection' to a culture in order to use aspects of (or even the whole kit and kaboodle of) that culture?

If I am completely white but my cousin is half Eskimo, can I wear mukluks? What if my cousin isn't an Eskimo but I went to Alaska, hunted and skinned a seal myself, tanned the leather and crafted them with bone tools myself making a museum quality example of Mukluks, but I never once actually talked to an Eskimo person?

What if I am genetically 100% Inuit but was adopted and raised by white people living in Florida and have never even read a Wikipedia article about Eskimos Alaska, Canada, or even Siberia? Can I wear Mukluks without someone accusing me of cultural appropriation?

There is no such thing as a cultural ownership. There can be no authority on who gets to use what. People who are upset that I am using things that they think are special to them in the wrong way are out of line. If it is cold outside and I want to have warm feet I will put on my mukluks. If I feel selfconscious about my small head and I want to style my hair into an afro, then I will head on down to the salon. It doesn't matter what my apparent or actual connection to either of these cultures may be, I don't deserve any criticism.

If I squint my eyes and mockingly interchange my R's and L's when I talk to an Asian looking person I am being a rude, disrespectful, racist, ass and I deserve a great deal of criticism.

Like I said before, there are cultural appreciation, cultural exchange, and cultural appropriation. There is also Cultural assimilation. These things overlap and people get confused and make mistakes. These things exist inside of a certain history, they exist within the societal hierarchy. If people want to understand or discuss or debate this issue but they want to ignore history, ignore the hierarchy, all that will be had is a shouting match.

BTW, if you think that simply buying or wearing Mukluks is what would anger Eskimos, you don't understand the situation.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Why does a person need a 'real' 'connection' to a culture in order to use aspects of (or even the whole kit and kaboodle of) that culture?

When a person wants to be taken seriously by members of said culture. If you don't care about that sort of thing, it doesn't really matter.

I could walk around dressed like a Samurai all day despite the fact that I have little or no training in swordsmanship or martial arts, am not Japanese, and am clearly not a samurai or descended from one. Japanese people who see me walking around dressed like a Samurai will probably roll their eyes and think of me as some kind of poser. (Lord only knows what everyone else thinks). If I don't care what Japanese martial artists think of me, though, then my not having any connection to Japanese culture isn't a problem; I'm just an asshole in a costume for reasons all my own. If, on the other hand, I actually spend the requisite number of years learning Kendo and other forms of swordsmanship, study bushido under a master and spend a few years in Japan being acculturated to Samurai traditions, they would be LESS INCLINED to write me off as a poser since at least I have some connection to it.

Pretty sure you'd still get eyerolled wearing a samurai outfit all day.

aa