So...We Gonna Talk About This Speech?

[Arctish]

You said it was not possible for a culture to be appropriated

That is correct

and in the next breath said that when it happens

When what the mythicists call 'cultural appropriation' happens, happens.

it's usually a good thing. I was hoping you would clarify what exactly you mean by "cultural appropriation mythicist" but it's still not clear if the mythicist is any different from the realist.

Mythicists call the act of someone copying an idea of a culture they were not raised in 'cultural appropriation' if
a) the copier shares some characteristic of a 'dominant' culture (almost always white skin)
b) the idea being copied 'originated' in a 'minority' culture.

Okay. The definition you are offering is: cultural appropriation mythicists call any act of someone copying an idea of a culture they were not raised in 'cultural appropriation' if the copier is a member of a dominant culture and the idea originates within a minority culture.

So does that mean cultural appropriation realists call some of those acts of copying 'cultural exchange', 'cultural synergy', 'cultural appreciation', and 'cultural emulation' and only call the exploitative ones 'cultural appropriation'?

I am not saying that ideas cannot be copied, just that copying general cultural ideas is not appropriation. However, the acts that the mythicists call 'cultural appropriation' are real acts, they're just not appropriative nor morally wrong.

the culture was given to them freely by their parents and community. Parents impart culture, the community shares it, the descendants pass it along.

I'm sorry, but this is begging the question.

Ask the question, then. Is it "What is culture?"

Culture is a thing that can be given and taken away. It can be shared with others in an exchange of ideas and inventiveness. And it can be pilfered for original concepts and genius. When that happens - when a culture's patrimony is utilized by others without an acknowledgement of where the concepts and inventiveness come from - then the culture's products are said to have been 'appropriated'.

Culture cannot be taken away by copying ideas from it.

I didn't say it could. In fact, I provided an example of culture being taken away that you didn't include in your quote of my post. It had nothing to do with copying from Native American culture, and everything to do with forcefully replacing it with white culture.

You defend the act of cultural appropriation but you don't call it that.

BTW, what do you call it?

Copying the idea of a culture you were not raised in does not need any special term, any more than copying an idea from a culture you were raised in needs a special term.

So, you recognize that "what the mythicists call 'cultural appropriation' happens" but you don't call it anything in particular. You just object to it being called 'cultural appropriation'? Or are you only objecting to people criticizing it?

 

[Metaphor]

Exactly. It happens, and you approve.

No, I just don't condemn all acts of copying a culture (whether or not you were raised in it) as wrong.

What I've said is that copying ideas with no identifiable inventor that bring you happiness is usually either morally neutral or morally desirable.

Okay. The definition you are offering is: cultural appropriation mythicists call any act of someone copying an idea of a culture they were not raised in 'cultural appropriation'.

No, there is the additional element that the copier must share some characteristic of the 'dominant' culture (debatable, see Beyoncé counting as someone of the 'dominant' culture for her 'cultural appropriation' video with Coldplay), and the idea being copied must come from a 'minority' culture. Black people copying ideas from 'white' culture is never called 'cultural appropriation'.

So does that mean cultural appropriation realists call some of those acts of copying 'cultural exchange', 'cultural cross-pollination', 'cultural appreciation', and 'cultural emulation' and only call the exploitative ones 'cultural appropriations'?

There are no cultural appropriation 'realists' because culture cannot be appropriated. Additionally, the acts that cultural appropriation mythicists call 'cultural appropriation' are not in and of themselves morally wrong and in general are either morally neutral or morally desirable.

I didn't say it could. In fact, I provided an example of culture being taken away that you didn't include in your quote of my post.

The example you provided is not cultural appropriation. It was cultural genocide. The constant conflation of forcibly taking away real cultural artifacts and extinguishing culture by government force is not 'appropriation', it is genocide.

Copying an idea is not cultural genocide. It does not deprive the people who were raised in that culture of that culture.

If conflating genocide and forced cultural extermination with the acts that mythicists call 'cultural appropriation' is the only way mythicists can persuade people that cultural appropriation is always bad, then the mythicists have no argument at all.

So, you recognize that "what the mythicists call 'cultural appropriation' happens" but you don't call it anything in particular. You just object to it being called 'cultural appropriation'? Or are you only objecting to people criticizing it?

I object to the self-serving definition of cultural appropriation that the mythicists use (which means that minority cultures can copy whatever they want from cultures they were not raised in and not accused of appropriation), and I object to the characterisation of cultural appropriation being regarded as morally wrong (when it almost never is).

 

[Arctish]

No, I just don't condemn all acts of copying a culture (whether or not you were raised in it) as wrong.

What I've said is that copying ideas with no identifiable inventor that bring you happiness is usually either morally neutral or morally desirable.

Okay. The definition you are offering is: cultural appropriation mythicists call any act of someone copying an idea of a culture they were not raised in 'cultural appropriation'.

No, there is the additional element that the copier must share some characteristic of the 'dominant' culture (debatable, see Beyoncé counting as someone of the 'dominant' culture for her 'cultural appropriation' video with Coldplay), and the idea being copied must come from a 'minority' culture. Black people copying ideas from 'white' culture is never called 'cultural appropriation'.

So does that mean cultural appropriation realists call some of those acts of copying 'cultural exchange', 'cultural cross-pollination', 'cultural appreciation', and 'cultural emulation' and only call the exploitative ones 'cultural appropriations'?

There are no cultural appropriation 'realists' because culture cannot be appropriated.

Well, this is getting less clear by the minute. You are now using the term 'cultural appropriation' in a way that implies it means an entire culture is being stolen, instead of using it the way that every other person in this thread is using it: to indicate a situation in which aspects, concepts, ideas, and unique perspectives that originate within a culture are being used by members of another culture in a way that is exploitative and fails to give due credit to the source.

Additionally, the acts that cultural appropriation mythicists call 'cultural appropriation' are not in and of themselves morally wrong and in general are either morally neutral or morally desirable.

And once again you admit it happens, and that you approve of it happening.

I didn't say it could. In fact, I provided an example of culture being taken away that you didn't include in your quote of my post.

The example you provided is not cultural appropriation. It was cultural genocide. The constant conflation of forcibly taking away real cultural artifacts and extinguishing culture by government force is not 'appropriation', it is genocide.

Copying an idea is not cultural genocide. It does not deprive the people who were raised in that culture of that culture.

If conflating genocide and forced cultural extermination with the acts that mythicists call 'cultural appropriation' is the only way mythicists can persuade people that cultural appropriation is always bad, then the mythicists have no argument at all.

So, you recognize that "what the mythicists call 'cultural appropriation' happens" but you don't call it anything in particular. You just object to it being called 'cultural appropriation'? Or are you only objecting to people criticizing it?

I object to the self-serving definition of cultural appropriation that the mythicists use (which means that minority cultures can copy whatever they want from cultures they were not raised in and not accused of appropriation), and I object to the characterisation of cultural appropriation being regarded as morally wrong (when it almost never is).

If you think that the mythicists are employing a double standard, why not just say so? You approve of the act. You certainly don't think it's morally wrong. Why not just say "Members of minorities can engage in what's called 'cultural appropriation', too, and I'm cool with that."

I don't understand the distinction you're making between mythicists and people who are describing a real thing that actually happens, much less why you object to it being called what it's called, especially since you don't have another name for it.

 

[Metaphor]

Well, this is getting less clear by the minute. You are now using the term 'cultural appropriation' in a way that implies it means an entire culture is being stolen,

First, I am not the one that conflates cultural genocide with cultural appropriation; that's what the mythicists do. All I've ever said was copying a cultural idea with no identifiable inventor is not stealing it. The mythicists however do think it's 'stealing', and they bring up actual genocide, intellectual property law and vague allusions to 'erasure' to justify their language.

instead of using it the way that every other person in this thread is using it: to indicate a situation in which aspects, concepts, ideas, and unique perspectives that originate within a culture are being used by members of another culture in a way that is exploitative and fails to give due credit to the source.

But the mythicists never explain why it is 'exploitative' and why there is any kind of moral obligation to give 'due credit' for an idea with no identifiable inventor.

And once again you admit it happens, and that you approve of it happening.

"It happens" millions of times every day. Every single time you copy an idea from a culture (even one you were raised in) you are culturally appropriating. It's precisely because it happens all the time everywhere that the narrower set of circumstances that mythicists want to decry are so absurd.

If you think that the mythicists are employing a double standard, why not just say so?

Well of course they are, it's already been said many times.

You approve of the act. You certainly don't think it's morally wrong. Why not just say "Members of minorities can engage in what's called 'cultural appropriation', too, and I'm cool with that."

Well, members of minorities cannot do it under the self-serving definition of the mythicists (but again, see Beyoncé for 'well maybe they can sometimes' if it's another minority culture).

I don't understand the distinction you're making between mythicists and people who are describing a real thing that actually happens, much less why you object to it being called what it's called, especially since you don't have another name for it.

For the same reason I object to female doctors being called 'woman doctors' whilst men are not called 'man doctors', the same reason I object to the heterosexist implications of 'openly gay' when every single heterosexual I know is 'openly straight' but they're not labelled for being so.

Appropriation is a loaded word: it implies theft, it implies moral wrongdoing, it implies that someone is being rightfully deprived of something. 'Cultural appropriation' is never that.

 

[Arctish]

Metaphor, please define the term mythicist. I'm trying to figure out who the heck you are referring to, but the only distinction I can see between what you call a mythicist and what someone else might call a realist is your opinion of their views. If you don't like what they say, they're mythicists regardless of whether they are describing something real.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor, please define the term mythicist. I'm trying to figure out who the heck you are referring to, but the only distinction I can see between what you call a mythicist and what someone else might call a realist is your opinion of their views. If you don't like what they say, they're mythicists regardless of whether they are describing something real.

How about an analogy: there are homosexuals-are-sinners mythicists. These people believe that there is an action (homosexual behaviour) that offends God, and offending God is a sin.

Now, homosexuals are of course real people and they engage in homosexual behaviour. The myth is that homosexual behaviour is offensive to God, which can't be true (because there is no God).

So, the cultural appropriation mythicists point to a real phenomenon (that people are inspired by elements of cultures they were not raised in), but they imagine (that is, the myth) is that this is somehow morally problematic, which it is not. They imagine that by screaming 'cultural appropriation' that they have won the argument; that this is sufficient. The same goes for the homosexuals-as-sinners mythicists. They believe that by claiming homosexuals qua homosexuals are sinners, they have won the argument.

 

[J842P]

Metaphor, please define the term mythicist. I'm trying to figure out who the heck you are referring to, but the only distinction I can see between what you call a mythicist and what someone else might call a realist is your opinion of their views. If you don't like what they say, they're mythicists regardless of whether they are describing something real.

Obviously the distinction is between what people believe accurately describe a certain situation. How much more banal of a point could you possibly make? It's the equivalent of saying "well, that's just your opinion." No shit. It's his opinion that he has backed with an argument, an argument that hasn't been, to my mind, effectively countered nor has a coherent defense of the idea of cultural appropriation, as it is typically used, been presented.

So instead of going on and on about how "it's just your opinion that they are mythicists," perhaps you could try to address the actual arguments?

 

[Arctish]

Metaphor, please define the term mythicist. I'm trying to figure out who the heck you are referring to, but the only distinction I can see between what you call a mythicist and what someone else might call a realist is your opinion of their views. If you don't like what they say, they're mythicists regardless of whether they are describing something real.

How about an analogy: there are homosexuals-are-sinners mythicists. These people believe that there is an action (homosexual behaviour) that offends God, and offending God is a sin.

Now, homosexuals are of course real people and they engage in homosexual behaviour. The myth is that homosexual behaviour is offensive to God, which can't be true (because there is no God).

So, the cultural appropriation mythicists point to a real phenomenon (that people are inspired by elements of cultures they were not raised in), but they imagine (that is, the myth) is that this is somehow morally problematic, which it is not.

That's quite an assertion. They imagine it's a problem, not 'they genuinely see it as being morally wrong because it violates the moral principles of their culture'? It's not a problem because you have no problem with it, therefore anyone who has a problem with it is simply imagining things?

They imagine that by screaming 'cultural appropriation' that they have won the argument; that this is sufficient. The same goes for the homosexuals-as-sinners mythicists. They believe that by claiming homosexuals qua homosexuals are sinners, they have won the argument.

You are acting as though calling someone a 'cultural appropriation mythicist' does the same thing.

 

[Arctish]

Metaphor, please define the term mythicist. I'm trying to figure out who the heck you are referring to, but the only distinction I can see between what you call a mythicist and what someone else might call a realist is your opinion of their views. If you don't like what they say, they're mythicists regardless of whether they are describing something real.

Obviously the distinction is between what people believe accurately describe a certain situation. How much more banal of a point could you possibly make? It's the equivalent of saying "well, that's just your opinion." No shit. It's his opinion that he has backed with an argument, an argument that hasn't been, to my mind, effectively countered nor has a coherent defense of the idea of cultural appropriation, as it is typically used, been presented.

So instead of going on and on about how "it's just your opinion that they are mythicists," perhaps you could try to address the actual arguments?

I'm trying to. But before I can address the actual argument I have to understand what it is.

Metaphor agrees there is a thing some people call 'cultural appropriation' that really does happen. I agree with him.

Metaphor approves of the act that some people call 'cultural appropriation', does not approve of the name, but offers no other name for it. I approve of cultural exchange, cultural cross-pollination, and cultural admiration, but not cultural appropriation. I believe the source of ideas, arts, and concepts should be acknowledged and respected, especially if the source is a denigrated culture, because doing so properly values the source of that which enriches the recipient. I don't see how that makes me a mythicist but if I understand Metaphor's use of the term correctly I guess he'd call me one.

If there's more to his argument I haven't uncovered it yet, mostly because right now our conversation has stalled over what I suspect is a rhetorical flourish, not an actual argument.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

For the cultural appropriation mythicists,

So you're just going to repeat the talking point over and over again until it sticks.

Don'y worry. It won't.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Well I could conceivably be member of "some people who post here". Also we are always at loggerheads.

Second, I know a lot of black people. I mean I have 35 living first cousins alone, all of them black. I somehow I don't think you know as many black people as as I do.

I never imagined I did.

Third, when i say I know a lot of black people, i mean know their parents, grandparents, great-grand parents, spouses, children, I have eaten in their homes, slept over in their homes, had them eat and sleep in mine, I was with them when a loved one passed away and when their children were born, know when they snuck their first drink, their first smoke, their first kiss and who they were with.

You are shifting goalposts now. Originally it was "have ever seen even seen black people other than on TV" and now it's all these criteria. Given all these restrictions, I know hardly any people period.

What do you mean?

I was going by your initial criterion, "other than on TV". Hence my tongue-in-cheek reference to black strip clubs (although in reality the dancers in regular $10/dance clubs are quite diverse themselves).

So you don't really know a lot of black people? Thought so.

 

[Toni]

Metaphor, please define the term mythicist. I'm trying to figure out who the heck you are referring to, but the only distinction I can see between what you call a mythicist and what someone else might call a realist is your opinion of their views. If you don't like what they say, they're mythicists regardless of whether they are describing something real.

How about an analogy: there are homosexuals-are-sinners mythicists. These people believe that there is an action (homosexual behaviour) that offends God, and offending God is a sin.

Now, homosexuals are of course real people and they engage in homosexual behaviour. The myth is that homosexual behaviour is offensive to God, which can't be true (because there is no God).

So, the cultural appropriation mythicists point to a real phenomenon (that people are inspired by elements of cultures they were not raised in), but they imagine (that is, the myth) is that this is somehow morally problematic, which it is not. They imagine that by screaming 'cultural appropriation' that they have won the argument; that this is sufficient. The same goes for the homosexuals-as-sinners mythicists. They believe that by claiming homosexuals qua homosexuals are sinners, they have won the argument.

That's your definition?

I don't think that definition means what you think it means. I also don't think that myth means what you think it means. Hint: A myth is not an opinion you disagree with.

In a number of such threads, people have offered examples and evidence of genuine harm that has been done by cultural appropriation.

What is your evidence that no harm is done when someone engages in cultural appropriation? Other than your opinion that it's not a problem.

 

[Metaphor]

That's quite an assertion. They imagine it's a problem, not 'they genuinely see it as being morally wrong because it violates the moral principles of their culture'?

Of course it's imagined. My homosexuality violates the moral principles of the culture I was raised in (Roman Catholic), but that doesn't mean my homosexuality is wrong. It's imagined to be wrong, but it is not, in fact, wrong.

It's not a problem because you have no problem with it, therefore anyone who has a problem with it is simply imagining things?

It's not a problem because being inspired by ideas and creating something is a moral good. Copying and reimagining good ideas is generally a moral good, and the people who would want to shame and restrict the copying and reimagining of good ideas are morally abhorrent.

You are acting as though calling someone a 'cultural appropriation mythicist' does the same thing.

No: I am not required to believe in the dogmas of the mythicists until they present evidence. But they do not present evidence; they simply expect me to believe that it is morally wrong for somebody who shares some characteristic with a 'dominant' culture to copy ideas from a 'minority' culture.

I was raised in a Catholic household. I know what it's like for people who believe ludicrous fantasies to tell me what I ought to feel guilty about. But I reject Catholicism, and I reject the religion of the mythicists.

 

[Metaphor]

In a number of such threads, people have offered examples and evidence of genuine harm that has been done by cultural appropriation.

Not once. Not fucking once.

I have had people tell me that genocide is a harm (no fucking duh).

I have had people tell me that the stealing of cultural artifacts is harm (no fucking duh).

I have had people tell me that discriminating against people because of their race is a harm (no fucking duh).

The mythicists conflate the above abhorrent actions with 'cultural appropriation', which is all the evidence you need that the mythicists have no case at fucking all.

What is your evidence that no harm is done when someone engages in cultural appropriation? Other than your opinion that it's not a problem.

I don't need evidence that cultural appropriation is not harmful. The mythicists need evidence that it is. They then need further evidence that the net harm from cultural appropriation is positive: that benefit does not outweigh the harm.

I don't need evidence to disprove your religion in order not to believe in it. You need evidence to convince me to believe in it.

 

[Metaphor]

Obviously the distinction is between what people believe accurately describe a certain situation. How much more banal of a point could you possibly make? It's the equivalent of saying "well, that's just your opinion." No shit. It's his opinion that he has backed with an argument, an argument that hasn't been, to my mind, effectively countered nor has a coherent defense of the idea of cultural appropriation, as it is typically used, been presented.

So instead of going on and on about how "it's just your opinion that they are mythicists," perhaps you could try to address the actual arguments?

I'm trying to. But before I can address the actual argument I have to understand what it is.

Metaphor agrees there is a thing some people call 'cultural appropriation' that really does happen. I agree with him.

Metaphor approves of the act that some people call 'cultural appropriation', does not approve of the name, but offers no other name for it. I approve of cultural exchange, cultural cross-pollination, and cultural admiration, but not cultural appropriation. I believe the source of ideas, arts, and concepts should be acknowledged and respected, especially if the source is a denigrated culture, because doing so properly values the source of that which enriches the recipient. I don't see how that makes me a mythicist but if I understand Metaphor's use of the term correctly I guess he'd call me one.

If there's more to his argument I haven't uncovered it yet, mostly because right now our conversation has stalled over what I suspect is a rhetorical flourish, not an actual argument.

Is it morally wrong for white women to twerk? Because I assure you, the cultural appropriation mythicists on tumblr and twitter do think it's wrong.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't need evidence that cultural appropriation is not harmful. The mythicists need evidence that it is. They then need further evidence that the net harm from cultural appropriation is positive: that benefit does not outweigh the harm.

First, since this really boils down to an argument over aesthetics and feelings, there is no way to show "net benefits" because there are no agreed upon metrics on measuring aesthetics or feelings. Second, the argument against appropriating aspects of cultural is really simply a request for respect for that particular cultural aspect. Now, that request may or may not justified depending on the circumstances. The fact that some requests are unreasonable or undeserved does not mean every request is unreasonable or undeserved. However, you are claiming every request is unreasonable and/or undeserved.

There is no need to denigrate these "mythicists". I agree some of these claims are ridiculous and I agree some are unreasonable. But all one has to do is simply ignore those claims or say "this claim is unreasonable" or "this claim is ridiculous". Instead, in this thread, we have posters going the unnecessary extra steps of saying all cultural appropriation is a myth, and that cultural appropriation is an attack on white people!

I don't need evidence to disprove your religion in order not to believe in it. You need evidence to convince me to believe in it.

True, but they don't need evidence to have their beliefs. In fact, belief requires the lack of evidence - otherwise it is knowledge not belief. And, you don't need evidence to avoid having a tantrum about the request to believe.

 

[Ford]

Your effort to make this a thing is going nowhere. It isn't a myth. White people ripped off black culture and claimed it as their own.

First sentence of Wikipedia article on  Blues.

Blues is a genre[2] and musical form originated by African Americans in the Deep South of the United States around the end of the 19th century. The genre developed from roots in African-American work songs and European-American folk music.[1]

It also notes

Typical instruments
Guitar bass guitar piano harmonica upright bass drums saxophone vocals trumpet cornet trombone

These have been mostly developed in Europe.

So why is one "ripping off" and the other isn't? Face it, cultures influence each other.

So in addition to not knowing anything about women and black people you also don't know anything about music. I guess you think that since Thomas Edison invented the phonograph player, he deserves credit for creating hip hop.