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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

What 'opportunities'?

It depends on the scenario under discussion and whether the scenario is a valid gripe. I'd start by finding an actual, obvious group of oppressed people that YOU are going to agree is oppressed. So who would that be? What concrete thing do they produce? Is an oppressor group of other people trying to produce the same thing? Are persons buying that other oppressor groups' products?

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

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

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

Straw men, maybe? This thread makes an implied claim that cultural appropriation is an incoherent concept. The best way to test this claim isn't to find a couple of invalid examples. Instead, it is to find scenarios meeting the prerequisites (as I listed above) and therefore test if cultural appropriation makes sense and/or is present in the context where it is supposed to exist. Anecdotal evidence isn't acceptable to prove your claim. Furthermore, what you need is to look for evidence of absence not absence of evidence.

 

[prideandfall]

Well, one bit of harm is how they got you all up in a spittle over it..

mmmm. spittle.

The issue (obviously) is not that they have an opinion.

of course not - the issue is that their opinions as they have thus far presented them are malformed and, quite frankly, uproariously stupid.

The issue is that they are trying to call it racism under the guise of 'cultural appropriation'. the topic (in case you want to join the actual discussion), is about what cultural appropriation really is, if it is even a valid thing to be upset about, and if using mythological characters in a modern book is somehow falling under that category of thing...

which is exactly what i asked, and which so far no less than 4 people have completely ignored because i'm a snarky bastard and it's easier to cry about my having used mean-man words than it is to just answer the question.

what actual harm or detriment has people crying about cultural appropriation done to anyone, anywhere, ever?
when has a feminist writing on a blog ever gotten a janitor in wisconsin fired for being a man?

the whole "lots of men on freethought are pearl clutching nancy boys over the idea of women and/or minorities somewhere complaining" thing is pretty rote as well as exceedingly boring, not only for what a predictable cliche it's become but also because it's incredibly trite while also being perfectly legitimate because people are entitled to have opinions, no matter how pants-on-head retarded they are.
what i am asking for is some shred of legitimacy to the claim that people complaining about cultural appropriation are ruining human civilization as we know it to the extent that we really REALLY need 2-3 threads per week pointing to some article on some myspace page somebody wrote and having the usual gang of mates here pointing their fingers and going "SEE??? SEE? THEY ARE DESTROYING HUMANITY!!"

clearly this merry band sees an extinction level event hidden behind the insidious ramblings of a handful of unknowns, so there must be heaps of evidence laying around showing how this is damaging to the ozone or layer or something.... right?

 

[Jarhyn]

mmmm. spittle.

The issue (obviously) is not that they have an opinion.

of course not - the issue is that their opinions as they have thus far presented them are malformed and, quite frankly, uproariously stupid.

The issue is that they are trying to call it racism under the guise of 'cultural appropriation'. the topic (in case you want to join the actual discussion), is about what cultural appropriation really is, if it is even a valid thing to be upset about, and if using mythological characters in a modern book is somehow falling under that category of thing...

which is exactly what i asked, and which so far no less than 4 people have completely ignored because i'm a snarky bastard and it's easier to cry about my having used mean-man words than it is to just answer the question.

what actual harm or detriment has people crying about cultural appropriation done to anyone, anywhere, ever?
when has a feminist writing on a blog ever gotten a janitor in wisconsin fired for being a man?

the whole "lots of men on freethought are pearl clutching nancy boys over the idea of women and/or minorities somewhere complaining" thing is pretty rote as well as exceedingly boring, not only for what a predictable cliche it's become but also because it's incredibly trite while also being perfectly legitimate because people are entitled to have opinions, no matter how pants-on-head retarded they are.
what i am asking for is some shred of legitimacy to the claim that people complaining about cultural appropriation are ruining human civilization as we know it to the extent that we really REALLY need 2-3 threads per week pointing to some article on some myspace page somebody wrote and having the usual gang of mates here pointing their fingers and going "SEE??? SEE? THEY ARE DESTROYING HUMANITY!!"

clearly this merry band sees an extinction level event hidden behind the insidious ramblings of a handful of unknowns, so there must be heaps of evidence laying around showing how this is damaging to the ozone or layer or something.... right?

You ask what negative externalities are caused by these tantrums. I would liken it to being on an airplane or in a bus, and having a squealing, bawling child throwing a tantrum. It causes headaches, and disrupts the ability of those others captive within that environment from engaging in real conversations about other things or even THIS thing. It is not unlike how every thread about rape on these boards gets crowded out and derailed into a discussion about false rape accusations.

The excessive vomiting of stupidity is a particular form of pollution that confounds the discourse on ethics, especially as it relates to race and culture.

Of course, when CHILDREN throw tantrums, the best course of action is often to do nothing and hope they learn. If they do not, other options exist to discourage the behavior, but the biggest rule is that you never let children break you with a tantrum.

 

[fromderinside]

This is the fringe.

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

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

And knowledge needs no permission to be appropriated.

Damn. You are much abused. Seems to me that when you're spot on you should be commented, perhaps even congratulated.

Cultural appropriation as as untermenche and Bronzeage - not going to see those two names paired often - have done, untermenche with spot (of tea) on analysis and Bronzeage with his spot of tea example are normal human cultural behavior and, as as suggested, should be encouraged.

Though, when one culture takes habits and fashion from another and popularizes it as American suburban whites do with hoodies and big pants butt exposure to glorify a negative perception, dangerous, its nothing but ugly, and I think, a measured action, like the confederate flag, is employed to keep white fear up and the other culture down.

 

[prideandfall]

You ask what negative externalities are caused by these tantrums. I would liken it to being on an airplane or in a bus, and having a squealing, bawling child throwing a tantrum. It causes headaches, and disrupts the ability of those others captive within that environment from engaging in real conversations about other things or even THIS thing. It is not unlike how every thread about rape on these boards gets crowded out and derailed into a discussion about false rape accusations.

The excessive vomiting of stupidity is a particular form of pollution that confounds the discourse on ethics, especially as it relates to race and culture.

i'm not generally disputing anything you say here but i do have two major points i'd like to address:
1. in your example, it's something thrust upon you that you can't avoid or escape, so i don't think that even in general principle the comparison is analogous.
if feminists were sitting on your front lawn at 6:30am screaming that feathers are stealing from their cultural heritage and you had to chase them off with a garden hose to get any sleep, i would be 100% behind what an uproar some people try to cause about this sort of thing.
however, it's not... you have to kind of go out of your way to even find out that these gripes exist, much less discover what they are.
i get that to some extent there's an issue of pop-cultural saturation if you're seeing reports or references to it constantly, but this definitely one of those situations where (perhaps ironically much like the people Metaphor and others are complaining about) it's pretty much self-induced outrage.

2. if half a dozen people here posted 2-3 threads every week that babies on planes was a national emergency that was eroding the fabric of our society, that would be... well, just as fucking weird as this neurotic obsession these right-wing SJWs here on the freethought have with the existence of other SJWs.

 

[rousseau]

This is one of those rare times where I tend to get a little less 'left'.

Having gone to university and spent about a year around liberal-arts majors, I've seen dozens of cultural terms and concepts thrown around, likely learned from some counter-cultural source that's taken as gospel, and not measured against anything objective.

I can't pretend to fully understand what's meant by cultural appropriation, but I imagine it's another one of those loosely understood memes that gets passed around groups of privileged college students.

In their defense, though, literally no one, anywhere has any idea what they're talking about, so they might as well get a pass too.

 

[Nexus]

The best way to test this claim isn't to find a couple of invalid examples. Instead, it is to find scenarios meeting the prerequisites (as I listed above) and therefore test if cultural appropriation makes sense and/or is present in the context where it is supposed to exist.

I just looked everywhere I could to find a legitimate cultural appropriation and couldn't find any example. Since you believe its a real phenomenon why don't you provide some examples to support your assertion that it exists.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

The best way to test this claim isn't to find a couple of invalid examples. Instead, it is to find scenarios meeting the prerequisites (as I listed above) and therefore test if cultural appropriation makes sense and/or is present in the context where it is supposed to exist.

I just looked everywhere I could to find a legitimate cultural appropriation and couldn't find any example. Since you believe its a real phenomenon why don't you provide some examples to support your assertion that it exists.

I'm agnostic and playing devil's advocate.

 

[Horatio Parker]

I think if I read fiction portraying say Alabama shrimp trawlers, Savile Row tailors or NASCAR drivers and then found out members of said groups regarded that fiction as tripe, I'd like to know why.

I watched "Pawn Sacrifice" recently, and read critiques claiming that Toby Maguires depiction of Bobby Fischers mental state was exaggerated. I don't know who's right, but prefer knowing to not knowing about the objections.

I've never read any Knowling and have no plans to, but if I were to, I'd like to know that some NAs object to her reworking of NA spirituality. Once again, native people and their traditions are being defined by others.

It seems more "dangerous", a ridiculous word in this context, to not be aware of these objections than to be subjected to them. Imagining some type of censuring culture police is just a dark authoritarian projection.

 

[Toni]

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

Perhaps because there is a difference: while some Asian groups have been treated abominably in the US, there was no attempt at genocide or cultural obliteration of Japanese, Chinese, Korean or SE Asians in the US.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think a line needs to be drawn between copying ideas and practices because they are seen in a positive light, admired and worth copying, and mocking a culture (any culture) and by extension people who are shoehorned into it. As an Asian person, I take no offence when white people learn martial arts or use chopsticks etc. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with them seeing it as cool or fun or exotic. But if they do it in a mocking way, stretch their eyes out while squinting and make silly noises meant to sound like Asian languages... that is rude.

Okay, but what if they're just ignorant? Perpetuating ignorance and indoctrinating their children with stereotypes of Asians and Asian culture who then go on to do the same thing out of ignorance? From your (and possibly other Asians) perspectives it might seem rude, but it might not be intentional. It still can be harmful. Look at, say, Mickey Rooney doing yellow-face (squinty eyes and fake buck teeth) in Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's so many people's favorite movie...so many of the right kinds of people...but anyway, how much of this usage of stereotypes is overlapping to the idea of cultural appropriation? I think Asians were sorta almost kinda oppressed at the time of the film--at least they were second-class citizens--but what was it that was appropriated by first-class citizens? Was it cultural identity?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think a line needs to be drawn between copying ideas and practices because they are seen in a positive light, admired and worth copying, and mocking a culture (any culture) and by extension people who are shoehorned into it. As an Asian person, I take no offence when white people learn martial arts or use chopsticks etc. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with them seeing it as cool or fun or exotic. But if they do it in a mocking way, stretch their eyes out while squinting and make silly noises meant to sound like Asian languages... that is rude.

Okay, but what if they're just ignorant? Perpetuating ignorance and indoctrinating their children with stereotypes of Asians and Asian culture who then go on to do the same thing out of ignorance? From your (and possibly other Asians) perspectives it might seem rude, but it might not be intentional. It still can be harmful. Look at, say, Mickey Rooney doing yellow-face (squinty eyes and fake buck teeth) in Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's so many people's favorite movie...so many of the right kinds of people...but anyway, how much of this usage of stereotypes is overlapping to the idea of cultural appropriation? I think Asians were sorta almost kinda oppressed at the time of the film--at least they were second-class citizens--but what was it that was appropriated by first-class citizens? Was it cultural identity?

I thought my post made it clear that I do not believe in "cultural missapropriation". I was talking about straight out mockery, rudeness, and racism. We need to see the line between the two.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Perhaps because there is a difference: while some Asian groups have been treated abominably in the US, there was no attempt at genocide or cultural obliteration of Japanese, Chinese, Korean or SE Asians in the US.

Pardon? What does what you write above have to do with what you quoted of mine? You leave me thoroughly confused.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, but what if they're just ignorant? Perpetuating ignorance and indoctrinating their children with stereotypes of Asians and Asian culture who then go on to do the same thing out of ignorance? From your (and possibly other Asians) perspectives it might seem rude, but it might not be intentional. It still can be harmful. Look at, say, Mickey Rooney doing yellow-face (squinty eyes and fake buck teeth) in Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's so many people's favorite movie...so many of the right kinds of people...but anyway, how much of this usage of stereotypes is overlapping to the idea of cultural appropriation? I think Asians were sorta almost kinda oppressed at the time of the film--at least they were second-class citizens--but what was it that was appropriated by first-class citizens? Was it cultural identity?

I thought my post made it clear that I do not believe in "cultural missapropriation".

Your post was clear and so was mine. You don't have to believe in god, for example, to answer how much overlap there is between [concepts of] god and conservatism, to recognize that Asians were second class citizens, to imagine that something could have been taken away identity-wise by a majority with power to use the language and "crowd out" the concepts, and you could always argue a specific counter-point?

 

[Juma]

To me the poodles kernel is this: look at the purpose, not the action. Wether it is wrong to use items of other cultures depends on why you do it.

 

[Bronzeage]

I think a line needs to be drawn between copying ideas and practices because they are seen in a positive light, admired and worth copying, and mocking a culture (any culture) and by extension people who are shoehorned into it. As an Asian person, I take no offence when white people learn martial arts or use chopsticks etc. There is nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with them seeing it as cool or fun or exotic. But if they do it in a mocking way, stretch their eyes out while squinting and make silly noises meant to sound like Asian languages... that is rude.

Okay, but what if they're just ignorant? Perpetuating ignorance and indoctrinating their children with stereotypes of Asians and Asian culture who then go on to do the same thing out of ignorance? From your (and possibly other Asians) perspectives it might seem rude, but it might not be intentional. It still can be harmful. Look at, say, Mickey Rooney doing yellow-face (squinty eyes and fake buck teeth) in Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's so many people's favorite movie...so many of the right kinds of people...but anyway, how much of this usage of stereotypes is overlapping to the idea of cultural appropriation? I think Asians were sorta almost kinda oppressed at the time of the film--at least they were second-class citizens--but what was it that was appropriated by first-class citizens? Was it cultural identity?

The idea that Breakfast at Tiffany's is so many people's favorite movie is a stereotype of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant urban gay men.

 

[dismal]

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

Perhaps because there is a difference: while some Asian groups have been treated abominably in the US, there was no attempt at genocide or cultural obliteration of Japanese, Chinese, Korean or SE Asians in the US.

You say this as if it definitively decides something, but I have no idea why this matters to your argument.

Can you take us through the logic that carries us from:

1) Members of Group X were treated badly
.
.
.
.
99) People who are not of Group X may not borrow from or reference the culture of Group X

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Okay, but what if they're just ignorant? Perpetuating ignorance and indoctrinating their children with stereotypes of Asians and Asian culture who then go on to do the same thing out of ignorance? From your (and possibly other Asians) perspectives it might seem rude, but it might not be intentional. It still can be harmful. Look at, say, Mickey Rooney doing yellow-face (squinty eyes and fake buck teeth) in Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's so many people's favorite movie...so many of the right kinds of people...but anyway, how much of this usage of stereotypes is overlapping to the idea of cultural appropriation? I think Asians were sorta almost kinda oppressed at the time of the film--at least they were second-class citizens--but what was it that was appropriated by first-class citizens? Was it cultural identity?

The idea that Breakfast at Tiffany's is so many people's favorite movie is a stereotype of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant urban gay men.

Okay, but Gone With the Wind is up there?

Prologue in movie:

There was a land of Cavaliers and Cotton Fields called the Old South... Here in this pretty world Gallantry took its last bow... Here was the last ever to be seen of Knights and their Ladies Fair, of Master and of Slave... Look for it only in books, for it is no more than a dream remembered. A Civilization gone with the wind...

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Perhaps because there is a difference: while some Asian groups have been treated abominably in the US, there was no attempt at genocide or cultural obliteration of Japanese, Chinese, Korean or SE Asians in the US.

You say this as if it definitively decides something, but I have no idea why this matters to your argument.

Can you take us through the logic that carries us from:

1) Members of Group X were treated badly
.
.
.
.
99) People who are not of Group X may not borrow from or reference the culture of Group X

I wouldn't characterize that as a fair translation of the definition of what is alleged to be cultural appropriation. Perhaps modify it to the following:

1) Members of Group X are oppressed in context of society where Group Y is dominant
.
.
.
M)Dominant Group Y does Z which is some kind of "appropriation"
.
.
M+N) Therefore, people in Group X are harmed [emotionally or otherwise] when that happens.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Perhaps because there is a difference: while some Asian groups have been treated abominably in the US, there was no attempt at genocide or cultural obliteration of Japanese, Chinese, Korean or SE Asians in the US.

You say this as if it definitively decides something, but I have no idea why this matters to your argument.

Can you take us through the logic that carries us from:

1) Members of Group X were treated badly
.
.
.
.
99) People who are not of Group X may not borrow from or reference the culture of Group X

dismal, what has been the actual history of white people in the United States their treatment of non-white cultures? Answer that question honestly, and you might, MIGHT, see how you start off with group X being treated badly, and end up people being upset with the appropriation of the culture of group X, particularly by members of the group who treated group X badly.

You probably won't see why, but give it a shot.

 

[dismal]

You say this as if it definitively decides something, but I have no idea why this matters to your argument.

Can you take us through the logic that carries us from:

1) Members of Group X were treated badly
.
.
.
.
99) People who are not of Group X may not borrow from or reference the culture of Group X

dismal, what has been the actual history of white people in the United States their treatment of non-white cultures? Answer that question honestly, and you might, MIGHT, see how you start off with group X being treated badly, and end up people being upset with the appropriation of the culture of group X, particularly by members of the group who treated group X badly.

You probably won't see why, but give it a shot.

I don't have the slightest problem acknowledging that people of some cultures have historically been treated better in the US than others, and that in other parts of the world different people of different cultures have been treated better or worse.

But, no, I do not see the logic of how this effects the rightness or wrongness of various cultures adopting things from other cultures which is why i asked for someone to lay out that logic.

You did not try to do that. You seem to have tried to claim I am incapable of understanding it because I am not from a culture that could. Not a proud moment for a board dedicated to logic and reason.

Maybe you would like to try again. As a not atypical American with very assorted immigrant ancestry I am a product of many cultures.

Perhaps you could explain why I, given some Italian immigrant ancestry, am apparently bestowed with the power to speak for all Italian Americans who are aggrieved when Wasp-Americans eat our pizza and meatball subs but contrariwise have no right to be aggrieved when the Irish eat pizza because they were treated worse. Also, given I am part Irish can I be aggrieved when Italian-Americans and Wasp-Americans drink our green beer on St Patricks day and cheer for Notre Dame?

The logic please, just the logic. Shorn of attempts to downplay my victim status or upplay your authority to arbitrate such things solely based on your superior victim status.