I think "cultural appropriation" doesn't really exist. If you think a culture as the expression of the existence of some human beings since we all are human beings we can find expression of our own humanity in every culture.

We seem to agree in the broader aspects of this topic. I’m not overly fond of the term as its taken on a quite different life of its own in the pop-culture of debating (see my comment below)

But cultural practices or artefacts that don't 'fit' in well with a modern connected capitalist super-culture can be vulnerable or at least seen as vulnerable by their cultural guardians to assimilation/degradation.

Those that do fit in well are vulnerable too. There is a common pattern in cultures where the unique becomes pop-culture and then this leads to a strange kind of renaissance and/or retro trend longing for some golden age. Eventually something new explodes onto the scene and the pattern repeats.

In the above sense I’m for isolationism as much as I am for globalism. I don’t see how humanity stands a chance without systematically shedding its skin every so often - only sorry part in the story is to lull in the shadow of the foreboding monolith of our future and wheedle out the best kind of existence we can as we see fit.

Thanks

Yet it's being used as a comical outfit and the culture is deprecated and not respected with improper use of the costume. — ssu

Miss Finland was wearing it in a comical context? (Just curious--was she in a comedy movie, a comedy skit show, something like that?)

Also, it makes no sense to say that something is being deprecated and not respected just because it's set in a different context and/or it's not made by particular people/in a particular way.

Cannibals in Papua New Guinea can be falsely portrayed, and have been, as blood thirsty savages who kill people to eat them. — I like sushi

If someone is asserting something in a nonfiction context, and you believe they're wrong about it, then you just assert what you take to be the correct claim in counterdistinction to it. What's the big deal? People claim things people believe are wrong all the time, about everything it's possible to make claims about. You just state your counter-claim.

If it's a fiction context, "falsely portrayed" doesn't apply. It's fiction.

Because of the kind of misunderstandings as above such views of cannibal activity can be misapplied to others who practice cannibalism for various other reasons. — I like sushi

That doesn't make any sense to me. What's the "misapplication"?

3) Misuse is simple enough. This is by misnaming/misrepresenting a cultural item or tradition. There are multiple examples of this you can probably think of yourself. — I like sushi

So misuse isn't actually another idea? It's just another term for "misrepresentation"?

I cannot think for you. Take it as is; if not go elsewhere with your pedantry.

I’m not trying to be nasty here, it’s just a small courtesy to let you know if I don’t reply to comments directed my way it isn’t because I didn’t read them.

I cannot think for you. Take it as is; if not go elsewhere with your pedantry.

I’m not trying to be nasty here, it’s just a small courtesy to let you know if I don’t reply to comments directed my way it isn’t because I didn’t read them. — I like sushi

Ditto on that. :up:

I cannot think for you. — I like sushi

Likewise, obviously.

There's the water at any rate. (for Baden, too.)

Miss Finland was wearing it in a comical context? (Just curious--was she in a comedy movie, a comedy skit show, something like that?) — Terrapin Station

Well, in order to move on, here's the outrageous she had to apologize for. No, it wasn't a comedy skit, but a dance act she was training for (and a picture from not even the actual show act):

Cultural appropriation scandal (among many):

Luckily the outfit wasn't worn in the actual competition.

And of course, some non-Sami have thought wearing the costume would even be a show of respect to the Sami or to show that one is from Lapland, but in our times of cultural appropriation, not so. Hence hopefully such pictures as these youngsters dressing like this in Northern Finland (likely celebrating end of school) is an issue of the past:


Another cultural appropriation scandal, this time when an alpine-skier athlete from Northern Finland decided to wear similarly a Sami look-a-like costume at her last skiing competition. She was from Rovaniemi, Lapland. This is the way the activists referred to this:

She apologized too.

But what is evident, if you listen to the vocal activists, is that the discourse is directly copied 100% from English speaking World, because this is the narrative that woke people use and they can relate to it easily. Hence they talk about colonization. Even with the referral to Finns being the 'white majority'. It works, you know.

Would this copying below be cultural appropriation itself, I don't know, likely not.


Anyway, enough of Sami dresses.

Yes, cultural appropriation is mostly a rubbish concept.

There's an argument to be made that mocking or denigrating the symbols of another culture is unethical, but the notion that one specific group of people owns the intellectual rights to a certain look or recipe or process is unpractical in the extreme.

As a general rule, if you're not being a dick, then "appropriating" elements of another culture is not a genuine cause for concern.

I don't know how you could read about the issue and be so glib.

Try this one:

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/cultural-appropriation-wrong/

I don't necessarily agree with all of it but the author makes several very good points which should be useful for the mystified. The crux of it for me is that people generally don't appropriate with ill-intention but that doesn't mean they're not doing harm and it's not being a dick to oppose that.

The problem with this attitude is you go from criticizing the excessive victim playing of the Sami to creating victims out of those who insulted their culture. Some celebrity had to apologize for something! Shock/horror! Let's all run and rescue her from the evil liberals! You're only playing in reverse the same game you propose to be against.

And it can all be dealt with in a civilized way without rancour as long as everyone shows a bit of respect.

E.g.

Reps of Culture A: Please don't do X with cultural tradition/artefact Y.
Members of Culture B: Why not?
Reps of Culture A: *Provide good reasons why use is inappropriate.*
Members of Culture B: Ok, sure.

Mankind advances, but unevenly. Some cultures put men on the moon, others remain in the stone age.
The people in both cultures believe that the stone age culture is inferior to the man-on-the-moon culture.

Which cultures advance and which stagnate is largely a matter of historical accident. For centuries, the smelly barbarians on the little peninsula of Asia called 'Europe' were far behind the peoples of the Middle East and Asia. Then things changed. Now they're changing again. All that is solid melts into air.

The 'cultural-appropriation' hoo-ha is the only way that people who believe that their culture is inferior can inflict some pain on those who have passed them in cultural development.

Man-on-the-moon cultures generally develop a higher ethical standard, as well as developing better engineering techniques. These advanced cultures extend their intellectual horizons beyond the limits of the tribe. ("Generally" higher -- there is only a loose coupling here between material and ethical advancement, and superior cultures are also superior in their ability to deal out death to those they see as their enemies. Africans have to hack each other to death with machetes, Europeans use Zyklon-B and fission bombs.)

So advanced cultures with advanced ethics are vulnerable to the emotional blackmail of those from less advanced cultures: they don't want to hurt the latter's feelings, so they pretend that "all cultures should be respected" etc.

No one really believes this, but the advanced culture people tend to respond the way you'd respond to a six-year-old who shows you his latest scrawled drawing --"Ohhh... that's VERY good."

It's just kindness., and to the credit of the person doing the pretending.

Ohhh... that's a VERY good post.

Saying what everyone knows to be true, but everyone is afraid, or too polite, to say, is a cheap way of getting reactions. But I just couldn't resist it.

Try this one:

https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/cultural-appropriation-wrong/ — Baden

Some of the many things wrong with that article:

* Cultural appropriation isn't the same thing as racism

* Racism doesn't make any sense as something unintentional.

* It's not categorically, morally wrong to do something that might result in someone getting upset.

* Cultures do not "own" customs, traditions, mores, etc.

* Cultures are not isolated units that remain intact as isolated units; cultures obtain via interaction of individuals and necessarily evolve as individuals and interaction changes. People who think they're from different cultures, who are interacting, by doing so, are necessarily evolving their cultures into a different one based on those interactions. That's how culture works.

* So as people interact, they create a different culture, and that culture is their own.

* "Power dynamic" talk is typically a mess. Among the many problems with it is that it tends to cherry-pick particular facts, interactions, etc. to fit the narrative the author wants to create. If we're going to make claims about dominance, oppression, etc., then we need to set out what those terms are going to refer to in a manner that can't be seen as cherry-picked from the totality of data available, and then we need to show the empirical data to support claims about it.

* Saying that wearing clothing, say, is "taking" something from another culture employs the same nonsensical rhetoric that has been used in intellectual property discussions. That rhetoric is ad hoc, created by companies, under a capitalist system, who'd rather be able to legally threaten than have to be creative and figure out other ways to make money (where unfortunately that's necessary because of the capitalist system they're operating within).

* "But marginalized groups don’t have the power to decide if they’d prefer to stick with their customs or try on the dominant culture’s traditions just for fun." --Ridiculous as stated. There have been instances where some culture has been forced to not do certain things (clothing, language, etc.), but that has nothing to do with cultural appropriation. And it being morally wrong to force or pressure people to not do what they want to do re things like clothing and language certainly doesn't justify pressuring people to not do what they want to do re things like clothing and language, which is what "cultural appropriation" shaming is about.

* "it’s clear that not every person who speaks English does so by choice."--Obviously. I didn't speak English by choice. I speak English because I was raised in an environment where only English was spoken. That's how language works. You only speak languages by choice when you take up other languages later.

* "It’s a complicated issue that includes our histories, our current state of affairs, and our future" -- to whom? An issue only includes those things if an individual thinks about it that way.

* "as we act to eliminate oppression," -- If one sees "cultural appropriation" as oppression in any way, shape or form, one has much more serious issues to deal with than eliminating oppression.

. . . I didn't even get to the numbered points yet, but I'll leave it at that for now, since the above is already pretty long and I'm probably more or less wasting my time posting it here.

Mankind advances, but unevenly. Some cultures put men on the moon, others remain in the stone age.
The people in both cultures believe that the stone age culture is inferior to the man-on-the-moon culture. — Doug1943

I've slipped into a world where everyone suddenly has the same opinions?

Man-on-the-moon cultures generally develop a higher ethical standard, — Doug1943

Oy vey.

At least you read it. I agree cultural appropriation isn't the same as racism. The author doesn't say it is afaik though there's a danger of conflation there. I'll take a look at your other points later.

She paints a picture of someone at a party being accused of cultural appropriation, And then she says, "And you think that’s a ridiculous accusation. You? Doing something racist?"

Of course, with the important qualifications I mentioned. (And having a standard does not mean always adhering to that standard.)

So there is a strong positive correlation between cultures which can build, say, nuclear power stations and the principle that deformed babies shouldn't be killed. (If there are any anti-abortion people here, please don't divert the thread. We're all aware of the formal irony.)

Cultures which cannot build nuclear power stations, or even smelt metal, don't have such a strong correlation.

So there are people in the world who bury deformed babies alive. But they're still in the stone age

Doing the same thing in an advanced culture is something that has to be hidden, done indirectly. Hypocrisy, vice and virtue, etc.

To advance materially is to provide the basis for advancing morally. We can take care of deformed children ... a primitive tribe may not be able to .. such a child may be a burden in a world where everyone lives on the margin. So they're killed.

That, in context, is presenting a point of view of someone who thinks they're being accused of racism not necessarily the author's view.

If the author did think cultural appropriation was always racist, I definitely wouldn't agree, but I don't get the impression she does.

it’s clear that not every person who speaks English does so by choice."--Obviously. I didn't speak English by choice. I speak English because I was raised in an environment where only English was spoken. That's how language works. You only speak languages by choice when you take up other languages later. — Terrapin Station

Just on this one as it's so very far off point. Cultures and particularly historically imperialistic cultures can deliberately destroy the languages of other cultures by forcing them to speak their own. The reason the Irish speak English as a first language and not Irish is because generations of Irish were deprived of the choice of speaking their own language and in fact punished for doing so. So, this is not about young Terrapin not being given the choice of speaking Swahili as a baby rather than English but about cultural power and dominance in the linguistic sphere, which though it isn't always as overt as the case I gave does still exist.

Just on this one as it's so very far off point. Cultures and particularly historically imperialistic cultures can deliberately destroy the languages of other cultures by forcing them to speak their own. — Baden

No disagreement on that. Nevertheless, it's worth pointing out that no one speaks their first languages by choice, especially as "It's clear that not every person who speaks English does so by choice" can give the impression that most do.

Or another way to put it is that when I read "It's clear that not every person who speaks English does so by choice," I think "Language by choice? Well, who does?" . .. the answer to which is, "People who choose to pick up another language later, via a school elective, self-study, etc."

You're better off using the reply and quote functions if you want to interact. It's not going to always be clear who you are directing your comments at otherwise and they won't be notified either.

Yes, you're right. Thanks. Just learning the customs here.

Just on the moral advancement / technological advancement proposed connection, it would be resassuring if it were true. It would suggest, for example, if we were ever visited by an alien culture, they would likely come with candy and donuts rather than plans to enslave us. The history of human slavery, colonisation, and genocide of indigenous peoples by more technologically advanced cultures suggests otherwise though. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to lionize less advanced cultures either. I just don't think looking at ethics in those terms is very useful. I wouldn't like to think what putting advanced weaponry into the hands of, say, the Yanomami might lead to (though even this supposedly violent traditional culture is subject to debate re the extent and causes of said violence) but I would have supported taking them off the British Raj and giving them to Ghandi and his "primitive" supporters. The situation is just more complicated and far less obvious then you've painted it.

Yes, it is. With respect to the Yamomani, I've read a plausible argument that it was whites, giving them steel axes and even shotguns, that really caused their problems. But everything you read nowadays about primitive cultures is so politically charged that you've got to take it all with a grain of salt. (You're probably familiar with the Darkness in El Dorado controversy.)

Obviously, in a forum where what we post is limited, not just by the technology but by others' patience in reading, a complicated argument can't be made in much detail.

That's why I referred to gas chambers and nuclear weapons, things which are products of advanced cultures, and used the phrase 'loosely coupled' to suggest that the connection between advanced technology and advanced morality is not some rigid, linear one.

So, for example, slavery is almost a human universal -- when tribes get advanced enough so that enslaving a defeated enemy makes more sense than just killing him. But as societies advance technologically -- and get the technology to put their enslavement on an industrial scale, as the Europeans did -- advanced morality comes creeping up behind. And eventually those Europeans abolish slavery.

Please note: I am NOT making a 'Europeans are superior' argument, and not even making the 'technologically advanced people are superior' argument, if by 'superior' we're talking about some innate essence. I think that the question of which peoples advance, and which stagnate, is largely due to historical accidents -- the English behind their channel don't need a monarch with a large standing army, and thus can develop the concepts of limited government. And as I said, even a minimal knowledge of history shows that advanced civilizations took root in several places outside Europe, while Europe stagnated.

Another point to note is that there are virtues cultivated in more primitive societies which are recognized as virtues by advanced societies, which themselves have them only in diminshed degree. I think these are mainly the group-above-self virtues, which individualistic capitalist society tends to undermine.

But then, as the industrial revolution progresses, illiterate peasants, or their children, become urban factory workers. Their children get sent to public schools. They absorb the idea that the world around them is understandable, not just an unchanging mysterious product of sky-gods. Such people are harder to treat like sheep, as witness Hong Kong and Sudan at the moment.

Of course all of this development is contradictory and uneven. But it seems to me that the trend is clear, even though, as someone put it, even among advanced peoples, "in the 21st Century lives the 13th".

I'm really making a quasi-Marxist argument, as you will probably recognize -- base and superstructure and all that . The question of the loose coupling of advanced social institutions and advanced economies, and the existence of contradictory tendencies alongside technical advance, was argued out by people much more clever than me back in the first part of the 20th Century, when some Marxists tried to apply the insights of Marx/Engels in a very mechanical way.

1. "It Trivializes Violent Historical Oppression, E.G: 'Redskins'"...

The Redskins name might be insensitive, and in that sense they're "being a dick", but beyond a bit of emotional resentment the "Redskins" is more of an anti-example. Modern Native American tribes aren't worried about baseball team names, they're worried about pipe-lines crossing their dwindling and degraded reserves, about the continual loss of their language and culture, and about the social problems afflicting many of their communities.

"2. It Lets People Show Love for the Culture, But Remain Prejudiced Against Its People, E.G white people owning restaurants that serve non white food"

I'm sure you'll agree with me that this one is too foolish. If a white person opens a Mexican style restaurant, it's stealing? When a Mexican person opens a Mexican style restaurant, are they obligated to share profits with all other Mexicans?

"3. It Makes Things ‘Cool’ for White People – But ‘Too Ethnic’ for People of Color. E.G white people 'get away with' cultural hair-styles that people of color are discriminated against because of"

This is one is too foolish to even address.

"4. It Lets Privileged People Profit from Oppressed People’s Labor. E.G: whites are stealing ideas from other cultures and it's not fair"

Same as number two, rubbish (and more and more racist).

"5. It Lets Some People Get Rewarded for Things the Creators Never Got Credit For"

The example they give is that black people invented rock and roll, but Elvis Presley got the credit...

Black people as a whole didn't invent rock and roll though, individuals did, and rather than learn their names we're supposed to just thank the entire black race?

"6. It Spreads Mass Lies About Marginalized Cultures. E.G Pocahontas"

The real story of Pocahontas is gritty and disturbing. Yes Disney made a kids film depicting a fictionalized series of events, but why should this be so offensive? Why is dressing up as "Pocahontas' considered offensive to Native Americans? Are they offended because we're not honoring the true story of Pocahontas?

"7. It Perpetuates Racist Stereotypes"

If we're not being a dick about it, what's so evil about stereotypes? The example they gave was that Katy Perry played a stereotype of the "submissive Asian woman" when she dressed up as a Geisha in one of her videos...

But what if an Asian woman dresses up as a submissive Geisha? Is she unfairly perpetuating a stereotype that will engender prejudiced harassment of other Asian women? I understand the logic of this example better than the others, but the crux can't simply be "but she was white, so it's bad".

"8. White People Can Freely Do What People of Color Were Actively Punished for Doing. Example, the British once banned Yoga British occupied India"

I don't understand this one either. Only Indians can do Yoga? Or whites are explicitly forbidden from doing Yoga because of their sins? This is all based around optics, not harm.

"9. It Prioritizes the Feelings of Privileged People Over Justice for Marginalized People"

As with the Redskins example, this is actually kind of backward thinking. Disney apologizing for Pocahontas wouldn't be "Justice for marginalized people". That this author associates the emotional safe space they are trying to create with "justice for marginalized people" betrays the pettiness of their initiative (or the irrelevance of their claims)

Feelings don't matter very much to me, what's more important are basic human needs. Having the Redskins change their name is inconsequential, whereas the destruction and pilfering of the environment that once sustained diverse Native American ways of life is not. If you talk to on-reserve natives, they'll tell you that clean lakes and rivers are their immediate concern.

Are there any examples here that I've mis-characterized? You seem to have proven my point for me. Cultural appropriation is a mostly rubbish concept....

You seem to have proven my point for me. Cultural appropriation is a mostly rubbish concept.... — VagabondSpectre

Let's take a look at your critique then.

1.

The Redskins name might be insensitive, and in that sense they're "being a dick", but beyond a bit of emotional resentment the "Redskins" is more of an anti-example. Modern Native American tribes aren't worried about baseball team names, — VagabondSpectre

Really? So this:

"The Washington Redskins name controversy involves the name and logo of the Washington Redskins, a National Football League (NFL) franchise. Native Americans have been questioning the use of the name and image since the 1960s, while the topic has received widespread public attention since the 1990s. Native Americans demanding change include tribal nations, national tribal organizations, civil rights organizations, and individuals. The largest of these organizations, the National Congress of American Indians, counted the enrollment of its member tribes as totaling 1.2 million individuals in 2013."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy

is just fake news or you're still being glib.

But let's not rely on Wikipedia. Here's a report about that little bit of emotional resentment that those 1.2 million American Indians represented by the NCAI don't really care about:

http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf

"Native peoples remain more likely than any other race to experience crimes at the hands of a person from another race. Native youth experience the highest rates of suicide among young people. With studies showing that negative stereotypes and harmful “Indian” sports mascots are known to play a role in exacerbating racial inequity and perpetuating feelings of inadequacy among Native youth, it is vital that all institutions—including professional sports franchises—re-evaluate their role in capitalizing on these stereotypes.
...
The most discussed in the media of late has been the Washington football team, which uses the term “Redsk*ns. This derogatory name was created in 1932 – while the federal “Civilization Regulations” were still in place, confining Native people to reservations, banning all Native dances and ceremonies, confiscating Native cultural property and outlawing much of what was traditional in Native life.
...
The following document outlines the position of NCAI, the nation’s oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native advocacy organization, which has a clear position against derogatory and harmful stereotypes of Native people—including sports mascots—in media and popular culture. The information provided also includes historical and contemporary background information on “Indian” sports mascots and the widely supported efforts to end the era of harmful and racist mascots"

But let's ignore all that because it's all just based on a rubbish concept? And this is how you start your critique. Try harder.