Senate Why is cultural appropriation a thing?

Well, again, going back to my original post, it's not like cultural appropriation was cooked up to be an attack label, it has a specific function in academic discourse on cross-cultural interactions, and I would imagine there are scholars who would go so far as to say that inadvertent stigmatization of cultural exchange is an outright good thing as there has never in history been a non-appropriative cultural exchange, there is always a colonialist power disparity, etc. They'd rightly be considered the extreme fringe but if you're feeling fine with the Foucault fandango it's not the most out-there conclusion to draw.

That said, like I also stated, I don't think condemning the individual "perpetrator" of cultural appropriation is productive, so if the conclusion you're led to is that condemnation should be reserved for extreme cases that are unambiguously "racist" or what have you I don't necessarily have a problem with that.

 

I don't know about all of this, but I do know this is a bad thing:

 

Perhaps that is the bedrock on which widespread consensus can be achieved: Vanilla Ice winning multiple AMAs is a travesty.

 

But seriously though, it does touch on a cultural issue: Vanilla Ice came in, did his thing, and was swiftly rewarded for it. Meanwhile, people who were creating real rap music that year and in the years prior were entirely ignored by the AMA and other institutions(with maybe the exception of MC Hammer and Tone Loc).

Now I don't know if that qualifies as an example of appropriation or not. Cultures are hard enough to define as is, let alone trying to decide who took what from whom and used it at their expense.

 

Ah, I see. So the idea is: "cultural interaction = cultural exploitation." I actually understood that. So the idea is that cultural appropriation is a thing that has its roots in violence, and that's why it's bad. It strikes me as being similar to the idea that all heterosexual sex = rape, which I think is a flawed conclusion, but I at least understand how people who believe that got the idea.

The "roots in violence" thing is the piece I was missing.

 

cultural appropriation becomes a problem when a traditionally powerful culture appropriates a traditionally oppressed culture, resulting in caricatures or stereotypes being seen as representatives of the culture as a whole. this is obviously a problem when the goal is to end the oppression of the appropriated culture by the appropriating culture.

 

Yes ophelia, that's right. There are also a few scholars who are pushing a narrative that cultural interactions and colonialism are actual forms of genocide. So the "roots in violence" goes even wider in modern academia in some circles.

 

If I'm understanding Ramza correctly, cultural appropriation isn't just something done by a person to another person. However, the average person's only interaction with the concept of cultural appropriation isn't inside academic discussions on cross-cultural relations, but someone accusing an individual of cultural appropriation. That's kind of poisoned the well.

 

I suppose the rebuttal to the idea that "every cultural transaction is a form of robbery" is the same as the rebuttal to "every heterosexual sex act is rape:" That it is, in fact, possible for two cultures to interact as equals, at least in certain circumscribed arenas. Or if there's no chance of them interacting as equals, it's at least desirable to make the robbery as gentle and non-painful for the victim as possible, such as keeping some form of context around cultural items, i.e., putting in information about what a bindi is in a package of bindis marketed to non-Hindus.

I can see why the internet is mucking that up. It's not an easy concept to condense into a sound bite.

 

Yes on both counts. Cultural appropriation is about groups interactions with one another, not individuals. The problem is, as you cite, most individuals don't think of themselves as part of a culture or group, even if they definitely are. So they will mislabel individual actions as cultural/group appropriation even when it is not.

 

To be fair, the sarcastic "check your privilege" only came about after it's overuse on the internet. Neither is helpful though. Just people trying to feel superior all around.

The problem is that it becomes a personal discussion where people start defending themselves rather than defending arguments.

 

Jealous, cuz I'm out getting mine...

 

Hey, ophelia - I came across this article, and it made me think of this thread. I thought you'd find it to be a good read--I did.

 

Vanilla Ice was horrendous, but: his hit single came half a year after A Tribe Called Quest's "Can I Kick It", which was based on a Lou Reed sample (yes, that was the band led by Q-Tip, the guy who slagged Azalea for cultural appropriation). If "Can I Kick It" is alright (which it very much is), all you can say about "Ice Ice Baby" is that it sucks - not that it's wrong.

 

Yeah, I don't mind appropriation because that's how we've managed to succeed as a species (see: gunpowder, moveable type, paper, iron swords (yes, iron swords) music, fashion, cement) just don't suck. In fact, cultural appropriation is why we have the ability now to whine about cultural appropriation.

 

Inventions are a cultural thing, though. Gunpowder is a prime example. It was created by the Chinese in their quest for a potion of immortality and found it made for a really good weapon and militarized it which in turn was traded to Europeans who also militarized it. So don't say my argument is weak because you can't wrap your head around this concept. Inventions are a part of a people's culture, as they're invented by the cultures where they popped up first to fit a specific need or desire.

You're forgetting that things like rap and cornrows—two things brought up when discussing appropriation—are inventions as well, but nobody gives a crap when they whine about appropriation. So I'm really confused about why you don't consider it a good argument when what we're discussing are inventions themselves!

 

No, but it required a culture that would think of such things to find it. Also: the biggest cultural appropriation of them all: language. Specifically the one we're speaking right now. English as it has come to be defined today is not what it used to be. In fact, English was the mixing Germanic dialects and Latin. But no one is accusing anyone else of cultural appropriation whenever it's used elsewhere. But it is an invention no less which also forms the basis of a culture. And yet nobody bats at an eye at this form of appropriation. In fact, I dare say that the people that continually whine about cultural appropration are the same sort that would keep humanity in caves and eating **** as we all die of dysentery.

I don't consider it a weak one when it was used for hundreds of years before Europeans came along and started using it. In that sense, yes, the invention is very much a cultural thing. If it were a universal invention that would've been found eventually then Europeans and Arabs would've discovered it as well without visiting Asia. Nobody thinks of inventions as cultural things because in our global culture, no invention is ever truly owned by one culture or one people. However, back before globalization, inventions were very much the property of the cultures that made them. Scimitars, boats. Yeah, can't forget boats. In fact the Romans reversed engineered boats during the Punic Wars with Carthage as up until then they had no navy of their own. Gunpowder, farming. Yes, even farming techniques are cultural inventions.

It's why I find people crying about appropriation so silly, because everything is appropriated from some other culture or another. Belts, shoes, automobiles, etc. it all builds on the other.

 

That's because the widespread proliferation of a specific language is viewed as the imperialist move, not the result of widespread exploitation (E.g. English is widespread because English-speaking nations have been sociopolitically dominant for the past 200 years). Your arguments are stemming from the position that cultural appropriation is bidirectional, which is not the case by consequence of the disparate power relationships built into the concept, and that technological exchange falls within the purview of "culture," which is an admittedly defensible position but not the traditionally understood one.

 

I'm sorry, what the hell? How can anyone box people into cultures? What's my culture?

 

I'll do my best to address the difference between Appreciation/Interaction and Appropriation on an individual level:
I was raised by an anthropologist, so I go out of my way to interact with an absorb other cultures - learning about another culture is never wrong.
The thing is, to learn, it must be on the teachers terms; I am not in a position of power when I'm trying to understand how to be polite in Korea, how to introduce myself in an unfamiliar language.
Cultural appropriation removes the subject from it's own culture and subsumes it into the dominant culture - giving power over it to members of the dominant culture.
Aside from abstract talk of power structures, this erases diversity from the cultural spectrum. The widespread ignorance and almost universally believed myths about Native Americans are a prime example.
A great quote from Ian Campeau of A Tribe Called Red:

Within the context of Appropriation, when white people want to learn about or interact with native culture, they don't look to actual members of it, they look to the narratives of their own culture. This is obviously tied into segregation and education as well.
That is a systemic problem, but also an individual one. It's not an easy or clear moral choice - it requires patience and education to make any progress.
It would be wonderful to say "Here's the problem, let's not do that," but the problem is so much more vague and complicated than that. We can't afford to pretend it doesn't exist because it's difficult to deal with.

 

Do we have any members from cultural/ethnic groups that have had been "cultural appropriated"* or at least hade some people clam they have been "cultural appropriated" that can give their perspective on this conversation?

* Is that how you say it?

I guess I have to tell the Japanese people helping people try kimonos in Sweden when we have Japanese teamed things on the museums and similar that they are helping us do cultural appropriation of their culture.