Senate let's talk about CULTURAL APPROPRIATION

The question of what "from Africa" and "African costume" really means here aside, I think it's pretty well-settled and widely agreed on that participating in cultural practice or event upon direct invitation by a member of that culture isn't a harmful appropriative act. The Swedish person's hand-wringing over 'being seen as racist' for participating is pointless ignorance, particularly since her calling a piece of clothing as a "traditional African costume" is probably more racist than just the act of wearing it.

Sean, that story is nuts. I have no words.

 

lol there's too much for me to respond to everyone at the moment. but I think the sports team with stereotypical portrayals of "native Americans" is the most clear example of negative appropriation and that has never been a question for me.

I love Q-Tip too. But in all honesty, despite it's rebelliousness against cultural appropriation, hip-hop, including Q-Tip's work, is built from appropriation too. Obviously, with sampling being the backbone of it. The samples come from many sources, including from many "black sources", "white sources", "Latino sources", "Arab sources" etc. While hip-hop is certainly a black and Latino (sometimes downplayed, so that could be a form of cultural appropriation too) invention, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are indirect influences from basically all of global culture. The instruments used in hip-hop were invented in a variety of different cultures and probably built by Chinese labour. >_> The sounds of hip hop also reflect global culture. There's indirect "white" influences on the sound, indirect "Asian" influences on the sound, and so on. The Jamaican influence on hip-hop is also downplayed in a way that could be considered cultural appropriation of Jamaican culture. All the way from its origins with innovators like DJ Kool Herc to incorporating elements of dancehall today. For example, Assassin was not listed as a featured artist on To Pimp a Butterfly (great album) while the American guests artists were, which could be seen as pretty problematic.

You could look at basically any other art in this same way, especially from the modern period onwards. There is not a single culture today that is not the product of global cultural, even if it can be associated with certain groups who were the primary creators of said culture. That's why I say I'm guilty of appropriation and why I say everyone is guilty of it.

My opinion is that it's actually a good thing when done in a respectful manner. Unfortunately there's a long history of it not being done respectfully and having pretty hurtful impacts. That's why I want to know what the correct way is.

This story, I think, confirms two things:

1. People focus way too much on just the skin colour aspect of it, as someone mentioned earlier. Without knowing anything about you, that person made a broad generalisation.
2. Tumblr "activists" aside, people only really care when it's their own culture being appropriated. I have zero doubt this person eats food that is "outside" her own culture.

 

Yeah, the first thing. Just the way the whole story plays out, "Swedish costume" vs "African costume." They couldn't even do their 'friends' the respect of naming the culture the costume belonged to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Real talk, and this might help your understanding a bit - when cultural exchange is done in a respectful manner, it isn't cultural appropriation. The line can be hard to draw (I'd argue really damn hard when you're talking about artistic expression), but cultural appropriation taken as the phrase is meant to be used is an exclusively negative phenomenon. The simple act of drawing a distinction between the two ideas can prove illuminating. Maybe check out this pretty approachable article: http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/cultural-exchange-and-cultural-appropriation/

 

Dating the beautiful daughter of Bangladeshi immigrants against the wishes of her parents: cultural exchange or cultural appropriation?

 

yeah the definition always confused me because it seems people's choice of words with this subject has shifted over the years.

most of those examples are pretty obvious though and I fully agree with. nothing irritates me more than the "fetishising" of any culture.

here's an interesting question: am I appropriating Tamil-British culture just by privately listening to MIA? is Lord Vivec appropriating "Indian" (also ultra diverse and not really just one culture) culture just by eating the food? In his story, he's not selling it, marketing it as an "exotic" fun thing that bastardises it, or exploiting it for his own gain (I guess enjoying the flavour could be considered exploitation), or even intentionally publicising it. Does MIA marketing her music to a global market "invite" us to enjoy it? If so, that raises a more complicated question: does opening an Indian restaurant "invite" people to participate in the culture (within reason I think you know what I mean)? As a musician, if I incorporate elements inspired by MIA's music, is that automatically appropriation, considering I myself am not a part of Tamil-British culture? Or is the line drawn by acknowledging the influence while not pretending to be that culture?

and here's another point I'd like to make that I think is a major flaw in most human culture. I think we see it way too much as "you are born this. therefore you must fall into a rigid definition of what we perceive your culture to be." i.e. if you are born white, your "culture" is just white, and nothing else. if you are born black, your culture is "black" and nothing else. I think this is heavily flawed. if you are born into a white family, but spent your childhood in Pakistan and can genuinely relate to many aspects of the culture, does that give you certain "rights" to certain aspects of the culture (again, within reason), despite not being Pakistani by birth or at all? Let's take it the other direction: I have had black friends who have been criticised for "acting white". I understand that sentiment given the history, but what if they genuinely identify with aspects of "white culture"? Isn't is quite narrow minded to assume that because you are born something, your world-view and "culture" is only that? Especially in today's globalised world? I think that's an interesting question. Really most people are a melting pot themselves.

 

How beautiful? Appropriation if she's an 8 or better.

 

It's one of the most ridiculous moments of my life. I've been through some crazy **** before, but only a couple of things have ever reached this level of ridiculous.

 

I think it's rare to have a moment of authentic, pure Kafkaesquenessity. You have to treasure the memory.

 

What I can't get over (Besides how incredibly strange and rude it is to call someone out over lunch choices in public) is the fact that she was apparently paying sufficiently close attention to what you ate every day to even make those remarks. Like, sheesh, read a book or something if you're that bored while you eat.

 

It's Indian food; she could probably get the aroma every day.

 

Back when the protests over a certain NFL team's name began or rather started gaining more attention, Canadian media decided to weigh in.

When I say "Canadian media" I mean "Canadian Butt Rock stations." You could not get whiter than the host of the afternoon "DRIVE TIME" show talking about (aboot) how he didn't find the team's name offensive, because the Blackhawks let the Chicago Blackhawks use that name and elders from that nation totally okayed drunk white dudes wearing the headdress (funnily enough, the Blackhawks are named for the Sauk leader Black Hawk, and aren't full-on using a slur or appropriating the name of a people, but there's more to unpack there), so clearly it's not a big deal, especially because there was a minor football team in Ottawa who also had the same name, which wasn't racist, and maybe people shouldn't worry too much about it, "Because hey, whatever man, it's 4:20, here's some Bob Marley."

Take off.

 

you picked two of the examples that piss me off the most.

the Canadian Butt Rock stations (same **** in the USA too) are making the most painfully bad excuses for an activity that there's just no way they don't see how it's bad.

and associating Bob Marley with nothing but weed is a big insult. do they even pay attention to the song at all? related: don't even get me started on all the skate shoes and **** with Rastafari colours. going to the mall and buying Rastafari themed **** is like the opposite of Rastafari values. might as well be tagging a depiction of the prophet onto a mosque or something.

 

Do those t-shirts with the iconic image of Che Guevara apply here? Because those are obnoxious.

 

faux political ideology appropriation is a different kind of awful

 

I think Alexander would have been proud to have his colonies appropriate his cultural exports.

Also, different power dynamic here. Wouldn't one of the goals of a conqueror actually be exactly that their conquered subjects do adopt their culture?

 

Not enough discussion about the Greece/Macedonia dispute.

 

Ah, my apologies for misunderstanding. Obviously if people were actually calling her racist for wearing the clothing, they, as Ramza mentioned earlier in this thread, are part of the group of people who seriously misunderstand the concept, but still insist on applying it to others.

I think obviously some understanding of the thing you are doing or wearing in context is important, but for many people a "deep understanding" is probably not possible for every act of cultural exchange. For example, Sikh groups in New York (and elsewhere as well) have put on "Turban Days" where they invite non-Sikhs to wear traditional turbans and help wrap them. This is part of an outreach effort to clear up misunderstandings and misconceptions about turbans (a lot of Americans think all people wearing turbans are Muslim and have never even heard of Sikhism), and to make people in turbans seem less foreign and more approachable. Part of the event is explaining the Sikh religion and the significance of the turban and related religious practices (such as the prohibition against hair cutting). These people aren't appropriating the turbans, since they're wearing them at the invitation of Sikhs, but they're also not likely to walk away with a very deep understanding of Sikhism, more likely they'll get a very cursory understanding of the religion.

 

I tend to think of cultural appropriation as a way to dictate to others how they can act. Naturally if they're dressing in black face and speaking in clicks and pops I'd say that's inappropriate. However, if someone genuinely admires a culture and likes to use aspects of it in their daily life, then that's fine and no one should say anything about it. In the end all you're doing is fighting to fight and have some semblance of power over someone, like in Sean's story up there. That lady doesn't know him, he's just background radiation in her life, but for some reason she felt compelled to tell him what he can do and eat. And then had the nerve to tell him he's too white. So yeah, to people worried about cultural appropriation I say live and let live. It's ultimately doing nothing to you personally. The western world's just seemingly become a place for busy bodies and having a collective stick up their ass.