Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
This article about it seems pretty good: https://www.vpointnews.com/Article/3418/a-massively-flawed-appropriation-debate-over-a-white-teens-box-braids

In short:
- yeah, people reacted badly, and that sucks.
- but they're sensitive to it for a reason and you'll make the world a better place if you look into why cultural appropriation is terrible.

What if you "look into why cultural appropriation is terrible" and still think it's a nonsense? Maybe it's because I'm coming at this from the angle of the British left, in which the stress is(or has always been in my experience, I should say) on multiculturalism-as-cultural-fusion, and personally prefer the idea of culture in the form of voluntary association rather than something that runs in your blood, but despite reading all the reasons behind why people object I still find some of them ridiculous, many of them irrational, and almost all of them complete non-sequiturs. I cannot find the logical pathway between "America has historically had issues with racism" and "white people shouldn't wear certain hairstyles/perform music in certain ways/wear certain styles of dress" etc etc. I cannot find a rational argument that one culture or subculture adopting elements from other cultures and subcultures is bad, only that it's bad because it is. Or rather, it's bad when a dominant cultural group adopts elements from a non-dominant one.

But that's part of the process of cultural evolution, it's how culture grows and changes, how new subcultures form. We understand other cultures in part by adapting the parts of them which appeal to us into our own. You can't build a fortress wall around your particular strand of culture and demand everyone else leave it alone and inviolate, yet simultaneously demand it be respected and understood, because human intellect is fundamentally iterative; cultures that don't adapt, that don't share and "appropriate", stagnate, and stagnant cultures die.

Of course it's possible to disagree. I think you should have a strong understanding of what you're disagreeing with, though? I mean, I'm no authority on cultural appropriation, so I wouldn't suggest myself as a primary source.

I think part of the problem is when we culturally appropriate we tend to sort of pillage whatever culture for things we find appealing, then we repackage them in a way that's meaningful to white people and profit off them. Not only does it hurt people's understanding of the culture in question, but it enriches us at their expense. Instead of an actual understanding of their culture we end up with a bastardised version, and then because white people have so much control over the overall culture the bastardised version swamps the authentic one?

I don't want to bring up the box braids because I think it's pretty universally agreed that box braids aren't the core issue, they're just spillover from people being pretty tender around the issue of appropriation.

 Frazzled wrote:

it's usually for a particular reason. In the case of the box braids, there's a pattern of, essentially, black people being shut out of mainstream culture, creating their own culture in response, then having part of that culture taken by white people, ripped out and turned into a generic, white thing that black people are again excluded from.

How are they being excluded from the culture exactly? Further its just revealed ignorance to say braids belong to any particular "culture." Every human civilization with hair has had braids. Heck I see old biker dudes with braids. Norse had braids. Ancient Han had braids. The idea is just ignorance by people who haven't opened a book ever but feel literate enough to venture an opinion.

(like me!)

Again, in the US everyone steals everyone's culture. Cajun food is the food of my people, but I don't get mad if damn yankees try to make it. Vodka and tequila are the drink of my people, but I don't mind if others partake.

We haven't shared our food or bagged milk with the rest of the world...

(Though Poland somehow stole our bagged milk plans...)

I think part of the problem is when we culturally appropriate we tend to sort of pillage whatever culture for things we find appealing, then we repackage them in a way that's meaningful to white people and profit off them. Not only does it hurt people's understanding of the culture in question, but it enriches us at their expense. Instead of an actual understanding of their culture we end up with a bastardised version, and then because white people have so much control over the overall culture the bastardised version swamps the authentic one?

Whats the "authentic" vs. "inauthentic" versions? Please cite examples.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


I want to talk a bit about offense, too, because white people have this really fascinating idea of "offense" as sort of this abstract thing that happens to people, like it's part of the weather or something. People aren't just "offended." When someone takes offense to something, it's usually for a particular reason. In the case of the box braids, there's a pattern of, essentially, black people being shut out of mainstream culture, creating their own culture in response, then having part of that culture taken by white people, ripped out and turned into a generic, white thing that black people are again excluded from.

So you would be totally ok if a white piece of gak racist yelled at a 12 year old black girl for wearing a <insert name of boys band that 12 year old girls like here> t-shirt? Because she would be appropriating "white" culture?

Perhaps I'm a little behind the times, but I always took racism to mean;
- the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
or
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.


When did the notions of "power" and "privilege" enter the discussion?

The phrase "cultural appropriation" makes me want to punch somebody in the face. Just another example that forced multiculturalism doesn't really work.

It's not about skin colour, it's about money. Money is power.

If this is a problem it's only because black celebrities have brought their culture to the mainstream. People emulate the rich and famous.

If we're wanting to continue with the sweeping generalisation theme, "White people", the thread has going then how about "Black people have a massive chip on their shoulder and should really learn to suck it up and get on with it".

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


I don't want to bring up the box braids because I think it's pretty universally agreed that box braids aren't the core issue, they're just spillover from people being pretty tender around the issue of appropriation.

Oh goody, another made up "issue" for the SJW croud to rally behind...

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
This article about it seems pretty good: https://www.vpointnews.com/Article/3418/a-massively-flawed-appropriation-debate-over-a-white-teens-box-braids

In short:
- yeah, people reacted badly, and that sucks.
- but they're sensitive to it for a reason and you'll make the world a better place if you look into why cultural appropriation is terrible.

What if you "look into why cultural appropriation is terrible" and still think it's a nonsense? Maybe it's because I'm coming at this from the angle of the British left, in which the stress is(or has always been in my experience, I should say) on multiculturalism-as-cultural-fusion, and personally prefer the idea of culture in the form of voluntary association rather than something that runs in your blood, but despite reading all the reasons behind why people object I still find some of them ridiculous, many of them irrational, and almost all of them complete non-sequiturs. I cannot find the logical pathway between "America has historically had issues with racism" and "white people shouldn't wear certain hairstyles/perform music in certain ways/wear certain styles of dress" etc etc. I cannot find a rational argument that one culture or subculture adopting elements from other cultures and subcultures is bad, only that it's bad because it is. Or rather, it's bad when a dominant cultural group adopts elements from a non-dominant one.

But that's part of the process of cultural evolution, it's how culture grows and changes, how new subcultures form. We understand other cultures in part by adapting the parts of them which appeal to us into our own. You can't build a fortress wall around your particular strand of culture and demand everyone else leave it alone and inviolate, yet simultaneously demand it be respected and understood, because human intellect is fundamentally iterative; cultures that don't adapt, that don't share and "appropriate", stagnate, and stagnant cultures die.

Of course it's possible to disagree. I think you should have a strong understanding of what you're disagreeing with, though? I mean, I'm no authority on cultural appropriation, so I wouldn't suggest myself as a primary source.

I think part of the problem is when we culturally appropriate we tend to sort of pillage whatever culture for things we find appealing, then we repackage them in a way that's meaningful to white people and profit off them. Not only does it hurt people's understanding of the culture in question, but it enriches us at their expense. Instead of an actual understanding of their culture we end up with a bastardised version, and then because white people have so much control over the overall culture the bastardised version swamps the authentic one?

I don't want to bring up the box braids because I think it's pretty universally agreed that box braids aren't the core issue, they're just spillover from people being pretty tender around the issue of appropriation.

I don't see it that way. The issue I have with the idea of cultural appropriation is that it mixes up a big bowl of subjective value judgements almost all drawn from a very narrow subset of human history(chiefly the last 50 years) and uses that to condemn the basic "operating system" that allows culture to exist and function. What is happening now is no different to what has always happened, like everything else in modernity the only difference is the speed and global nature of the changes.

There is always a single dominant culture in a particular scenario(regional, racial etc). That culture spawns subcultures which grow up around niche lifestyles, opinions, tastes etc which are not catered to by the dominant culture, and in turn the dominant culture perpetually adapts itself by integrating elements of new cultures it encounters and subcultures it has spawned in order to maintain relevance to as many people as possible. The moment a culture stops adapting, it begins spiralling into irrelevance; because it does not adopt new elements the rate that subcultures are generated increases dramatically, and eventually one of those subcultures, one which is still prepared to adapt and expand to maximise its relevance to the most people, overtakes the old culture and becomes the new dominant culture, the old one either dying off entirely or becoming a generation-dependent subculture that subsists on nostalgia, until it finally sinks into obscurity and is in-turn stripped of interesting elements by the new dominant culture and the larger subcultures.

There is no absolute standard of "authenticity"; all cultures, whether presently dominant or considered subcultures of a larger cultural entity, engage in the same process. Modern "black culture" in America appropriates elements of various African cultures, historical and contemporary, and has various subcultures of its own, just as modern "American culture" borrows elements from black culture, southern culture, latin American culture, European culture etc etc etc. "Cultural Appropriation" appears to be to be a pseudo-academic construct designed to justify an odd sense of petulant selfishness - it is perhaps understandable, given the historical context("your people were mean to my people, so you can't use my stuff!"), but that doesn't make it justifiable, nor does it make it a valid critique of culture as a concept.

As for understanding; "appropriating" elements of other cultures and subcultures may not lead to absolute understanding on the part of participants in the dominant culture, but it is still one of the main methods by which one culture relates to another and build empathy with one another, and so imperfect as it may be I believe some unspecified but reasonably substantial non-zero value of understanding is superior to no understanding at all.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I think part of the problem is when we culturally appropriate we tend to sort of pillage whatever culture for things we find appealing, then we repackage them in a way that's meaningful to white people and profit off them. Not only does it hurt people's understanding of the culture in question, but it enriches us at their expense. Instead of an actual understanding of their culture we end up with a bastardised version, and then because white people have so much control over the overall culture the bastardised version swamps the authentic one?

If you remove the italic part, it is just how I feel about a bunch of Japanese stuff. Like this .
Truth been told, though, the Japanese, and arguably the west too, tends to do the same with their own cultures some a few hundreds years ago. Taking it and twisting it completely to fit into some fantasized new version.
About every goddamn hollywood blockbuster which involves Greek mythology twist it so wickedly I HATE it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

If you remove the italic part, it is just how I feel about a bunch of Japanese stuff. Like this .
Truth been told, though, the Japanese, and arguably the west too, tends to do the same with their own cultures some a few hundreds years ago. Taking it and twisting it completely to fit into some fantasized new version.
About every goddamn hollywood blockbuster which involves Greek mythology twist it so wickedly I HATE it.

That is because everybody does that, its part of the process how cultures evolve and its a fundamental part of our evolution as a species.

Yodhrin's post is pretty much spot on.

Really dumb and sad... Hope are society stops acting like children and grow up.

PhantomViper wrote:
That is because everybody does that, its part of the process how cultures evolve and its a fundamental part of our evolution as a species.

Well, there is doing it well (Hellboy?), and then there is Hollywood/whatever the name is for Japan .

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Not only does it hurt people's understanding of the culture in question, but it enriches us at their expense.

The "expense" part there can be hard to understand. For example, anime constantly appropriates and mangles Christian concepts and imagery. At what expense to Christians (in Japan or otherwise)? What expense is leveled on black people when white people adopt "black" hairstyles? (To be clear, these are non-rhetorical questions.)

Have the people getting all upset never heard the old saying "imitation is the most sincere form of flattery" ?

I always get a skin tight halfway up and fade the rest with little off the top. Something like this



Except my hair is straight black

 Jihadin wrote:
Except my hair is straight black

word

What do people think of GamerGate as a case of white males being sensitive about cultural appropriation?

Who gets to claim a cultural practice? How is it done?

 Manchu wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Not only does it hurt people's understanding of the culture in question, but it enriches us at their expense.

The "expense" part there can be hard to understand. For example, anime constantly appropriates and mangles Christian concepts and imagery. At what expense to Christians (in Japan or otherwise)? What expense is leveled on black people when white people adopt "black" hairstyles? (To be clear, these are non-rhetorical questions.)

There are those who feel 'westerners' cannot do COSPLAY as it is basically dressing up in 'blackface' but for asian people since most anime characters are intended to be asians. It offends them and is seen as racist to them.

Someone will always find a problem with everything. The thing about this news story is there were a large number of people who said 'there is nothing wrong' which gives me hope in this world.

nkelsch wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Not only does it hurt people's understanding of the culture in question, but it enriches us at their expense.

The "expense" part there can be hard to understand. For example, anime constantly appropriates and mangles Christian concepts and imagery. At what expense to Christians (in Japan or otherwise)? What expense is leveled on black people when white people adopt "black" hairstyles? (To be clear, these are non-rhetorical questions.)

There are those who feel 'westerners' cannot do COSPLAY as it is basically dressing up in 'blackface' but for asian people since most anime characters are intended to be asians. It offends them and is seen as racist to them.

Someone will always find a problem with everything. The thing about this news story is there were a large number of people who said 'there is nothing wrong' which gives me hope in this world.

Which I find funny because 90% of anime characters don't look Japanese at all to me, and I've met quite a few Japanese. And there are plenty of Anime set in a western setting or with characters who are explicitly non-japanese, and they look little different from the other characters.

nkelsch wrote:
There are those who feel 'westerners' cannot do COSPLAY as it is basically dressing up in 'blackface' but for asian people since most anime characters are intended to be asians. It offends them and is seen as racist to them.

As with every cosplay problem, the solution is the same. Cosplay as Deadpool cosplaying as whatever character you want. Problem solved!

As an asian living in Singapore who has travelled extensively around the world,(like 2x a year for 10+ years to europe alone, not including other parts of asia, america etc) cultural appropriation is such utter bs. This would be like me complaining that chinese food served in the majority of chinese restaurants in non-chinese countries don't taste like what I'm used to at home. Guess what? People have different tastes, and in this globalised world, they adapt them to their environment. If you don't like it, go stay at home.

Reminds me of this

Pro-Tip. If you live at UCSC, dont speak out against these posters. Its not worth it

I don't know how defensible "blacking up" is.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Reminds me of this

Pro-Tip. If you live at UCSC, dont speak out against these posters. Its not worth it

She's not a pale wannabe vampire? I don't get it.

In the US, the problem with blackface is not only or even primarily cultural appropriation.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Perhaps I'm a little behind the times, but I always took racism to mean;
- the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
or
- prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

When did the notions of "power" and "privilege" enter the discussion?

It's something I've seen before and I thought it was pretty weird when I first encountered it too. It was coming from people I respect, so I've been trying to wrap my head around what's going on there. I think it's born out of what often bubbles up in these sort of discussions where some people refuse to acknowledge that not all racism is created equal. Some people will argue that, since racism is bad, that all racism is equally bad, and 'you can't just address racism against one group, without talking about/addressing all racism'. Which is usually a furfy designed to distract from, and derail the actual discussion. This has lead some to redefine racism as only being 'Racism' when it is systemic (or practised by a society rather than individuals). This also seems to happen with other 'ism's.

Plus I think the whole racist-as-insult thing plays a role as well, though I'm hazy on that one.

Honestly I don't think it is a very good tactic, it generally just seems to lead to more confusion and talking at cross purposes, but YMMV.

I'm aware that humans originally came out of africa, and i subscribe to the one drop theory (thank you halle berry). Therefore, this isn't racism, it's just another story of black on black hatred/violence.

 Manchu wrote:
What do people think of GamerGate as a case of white males being sensitive about cultural appropriation?

Who gets to claim a cultural practice? How is it done?

Uh oh, you said that word.

PhantomViper wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Racism isn't a two-way thing. I mean, people of colour can hate white people and say mean things about white people, sure, but it's not equal because the levels of institutional power behind them are different. For example, white people in the US have vastly more economic power than any other racial group. If a black person is prejudiced against white people, they're at a massive economic disadvantage, whereas a white person prejudiced against black people is not. That's one example, but you can imagine it in terms of culture or whatever if you want, too. If you want to avoid "black culture" in the US then you'll find that a lot easier and less restrictive than avoiding "white culture."

That's why a lot of people avoid using the term "racism" to refer to prejudice against the privileged group - it doesn't have the same impact and it does a disservice to equate the two.

So what you are saying is that racism is only a bad thing if its done by whites? Any other skin colour and you can be racist all you wan't?

yup pretty much what plastic is saying,

sad thing is plastic probably believes every bit of it, and honestly sees no racism in it.


every time you eat pasta? YOU ARE RACIST AGAINST ASIANS! how dare you besmirch us with your inferior cosplay!

I mean noodles!




Part of not being a racist is accepting other cultures, part of not being a racist is embracing, accepting, and often emulating other cultures, and accepting that your culture in turn will be accepted, embraced, and often emulated.

PhantomViper wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:


I want to talk a bit about offense, too, because white people have this really fascinating idea of "offense" as sort of this abstract thing that happens to people, like it's part of the weather or something. People aren't just "offended." When someone takes offense to something, it's usually for a particular reason. In the case of the box braids, there's a pattern of, essentially, black people being shut out of mainstream culture, creating their own culture in response, then having part of that culture taken by white people, ripped out and turned into a generic, white thing that black people are again excluded from.

So you would be totally ok if a white piece of gak racist yelled at a 12 year old black girl for wearing a <insert name of boys band that 12 year old girls like here> t-shirt? Because she would be appropriating "white" culture?

Probably any black person wearing any sort of NBA apparel, really...


Think about it. Basketball was created by a WHITE rugby coach who wanted something for his rugby players (in the US at that time, this was predominately a WHITE past-time) to do in the winter.... It has since been "stolen" by "black culture" and now white people are basically excluded from the very thing that they created, which was "culturally appropriated" by another group

 Pendix wrote:
It's something I've seen before and I thought it was pretty weird when I first encountered it too. It was coming from people I respect, so I've been trying to wrap my head around what's going on there. I think it's born out of what often bubbles up in these sort of discussions where some people refuse to acknowledge that not all racism is created equal. Some people will argue that, since racism is bad, that all racism is equally bad, and 'you can't just address racism against one group, without talking about/addressing all racism'. Which is usually a furfy designed to distract from, and derail the actual discussion. This has lead some to redefine racism as only being 'Racism' when it is systemic (or practised by a society rather than individuals). This also seems to happen with other 'ism's.

Plus I think the whole racist-as-insult thing plays a role as well, though I'm hazy on that one.

Honestly I don't think it is a very good tactic, it generally just seems to lead to more confusion and talking at cross purposes, but YMMV.

This is what I see as the problem. By distorting what is meant by racism it shuts down any honest discussion on the topic. What we have instead is the situation that Group X cannot have an opinion about Group Y because Group X has been told by Y that they have privilege, and must check their privilege at every opportunity. Meanwhile Group Y can have an opinion about Group X because they claim not to have privilege. It seems like an all too convenient way to shift the goalposts, and is more antagonistic than helpful.