Cultural Appropriation
- Thread starter Metaxa
- Start date
The automobile is a cultural icon to many people. There is argument about who invented it but there is no argument that it was a white man. Should only white men be able to sell automobiles? Who decides what is and what is not something that can be profited on in our society?
Cars do not have special cultural significance unique to white people. It's not hard to see the distinction.
For another analogy, it's illegal to wear the decorative medals etc. of an enlisted military person if they're not real or yours. If you wear or use the item without connection to its meaning, you're disrespecting it.
Additionally, there's resentment over say celebrating a white person doing something or wearing something "traditionally black" when a black person doing or wearing the same thing is regarded with suspicion or contempt. e.g. black model with cornrows is told they're "too urban" but then white model wears cornrows and gets a magazine cover for being daring.
Again you really have to ask? That's where "the people who originated it" come into the equation.
Again in analogy, an artist creates a painting: It may have significant personal meaning to them and they don't want to see it plastered on Instagram or on T-shirts, they may be fine with it as long as they get paid (or at least get credit), or they may say "go for it"... but regardless the polite thing is not to just do what you wish with it without consideration for where it came from.
The only practical problem when it's a culture and not a person is that no one person or group speaks for the whole culture. Still you can read the room as they say.
Let's put it this way: if you have no claim to the thing's origins, then the answer is "not you". So then you do a little research to find out who does have a claim and you see what they think, on average, weighted by how convincing their claim is to the thing.
Of course you may not realise something was culturally sensitive. So, when you find out later, see above.
Or one could continue to ignore common sense and pretend there are no reasonable answers to these questions.
Your correct....Medals awarded cannot be worn by anyone but the person that earned them.
the same can be said for a Plains Indian War Bonnet, it is decorated with the feats of war by the individual wearing it. They are incredibly rare because for centuries they where pulled apart and scattered into the wind, after the individual died.....late into the 1880’s they began to hand them down, when they realized their culture was threatened.
Now if you buy one, made by a plains tribe, and it is a reproduction, it is purchased as a work of art, and still fairly valuable.
i happen to own two Lakota, and one Blackfoot , one of which was a gift from that tribe......any original pieces dating back into the 1800’s is a truly rare find, and I’ve found two originals.
Both where purchased, and offered back too the appropriate Nation.....and placed in their museums, which probably explains to you why I was given the reproduction as a gift.
If you purchase a War Bonnet produced by a non native, it is has almost no value whatsoever, and is considered no better than a Halloween costume.
The native art market is somewhat self correcting, with only a few rare non native artists making a living at producing traditional works.....it happens but it’s only a handful.
Canadian law also requires that Native work cannot be consigned, but must be purchased....and that is a double edged sword.
The Aboriginal artist walks into a gallery, and the item is purchased....usually far below what it might sell for, as the gallery owner is taking most of the risk.
An item that sells for 4000 retail, sometimes only brings the artist 5 to 8 hundred.
So, these dances should only be done by the originators? We'd still be in the stone age if people didn't borrow from other cultures...https://vimeo.com/435609071?fbclid=IwAR0O_eiQWEaw6hUOj0XIfkrIqhD2ERjkBxPTVRevZPFh1cS-0XbiWckB2v4
Who said that? The point is to respect the culture not to keep everyone in their own boxes. If somebody else's religious symbol is merely your fashion statement, you're doing it wrong. And if you're going to celebrate a thing when someone outside the culture adopts it, but look down on it if someone from the culture that created it does it, you're also doing it wrong. It's just a matter of understanding and connecting to the people you're "borrowing" from rather than just storming in and helping yourself to whatever you like.
We’re talking 30 years ago when Madonna and Sinead O’Connor were in the news for blasphemy. Flash forward to post Marilyn Manson and no high profile individual or, more importantly, media outlets are going to make a big deal over anyone of any race, age gender etc wearing or selling catholic/christian symbols for fashion-in the west that is. Same goes for anyone profiting off art(songs, clothes, crafts etc) that intentionally desecrates christian symbols or themes. This only applies to Christianity in the western world of course, and would not apply to other religions or cultures here. I’m not religious and I take no umbrage about this, just pointing out the double standard.
That's a whole other topic. A couple thoughts on that:
First, Sinead O'Connor is a bit different. She was directly criticising the Pope, not trivialising him. Some things that people call "desecration" are actual direct criticism and that stands or falls on its own merits. Certainly you can't say people aren't criticising other religions too.
Second, you can't assume everyone who objects to "cultural appropriation" are the same people who have no problem with Christian symbols used without care or consideration. It's only hypocrisy or a double standard when it's the same person holding both views. Otherwise it's just two different people with two different opinions. Not saying there aren't hypocrites, but no group is a monolith, be it a culture, a "progressive" or whatever.
(Is Christian iconography even still being fetishised? I thought people didn't talk about it anymore because it had fallen out of fashion.)
I’ll agree that it’s off topic, but this thread is all over the place. The double standard, with regard to one religion being open to ridicule, criticism and yes desecration while to do so to others would be blasphemous to PC ideology, is real. I absolutely contend, based on my limited experiences, that most who object to CA wouldn’t do more than raise an eyebrow at christian symbols being worn as jewelry by non adherents or desecrated for profit. I’ll also say most of these same people wouldn’t tolerate other religious or sacred symbols being treated in a similar manner. Direct or indirect criticism of almost any other religion, here in the west, is taboo with limited exceptions.
Definitely not chic or avante-garde, but k-pop artists and fans wear cross earrings, hats, tshirts etc. I’m sure more than a handful of the artists identify as or are practicing christians. I know a few young Chinese, Korean and Caucasian fans of the genre who sport the symbols for fashion only.
Definitely not chic or avante-garde, but k-pop artists and fans wear cross earrings, hats, tshirts etc. I’m sure more than a handful of the artists identify as or are practicing christians. I know a few young Chinese, Korean and Caucasian fans of the genre who sport the symbols for fashion only.
You've seen enough examples of double standards, selective outrage and past cultural practices and I'm wondering what you think is acceptable, and what you deem to be CA that either is acceptable, or not never ever. Feel free to use some of the examples in this thread.
When the mob decides, based on nothing but "feelings", or by appropriating outrage on behalf of another culture, it would be nice to know how certain people make those determinations, and which fit the bill.
You really shouldn't bother asking questions if you're not interested in the answer. It's more than clear you didn't start the topic to understand the concept, but just to rebuke it.
Anyway, I'm not here to change your mind. I'm not that naive. I said what I said (and also already answered that question, in fact) for the benefit of anyone else reading this thread who has an open mind and a genuine interest in hearing another perspective on the topic.
Enjoy your unbending certainty.
Absolute thinking doesn't do anyone any good on either side of the fence. And Twitter proves that no matter what the subject you'll find someone outraged about something. But it's also no way to go through life not taking other perspectives into consideration. There's no calculus for this problem.
I don't think avoiding cultural appropriation should be an absolute mandate any more than "always be polite" should be. Start from a place of decency and consideration, sure.
But first off I take outrage on behalf of another culture with a grain of salt. I prefer to listen to what the people who are directly concerned have to say. So if a black woman who has been discriminated against for her hairstyle complains about Kylie Jenner getting praise for it, I think "yeah you've got a point." And maybe if I witness that hypocritical judgment, I'll share her story as a counterpoint.
But flipside Rihanna was done up in Asian stylings for a cover and people got on her case about it, except it was Asian photographers and Asian makeup artists and Asian fashion designers that dressed her for an Asian magazine. So obviously there was at least a group of Asians who said they were cool with that. So who are these random Westerners to get outraged on their behalf when they were fine with it?
Wearing a native headdress on a runway might be inconsiderate, but a white person participating in a native dance troupe in native garb when they'd been welcomed into the class and trained by them is fine in my books. It comes down to respect and intent, for me.
(And yeah crucifixes as fashion statements are just as superficial and inconsiderate. But I'll defend Sinead O'Connor's "blasphemy" because it wasn't superficial.)
You don't have to research every damned recipe or piece of clothing before you try it, but if you become aware of a problem, and it looks like one that legitimately belittles a group with a rightful claim, it can be the decent thing to go "oops my bad" and try to be more considerate.
Or maybe like the white person invited into the native dance troupe you've actually got some depth to your "appropriation" and it's the person judging you that's being superficial. Context is everything.
