(June 29, 2017 at 7:05 pm)bennyboy Wrote: He's not railing against white men.  He's arguing that cultural appropriation is real, and that it's a bad thing.

I'm not actually arguing that it's real.  That would just be arguing that history occurred.  There's no debate about whether or not such appropriation happened, the disagreement is whether or not it is equivalent to learning your next door neighbors foreign language. To wearing dredlocks. To a white kid in a marley shirt, etc.

I'm explaining the ways that it's distinct from other forms of cultural transfer, -why- people feel the need to separate it from other forms of transfer, and clearing up any misconceptions people had about what was being discussed by that use of the term.

To the first, I present the distinctions people have explicitly referred to in their use of the term. To the second, the fact that this normalizes historic and present exploitation and racism as the same thing as learning a foreign language, and to the third...that it aint about white guilt or even white people. It's a race neutral phenomena. We can leave all of that nonsense to the psycho sjws, alt-white shitheels, and other assorted sympathetic mouthpieces.

(June 29, 2017 at 5:17 pm)ManofYesterday Wrote: Define "whiteness."

"Whiteness" means having little melanin in one's skin, and/or exemplifying the cultures of geographic regions inhabited primarily by people having little melanin in one's skin.

Quote:Explain if there's such a thing as "blackness,"

Like whiteness, but with way more melanin in the skin.

Quote:Define "cultural appropriation."

Provide a real world example of cultural appropriation.

Cultural appropriation is the adopting of customs, fashions, beliefs, or symbolic artifacts from one culture in an attempt to minimize its uniqueness or to redefine it int eh terms of the oppressor's world view.

An example of cultural appropriation would be the Christians adopting December 25 as Jesus' birthday (winter solstice--pagan culture), the Christmas tree (winter protection against death--pagan culture), and the Easter bunny (symbol of spring fertility and reproduction-- pagan culture), to draw pagans to the Christian religion, while actively persecuting the pagans, and ensuring that they did not hold office or have an active role in the operations of the culture which subsumed theirs.


You should consider learning how google works. Many of your questions could have been answered with about 10 seconds of searching.

---

(June 29, 2017 at 11:21 am)Shell B Wrote: Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with you here. Every race has been enslaved and oppressed at some point or another. I'm a little tired of playing the "who deserves our pity and who doesn't get to have an opinion because they're not one of the chosen oppressed races" game. I don't understand why white men get it more, either, is it because women are historically oppressed?

My race and gender have been brought up several times in this thread as an example of why my opinion should be mocked or discarded. If that's the case, then the white males who are doing the mocking and discarding can go ahead and do the same. They are white males and therefore cannot speak for the oppressed, obviously. Fucking hypocrites.

I don't think that historical "me too" claim works, when you are not currently being culturally oppressed individually, but at least one person in this thread very likely is.

As for your race and gender. . . Your gender doesn't matter, because nobody is accusing women of oppressing non-women. However, your race IS relevant, because in Tizheruk's case, we were talking about the insensitivity of white people in particular to his culture in general, and the sacred symbol of the dream catcher, in particular. You pretty clearly discarded his own feelings about the issue, and I implied that if you were white, your unwillingness to try and see his point of view might be a pretty good case in point. (please read 2nd paragraph before you melt down)

That being said, I also said that while I recognize there may be cultural appropriation there, I'm not bothered by it for several reasons: I'm not (very) native, so I don't have spiritual associations with dream catchers; I'm not spiritual, so the spirituality of this or that symbol is irrelevant to me and a very poor basis for protection in my eyes; hippie girls with dream catcher decorations are often super-cute, and I like super-cute girls more than I dislike people who copy fashion styles from an oppressed cultural group.


This is why I've argued in favor of bigotry: I think everyone's a bigot in some sense. I'm for sure one in some ways. However, with almost 8 billion people bouncing around the world, if we can simply do it without actively abusing each other's persons or rights, then I think that's enough.

Also, please keep in mind that I started this thread, and that it was very much because I'm also tired of having to answer for all white people and all white cultures whenever I engage in a discussion about things. I'm trying to address things rationally which I know I as a person don't much give a shit about practically.

(June 29, 2017 at 7:18 pm)Khemikal Wrote: I'm explaining the ways that it's distinct from other forms of cultural transfer, -why- people feel the need to separate it from other forms of transfer, and clearing up any misconceptions people had about what was being discussed by that use of the term.

I think, then, that the problem is that others -- not you -- are using a much broader definition of the term in order to garner and nurture offense. And I personally think your interpretation is a subset of the larger phenomenon. I don't, however, think that all cultural borrowing is appropriation; I think intent comes into play as well. Is someone adopting a cultural meme because they simply like it, or are they adopting it because they want to "leg-up" on someone by claiming a closer connection to the culture in question? To me, that is the dividing line.

In that sense, Elvis was cultural appropriation, but Faith No More covering "Easy" wasn't -- because Elvis was monetizing what had never delivered much money to the original creators while sweeping away its roots, while FNM was covering a song which had already made its band rich, and simply paying homage.

Recently on a jazz forum I attend, the thread came up, "Is jazz too white?" This question obviously arose there, and was obviously just as controversial. But I think, again, that it goes back to intent. Benny Goodman? Appropriating. Pat Metheny? Not so much. The difference? The former added little or nothing to the value of the music, while the latter put his own spin on it and while paying homage, took it somewhere else.

I've followed this thread without much comment thus far because I have mixed feelings about the issue. But it's a fact that there are folks, OP included, whose understanding of "cultural appropriation" is much broader than your own, or mine. I get where you're coming from -- can't tell you how many times I've slagged Jimmy Page for fucking Howlin' Wolf over in royalties -- but that's a far cry from hanging a dreamcatcher on one's wall -- which some folks do regard as appropriation, and leverage that for critique, your disagreement notwithstanding. To those folks, I say, I'll hang whatever the hell I want on my own walls, and you can kiss my ass. I'm not going to sue Living Colour for playing heavy metal, either -- the music's out there, do what you want with it and have a heyday.

I think the broader version is what others in this thread are talking about, and in that sense, it seems to me that because of that discrepancy, you and the others are talking past each other.

Just my opinion, and worth every penny you've paid for it.

(June 29, 2017 at 7:56 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I think, then, that the problem is that others -- not you -- are using a much broader definition of the term in order to garner and nurture offense. And I personally think your interpretation is a subset of the larger phenomenon. I don't, however, think that all cultural borrowing is appropriation; I think intent comes into play as well. Is someone adopting a cultural meme because they simply like it, or are they adopting it because they want to "leg-up" on someone by claiming a closer connection to the culture in question? To me, that is the dividing line.

The people who argued for the term culture appropriation is it's being used by myself and critics didn't think that all borrowing is cultural appropriation either, and they also explicitly reference the demonstrable intent of one group as of the distinctions between it and other forms of cultural transfer.

Quote:In that sense, Elvis was cultural appropriation, but Faith No More covering "Easy" wasn't -- because Elvis was monetizing what had never delivered much money to the original creators while sweeping away its roots, while FNM was covering a song which had already made its band rich, and simply paying homage.

It's not so much laid at Elvis's feet himself as it is the society which creates the atmosphere in which it is or can be done.  It's easy to note that white culture was cribbing, scrubbing, and profiting from black culture at a time when they were simultaneously being oppressed.  White american society was doing it, not elvis, personally.  It would be phenomenally difficult for a single person (and a performer at that) to accomplish cultural appropriation mainly for it being near-to-impossible for a single person to fulfill the criteria. 

Quote:Recently on a jazz forum I attend, the thread came up, "Is jazz too white?" This question obviously arose there, and was obviously just as controversial. But I think, again, that it goes back to intent. Benny Goodman? Appropriating. Pat Metheny? Not so much. The difference? The former added little or nothing to the value of the music, while the latter put his own spin on it and while paying homage, took it somewhere else.

I've followed this thread without much comment thus far because I have mixed feelings about the issue. But it's a fact that there are folks, OP included, whose understanding of "cultural appropriation" is much broader than your own, or mine. I get where you're coming from -- can't tell you how many times I've slagged Jimmy Page for fucking Howlin' Wolf over in royalties -- but that's a far cry from hanging a dreamcatcher on one's wall -- which some folks do regard as appropriation, and leverage that for critique, your disagreement notwithstanding. To those folks, I say, I'll hang whatever the hell I want on my own walls, and you can kiss my ass. I'm not going to sue Living Colour for playing heavy metal, either -- the music's out there, do what you want with it and have a heyday.

I think the broader version is what others in this thread are talking about, and in that sense, it seems to me that because of that discrepancy, you and the others are talking past each other.

Just my opinion, and worth every penny you've paid for it.

Referring to the broader version doesn't speak directly to or competently argue against the more narrow version that is intended by the terms use as they argue and to which the OP post was referring.  The term is not meant to be used to say that any of the other stuff is the cultural appropriation they're talking about, or bad.  That's been the number one misconception from page one. I agree that this is what other people are talking about...what I;ve been trying to hammer home is that all that other stuff is -not- what the term being used as-such is meant to convey. That it doesn;t contend that "the other stuff" is "this stuff", and so no amount of talking about the other stuff even begins to engage the discussion of this stuff.

I disagree in the dreamcatcher bit only insomuch as it is not, today, cultural appropriation.  It may be the legacy of past cultural appropriation, it may remind some people that it occurred, I can understand why it would be upsetting to them.  It just doesn't fit the criteria anymore.

@Thump and Khemical

Let me say that for me, the term cultural appropriation is pretty new. I've only ever really heard the words used over the past year or so in the context I was complaining about. It seems to be one of those pop-culture terms that just take off suddenly, and whatever it meant when nobody was really using it that much doesn't matter.

It seems to me that the term is a battleground word-- i.e. that people are pushing to redefine it to strengthen their own positions. Type "cultural appropriation" into Youtube, for example, and you'll get a huge range of uses, rants, and moderate discussion. Interestingly, the division does NOT seem to be along race. There seem to be as many black posters who think crying about cultural appropriation is dumb as white people.

I can say that as a middle-aged white man with a pretty tough background, I haven't taken anything from anyone, and I don't associate enough with any aspect of Canadian or American culture to feel guilty about what has happened before me. However, I recognize the problem in all of us just shaking the dust off our hands and saying "That was in the past, and we're a whole new generation of people now, living whole new lives." But the truth is that there are a million issues, and the top of the list for me is feeding the kids and relaxing after work.

I'm just saying that the use of two different understandings of the term makes the discussion that much more difficult. I think it's okay to simply address the OP's conception on its own terms (which in my mind is not appropriation at all). It's not that your points are wrong so far as I see, but rather that they address the issue of cultural genocide more aptly than appropriation -- after all, exterminating the natives here in America to the 90th percentile is much more serious than dressing up like them, it seems to me.

---

(June 29, 2017 at 9:27 pm)bennyboy Wrote: @Thump and Khemical

Let me say that for me, the term cultural appropriation is pretty new.  I've only ever really heard the words used over the past year or so in the context I was complaining about.  It seems to be one of those pop-culture terms that just take off suddenly, and whatever it meant when nobody was really using it that much doesn't matter.

It seems to me that the term is a battleground word-- i.e. that people are pushing to redefine it to strengthen their own positions.  Type "cultural appropriation" into Youtube, for example, and you'll get a huge range of uses, rants, and moderate discussion.  Interestingly, the division does NOT seem to be along race.  There seem to be as many black posters who think crying about cultural appropriation is dumb as white people.

The term has been in play in America here for a few years -- I remember reading about it three or four years ago.

You're probably right in saying that it's a battleground term wherein each side is struggling to frame the issue definitionally.

(June 29, 2017 at 9:27 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I can say that as a middle-aged white man with a pretty tough background, I haven't taken anything from anyone, and I don't associate enough with any aspect of Canadian or American culture to feel guilty about what has happened before me.  However, I recognize the problem in all of us just shaking the dust off our hands and saying "That was in the past, and we're a whole new generation of people now, living whole new lives."  But the truth is that there are a million issues, and the top of the list for me is feeding the kids and relaxing after work.

I love absorbing stuff from other cultures. I'm a musician. I'm a white American musician. Loves me some heavy metal, but it just ain't enough to soothe the savage beast, dig? So I play blues and jazz, and infiltrate some Middle Eastern and Indian music in there, take a swipe at flamenco every so often, and work to import stuff like koto and shamisen approaches into my playing. And to all the Spaniards, Arabs, Japanese, Vietnamese, Indians, and black Americans who might be bothered by my personal melting pot, I can only say, "Take a listen and I hope you like it."

I know that whenever anyone else, wherever they live and whatever culture is their base -- I'll give it a listen and go with how it works musically, without worrying about "they're stealin' mah myoosik!" Because it never was mine to begin with. It was created by my culture, and given to the world, too -- just like theirs.

And I guess that's why the idea of cultural appropriation bugs me ... it seems like a great way to slow down human interchanges, to stifle communication -- when that's what we need more of.

There's a beauty in this that would not be exposed by American musical sensibilities. I'm glad she appropriated it:





I do wish she'd lose the little ice-cream bowl on her head, though.

---

Another example of cultural cross-pollination that commands my appreciation -- Vishna Mohwan Bhatt is playing Indian classical music, with a slide made for blues, on an arch-top kinda-guitar custom-built based on designs made to play American jazz. I'm thinking the music is more important than the guitar, or the player:

I just want to clarify that I love the black culture and the black culture loves me.

(June 29, 2017 at 9:27 pm)bennyboy Wrote: @Thump and Khemical

Let me say that for me, the term cultural appropriation is pretty new.  I've only ever really heard the words used over the past year or so in the context I was complaining about.  It seems to be one of those pop-culture terms that just take off suddenly, and whatever it meant when nobody was really using it that much doesn't matter.

It seems to me that the term is a battleground word-- i.e. that people are pushing to redefine it to strengthen their own positions.  Type "cultural appropriation" into Youtube, for example, and you'll get a huge range of uses, rants, and moderate discussion.  Interestingly, the division does NOT seem to be along race.  There seem to be as many black posters who think crying about cultural appropriation is dumb as white people.

I can say that as a middle-aged white man with a pretty tough background, I haven't taken anything from anyone, and I don't associate enough with any aspect of Canadian or American culture to feel guilty about what has happened before me.  However, I recognize the problem in all of us just shaking the dust off our hands and saying "That was in the past, and we're a whole new generation of people now, living whole new lives."  But the truth is that there are a million issues, and the top of the list for me is feeding the kids and relaxing after work.

I understand, the cacophony of gibbon chatter back and forth between, for example...internet sjws and alt-white trolls confuses the issue.  You, personally, could not possibly be guilty of an offense that takes an entire society to accomplish.  I don't know what canada is up to at present, but we here in the us -are- doing it again, so on top of the nuts giving the historic examples new life and tension it serves to minimize and diminish the reality of it's present incarnation...which is awfully convenient for one half of that nutball argument.  

I get that crazy sjws try to beat people over the head with the term, but consider that their zealotry comes from a solid place.  The misery that the actions called cultural appropriation..or, if you prefer cultural misappropriation incurred are nearly incalculable - throughout all of history, and yes...to any culture which was subjected to it.  Whereas their denier counterparts are using both the confused zealotry of the sjws set and the misunderstanding they've both actively helped to cultivate in others towards the end of ignoring those historic and present examples.  To perpetuate that misery and exacerbate it with the -help- of people who would otherwise oppose it.  I specifically pointed out holocasut denial laws in my sideline with shell for that reason., That's sjw stuff, right there, and it's awfully heavy handed since it's coming from the state..but still less onerous and from a better place than the holocaust deniers constant ramblings. If we ignored the holocaust and framed the issue as a free speech issue, it would be easy to control the narrative and manipulate people into opposing a fundamentally good intentioned bit of authoritarianism. Here, framing the issue as the blacks just trying to get their mules and white genocide america isn't just similar, it's the same thing...and we don't even have the laws.

It's a shitty, shitty piece of work.  

(June 29, 2017 at 9:28 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm just saying that the use of two different understandings of the term makes the discussion that much more difficult. I think it's okay to simply address the OP's conception on its own terms (which in my mind is not appropriation at all). It's not that your points are wrong so far as I see, but rather that they address the issue of cultural genocide more aptly than appropriation -- after all, exterminating the natives here in America to the 90th percentile is much more serious than dressing up like them, it seems to me.

It does, but addressing the OPs conception on it;s own terms is simply talking about a misunderstanding.  Benny, for example..would have never known what they were attempting to make reference to (and apparently failing) or why they were failing.  

Cultural genocide is distinct in that it is an attempt to -eradicate- a culture, to wipe it from the face of the earth, not assume it for themselves. Cultural purity laws, not cultural appropriation. That's exactly the point the term being used as such hopes to address. That things like cultural genocide and cultural appropriation refer to distinct societal activities and motivations, and are not the same, themselves, as other forms of transfer. For a long time it all got lumped together as "the same thing" - along with learning a language and working salsa into ones diet.

That's a profoundly dangerous way to conceptualize those very different things, in the opinion of the people who argued for a distinct classification...and I agree wholeheartedly with them.

I think it's perfectly apt to speak about what we think of as the OP's misunderstandings, and I don't have a problem with people bringing their own definitions to such a fucking murky term.

I may well be misspeaking when I use the term "cultural genocide", but the way I see it, even those genocidal cultures (America vs the natives, for example) adopted the cultural practices of the vanquished, even as the victims' cultures are eradicated in practice (perhaps to assuage guilt? Who knows?) But that's okay -- I think the practice is more important than the parlance.

I guess I'd ask at this point, given ANY definition of cultural appropriation, what most of us here, or I specifically as a middle-aged white guy, should do about it. Is there some aspect of the social contract, or of a basic moral foundation, which should compel me to take up arms, to make it a point to stand up in support of an issue or group, or even to change what music, art, etc. I like?