"Cultural Appropriation"

[The Grand Nudger]

Hmn, trivializing a sacred object is a real problem, but stealing and exploiting sacred objects of other cultures...the very essence of cultural appropriation......isn't?  Something seems amiss.

You are trading on multiple connotations of the words stealing and exploiting. If Ghuongzhou Trading Company makes dream catcher earrings in no way does it impoverish any Native American. Even if Ghuongzhou took advantage of the opportunity to make a ton of money selling dream catcher trinkets it doesn't mean Native Americans cannot keep for themselves the meaning they assigned to dream catchers. Nor are Native Americans prevented from continuing to use dream catchers in traditional ways. They have lost nothing and no one can take anything away from them.

That is how symbols work in a free society. People get to decide for themselves what things mean to them and express themselves however they choose. It is only in totalitarian societies where people are told what they must think things signify and what types of expressions are permitted.

Some native americans seem to disagree.  Again, a convenient position for a raider.  In examples of historic cultural appropriation..the victims -did not- either legally or effectively, enjoy the right of free expression themelves, in any case. You could only be talking about what the dominant, oppressive culture claimed as it's own rights in response to such an accusation and about what they felt justified in doing with their posession of the other cultures paraphernalia. Again, part of the distinctly colonial relationship invoked by the term.

/ shrugs

[The Grand Nudger]

Cultural appropriation does make things better sometimes though, led zeppelin took all the songs they stole to a better level than what they were.

Lol, that was not cultural appropriation, but artistic mayhem. Go listen to some Howlin' Wolf and tell us again how Zep did it "better".

Oooooh, the guitars were louder!

What they did smacks of cultural appropriation, but worse than that, they lied about authorship. No one would think Page / Plant et al had actually worked on a killing floor ... but they cashed the royalty payments all the same. That's theft of intellectual property.

Never happened™ and/or/also was a good thing™.  Basically, they just learned to speak czech.

[paulpablo]

Cultural appropriation does make things better sometimes though, led zeppelin took all the songs they stole to a better level than what they were.

Lol, that was not cultural appropriation, but artistic mayhem. Go listen to some Howlin' Wolf and tell us again how Zep did it "better".

Oooooh, the guitars were louder!

What they did smacks of cultural appropriation, but worse than that, they lied about authorship. No one would think Page / Plant et al had actually worked on a killing floor ... but they cashed the royalty payments all the same. That's theft of intellectual property.

Yeh well my opinions on that are mixed.
I do think the songs I've heard sound better, I agree what they did was theft of intellectual property.
My comment that cultural appreciate is sometimes good because led zeppelin did it so well was half a joke.
I was about to comment that to me it seems that these things like stealing relics, destroying graves or whatever, may or may not be cultural appropriation, but it's overall wrong because it's theft/vandalism.
Stealing someone's property is what's wrong, but not being inspired in terms of style. I don't even know what taking someone's culture without their consent could really even mean. Or why in and of itself it would be bad.

[Amarok]

That's just my point a dream catcher in my culture is not just art it's a sacred ceremonial object . And using it as a wall decoration is as awful and disrespectful to it's role in my culture as the above .

Maybe, before chastising us, you should convince the other member of your culture that selling "sacred ceremonial objects" to white tourist who don't understand the roll they play in your culture is a bad idea. For fuck's sake, you can buy those things everywhere from native as well as non-native sellers. How in the fuck can we appropriate what's essentially been given to us?

I already have I already in this very thread condemned natives who do just what your saying and have done so IRL  . As for the mass distribution I agree it's problem . But that's the point it should not have simply been given .

---

 
Sigh as I have already said over and over . If you own out of respect for another culture then fine. If your just owning one because it looks cool without respect for the item then I must disapprove . Now I'll admit I don't know the reason losty owns one . But neither do you. But considering the tone of the post I'm not confident in the former. Thou I totally open to being wrong and revising my post .

Hope that clears things up

Actually someone gave it to my daughter because she has nightmares. I think it's silly but I let her keep it because she thinks it helps. I never considered any culture when I made the decision.

I can get being offended if someone is out screaming bad things about your culture but to be offended by someone simply owning a Dreamcatcher in the privacy of their own homes is beyond ridiculous.

Not really and you confirmed my point . And it's anything ridiculous

---

I presume you are talking about Rachel Dolezal. I don’t know all the specifics other than the headlines. It appears she was presenting herself as something she wasn’t in other to attain something she could not otherwise get from a group of people for whom certain criteria were important. It seems to me that Ms. Dolezal engaged in a kind of fraud but that is between her and the people she was apparently trying to fool.

Now you seem to be hung-up on the notion that appropriation is different from exchange. What you’re doing is using those words in an economic sense and sneaking in the idea that people and groups can have ownership rights to cultural products. How exactly does that work? What is the mechanism of exchange? From whom does the purchaser buy the rights or gain permission to use a cultural product. In most nations, there are legal mechanisms to grant ownership rights to a limited range of cultural products through copyrights, trademarks, and patents.

So what is your opinion about the Portland ladies that were shamed into closing their taco stand? It seems to me that two enterprising and resourceful ladies in Portland managed to replicate the traditional recipe for tortillas by asking questions and careful observation, even if it did involve snooping around. So what were they supposed to do? Pay royalties? To whom? And with whom could they have negotiated?

Now what is sometimes is objectionable is trivializing, disrespecting, or desacralizing symbols that are important to others. With respect to dream catchers, I went on made-in-china.com and saw that one could buy all kinds of dream catcher merchandise. Dream catcher ear rings for $0.80 each with a minimum 1000 piece order. Dream catcher temporary tattoos for $.10 each with a minimum 3,000 piece order. And my personal favorite for this discussion…a yoga matt with a dream catcher image printed on it ($9.89 each for a minimum 50 piece order)…a Chinese product for practicing Hindu rituals decorated with a Native American symbol! Do these trivialize the ceremonial aspect of dream catchers? Yes. (btw I don’t think uber-liberal Minimalist worries too much about the meaning his avatar had to ancient Egyptians.)

But just as often people trivialize their own culture. When I was at the Vatican, there were venders selling everything from jigsaw puzzles of the Sistine Chapel, to plastic Rosary beads, to beer bottle openers with cameos of Pope Francis. That’s not an act of oppression; it’s just the very human tendency to make vulgar and trivialize things that should be authentic and sacrosanct.

That is the nature of symbols, their meanings shift under different circumstances. The economic model doesn’t apply. Use and context are what matter. Marcel Duchamp puts a urinal in a gallery and elevates it to an artistic statement. Serrano photographs a crucifix submerged in a yellow fluid and titles it “Piss Christ”. Is it offense? Yes. Does it trivialize and disrespect a traditional Christian symbol? That’s one way of looking at it. Would its significance been different if the title was “Pineapple Juice Christ”? Absolutely.  

In a free society, people are free to be as annoying or disrespectful or inconsiderate as they want to be. The problem is when some people arrogate to themselves to be the sole arbitors of what symbols can and cannot mean, how they can be used and who can use them and then use threats of violence and force of law to impose their interpretation onto everyone else.

As I have said already I can't stop someone from doing it and I have intention nor are advocating force

Seriously read the stuff I write before commenting or going on a rant

And I have already stated how it's acquired legitimately

So this whole rant was pointless

[Neo-Scholastic]

You are trading on multiple connotations of the words stealing and exploiting. If Ghuongzhou Trading Company makes dream catcher earrings in no way does it impoverish any Native American. Even if Ghuongzhou took advantage of the opportunity to make a ton of money selling dream catcher trinkets it doesn't mean Native Americans cannot keep for themselves the meaning they assigned to dream catchers. Nor are Native Americans prevented from continuing to use dream catchers in traditional ways. They have lost nothing and no one can take anything away from them.

That is how symbols work in a free society. People get to decide for themselves what things mean to them and express themselves however they choose. It is only in totalitarian societies where people are told what they must think things signify and what types of expressions are permitted.

Some native americans seem to disagree.  Again, a convenient position for a raider.  In examples of historic cultural appropriation..the victims -did not- either legally or effectively, enjoy the right of free expression themelves, in any case. You could only be talking about what the dominant, oppressive culture claimed as it's own rights in response to such an accusation and about what they felt justified in doing with their posession of the other cultures paraphernalia. Again, part of the distinctly colonial relationship invoked by the term.

/ shrugs

It's a liberty thing. You wouldn't understand.

[Ravenshire]

Maybe, before chastising us, you should convince the other member of your culture that selling "sacred ceremonial objects" to white tourist who don't understand the roll they play in your culture is a bad idea. For fuck's sake, you can buy those things everywhere from native as well as non-native sellers. How in the fuck can we appropriate what's essentially been given to us?

I already have I already in this very thread condemned natives who do just what your saying and have done so IRL  . As for the mass distribution I agree it's problem . But that's the point it should not have simply been given .

You seem to have missed main the point (highlighted above).

You seem to be blaming us for appropriating your culture, but how can we appropriate what has been sold out by your own culture?

[bennyboy]

I already have I already in this very thread condemned natives who do just what your saying and have done so IRL  . As for the mass distribution I agree it's problem . But that's the point it should not have simply been given .

You seem to have missed main the point (highlighted above).

You seem to be blaming us for appropriating your culture, but how can we appropriate what has been sold out by your own culture?

This point might actually go to Tizheruk.  On an individual level, some chick buying a dream catcher from an "authorized, real actual native" crafts shop is relatively blameless, and may even have chosen this store because she's trying to be sensitive to the native population.  The culture as a whole, though, has probably arrived at a point where these native people either don't know any better (because they've been culturally assimilated) or are under so much financial pressure that they have to set aside their pride and make money however they can.


I have to go on record and say one thing: I'm not really a big issues chaser.  If someone I knew bought a dream catcher, or wore dreadlocks, I might make a brief comment on it.  Then I'd start thinking about what I was going to have for dinner.  Knowing someone is right in principle, and caring enough to actually get personally involved, are very different things.  I think Tizheruk is clearly right that Westerners have appropriated much of native culture, and erased or damaged the rest, and that matters.  However, I'm also aware that there are a lot of good TV shows on tonight, and when I close this page, the issues we've talked about will probably be out of mind in about 10 seconds.

[Amarok]

I already have I already in this very thread condemned natives who do just what your saying and have done so IRL  . As for the mass distribution I agree it's problem . But that's the point it should not have simply been given .

You seem to have missed main the point (highlighted above).

You seem to be blaming us for appropriating your culture, but how can we appropriate what has been sold out by your own culture?

Already addressed this . "I'M NOT BLAMING NON NATIVES EXCULSIVILY " how many times must repeat myself . I'm against my culture selling them in this context . But I'm also against buying it in this context . It's Still misusing the object but my own culture is partially responsible. Seriously I have said this three times now . It's starting to get annoying.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm against my culture selling them in this context . But I'm also against buying it in this context . It's Still misusing the object but my own culture is partially responsible. Seriously I have said this three times now . It's starting to get annoying.

Like I said, as a nonbeliever you have already disavowed their spiritual significance. You have no credibility.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Lol, that was not cultural appropriation, but artistic mayhem. Go listen to some Howlin' Wolf and tell us again how Zep did it "better".

Oooooh, the guitars were louder!

What they did smacks of cultural appropriation, but worse than that, they lied about authorship. No one would think Page / Plant et al had actually worked on a killing floor ... but they cashed the royalty payments all the same. That's theft of intellectual property.

Yeh well my opinions on that are mixed.
I do think the songs I've heard sound better, I agree what they did was theft of intellectual property.
My comment that cultural appreciate is sometimes good because led zeppelin did it so well was half a joke.
I was about to comment that to me it seems that these things like stealing relics,  destroying graves or whatever, may or may not be cultural appropriation, but it's overall wrong because it's theft/vandalism.
Stealing someone's property is what's wrong, but not being inspired in terms of style.  I don't even know what taking someone's culture without their consent could really even mean. Or why in and of itself it would be bad.

I can see some instances of it being fair to charge. I was discussing this with my gal last night, and although I have pretty mixed feelings about the whole topic, I think my position is evolving. I used to think that there was no such thing, that all cultures borrow from each other, but between what my gal had to say last night, and what Rhythm is saying here, I think I can understand the concept -- that the culture as a whole is rejected or even snuffed out, even as this or that token of it is adopted by the victor culture for whatever reason.

I think intent really matters in something like this, but how do you measure that? My intent in playing the blues is not to make anyone think I am a sharecropper and these are my field-hollers. I just like the music, and want to hopefully play it well enough to spread that enjoyment and perhaps help keep it alive. Is that appropriation? I don't know. Maybe I'm just justifying my own behavior without examining it much. <wanders off to chew on this a little more>

---

What about people who are like 1/16 Cherokee and get a scholarship to college for that even though they know nothing about the culture. I would say that's something to be offended by.

I'm 1/8 Blackfeet; my maternal great-grandmother was full-blood.

I wasn't raised in native culture at all. My maternal grandfather was deeply ashamed of his biracial self because of, well, 1920s Texas -- so he passed as white, lived as white, and his children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren have no idea of this aspect of our roots beyond what we read in books.

I wouldn't dream of plying my native ancestry for any benefits at all, though I imagine I could.

---

Serrano photographs a crucifix submerged in a yellow fluid and titles it “Piss Christ”.

Sorry to niggle, but that was Mapplethorpe.