"Cultural Appropriation"

[Rev. Rye]

[bennyboy]

To all the above yes accept the violence part . She may not be responsible for it's beginning but she is responsible for it's continuation . There is nothing oppressive  about protecting what's ours . And what so many have tried to extinguish or exploit  or trivialize . And frankly we have put up with it for long enough .

Oh, we have a live discussion now. Exciting!

So you are claiming that some college girl with a dream catcher is, knowingly or unknowingly, contributing to the ongoing oppression of tribal peoples, and she should be prevented, by the creation and enforcement of rules or laws, or from an overwhelming pressure from social groups, from wearing it?

How about beaded moccasins and beaded leather jackets? Should she be banned from wearing these, too, because they were made by native people? Or should she not only wear them but charge you royalties for using glass beads which were invented in her culture?

It seems to me that "appropriation" is just a word for the flow of cultural ideas and styles from one culture to the other, and that it happens every time any two cultures come into contact. White kid sees dreadlocks, thinks they're cool, gets dreadlocks. White girl sees dream catchers, says, "Oooh pretty!" and wears one. Native kid watches a ball game, thinks "I can do that," and starts wearing a Kobe Bryant t-shirt. Native dude hears country music, likes it, and starts wearing a cowboy hat.

I don't see that this is an oppression of one population on the other. It is mutual, and the insistence that one party (i.e. the guilty party) has to walk on eggshells, while another party (i.e. the oppressed party) can do whatever it wants with a clean conscience, is a double standard.

[Isis]

This should be interesting.

[Amarok]

To all the above yes accept the violence part . She may not be responsible for it's beginning but she is responsible for it's continuation . There is nothing oppressive  about protecting what's ours . And what so many have tried to extinguish or exploit  or trivialize . And frankly we have put up with it for long enough .

Oh, we have a live discussion now.  Exciting!

So you are claiming that some college girl with a dream catcher is, knowingly or unknowingly, contributing to the ongoing oppression of tribal peoples, and she should be prevented, by the creation and enforcement of rules or laws, or from an overwhelming pressure from social groups, from wearing it?

How about beaded moccasins and beaded leather jackets?  Should she be banned from wearing these, too, because they were made by native people?  Or should she not only wear them but charge you royalties for using glass beads which were invented in her culture?

It seems to me that "appropriation" is just a word for the flow of cultural ideas and styles from one culture to the other, and that it happens every time any two cultures come into contact.  White kid sees dreadlocks, thinks they're cool, gets dreadlocks.  White girl sees dream catchers, says, "Oooh pretty!" and wears one.  Native  kid watches a ball game, thinks "I can do that," and starts wearing a Kobe Bryant t-shirt.  Native dude hears country music, likes it, and starts wearing a cowboy hat.

I don't see that this is an oppression of one population on the other.  It is mutual, and the insistence that one party (i.e. the guilty party) has to walk on eggshells, while another party (i.e. the oppressed party) can do whatever it wants with a clean conscience, is a double standard.

So you are claiming that some college girl with a dream catcher is, knowingly or unknowingly, contributing to the ongoing oppression of tribal peoples, and she should be prevented, by the creation and enforcement of rules or laws, or from an overwhelming pressure from social groups, from wearing it?

Yes she is but I have little interest in using the law.( though I might in terms of the manufacture of said items) . I would far education kill this trend then legality . And hoping peoples sense decency prevails.  

How about beaded moccasins and beaded leather jackets?  Should she be banned from wearing these, too, because they were made by native people?  Or should she not only wear them but charge you royalties for using glass beads which were invented in her culture?

Nope cosmetic objects like leather jackets are very different from something ceremonial like a dream catcher. Or as I have seen taking Inuit grave makers (like the one I carved for my murdered mother ) And having some hippy in Toronto turning it into flower pot. Or (true story ) taking Inuit wedding oaths  and tattooing it on your ass to pick up chicks. But yes I have problem taking legal action against manufactures of native items and demanding our cut.

It seems to me that "appropriation" is just a word for the flow of cultural ideas and styles from one culture to the other, and that it happens every time any two cultures come into contact.  White kid sees dreadlocks, thinks they're cool, gets dreadlocks.  White girl sees dream catchers, says, "Oooh pretty!" and wears one.  Native  kid watches a ball game, thinks "I can do that," and starts wearing a Kobe Bryant t-shirt.  Native dude hears country music, likes it, and starts wearing a cowboy hat.

Nope my definition of culture appropriation is taking key defining or sacred qualities of a culture removing it cultural context and then trivializing it because you think it "looks cool ".  ( dream catchers, wedding oaths , grave markers . By the way I define this separately from cultural erasing .   

I don't see that this is an oppression of one population on the other.  It is mutual, and the insistence that one party (i.e. the guilty party) has to walk on eggshells, while another party (i.e. the oppressed party) can do whatever it wants with a clean conscience, is a double standard.

This is a straw man of my position see above and if your asking how prominent the above is I can tell you it is.

[Jackalope]

Does intent matter here? Like the dream-catcher wearing girl - what if her intent was to honor the spiritual aspect of it in her own way, rather than just thinking it "looks cool"?

I have some contemporary artwork produced by First Nations artists. I think they look cool indeed, but I also understand that the subjects have elements of mythical, cultural and spiritual significance, and I purchased them in part because of that (the imagry, aside from being beautiful, represents a culture that I am not part of, but I value nonetheless. I don't think I ought to feel bad for that.

[Amarok]

Does intent matter here?  Like the dream-catcher wearing girl - what if her intent was to honor the spiritual aspect of it in her own way, rather than just thinking it "looks cool"?

I have some contemporary artwork produced by First Nations artists.  I think they look cool indeed, but I also understand that the subjects have elements of mythical, cultural and spiritual significance, and I purchased them in part because of that (the imagry, aside from being beautiful, represents a culture that I am not part of, but I value nonetheless.  I don't think I ought to feel bad for that.

This is a good point . And I agree

[chimp3]

Back in the '80s I lived in the Southwest U.S. We were into Reggae. There was a Native American Reggae band. There was a Reggae band with a guitar player from Iceland. Reggae was a unifying element. Branches from that unification continue today in the next generation.  I formed friendships which I treasure today. I do not feel guilty about appropriating Jamaican music into the Desert Hippie Culture.

[Isis]

Anyone can buy a dream catcher or any other item from another culture (not necessarily just tribes) from any retailer for whatever reason. Nobody should feel bad about owning one, regardless of where they purchased it from.

I will buy whatever I want, eat what I want, learn whatever language I want, and perform spiritual rituals or a rain dance if I damned well please.

[bennyboy]

Nope cosmetic objects like leather jackets are very different from something ceremonial like a dream catcher. Or as I have seen taking Inuit grave makers (like the one I carved for my murdered mother ) And having some hippy in Toronto turning it into flower pot. Or (true story ) taking Inuit wedding oaths  and tattooing it on your ass to pick up chicks. But yes I have problem taking legal action against manufactures of native items and demanding our cut.

This kind of thing is very understandable. If someone from another came and peed on a gravestone or something, claims of cultural ignorance wouldn't save them from a ticket or even a beating.

Nope my definition of culture appropriation is taking key defining or sacred qualities of a culture removing it cultural context and then trivializing it because you think it "looks cool ".  ( dream catchers, wedding oaths , grave markers . By the way I define this separately from cultural erasing .   

Okay this makes sense. Let me say though that I've seen dream catchers being openly sold in native crafts stores in my hometown in B.C. Do I get a pass on cultural appropriation if something has been gifted or sold to me from a member of that culture? What if I grow up in a community where they are a majority, and I know what dream catchers are and take them seriously?

I'm also curious what you think if a white artist takes an interest in the traditional forms used for example in totems, or in traditional dances. Would you take an interest in learning about the culture, if it's sincere, as an attempt to appropriate?

This is a straw man of my position see above and if your asking how prominent the above is I can tell you it is.

Okay, your position actually sounds very reasonable to me, and in many ways I think that native populations in the Americas have a much more legitimate claim to cultural appropriation than do black people who get pissed off about dreadlocks or something like that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Cultural appropriation is a problem in that it's yet another slap in the face to those cultures.  Cultures from which we'd like to keep all the stuff...but not the people, kthxbai.

Take the Elvis example. Personally, I doubt that he was particularly racist. He dared to sing black, and dress gay while his straight whiteness made him more marketable..and how was life going for blacks and gays in the 50's and 60's? That, is cultural reappropriation. Buying a dreamcatcher, today, isn't. If there were a wave of "native fashion" in white females circa 1830...........that would be a better example.