Writes John, bouncing off this WaPo piece by Cathy Young piece, "To the new culture cops, everything is appropriation/Their protests ignore history, chill artistic expression and hurt diversity." Excerpt from Young:
Most critics of appropriation... say they don’t oppose engagement with other cultures if it’s done in a “culturally affirming” way. A Daily Dot article admonishes that “an authentic cultural exchange should feel free and affirming, rather than plagiarizing or thieving.” A recent post on the Tumblr “This Is Not China” declares that “cultural appropriation is not merely the act of wearing or partaking in cultural symbols & practices that do not belong to you, it’s a system of exploitation & capitalisation on cultural symbols & practices that do not a) originate from b) benefit c) circle back to the culture in question.”I actually think it's fine and good to contemplate these fine distinctions, especially as you develop your own ethics and taste. I'd say that criticizing others for drawing the fine lines in different places is also a matter of ethics and taste. Young asks:
It makes sense to permit behaviors that encourage empathy and genuine interest while discouraging those that caricature or mock a sampled-from culture. But such litmus tests leave ample room for hair-splitting and arbitrary judgments. One blogger’s partial defense of “Kimono Wednesdays” suggests that while it was fine to let visitors [at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston] try on the kimonos, allowing them to be photographed while wearing them was a step too far. This fine parsing of what crosses the line from appreciation into appropriation suggests a religion with elaborate purity tests.
What will be declared “problematic” next? Picasso’s and Matisse’s works inspired by African art? Puccini’s “Orientalist” operas, “Madama Butterfly” and “Turandot”? Should we rid our homes of Japanese prints? Should I take offense at other people’s Russian nesting dolls?But I think all these things deserve attention, and I think they've all been subject to critique for a long, long time. It's hardly a "what's next?" matter to bring up Picasso's use of African art. The subject of cultural appropriation is not to be brushed aside. It deserves study, reflection, analysis, and interesting, wide-ranging debate and discussion. It's one of the great topics of conversation! Don't, in the interest of freedom, censor it. Some people take it too far and become offensive in their taking of offense, but most good subjects for study and conversation touch off some intemperate speakers who love to attack others. Like, I bet what I just said — which is setting up a good topic — has touched off some of my readers to go after me in an intemperate manner.
ADDED: For reference, here's how The New York Times talked about "those ubiquitous gold-dust twins of high-priced modern art, Picasso and Matisse" and their use of African art back in 1927. Click images to enlarge:
पोस्ट्स
१३० टिप्पण्या:
Leftists with both too much time on their hands and a hatred of the evil American cultural imperialists.
Certainly you can discuss the topic of appropriation - you can discuss any topic you wish. That's not a radical idea. And neither is cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation is just something newly dreamed up by SJWs, something else to be up in arms about. I'll appropriate whatever culture I wish, thank you very much, as long as I don't cause physical harm or repress the rights of others. (And no, there's no right to be free from cultural appropriation.)
I don't get it. We're supposed to respect the work of other cultures --- but respecting them tends to lead to complaints about "cultural appropriation".
The tribal warfare of modern Progressivism is deeply damaging. And it has gotten far worse since Obama took office.
"It's one of the great topics of conversation!"
Yeah, sure, that's what Progs on the war path are after, more "great topics of conversation."
Except, of course, that "conversations" with our overlords always amount to lectures on privilege and exploitation.
If I were really, really intemperate, I'd add: preferably as prelude to execution. What self-respecting Red Guard needs "censorship" when she has a guillotine handy?
If I copy a practice from another culture, it is 'appropriation.' If they copy something from my culture, it is 'imperialism.' As long as it is my fault, everything makes sense, I guess.
The subject of cultural appropriation is not to be brushed aside. It deserves study, reflection, analysis, and interesting, wide-ranging debate and discussion.
Disagree. You ignore the context of complaints about cultural appropriation which is part of the same LeftWing grievance scam promoted by our young rebels in college.
In addition to the unending chants - we want more minorities in college, we want more minorities in the faculty, we want more black, women, Chicano studies, we want more safe spaces, we want less offensive Halloween costumes, we want more Transgender studies, we want more CoEd bathrooms, we want more speech codes, we want free tuition - now they chant, "and don't culturally appropriate other people's stuff!"
Giving this nonsense a professorial veneer doesnt change it. We're on to the scam. The descendants of Calvin Coolidge will wear the Indian headdress if we feel like it, Snowflakes.
"Cultural appropriation is just something newly dreamed up by SJWs, something else to be up in arms about."
No, it isn't. It's a serious subject that has been analyzed and discussed for over half a century. Why are you letting some intemperate voices cause you to see it as something recent and delusional?
"Like, I bet what I just said — which is setting up a good topic — has touched off some of my readers to go after me in an intemperate manner."
Needs the "Althouse trolls her readers" tag.
Ann Althouse said...Like, I bet what I just said — which setting up a good topic — has touched off some of my readers to go after me in an intemperate manner.
Yeah, I dares ya, I just dares ya ta attack me in an intemperate way ya rubes!
Are you intentionally adopting this attitude/pointing out this particular flaw in your readers frequently of late Professor, or is it a coincidence? I've noticed several such posts recently. You didn't mention this time that you'll find such intemperate responses and predictable reader responses boring, but I'm reasonably sure that's true, too.
Seems like something's up. Is it Trump? The election coverage dominating the news generally? Who hurt you??
cultural appropriators
Worrying about the "culture" is based on group identity, "us" vs "them", and therefore not of interest to people more concerned with the "smallest minority", the individual. Besides, nobody can actually appropriate anything from a "culture", they "appropriate", a misleading, negative-sounding word which really means borrow/learn/use, from other individuals. When people learn calculus, say, they're not appropriating anything from anyone:
Appropriate
1. To set apart for a specific use: appropriating funds for education.
2. To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission.
Neither one of those definitions is, um, appropriate, because nothing is set apart or taken possession of when people use the ideas or customs of other people. Whether the other people are from a different culture is irrelevant.
Imitation is the highest form of flattery.
"over half a century"
So, you're saying it's another part of the toxic legacy of the 1960's?
When something significant is being talked about in an extreme way, the answer isn't to say the topic is nothing at all as if the topic is what the extremists say it is. The answer is to talk about it in a more grounded, intelligent way. It does not serve the interest of free speech and thought to close down the topic. I'm really getting sick of this bipolar extremism.
What if religion were treated like that? There are some godawful extremists about religion, so religion is a complete delusion and anyone who brings it up will be shunned and otherized. Then all the talk about religion is from atheists and nutjobs.
No, it isn't [something newly dreamed up by SJW]. It's a serious subject that has been analyzed and discussed for over half a century.
Yes, it is something dreamed up by SJWs, and no it hasn't been a serious subject for over half a century...and even if it had been, a serious subject would've been discussed long before that.
Ngram for Cultural appropriation: took off in 1980.
Your readers are so used to consistent and rigorous mental excellence and thoughtfulness from you that the Yoga post from a few days ago really threw them. Like that one, this post seems a little like trolling -- a test of which of your readers really love you and will refrain from a vicious attack when you post something so abominably PC and wrong. I love you and your blog (its one of maybe three that I never go a single day without reading) and so will not attack.
Althouse: Give us a couple of examples of what you consider inappropriate cultural appropriation?
And explain why such acts are harmful or dangerous.
Cultural appropriation is a serious subject "we" have been discussing for over half a century?
Really? Missed it. But I will recommend that those whinging about it consider appropriating Western Culture. And should I find something in another culture of value to me I think I will grab it.
We, white Europeans, did appropriate all of philosophy and math from Africa, no?
Ah. The Hair-Splitting of Meaning vs. Demeaning.
Picasso vs. "Piss Christ" might nutshell this.
Anyway.
Context: Paul Revere & the Raiders' "Indian Reservation".
The name of the band and the subject of the song are two appropriations that already conflict with each other.
"Cherokee people! Cherokee tribe! - [sung as shouting]
So proud to live, so proud to die
. . .
Though I wear a shirt and tie,
I'm still part redman deep inside...
This.. Part '"redman" deep inside. Sung while wearing Pseudo-Colonial garb. Subtitled in Spanish. With the keyboardist playing his instrument which is mounted behind the front of an American Sixties Muscle Car. And the Drum Beat.
"Took away our native tongue,
And taught their English to our young"
This how America appropriates, baby.
We take your Che and put him on a shirt; we give you iPhones.
I am Laslo.
The recent (sorry professor, "cultural appropriation" as it's currently being discussed is quite recent) effort to make a controversy out of embracing things that are not of your own ethnic heritage is an idea so stupid not even the people arguing for it believe it. The Chinese do not own Chinese food any more than the English own the English language. I will not ask permission to wear pajamas just as I do not expect you to ask permission to wear green.
There is no "there" there with cultural appropriation, no ownership rights to be asserted. Stop making the personal political, it's a cancer on our society.
Ann wrote: "What if religion were treated like that? There are some godawful extremists about religion, so religion is a complete delusion and anyone who brings it up will be shunned and otherized. . ."
No, I think the subject is much more like the Black Lives Matter stuff. What is there really to discuss? To have a conversation about it is just a one-way trap. Look what happened to the Yale master found out after his wife published a sensible article that was essentially about cultural appropriation. "Who the Fuck hired you" is not a conversation about an interesting issue.
Ann Althouse said...Why are you letting some intemperate voices cause you to see it as something recent and delusional?
If I may hazard a guess, possibly it's because "cultural appropriation" as a topic in pop culture now isn't being treated as a serious subject to be discussed, it's being used as a weapon by those intemperate voices and not discussed seriously?
I think about it like the topic of "science" in the Media today. One political wing accuses the other of "hating science." There are actual important topics to be discussed (how rigorous a given field's methodologies are, how empirical conclusions are used in policy debates, what role scientific ethics play in determining how studies are run, etc) but that's not the debate that happens in the popular Media---that's not what gets discussed on the political talk shows. "Science" is used as a cudgel, and when you're being struck it doesn't make sense to point out to your attacker "hey, that weapon is actually quite interesting, we should have a discussion about its design and purpose."
I agree rational discussion and serious, reasoned argument should be our default modes of discourse, but it's not really fair to people to say "you shouldn't react to these intemperate voices" when those intemperate voices have so much power. Your son's suggestion is good in theory but absolutely won't work for someone under attack! Being labeled a cultural appropriator (or culturally insensitive) can mean the loss of your job, for instance. It's a weak form of being accused of racism. If prominent voices (however intemperate) call you a racist and your response is "well my views on race are actually quite nuanced, it's a very interesting topic I've thought a lot about--I do believe there are differences between racial groups but that's not racist because..." he'll be fired before he can finish that sentence. It's not some idle threat from these people, and the problem (in my opinion) is exactly that the intemperate voices have power.
I suppose if one has tenure or otherwise isn't worried about the personal and professional consequences of being branded guilty of crimethink it seems silly that others react defensively to attacks instead of calmly standing back and taking the high road.
First World problems, leftist idiocy. How to people have time to worry about this crap? There is this thing called a life that can actually be lived.
"The answer is to talk about it in a more grounded, intelligent way."
Fine. You say something intelligent about this topic, Althouse. Don't just bitch that your commenters aren't coming up to your standards.
And, no, saying "But it's SERIOUS!" isn't saying something intelligent.
Diplomad Says:
"They not only took it to heart but, as fierce Social Justice Warriors, struck a mighty blow by preventing handicapped students who benefited from the free classes from continuing their evil theft of Indian culture. The Indian High Commission in Ottawa had no comment, well, except for their June 21 announcement of International Yoga Day, but I am sure some imperialist forced them to do that..."
Does that mean that white and black people can't eat at Mexican restaurants any more? White people should no longer play jazz music or hip hop. Black and Hispanics should no longer partake of classical music or ballet. Oh, wait. I forgot. It's only about white people appropriating from minorities.
Perhaps, the Beastie Boys and Enimen should retire. There are quite a few people of the appropriated groups that depend on appropriation for a living. I think those that are anti-appropriation need to look at the consequences of their position to those they think they are helping.
Anyway, I will contribute by refusing to make haggis.
Farting has been a topic of discussion much longer than cultural appropriation. Longevity grants it no greater gravity.
I'm a fan of jazz and blues. Luckily for me, those are quintessentially American art forms, and I am an American.
Hey, has Paul Simon's album "Graceland" been banned from College Radio yet?
It's a fine and worthwhile thing to study descriptively, but I think it's deeply mistaken to drawn normative conclusions regarding the practice. Typically, this debate occurs from an exclusively Western perspective, and the reasons for this are obvious -- people in non-Western countries regularly "appropriate" aspects of Western culture and domesticate them into their own cultural context.
In Korea, for example, there are rap musicians. If you view rap as a unique product of African-American culture, then that looks like a form of appropriation. And it definitely is! And if you take into account the deep, racist antipathy that certain segments of the African-American population in the US have towards Koreans (as expressed by racist mobs trying to burn down Korean immigrant neighbourhoods), and the reciprocal antipathy that some Koreans have towards African-Americans (largely emerging from the aforesaid immigrant experiences of Korean-Americans), then it's not just "appropriation" but appropriation that is much more heavily loaded with racial tensions than White people eating ethnic cuisine or whatever. That's interesting, but I don't think it does or should drive any normative conclusion.
On a less fraught level, I was in Tokyo around Halloween, and the shops were filled with Halloween goods. Now, I expect, it's all Christmas goods. Neither Halloween nor Christmas are natively Japanese. And as far as Christmas goes, it's still technically a Christian religious holiday, but the vast majority of Japanese aren't Christian. Is that cultural appropriation? Of course! But Westerners aren't neurotic about it -- for the most part, Westerners are reasonably comfortable in their own culture, and don't have a problem with foreigners borrowing it.
And the same is true of the Japanese. When the "kimono day" protests in the US came up, the reactions I saw on the Japanese internet tended towards incomprehension and incredulity. I can't find it now, but I recall that the sponsors of the "kimono day" event were actually Japanese. In any event, as far as I can tell the Japanese mostly have no problem with foreigners wearing Japanese dress. There are some things (like sumo) where foreigners getting involved pisses off a segment of Japanese society, but by and large they don't seem much to care.
The people who do care, by and large, seem to be here in the West, and spoiling for a fight. When evidenced by the members of the culture being appropriated from, I think it's an expression of cultural anxiety, and perhaps a desire to be validated by an external, powerful culture. When it's people presuming to speak on behalf of a culture that is not their own (although it might have been the culture of their great-grandparents), it's a different expression of cultural anxiety, a sense vielleicht that they have betrayed their ancestral Blut und Boden by allowing themselves to be seduced by the soft decadence of Weimar? (Although I'm deriding them as incipient Nazis, I have to confess I kind of fall into this category myself) And when it's White people presuming to speak on behalf of non-White cultures, it's just another species of cultural appropriation, wrapped up in status-seeking.
Ann Althouse said.. The answer is to talk about it in a more grounded, intelligent way. It does not serve the interest of free speech and thought to close down the topic.
If we're having a discussion, a debate, or a conversation, sure, and that's certainly how it should be. Are these actually discussions, though? I mean, on these campuses, is it a discussion, or something else? You have more faith in the kids than many of us do, and that's a good thing, but it's not crazy to be less optimistic than you are about the degree to which these people actually want to listen, learn, and think critically.
Accusations of cultural appropriation are a weapon. Some people who are a target of that weapon have decided that their best defense is to try and negate that weapon's power by denying the idea/mocking the concept of cultural appropriation altogether. Your position is that this both inherently wrong and wrong as a tactic, and that a better tactic is to acknowledge the weapon's power and then engage with those wielding it, overcoming them with reasoned arguments and debate.
Yours is a terrific model of civic engagement and part of the humanist tradition which has shaped our nation all throughout its history. It is fair to ask, though, whether that model "works" today, in these situations. Some people have decided it does not. They're overly cynical, perhaps, and the consequences for our society of many people adopting that POV aren't good, but that judgement itself isn't crazy nor.
Myself, I'd start with all that chedddar cheese all over "Mexican" food.
Or should I be denied the enjoyment I take in cooking Indian, Thai and Indonesian food?
But what about the billions of non-European people around the world who have forgone their traditional garb to wear Western clothing? Did the West impose Western dress on, say, the Koreans, north and south, who were never colonized by the West?
Or how about a rich Japanese paying millions to own a Van Gogh?
Can I buy a CheeseHead if I come to Wisconsin?
Can I buy turquoise on the Plaza in Santa Fe?
Can I buy intellectual properties from Jay Z or Lil Wayne?
Can I buy lederhosen for Oktoberfest?
I promise that I will not be offended if you buy a cowboy hat when you come to Texas!
Lots of folks have becomes lots of wealthy off of this appropriation thing! Rappers are not at all offended if little white boys (and girls) wanna act like a bad ass that they ain't! In fact they laugh all the way to the bank.
Re: Althouse:
What if religion were treated like that? There are some godawful extremists about religion, so religion is a complete delusion and anyone who brings it up will be shunned and otherized. Then all the talk about religion is from atheists and nutjobs.
As I think about it, religion is the dividing line that segregates off those few claims of cultural appropriation for which I have actual sympathy. If the appropriation is appropriation of actual religious artifacts or ceremonies -- a conversion of the sacred to the profane -- then I'm sympathetic to the claim that it's wrong. But not because it's "cultural appropriation". Because it's sacrilege, at least to the adherents of that religion, and not committing gratuitous sacrilege is only polite.
Clothes, language, food (other than, I suppose, communion wafers or other consecrated foodstuffs) -- those are in a different category. Appropriate away, I say.
Hopefully the Muslim refugees will not appropriate our system of justice.
Isn't cultural appropriation exactly what America is all about? Immigrants come here and appropriate the host culture (language, dress, etc), which itself continually appropriates elements of all the various immigrant cultures. A melting pot, not a Balkanized ethnic mishmash.
Not a classical music fan per se, but I've always been intrigued by Czech composer Anton Dvorak's "cultural appropriation" that went into his New World Symphony, which he wrote in 1893. That bastion of accuracy, Wikipedia, quotes Dvorak as saying: "I am convinced that the future music of this country must be founded on what are called Negro melodies. These can be the foundation of a serious and original school of composition, to be developed in the United States. These beautiful and varied themes are the product of the soil. They are the folk songs of America and your composers must turn to them."
(Ever notice how the main theme of the New World resembles "Swing Low, Sweet Chariot"?)
JAMIE FOXX: Put it this way: I completely understand what you’re saying. ‘Cause as black folks we’re always sensitive. As a black person it’s always racial. I come into this place to do a photo shoot and they got Ritz crackers and cheese. I’ll be like, ain’t this a bitch. Y’all didn’t know black people was coming. What’s with all this white shit? By the same token, if there is fried chicken and watermelon I’ll say ain’t this a bitch? So, no matter what we do as black people it’s always gonna be that.
VIBE
Just because a subject "has been analyzed and discussed for over half a century" doesn't mean it isn't bull. The article concerning Picasso and his "stealing" the work of African artists should be used to illustrate how nonsensical the whole thing is.
Picasso saw African art, he then created art based on what he saw. That's what artists do. Apparently Picasso should only create art based on Western European aesthetics? No non-African is allowed to draw inspiration from art created in Africa that has an African aesthetic?
And no, claims of privilege and unequal power and exploitation do not make the subject any more valid. Especially when we see people who are not black "identifying" as black. Tell me, are they appropriating culture when they do so, or, since they identify as black, is it OK for them to wear a dashiki?
The recent half century has been silly and delusional, but this too shall pass.
In the meantime, can anyone remember a good quote from, say, Gilbert and Sullivan to answer AA with?
HoodlumDoodlum said...
I think about it like the topic of "science" in the Media today. One political wing accuses the other of "hating science."
All politicians hate science which involves human brains/minds, and they studiously ignore it.
Q: Aren't we all better off if people believe that we are not constrained by our biology and so can achieve any future we choose?
A[S. Pinker]: People are surely better off with the truth. Oddly enough, everyone agrees with this when it comes to the arts. Sophisticated people sneer at feel-good comedies and saccharine romances in which everyone lives happily ever after. But when it comes to science, these same people say, "Give us schmaltz!" They expect the science of human beings to be a source of emotional uplift and inspirational sermonizing."
Pettifogger said...
I'm a fan of jazz and blues. Luckily for me, those are quintessentially American art forms, and I am an American.
BZZZT! SJWs say blacks aren't Americans like you:
"In the United States, cultural appropriation almost always involves members of the dominant culture (or those who identify with it) “borrowing” from the cultures of minority groups(**). African Americans, Asian Americans, Native Americans and indigenous peoples generally tend to emerge as the groups targeted for cultural appropriation. Black music and dance, Native American fashions, decorations and cultural symbols and Asian martial arts and dress have all fallen prey to cultural appropriation."
**Obviously it's exactly the opposite.
I still don't see what on earth could be the problem with cultural appropriation. Appropriating a culture necessarily means finding something worth noticing about that culture, regardless of what you do with it. Culture is not some finite resource, like pie, where some black person wearing a kimono means suddenly a Japanese has no kimono to wear (though it might mean some Japanese kimono-maker has more business than before).
All successful cultures appropriate from other cultures; friction typically occurs because the appropriating culture adopts what it takes to its own culture, and it is these adoptive changes that seem to produce offense.
There's nothing new in outrage over such appropriation; for example, more than a few black jazz performers tried to insist that the music not only had originated in black culture but non-blacks had no right to perform it.
And then, of course, there's yoga. Which Americans mostly adopted by stripping it of its Hinduism.
Cultures have always taken from each other and probably always will, and when they do so they'll inevitably adopt what they took to better fit their own style and values, although the scale and frequency of such takings may increase in this increasingly connected world.
So, tell me again why I should care if someone's offended? In a way, cultural taking is somewhat like copyright piracy, in that the original owner has no less after the taking. Copyright is justified (in the U.S. Constitution, anyway) as being not so much for the benefit of creators as to encourage a continuing stream of creative works. Is there any similar justification for restricting cultural takings, or should there perhaps be a cultural ASCAP/BMI to collect payments from those who do so?
> But I think all these things deserve attention
Only if you have time to waste. Sure, it would be nice if every time you plugged in a light you would think of Edison, and trace in your mind the power lines back to the generator and all the controls, transformers, and switches along the way and the industry involved in the production of wires. But I doubt that you do, or that it matters if you don't.
The important distinction is between reasonable discussion of what constitutes good manners, and advocating that some things should be actively "permitted" or "discouraged" (by the State? mob action?). It is one thing to express concern about, say, a production of The Mikado, and another to picket the theater or harass the people involved, including on-line.
Besides, The Mikado is charming, and BTW a satire of Victorian England and not remotely disrespectful of Japan. What about Kismet, or The King and I? Would a Japanese production of Oklahoma! or Guys and Dolls be cultural appropriation? Let's have good manners, but also a free country and a melting pot.
In an hour or so, I'm going to have lunch in an Irish pub, where I'll wash down my knock wurst and sauerkraut with an American beer. When I get back, I'll check to see if anyone has come up with a single cogent reason why I ought to worry about "cultural appropriation".
If American Yoga is evil because it turns a religious practice into an exercise routine, it seems to me that American Buddhists (Richard Gere, et. al.) and hip practitioners of the Jewish Kabbalah (Madonna, et. al.) are as guilty of borrowing a religious practice from another culture and bending it to their own needs. Heck, Thanksgiving was first a humble Christian banquet of praise to God, and we've warped it into a day of gluttony and shopping. And don't get me started on Christmas.
Cultures don't have borders guarded by walls topped with barbed wire. Culture is the expression of how human communities live together, and these practices and beliefs move with the people themselves. In the same way that human DNA mixes and morphs as humans of all races meet and love and procreate, so, too, our cultural beliefs and practices mix together and change as cultures meet and engage. What some call "appropriation" looks to me like the history of human interaction. To try to manage it is folly.
My mother lives in Japan and went through hundreds of pieces of candy in a couple hours this year on Halloween. Next year she plans to buy three times as much.
Where's the concern over failing to appropriate? You'd think that would be more offensive.
This is becoming an issue and why immigration is being frowned on. We USED to take pride in appropriation back when we called it assimilation. We took the best parts of other cultures and made them American.
Now, we decry it. And since assimilation is now frowned on, immigration is a big issue.
Balfegor said...
And the same is true of the Japanese.
I had to study and practice Shinto for many years in order to gain the moral standing needed to buy a Japanese camera. After a few more years learning The Way of Tea, I'll allow myself to use it.
We need to purge every website and store of Paul Simon's "Graceland" album, in particular the oppressive track, "Diamonds On The Soles Of Her Shoes." What's next? Paul Simon in a kimono? Does his colonial imperialism know no bounds?
Does mocking and being disrespectful need a case specific term like "cultural appropriation?"
This all is a simple demean whitey deal. Notice its ALL a one-way street. Whitey canno "appropriate" ANYTHING from other cultures, but other cultures? Hey, anything is fair game. Hear any SJWs of ANY COLOR saying Count Basie, Duke Ellington (if still alive) would have to eschew the piano? And goodby the Cello for Yo-yo Mas. And NO ONE but whites may drive in cars or fly in planes because whites invented them, right? And even no wheel-barrows for American Indians because they didn't have the wheel until Europeans introduced it to them.
See how easy it is to play this game, AA? What utter esoteric BULLSHIT, Ann. I CANNOT believe you take such things seriously instead of heaping the mountains of richly deserved intellectual scorn upon SJW types needed to cover the mountains of stinking, steaming, utter bullshit that proponents of "appropriation" have left.
Orwell was right when he said in Parliment: "There are some things that only an intellectual could possibly believe, no ordinary person could ever BE such a fool!" Seems like we're looking at YOU, AA.
Althouse mistakes her commentariat for a class of 1L's. Some of the commenters take it seriously.
"The answer is to talk about it in a more grounded, intelligent way."
For most people that is a difficult feat when the subject is essentially frivolous. Since the rise of the second human culture there has always been cultural exchanges and appropriation. There is no problem. What there is is people who have a chip on their shoulder and want to create a problem. The best way to deal with them is to ignore them and if pestered sufficiently then reply by saying "you must have me confused with someone who gives a shit".
I can only imagine the deep and interesting conversations that take place in Madison. Just the kind of talk that would drive me right out of the room muttering about vapid, silly pedants.
The cultural appropriation argument is dumb on its face, and makes no logical sense. Because what is cultural vs. individual. If someone of a culture expresses themselves in some way is it a cultural expression because they are part of a certain culture?
You hear blacks talk about certain hair styles being cultural appropriation. as if white people who want to wear corn rows are somehow STEALING culture. But there is no copyright on a hair cut. If you have white people wanting that hair cut, then be glad that people find it to be popular.
If you walk into a stereotypical barbershop they have pictures all over the wall of haircuts you can get. None are off limits because of culture. Nor is there a history of the culture behind the haircut. There's just a haircut. DO you want it on your head? So then how do those saying there should be no appropriation of culture when it comes to hair cuts think you could ever prevent someone from getting a haircut you don't want them to get?
Are barbers going to tell white people, you can't have corn rows? Is this rule only applicable for "black" haircuts, by the way? If a barber refused to give you corn rows, couldn't you just go to another barber and ask for corn rows?
And is it limited to haircuts? How about art styles. Should we tell black ballerinas they can't actually do ballet because its not black? Should we tell Asian violinists they can't do classical music because its not their culture? Should we tell chefs they can't cook spaghetti, unless they are Italian?
Hmmm? Propriating is a word like Taxing and Eminent Domain. Ergo: a-propriating means out of the propriating act.
So it is either stealing or borrowing depending on Friend Or Foe.
Agree with Balfegor. I find the whole New Age selective appropriation of Buddhist and Animist traditions in the name of some feel-good hipster sensibility deeply creepy. (Of course, Ann's other bugaboo, international air travel and its drop-in/fligh-out tourism, plays a big role here.) A Western-born person can come to a genuine spiritual path through these traditions, but typically that involves absorbing the entire world-view and the tough disciplines of such paths. The New Age promises the bliss (and within hipster communities the status) of the exotic, "authentic" tradition without any of the physical or spiritual demands.
Religion is only bad when it involves trying to force other people to do or not do certain things.
The entire silliness about cultural appropriation involves telling people what they can or cannot do, and it does not deserve to be taken seriously in any society that respects freedom.
The other argument I hear often is"you wouldn't wear a headdress that Indians would wear. That's offensive!"
not to me it isnt'. But I get it, its offensive to YOU. But, do I tell you what hair cuts you are required to have? Do I tell you what dresses you can or can't have? So then why wouldn't you extend me the same courtesy?
I was in Florida at one of the casinos and I believe it was an indian casino. So they had a shop that sold indian memorabilia, including fox catchers, some statues, some furniture, and I believe some clothing.
Suppose I bought an "Indian" shirt. and wore it out. Am I culturally appropriating? They SOLD me the shirt! Why can't I wear it? I can buy it, but I can't put it on? I can only keep it in a closet? Are there rules on the shirt that say this? Are there terms of usage on the shirt that say I can only have it as a curio in my house and can't in fact use it as clothing?
If the person selling me the shirt is indian and he's ok with me wearing the shirt then who is another indian to tell me its offensive if I wear that shirt. Who holds authority on culture that can or can't be appropriated. I'd think the two Indians would need to sit down and come up with some rules governing how their culture can be disseminated, so that I, the customer dont' get vilified for wearing what I thought was a non offensive shirt because an Indian sold it to me.
I'm having trouble fitting the context into the conversation. The New York Times struggled to understand a new (to them) kind of art and (surprise, surprise) accused their audience of having the same struggles.
So? What does that have to do with the cultural segregation selectively plead for by today's SJWs?
This is like saying I think chocolate should be banned from campuses. Only the Hispanic/Latino/Chicano houses should be allowed to have it or sell it to everyone else.
And Since Thomas Edison gave us the lightbulb, light bulbs and anything of science which came from that should be banned across the world, we should be the only ones that have these things. And jeans! No one is allowed to wear jeans except Americans, cause Cultural Imperialism!
This is not worth the amount of education parents and the taxpayer are footing.
It's been discussed over 1/2 a century? It started when America was dominant? Bwaaaaaaaaa you 60s boomers were such a gullible lot. So what r u saying, we should give up the Magna Carta? Give up the Greek and Roman advancements and go back to worshiping Ra? What is it with you progressives that you always want to go back to a form of "So let it be written, so let it be done?" This free will thingy can be soooo confusing,
It is much easier when the law is whatever the King says it is.
"...can anyone remember a good quote from, say, Gilbert and Sullivan"
I've got a little list — I've got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
[...]
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
[...]
(Chorus:)
He's got 'em on the list — he's got 'em on the list;
And they'll none of 'em be missed — they'll none of 'em be missed!
(cont) In NYC, we have a lot of Mexican take out restaurants. When I went to pick up some food one day I noticed all the people there were in fact Chinese. I then went to another tortilla take out place and it was the same thing. Turns out, a lot of these restaurants are not owned by Mexicans, but Chinese people. Cultural Appropriation!!!!!!
It was certainly curious to me, as I wondered why they wouldn't open Chinese restuarants. But what do I care? Maybe their wives are Mexican. Maybe they prefer Mexican food to Chinese food. There is no rule that says they can't open Mexican restaurants.
So, if Mexican restaurants can be owned by Chinese people, whites can also own Mexican restaurants. And by extension, Asian restuarants. (and the same would be true for black people or Mexicans). If its true for food, its also true for clothing. and art. And hair cuts.
"This all is a simple demean whitey deal. Notice its ALL a one-way street. Whitey canno "appropriate" ANYTHING from other cultures, but other cultures? Hey, anything is fair game. Hear any SJWs of ANY COLOR saying Count Basie, Duke Ellington (if still alive) would have to eschew the piano? And goodby the Cello for Yo-yo Mas. And NO ONE but whites may drive in cars or fly in planes because whites invented them, right? And even no wheel-barrows for American Indians because they didn't have the wheel until Europeans introduced it to them."
Could rappers have bling that wasn't produced by black people?
No more films for the world! We get to keep them and the technology! No more muppets, Disney or Sponge Bob or Looney Tunes either! No more classical music for us!
"It's a serious subject that has been analyzed and discussed for over half a century. Why are you letting some intemperate voices cause you to see it as something recent and delusional?"
I think you meant to say that it's probably been discussed in some academic circles for over half a century. Personally, I've been an adult for more than half a century and I have never heard the term used before this year. I am fairly well educated, well read, well traveled (53 states and territories of the US and 47 foreign countries), I've lived in seven states and 6 different countries, and I have good friends all over the world. Never - NEVER! - before this year have I heard anyone use the term "cultural appropriation", nor have I heard anyone complain about others enjoying the food, dress, dance, music, and lifestyles of the cultures I have known, except, that is, for recent left wingnuts. Almost without exception, the people I have known around the world are most pleased and proud to share their culture with others, and they are particularly excited when those foreign to that culture actually embrace it. I would be concerned that your kind of thinking would further splinter the world's population were it not for the fact that most rational people, regardless their origin or culture, recognize bullshit when they smell it. By the way, about 20 of my Spanish, British and expat friends are "appropriating" Thanksgiving at my house tomorrow, and I am sure they will enjoy it as much as I will.
So the Chinese get to keep the pasta and the Italians get to keep the gravy/red sauceThis is becoming an acrimonious divorce. And the French get to keep the Champagne!
"JAMIE FOXX: Put it this way: I completely understand what you’re saying. ‘Cause as black folks we’re always sensitive. As a black person it’s always racial. I come into this place to do a photo shoot and they got Ritz crackers and cheese. I’ll be like, ain’t this a bitch. Y’all didn’t know black people was coming. What’s with all this white shit? By the same token, if there is fried chicken and watermelon I’ll say ain’t this a bitch? So, no matter what we do as black people it’s always gonna be that."
That's the key argument. Blacks are overly sensitive. If white people were faced with watermelon and chicken they might say "mmmm, watermelon and chicken". If white folks were faced with Ritz crackers and cheese, they might say "Mmmm, ritz crackers and cheese" No white person is saying "Ritz crackers and cheese is white food" Its not white shit. Its just crackers and cheese. We don't own it as a thing we assign to our race. or say white people can have ritz crackerss, but if you black people want them, you have to acknowledge the whiteness of the crackers.
Whites may generally like crackers and cheese, and blacks may generally not like them, but you can eat whatever you want. Chinese food may be Chinese, but I order it almost every night when I do take out. If you would get offended that someone was offering you ritz crackers because they were "white things" YOU are the one that really needs to free your mind. Not the person offering you the Ritz crackers.
Charlie wrote:
If American Yoga is evil because it turns a religious practice into an exercise routine, it seems to me that American Buddhists (Richard Gere, et. al.) and hip practitioners of the Jewish Kabbalah (Madonna, et. al.) are as guilty of borrowing a religious practice from another culture and bending it to their own needs.
If whites can't be Buddhists, can blacks be Christians?
"No, it isn't. It's a serious subject that has been analyzed and discussed for over half a century. Why are you letting some intemperate voices cause you to see it as something recent and delusional?"
For over a half century is "recent."
I suppose that there are some things that can be labeled as cultural appropriations which are objectively offensive and which can be discussed in an intelligent, non-trivial way. But, that's not what appears to be going on. Check out this . I read the whole article and think it's just daft crap; i.e. delusional. Jerry Coyne (WEIT) discusses it here.
In this very thread, someone else asked you, in what appears to me to be a temperate fashion, to actually open up a discussion about what is cultural appropriation which you think deserves serious discussion. I, in what I hope is a temperate manner, second that request. What, in your opinion, is there about this topic which deserves serious discussion as compared to that which is delusional crap deserving of nothing but derision, perhaps in the same way that a Donnie Trump speech deserves derision? I, for one, am up for a temperate exchange on the question, though I know that this particular forum, inhabited as it is by numbnuts like Mick, Dr K, Shouting Dumbass and greater or lesser cranks, may not be the most salubrious place for such an exchange.
This morning, I had a Sheboygan style bratwurst, on a bun, of course, with chopped jalapenos and Rooster Sauce. Whose culture have I appropriated? And, what about the German immigrants of eastern Wisconsin appropriating German culture in a manner which did not respect traditional German sausage making and them PUTTING IT ON A BUN (!)? In Wisconsin, they put catsup on these things -- I know, I've seen it. I told the German guy living next door to me here in Houston about that and he was aghast, gob smacked into near gormlessness. But, he was not offended.
And Rooster sauce, what's up with that? An immigrant American from Vietnam using traditional Mexican peppers and a vague idea of Thai cuisine creates an American condiment that everyone in America thinks is Asian. And, he gives it an Asian sounding name: sriracha. Interesting that many Americans of Asian descent (and actual Asian immigrants and visitors) think it's an Asian condiment of some sort.
So, I, as an American of Swedish descent (unlike Trump, who is descended from German brothel keepers, whore mongers and assorted charlatans -- the nut doesn't always fall far from the tree) appropriate eastern Wisconsin German immigrant (and their descendants) culture, which they appropriate from actual ethnic Germans and dress it up with Mexican peppers and Rooster sauce which is a result of at least double cultural appropriation. I need a new hair shirt.
I have some experience with complaints of cultural appropriation in the form of "theft of intellectual property" where ethnobotanical information in the general literature was used to explore a plant's potential medicinal properties. When (briefly) it seemed that a drug might emerge from the complex of old folklore, extant plant biology, novel medicinal chemistry and very expensive pharmaceutical science, why, the claimants promptly appeared and lined up around the block. Royalties would be owing to the distant descendants of a putative shaman who according to tribal history (conveniently oral) had counseled the use of this root or that leaf.
It's always about the money.
The subject of cultural appropriation is not to be brushed aside.
Probably not, but it definitely should be.
"It's a serious subject that has been analyzed and discussed for over half a century. Why are you letting some intemperate voices cause you to see it as something recent and delusional?"
Yeah, I am just not seeing the "serious" part of the "cultural appropriation" argument. What on earth justifies fretting over someone of a different culture being interested in yours? It's fine to discuss those influences so they are properly credited, but to bemoan them? Nonsense.
The subject of cultural appropriation is not to be brushed aside. It deserves study, reflection, analysis, and interesting, wide-ranging debate and discussion. It's one of the great topics of conversation! Don't, in the interest of freedom, censor it.
The whole point of the cultural appropriation meme is to censor the behavior of others.
For once I agree with your son, cultural appropriation should be celebrated, not derided.
I do remember feeling a bit sad and disillusioned when I first found out that "Ol' Man River" actually was written and composed by a pair of Jew-boys from the Queens.
Althouse Says:"What if religion were treated like that? There are some godawful extremists about religion, so religion is a complete delusion and anyone who brings it up will be shunned and otherized."
No, religion is objectively a complete delusion. If it should be "shunned and otherized[sic]" is a question for discussion; temperate discussion, if possible. Whatever religious belief deserves is, I suggest, much the same as that deserved by beliefs in homeopathy and astrology.
I posted this before, but one of the best examples of all showing the absurdity of appropriation arguments was this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uveb8-L3YHY
First, its not just culture that a culture that can be appropriated. its also handicaps. If you are handicapped, you are part of a culture. that can then be appropriated. Gayness is also a culture. As is drag.
This is where it gets absurd. Because what is drag, but appropriation of culture. (since culture would be sex if it was also sexual orientation). If you had a problem with people wearing kimonos, would you have a problem with a man, dressing like a woman and aping women characteristics in a stereotypical fashion?
The left and gays glom onto this cultural appropriation argument to ask that no one dress like stereotypical gays for Halloween, but ignore that dragging is their shtick,. and that is definitionally the same thing.
So, you don't like engaging in stereotypes, don't endorse drag queens. If they can dress like women, and sing like liza manelli, why couldn't I dress like Jack from Will and grace and engage in gay stereotypes?
This fight was actually played out amongst the drag queens and the transgendered in Melbourne. Some transgendered folks didn't want the drag queens to be in the gay pride parade, because they thought that dressing like members of the opposite sex was triggering to them and was offensive. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE THEMSELVES DRESSING LIKE MEMBERS OF THE OPPOSITE SEX.
Wouldn't transgenderism in itself be a form of cultural appropriation? You are appropriating the sex that doesnt' belong to you.
I realize that, with the left, there is a confusion as to the implications of their stated positions. But lefties are the last people that should buy into cultural appropriation arguments. unless they want to jettison the drag queens, among others.
Were folks whining about "Cultural Appropriation" in the 70s? If they were, somehow Mick and Keith of the Rolling Stones didn't quite get the Memo - the lyrics to "Brown Sugar" are pretty saucy. Those English boys might have some serious 'mansplaining to do:
Gold coast slave ship bound for cotton fields
Sold in a market down in New Orleans
Scarred old slaver knows he's doing alright
Hear him whip the women just around midnight
Brown sugar how come you taste so good?
Brown sugar just like a young girl should
Drums beating, cold English blood runs hot
Lady of the house wonderin' where it's gonna stop
House boy knows that he's doing alright
You shoulda heard him just around midnight
Brown sugar how come you taste so good, now?
Brown sugar just like a young girl should, now
Red says:"So the Chinese get to keep the pasta and the Italians get to keep the gravy/red sauceThis is becoming an acrimonious divorce. And the French get to keep the Champagne!"
No, the Italians do not get to keep the red sauce. It depends on a new world vegetable/fruit.
jr565 said....That's the key argument. Blacks are overly sensitive.
So a serious, temperate discussion would explore the reasons behind what you've labeled oversensitivity--the history behind concerted efforts to suppress cultural expression or cultural traditions of an enslaved people, the history of slaves and former slaves being forced or coerced into adopting aspects of the dominant culture (language, customs) and punished explicitly and implicitly for following their own traditional folkways, and so forth. I imagine that's the sort of discussion Prof. Althouse is referring to, and she's correct that it's an interesting (and maybe even "important") type of discussion to have.
We can have that discussion in those terms, though, because no one is attacking anyone. You didn't start by calling me a cultural appropriator, or a white supremacist, or an unthinking bigot. If you had, or if in Foxx's example he had (to the people who left out the cheese & crackers) then it's really not possible to have that type of discussion. The option then is to ignore the attack (part of which is to deny that "cultural appropriation" as a concept is meaningful, worth your time, etc--the very thing Prof Althouse says we shouldn't do) or fight back against the person themselves.
When someone--or more likely a large group (mob) of someones--denounces you as a cultural appropriator and demands your apology, capitulation to their calls for your "education," and overall submission it's not really a viable tactic to respond "I don't believe you understand what cultural appropriation really is, let's discuss it."
It's not fair nor helpful to ignore the context in which this debate over "cultural appropriation" is happening.
Did Shakespeare appropriate Plutarch or is that all part of the Western Civ spectrum? Isn't jazz more a part of Western Civ culture than African culture?......I once ate in a Turkish restaurant. It was mostly Greek food with Turkish names. The Muslim veil was something that the Turks appropriated from the Byzantine Greeks........Pity the poor civilization that has never produced anything worth appropriating by America. Someone will probably correct me, but I don't think I have ever made use of anything Indonesian or Nebraskan in origin.
The zero-sum world view of Leftism isn't confined to economics.
Remember the movie The Bird cage, where Nathan Lane was trying to walk like John Wayne, to show that he was a masculine guy, as opposed to a guy who dresses in drag and is totally effeminate?
Funny stuff. but really, that is what cultural appropriation arguments are all about. If you believe that, why should Nathan Lane not be viewed as a villain, engaging in the worst stereotypes of women?
Sure he's celebratory and the guy dressing in black face if vilifying, but here's a hint. Not all woman are dressed like Carol Lombard. That is an act. Not even carol Lombard dressed like that most times. That is a caricature. I thought you can't do that.
"The subject of cultural appropriation is not to be brushed aside. It deserves study, reflection, analysis, and interesting, wide-ranging debate and discussion. "
Why? What's the evidence that this topic is indeed "something significant"? I mean, isn't there a reasonable chance that 50 years from now this discussion would be viewed with same respect as the medieval debate on how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
Anyway, is the topic of "cultural appropriation" more "interesting" and more "challenging" and "relevant" to today's America than the following topics:
Western birthrates are dropping below the reproduction levels. What are the possible repercussions?
America is soon to seize being a white majority nation. Will American freedoms and way of life in danger?
Is Western welfare system making people more lazy and eventually destroys Western society?
Is Western welfare system sustainable?
Is Western pension/medicare system sustainable?
What are the dangers of unlimited immigration?
What are the chances that Islamic terrorists will detonate a nuclear device in the Western world? Are we doing everything to stop it?
What is the future of Islam? Is Islam compatible with Western freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of religion?
Is EU doomed? What happens after it falls apart?
I am sure you can list quite a few topics like this, which in my mind are far more interesting and important than the ill-defined "cultural appropriation".
This whole worthless concern about appropriation is just another way to politicize actions that are unimportant and don't harm anyone. Paul Simon got harassed. David Byrne did not. Do we believe Ry Cooder when he speaks respectfully of Robert Johnson? If so, why? Who cares if he's sincere? I don't. Why did Robert Palmer get a pass when he "appropriated" the music of various cultures? Why is one artist admired while another is villified? How is Nathaniel Rateliff and the Night Sweats getting a pass? It's just another way of favoring one over another for the purpose of extortion of some kind. Folks who think about cultural appropriation for any more than 30 seconds might have too much time on their hands.
Ann, how about this "significant" topic to discuss:
Are people who want to talk about "cultural appropriation" stupid and/or evil/ignorant?
Or maybe this one -is it possible that people who want to talk about "cultural appropriation" are too scared of the problems in the world, and this is their escapism from reality?
And how about this one - is it a coincidence that many of the people who want to talk about "cultural appropriation" don't believe in freedom of speech? What's the connection between the promoters of this topic and totalitarian worldview?
Let's not censor any "significant" topics, right?
How can you argue, on the one hand, that ethnic and cultural diversity enriches a society, and then object when members of that society experiment with and sometimes adopt aspects of each others' culture? I thought that sort of mutual influence is the very thing you're trying to encourage.
"No, the Italians do not get to keep the red sauce. It depends on a new world vegetable/fruit."
If you dig deep enough, no one can do anything but live like a hunter-gatherer and grunt like an animal, because every bit of civilized advancement had some influence from someone else at some point.
The "cultural appropriation" argument boils down logically to "shut out everyone else". But then, it was never really about anything more than "white people are just the worst", the ever-present racialist SJW theme. It's not worth taking seriously until they give up on using anything ever invented or developed by a white person.
What about what's-her-name, who self-identified with blacks? Is she public enemy #1 now?
Hoodlum doodlum wrote: "It's not fair nor helpful to ignore the context in which this debate over "cultural appropriation" is happening."
When I was saying blacks are overly sensitive about race, I was in fact describing Jamie Fox's view. Since he is the one saying blacks would be offended if someone brought out fried chicken and would also be offended if someone brought out ritz crackers. He's the one saying that, for blacks, its all about race.
I don't think that white people particularly care whether black people eat crackers or not. If you are for integration that's kind of what its all about. All cultures melt together.
Multiculturalism though keeps those separate. If you want to argue for cultural appropriation though you really are arguing against integration. Since if you were integrated you would definitinally appropriate the dominant culture. but by the same token they might appropriate your culture back. Because its a shared culture.
"the history of slaves and former slaves being forced or coerced into adopting aspects of the dominant culture (language, customs) and punished explicitly and implicitly for following their own traditional folkways, and so forth."
"We didn't land on Plymouth rock, Plymouth rock landed on us!" But look. if you are speaking English you've adopted the language. If you are Christian, you've adopted the religion. YOu are a citizen in this country. because its a melting pot, you are appropriating culture to some degree or other.
No one in the dominant culture is teling people they can't have corn rows, or weaves. But those who originated corn rows seem to be telling other groups they can't also have corn rows. How do they feel they are entitled to speak for other groups and tell them what they can or can't have, as if cultural norms or expressions can't be adopted by other groups.
It would be like Irish people telling non irish people they cant dress in green on St Patties day. Based on what rule?
Do blacks celebrate Thanskgiving? Are those who originate the practice somehow telling them they can't partake of a celebration involving turkey? No one is doing that.
Cultural appropriation is even more absurd when you are mixed race. Because what culture are you allowed to use? and when you put out artistic expression, which culture is being expressed? If a mixed race person popularizes a music style, like reggae for example, is it then only valid for mixed race people to engage in the practice. Bob Marley's dad was white.
Or does that mean that reggae is now black and white. Can UB40 then do reggae, when the singer is white? Or does it mean that Bob Marley should not have been allowed into reggae, because he wasn't sufficiently black. Also, what does culture mean? is it Jamaican, or is it black? The two don't HAVE to be the same.
I happen to be a mutt of many primarily European cultures, though outwardly I'm white. What does that entitle me to? Can I only express myself culturally based on the cultures I came from?
Sure, discuss all you like. And the solution is discussion in a temperate way? Fine and dandy.
All we need is love da-da-da-da-daaaa.....
or
All we are saying is give peace a chance....
The problem is the SJWs don't want a discussion. And engaging in such just triggers more heat. Where you been Prof?
Christopher B said...
The zero-sum world view of Leftism isn't confined to economics.
Excellent point, and the reason for the misuse of the word "appropriation", which means or implies taking something away from others.
And so, from a link someone posted above:
"But, food is appropriated when people from the dominant culture – in the case of the US, white folks** – start to fetishize or commercialize it, and when they hoard access to that particular food."
Profiteers! And hoarders!
Marx would be proud.
**white people are bad.
Many white musicians have appropriated elements of Chuck Berry's work, and thus are believed to have appropriated black culture.
Because Chuck Berry is black.
And that makes his accomplishments black.
If, then, white men appropriated Chuck Berry's habit of peeking into women's restrooms to watch the women poop have they still appropriated Black Culture?
If peeking into women's restrooms to watch them poop is NOT Black Culture, then what culture is it?
Or is Chuck Berry now an Individual?
How do you culturally separate Chuck Berry the Iconic Black Musician and Chuck Berry the Individual Black Guy Who Likes to Watch Women Poop?
If it was Mick Jagger's habit of peeking into women's restrooms to watch the women poop would it now be White Culture? Or just British Weirdness, in that freaky eccentric British-guy way?
And do the women pooping have any say in this Culture?
That last one is a Feminist Culture Thing.
Because even Feminists poop. Not always as a Metaphor.
I am Laslo.
They can have yoga as long was we get to keep yoga pants.
"It's one of the great topics of conversation!"
You may be the only liberal on the planet interested in a conversation.
jr565: My last sentence was directed at Prof. Althouse, not your comment specifically. Your last post is addressing the issue of cultural appropriation itself, which is what Prof. Althouse was calling for, so I don't think she'd have a problem with your comment (whether she agreed with it or not).
It's funny how California doesn't really have a culture but somehow trends come from here. If I didn' steal stories and ways there would be little way to fit into society. It could be said that people follow trends from here because they want to lose their culture. They sure don't gain anything.
I myself am guilty of appropriating the fist bump and the term motherfucker.
This is not exactly on point relative to appropriation but I have satellite radio and on my drives I play a game. I listen to the three hip hop channels and I time how long it takes for the N word to arrive in a song. When I hear it I change channels and wait for it again.
You would be amazed, truly amazed at the ubiquity of that term in the art of hip hop.
Culture. Appropriation.
Michael said...You would be amazed, truly amazed at the ubiquity of that term in the art of hip hop.
Well you come up with a word you can rhyme with both an -a and an -er, emphasize equally well either the first or second syllable depending on the line's needs (in terms of meter), and is also culturally relevant.
There's a reason you see so many love/above matches!
"In NYC, we have a lot of Mexican take out restaurants. When I went to pick up some food one day I noticed all the people there were in fact Chinese."
My memory is of the restaurant which proudly announced (on its awning) that it was a "Spanish-American Chinese Restaurant."
And so it was: It served Chinese food, and was owned and operated by Puerto Ricans.
I don't think it claimed "authenticity" but I'd assume it bought much of its food from the same restaurant-supply companies used by Chinese-owned Chinese restaurants.
Michael, years ago we used to do the same thing with Spanish language TV when we were channel surfing. You had to wait until someone slapped or hit a woman before you could change channels (usually it did not take too long). I am OK with Mexico appropriating our cultural norms against striking women.
I am sorry, but the "problem" of cultural appropriation is a TOTAL non-starter for me. Why? Every single aspect of American culture you can name is a cultural appropriation. Including the words, syntax and grammar of the sentences I am using. The English language, after all, is nothing but an enormous, tangled melange of appropriated forms. Or does anyone here image the language sprang purely from the heads of a few English blokes centuries ago, when there were no English anyway, strictly speaking - you know, as in Angles, Saxons, Celts, Romans, etc. As to the U.S. the New England Puritan uprights, middle colony Quaker peaceniks, swashbuckling Virginia cavaliers, and hard drinking Scotch-Irish frontier scrapers all brought their own culturally appropriated variations of English culture and immediately began appropriating and being appropriated by Germans, Swedes, French, Native Americans of all sorts, then later, Irish Catholics, Russian Jews, Italians, Poles, Mexicans, Chinese, etc., etc. What possible sense is there in doing anything else but glorying in the totally anarchistic process of use, abuse, adaptation, distortion and out and out theft of one culture's productions by another? Who in the heck thinks anyone can or will ever do a thing to direct, slow down or stop any of it? It is what makes us the wildly creative and destructive and insensitive and pretentious and magnificent civilization we are. Get used to it because it's NEVER going to stop.
Agriculture was culturally appropriated from the Middle East and brought to Europe. Decimal arithmetic was culturally appropriated from India by the Arabs and then brought to Europe. Electric light was culturally appropriated from the US and brought, well, everywhere. Smoking tobacco was culturally appropriated by Europeans from Native Americans. Printing from the Chinese. Also from the Chinese: noodles. The Japanese pretty much appropriated US culture wholesale after WW2. Much of the Quran is culturally appropriated from the Jews. And on and on and on and on and on................
I suggest these SJW idiots go live in a cave if they want to live without cultural appropriation. or would that be appropriation of Cro-Magnon culture?
By the power vested in me on account of my genuine origin in, and immutable character as, a native of the colonized third world, I grant all the commenters at Althouse absolution and forgiveness from all sins of cultural appropriation, in the past, present and future, in perpetuity, whatever the nature or origin of the cultural artifact allegedly appropriated. I assert this right of general cross-cultural absolution on behalf of all foreign cultures whatsoever on the corresponding de-facto practice of widespread cross-cultural outrage on behalf of foreign cultures.
So be it, now and forever.
That should settle this question.
Althouse,
Cultural borrowing is a serious subject. But "appropriation"? Nay, that's b*llsh*t of the highest order. If I take up (my bowdlerized version of) yoga, it doesn't prevent the original practitioners from continuing their original practice in the slightest. This is just more of same same damn War Against The West that we're all so sick of.
It's funny to see the intellectual blindspots of our gallant Hostess. In fairness, anyone blogging as much as she does on cultural, social and political issues will reveal their blindspots -- we all have them.
But, this one -- taking "cultural appropriation" seriously is just plain silly. It's like when some ditzy left-wing college student starts listing her demands (more this, more that), and then concludes with a demand for "free tuition." Yeah, we get it, snowflake.
Maybe Mattress Girl, when done with her studies, really should show up at her first job interview with her mattress just to see what happens. Perhaps, her prospective employer has "culturally appropriated" the old Protestant work ethic of showing up prepared to do the task, not unending, political stunts. Most of life isn't about politics. It's about work and love.
The truth is the Left in our country seeks any and all cultural weapons to advance a general agenda of "more free stuff" -- the "cultural appropriation" card now comes after playing the race card, the sexist card, the rapist card. It's just another card to play, nothing else. And, we have really smart college professors enabling and tolerating this jive.
Makes me wanna vote for Trump, I tell ya.
"Like, I bet what I just said — which is setting up a good topic — has touched off some of my readers to go after me in an intemperate manner"
Seems rather gratuitous.
I like to live by the maxim "mind your own fucking business" which applies really well to this theory of cultural appropriation. What business is it of YOURS what I choose to eat, wear, value, display or destroy? I might think it's foolish for a 40ish music producer-cum-artist to adopt the headgear of the RMCP but I'm not going to slam Pharrell for it. By the way, MYOFB is a beautiful corollary to the "live and let live" attitude that hippies used to believe in, Man.
"It's one of the great topics of conversation!"
Do they still have sherry hours in academia?
As a black person it’s always racial. I come into this place to do a photo shoot and they got Ritz crackers and cheese. I’ll be like, ain’t this a bitch. Y’all didn’t know black people was coming. What’s with all this white shit?
I had no idea Ritz crackers were a racial thing. (Then again, the Ritz spokesman for many years was Andy Griffith, who used to play a white Southern sheriff on TV. So there's that.)
"Good artists borrow, great artists steal." Picasso. I think that means that Picasso was influenced by African sculpture but he didn't simply copy African forms. He grasped the radical nature of African sculpture and incorporated that into his vocabulary as a painter. However he never made African sculpture or paintings of African sculpture or African artifacts.
Another interesting twist, two American entrepreneurs opened an American style Chinese restaurant in Shanghai, "Shanghai Warms Up To A New Cuisine: Chinese Food, American-Style" called " Fortune Cookie.
Occasionally I see people using Catholic objects as parts of dress like Madonna with a rosary playing her music. That is offensive ; but she was born a Catholic, so is it or is it not cultural appropriation. You shouldn't use another person's religious object as your art.
Food, clothes, art, language, math - they're up for grabs
Now this is what I call cultural appropriation. Japan getting belated revenge by appropriating one of the favorite words of the US Marine Corp:
http://gawker.com/5874304/japanese-department-store-may-want-to-look-up-the-word-fucking
Well worth the cut and paste to see it.
Prof. Althouse says, "The subject of cultural appropriation is not to be brushed aside." I agree - it shouldn't be ignored, but instead mocked relentlessly. I loved the tweet of the Japanese consulate in Boston saying they had no clue why anyone would be offended by kimono day at the MFA. I'll concede that making fun of other cultures is rude, but that's all I'll concede. Taking from other cultures anything and mashing their stuff up into something new and somewhat different - that is unequivocally good, sans doute.
Althouse uses her Western viewpoint to decide whether is is appropriate for cultures to absorb culture from elsewhere. I am offended by the Ameri -centrism of this type of thinking.
Surely cultural imperialism is as important as cultural appropriation. And Althouse has displayed her cultural imperialism by judging cultural appropriation from her Western ideals.
False consciousness. ELEVENTY!!11!!111!!1!1!1!11
GODDAMN the Italians and Marco Polo specifically for appropriating noodles from the Chinese!!
Thoseimperialistic motherfuckers! How dare they pass off "pasta" as their own!!!
Face it ,, Althouse: addinganything more about your ridiculous position on this topic is just a case of making the rubble bounce.
And btw: I am seriously really PISSED that the Third World has appropriated Western technology. GODDAMN all those countries using the Internet!!!
If it is harmful to appropriate the objects or activities of other cultures for one's benefit, then is affirmative action such appropriation, and an example of invidious discrimination? Here's the argument: If favored by AA, the persons favored are harmed by the appropriation of their cultural identity or appearance, there is a legal and monetary benefit to the appropriator (let's say a state university) and it purposely involves persons of a distinct minority. Thus, it is harmful (invidious) discrimination. I suppose this means that those who object to cultural appropriation are objecting to affirmative action, and are bigoted. Is such a social justice warrior, say a minority group member, then culturally appropriating the opinions of the KKK? Will the remnants of the KKK object to that appropriation?
The name "yoga" has stuck because it's exotic, and it's been around awhile so people think they know what it is. If it had been named "non-religious stretching exercises vaguely inspired by brown religious people in Asia" it would have never caught on. But perhaps if it had been called something other than yoga from the beginning, the SJWs would never have noticed. I just think it's ironic that after finishing their protests and going him, they will all probably celebrate the Christ Mass by giving expensive gifts and watching blinking lights on a plastic tree, with nary a thought for the Son of God. But I doubt most of them have thought deeply enough about "cultural appropriation" to recognize that we live every day in a mosaic of cultural practices and borrowings that are not truly our own.
Our passive-aggressive hostess trolling her readers again.
She's even pretending to engage, a little.
Next she'll be telling us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And imply that those who disagree are stupid, evil, dishonest.
My son, at two years old, used to be very proud when he left 'boom-boom' in the toilet. At some point however he realized it was just 'boom-boom' and treated it accordingly.
Of course he is not a tenured professor.
You'd think Ms. Althouse would avoid words like 'intemperate' which, I believe, was taken from the Japanese.
I wonder how much of her recent nonsense is just posturing so that when the BLMs and SJWs come barging into her classroom she can point to these posts as evidence of being down with the cause.
If she's lucky they won't find out she voted for Romney once.
Ooops. Perhaps I've said too much.
In the Philippines, I had to go to a Soul Food restaurant to get fried chicken, pork chops, turnip greens and biscuits like I like them. However, I hate it when white people tell Yo Mamma jokes. It's just not appropriate.
Watching "How The Wiz Was Made" last night, it finally occurred to me that this is clearly cultural appropriation. Who cares?
I admit to being surprised that Prof Althouse mentioned "The Gold Dust Twins". It makes me think of an unfortunate "cultural appropriation".
Aside from that it is mostly rubbish.
Regards — Cliff
The premise of the "appropriation" outcry is that certain cultural practices/clothes/music/food "belong" to a certain tribe/race/group. And if you dare adopt that thing you are bad. And only SJWs get to decide who is bad.
Jazz has long been a free integration of black and white music, with many integrated groups (you can't tell if the musicians are black or white from listening, frankly). But rap, oh boy, a white person better not adopt rap. The sky will catch fire.
this is pure tribalism which is unbecoming of Americans. Should we check ancestries before allowing people into a St Patty's Day party? And what about the millions of mixed race individuals (a large fraction of "blacks" in fact and many hispanics, among others)--what are they supposed to do?
The premise of the "appropriation" outcry is that certain cultural practices/clothes/music/food "belong" to a certain tribe/race/group. And if you dare adopt that thing you are bad. And only SJWs get to decide who is bad.
Jazz has long been a free integration of black and white music, with many integrated groups (you can't tell if the musicians are black or white from listening, frankly). But rap, oh boy, a white person better not adopt rap. The sky will catch fire.
this is pure tribalism which is unbecoming of Americans. Should we check ancestries before allowing people into a St Patty's Day party? And what about the millions of mixed race individuals (a large fraction of "blacks" in fact and many hispanics, among others)--what are they supposed to do?
Livermore, you culturally appropriated what I said before... Shame on you.
Here is what I said: " I mean, isn't there a reasonable chance that 50 years from now this discussion would be viewed with same respect as the medieval debate on how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? "
Here is what you wrote days later: "Our passive-aggressive hostess trolling her readers again.
She's even pretending to engage, a little.
Next she'll be telling us how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. And imply that those who disagree are stupid, evil, dishonest."
I demand an apology!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा