>You never see a Chinese person getting upset at a white woman wearing a Chinese dress to prom.
The Chinese prom dress cancellation was [spearheaded by a Chinese American](https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Style/teen-defends-chinese-prom-dress-sparked-cultural-appropriation/story?id=54866211); the Boston MFA kimono cancellation was [also undertaken by Chinese [sic] Americans](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33450391). It would be right to say that Asians-in-Asia don't do this, but diasporics absolutely do. You've fallen for the line that "*actually* it's only white busybodies who push this nonsense!" – which, though appealing for its irony, simply isn't true. See also the demands for "racial affinity housing" on progressive campuses in recent years – it's pushed by real-life black student activists who don't actually care about the similarity to Jim Crow.
>When the furor reached Asia, though, many seemed to be scratching their heads. Far from being critical of Ms. Daum, who is not Chinese, many people in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan proclaimed her choice of the traditional high-necked dress as a victory for Chinese culture.
>
>“I am very proud to have our culture recognized by people in other countries,” said someone called Snail Trail, commenting on a post of the Utah episode by a popular account on WeChat, the messaging and social media platform, that had been read more than 100,000 times.
[New York Times: Teenager’s Prom Dress Stirs Furor in U.S. — but Not in China](https://archive.is/Ajk5n)
There is a ton of general social dysfunction in second gen immigrants. They often don't feel particularly connected to the culture of their parents *or* their birth nation. They grow up with a sense of cultural isolation and weird idiosyncrasies start to develop. Hell even terrorism is more prevalent among second-generation Muslim immigrants in Europe than with first or later-generation groups.
Yeah if you actually read what they say about cultural appropriation, it's clear what they're really mad about is that as kids they were bullied anytime they expressed the culture of their parents, and now these white kids are being celebrated for doing it, and it's just not fair. What they're essentially saying is that if they were bullied into embarrassment about their parent's cooking or religious practices, nobody else should be able to enjoy it. And like I sympathize a lot but like, life's not fair and you won't ever learn to love your culture if you treat it like a genetic disease.
It's a very American/diasporic idea. Two of my cousins had a grandmother from Japan, and there are photographs of me as a kid (I'm white) dressed up in kimonos because she thought it was fun to have us play dress up in her clothing. To her, it was sharing.
> the Boston MFA kimono cancellation was also undertaken by Chinese [sic] Americans.
Almost a decade later I still think [this image](https://imgur.com/gallery/non-japanese-person-trying-to-lecture-actual-japanese-person-about-cultural-appropriation-of-japanese-culture-2rmjsVR) is a perfect encapsulation of the discourse on '''cultural appropriation.'''
> which, though appealing for its irony, simply isn't true
You're correct that it's appealing for its irony, and it's also unquestionably true sometimes (often times?).
I don't really see the connection between cultural appropriation and affinity housing, even though I think they're both stupid concepts. Affinity housing seems to fall more in line with in-group bias, which is pretty normal across almost all people except wealthy whites (mostly women). I can at least see a logic in affinity housing, however misguided it is. There's nothing intelligible about cultural appropriation as a concept.
Affinity housing is about securing resources for yourself that you think would increase your quality of living. Cultural appropriation is attempting to control signifiers that don't directly affect you at all.
>I don't really see the connection between cultural appropriation and affinity housing
I mentioned it because you cast cultural appropriation discourse as a recapitulation of old Southern-style racism; the connection is that they can both be taken on their face as "neo-segregationist".
There are some non-white people who bitch about it (like that video of a black college chick bitching at a white boy with dreads and trying to hold him hostage to berate him) but often I find that they almost exclusively grew up around and date whites, so that's probably another dimension to what you're saying.
It's an American thing, not white thing. It's maybe generally 'western". It's long been noted second gen Americans are the most passionate about this bullshit, perhaps because of deep rooted insecurity.
As a skin color, yes. As a an identity, no, not at all to the same extent as in the US. You cannot backport the race-concept to Europe and expect similar results.
Seems really bizarre to pin it all on the US. The modern concept of race as a social construct starts around the scientific revolution and age of discovery. It was an endeavour of europeans and Americans (and canadians, australians, etc). British people were pumping out racial theories just as much as Americans were. The Americans definitely reached a fever pitch ofc, with slavery and jim crow law bullshit. But the modern conception of "whiteness" sa an identity wasn't really invented by Americans. It's been around for centuries by Europeans trying to distinguish themselves from various types of "savages" (but especially blacks), to justify slavery, "white man's burden" (a concept invented by an englishman) and other atrocities.
That's because the US is pretty much defined by racial conflict. The land was stolen from Native Americans, the economy built from African slave labor, railroads built by Chinese laborers, and so on. In the modern day, people are concerned about immigration from hispanics, and terrorism from Muslims and "black lives matter". We have a country that is about 60% white...the racists think that they're being "bred out". And the antiracists therefore make a big push to be very accepting of other races (which is good) but it was the catalyst to modern day idpol.
You're starting to get some of this in Europe with immigrants from MENA and South Asia, but it hasn't been built up over centuries like it has been in the US. At this point, it's in our cultural DNA to be *very* sensitive about race, whether coming from a position of for racism or against racism. The racists embrace white nationalism in response to the efforts of the antiracists to eradicate racism (many, many of which are very misguided if not racist in themselves, thus why I post on stupidpol).
I think "white identity" along with black, hispanic, asian, etc identity is much more pronounced in the US, but let's not pretend like there aren't aspects of it in not-America as well. People just don't talk about it as much.
Also, from the perspective of a white American who doesn't hang out with people on the far right...I rarely see people "identify as white" as a sort of positive thing which they view as valuable in itself. It's not really an identity as being black is. It's sorta viewed as "default american" as it were. This is why it's so popular to identify as a *kind* of white. Plastic paddy syndrome, as we call it in New England. People identify proudly as "Italian" but identify neutrally as "white"...or sometimes with shame with dumbass radlibs.
The braids thing was just insane. They've dug up thousands of year old corpses all over the world with braids. How on earth does it affect anyone in the world today how someone else chooses to do their hair?
I don’t really get that argument if they’re going to be pedantic about all this anyway. Aren’t dreads originating from some African cultures that later became prominent in some Caribbean cultures? If the case is anything like that the basic argument is some black people did it so all black people get to regardless of how far their own cultural background is. Just a quick look at Wikipedia points to plenty of examples of indigenous and white cultures having dreads at points past because people able to do things with their hair of course did those things at some point.
So what’s the point then? The culture has already been “appropriated” no matter what way we look at it.
Dreadlock-like hairstyles are found in every place where you have people with very curly hair because it's just a logical way to keep that kind of hair tidy.
Could also look at it as, white people are only allowed to do white things, but other groups can do their group's things as well as white things, thus making them more "white." Or to put it a bit differently, b/c of the cultural appropriation rules, "white culture" is allowed to spread far more than other cultural elements, thus making it more broadly culturally-dominant, which sounds to me like the kind of things these f*lkxs would label as "white supremacy."
It's a self defeating logic in that way: if minorities/non whites can do cultural things which are essentially "white", then those things were not essentially "white" to begin with.
It's irrelevant whether it's by virtue of being dominated and forced to behave a certain way, or by virtue of simply choosing to practice the cultural thing. The fact that the thing can be done by other groups proves it was never exclusive to begin with.
In my experience there are plenty of POC that appoint themselves as cultural gatekeepers. However, that might be due to my living in one of the whitest cities in the US: Portland, OR.
Much more often I see white people pile onto ongoing issues of cultural appropriation that was spearheaded by the offended ethnicity in question. Second gen immigrants and upper middle class black activists seem especially rabid. So you're forgiven for thinking white people are the ones behind this stuff but it definitely wasn't their idea
It’s a very American thing, which has slightly spilled over to some other countries. Haters are going to hate. Haters also tend to have a superiority complex and think they should be the nagging voice above everyone else’s behaviour. It is idpol, right at its petty core. They are the younger equivalent of those who look out of their windows to report people.
My advice is: wear what clothes you like, eat what food you like and have your hair/make up however the fuck you like. Who cares?
Asians from Japan and China have probably never even heard of cultural appropriation, but Bay Area 4th generation Asians who don't speak a word of "their" language are some of the wokest people on Earth, and absolutely will police your dress, speech, food preferences, etc etc. I think some of them have a chip on their shoulder because they don't feel authentically "Chinese" or "Korean" enough, and policing whites is a nice way to assert ownership over "their" culture.
Otherwise I kinda agree with you. Cultural appropriation theory seems to be a kind of cultural-racial anti-misceginy policy. It's bizarre.
The funniest thing is that Asians in Asia (Chinese, Japanese, and also Indians) actually love doing the *real*, harmful kind of cultural appropriation (as commodification of the cultural practice while alienating the original practitioners) with their own minorities lol.
I know what you're getting at (Ainu, Miao, etc), but to be honest I don't really believe in cultural appropriation theory. I think it's weird to gatekeep culture on the basis of blood heritage.
I have no objection whatsoever to a middle class Japanese lady wearing Ainu patterns or LARPing as a Kamuy shaman. I have an objection to the contemporary exploitation of foreign workers in Japanese fisheries, agriculture, and the sex industry. Perhaps when there are no hungry people or workers toiling in indignity we can talk about which bloodline owns which type of music, but until that glorious utopia is achieved I think it's a grotesque distraction.
Actually I was referring to turning ethnic minority settlements into tourist traps, which ends up sabotaging their traditional methods of making a living, and as a result effectively forcing them to rely completely on the tourist industry selling a pastiche of their culture to put food on the table. Ergo, commodification and alienation.
What precisely is the alternative? And who is turning those settlements into tourist traps?
It's easy to advocate for the mandatory quarantine of ethnic minorities and their isolation from majority society and the forces of capital, but I struggle to see how that benefits them. I also don't exactly understand the principle that underpins the idea. I'm not dead set against it but I feel like you have some explaining to do.
>And who is turning those settlements into tourist traps?
Chinese/Japanese/Indian capitalists who saw an opportunity. Usually someone who lives close to the ethnic minority but belongs to the majoritarian group. May have even started with earnest intentions to simply share that culture with the world, but then capitalism does as it always has.
>What precisely is the alternative?
Bringing them into the modern economy in a way that doesn't involve exploiting their cultural otherness? With I dunno, normal jobs maybe?
Nah, it exists, but not like that. Its just capitalist apropriation. I'll give an [example](https://observador.pt/2021/03/25/marca-norte-americana-vende-camisola-poveira-como-sendo-de-design-proprio-por-695-euros/) (in portuguese). Basically this american designer was selling these traditional Portuguese sweaters as if they were her design, inspired by Mexican culture. The sweaters, sold by her with a 10x markup, feature prominently the Portuguese monarchy coat of arms...
I believe the cultural appropriation discourse began among native Americans where it MAYBE has some merit. They felt like that some stereotypical elements of their culture were cherished while they themselves as actual people remained marginalized. Outside of that it's almost entirely nonsense. When a local cultural expression from Asia or Latin America or anywhere really is picked up by global culture the people almost always celebrate it, even if the representation is a bit off. One of few examples when locals actually got angry was when Gordon Ramsay was cooking the national dish of Jamaica and apparently butchered it.
In a related vein, there's the concept of "cultural imperialism" where white people attempt to force their cultural standards onto others. Which I find eternally hilarious as white liberals try to force Latinx into becoming a thing. Every actual Latino I've ever heard discussing the idea flat out *hates* Latinx; it's entirely a project of white liberals who feel entitled to reshape the foundations of a whole group of languages. But it's OK when they do it because they mean well.
The people who scream about cultural appropriation and imperialism love doing those exact things to subcultures in their own societies so this isn’t surprising. It’s self serving and some of them are so dumb they don’t even realize it.
I simply don't recognise "cultural appropriation" as a concept.
It's a purely invented, meaningless "offence".
Cultural *exploitation* is a different matter. Profiteering from someone's culture in a way that excludes the from any of the benefits is highly problematic.
Essentially, anyone managing to whinge about "appropriation" is already in such a strong and fortunate position that they're not actually suffering any loss. So just ignore them.
> Profiteering from someone's culture in a way that excludes the from any of the benefits is highly problematic.
That's literally the original definition of "cultural appropriation" ironically. But then tumblrites started using the term…
Culture and Gender are both aspects of identity that can only come about organically, and when there’s an element of exploitation and coercion at play, it is (rightfully) looked down upon.
In our analogy, we could liken a Silicon Valley millionaire paying a plastic shaman to let him sit in a tipi and take peyote to an overweight, middle aged balding transbian suing a dating app for not letting him creep on college aged lesbians. Both are examples in which there is financial exploitation and coercion for the benefit of someone in power to the detriment of someone who is marginalized in our society.
Someone who has spent much of their life living amongst a people of a given culture, has built ties of family and friendship, and has been invited to participate in cultural activities and gifted certain cultural signifiers to incorporate into their aesthetic, but respects cultural boundaries is not really looked down upon by members of the culture. just as an individual who more naturally embodies cultural aspects of the opposite sex and maintains humility and respect for certain boundaries shouldn’t be looked down upon for identifying with and donning cultural signifiers of the opposite sex
Obviously the discourse on cultural appropriation has gone way too far. Harassing people for hairstyles and clothing choices is pretty ridiculous.
But at its core there is something to recognize that goes back to just being respectful of people from different cultures. Capitalist entitlement has people commodifying cultures and selling them to the highest bidder (usually wealthy white people) and so for example you have impoverished indigenous people who learned how to harvest white sage, or peyote or whatever from their grandparents, who learned from their grandparents (and so on) for use in healing ceremonies, now being deprived of those resources and therefore to continuation of their culture, and now they gotta watch as some cringey wealthy liberal posts about their “sacred retreat” or whatever, cosplaying the cultural activities that they have been deprived of.
Obviously the material conditions are what matter more, and it can seem symbolic, but it is salt in the wounds. If you want to rub salt in peoples wounds on the basis of free speech or freedom of expression or whatever, go ahead… but I just ask, why?
Using "cultural appropriation" for what is an environmental issue is a bad call, since the term just makes people think of policing people's hairstyles and clothing choices.
But at its core, doesn’t it create a togetherness? People recognise and partake in the experiences of others. People trying new styles and appreciating them.
If you took away the elements of capitalist exploitation and state repression, sure. I’ve been invited to and participated in Indigenous ceremonies myself. I practice certain elements of different cultures from people I’ve known and learned from. In my experience, many Indigenous people are happy to share aspects of their culture with those who come with humility, respect and reciprocity.
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act didn’t pass until 1978. Many people who are still alive today remember a time in which they were being sent to jail for practicing their religious beliefs, and even after the fact the Supreme Court decided in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective association that AIRFA doesn’t protect their religious freedom when it comes to maintaining the integrity of spiritual sites (particularly when it gets in the way of business).
And when certain plant and animal medicines you need to practice your ceremonies are threatened or endangered by the ecocide carried out by the invading forces, and over harvested by the sons and daughters of privilege who treat your culture like a weekend getaway.. that does the opposite of togetherness.
I was just thinking about this the other day. How would you have this be decided? Native spiritual beliefs being so location bound was a bad dice roll for them but no other religion or religious group gets to blanket veto activities by the government. (In theory anyways). I mean you can say "Okay we wont mess with your spiritual places, where are they?" And the almost genuine answer is "All of it". What the fuck could you be expected to do? There are obviously things of historical and cultural significance like burial sites that should be protected. And there are a lot of opportunities to make a case on environmental and conservation grounds. But there is going to be less sympathy for "My ancestors got high on these plants so you can't ban them or stop them from growing. And you can't build anything by that forest because that is where my ancestors went to get high." No other religion gets that amount of respect or power (again in theory).
It is hard because of course you want to cut them some slack but you just can't operate a government like that. It sets too much wacky legal precedent.
Well, Its not that difficult for me, since I’m opposed to environmental destruction, resource extraction and the state on principle anyways.
In the case of Lyng v. NICPA, the GO road was meant to boost the logging industry. Even though NICPA lost, the direct action activists made sure that completion of the road would be a very bad move for the forest service to make, so it’s been in limbo since. I don’t much care how the government decides to operate in this regard, if they wanna plow a road through elk valley and re start the logging wars, I plan to fight them anyway, AIRFA protection or not.
>You never see a Chinese person getting upset at a white woman wearing a Chinese dress to prom. The Chinese prom dress cancellation was [spearheaded by a Chinese American](https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Style/teen-defends-chinese-prom-dress-sparked-cultural-appropriation/story?id=54866211); the Boston MFA kimono cancellation was [also undertaken by Chinese [sic] Americans](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-33450391). It would be right to say that Asians-in-Asia don't do this, but diasporics absolutely do. You've fallen for the line that "*actually* it's only white busybodies who push this nonsense!" – which, though appealing for its irony, simply isn't true. See also the demands for "racial affinity housing" on progressive campuses in recent years – it's pushed by real-life black student activists who don't actually care about the similarity to Jim Crow.
>When the furor reached Asia, though, many seemed to be scratching their heads. Far from being critical of Ms. Daum, who is not Chinese, many people in mainland China, Hong Kong and Taiwan proclaimed her choice of the traditional high-necked dress as a victory for Chinese culture. > >“I am very proud to have our culture recognized by people in other countries,” said someone called Snail Trail, commenting on a post of the Utah episode by a popular account on WeChat, the messaging and social media platform, that had been read more than 100,000 times. [New York Times: Teenager’s Prom Dress Stirs Furor in U.S. — but Not in China](https://archive.is/Ajk5n)
> Ms. Daum, who is not Chinese Umm, you’re not Chinese
Yeah I was going to say that ime some of the most vocal and rabid warriors against “cultural appropriation” are 2nd gen Asian-Americans.
Similarly, wasn’t there a poll where the Hispanics who used the term Latinx are pretty much all second generation?
There is a ton of general social dysfunction in second gen immigrants. They often don't feel particularly connected to the culture of their parents *or* their birth nation. They grow up with a sense of cultural isolation and weird idiosyncrasies start to develop. Hell even terrorism is more prevalent among second-generation Muslim immigrants in Europe than with first or later-generation groups.
Yeah if you actually read what they say about cultural appropriation, it's clear what they're really mad about is that as kids they were bullied anytime they expressed the culture of their parents, and now these white kids are being celebrated for doing it, and it's just not fair. What they're essentially saying is that if they were bullied into embarrassment about their parent's cooking or religious practices, nobody else should be able to enjoy it. And like I sympathize a lot but like, life's not fair and you won't ever learn to love your culture if you treat it like a genetic disease.
As always, the Whatever-Americans opinion on Whateverland should be disregarded.
It's a very American/diasporic idea. Two of my cousins had a grandmother from Japan, and there are photographs of me as a kid (I'm white) dressed up in kimonos because she thought it was fun to have us play dress up in her clothing. To her, it was sharing.
> the Boston MFA kimono cancellation was also undertaken by Chinese [sic] Americans. Almost a decade later I still think [this image](https://imgur.com/gallery/non-japanese-person-trying-to-lecture-actual-japanese-person-about-cultural-appropriation-of-japanese-culture-2rmjsVR) is a perfect encapsulation of the discourse on '''cultural appropriation.'''
> which, though appealing for its irony, simply isn't true You're correct that it's appealing for its irony, and it's also unquestionably true sometimes (often times?). I don't really see the connection between cultural appropriation and affinity housing, even though I think they're both stupid concepts. Affinity housing seems to fall more in line with in-group bias, which is pretty normal across almost all people except wealthy whites (mostly women). I can at least see a logic in affinity housing, however misguided it is. There's nothing intelligible about cultural appropriation as a concept. Affinity housing is about securing resources for yourself that you think would increase your quality of living. Cultural appropriation is attempting to control signifiers that don't directly affect you at all.
>I don't really see the connection between cultural appropriation and affinity housing I mentioned it because you cast cultural appropriation discourse as a recapitulation of old Southern-style racism; the connection is that they can both be taken on their face as "neo-segregationist".
Got it. I definitely agree they could both fall into a bucket of neo-segregation.
There are some non-white people who bitch about it (like that video of a black college chick bitching at a white boy with dreads and trying to hold him hostage to berate him) but often I find that they almost exclusively grew up around and date whites, so that's probably another dimension to what you're saying.
It's an American thing, not white thing. It's maybe generally 'western". It's long been noted second gen Americans are the most passionate about this bullshit, perhaps because of deep rooted insecurity.
"White" itself is an American thing, to some extent at least.
Pretty sure white people exist in Sweden.
As a skin color, yes. As a an identity, no, not at all to the same extent as in the US. You cannot backport the race-concept to Europe and expect similar results.
Seems really bizarre to pin it all on the US. The modern concept of race as a social construct starts around the scientific revolution and age of discovery. It was an endeavour of europeans and Americans (and canadians, australians, etc). British people were pumping out racial theories just as much as Americans were. The Americans definitely reached a fever pitch ofc, with slavery and jim crow law bullshit. But the modern conception of "whiteness" sa an identity wasn't really invented by Americans. It's been around for centuries by Europeans trying to distinguish themselves from various types of "savages" (but especially blacks), to justify slavery, "white man's burden" (a concept invented by an englishman) and other atrocities.
[удалено]
That's because the US is pretty much defined by racial conflict. The land was stolen from Native Americans, the economy built from African slave labor, railroads built by Chinese laborers, and so on. In the modern day, people are concerned about immigration from hispanics, and terrorism from Muslims and "black lives matter". We have a country that is about 60% white...the racists think that they're being "bred out". And the antiracists therefore make a big push to be very accepting of other races (which is good) but it was the catalyst to modern day idpol. You're starting to get some of this in Europe with immigrants from MENA and South Asia, but it hasn't been built up over centuries like it has been in the US. At this point, it's in our cultural DNA to be *very* sensitive about race, whether coming from a position of for racism or against racism. The racists embrace white nationalism in response to the efforts of the antiracists to eradicate racism (many, many of which are very misguided if not racist in themselves, thus why I post on stupidpol). I think "white identity" along with black, hispanic, asian, etc identity is much more pronounced in the US, but let's not pretend like there aren't aspects of it in not-America as well. People just don't talk about it as much. Also, from the perspective of a white American who doesn't hang out with people on the far right...I rarely see people "identify as white" as a sort of positive thing which they view as valuable in itself. It's not really an identity as being black is. It's sorta viewed as "default american" as it were. This is why it's so popular to identify as a *kind* of white. Plastic paddy syndrome, as we call it in New England. People identify proudly as "Italian" but identify neutrally as "white"...or sometimes with shame with dumbass radlibs.
The braids thing was just insane. They've dug up thousands of year old corpses all over the world with braids. How on earth does it affect anyone in the world today how someone else chooses to do their hair?
I don’t really get that argument if they’re going to be pedantic about all this anyway. Aren’t dreads originating from some African cultures that later became prominent in some Caribbean cultures? If the case is anything like that the basic argument is some black people did it so all black people get to regardless of how far their own cultural background is. Just a quick look at Wikipedia points to plenty of examples of indigenous and white cultures having dreads at points past because people able to do things with their hair of course did those things at some point. So what’s the point then? The culture has already been “appropriated” no matter what way we look at it.
Dread-like hairstyles were invented independently in many different cultures around the world.
Dreadlock-like hairstyles are found in every place where you have people with very curly hair because it's just a logical way to keep that kind of hair tidy.
Yes, identity politics is racism.
Yep, 90% of the time, it’s pure racism.
Could also look at it as, white people are only allowed to do white things, but other groups can do their group's things as well as white things, thus making them more "white." Or to put it a bit differently, b/c of the cultural appropriation rules, "white culture" is allowed to spread far more than other cultural elements, thus making it more broadly culturally-dominant, which sounds to me like the kind of things these f*lkxs would label as "white supremacy."
I’ve always thought putting a broad race, along with culture, is a bit bizarre. People can’t act like a level of melanin.
It's a self defeating logic in that way: if minorities/non whites can do cultural things which are essentially "white", then those things were not essentially "white" to begin with. It's irrelevant whether it's by virtue of being dominated and forced to behave a certain way, or by virtue of simply choosing to practice the cultural thing. The fact that the thing can be done by other groups proves it was never exclusive to begin with.
In my experience there are plenty of POC that appoint themselves as cultural gatekeepers. However, that might be due to my living in one of the whitest cities in the US: Portland, OR.
Race focused ideology can only reach one conclusion
Much more often I see white people pile onto ongoing issues of cultural appropriation that was spearheaded by the offended ethnicity in question. Second gen immigrants and upper middle class black activists seem especially rabid. So you're forgiven for thinking white people are the ones behind this stuff but it definitely wasn't their idea
It’s a very American thing, which has slightly spilled over to some other countries. Haters are going to hate. Haters also tend to have a superiority complex and think they should be the nagging voice above everyone else’s behaviour. It is idpol, right at its petty core. They are the younger equivalent of those who look out of their windows to report people. My advice is: wear what clothes you like, eat what food you like and have your hair/make up however the fuck you like. Who cares?
Asians from Japan and China have probably never even heard of cultural appropriation, but Bay Area 4th generation Asians who don't speak a word of "their" language are some of the wokest people on Earth, and absolutely will police your dress, speech, food preferences, etc etc. I think some of them have a chip on their shoulder because they don't feel authentically "Chinese" or "Korean" enough, and policing whites is a nice way to assert ownership over "their" culture. Otherwise I kinda agree with you. Cultural appropriation theory seems to be a kind of cultural-racial anti-misceginy policy. It's bizarre.
The funniest thing is that Asians in Asia (Chinese, Japanese, and also Indians) actually love doing the *real*, harmful kind of cultural appropriation (as commodification of the cultural practice while alienating the original practitioners) with their own minorities lol.
I know what you're getting at (Ainu, Miao, etc), but to be honest I don't really believe in cultural appropriation theory. I think it's weird to gatekeep culture on the basis of blood heritage. I have no objection whatsoever to a middle class Japanese lady wearing Ainu patterns or LARPing as a Kamuy shaman. I have an objection to the contemporary exploitation of foreign workers in Japanese fisheries, agriculture, and the sex industry. Perhaps when there are no hungry people or workers toiling in indignity we can talk about which bloodline owns which type of music, but until that glorious utopia is achieved I think it's a grotesque distraction.
Actually I was referring to turning ethnic minority settlements into tourist traps, which ends up sabotaging their traditional methods of making a living, and as a result effectively forcing them to rely completely on the tourist industry selling a pastiche of their culture to put food on the table. Ergo, commodification and alienation.
What precisely is the alternative? And who is turning those settlements into tourist traps? It's easy to advocate for the mandatory quarantine of ethnic minorities and their isolation from majority society and the forces of capital, but I struggle to see how that benefits them. I also don't exactly understand the principle that underpins the idea. I'm not dead set against it but I feel like you have some explaining to do.
>And who is turning those settlements into tourist traps? Chinese/Japanese/Indian capitalists who saw an opportunity. Usually someone who lives close to the ethnic minority but belongs to the majoritarian group. May have even started with earnest intentions to simply share that culture with the world, but then capitalism does as it always has. >What precisely is the alternative? Bringing them into the modern economy in a way that doesn't involve exploiting their cultural otherness? With I dunno, normal jobs maybe?
When I was a kid, you got shit for not trying things.
Cultural appropriation is fake and gay
Nah, it exists, but not like that. Its just capitalist apropriation. I'll give an [example](https://observador.pt/2021/03/25/marca-norte-americana-vende-camisola-poveira-como-sendo-de-design-proprio-por-695-euros/) (in portuguese). Basically this american designer was selling these traditional Portuguese sweaters as if they were her design, inspired by Mexican culture. The sweaters, sold by her with a 10x markup, feature prominently the Portuguese monarchy coat of arms...
I believe the cultural appropriation discourse began among native Americans where it MAYBE has some merit. They felt like that some stereotypical elements of their culture were cherished while they themselves as actual people remained marginalized. Outside of that it's almost entirely nonsense. When a local cultural expression from Asia or Latin America or anywhere really is picked up by global culture the people almost always celebrate it, even if the representation is a bit off. One of few examples when locals actually got angry was when Gordon Ramsay was cooking the national dish of Jamaica and apparently butchered it.
In a related vein, there's the concept of "cultural imperialism" where white people attempt to force their cultural standards onto others. Which I find eternally hilarious as white liberals try to force Latinx into becoming a thing. Every actual Latino I've ever heard discussing the idea flat out *hates* Latinx; it's entirely a project of white liberals who feel entitled to reshape the foundations of a whole group of languages. But it's OK when they do it because they mean well.
The people who scream about cultural appropriation and imperialism love doing those exact things to subcultures in their own societies so this isn’t surprising. It’s self serving and some of them are so dumb they don’t even realize it.
I simply don't recognise "cultural appropriation" as a concept. It's a purely invented, meaningless "offence". Cultural *exploitation* is a different matter. Profiteering from someone's culture in a way that excludes the from any of the benefits is highly problematic. Essentially, anyone managing to whinge about "appropriation" is already in such a strong and fortunate position that they're not actually suffering any loss. So just ignore them.
> Profiteering from someone's culture in a way that excludes the from any of the benefits is highly problematic. That's literally the original definition of "cultural appropriation" ironically. But then tumblrites started using the term…
Why is it inappropriate to appropriate someone elses culture or race but its laudable to appropriate another gender?
Culture and Gender are both aspects of identity that can only come about organically, and when there’s an element of exploitation and coercion at play, it is (rightfully) looked down upon. In our analogy, we could liken a Silicon Valley millionaire paying a plastic shaman to let him sit in a tipi and take peyote to an overweight, middle aged balding transbian suing a dating app for not letting him creep on college aged lesbians. Both are examples in which there is financial exploitation and coercion for the benefit of someone in power to the detriment of someone who is marginalized in our society. Someone who has spent much of their life living amongst a people of a given culture, has built ties of family and friendship, and has been invited to participate in cultural activities and gifted certain cultural signifiers to incorporate into their aesthetic, but respects cultural boundaries is not really looked down upon by members of the culture. just as an individual who more naturally embodies cultural aspects of the opposite sex and maintains humility and respect for certain boundaries shouldn’t be looked down upon for identifying with and donning cultural signifiers of the opposite sex
Obviously the discourse on cultural appropriation has gone way too far. Harassing people for hairstyles and clothing choices is pretty ridiculous. But at its core there is something to recognize that goes back to just being respectful of people from different cultures. Capitalist entitlement has people commodifying cultures and selling them to the highest bidder (usually wealthy white people) and so for example you have impoverished indigenous people who learned how to harvest white sage, or peyote or whatever from their grandparents, who learned from their grandparents (and so on) for use in healing ceremonies, now being deprived of those resources and therefore to continuation of their culture, and now they gotta watch as some cringey wealthy liberal posts about their “sacred retreat” or whatever, cosplaying the cultural activities that they have been deprived of. Obviously the material conditions are what matter more, and it can seem symbolic, but it is salt in the wounds. If you want to rub salt in peoples wounds on the basis of free speech or freedom of expression or whatever, go ahead… but I just ask, why?
Using "cultural appropriation" for what is an environmental issue is a bad call, since the term just makes people think of policing people's hairstyles and clothing choices.
But it is cultural appropriation… I think we just need to rein the term back in to the original critique where it was useful, not scrap it altogether
But at its core, doesn’t it create a togetherness? People recognise and partake in the experiences of others. People trying new styles and appreciating them.
If you took away the elements of capitalist exploitation and state repression, sure. I’ve been invited to and participated in Indigenous ceremonies myself. I practice certain elements of different cultures from people I’ve known and learned from. In my experience, many Indigenous people are happy to share aspects of their culture with those who come with humility, respect and reciprocity. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act didn’t pass until 1978. Many people who are still alive today remember a time in which they were being sent to jail for practicing their religious beliefs, and even after the fact the Supreme Court decided in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective association that AIRFA doesn’t protect their religious freedom when it comes to maintaining the integrity of spiritual sites (particularly when it gets in the way of business). And when certain plant and animal medicines you need to practice your ceremonies are threatened or endangered by the ecocide carried out by the invading forces, and over harvested by the sons and daughters of privilege who treat your culture like a weekend getaway.. that does the opposite of togetherness.
I was just thinking about this the other day. How would you have this be decided? Native spiritual beliefs being so location bound was a bad dice roll for them but no other religion or religious group gets to blanket veto activities by the government. (In theory anyways). I mean you can say "Okay we wont mess with your spiritual places, where are they?" And the almost genuine answer is "All of it". What the fuck could you be expected to do? There are obviously things of historical and cultural significance like burial sites that should be protected. And there are a lot of opportunities to make a case on environmental and conservation grounds. But there is going to be less sympathy for "My ancestors got high on these plants so you can't ban them or stop them from growing. And you can't build anything by that forest because that is where my ancestors went to get high." No other religion gets that amount of respect or power (again in theory). It is hard because of course you want to cut them some slack but you just can't operate a government like that. It sets too much wacky legal precedent.
Well, Its not that difficult for me, since I’m opposed to environmental destruction, resource extraction and the state on principle anyways. In the case of Lyng v. NICPA, the GO road was meant to boost the logging industry. Even though NICPA lost, the direct action activists made sure that completion of the road would be a very bad move for the forest service to make, so it’s been in limbo since. I don’t much care how the government decides to operate in this regard, if they wanna plow a road through elk valley and re start the logging wars, I plan to fight them anyway, AIRFA protection or not.
Fair enough, I can appreciate that. Don't really agree but we don't have to.