Will Anyone Defend This?
I will stand up on this one.
Cultural appropriation is a real issue of concern, but to my way of thinking the article does not represent a genuine issue of cultural appropriation.
A white person (and cultural appropriation is almost invariably practiced by the majority population) who chooses belly dancing or playing the digeridoo is not engaged in an act of cultural appropriation, because that does not serve to exclude members of the originating culture from continuing in their cultural practice, and it does not create an implication that the practice has become disconnected from the culture that originated it.
But when white people start festooning their architecture with First Nations' motifs that are inappropriate to the cultural context of that motif, then art is being used wrongly. When prayer mats start being used as throw rugs, that is putting art to a use contrary to the intention of the artist. These are practices which are perfectly legal, of course, but which should give the user pause.
_________________
--James
Attempting to sneak in a defense of casual racism in a thread about some Tumblr Warrior getting her letter to the editor published? Stay classy.
And all these things have gradually been eroded by political correctness, which seems to me to be about an institutionalised politeness at its worst. And if there is some fallout from this, which means that someone in an office might get in trouble one day for saying something that someone was a bit unsure about because they couldn't decide whether it was sexist or homophobic or racist, it's a small price to pay for the massive benefits and improvements in the quality of life for millions of people that political correctness has made. It's a complete lie that allows the right, which basically controls media now, and international politics, to make people on the left who are concerned about the way people are represented look like killjoys. And I'm sick, I'm really sick-- 84% of you in this room that have agreed with this phrase, you're like those people who turn around and go, "you know who the most oppressed minorities in Britain are? White, middle-class men." You're a bunch of idiots.
(From "Heresy", BBC Radio 4, 16th May 2007)
Nothing that the progressives would have an issue with surprises me anymore. Personally, I've never thought of belly dancing as strictly arabic and that a white woman doing it would be "culture appropriation".
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,739
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
But if anything, cultural appropriation, with each group borrowing ideas - and yes, swapping genes - is if anything a liberal idea. I realize this idea of cultural determinism has been adopted by some on the left, with all it's notions that each group should have the right or even duty to keep to their own neighborhoods and keeping their old traditions alive, but originally, this was a stolidly conservative idea.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
When I read this I thought to myself, when does that (bolded) ever happen? When are the originators of the cultural practice ever excluded from continuing that practice? But then I thought of a pretty striking example (pretty much never brought up in appropriation discussions, oddly) of the swastika. Hitler appropriated it so thoroughly (in a flipped around form) that the originators nearly are excluded from using it. One day I saw a friend (from India) wearing a swastika golden necklace. I was utterly shocked and finally managed to say "wh....why are you wearing a gold swastika?????". She meant for me and all others noting the necklace to ask just exactly that. She told me that the swastika she wore was not Nazi but that it was a positive religious symbol. It was supposed to be a good thing but Hitler appropriated it so thoroughly that people shudder to see it. She told me that she and other Hindus were part of a movement to take it back, to educate people about its actual positive meaning.
That is a recent example. A more ancient example was how how ancient Christians managed to appropriate Pan from ancient Pagans and turn him into Satan. A less clear cut modern example is how druggie youth managed to appropriate certain psychoactive compounds previously only used in religious ceremonies, such as peyote, such that the originators were no longer legally allowed to use them either. But I think that now there is a religious exemption which is why I call it less clear cut.
Although insensitive, I don't think those are examples where the originators were excluded. First Nations peoples can still use their motifs and Muslims can still pray on prayer rugs. A person using a prayer rug as a decoration is insensitive but it doesn't take it away from the Muslim in the way the swastika was so thoroughly taken away.
But if anything, cultural appropriation, with each group borrowing ideas - and yes, swapping genes - is if anything a liberal idea. I realize this idea of cultural determinism has been adopted by some on the left, with all it's notions that each group should have the right or even duty to keep to their own neighborhoods and keeping their old traditions alive, but originally, this was a stolidly conservative idea.
I'm talking more about the progressive insistence in looking for anything to be butthurt over. In this case, culture appropriation seems to be the vehicle.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
Equality is impossible. But there should be opportunity for everyone.
Good point.
_________________
People are strange, when you're a stranger
Faces look ugly when you're alone.
Morrison/Krieger
You're confusing the strawman for political correctness with the strawman for income inequality.
sonofghandi
Veteran
Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)
To be fair, there aren't too many DC pols who aren't butt-hurt over something the other side says/does/thinks on a daily basis, regardless of their affiliation.
I do think PC goes too far sometimes, but not anywhere near as often as you'd be led to believe.
_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche
Three possibilities on the general "political correctness" issue, as I see it:
1) You are fine and dandy with political correctness
2) You are outright opposed to political correctness
3) You like the idea of political correctness, but think it sometimes goes a bit far.
If 1) applies, great.
If 2) applies, you probably don't really know what political correctness is
If 3) applies, consider this. Your ancestors probably had no issue throwing around the most offensive of racial slurs, and thought black people were below them. Your great-grandparents probably wanted homosexuality to remain illegal. You probably cringe at some of the things your parents and grandparents say. What makes you so sure that future generations won't cringe at some of the genuine views you hold?
What I would like to see is a feminist thread that doesn't exclusively reference feminists who are nut cases .
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z7nteHMPJ8&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]
Last edited by Stannis on 20 Mar 2014, 1:58 am, edited 7 times in total.
^^^^^*
I don't fall into any of the 3 camps outlined so there has to be a 4th possibility too. I don't think "political correctness" is a useful concept because it is much too vague. I am neither for it nor against it because there isn't an actual "it" to be for or against.
Dox47 posted links and quotes on the specific concept of cultural appropriation. That's pretty specific and it got discussed specifically for about the first page and a half. But when "PC" got dragged in, all discussion of cultural appropriation stopped and suddenly it was nothing but taking sides for or against this undefined "PC". That's what I really dislike about the concept. It diverts any actual discussion into "yay"/"boo" slingfests and the original topic is never discussed again for the remainder of the thread.
* The ^^^^^ arrows are referring to Walrus's post but I can't type as fast as Stannis.