Cultural appropriation

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Abomination:
I am struggling to think of a genuine example of cultural appropriation happening recently. A lot of people are talking about what WOULD be cultural appropriation but there's no actual articles or genuine examples of it.

A bunch of (American) bitches getting upset at a white girl for wearing a Chinese dress is such a nontroversey it's clear how it's not getting any political traction.

How about Miley taking a traditional African tribal dance, making it as lewd and offensive as possible because she wanted "something that feels black" so now everyone associates it with Miley and the culture and lifestyle she was promoting rather than it's true African tribal origins?
Where it originated:

After it was "white watered" and appropriated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/27/miley-cyrus-twerking-cultural-appropriation

erttheking:

Ryotknife:
Snip

The bit where you went "I think its great that im not limited by my genetics when it comes to experiencing traditions, cultures, or cuisine (thank god, i hate german cuisine). It seems like if some of these traditionalists had their way, everyone would be pigeonholed by their ancestry." I really don't know how else to interpret "these traditionalists" aside from people who criticize cultural appropriation. I still don't.

Saelune gave an example

Cultural Appropriation is not a left/right issue. Just look at all the right-wing white men who fear cultural interbreeding.

Its a pretty big stretch to assume my bit was directed at you or anyone else in this thread. Did you never consider the possibility that my statement was not made at anyone in this thread?

This is the escapist, ive been on here for 7 years i think. I know most of you better than i know my neighbors for crying out loud. I can not think of a single person on here i would consider a "traditionalist" (not even the few right wingers) in any regard except maybe in the most obscure context like the proper way to make tea or something.

Saying "Well people like it" isn't really a defense of something. You're not defending the merits of it, you're just claiming its popular, as if being popular is a virtue. It isn't. Also, you think people not watering down other cultures and not utilizing the equipment that many people need to work and stay connected with employees, family and school is comparable? And that not watering down culture is too much for people to handle?

You know, some people would get angry when someone makes a wrong assumption about something someone else said, then after that person is corrected decides to double down instead of just dropping it.

Some people would get angry when a person continuously puts words in their mouth.

You have done both of these things now, repeatedly. But i am not angry. Correction, i am not angry about that.

Exactly how low of an opinion do you have of people? Because I have a pretty low opinion of people and even I think you need to cut them some slack. I mean, your "defense" of this, can basically be boiled down to "People like it and people are dumb." I know you didn't say they're dumb, but again, I have a hard time seeing how else to take that. And you can be a tourist without being a douche.

This made me angry. So fine, we have established we both have a low opinion of people. Great. As non-trump supporting Americans that would not be unusual, but I am not the one who just called tens if not hundreds of millions of people dumb because they enjoy something i dont. That is snob behavior. How is the Tourist in this scenario being a douche? For enjoying a watered down version of a culture? There have been some examples in this thread that i would call douchey behavior. The woman who called herself a warrior princess of X people would qualify for example. Would every single tourist who visits Hawaii count (thats 9 million right there)? Because what tourists experience is a watered down culture made for common consumption. If a white person jumped on that stage with the dancers, made an ass of himself, then declared himself he is now Hawaiian, then okay he is a douche. If a family is just enjoying a show with these dancers and are having a good time? I see nothing wrong with that.

Are people who enjoy a magic show dumb? Are people who enjoy professional wrestling dumb? Both of those are fake. I would not begrudge anyone for enjoying those, although im sure there are amateur wrestling aficionados who look down on those who like professional wrestling calling them dumb.

This whole debate is sounding eerily similar to that of casual vs hardcore gamers. The hardcore gamers lamented that these casuals were coming into THEIR culture, that they were watering down THEIR games. filthy casuals, fake gamers.

As for what I PERSONALLY enjoy in regards to the culture issue? Probably both. The last vacation i went to was hawaii about 18 years ago. Only country ive visited is Canada, but they dont count because its a mile away and we intermingle on a daily basis. Yea, i enjoyed the water down culture in Hawaii, but i would also probably enjoy learning more. That said, i appreciate learning history more than the average person. In fact, from my personal experience very few people actually want to learn history. You also cant force appreciation. Even with kids, you try to cultivate a desire to learn such that when they show an interest in a subject you try to fan the flame of that interest, but you cant force a kid to be interested in something. I do not see culture being any different in this regard.

Hell, its not too different than trying to get someone into gaming. One of the worst thing you can do is to try to shove your appreciation/views onto another person. Yea, maybe they want to play a really terrible game, the kind that is a freakin stain on the very industry. Let them. I made this mistake with my sister when she wanted to buy this game

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OneChanbara:_Bikini_Zombie_Slayers

Every fibre of my being screamed in agony. I called it dumb and her interest in games immediately died. I still regret doing that. You let people enjoy it at their own pace. If they want to learn more, great. If they dont, back off.

I think the same rule applies whether it is culture, a hobby, or a subject.

I don't know about it happening faster now, the Romans had it boiled down to an art form, and were a lot more brutal and efficient about it.

I was going to mention the Romans, but was afraid of a thread derail. Im going to make a stand and say the modern era has the romans beat. Romans were more brutal, but i have to give the modern era the efficiency title.

P.S. this post took 5 hours so it is highly unlikely i will respond further. If i do so it would be with a much smaller post. Fair warning.

I think cultural appropriation has to be something done willingly and slightly...selfishly is the best term I can think of. Basically the prom girl mentioned in this thread just going "Oh this is a nice dress, I will wear it" isn't cultural appropriation, but if she'd gone "I will wear this dress because I think it makes me look exotic and therefore somehow special, and use the background behind it to make me seem even more special" then it is.
One of the complaints against the girl was that she didn't know the history of the style of dress she was wearing so shouldn't be wearing it, but I think thats the wrong way round. Not knowing the history means its just a style from one country bleeding over into another which is kind of how culture works in the first place. Its only if she had known the history and had been using it to try and big herself up without actually doing anything that it becomes appropriation

Lil devils x:

Abomination:
I am struggling to think of a genuine example of cultural appropriation happening recently. A lot of people are talking about what WOULD be cultural appropriation but there's no actual articles or genuine examples of it.

A bunch of (American) bitches getting upset at a white girl for wearing a Chinese dress is such a nontroversey it's clear how it's not getting any political traction.

How about Miley taking a traditional African tribal dance, making it as lewd and offensive as possible because she wanted "something that feels black" so now everyone associates it with Miley and the culture and lifestyle she was promoting rather than it's true African tribal origins?
Where it originated:

After it was "white watered" and appropriated:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/27/miley-cyrus-twerking-cultural-appropriation

I am going to have to disagree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twerking

s a type of dance originating as part of the bounce music scene of New Orleans in the late 1980s. Individually-performed, chiefly but not exclusively by women,[1][2] dancers move in a sexually-provocative manner throwing or thrusting their hips back or shaking their buttocks, often in a low squatting stance.[3] Twerking is part of a larger set of characteristic moves unique to the New Orleans style of hip-hop known as "Bounce".[4] Moves include "mixing", "exercising", the "bend over", the "shoulder hustle", "clapping", "buttcheeks clapping", and "the wild wood"?all recognized as "booty shaking" or "bounce".[5][6] Twerking is but one choreographic gesture within bounce.

As a tradition shaped by local aid and pleasure clubs, block parties and second lines,[7] the dance was central to "a historical situating of sissy bounce?bounce music as performed by artists from the New Orleans LGBTQ community that [led to] a meteoric rise in popularity post-[Hurricane Katrina after 2005]."[8] In the 90s, twerking had widespread appeal in black party culture throughout the hip-hop/rap region known as The Dirty South, including New Orleans, Memphis, Virginia Beach, Miami, Atlanta, and Houston.[7][8] In 2013 it became the top "What is" search on the Google search engine.[9]
File:Twerking - Pharrell Williams backup dancers - summersonic - aug 16 2015.ogvPlay media
(video) Backup dancers twerking at a Pharrell Williams concert in Japan, 2015

Contents

he earliest use of the word "twerk" on record was produced in a local New Orleans recording by DJ Jubilee. The word specifically originated from the inner-city of New Orleans and was used frequently in New Orleans Bounce music by rappers and djs hosting block parties in the housing projects.[14] The word became popular In the 2000s when it was used by Atlanta rapper lil Jon and The Eastside boys.[15] A Google Trends search reveals that interest in the word "twerk" arose in November 2011.[16] The diffusion of the dance phenomenon began earlier via local parties and eventually strip clubs often associated with mainstream rap music and video production aired by video cable television shows that featured rap and R&B music. Popular video-sharing channels amplified interest since the advent of digital social media platforms.

In 2013, the dance became a viral sensation beyond black culture. Miley Cyrus used the dance in a video that was uploaded first to Facebook and then YouTube in March.[17] Though twerking began trending as a web search in November 2011, and despite its origins in the bounce culture of New Orleans in the late 1980s, the word twerk would be added to the Oxford Dictionary Online[18] and attributed to Cyrus following her appearance at the MTV VMA Awards in August 2013. It became the number one "What is" Google search that year[19] as those outside the culture questioned the popularity of the booty-popping dance that showed up across social media feeds worldwide. The word was a runner-up to "selfie" in the Oxford Dictionaries Word of the Year 2013.[20]

So to sum it up, its been a thing in the US since the 80's but largely in New Orleans by african americans. in the 2010's (before miley) it began to become more popular in rap and R&B scenes. Then in 2013 Miley made it go international.

None of what im reading is cultural appropriation. Now, without video evidence of what twerking was in the 80's, and what it was in 2010 we cannot for 100% say who is at fault here for twerking. Maybe the twerking of the 80's and 2010' were a 100% authentic portrayal and then Miley white washed it into what twerking is today, although i highly doubt it.

Also, let me posit a question for you. Is it more likely that Miley Cyrus learned this obscure african tribal dance from a country that as far as i can tell she has never been to and then "white-washed", or is it more likely she learned it here in the US hanging out in the rap and R&B scene and that this dance was already changed?

If the second one, then it would be african americans who did the cultural appropriation especially since twerking has been and continues to be associated with african americans. Although i imagine most people in this scenario would merely say the dance "changed" or "evolved" when it jumped over here.

** multiple posts due to timeouts **

** multiple posts due to timeouts **

** multiple posts due to timeouts **

** multiple posts due to timeouts **

** multiple post due to timeout. I tried to split the answer but at the time the forum seemed to not even take a single paragraph **

Gethsemani:
I am sure the people of Japan, the Philippines, Cuba, Guam, (American) Samoa and a bunch of other places feel differently about the USA's role as a colonial empire. Do I need remind you about the origin of the term "gunboat diplomacy" ("Hey Japan! Trade with the US or we open fire on your cities."), the US making the Philippines a protectorate by taking over from Spain, the ongoing occupation of Guam and Samoa and the fact that Cuba for a long time also was a protectorate of the USA? Or how about the Monroe Doctrine that in effect turned Central and South America into countries that needed US good-will to have any sort of foreign policy of their own and made it impossible for them to have close relations with other major nations?

I never said that the US did not have colonies. I said that the influence of US culture does not come from colonialism.

As for why the US dominance allows "the West" influence, it is not hard. The US has had close relations with Europe and Europe is still one of the most highly developed (if not the most highly developed in the case of Western Europe) places on Earth. For a lot of people outside of "the West", the idea of the West as a contingent thing is real, just as a lot of people in Europe tends to think of Asia, the Middle East or the USA as a contingent, monolithic entity and not a bunch of disparate states.

Yes. And those people are wrong. If a European can't be bothered to learn the differences between China, Japan and Vietnam, he is called out as a superficial, uneducated, insulting idiot and suspected to be a racist. And that is good. But the same should hold true the other way. I find it flat out insulting to be lumped up with the Americans.
But not everyone really is at fault for their lack of education, i see that. But if some concept like "cultural appropriation" with supposedly academic roots uses that very same faulty approach of sorting countries and cultures, then it should be dismissed instantly.

evilthecat:

Do you not?

We still live in a deeply unequal world. A materially unequal world. Overwhelmingly, the richest and most powerful countries in the world (barring those with exceptional natural resources or strong ties to the USA) are:

* European countries
* European settler societies (that is to say, colonies in which a significant white population settled and did not integrate culturally or ethnically with the indigenous people).

We do still live in a world in which there is a globally hegemonic culture and a globally hegemonic race. That aspect of colonialism never went away. The nice countries are overwhelmingly the countries where white people live, the "shithole countries" are overwhelmingly those where non-white people live. The closer one is culturally and politically to Europe, the nicer your life is likely to be.

Yes, there is material inequality. Wealth does not produce dominant and subordinate cultures.

Also, no, even that wealth is not really linked to white skin. It is linked basically to :

- having been industrialized for at least a hunded years
- having been on the winning side of the cold war.
- having lots of oil and a very small population

I want to point your attention to little details like that the losers of the cold war are also predominantly white countries, with especially Eastern Europe being significantly whiter than the US or the UK or France. And how Japan and South Korea and ROC or basically all the East Asian cold war winners are among the wealthiest nations.

In the 19th century, China was literally carved up like a pie by colonial empires.

Which is still taken as one big slight and humiliation second only maybe to the Yuan dynasty. A moment of weakness that allowed foreign uncultured barbarians to have their way with China. But now it is payback time. That sentiment is not that dissimilar to how Japan felt about the incident with Perry.

In very, very simple terms. Yes.

When two cultures are not on an equal footing, it becomes very difficult to have a genuine exchange between them which does not simply reinforce the subordination of one culture to another.

So, inequality exists. That is a fact.

And now you argue that that makes would would normally be cultural exchange into something twisted and wrong ? Basically that countries of different wealth should limit interaction and change ?

Sorry, i really disagree about that. Interaction is the main vehicle against inequality. There is a reason why those countries with the least economic and cultural contact to the rich countries are the poorest. This makes the whole idea of cultural appropriation as something to be avoided actively harmful.

The UK has one of the largest economies, relative to the size of its population, in the entire world. It is a global centre of science and culture and enjoys one of the best standards of living on the planet.

Compared to other countries of the same region without any colonial history the UK is not impressive at all. They still cling to some glory and prestige awarded after WWII but actual British influence in the world is pretty minor and posed to decline further without the EU.

India is a country whose entire economy is built around serving the needs of more developed economies, like the UK. It's a country where much of the population lives in crippling poverty, where many people are barely educated and where the only hope of any kind of international recognition for intellectual or cultural achievements is to move to a country like the UK (if they will let you in, which they probably won't).

All exporting countries try to build for the big markets, including all of those traditionally part of the first world. That is not a sign of inferiority, just the opposite. And yes, India has problems with modernization. It is still powerful.

Silvanus:
You seem to be almost supporting my argument, here, in pointing out that many of these cultures experienced a "long list of similar experiences" such as foreign rule. What impact do you believe this has on a culture?

Not these cultures, nearly every culture. It is quite rare to find any contry that has not been conquered at least a couple of times, has been under foreign rule for certain peroids or has not been the place of several events of forced migration.
It is normal history. Colonial experiences are nothing special or remarkable.

Does it have some impact ? Sure. Does it warrant any special treatment ? No. Everyone has their scars.

Ryotknife:
I am going to have to disagree ( snipped for space)

Also, let me posit a question for you. Is it more likely that Miley Cyrus learned this obscure african tribal dance from a country that as far as i can tell she has never been to and then "white-washed", or is it more likely she learned it here in the US hanging out in the rap and R&B scene and that this dance was already changed?

If the second one, then it would be african americans who did the cultural appropriation especially since twerking has been and continues to be associated with african americans. Although i imagine most people in this scenario would merely say the dance "changed" or "evolved" when it jumped over here.

This is why most professors do not accept wiki as a source. Only the Modern Term for the African dance was from the 80's 90's, The dance is centuries old and came over with the slaves brought in from Africa.

https://blackthen.com/origins-twerking-began/

Twerking has long been a part of black culture. It?s only been in recent years that mainstream media began to acknowledge and accept it.

The origins of twerking can be traced to Cote d'Ivoire in West Africa, where a similar style of dance, known as the Mapouka dance, was originated. The dance has existed for centuries and consists of a series of movements emphasizing the buttocks. Although not viewed in the same respects as dances such and ballet or tap, when done right, it requires tremendous skill and attention.

The term twerking comes from the New Orleans early 90s bounce scene. Modern day twerking is very similar to the Mapouka dance, and has existed for centuries. Twerking is also prevalent throughout the reggae and dancehall culture. It is seen in many of their videos today, with several artists making songs specifically about twerking.

This has been a dance that has been danced in African Communities globally and dates back centuries and has a direct linage to the African tribe it originates from. People tend to forget that those who came from Africa brought this and many other cultural customs and traditions with them. Africa is only "obscure" to those who choose to ignore it. The many Black families in the US who have come from these nations and/or visited Africa to reclaim their past that was stolen from them and broken due to slavery have not. This originated with the Black community in the United States because it was brought from the Black community in Africa. Blacks are not " culturally appropriating" their own community, they are celebrating their own culture. It is no different than People who migrated to the US from Germany dancing the Schuhplattler. It may have variations from the original, but it is pretty obvious to spot when you see it and people know that it is German dance when they see it performed. People outside the black community do not recognize their dances because often do not learn much about the black community. The very little that is actually taught in school leaves out a good deal of information.

You have to understand that due to slavery in the US, many Black Americans have been trying to regain what was taken from them and trying to find out as much as they can about where they come from and mend the connections that were broken. Just as this dance was danced in Africa for centuries during celebration, it is continued to be danced in the US at Black celebrations.

Miley specifically chose to do this dance and song because she wanted to "do something black" and chose not to dance the dance the way it was meant to be danced even by the black community in the US, but instead stuck her tongue out making ridiculous faces as she behaved like an asshat as to ridicule their dance and their culture. That is not honoring a culture, that is directly insulting it and abusing it instead.

Sadly most Americans are not aware of origins of Black culture due to the "sheltered" lifestyle that is fostered. Not only is the majority not aware of African cultures, or even know what African nations they reside in, they are not even aware of the Native American Nations, Native american cultures, or Central and South American culture. The truth is Most Americans are pretty ignorant about much of the world outside of " white people's taught history that exempts everyone else or only narrates them from the point of view of white colonialists ignoring what those cultures actually say about their own histories or cultures."

Miley's version is a butchered version of what is actually performed in the Black community:


When you see what they are actually supposed to be doing it more closely resembles the actual tribal dance not Miley's distorted view of their cultural dances.

EDIT:
As for your question does it really make a difference if Miley was culturally appropriating Black culture in the US or in Africa? The dance was a continuation of their culture, not an appropriation of it, there is a difference. She was insulting both.

EDIT2: Now I remember where I originally saw this dance. It was the old black and white videos of Louisiana Haitian "voodoo" rituals that the Black communities there used to do. This dance was not as obscure as some may think and was actually far more widespread in African migrant communities globally.
Edit 3: Ha I found some of it, there were quite a few of them though:


If you do not want to watch all of the non related stuff, the woman gets a good twerk going on about 38:07 you can watch.

Ryotknife:
Snip

I apologize if I offended or misunderstood you, but dude, I really do have to repeat what I've said more than once already. I really don't know how else to take what you said.

Your bit about traditionalists came up before Saelune made that point, so I was understandably confused about who you were talking about, and while I'm glad you don't think that about us, I really had no way of knowing that.

I really don't see what you said that I misrepresented there, you did compare consumption of shallow culture to owning a smart phone, a comparison I think is unfair and unwarranted, and you did defend the consumption of shallow culture by saying that people liked it, which is appealing to popularity.

Look, I repeat myself, I am sorry if I misrepresented you. But now you're misrepresenting me. You claim a lot of things about me in the main section of your post. I say that hundreds of millions of people are dumb? Where did I say that? Where did I even imply it? My entire point was that I felt like people were smarter than you gave them credit for, and that you could be a tourist without being a douche. Because, let's be honest, tourists have earned a bit of a reputation for being obnoxious to the native people of whatever country they go to, and I know they can be better than that because I've been in that boat when I went to Canada. Japan in particular has started to develop a low opinion of tourists who they don't feel respect their culture, looking at the Logan Paul incident as an extreme example that has made more than a few Japanese people bitter towards tourists. And when I saw "not shallow" I'm really not asking much, just that people put in any degree of effort to actually understand the culture they're exploring, even just a little, as opposed to boiling down into "it's exotic." I mean, if tourists ask questions about the places they go to (which I think they would since most humans are born with curosity hardwired into them) and they aren't douchey or culturally insensitive to the values of the people they're visiting (IE, not doing anything that's considered a faux pas in the country they're in), then I don't consider them douches. I think I didn't get across what I was saying very clearly with the tourist comment.

Also, magic shows and wrestling are basically shows of fiction in the same way that plays are, and they're not watered down examples of something else. I don't think that's an apt comparison.

Satinavian:
Not these cultures, nearly every culture. It is quite rare to find any contry that has not been conquered at least a couple of times, has been under foreign rule for certain peroids or has not been the place of several events of forced migration.
It is normal history. Colonial experiences are nothing special or remarkable.

Uh-huh. And for a huge number of those countries-- such as most in Western Europe-- the last period of lasting foreign rule was many centuries ago. It is obviously substantially different when the experience lies in living memory.

Frankly, this sounds like merely an effort to downplay the negative impact of colonialism.

Does it have some impact ? Sure. Does it warrant any special treatment ? No. Everyone has their scars.

I've rarely seen a statement so simplistic and generalising. There are degrees.

We have some cultures who have enjoyed self-government for centuries upon centuries, whose economies have been uninterrupted for that long-- and whose income has been bolstered by the (sometimes unwilling) contributions of other countries. Then, on the other hand, we have countries who gained independence a decade or so ago, and whose economies have yet to recover even the most immediate and direct impact of that situation.

These are not the same, as is obvious to anyone willing to give it any serious consideration.

Silvanus:

Satinavian:
Not these cultures, nearly every culture. It is quite rare to find any contry that has not been conquered at least a couple of times, has been under foreign rule for certain peroids or has not been the place of several events of forced migration.
It is normal history. Colonial experiences are nothing special or remarkable.

Uh-huh. And for a huge number of those countries-- such as most in Western Europe-- the last period of lasting foreign rule was many centuries ago. It is obviously substantially different when the experience lies in living memory.

Frankly, this sounds like merely an effort to downplay the negative impact of colonialism.

Yes, western Europe had some luck that is was "only" damaged by the WWII recently and that war related occopation didn't last that long. Still leaves the Irish and their long occupation by Britain. But even that stops if you go beyond the western part of Europe. Poland and the Baltics have a lot to say about occupation. And the extend of forced migration and expulsion in Europe during he last century is surprisingly high. And don't even get me started about the Balkan regions.

"many centuries ago" - that is so wrong it is not even funny. To get alone to two centuries you just barely avoided all the mess of the Napoleonic wars, all those client states and borders drawn and redrawn and the war where Norway passed from Danish overlords to Swedish ones, but you still have Alsace-Loire changing countries two times, Czechoslovakia been born, annexed, rebon, divided, Denmark losing territory to Prussia, Poland being occupied and divided, reborn, again accupied and divided, then again reborn but moved westward with resettlement of millions, the Ottoman Empire slowly receding and ending occupation of e.g, Greece, Hungary getting smaller twice and so on and on.

We have some cultures who have enjoyed self-government for centuries upon centuries, whose economies have been uninterrupted for that long-- and whose income has been bolstered by the (sometimes unwilling) contributions of other countries.

Yes there have been such cultures. Complete outliers, especially in Europe. I mean, you could argue for the UK and Swizerland being that, but then it already starts to get hard to find examples.

People: "Gender is a cultural construct which we need to and can rid ourselves of by dismantling whiteness at which point it will become fluid."

The same people: "Omg, you wore a dress? Now listen here fucker, my culture which is absolutely set in stone....."

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
People: "Gender is a cultural construct which we need to and can rid ourselves of by dismantling whiteness at which point it will become fluid."

The same people: "Omg, you wore a dress? Now listen here fucker, my culture which is absolutely set in stone....."

As a left-winger who generally thinks the idea of cultural appropriation is actually bullshit (since culture itself is bullshit), a point people have made that makes sense to me is that there is a difference between respectfully immersing oneself in a different culture, and just wearing it cause you think it looks good, regardless of cultural significance.

Edit: Also gender and culture are more of a venn-diagram situation, since gender identity is different culture to culture.

Saelune:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
People: "Gender is a cultural construct which we need to and can rid ourselves of by dismantling whiteness at which point it will become fluid."

The same people: "Omg, you wore a dress? Now listen here fucker, my culture which is absolutely set in stone....."

As a left-winger who generally thinks the idea of cultural appropriation is actually bullshit (since culture itself is bullshit), a point people have made that makes sense to me is that there is a difference between respectfully immersing oneself in a different culture, and just wearing it cause you think it looks good, regardless of cultural significance.

Problem, too many whackjobs have too mobile goalposts on what is a respectful immersion of culture. Heck, why is immersion required? Why can one not just adopt a particular aspect of another culture?

Edit: Also gender and culture are more of a venn-diagram situation, since gender identity is different culture to culture.

Gender identity is its own culture? There is a culture within a cultural construct (that must be destroyed) and that culture must be protected?

Abomination:

Saelune:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
People: "Gender is a cultural construct which we need to and can rid ourselves of by dismantling whiteness at which point it will become fluid."

The same people: "Omg, you wore a dress? Now listen here fucker, my culture which is absolutely set in stone....."

As a left-winger who generally thinks the idea of cultural appropriation is actually bullshit (since culture itself is bullshit), a point people have made that makes sense to me is that there is a difference between respectfully immersing oneself in a different culture, and just wearing it cause you think it looks good, regardless of cultural significance.

Problem, too many whackjobs have too mobile goalposts on what is a respectful immersion of culture. Heck, why is immersion required? Why can one not just adopt a particular aspect of another culture?

Edit: Also gender and culture are more of a venn-diagram situation, since gender identity is different culture to culture.

Gender identity is its own culture? There is a culture within a cultural construct (that must be destroyed) and that culture must be protected?

Good thing those whackjobs dont speak for me, since I disagree with them and very much believe in the American Melting Pot as opposed to cultural and racial monoliths.

What is defined as manly and womanly is not uniform culture to culture.

Saelune:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
People: "Gender is a cultural construct which we need to and can rid ourselves of by dismantling whiteness at which point it will become fluid."

The same people: "Omg, you wore a dress? Now listen here fucker, my culture which is absolutely set in stone....."

As a left-winger who generally thinks the idea of cultural appropriation is actually bullshit (since culture itself is bullshit), a point people have made that makes sense to me is that there is a difference between respectfully immersing oneself in a different culture, and just wearing it cause you think it looks good, regardless of cultural significance.

Edit: Also gender and culture are more of a venn-diagram situation, since gender identity is different culture to culture.

Free shrugs I guess? I mean, I'd respond to that argument in exactly the way I responded to this thread.

Satinavian:
Yes, western Europe had some luck that is was "only" damaged by the WWII recently and that war related occopation didn't last that long. Still leaves the Irish and their long occupation by Britain. But even that stops if you go beyond the western part of Europe. Poland and the Baltics have a lot to say about occupation. And the extend of forced migration and expulsion in Europe during he last century is surprisingly high. And don't even get me started about the Balkan regions.

Yes, precisely. Such events had a deep impact on those countries, their economies, and their people-- an impact that is not felt elsewhere.

This is exactly my point, and I find it slightly odd you feel the need to describe these events to me.

Satinavian:

"many centuries ago" - that is so wrong it is not even funny. To get alone to two centuries you just barely avoided all the mess of the Napoleonic wars, all those client states and borders drawn and redrawn and the war where Norway passed from Danish overlords to Swedish ones, but you still have Alsace-Loire changing countries two times, Czechoslovakia been born, annexed, rebon, divided, Denmark losing territory to Prussia, Poland being occupied and divided, reborn, again accupied and divided, then again reborn but moved westward with resettlement of millions, the Ottoman Empire slowly receding and ending occupation of e.g, Greece, Hungary getting smaller twice and so on and on.

The Napoleonic wars are so utterly incomparable to generations of colonial rule that it shouldn't even need to be laid out. That's just a ludicrous comparison.

For the others-- Czechoslovakia, Poland-- I really have to ask what your intended point is. Do you imagine these examples somehow refute what I've argued?

I argued that when a country experiences generations of colonial rule/ conflict/ foreign rule, it impacts the country and people in a way that is unfelt in countries that do not share the experience. To counter that, you... just quoted some examples that fit the former criteria. Why? How does that refute anything?

Satinavian:
Yes there have been such cultures. Complete outliers, especially in Europe. I mean, you could argue for the UK and Swizerland being that, but then it already starts to get hard to find examples.

France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, UK, Denmark.

We are talking about experiencing generations of colonial rule, not merely brief occupation during a war, remember.

Wait a minute... It was a qi pao dress? I was thinking on the lines of dresses from Tang Dynasty China or something else that could actually be inappropriate. Qi pao is an export and just a dress in China too, especially in the Shanghai area.

Anyway, when I come across the term in the media, it's usually involving the Sami people. And boy has their political correctness (and the demand for it) gone mad. New Sami culture cannot exist because if anybody tries to innovate, the local Sami council will blow the whistle and use their right (as stated in the Finnish constitution, btw) to tell this innovator to go fuck themselves. Every time I see one of them in the news it always seems they want all the benefits of globalism (funneled through Finland) while keeping to themselves (protect the language, only Sami are allowed to display their culture, limit mining in Lapland even if traditional Sami living is more harmful to the environment). Nevertheless, it's probably the ol' vocal minority, but too bad if they are the politically active ones.

Most recently a children's musical tv show was removed from television and VoD, because some people tweeted about its cultural appropriation (a side character is an "Indian Chief"). The character has been around since 1999. Took socialmedia time to reach critical mass. Must be the right decision because they got a Finnish Mohawk (likely the only one in existence) to take a look at it and say that the headdress used to be sacred and important.

Lil devils x:

This is why most professors do not accept wiki as a source. Only the Modern Term for the African dance was from the 80's 90's, The dance is centuries old and came over with the slaves brought in from Africa.

https://blackthen.com/origins-twerking-began/

1. This is an internet forum, not a newspaper article.

2. wikipedia = bad, blog post from someone clearly biased = good?

3. the blog post does not even go against anything wiki said

4. if you want a more respected source, i guess i can acquiesce.

https://nypost.com/2015/06/25/twerkings-origins-go-back-200-years/

confirming twerking was a thing in the 1990's

random article not really related to what we are debating but holy hell they talked a whole article about nothing
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/twerk-origin_n_3823134.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/25/twerk-predates-miley-by-about-200-years/?utm_term=.df8ec853e908

Also confirming the New Orleans thing, also showing how interest in twerking was rising rapidly a year BEFORE Miley.

This has been a dance that has been danced in African Communities globally and dates back centuries and has a direct linage to the African tribe it originates from. People tend to forget that those who came from Africa brought this and many other cultural customs and traditions with them. Africa is only "obscure" to those who choose to ignore it. The many Black families in the US who have come from these nations and/or visited Africa to reclaim their past that was stolen from them and broken due to slavery have not. This originated with the Black community in the United States because it was brought from the Black community in Africa. Blacks are not " culturally appropriating" their own community, they are celebrating their own culture.

if they are just picking and choosing different cultural aspects from dozens of cultures choosing whatever catches their eye (rather than the culture wholesale) and then claiming it as its own separate culture, that sounds like watering down cultures for easy consumption (only on a larger scale), which is the very thing this thread is against.

Personally, i think that is actually kinda cool, mixing and matching and blending to form something new. but if anyone else did that it would get slammed with cultural appropriation.
That said, a lot of my attitude comes with my fascination with cooking and the history behind certain cuisines and dishes in which a dish is made using different techniques/styles/ingrediants from multiple cultures.

It is no different than People who migrated to the US from Germany dancing the Schuhplattler. It may have variations from the original, but it is pretty obvious to spot when you see it and people know that it is German dance when they see it performed. People outside the black community do not recognize their dances because often do not learn much about the black community. The very little that is actually taught in school leaves out a good deal of information.

-they did not immigrate to the US, their ancient ancestors did 4+ generations ago.

-I went to mostly white schools, you know how many modern day european cultures i learned about? zero. I learned about modern black culture, NA culture (mostly colonial era rather than modern day), ancient rome, ancient greek, ancient egyptian, ancient china.

Dont get me wrong, i think it would be great if kids were taught a baseline understanding of different modern cultures (especially those in the US), but you can add that to a very long list of things that kids should probably be taught, and there is only so many hours in a school day.

- pretty obvious to whom? I never heard of schuhplattler, and i am a german american. In fact, i just looked at a video and if it was not for the traditional clothes I would have no idea (and i know about those because of movies like Beerfest). I willing to bet money the average white american wouldnt either. About the only type of european dancing that is ubiquitous to the american public is irish dancing, thanks to River Dance. Yea a lot of people outside of X community dont recognize ethnic dances, but a lot of people INSIDE communities dont recognize dances from their own ancestry either.

-If an Italian American did the schuhplattler however, that would be a different matter would it not? Even though both are white?

You have to understand that due to slavery in the US, many Black Americans have been trying to regain what was taken from them and trying to find out as much as they can about where they come from and mend the connections that were broken. Just as this dance was danced in Africa for centuries during celebration, it is continued to be danced in the US at Black celebrations.

Miley specifically chose to do this dance and song because she wanted to "do something black" and chose not to dance the dance the way it was meant to be danced even by the black community in the US, but instead stuck her tongue out making ridiculous faces as she behaved like an asshat as to ridicule their dance and their culture. That is not honoring a culture, that is directly insulting it and abusing it instead.

-People perform dances badly all the time. While i can see it crossing the line in West Africa because it still has spiritual meaning, but it is a stretch to say that it still retains religious importance in the US in the general black community. If i decide to perform the schuhplattler to try to be a little german and i performed the worst schuhplattler in human history, am i insulting and abusing german culture? I would certainly be an embarrassment to it, but that is more on me than the culture itself. If i intentionally did it horribly, then maybe. I dont think Miley intentionally did twerking badly, because that requires malicious intent. I feel like the correct response to Miley Cyrus performance would be to point and laugh at HER.

Sadly most Americans are not aware of origins of Black culture due to the "sheltered" lifestyle that is fostered. Not only is the majority not aware of African cultures, or even know what African nations they reside in, they are not even aware of the Native American Nations, Native american cultures, or Central and South American culture. The truth is Most Americans are pretty ignorant about much of the world outside of " white people's taught history that exempts everyone else or only narrates them from the point of view of white colonialists ignoring what those cultures actually say about their own histories or cultures."

Most Americans dont know where the 50 states are, or name the oceans (or where they are) Most americans are not aware of ANY culture besides american/state/local cultures . This is not some insidious plot against everyone who is not white, the answer is actually quite simple. Americans dont know about ANYTHING outside of america. Actually, even that is an unfair statement was we are generally not given the opportunity to learn about anything outside of US. The media hardly devotes any time to news outside of the US, even then its "X happened at Y" rather than an informative article.

We hardly learned anything about europe either, and they are white. we learned way more about local native american cultures (albeit colonial era) than we ever learned about non-ancient european ones. A lot of my friends and family are in the school system, and every single school they are part of teaches about the local tribes. Granted, my experience is limited to the almost entire east coast. I have a feeling your experience is with the Deep South, and im not going to touch upon some of the idiocy there. However, it is not surprising we learn about this because the tribes are in fact american and are part of us.

(cough) albeit by force (cough)

I think what bothers me about conversations like these (this is not directed at you) is that i feel like people insinuate that if you DONT have these connections to your ancestral land that this makes you less of a person, or that your life is lessened by it. I dont have any connection to my ancestral land. That is not something i choose by the way, its just something that happened. Neither my father, mother, nor step-father sides of the family have any connection to german culture or traditions despite being genetically heavily german, as such there was nothing to pass down on us. This is not even an exception, this is a general rule among white americans. Not a single white person i know has strong ties to their european ancestral land/traditions. There was no insidious plot by some organization to stamp out European cultures, it just...happened gradually over time.

It did not use to be this way, mind you. in the 1800's and early 1900's that was certainly not the case, but once you start getting into four or more generations (which is what a lot of white people are) its just lost through attrition. Even more so since white people tend to be a mix of a half a dozen if not more countries, and are going to be even more "blended" with each passing generation. European ethno communities still exist in the US, certainly, but mostly in places like NYC or places that recieve a large influx of immigrants.

This fascination with ancestry is just an alien concept to me. Both you and I would agree that a person being forced to lose their culture or religion is bad, but if they never had it to begin with i dont see why that is terrible. Is a person born to athiest parents life less meaningful than one born into a religion? Both religion and culture are similiar, they can convey a sense of purpose, identity, and community, but neither are necessary for any of that (and i say this as a religious person). I would be hard pressed to say anyone here would agree with a child being born to athiest parents having a less fulfilling life.

At least with religion, you can actually choose which one you want, you cant do the same with culture. A korean baby adopted by Italian parents will never be considered Italian, no matter how deeply ingrained she is into the culture.

Miley's version is a butchered version of what is actually performed in the Black community:


When you see what they are actually supposed to be doing it more closely resembles the actual tribal dance not Miley's distorted view of their cultural dances.

EDIT:
As for your question does it really make a difference if Miley was culturally appropriating Black culture in the US or in Africa? The dance was a continuation of their culture, not an appropriation of it, there is a difference. She was insulting both.

EDIT2: Now I remember where I originally saw this dance. It was the old black and white videos of Louisiana Haitian "voodoo" rituals that the Black communities there used to do. This dance was not as obscure as some may think and was actually far more widespread in African migrant communities globally.
Edit 3: Ha I found some of it, there were quite a few of them though:


If you do not want to watch all of the non related stuff, the woman gets a good twerk going on about 38:07 you can watch.

Eh, we are now moving the conversation towards certain black ethnicities though, and that is different than the general black community. I certainly would not twerk at a west africian church for example (not that i would ever twerk in general), but if i was at a dance club and people were twerking i see no reason why i should be excluded because im white. If a black dude decides to country line dance at that club, go for it. That is what we are here for, to express ourselves and have fun through dance. It is no different to me than people butchering a song as karaoke.

Silvanus:
. Such events had a deep impact on those countries, their economies, and their people-- an impact that is not felt elsewhere.

No, those events are common throughout the world and nothing special.

For the others-- Czechoslovakia, Poland-- I really have to ask what your intended point is. Do you imagine these examples somehow refute what I've argued?

Well, yes. As you seemingly argued that events of conquest, expulsion or foreign rule in Europe or generally all "white" are so far in the past that that those don't matter and colonial experiences do. And that "white" areas are so far ahead because they have been undisturbed for centuries.

I argued that when a country experiences generations of colonial rule/ conflict/ foreign rule, it impacts the country and people in a way that is unfelt in countries that do not share the experience. To counter that, you... just quoted some examples that fit the former criteria. Why? How does that refute anything?

It shows first that having had those experiences does have little to do with being "white", european or "western". And second that it doesn't shape societies that much anyway. Or do you really treat Ireland, Norway or Finland that different for only recently having achieved their independence ?

France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Sweden, UK, Denmark.

Germany was divided and occupied for four decades. Admittedly the western variant was pretty benign and free after the first couple of years.

But we were not only talking about long occupation. We were talking about, as you stated "We have some cultures who have enjoyed self-government for centuries upon centuries, whose economies have been uninterrupted for that long-- and whose income has been bolstered by the (sometimes unwilling) contributions of other countries."

The last point basically disqualifies most of Europe anyway, but your 7 countries do fulfill it admittedly (even if the colonial adventures of Germany did not actually produce any profit, only damage to everyone involved). But economies uninterrupted for centuries ? WWII takes France and Germany instantly out of that list and gives a huge question mark to the UK. Napoleon takes Spain and Portugal out of that list and in Spains case having had a brutal civil war with lots of external meddling followed by a brutal dictatorship does not really fit the "uninterrupted economy"-thing either. I'll give you Sweden. But Denmark ? Being on the losing side of the Napoleonic wars losing most of the controlled territory, then losing the Second Schleswig War, losing Schleswig and being that much in crisis that they actually willingly offered all of Denmark to foreign rule, not seeing how they could continue to exist as souverain but even further diminished nation ? Which Prussia declined ? I don't even have to go to the World Wars to show how little Denmark fits that list.

We are talking about experiencing generations of colonial rule, not merely brief occupation during a war, remember.

Nope, we don't. No moving goalposts here. I answered to a specific paragraph about centuries of undisturbed economy and being bolstered by other nations.

Ryotknife:
if they are just picking and choosing different cultural aspects from dozens of cultures choosing whatever catches their eye (rather than the culture wholesale) and then claiming it as its own separate culture, that sounds like watering down cultures for easy consumption (only on a larger scale), which is the very thing this thread is against.

Personally, i think that is actually kinda cool, mixing and matching and blending to form something new. but if anyone else did that it would get slammed with cultural appropriation.
That said, a lot of my attitude comes with my fascination with cooking and the history behind certain cuisines and dishes in which a dish is made using different techniques/styles/ingrediants from multiple cultures.

-they did not immigrate to the US, their ancient ancestors did 4+ generations ago.

Since when did people stop migrating? On My street alone we have a family from Belgium, One from France, one From Japan, One from Germany and this isn't even a very long street here... People do not suddenly stop migrating and they never have this is an ongoing issue we are discussing here. The US is a country made up of immigrants from all over the world and they are all bringing their cultures with them.

I went to mostly white schools, you know how many modern day european cultures i learned about? zero. I learned about modern black culture, NA culture (mostly colonial era rather than modern day), ancient rome, ancient greek, ancient egyptian, ancient china.

You must not be from Texas...

pretty obvious to whom? I never heard of schuhplattler, and i am a german american. In fact, i just looked at a video and if it was not for the traditional clothes I would have no idea (and i know about those because of movies like Beerfest). I willing to bet money the average white american wouldnt either. About the only type of european dancing that is ubiquitous to the american public is irish dancing, thanks to River Dance. Yea a lot of people outside of X community dont recognize ethnic dances, but a lot of people INSIDE communities dont recognize dances from their own ancestry either.

-If an Italian American did the schuhplattler however, that would be a different matter would it not? Even though both are white?

Have you not seen the Grisswolds movies? Specifically this one:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089670/
They play re runs of this literally all the time on Televsion. I think Most of the US knows what the German dance looks like. The things with Europe though is that due to the Roman empire, and the Christian crusades, much culture is intermixed already so although there are things that are recognizable as specifically "German" or "Italian" there is also the mixture of European culture, which is also predominantly "white culture" for the most part. Much of the world views Europe as whole rather than it's pieces, just as many view Asia, Africa and the Middle east as being grouped as similar cultures though they too have many cultures within.

People perform dances badly all the time. While i can see it crossing the line in West Africa because it still has spiritual meaning, but it is a stretch to say that it still retains religious importance in the US in the general black community. If i decide to perform the schuhplattler to try to be a little german and i performed the worst schuhplattler in human history, am i insulting and abusing german culture? I would certainly be an embarrassment to it, but that is more on me than the culture itself. If i intentionally did it horribly, then maybe. I dont think Miley intentionally did twerking badly, because that requires malicious intent. I feel like the correct response to Miley Cyrus performance would be to point and laugh at HER

You are aware there are Fresh African Communities in the US now and that the Haitians who do this still havae religious meaning in Louisiana where this comes from are still performing ceremonial dances there as well? This is not the past at all, it is the present and the future as long as people continue to migrate.

Most Americans dont know where the 50 states are, or name the oceans (or where they are) Most americans are not aware of ANY culture besides american/state/local cultures . This is not some insidious plot against everyone who is not white, the answer is actually quite simple. Americans dont know about ANYTHING outside of america. Actually, even that is an unfair statement was we are generally not given the opportunity to learn about anything outside of US. The media hardly devotes any time to news outside of the US, even then its "X happened at Y" rather than an informative article.

It really depends on what you choose to do rather than it not being available. There is plenty of Media available in the US covering all over the world, it is a choice to ignore it rather than a lack of options. Those who want to learn about the world find ample resources available to do so. Those who do not never even bother and would rather just do something else instead.

We hardly learned anything about europe either, and they are white. we learned way more about local native american cultures (albeit colonial era) than we ever learned about non-ancient european ones. A lot of my friends and family are in the school system, and every single school they are part of teaches about the local tribes. Granted, my experience is limited to the almost entire east coast. I have a feeling your experience is with the Deep South, and im not going to touch upon some of the idiocy there. However, it is not surprising we learn about this because the tribes are in fact american and are part of us.

(cough) albeit by force (cough)

We had an entire year of world history in High School in Texas that was almost entirely European History and that of Rome ignoring every Non white nation.

I think what bothers me about conversations like these (this is not directed at you) is that i feel like people insinuate that if you DONT have these connections to your ancestral land that this makes you less of a person, or that your life is lessened by it. I dont have any connection to my ancestral land. That is not something i choose by the way, its just something that happened. Neither my father, mother, nor step-father sides of the family have any connection to german culture or traditions despite being genetically heavily german, as such there was nothing to pass down on us. This is not even an exception, this is a general rule among white americans. Not a single white person i know has strong ties to their european ancestral land/traditions. There was no insidious plot by some organization to stamp out European cultures, it just...happened gradually over time.

That may be a community/regional issue as here it is the complete opposite. Not only do thw families here have strong ties to their ancestry, they actually go to Europe to visit family and have them come here to visit as well. Growing up here, I was constantly exposed to people from other nations either staying with family, families new to the US, or on the exchange program. But then again, I do live in one of the highest immigration regions in North America, so I probably have a different experience than someone who is not exposed to this. The way this works community wise here is there are "Clubs" pretty much that are for Vietnamese, Germans, french, Japanese ect.. here and that they get together and celebrate their culture at events doing traditional dances, having traditional foods from their culture, make traditional crafts and it is pretty cool to see and share all these things with those who may have never seen such things. Hell in Texas, There are even complete German towns where all the signs are in German. I actually had my car break down there and I could not read the sign at the Auto shop to let me know that it was an auto shop. I was so confused just trying to function while waiting for my car to be repaired since I could not read the menu at the local diner. Luckily though everyone spoke English as well, though with an accent.

It did not use to be this way, mind you. in the 1800's and early 1900's that was certainly not the case, but once you start getting into four or more generations (which is what a lot of white people are) its just lost through attrition. Even more so since white people tend to be a mix of a half a dozen if not more countries, and are going to be even more "blended" with each passing generation. European ethno communities still exist in the US, certainly, but mostly in places like NYC or places that recieve a large influx of immigrants.

Yes, since I live in a region that has many different communities from all over the world and most neighborhoods here are quite a melting pot of cultures, I have a different point of view on this as this is far from being past, this is the present.

This fascination with ancestry is just an alien concept to me. Both you and I would agree that a person being forced to lose their culture or religion is bad, but if they never had it to begin with i dont see why that is terrible. Is a person born to athiest parents life less meaningful than one born into a religion? Both religion and culture are similiar, they can convey a sense of purpose, identity, and community, but neither are necessary for any of that (and i say this as a religious person). I would be hard pressed to say anyone here would agree with a child being born to athiest parents having a less fulfilling life.

While some may consider their religion to be a part of the culture, they are not the same thing, as your culture is where you come from, your actual history, a religion is something you believe. Of course ou can " believe that this is where you come from due to religion, however, your cultural ancestry on the other hand is based in science/ fact rather than just a belief.

At least with religion, you can actually choose which one you want, you cant do the same with culture. A korean baby adopted by Italian parents will never be considered Italian, no matter how deeply ingrained she is into the culture.

That has more to do with how the society itself treats her rather than how she sees herself. Sadly people are a product of their environment and yes, you can choose your religion, you do not choose your family history or where you come from, or where you are born. That is why they are very different things though religion can be a part of ones culture, it is not the same thing as culture.

Miley's version is a butchered version of what is actually performed in the Black community:


When you see what they are actually supposed to be doing it more closely resembles the actual tribal dance not Miley's distorted view of their cultural dances.

EDIT:
As for your question does it really make a difference if Miley was culturally appropriating Black culture in the US or in Africa? The dance was a continuation of their culture, not an appropriation of it, there is a difference. She was insulting both.

EDIT2: Now I remember where I originally saw this dance. It was the old black and white videos of Louisiana Haitian "voodoo" rituals that the Black communities there used to do. This dance was not as obscure as some may think and was actually far more widespread in African migrant communities globally.
Edit 3: Ha I found some of it, there were quite a few of them though:


If you do not want to watch all of the non related stuff, the woman gets a good twerk going on about 38:07 you can watch.

Eh, we are now moving the conversation towards certain black ethnicities though, and that is different than the general black community. I certainly would not twerk at a west African church for example (not that i would ever twerk in general), but if i was at a dance club and people were twerking i see no reason why i should be excluded because im white. If a black dude decides to country line dance at that club, go for it. That is what we are here for, to express ourselves and have fun through dance. It is no different to me than people butchering a song as karaoke.

I thought the conversation was always about Black Ethnicities is the issue, in fact specifically about where twerking came from in Louisiana which was from the Haitian community there who still uses this in ceremonial dances there. There is a huge Haitian community in Lousiana and you really should see them come out on Mardi Gras. You get to see a wide variety of African dances and traditions during Mardi Gras, it is something everyone should experience at some point as it is one crazy wild party. The twerking in clubs COMES directly from that Haitain community in Lousiana is the issue and it is still being danced in their present day ceremonies.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-10-27/new-orleans-and-haiti-are-linked-culture-food-and-history

It is not just their Haitian past that is shared, it is their present as this is where many present day Haitians migrate to the US. This has been an ongoing thing for a very long time and was going on in the 80's and 90's as well when they spread " twerking" in the nightclubs.

I think much of the issue in the US is that it is very much an immigrant nation of current and past immigrants so there is frequently more of a " culture clash" happening due to cultural misunderstandings. Something seen as rude in one culture can be accepted in another and when one community does not understand what is and is not offensive to another, we have problems arise. Being Native American myself, I see this as especially true when people use Native American religious symbols, wear costumes mocking Native American people or use offensive terms jokingly or intentionally to be offensive not even fully understanding what it is they are actually using/ doing. Of course there are plenty in the US that do understand what they are doing and are doing it intentionally to be as offensive as possible because they hate other cultures, but most people do so ignorantly thinking it is acceptable behavior and " not really being offensive" that of course does not make it any less offensive to those on the receiving end of their imposing behavior.

EDIT: ALSO, I would like to point out that there is a difference to what Miley did than you just trying to do a german Dance. First of all, Miley performs this as her original works for profit and takes credit for her work as being her own. She specifically chose to do this "because she wanted to do something black" not that she wanted to learn more about the community, history ect. Why did Miley want to do something black? What does that even mean? Her original intentions for trying to do this in the first place are part of the problem here. She didn't want to pay respect to community at all, she was going for "shock value" and to be as offensive as possible. She as intentionally trying to use black culture, drugs and sex as a means to "shock" white people to try and make it trendy among teens FOR PROFIT. Seriously, that is far from someone just trying to learn to do a dance. Her intentions, motives, and results here are the problem, not just that she danced badly.

Ryotknife:
-I went to mostly white schools, you know how many modern day european cultures i learned about?

Why would you? What on earth importance does modern Spanish or German culture have to the education of the average North American that it's worth putting any specific effort into in a school syllabus?

You need to learn about North American culture, and you live North American culture as well. American culture is overwhelmingly white (European-derived), so they teach you some specific non-white American culture because you live alongside them without necessarily knowing much about them. And then they teach you some older stuff in history, because it's formative to how the USA and wider world developed.

There's no need whatsoever to dedicate time to arbitrary small countries 3000+ miles away. Of course, where you might learn modern European culture best is to do a relevant foreign language - obviously because the culture provides context to the language, and to assist the functionality of where you're likely to use that language.

Agema:
Why would you? What on earth importance does modern Spanish or German culture have to the education of the average North American that it's worth putting any specific effort into in a school syllabus?

Exactly the same argument can be put forward regarding African tribal dances and traditions. I mean, Spanish culture has had a major influence on Mexican / Hispanic culture, and so is obviously relevant in that regard.

American culture is overwhelmingly white (European-derived)

Really? Really?

Look at all the iconic cultural movements that originated in the US. A large proportion of them are heavily influenced by black cultural scenes. To the point where people are now retrospectively accusing Elvis of cultural appropriation. To claim US culture is overwhelmingly white is to deny the consequences of the mixing pot that the US has historically been, and to undermine the impact of other groups on US culture.

There's no need whatsoever to dedicate time to arbitrary small countries 3000+ miles away.

A country 3000 miles away with a heavy industrial sector and global trade, versus a tribe in Africa that only the smallest proportion of Americans will ever visit, the most recognisable feature of which is some currently trendy dance?

It's a load of crap made up by self important Guardianista's so they can have something to pontificate over.

It's best just to ignore people who make up drivel like this.

Satinavian:
No, those events are common throughout the world and nothing special.

I cannot really convince somebody to take something seriously if they simply do not. If you're willing to ignore the vast historical and anthropological body of work, then I'm not going to have any more success.

Satinavian:

Well, yes. As you seemingly argued that events of conquest, expulsion or foreign rule in Europe or generally all "white" are so far in the past that that those don't matter and colonial experiences do. And that "white" areas are so far ahead because they have been undisturbed for centuries.

I'd encourage you to go back and actually read what I've written, because this is nothing to do with it. I never even mentioned "white" at all.

You've just dreamt this up. It's nonsense.

It shows first that having had those experiences does have little to do with being "white", european or "western".

...who said otherwise!? You are the only one of us to even refer to being "white" or "western"!

And second that it doesn't shape societies that much anyway. Or do you really treat Ireland, Norway or Finland that different for only recently having achieved their independence ?

How I "treat" them? What on earth are you talking about? Why would I "treat" them in a certain way?

You seem to be arguing with your own imagination. Almost nothing relates to anything I said. It's surreal.

Germany was divided and occupied for four decades. Admittedly the western variant was pretty benign and free after the first couple of years.

But we were not only talking about long occupation. We were talking about, as you stated "We have some cultures who have enjoyed self-government for centuries upon centuries, whose economies have been uninterrupted for that long-- and whose income has been bolstered by the (sometimes unwilling) contributions of other countries."

The last point basically disqualifies most of Europe anyway, but your 7 countries do fulfill it admittedly (even if the colonial adventures of Germany did not actually produce any profit, only damage to everyone involved). But economies uninterrupted for centuries ? WWII takes France and Germany instantly out of that list and gives a huge question mark to the UK. Napoleon takes Spain and Portugal out of that list and in Spains case having had a brutal civil war with lots of external meddling followed by a brutal dictatorship does not really fit the "uninterrupted economy"-thing either. I'll give you Sweden. But Denmark ? Being on the losing side of the Napoleonic wars losing most of the controlled territory, then losing the Second Schleswig War, losing Schleswig and being that much in crisis that they actually willingly offered all of Denmark to foreign rule, not seeing how they could continue to exist as souverain but even further diminished nation ? Which Prussia declined ? I don't even have to go to the World Wars to show how little Denmark fits that list.

So, again, you bring in wartime experiences (a few years) or much, much shorter periods of partial control (as in Germany) in order to force a comparison. As I said from the start, there are degrees, which should be obvious to anybody with a basic understanding of historical study.

This is mere false equivalence. One may as well argue that a soldier has no greater experience of battle than anyone else, and then point to a snowball fight as proof.

Silvanus:
I'd encourage you to go back and actually read what I've written, because this is nothing to do with it. I never even mentioned "white" at all.

Might have mixed your posts up with some some stuff that evilthecat postet, sorry.

And second that it doesn't shape societies that much anyway. Or do you really treat Ireland, Norway or Finland that different for only recently having achieved their independence ?

How I "treat" them? What on earth are you talking about? Why would I "treat" them in a certain way?

Arent't you argueing that long time occupation does warrant special treatment ? In things like how cultural exchange works ?

I call you out for not making any difference between occupiers or occupied nations as far as Europe is concerned. As if such decades to centuries old history is actually not really that relevant to the current situation. But for the ex-colonies you make an exception, then it is suddenly the all-defining experince.

So, again, you bring in wartime experiences (a few years) or much, much shorter periods of partial control (as in Germany) in order to force a comparison. As I said from the start, there are degrees, which should be obvious to anybody with a basic understanding of historical study.

Yes, most European nation were not occupied for very long in the last two centuries. Some still were. But now many of those subordinate nations according to the cultural appropriation idea were also not occupied for long (or at all) in the last two centuries.

** doublepost**

Souplex:
Why and when did parts of the left become against cultural integration arguing that only certain races can do certain things?
We used to be all aboot this melting pot where we take the best elements of all cultures.

I think cultural appropriation is mostly bullshit.

I mean, cultural appropriation that manages to be offensive - intentionally or accidentally - is a real thing. You can offend a black person by acting stereotypically black, because it shows that person that you only understand black culture as a stereotype. That part, that's not bullshit.

But sometime in the last ten or fifteen years, cultural appropriation stopped meaning "blackface" and started meaning "you are not allowed to go to Mexico to learn how to make good burritos and then open a burrito stand in Portland using the recipes you learned." Or "you aren't allowed to say badonkadonk." That's the bullshit part.

There's a difference between appropriating someone's culture because you like it and want to be it, and appropriating it so that you can make fun of them. The second one is bad, but at some point the Internet got ahold of the topic, and now all cultural appropriation is automatically evil no matter the context or the intention.

Abomination:
I am struggling to think of a genuine example of cultural appropriation happening recently. A lot of people are talking about what WOULD be cultural appropriation but there's no actual articles or genuine examples of it.

A bunch of (American) bitches getting upset at a white girl for wearing a Chinese dress is such a nontroversey it's clear how it's not getting any political traction.

Well one of the better examples would likely be the case of the sweat lodge, which has historically been a spiritual ceremony of a few Native American tribes such as the Lakota[1]. It is intimately tied with specific traditions, rituals and safety protocols. This tradition has been peddled in a bastardized version by "New Age" groups which appeal to the practice's cultural heritage to drum up interest, but ultimately have little knowledge of and no respect for the very traditions they're invoking to sell the experience as a sauna-in-the-woods health fad. And I don't just mean that in the sense of "they don't understand the significance of the rites", I mean that people have died because the idiots misappropriating the ceremony for a quick buck apparently couldn't be bothered to learn the damn safeguards.

[1] I've been led to believe that it's not limited to the Lakota tribe, but the Lakota were the only ones I knew practiced it off the top of my head

Dear Fellow White People,

These times call for greater sensitivity towards other cultures, so let's stay respectfully in "our lane" for once. Please, NO sombreros and tequila for Cinco De Mayo! No, this year, why not celebrate Diecisiete de Mayo instead, in honour of the second Battle of Puebla, a decisive victory for the French that led to sending the President of Mexico into exile? I hope you will follow my lead in donning a beret and getting smashed on quality champagne whilst sampling an assortment of fine cheeses on the 17th!

image

No one's culture is worth celebrating or protecting. If you enjoy it, and it's not hurting anyone, you be you. In the day spreading your culture by trade and war was how to convert others to your side. Now everyone wants to complain cause it worked? Pfft. Do what you want, wear what you want. Express yourself as an individual. Hell with anyone that says you can't.

Unless you're wearing socks with sandals. Get the fuck off my beach, tourist.

image

edit: Wife just punched me, so I guess I should add a disclaimer. You be you stands for your own culture. Others, who aren't you, have no obligation for or against that culture. If you still hold a tradition, it's up to you to live by that. If others emulate that, a bit of your culture will go with them. Even if it's superficial.

edit 2: This does come from a mutt from Miami, who's culture is mostly how to say fuck you in five languages. Oh, and fruit and meat belong together.

Pineapple and Anchovies pizza is the best.

Silvanus:

So, again, you bring in wartime experiences (a few years) or much, much shorter periods of partial control (as in Germany) in order to force a comparison. As I said from the start, there are degrees, which should be obvious to anybody with a basic understanding of historical study.

This is mere false equivalence. One may as well argue that a soldier has no greater experience of battle than anyone else, and then point to a snowball fight as proof.

Also, a dimension to this and a really good example of cultural appropriation in terms of the weight and designs of historiography and structural interpretation of the past and a nation's connectivity to it, was the Historikerstreit in the mid 80s(ish).

History isn't merely a single thing. You have cultural relevance, structuralist interpretations, the fabrication of its weight in relationship to the actual lived reality. And all of this has aconnection to what people now call 'cultural appropriation', in the idea that another culture has taken elements of its past and tried to diminish its importance artificially or arbitrarily, and silencing real voices that speak to this silencing by a majority of people in power who don't want to have to confront their actions and beliefs and couch it in terms of self-awareness.

For example, during the Historikerstreit, you had 'apologists' who didn't argue necessarily the Third Reich wasn't bad, but did argue the Third Reich was merely an aberration of German society and history.

And you had structuralists saying; "Germans must effectively deal with the fact that the Third Reich had uncomfortable realities and connections to German society both before andafter it was extant ... andwe must deal with that reality before wecan truly recover as a people and be better." Effectively about the burden and structural analysis of the Third Reich and its relationship to the rest of German history and society.

Clear examples of this were the persecution of LGBTQ Germans, being refused being seen as victims of state persecution ... being kept in the camps after the Allies arrived ... and it took until 2006 for the German government to formally recognize they were victims of the stateand issue a formal apology. And this criticism can be extended to the rest of the European and North American powers thathad forces actually occupy Germany. How they allowed it to happen and the persecution to continue and even attemptto refuse it being recognized that they were doing so.

How many European governments now try to ape the symbology of being allies to the LGBTQ communities, but then also do their utmost to pretend they like they did anything but sit idly by while people were silenced.

Boiling it down far too excessively, but you can write a million words on the Historikerstreit alone and still not cover all its dimensions in philosophy, in history and sociology.

But in the way you're arguing, you're right ... people comparing occupation after the Third Reich to something like the British colonization of the Indian subcontinent is willfully stubborn or blind, or simply ignorant.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here