Cultural Appropriation

[Unveiled Artist]

Cultural Appropriation defined by the article:
SAFE Alert – Cultural Appropriation of Lucumí Religion by Non-Initiates

"Before we can really discuss the examples of cultural appropriation we’ve witnessed online we first need to explore what cultural appropriation really is. Susan Scafidi, author of Who Owns Culture? Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law, when asked to give a succinct definition of cultural appropriation, described it as “Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else’s culture without permission.” and further explained “This can include unauthorized use of another culture’s dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc. It’s most likely to be harmful when the source community is a minority group that has been oppressed or exploited in other ways or when the object of appropriation is particularly sensitive, e.g. sacred objects.”​

Basically, the author had a very high and strong opinion against 1. People taking things from other faiths and making it their own without the cultural background to make it up. 2. Not respecting specific religions who want to safe guard their traditions because of Christianity's influence 3. Pretty much dislike Western culture in general.

What is your view of cultural appropriation in relation to cultural appropriation as a whole (not specifically with Lukumi, hoodoo, and Vodou specifically)? ​

Mind you....

The author distinguishes between cultural appropriation and fusing different traditions as he says to one who posted:

Thanks for your comment. I appreciate what you are saying, but what you are describing is cultural diffusion versus cultural appropriation. Cultural diffusion happens when one culture is exposed to another and the two naturally overlay with one another. For example, the usage of saint imagery in Santeria is an example of cultural diffusion because Cuba is a predominantly Catholic culture (and it is also an example of Colonialism in action because the missionaries in sub-saharan Africa were converting Africans to Christianity and Islam long before they were taken away in the slave trade).​

What is your opinion on the article?

 

[Maponos]

“Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else’s culture without permission.” and further explained “This can include unauthorized use of another culture’s dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc." I think I've read enough.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

“Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else’s culture without permission.” and further explained “This can include unauthorized use of another culture’s dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc." I think I've read enough.

There isn't a hidden meaning or message behind it and no intent of any messages hidden in the OP... what are your thoughts on cultural appropriation in general?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Some thoughts (and they may not get more organized than this...):

The quote from Scafidi sure makes it sound like copyright infringement and patent law--something that will keep lawyers fully employed throughout their careers....

Under that line of legalistic reasoning, I suppose that if you want to cook Chinese or Italian or French food for your own consumption, you are free to do so, but if you try to cook and sell it as whatever nationality/cultural food, you'd better either be from that culture (and be able to prove it--whatever that means), or have proof that you have been duly authorized (by whatever cultural authority there might be) to cook and market it.

On the other hand, the article does make good points, and I would be interested in an investigation of just how appropriation and diffusion differ, and what features they share. The cases cited in the article are pretty clear-cut, in that someone is claiming to be something that they are not--in Western cultures, or at least in America, someone presenting themselves as a physician, lawyer, social worker, Catholic Priest, etc., without having the appropriate training and licensing, would be committing a crime--but I have no idea what a native culture would consider in terms of its law--or if it even would.

I think the whole idea of Cultural Appropriation is something concocted primarily by WEIRD--Western Educated Industrialized Rich Democratic--thinkers...and I don't think the motivation was/is always positive. It serves, I think, to make native culture (dress, religion, literature, food, music, etc.) into legally identified and protected commodities, just like Western versions of dress, religion, literature, music, and so on...so they can be parceled and sold and controlled just like everything else in our market economy...

 

[Maponos]

There isn't a hidden meaning or message behind it and no intent of any messages hidden in the OP... what are your thoughts on cultural appropriation in general?

I don't really see it as a pertinent issue. I think people should respect cultures, but constantly policing culture doesn't allow it to grow and develop.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't really see it as a pertinent issue. I think people should respect cultures, but constantly policing culture doesn't allow it to grow and develop.

Why would it be called policing?

Many people from Deaf individuals to just family traditions religious or not would like to keep their traditions and culture within their family and community. Most of the time its because Christianity, hearing people, or so have you have oppressed (latter) or killed (former) and the need to preserve not police and prevent their culture is highly important.

To take that away regardles of good intention is like stealing. Id say one can use things of other cultures with permission and/or with respect to the tradition that item or action came from.

For example, I have a Yamaya statue (looks like a tourist figurine) in my home. I dont worship it and I dont give it offerings because to do so, it would have to be blood sacrifice. Also, there are specific ways to honor Yemaya as well as the spirit of Yemaya would need to be in the statue and concecrated in ceremony before it means anything at all. To put my personal meaning to it is an insult to that culture. Thats culture appropriation.

However, I dont understand the reference of policing. How do you mean?

 

[Father Heathen]

My thoughts on the notion of "cultural appropriation" is that it's not worth taking seriously. Cultures are fluid and influence one another. They diverge and convene. It's not something you can copyright or place a patient on.

 

[Jainarayan]

My idea of cultural appropriation is using or adopting something from another culture because it's cool or exotic, but not knowing anything about it. Something that's not cultural appropriation is using or adopting something from another culture because you respect and are drawn to something, or it somehow has meaning for you.

Not cultural appropriation: Hugh Jackman and his wife have the inscription om paramar mainamar on their wedding bands, as well as him being a serious Indophile.

Cultural appropriation: a tattoo in devanagari the person had no idea the meaning of, nor was it even done correctly. The person had it done at the suggestion of someone else, who apparently didn't know what it was either, but thought it was "cool".

 

[Quintessence]

My thoughts on the notion of "cultural appropriation" is that it's not worth taking seriously. Cultures are fluid and influence one another. They diverge and convene. It's not something you can copyright or place a patient on.

I wish this was the case. As it stands, my country likes to commodify, copyright, and patent just about anything. Abundant examples of this can be found in contemporary culture - things like Star Wars are definitely copyrighted and trademarked, and are big parts of our culture. I'd speculate the only reason why indigenous/historical cultures escaped this is because they existed before capitalism did.

 

[Father Heathen]

I wish this was the case. As it stands, my country likes to commodify, copyright, and patent just about anything. Abundant examples of this can be found in contemporary culture - things like Star Wars are definitely copyrighted and trademarked, and are big parts of our culture. I'd speculate the only reason why indigenous/historical cultures escaped this is because they existed before capitalism did.

Things like Star Wars are owned by their creators, not by it's society of origin as a whole. That, and I never heard of anyone who got upset at the sight of someone from another culture wearing a Star Wars shirt. Nor have I heard of anyone who got upset because someone from another culture created something that was inspired or influenced by something from our culture.

It really is such a silly thing to make a fuss over.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's sad that in America people practically sell anything. The thing that gets me (though off topic) is we talk about America and "them" as if we (Americans) are not part of the problem to. We're basically talking about ourselves and it gets very irritating that I wish Americans can get themselves together and likewise the other party get over the bias they have of us Americans. "The worldsa mess" as so my mother said.

Under that line of legalistic reasoning, I suppose that if you want to cook Chinese or Italian or French food for your own consumption, you are free to do so, but if you try to cook and sell it as whatever nationality/cultural food, you'd better either be from that culture (and be able to prove it--whatever that means), or have proof that you have been duly authorized (by whatever cultural authority there might be) to cook and market it.

Pretty much. If you took the recipe of a religious food and use it in your own way, that would be culture appropriation and if you made profit from it, that's completely disrespectful. However, the article did say it's "fine" to use other cultural things as long as respect is given and maybe at the least the interest in learning what's behind the object, recipe, or dance used.

On the other hand, the article does make good points, and I would be interested in an investigation of just how appropriation and diffusion differ, and what features they share.

I would too. I was about to comment but the last comment I think was 2013.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My thoughts on the notion of "cultural appropriation" is that it's not worth taking seriously. Cultures are fluid and influence one another. They diverge and convene. It's not something you can copyright or place a patient on.

That's cultural diffusion. Appropriation is using these items without respect the culture they came from. Almost all religions are fused with each other. However, if I took the Yemaya statue, consecrated it, and start worshiping it, then that's appropriation. I am using something sacred of another religion without respect of how the item is used in their culture. That, and they don't use Yemaya figurines as far as I know. Yemaya is a shaped cement pot figured as a person's head. It needs to be consecrated by blood sacrifice and ceremony before proper worship and offerings are even made. So, I think a lot of people just honestly don't know they are not just diffusing religions but disrespecting them at the same time. As being minority religions makes it even worse morally speaking.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think there is such a thing as misuse of appropriated culture, and it can be very abusing and aggravating.

But there is also such a thing as learning respectfully and constructively from others. And there is definitely such a thing as abusing the tradition one was born and taught into, as well.

In all cases, discernment is advisable.

 

[Sapiens]

It all depends on whether you subscribe to a melting pot that preserves minor distinctions model or a model based on segregation that amplifies differences. I see this as a case of where the left has gone around the bend and become the right ... not a pretty sight.

 

[Maponos]

Some time ago last year, there was the whole 'kimonogate' thing that happened at a museum where people were allowed to try on a traditional Japanese kimono. Tumblrinas and their kind collectively lost their minds because someone who isn't Japanese (especially white people) were trying on a kimono. To them, this was the height of 'cultural imperialism'.

Thankfully, those in Japan saw it much more differently. I'll show some videos from a Youtuber couple I like that I think perfectly represents how things should be.

 

[Sunstone]

The notion that all aspects of a culture can be owned in much the same sense that, say, an intellectual property can be owned, and that one must therefore seek permission (permission from whom?) to appropriate any part of it, strikes me as something a lawyer seeking full employment might come up with. But given that humans tend to adopt bad ideas all the time, and given how bad of an idea this one is, I'm sure it will catch on.

 

[Flankerl]

Cultural Appropriation

Does not exist.

k

thx

bye

 

[LuisDantas]

It all depends on whether you subscribe to a melting pot that preserves minor distinctions model or a model based on segregation that amplifies differences. I see this as a case of where the left has gone around the bend and become the right ... not a pretty sight.

Any culture, no matter how traditional or how mixed, has both the duty and the practical need to let go and adapt some of its own characteristics as time goes on.

That is not automatically a good nor a bad thing. But it can certainly cause genuine unease as people find themselves thorn between the loss of confortable references and expectations and the issues that motivate the changes in the first place.

Edited to add: that is perhaps a bit more evident in less emotionally charged aspects of life such as clothing and language. How much of a need does anyone see to go back to Shakespearan English or to hand sewn clothes?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Does not exist.

k

thx

bye

Why say that? I don't get the joke?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Cultural appropriation is like one of you taking a part of my family's tradition that has been held in our generation for centuries and using it as your own without respect to my family at all. My aunt has a family Bible. I've only seen it once before she passed away. It's been in our family for ages. If one of you guys came and took my family's Bible and used it for your sake, mark in it as if it were your own. Maybe use the Bible under the stool to even it so you can get something out of the cabinet, that's total disrespect and it's called cultural appropriation in the former. Using it in witchcraft rituals (if one is a witch) is another form of cultural appropriation as there is no Bible use in witchcraft (European folk traditions, rituals, and magic) and it is against the Bible.

However, if you asked us can you borrow our Bible or use it in a manner appropriate to its teaching and our tradition, then that isn't cultural appropriation because you're using it out of respect for the people who owned that item.

Now if you're using Catholic prayers in the Regla de los Orchas or Espiritismo tradition, that wouldn't be cultural appropriation because the religion is a mixture of Catholicism and Yoruba traditions. However, if you used Catholic prayers in Lukumi tradition, then that is cultural appropriation because there are no Catholic prayers in the Lukumi faith; and, the African view of god (in general) is not the same as the viewpoint of the god of Abraham.

It's not specifically about "taking one thing and adding to another", it's about respect for someone else just as any other thing. It's stealing rather than asking to borrow.