Multiculturalism vs. Cultural Appropriation - say what??

[columbus]

I've been wondering the same thing.
It could be largely an internet Poe phenomenon.
Imagine some wag chortling with glee at loud
reactions to his (yes...it would be a he) feigned
taking of offense.

I rated your post funny, both in the sincere way and also the sarcastic way.
You are so delightfully nuanced.
Tom

 

[Curious George]

I was thinking of food to. Should I begin referring to my endless curry dishes as being Indian inspired Canadian cuisine? It makes it sound like I mix Indian curry with maple syrup and beer.... hmmm.... I might just try that.... mmmmm.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Lol, how is that a bad thing??

I didn't say it was, inherently.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I see it as appropriating elements of anopther culture in a demeaning or belittling fashion. I utterly reject the notion that merely borrowing elements from another culture is necessarily demeaning, belittling, or in any other way repugnant. To me, that notion is absurd in the purest sense of the word.

Why? Do you not think it's quite normal to be angered by another person adopting a cultural element that is distinct to your background, but without an understanding of its broader socio-cultural context and significance? Do you not think there can be justifiable antipathy towards the notion of distilling a subjugated culture and its iconography down to fashion and trends?

Last, I think the term "cultural appropriation" to be so misleading that it seems quite obvious little or no thought was put into coining it. I'm almost appalled by it.

What's misleading about it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

At one point in time Chinese people really were a persecuted minority in this country. But that hasn't been the case for a long time now.
Tom

But they are still a minority, correct?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Such may be an accepted definition or qualification of "cultural appropriation" but it is certainly not one I myself would entertain nor recommend. It reduces cultural appropriation to the absurdity of mere meaningless and juvenile power games. It's rubbish.

I fail to see why you take issue with the term. What exactly is wrong with it?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Personally, I see this kind of thinking somewhat dangerous and toxic. Where does it end? Who decides what is what? It's merely opening the door to legitimizing a grievance based victim mentality that should be avoided like the plague.

Or, it's simply a way of acknowledging a complex, socio-cultural issue and giving it a name so that we can... Y'know... Actually discuss it.

Honestly, why are people warming up their pitchforks at the mere mention of cultural appropriation and that this particular instance may be an example of it?

Why are people so angry at the idea of a two-sided discussion?

 

[Sunstone]

Why? Do you not think it's quite normal to be angered by another person adopting a cultural element that is distinct to your background, but without an understanding of its broader socio-cultural context and significance? Do you not think there can be justifiable antipathy towards the notion of distilling a subjugated culture and its iconography down to fashion and trends?

People self-identify with all sorts of things and then take offense at any perceived slight to them. It's commonplace human behavior based on the psychological sense of the self or "ego".

I once knew a woman who self-identified with the brand of cigarettes she smoked. In her eyes, to criticize the brand was to criticize her, and she could be reduced to tears simply by remarking something to the effect that they tasted bad. Whether it's a brand of cigarettes or an object of traditional sacred significance within one's culture, the fact that someone takes umbrage at its "misuse" or "abuse" by another person does not in itself in any way necessarily impose a burden on the person "giving offense" to cease giving offense. We are in no way obligated or required to be the guardian of another person's ego. We may do so if we are sensitive to, and considerate of, someone's self-identification with an particular object, but we are not obliged or required to do so.

The issue here is in some ways similar to the issue of free speech. Do you or do you not have a right to speak your mind on a subject if and when speaking your mind gives offense to another? Are you entailed by their offense to cease speaking your mind? Even if your speech is rude and obnoxious, are you entailed to cease speaking your mind? By imperfect analogy, if you take something from another culture -- even if that thing is of sacred value to the people of that culture -- and you use it in a manner that devalues it in their eyes, that gives offense to them, are you entailed by their offense to cease using it in that manner? Even if your use of "their" object is rude and obnoxious to them, are you entailed to cease using it in that manner?

I am not arguing here that it is never, say, vulgar or even obnoxious to use something culturally significant to other people in a manner that those people take offense at, but I am seriously questioning the notion that those other people have a right to determine how everyone uses things from their culture based on whether certain uses or "misuses" gives them offense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I once knew a woman who self-identified with the brand of cigarettes she smoked. In her eyes, to criticize the brand was to criticize her, and she could be reduced to tears simply by remarking something to the effect that they tasted bad. Whether it's a brand of cigarettes or an object of traditional sacred significance within one's culture, the fact that someone takes umbrage at its "misuse" or "abuse" by another person does not in itself in any way necessarily impose a burden on the person "giving offense" to cease giving offense. We are in no way obligated or required to be the guardian of another person's ego. We may do so if we are sensitive to, and considerate of, someone's self-identification with an particular object, but we are not obliged or required to do so.

Obligation isn't really the issue. I just don't understand why we can't have a reasonable, two-sided discussion about it.

The issue here is in some ways similar to the issue of free speech. Do you or do you not have a right to speak your mind on a subject if and when speaking your mind gives offense to another? Are you entailed by their offense to cease speaking your mind? Even if your speech is rude and obnoxious, are you entailed to cease speaking your mind? By imperfect analogy, if you take something from another culture -- even if that thing is of sacred value to the people of that culture -- and you use it in a manner that devalues it in their eyes, that gives offense to them, are you entailed by their offense to cease using it in that manner? Even if your use of "their" object is rude and obnoxious to them, are you entailed to cease using it in that manner?

Again, entitlement isn't the issue either. It's not a question of denying the usage, it's a question of whether or not particular usage has negative or problematic connotations or effects.

I am not arguing here that it is never, say, vulgar or even obnoxious to use something culturally significant to other people in a manner that those people take offense at, but I am seriously questioning the notion that those other people have a right to determine how everyone uses things from their culture based on whether certain uses or "misuses" gives them offense.

When has anyone said that such people "have a right to determine how everyone uses things from their culture"?

 

[Sunstone]

Obligation isn't really the issue. I just don't understand why we can't have a reasonable, two-sided discussion about it.

I can't make heads or tails out of why you think we are not already having a reasonable two-sided discussion of this issue unless you are suggesting by a "two-sided discussion" that we must square off diametrically opposed to each other's positions? If so I'm mildly shocked by the absurdity of such a suggestion. Since when do differences of opinion need to be "two-sided"? I can see multiple sides to this issue. It's a complex issue.

Again, entitlement isn't the issue either. It's not a question of denying the usage, it's a question of whether or not particular usage has negative or problematic connotations or effects.

Apparently, I didn't make my point with sufficient clarity because you have overlooked it. My mistake. I'll address that later.

When has anyone said that such people "have a right to determine how everyone uses things from their culture"?

Please refer to the efforts of some Native Americans, as well as other indigenous peoples, to gain exclusive intellectual property rights to some of their cultural traits.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can't make heads or tails out of why you think we are not already having a reasonable two-sided discussion of this issue unless you are suggesting by a "two-sided discussion" that we must square off diametrically opposed to each other's positions? If so I'm mildly shocked by the absurdity of such a suggestion. Since when do differences of opinion need to be "two-sided"? I can see multiple sides to this issue. It's a complex issue.

But you're characterizing it in a manner that simplifies the issue and called someone who was upset about this instance a "twit".

Please refer to the efforts of some Native Americans, as well as other indigenous peoples, to gain exclusive intellectual property rights to some of their cultural traits.

I'm not saying stuff like that doesn't happen, I'm asking who in this particular case has done that. You seem to be equating someone being upset by the appropriation of their culture with people wanting exclusive rights to said culture when they aren't the same thing, and equating the two does a disservice to the nature and nuance of this debate.

 

[Sunstone]

But you're characterizing it in a manner that simplifies the issue and called someone who was upset about this instance a "twit".

Did you not see where I first acknowledged that mistake to you and second edited it out of my post. Please don't kitchen sink me, IF.

I'm not saying stuff like that doesn't happen, I'm asking who in this particular case has done that. You seem to be equating someone being upset by the appropriation of their culture with people wanting exclusive rights to said culture when they aren't the same thing, and equating the two does a disservice to the nature and nuance of this debate.

I disagree. This debate moved well beyond the single instance of the prom dress many posts ago. Nor do I think you are the referee here with power to limit the scope of this debate to suit your own ends.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Did you not see where I first acknowledged that mistake to you and second edited it out of my post. Please don't kitchen sink me, IF.

But you're still oversimplifying the issue and your instinctive reaction to it being raised is to insult the offended party.

I disagree. This debate moved well beyond the single instance of the prom dress many posts ago. Nor do I think you are the referee here with power to limit the scope of this debate to suit your own ends.

But you've equated all calls of cultural appropriation with each other. And it's ridiculous to accuse me of trying to "referee" anything just because I accuse you of equivocating and losing sight of the actual issue.

 

[Sunstone]

But you're still oversimplifying the issue and your instinctive reaction to it being raised is to insult the offended party.

Good lord no! That's all in your head. Clearly, you're spinning it as you want to spin it.

But you've equated all calls of cultural appropriation with each other. And it's ridiculous to accuse me of trying to "referee" anything just because I accuse you of equivocating and losing sight of the actual issue.

It seems to me you are focused on discussing me rather than the actual issues. I can only say, "You win", and our discussion is finished from my end.

 

[columbus]

But they are still a minority, correct?

So are we Irish folks. Look what they did to St Patrick's Day.
The Chinese are nothing like a persecuted, exploited, subjugated minority. The USA used to do a lot of that, but not any more.
But here's the thing. It would be different if the young lady had been disrespecting the culture in some way. Like wearing the dress as a joke, a campy Halloween costume. That's not what she was doing at all. She was celebrating it, and the culture it came from.

And to be clear, I am not calling out the use of the term "cultural appropriation". Only to using it to describe this particular event. I think that trivializes real episodes of such appropriation, which is a mean way of adding insult to injury.
Tom

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So are we Irish folks. Look what they did to St Patrick's Day.

And many people do have an issue with Patrick's Day.

The Chinese are nothing like a persecuted, exploited, subjugated minority. The USA used to do a lot of that, but not any more.

So there is absolutely no marginalization of Asian Americans going on today and the persecution, exploitation and subjugation of the past has no lingering effects today?

But here's the thing. It would be different if the young lady had been disrespecting the culture in some way. Like wearing the dress as a joke, a campy Halloween costume. That's not what she was doing at all. She was celebrating it, and the culture it came from.

If that's how you took it - some people didn't take it that way and see the wearing of the dress as disrespectful to their heritage. Are you unwilling to at least explore the reasons why they feel that way?

And to be clear, I am not calling out the use of the term "cultural appropriation". Only to using it to describe this particular event. I think that trivializes real episodes of such appropriation, which is a mean way of adding insult to injury.

But cultural appropriation is a broad term encompassing a vast array of issues. You cannot simply apply it only to particularly offensive or egregious examples - all examples of culture appropriation are still examples of it. The distinction lies not whether it is or is not appropriation but in whether this particular form of appropriation is problematic and/or harmful. I feel we're falling deeper into the mire of developing knee-jerk reactions to terms rather than considering their actual meaning and application in discussion, just like what's happened with the term "political correctness". Once we understand that, as harmless as it may seem, this is still an instance of cultural appropriation by definition, we can stop having knee-jerk reactions to it as start to actually meaningfully discuss the effects and implications of it in this instance. In fact, this seems to be the path the young girl who wore the dress has taken - she's refused to outright dismiss objections, listened to people, explained and expounded on her own, and generally been quite tolerant and understanding while still disagreeing.

 

[columbus]

So there is absolutely no marginalization of Asian Americans going on today?

It's hard to talk about an issue like this in terms like "absolutely" .
I think that most commonly Asian Americans are seen as smarter, better educated, and better behaved than the norm.
YMMV.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

Or, it's simply a way of acknowledging a complex, socio-cultural issue and giving it a name so that we can... Y'know... Actually discuss it.

Terminology should aid understanding though, and I'm not sure that this term does that at all.

The problem with the term is that it takes a complex sociocultural issue and defines it in terms of an offence: the unauthorised taking of that which doesn't belong to you. Even the question of 'ownership' of cultural artefacts is highly problematic, let alone how we define who owns such things given the degree of cultural mixing throughout history.

It thus defines a problem into existence and tells people how to respond to it, which doesn't really improve the potential for nuanced discussion, seeing as one party is instantly on the defensive.

(Similar to microaggressions, which are usually a lack of cultural awareness or skills in dealing with diversity, yet are described in terms of 'aggression', an attempt to attack the target.)

For the more egregious examples where something is clearly disrespectful to another culture, I'm not sure the terminology helps there too much either, easy enough to explain in other words.

To me seems an impediment to communication and understanding rather than an aid.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's hard to talk about an issue like this in terms like "absolutely" .

So you admit that Asian Americans can be and/or are still marginalized in America?

I think that most commonly Asian Americans are seen as smarter, better educated, and better behaved than the norm.

Does that mean that there still can't be negative portrayals of or attitudes towards Asian Americans, or that appropriating their culture cannot still have problematic elements?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Terminology should aid understanding though, and I'm not sure that this term does that at all.

The problem with the term is that it takes a complex sociocultural issue and defines it in terms of an offence: the unauthorised taking of that which doesn't belong to you.

No, it doesn't. It simply means appropriation of elements of a minority culture - it doesn't necessarily define itself by terms of offence.

Even the question of 'ownership' of cultural artefacts is highly problematic, let alone how we define who owns such things given the degree of cultural mixing throughout history.

Which should all be ideass taken into consideration with regards to the issues of cultural appropriation.

It thus defines a problem into existence and tells people how to respond to it, which doesn't really improve the potential for nuanced discussion, seeing as one party is instantly on the defensive.

This is also false. The term does not prescribe offense nor tell people how to respond to it. It merely gives a name to a particular phenomenon which can be seen as problematic.

For the more egregious examples where something is clearly disrespectful to another culture, I'm not sure the terminology helps there too much either, easy enough to explain in other words.

To me seems an impediment to communication and understanding rather than an aid.

Only if you have a reactionary approach to appropriate terminology being used.