History is a pyramid of skulls.

[Lorizael]

I think it's possible that cultural appropriation could legitimately be a bad thing, but also that it's no different (and sometimes way less terrible) than the ways in which cultural practices have spread throughout history. No culture that exists today is some pure, unadulterated form of some "original" culture that existed in prehistory. All cultures are Frankenstein monsters built up from past cultures through conquest, imperialism, "cultural exchange," etc.

We can talk very abstractly about how two civilizations engaged in trade and consequently shared cultural practices, but on the individual level that has to involve the same kinds of interactions we see today and think are problematic. The beginning of Europe's Enlightenment had its origins in reading Greek works preserved and translated by Arabs. From the standpoint of any one person, is there a real difference between that practice and our obsession with bits of Asian culture today?

As to why cultural appropriation might be bad, I do understand it. If those in power adopt the practices of those without power, we can convince ourselves we don't have to listen to or understand the powerless because we have contact with some version of their culture. This seems likely to play a role in perpetuating inequality.

And yet I think it's clear that culture as a phenomenon simply wouldn't exist without our historically terrible methods of transmitting culture. So the question is, is there a better way? Is there a respectful, thoughtful way of incorporating aspects of a different culture into your own life? From those who oppose cultural appropriation, I have never heard a way. They speak only of the need to listen to what persecuted minorities have to say. And yes, we absolutely should do that. But what happens next, if we don't want the cultures that exist today to ossify and decay?

[Dinner]

Show me someone who uses the term "cultural appropriation" seriously and I will show you a moron. It is essentially just a term used by racist bigots these days or at least that is the norm of late.

There is no legitimate argument made by the term and if a white person eats a taco or Chinese food it has harmed no one yet to hear the racist ethno-nationalists it is the worst thing ever. It has gotten so bad that racist Mexican supremacists in Portland protested a restaurant because it had a white woman making tacos claiming that was "cultural appropriation". Yeah, **** that racist garbage.

[Lorizael]

That's nice.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Lori, parse though the reactionary phrasing and I don't think he's ultimately wrong that Cultural Appropriation is bullcrap.

[Lorizael]

That's why I couched this discussion in a very particular context: cultural appropriation is nothing more than one of the basic, universal ways by which cultural practices spread and evolve; that mechanism can still be problematic for a specific reason.

Again, the specific reason is that sampling bits of another culture because it seems cool gives us the illusion of understanding, which means we might be less inclined to actually engage with and listen to people from other cultures. That is, if all we're doing is listening to them because they have something of value that we can incorporate into our own culture, we're not actually listening to their stories, perspectives, histories, or complaints. And if we're not listening, then we're not really being open-minded and tolerant and diverse.

This doesn't strike me as an unspeakable evil for which there is no forgiveness, but just one tiny part of the ugly quagmire that is our history of racial/ethnic relations. I am not interested in defending or arguing against the people on both sides who scream about this issue. I would be interested to hear arguments against the specific claim I have made, as well as a discussion about productive, respectful ways of expanding one's worldview to include other cultures.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Okay, I take the position that Vanilla Ice, and Elvis before him on a wildly different level of quality, are bridge builders. While there is no doubt that white boys performing black culture is annoying to the people getting ripped off, Cultural Appropriation doesn't form barriers - it's the leading wedge to tearing them down.

[Berzerker]

imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

Yes; that definitely part of it, too.

[Lorizael]

Okay, I take the position that Vanilla Ice, and Elvis before him on a wildly different level of quality, are bridge builders. While there is no doubt that white boys performing black culture is annoying to the people getting ripped off, Cultural Appropriation doesn't form barriers - it's the leading wedge to tearing them down.

I guess the problem I have with this notion is that it conveniently maintains that status quo (in which there are vast power discrepancies). We have decided that, in the interest of tearing down barriers, we are going to borrow bits of your culture and make them our own. If you disagree, well that's just too bad, because we have good intentions (and you can't stop us).

[Elok]

My feeling is that it's, in most circumstances, bull****. If a white guy wears cornrows, or serves sushi with Cholula hot sauce for some reason, it doesn't hurt the more authentic practice. If anything, the notion of cultural appropriation is harmful to the culture it "protects," because it teaches us that culture must be something static and unchanging in order to be authentic. This is not the case, has historically not been the case, and in all likelihood never will be. Cultures borrow from each other routinely, and are richer for it. A culture that doesn't slop over at the edges is dead.

I make exceptions for the sacred or "sacred"--for things which are truly central to identity. That is, it is wrong for Christians to hold Passover Seders for funsies, or for non-Muslims to wear hijab as a fashion statement. The whole point of these things is that they do not change, and are explicitly intended to be exclusive to a group and a sign of membership in it. They are usually religious or quasi-religious in nature, but I'm open to the possibility that there are secular equivalents.

[Aeson]

AAHZ is culturally appropriating something .. .I'm not sure what yet. Either white boy culturally appropriating gang banger culture, or gang bangers culturally appropriating nerd culture, or demon prophets culturally appropriating forum troll culture. In any case, AAHZ proves cultural appropriation is an awesome thing.

[Aeson]

I am currently culturally appropriating Filipino culture and having a great time. Highly recommend it

[Aeson]

My view on the OP is this: There's (as one of many possible examples) going into the desert SW, talking to some shaman, taking peyote, and then quietly returning back to your life wishing you didn't have to. Then there's painting your face, getting drunk, and yelling made up chants like an idiot. They are very different things.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

My feeling is that it's, in most circumstances, bull****. If a white guy wears cornrows, or serves sushi with Cholula hot sauce for some reason, it doesn't hurt the more authentic practice. If anything, the notion of cultural appropriation is harmful to the culture it "protects," because it teaches us that culture must be something static and unchanging in order to be authentic. This is not the case, has historically not been the case, and in all likelihood never will be. Cultures borrow from each other routinely, and are richer for it. A culture that doesn't slop over at the edges is dead.

I make exceptions for the sacred or "sacred"--for things which are truly central to identity. That is, it is wrong for Christians to hold Passover Seders for funsies, or for non-Muslims to wear hijab as a fashion statement. The whole point of these things is that they do not change, and are explicitly intended to be exclusive to a group and a sign of membership in it. They are usually religious or quasi-religious in nature, but I'm open to the possibility that there are secular equivalents.

^This^ for the first paragraph, and probably for the second.

I guess the problem I have with this notion is that it conveniently maintains that status quo (in which there are vast power discrepancies). We have decided that, in the interest of tearing down barriers, we are going to borrow bits of your culture and make them our own. If you disagree, well that's just too bad, because we have good intentions (and you can't stop us).

I totally dig what you're saying, and the (vast power discrepancies) are a thing, and one that reactionaries and many internet nurdz alike don't grok.

But, for one thing, the stronger argument would be that societal inequity is perpetuated and compounded when Vanilla Ice takes bread out of authentic (and almost always better) performers' mouths. Even Elvis. (And hereinafter, let's use Eminem for our white rapper; those who care about that kind of thing seem to think he's a lot better at it and he's certainly been a success longer.) So yeah; there's a little something more going on than just a white boy is easier to sell; it's still the entrenched money/power/establishment getting behind pushing the white boy when there's people more deserving.

...But when you say "that's ours and you may not use it" and you're not talking about things like yarmulkes and the N-word and the girl-word --- you lost me right there. Maybe reasonable people can disagree where the line is, but I'm one of the reasonable people who think that's ridiculous over-reach.

[Dry]

Okay, I take the position that Vanilla Ice, and Elvis before him on a wildly different level of quality, are bridge builders. While there is no doubt that white boys performing black culture is annoying to the people getting ripped off, Cultural Appropriation doesn't form barriers - it's the leading wedge to tearing them down.

If I am not mistaken, the idea behind the cultural appropriation - in the beginning at least - was what happened during Elvis's time.
That is, black guys were underpaid for playing their own music. Then comes that white dude, he sprinkles a little whiteness on the music and makes ****load of money. After a while, the white dude becomes more famous than any of the black guys and people start to think the music is his.
So, CA was seen as the hijack of a culture that is not really yours to make money while those from that culture are struggling to make a few cents on it.
The next question was what about a cultural thing that people from said culture knowingly do not make money? Kind of a sacred dance or ritual, or a costume/hat that only Xyz is allowed to wear. What right do they have to forbid an alien to that culture to perform the dance or wear the costume?

Another question is what do you mean by 'making money' on the back of an alien culture?
When an explorer/anthropologist films some obscure sacred ritual of some lost tribe and shows it on National Geographic, is he guilty of CA?
If some Las Vegas producer makes a show out of said ritual (sacred) dances and uses western dancers to perform, is he guilty of CA?
With these question on the table, the CA concept/debate made some sense.

But the concept has evolved into some horse crap thing.
The moment it went of rail is when people start to speak of CA for just wearing a Halloween costume (obviously fake) or cooking some food.
Did any of the CA fans complain about spaniards waiters in pizzerias? Vietnamese serving in Chinese restaurant?

I have zero problem with company/restaurant/hotel/whatever in the world selling Belgian waffles while not a single employee there comes from Belgium and not a single ingredient in those waffles are from Belgium either. In fact I'm flattered the qualifier 'Belgian' makes a product more appealing.
I know some Belgians were upset when some US company bought the rights for the Smurfs, especially when it included the right to write new stories. And, OK there has been some bastardisation compared to the original story(ies), but ultimately it has served the Smurf phenomenon pretty well. I'm happy about it.