Information icon.svg Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election are completed. Voting is live now, until 20:00 UTC, 1 December!

Talk:Cultural appropriation

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Intellectual property as mechanism of empire[edit]

This sort of thing could do with mention: [1]. And much like it - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Parts of this article contain some serious bullshit, e.g. the terminator gene myth. And the quotes are at least a little weird to me.
Describing this process in the UK, writer Michelle Cliff observes that "one of the effects of assimilation, indoctrination, passing into the anglocentrism of British West Indian culture is that you believe absolutely in the hegemony of the King's English and in the form in which it is meant to be expressed. Or else your writing is not literature; it is folklore, and folklore can never be art."
Is this really an accurate description of what happens in the UK?
When reggae music became popular in the United States, I often pondered whether the privileged white people who listened were learning from this music to resist, to rebel against white supremacy and white imperialism.
Was this really the goal of reggae music? Was it purely a social statement, or was it also intended to simply have entertainment value?
Not mentioning the fact that Africa's 'inferior' knowledge, transferred with the aid of the international IP system, plays "pivotal role" in scientific and technological advancement in western societies.
Does this allude to drug discovery?
The current system of intellectual property rights, embedded in the racist classist hegemonic individualist capitalist Western ownership system that by now has been imposed, in one way or another, on everyone, with or without their consent - this system is not just completely fucked up, it is a weapon wielded by those who have power, a weapon aimed directly and deliberately at the hearts of the people and communities and cultures that are considered lesser. In this way, it is a system that does exactly what it has been designed to.
Here the author goes off the deep end. "Intellectual property rights" are not one single thing and are not designed as a "weapon". There are examples of indigenous peoples using these legal tools to defend themselves, e.g. [2]. There are several things wrong with how they are right now and thus they are misused a lot, which should be rectified, but I don't think the whole concept is an inherently racist, classist, etc. idea. --Tweenk (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Toilet brush example[edit]

Previously there was an example with a crucifix toilet brush. I think it was moderately useful, because many readers may have problems understanding the concept at all. Can someone add a better example that is relatable to people from dominant cultural groups? --Tweenk (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

In the end...[edit]

...ANY culture, without ANY exceptions, is made from elements, that were from another culture, it's just that in many cases the people from these cultures ain't around to complain anymore. ANY culture is appropriated, if you go back long enough.--Arisboch (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but sometimes that process happens not as something that can be thought of in terms like "exchange" or "borrowing," but as a process shaped by unequal power relationships, especially when the context is one defined by imperial and colonial dynamics. And that's something worth talking about. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
So it's only cultural appropriation, if there's someone around to be pissed about it (as ALL culture has stuff in it talen somewhere else)...--Arisboch (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
It's only a problem if the portion of the culture taken is "sacred" in some way to the originating culture and used in a mundane or profane manner that would get someone a busted lip in the original culture. CorruptUser (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Holy shit, since when does anyone on RW gives a fuck about "sacred" (e.g. your Bible and Koran commentary you don't pull any punches)?! If anything, being sacred makes it your favorite target! --Arisboch (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
No, we take it and dissect it and analyze it, no matter how much you tell us not to. And "sacred" doesn't have to be religious; someone creating fake Medals of Honor would be wrong. CorruptUser (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Where the devil did I tell anyone not to do anything? And RW doesn't stop at religion, they do plow straight through national mysticism, as well and don't stop at people, just cause they have medals (on the contrary) any now you demand respect for Medals of Honor? "Funny" (reminds me of people trying to shut down Youtube Poop or fanfiction of their stuff).--Arisboch (talk) 14:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
creating a fake medal of honor would only be wrong if you intended to use it to convince someone you had actually fought in a war, and even then we must rely on the ethically shaky idea that there's something inherently wrong with lying without causing material harm. Creating a fake medal of honor to mock nationalism, the military, or America is ethically neutral. 73.25.110.186 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you were meant to take the comment "no matter how much you tell us not to" personally. That looks to me like an example of the impersonal you. In many other languages, it would be more normal to write "no matter how much one tells us not to" instead. Spud (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you concern trolling? I think you are concern trolling. At no point did I ever suggest anything should be off limits for analysis, only that some things should be off limits for cheap party costumes. CorruptUser (talk) 15:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The stuff on the article goes way beyond cheap party costumes and even they're normally no reason to get your panties in a bunch.--Arisboch (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Would a cheap caricature of a US soldier be off limits? What about a pirate from the age of sail? What about a medieval knight? A Samurai? A modern drug kingpin? A specific celebrity? What level of accuracy is required before cultural appropriation becomes historical reenactment? And most seriously, from what set of ethical axioms do you derive that cultural appropriation is immoral from? Or do you simply base it on fiat, considering it axiomatically bad? If you do base it on fiat, what set of meta-ethical ideas allow you to do so? 73.25.110.186 (talk) 08:05, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You leave my panties out of this. CorruptUser (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Rappers vs Bluesers[edit]

OK, lets see if I've got this right, when the British Blues scene of the early sixties (John Mayal, Fleetwood Mac, Duster Bennet, Chicken Shack, Black Cat Bones et al) were trying their hardest to play US Blues - complete with imitating the accents - that was cool but when the modern equivalent do it with rap it's not? Not sure that I see the difference. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Were they imitating generic American accents or specifically African American accents? CorruptUser (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I would argue that it was problematic for the Rolling Stones and the Bluesbreakers to be playing African-American music and making money off of it when the originators and perpetuators of that musical tradition were, and are still, toiling in relative obscurity and poverty. How much was Muddy Waters' estate worth at his death? How much will Mick Jagger's be? Then let's talk about how much Eric Clapton reveres the Black experience and aesthetic when it tries to immigrate to his home country. Nothing problematic there. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Music is very subjective, and barring intellectual property theft I can't fault any musician for taking and running with an idea. I've heard some awesome heavy metal done with an erhu (think of how many American and European bands attempted to fuse metal and folk instruments together before Chthonic hit it big in Taiwan) and Van Halen did a greatly turbocharged version of Dancing in the Street, to name two. Put another way, I don't see how Thin Lizzy was somehow more entitled than Metallica to do a rock/metal version of Whiskey in the Jar, it was interesting to hear both takes. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Weeaboos[edit]

Perhaps we should add a bulletpoint in that list for weeaboos/white otakus? Lots of cultural appropriation there; idiot teens and preteens who think they are experts on Japanese culture after watching a bunch of anime, and peppering their speech with Japanese words like "kawaii" and "baka." ConfusedLiberal (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Weeaboos, along with "plastic Paddies" drinking green beer and shouting united Ireland slogans having never been to Ireland, represent the case when the originating country actively pushes the "appropriation" for influence and profit. The article mentions this case for yoga but it should probably be expanded into a separate part. Notably, there were cases where Asian American groups criticized "appropriation of Japanese culture" while actual Japanese people in Japan approved of the same actions - most famously Katy Perry using a geisya costume. (A geisya, sometimes referred to as geisha, is not a sex worker, she is a performer, and to a Japanese eye this was one performer imitating another - something done in Japan all the time, this is how anime came to exist at all). There was also that case when a museum had to halt "try on a kimono" sessions because of protest - to utter dismay of Japanese kimono manufacturers, who, of course, were seeing this as the beginning of a sales channel. I'll wait a couple of days for replies then hopefully try writing that part, with proper references of course. I disagree with the concept of cultural appropriation personally, but the plan is a sourced part. Ramendik (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

This whole concept is kind of weird[edit]

Why is it only ok to take part in a culture or utilize its previous achievements if you are born into that culture? Why is it not ok for white rappers to take inspiration from earlier African American ones, whereas its perfectly fine for other African Americans to do. Who cares what accent a rapper uses? Obviously using something sacred in other cultures in a disrespectful way ideally should be avoided, but people not being able to borrow aspects of others culture while people who happen to be born in that culture can exploit it all they want is kind of elitist.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose you could look it up on the Internet and see if anyone had thought through this stuff as deeply as you clearly have before - David Gerard (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Sarcasm?TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Erm... it is OK for white people to go into rap, just like it's OK for black people to go into "white" fields like golf. The problem is when the white rappers use a fake accent, like Iggy Azalea. At first, I thought her music was a parody, singing about being "fancy" while the accent and lyrics were not. Yeah, AAEV isn't fancy, sorry, neither is the "Picksburr" accent nor the Buffalo English accent. Oh, it's also just as wrong for black rappers to fake the "hood" accent. CorruptUser (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Accents seem like a pretty murky example, especially in relation to music. In the Saloon Bar discussion about cultural appropriation you suggested that "If it's something sacred to a culture, it's off limits, otherwise it's fair game", but here you seem to be suggesting that people's ways of speaking & singing are off limits. Does that mean you see them as sacred? Or might it be better not to keep trying to fit what is actually quite a complex and subtle concept into these "very simple rules"? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not morally wrong for people to imitate whatever accent they want. They do it all of the time in movies. It might sound stupid or fake, but it's not stealing from anyone.TheriziπosaurusG (talk) 17:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The whole concept is fucking bullshit. ALL culture is derivative from another.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
'"Dressing up" as other ethnicities is a problem'. Bollocks.— Unsigned, by: 213.175.37.10 / talk / contribs
This discussion happened years ago but I do agree. Christopher (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Yoga class canceled due to "cultural appropriation"[edit]

Here. A leftist blogger says this is making the left vulnerable to attack (I already hear someone yelling "CONCERN TROLL" at me over their monitor). However I have to consider this whole concept borderline moonbat (or, at least, very easy to stray into moonbat territory) except maybe in the most obvious and definitively damaging cases. It's almost seems like it's expecting people to strictly conform to their own culture, and that taking inspiration from minority groups is usually evil. Also "culture" is not a limited resource so it's hard to see when someone is actually "appropriating" it. This whole thing seems ripe for paranoia and lazy social authoritarianism. ClothCoat (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Also, here's some excerpts from the Facebook page of the teacher. There's more to this story, and it's sure to be entirely stupid - David Gerard (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Haka[edit]

Why is the Haka cultural appropriation for non-natives to do it, but notr the native clans other than the one/ones it originated from? I doubt such similar phenomena on the same continent was individually discovered by each tribe while isolated, they probably largely took elements from others. JohnMadison (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

If you're asking a genuine question & not just JAQing off over a strawman, you could just read the linked article which explains. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Everything is cultural appropriation[edit]

Saying any one culture "owns" a certain practice idea or custom is just flat out racist. If a black man wants to wear a three piece suit, more power to him. If a white woman wants to wear dreadlocks, more power to her. Cultures have been borrowing, stealing and gotten inspired by each other for longer than culture exists. Condemning the mere act of borrowing something today is akin to the thing Disney did to Copyright; take what was in the public domain back then and do stuff with it, but never allow Mickey Mouse to pass into the public domain. Ever. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely. Sounds almost xenophobic, now suddenly you can't dissect cultures and take and add and fuck around with stuff? I don't get that. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm a multiculturalist. I accept that cultural appropriation exists, but I have a hard time viewing it as worse than the alternative: de facto cultural segregation. I can see more than a few edge cases where it's more dickish than informative(sacred rituals turned into games, ethnic stereotypes as costumes, etc), but my normal mental response when I hear the term is "good, someone's being exposed to new things" ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
In the case of rituals and the like I usually mark that under cultural misappropriation.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 17:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm always wary of inventing terms to defend nuances I personally believe are important. I always feel like that sets me up for even more arguments than I already find myself in. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I see your point but it just seems to be the best way to explain this to people w/o them accusing you of supporting segregation.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 18:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. Although I will say it doesn't bother me to be accused of supporting segregation, assuming its done with any level of intellectual honesty. I'd like to seriously break down and digest the concern. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Cultural intermingling has always existed and of course everything is cultural appropriation from that point of view. You see, the issue with cultural appropriation is as I see it is not so much about the oppressive ethnic group taking and using the shit of the oppressed ethnic group, it's the fact that the oppressed minority has been ridiculed and ostracized for using exactly those same cultural aspects before the oppressive majority used them but now in their case it's seen as cool and they face no repercussions for doing it. Not only is it bad when the oppressive group doesn't even acknowledge the source of the thing they have appropriated but it gets worse when the oppressive group claims the thing is done better by them (see #WhiteGirlsDoItBetter).
To recount a personal anecdote of mine, when I first had corn rows during the incipient stages of my youth I was heavily clowned for wearing my nappy hair like that. The question if I was a boy or a girl was brought up often culminating in a person shouting "What's up, niggerette!" from across the street.
But now I see German white mf's having corn rows like it's all good - of course they're allowed to do that but due to my personal experience which is also shared by other POCs I think I have earned the right to say that they should go fuck themselves for doing it. NameThatNobodyTakes () 19:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
You get to give random folks shit for their choice of hairstyle just because some other folks gave you shit about your hairstyle back in the day? Have a fucking word with yourself. Robledo (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
@Robledo I didn't read it that way; NTNT is saying that these bastards believed that the way Blacks in Germany lived their lives was something to make fun of but now it is hip to appropriate that same culture.
@NTNT I have heard similar stories here but I don't see that as a problem from cultural appropriation itself. The rich need something that they can use to easily define themselves as superior compared to the proles so they will go after their culture; this makes it seem like the lesser people live in degeneracy and that this degeneracy can never truly be removed. The old saying for this is, "You can take the (lesser person) out of the X, but you can't X out of the (lesser person)".--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Let me try and get this right, then. The actions of those bastards justifies a general antipathy towards any other non-POC who fancies cornrows? Have you any idea how absurd that sounds? Stop indulging this shite. Robledo (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Having personal experiences is an explanation for personal biases, not a justification. CorruptUser (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Great stuff. So as long as someone who's being a fucking idiot can explain why they're being a fucking idiot, then we should slap 'em on the back, say well done son, and let them crack on with being a fucking idiot? Robledo (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure where I said it was okay they NTNT should tell people to fuck off for appropriating the culture that they used to see as degenerate.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 02:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
@Owlman: Good points about the upper class needing easy scapegoats.
As much as it's someone's free expression to use specific foreign cultural aspects it's also my free expression to say what my opinion is about it. Sure it's my personal experience and it's in no way representative of all people I've met, but I've encountered it countless times that appropriators still harbor some negative thoughts about the people from which's culture they take.
@Robledo: Where did I say that I have antipathy against the entire individual who has a certain hairstyle just because I tell them to fuck off for doing it? I just want them to acknowledge the origin and the rocky road to its acceptance and not being dicks about it (and in some cases still be anti-POC). It's not like I refuse to be friends with people like that.
Let me explain cultural appropriation in an abstract way for everyone who can't understand why someone might get angry about it: There's an exam which is done annually at a school. Person 1 belongs to a group which suffers hardships laid in place by a dominating group and takes the yearly exam. Person 1 writes the answers in such a way which reflects this person's lifestyle. The teacher from the dominating group gives Person 1 the mark F. Some years pass and due to progressive cultural developments Person 1's lifestyle which has been ridiculed is now seen as fashionable by the dominating.
So years later comes Person 2 who belongs to the dominating group and takes the same exam Person 1 had at the same school which will be marked by the same teacher. Person 2 is enamored with the culture of the suffering group to such an extent that Person 2 writes the answers in such a way that it reflects the lifestyle of the culture Person 2 cherishes. Basically Person 2 turns in the exact same results as Person 1 did years before. As the teacher belongs to the same dominating group as Person 2 and knows it and due to the societal progress during the previous years, Person 2 gets an A. Person 1 gets wind of this and is rightfully pissed at this conspicuous hypocrisy. And the sad thing is that Person 2 and the teacher would never acknowledge the struggle behind getting the lifestyle accepted which can go so far as the society forgetting where it originated from (see Rock music). So I see the backlash from cultural appropriation more as a reminder from where something came from.
Hero are few examples which I find really grating in addition to the things I already mentioned (some of which are Germany-centric):
Christ. Your teenage tribulations do not entitle you to be a dick to people because of their choice of hairstyle. Robledo (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
In the vein is what Robledo is trying to argue here... Leaving sociology/politics/whatever and entering psychology; it is per definition a grave neuroticism to direct active emotion at anyone but specific individuals for something that said exact individuals did. In fact, that exact process of neurotically attempting to except yourself from the general adult responsibility of upholding a basic universal empathy is in itself the very engine of all kinds of hateful bullshit. It's a primitive defense mechanism to do so, and as such, it cannot ever be dignified into anything but that, now matter how much you rationalize it. There is literally no scenario in existence where innocents deserve blame, no matter how unjust the original offense was — definitionally, that would be inconsistent. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@RBP I completely understand this and I agree with your assessment.
I've expressed my opinion harshly at first but I can get irascible when it seems so difficult to fathom that a cautious attitude can result out of the concoction of negative personal experiences, erasure of the history of borrowed culture and the repeated disappointment of borrowers (let's not use the negatively connotated term here for the moment) of whom you at first might believe are innocent and understand it but then sadly prove otherwise and more often than not in really disgusting ways like the few examples I mentioned above which haven't been addressed by the person who has been the most hostile to my comments on the matter because apparently legitimate real world examples are not worth taking into account when my issue was born out of an adolescent grievance...
I fully admit, that my type of response is irrational but being in such a position you easily get the notion that you're not being heard otherwise. I would like to know what a better way there is to bring up the issue? I'm sincerely interested.
Conclusively, everyone can borrow all they want (that's unavoidable anyway and everybody is and should be free to do that anyway, no qualms about it), but either borrowing people shouldn't be so dismissive when someone brings up the history or worse borrowers loving POC culture so much but still having the audacity to disrespect the POCs who invented it.
It's exactly that attitude I want to combat which in the long run leads to ridiculous beliefs that POCs have never contributed anything to society when that is obviously ludicrous. NameThatNobodyTakes () 11:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for hearing me out and taking the time to agree. On the plus side, I will not fault you for having irrational emotions and defense mechanisms — we all do, and that's human. What I was writing against was the benign but misguided attempt — driven on by said irrational emotions — to "puff up" (anger demands to be heard) and frame the discussion as an argument from reason, when the entire approach taken here originated primarily from (perfectly valid) hurt. I will leave you with this note for now, something that I think might help you achieve balance when your emotions start pulling you in a bad direction (as can happen to us all regularly)...
Keep in mind, first, that statistics can never be used by some asshat to trump your personal experiences. To do so is to invoke the "Not all X" fallacy. If — just as an example — you've only met white people who were dicks to you for no good reason (and you've met quite a few!), it's no kind of rebuttal to your anecdote about that fact to insist that "well not all white people are like that". The fuck does that help you?! It doesn't matter what the stats say, you know full well what was done to you, goddamnit.
But the second point is VITAL to the first — understanding equally that those same personal experiences can never be used to trump the statistics. That would be the fallacy of somehow regarding yourself as statistically meaningful in the least — a perfect storm of cognitive bias, pseudoscience and solipsism. I mean, maybe you're just an oversensitive ass? Statistics is a science. It uses methods and maths, alongside safeguards against as much bias as possible , to try to actually inform accurately on how things are precisely in all the countless ways and places that we do not or can not personally experience, never mind assess properly even if we did. If statistics show something, it's not relevant to hear some yokel's personal story. Disregard with extreme prejudice to avoid muddling up the science.
What I'm driving at here is that a first step out of cognitive dissonance is to acknowledge how these two rules depend on each other, and how they must indeed co-exist, if one is hoping to understand the world. Your personal experiences is your realm of emotion — don't even try to involve data there. No need or reason to prop up the significance of what happened to you with a lot of hooey about general society. You deserve to be heard, and without a single number backing you up.
Your scientific understanding of trends and groups in society, however, needs to be kept insulated from your own experiences. Any chance at an informed view of society spoils the second you "improve" the statistics you've read by factoring in the kinda neat and totally sciencey extra data points of "what you've been through". You literally need to be able to be punched repeatedly in the face by a skinhead, while at the very same time not doubting — let's imagine, proven and up to date — statistics which clearly state that nazism, hate crime and violence has dropped enormously, right where you live, right there and then. If that's not doable, please consider your own grasp on statistics to be defunct.
Now, statistics can be abused, they can be wrong, etc... But can you imagine how much more that applies to personal emotionally charged anecdote?
Just some food for thought. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
You can use credibility theory to weight your personal experiences with the stats, assuming you have enough experiences to make it meaningful... CorruptUser (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The fact remains that conflating statistical results that have been produced scientifically with your own experiences never improve the conclusions that can be drawn from the data — rather, it warps them beyond recognition. Doing so is like watering down champagne with carbonated urine. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Not if you are calling the statistics themselves into question. When someone brings up statistics outside of an academic setting, usually those very statistics themselves are cherry picked or flawed in some manner in order to fit the person's personal biases. A good chunk of this website is based on exposing phony studies. And yes, if someone is bringing in anecdotal evidence in as a retort, chances are they are even less credible a source than whatever pop-science magazine the other person happened to quote from. CorruptUser (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Of course statistics are called into question all the time - as they can and should be! Statistics are just an attempt at reaching some approximate understanding of things wider than yourself (and, contentious as it is, it is indeed the only way to gain such knowledge). But how do you call statistics into question? Scientifically, of course. And you know what isn't scientific? Anecdotal evidence and reference to personal experience. You call real (though perhaps still incorrect) statistics into question in one of two ways: via reference to other, better scientifically produced statistics, or via scientifically examining the science of producing said statistics in the first place. Neither of which involves any reference to a single person's confirmation biased life narrative. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can think of a good headline, please put it here[edit]

Would any of you accept "black people cannot wear suits because that is a white thing"? Because to me that is the same as saying "white people cannot have dreadlocks because that is a black thing". another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It really isn't the same when suits are more-or-less mandatory attire in various professional & social contexts. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, switch suits for red wine. Or classical music. Or living in the suburbs. Do you get my point? another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

What is the difference between the following two examples:[edit]

This one
The appropriation of the swastika as the symbol of the Nazi party, along with other pre-Nazi supremacist and nationalist groups, from the cultures of Troy and the Indian subcontinent. —currently in the article
and
Italians wearing pants; Pants were invented by Germanic and Celtic groups with Romans preferring other garments. —currently removed from the article
?
Both describe things that have been around for literally millennia but are now used by cultures that have not invented them. And arguably some Germanic chieftain did invent the swastika, nationalist pseudohistory is not entirely sure on it yet. I say we either remove both or have both there, as they are similar amounts of silly. Furthermore, we might wish to have a criticism section that deals with issues exactly like that. The fact that "cultural things" (for lack of a better term) have always been borrowed, stolen, meshed, appropriated or reinterpreted throughout human history and yes in the course of that things that used to be looked down upon by (insert dominant group here) as (insert slur here) have become to be very appreciated by successive generations of (insert dominant group here). But thinking that only happened with rock music and other things African Americans invented that only got "mainstream" success once white people started doing it is really, really narrow. When the Romans were the ones drinking diluted wine, they called drinking pure wine barbaric. Now the Italians are trying to tell the rest of the world that only pure wine is true wine and everybody who dilutes it (even if wine and coke is a nice refreshing drink) is barbaric. At any rate, while there are legitimate grievances of people who had their cultural expressions first ridiculed and then monetized by the ruling ethnicity/class/whatever, there is a lot of bullshit in this concept that this article does a piss poor job of exposing. another Jewish conspiracy by (((Laurogeita Hamabost))) (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Modern Definition of Cultural appropriation[edit]

Is dressing up as Harry Potter appropriation of nerd culture? Where do u divide the line between bullshit and modern SJW version of cultural appropriation? --Kingdamian1 (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

"Don't eat Mexican food. Please do not disrespect my culture."[edit]

An infamous Tumblr quote (Source):

Don't eat Mexican food. It is not in your heritage. Consumption of foreign foods IS cultural appropriation. Please do not disrespect my culture by consuming our cultural food. It is not meant for you, because you wouldn't understand it. We would consider it offensive. Thank you.

Thoughts?—チーズバーガー • めん Spinning-Burger.gif (talkstalk) 05:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess that means we should stop eating hamburgers (German), French fries (Belgian), spaghetti (Italian), chocolate (Mayan), etc. Oh, and I'd love to hear this person's thoughts on Taco Bell, since the tacoes they serve there technically aren't even Mexican at all (they're more TexMex in style, and that's a hybrid culture, something people like this idiot won't understand). Culture is always going to intermingle and interact with others, this has always been happening since humans were first conceived and it will continue to happen no matter what neckbeards on Tumblr say. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 06:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose the given quote is meant to be a parody of the cultural appropriation concept. The truth is, CA is a very flawed concept.One certainly should be polite to all peoples. CA enforced sometimes amounts to self-appointed white western censors demanding that their view of inter-cultural affairs be required. The incidents involving the Japanese and their Kimono industry is a clear example. The Japanese love it when the Gaijin buy their culture. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Stonehenge etc[edit]

Are not the people 'amusing themselves' at Stonehenge, the Druidicals appropriating the culture of 'persons from millennia ago'?

'Cultural appropriation as the reverse of xenophobia. Discuss. Write on one side of the paper at a time.' Anna Livia (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Swahili isn’t a “pure” African language?[edit]

I studied linguistics in college and I just want to say that the wording bothers me. No language is “pure”; every language has borrowed words from another language. Swahili does have a large amount of loan words, but that doesn’t make it any less African than other African languages with less loan words.

Swahili is “pure” enough in being a language by itself.

Also, there isn’t a metric for evaluating a language as African or not, much less pure African or not. As long as Swahili is spoken in Africa and holds value in certain African cultures, then it’s an African language.— Unsigned, by: Ourdearbenefactor / talk / contribs

I agree that no language is (or indeed could be) "pure". Everything is a descendant or amalgamation or something. But the article makes no use of the word "pure" when talking about Swahili. I agree that it's a somewhat arguable example though. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah! but I see you changed the wording before making the comment. (Or shortly after) Which confused me.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)