Facebook Follies of Friends and Families

[Valmy]

I don't really find it to be that vague. Sure can some people get militant and apply it incorrectly? Sure but then I think that happens with most concepts.

Ok then. How do I apply it correctly and consistently? That is all I have ever asked for. If it can be then it is not vague.

[garbon]

I don't really find it to be that vague. Sure can some people get militant and apply it incorrectly? Sure but then I think that happens with most concepts.

Ok then. How do I apply it correctly and consistently? That is all I have ever asked for. If it can be then it is not vague.

You mean like an exact rubric? Not really how social interactions work.

To answer the question though, I think Jacob did a good job. When you are looking at groups that have are often marginalised, you should take more care as to how you adopt and/or use cultural elements associated with those groups. Particularly, though not limited to, if you are not part of a marginalised group. That may indeed involve consulting with members of said groups.

Now will you make everyone happy? Of course not but then no one really manages that anyway. Taking a little extra time though to try not to be an asshole, well that generally seems worth it.

[Valmy]

That may indeed involve consulting with members of said groups.

Ok. Who speaks for those groups? What if I take great care in using a traditional Vietnamese dish. A portion of Vietnamese people are angry, another portion really loves it. Who is right?

Because often this is what it looks like and everybody starts arguing with each other about what is ok. People feel very strongly on both sides. Insults get flung. Nothing good happens. Because, you know: militancy plus vagueness.

Now will you make everyone happy? Of course not but then no one really manages that anyway. Taking a little extra time though to try not to be an asshole, well that generally seems worth it.

Sure 'don't be a tacky asshole' is certainly a value I can embrace. Even though tackiness is such a huge and loved part of 'Murica. But that is not what we are talking about here. Or is it? Would BB's attempt at creating a really authentic native garb be alright then? Granted doing it for Halloween, when you are supposed to be dressed as a scary monster (sexy scary monster!), might not be.

[Grinning_Colossus]

My problem with the idea of cultural appropriation is that everything that we can agree is bad about it can just as easily be described as stereotyping or insulting a culture. The term 'appropriation,' however, frames benign cultural diffusion and exchange as negative, and seems to emerge from the strange assumption that cultures are discrete, self-contained entities.

So your issue is that you parse it incorrectly?

If I'm parsing it incorrectly, I'm not alone in doing so. Exponents of the idea define it here (http://sjwiki.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation#.V_1DzOgrKhc) as:

Cultural appropriation is the process by which a member of a dominant culture (e.g., a cishet Western white male) takes or uses (appropriates) aspects of another culture (often a colonised culture) without that culture's permission and/or without any understanding of the deeper cultural meanings behind the appropriated item.

You can see in that statement the unsupported (and really weird) assumptions that 1) it is possible to identify discrete cultures, and 2) that those cultures can give permission.

[Malthus]

The fact is that it sounds so reasonable to "get permission" or to "consult", but in fact, it is impossible.

No-one "speaks" for an entire culture. If I ask my Nigerian friends or fellow-cooks whether or not it is okay to use a Nigerian dish in my cookbook (an actual example from an article cited previously of offensive appropriation), them saying "sure!" means basically nothing.

Ditto for protesting that I am in fact an expert on the deeper inner meanings of Nigerian cooking culture.

[Jacob]

Wait we are currently genociding Native Americans? I was never particularly fond of that word being used in this particular instance since our government intentionally avoided making that policy, which is probably the only positive thing I can think of to say about our Native American policy.

No, not currently - we're at the "disinterested neglect" part of the continuum, IMO. I don't think a policy of genocide is an inaccurate term to apply to interactions at other points in history - between the paying of bounties for scalps, massacres, forced relocation, statements of government officials about the waging of war to drive "the Indian race extinct", forced assimilation via residential schools, prohibition of speaking Native languages etc, I think that meets the mark.

Native Americans are such a crazy diverse group  that it is very difficult to get a gauge on what they think.

For example I really want the my favorite team to change its name from the Redskins and dump all the Native American stuff. The actual Native Americans themselves, when polled, say they are cool with it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html

But, on the other hand, presumably the ones that aren't cool with it are REALLY not cool with it because they raise a pretty big stink.

I don't have a strong opinion here. Anecdotally, the name does not seem popular with the Native Americans I've discussed the issue with (not many).

And it gets more complicated because Native Americans were respected in a weird way, like how the Romans respected the Huns or the Chinese respected their friendly neighborhood Mongols, so even when their words or symbols or images were appropriated they were not (always) used as a joke or as something not worthy of respect. Numerous states, cities, rivers, emblems, flags, and our currency (before the Presidents took it over) all have or had Native names or images associated with them. Were those bad things to do or not? Should Illinois not have been named Illinois?

I don't know.

I hadn't really heard the "respected" narrative before. I don't really think it particularly signifies at this point... if Native people think the usage of those words and symbols are a problem then let's talk about it. If not, I don't see why we should worry about it.

[Jacob]

The notion that cultural diffusion is basically a bad thing strikes me as a very bad idea.

For sure, though mostly that seems to be a strawman rather than the actual argument being made.

There are some times, of course, where it seems militant individuals come down against cultural diffusion altogether. To me, however, it seems that the "cultural diffusion is bad" argument is brought up as a theoretical rhetorical device much more frequently than it's brought up in earnest.

[Jacob]

Ok. Who speaks for those groups? What if I take great care in using a traditional Vietnamese dish. A portion of Vietnamese people are angry, another portion really loves it. Who is right?

Because often this is what it looks like and everybody starts arguing with each other about what is ok. People feel very strongly on both sides. Insults get flung. Nothing good happens. Because, you know: militancy plus vagueness.

So what's your answer then? What should we do? What do you do?

Sure 'don't be a tacky asshole' is certainly a value I can embrace. Even though tackiness is such a huge and loved part of 'Murica. But that is not what we are talking about here. Or is it? Would BB's attempt at creating a really authentic native garb be alright then? Granted doing it for Halloween, when you are supposed to be dressed as a scary monster (sexy scary monster!), might not be.

... it seems you do get it?

[The Brain]

The notion that cultural diffusion is basically a bad thing strikes me as a very bad idea.

For sure, though mostly that seems to be a strawman rather than the actual argument being made. There are some times, of course, where it seems militant individual come down against cultural altogether, but to me it seems it's brought up as a theoretical rhetorical device much more frequently than it does earnestly.

[Jacob]

The fact is that it sounds so reasonable to "get permission" or to "consult", but in fact, it is impossible.

No-one "speaks" for an entire culture. If I ask my Nigerian friends or fellow-cooks whether or not it is okay to use a Nigerian dish in my cookbook (an actual example from an article cited previously of offensive appropriation), them saying "sure!" means basically nothing.

Ditto for protesting that I am in fact an expert on the deeper inner meanings of Nigerian cooking culture.

Yeah, when it comes to food there's been a few pretty silly things recently, IMO.

[Malthus]

The notion that cultural diffusion is basically a bad thing strikes me as a very bad idea.

For sure, though mostly that seems to be a strawman rather than the actual argument being made. There are some times, of course, where it seems militant individual come down against cultural altogether, but to me it seems it's brought up as a theoretical rhetorical device much more frequently than it does earnestly.

I dunno. The issue is that in many cases examples pointed out of "cultural appropriation" appear to be simply examples of someone from ethnic group A using something from the culture of ethnic group B, without this mythical "approval" that one can allegedly obtain. How it that different from cultural diffusion?

For example: in the article posted earlier by Garbon, the example was given (with approval) of the following as an example of "cultural appropriation": an (English) cook publishing a cookbook, which included a Nigerian dish.

I didn't invent that example, so if it is a "strawman" it is not one of my making. 

[Jacob]

Yeah, that could've used an edit before I hit post 

[Ed Anger]

Call me Chief fucks the squaws.

[garbon]

Call me Chief fucks the squaws.

Chief Dreams of Past Glories?

[Ed Anger]

Call me Chief fucks the squaws.

Chief Dreams of Past Glories?