Cultural appropriation

[Rosedamai]

I suddenly want to be a Korean Royal Person (not that I have enough hair.)

 

It's not just clothes and stuff - which, yes, I do find offensive, as does a shaman friend of mine. But - well, one huge issue on another forum I am on has been Stonehenge, believe it or not.

 

A load of images were put together, sacred sites from all over the world. Some contained inaccuracies, but in context that wasn’t so offensive - to me anyway - as reverence had been shown in putting them all together HOWEVER - people from all over the word were saying stuff like how dare you show xyz and this that and the other site; it is so disrespectful. But when an English person pointed out that the additions to the image of Stonehenge were simply wrong (that in itself didn't bother me) all hell descended, because for some reason (this became quite obvious in the thread) while it was NOT OK to trample upon “OTHER cultures” - as in indigenous peoples from the US and Canada, Buddhists, Hindus etc, Stonehenge was clearly fair game. The only other site that it seems to be considered OK to use as you will was one in Italy. Now Stonehenge – whatever it may have been – was certainly as sacred to the people way back when as the aboriginal sites elsewhere – but no, it’s in the UK and no “other races” were involved so it’s OK. That really annoyed me. Caucasians simply didn’t count, it seemed. I am all for due respect, and I hate cultural appropriation – but this applies to everyone. Or should.

Haha-but those big hair were dangerous, they weighed a lot and you could break your neck, but yeah I agree that they're pretty and I feel sad that they're now mostly lost.

 

Mmmm..I'm a bit on the fence about this. On one hand, yes, I think that sacred places should be treated with reverence. However, is that comparable to the ongoing eradication of, say, Native American culture? That's something I struggle with, personally.

[Fuzzbucket]

Nowhere, no culture, should be eradicated. If that makes sense. We need the infinite variety, and we need to respect it all. IMHO.

[Rosedamai]

Nowhere, no culture, should be eradicated. If that makes sense. We need the infinite variety, and we need to respect it all. IMHO.

^This.

[inlaterdays]

Nowhere, no culture, should be eradicated. If that makes sense. We need the infinite variety, and we need to respect it all. IMHO.

Well-said, as always.

 

I would think in general that items that are purely utilitarian would be okay to use - western cultures using chopsticks and eastern cultures using flatware, for example. There are some food items it's just easier to eat with one or the other.

 

But items that have definite symbolism - like the hipster fashion for Native American headdresses - are things I'd think would not be okay.

 

[skauble]

I think that part of the differences between who uses what is a difference between disrespectful and appropriation.

 

For instance, if someone took the American flag and did something that I found offensive, that could very well be disrespectful for them to do. However, because the U.S. holds a lot of power in the world right now, the flag isn't really appropriated - it will still retain the identity that America's given it. Meaning that, no matter how it's used, it's most likely going to be seen as the American flag being used as/made into whatever, instead of being seen as just whatever it's been changed into. There's an understood acknowledgement of what it is and what it represents.

 

But with a country or people who have been oppressed, marginalized, and even almost erased, when someone takes something of significance to them and re-purposes it for their own desires it can be transformative. That thing's meaning can easily become lost if the culture it was taken from has less of a voice, and it's then replaced with whatever interpretation is given to it by those with greater power. Therefore it's been, not simply disrespected, but appropriated.

[TikindiDragon]

I think that part of the differences between who uses what is a difference between disrespectful and appropriation.

 

For instance, if someone took the American flag and did something that I found offensive, that could very well be disrespectful for them to do. However, because the U.S. holds a lot of power in the world right now, the flag isn't really appropriated - it will still retain the identity that America's given it. Meaning that, no matter how it's used, it's most likely going to be seen as the American flag being used as/made into whatever, instead of being seen as just whatever it's been changed into. There's an understood acknowledgement of what it is and what it represents.

 

But with a country or people who have been oppressed, marginalized, and even almost erased, when someone takes something of significance to them and re-purposes it for their own desires it can be transformative. That thing's meaning can easily become lost if the culture it was taken from has less of a voice, and it's then replaced with whatever interpretation is given to it by those with greater power. Therefore it's been, not simply disrespected, but appropriated.

Perhaps to a certain extent. Although it can happen regardless of the percieved status of the origin of the item.

 

Take, for example, the Union Jack. Officially the flag of Great Britain. But, because the UK doesn't have the same sort of rules about the use of the flag that US does, it's rapidly becoming more of a fashion image than a national one. How many people, after all, are thinking of the UK everytime they see a cushion or a doormat with the Union Jack on it?

 

The UK still has a lot of percieved power. And yet, I would say, the national flag has been 'appropriated' by the fashion industry. Many would not regard it as disrespectful in this case - but I find it hard to call it anything other than appropriation.

 

(please note - I am not trying to marginalise the feelings of the many smaller cultures who have also been disrespected, and had parts of their culture appropriated, in any of these posts. But (as with my feelings on racism) I don't think it should be tolerated in any quarter, wether the 'victim' is from a percieved powerful group or not.)

[skauble]

Perhaps to a certain extent. Although it can happen regardless of the percieved status of the origin of the item.

 

Take, for example, the Union Jack. Officially the flag of Great Britain. But, because the UK doesn't have the same sort of rules about the use of the flag that US does, it's rapidly becoming more of a fashion image than a national one. How many people, after all, are thinking of the UK everytime they see a cushion or a doormat with the Union Jack on it?

 

The UK still has a lot of percieved power. And yet, I would say, the national flag has been 'appropriated' by the fashion industry. Many would not regard it as disrespectful in this case - but I find it hard to call it anything other than appropriation.

 

(please note - I am not trying to marginalise the feelings of the many smaller cultures who have also been disrespected, and had parts of their culture appropriated, in any of these posts. But (as with my feelings on racism) I don't think it should be tolerated in any quarter, wether the 'victim' is from a percieved powerful group or not.)

I have to admit that I always think it's your flag when I see it. In fact, the reason people tend to find it cool here is because it's your flag. Kind of like we think it's cool to wear our flag, because it's our flag.

 

However, I'll certainly admit that that might be because I'm not quite as young as I used to be when I was younger. Tommorow I'll pounce on my nieces and see if they're more likely to see it that way since they'll have been exposed to it more during the time it's been used in fashion than before that, so they'd be more likely to view it through that lens.

 

I do take your point, but I have to say that if the UK decided that they were really angry about that and wanted to make their feelings known, even if it didn't stop people from using it, it would take them very little time to reestablish the primary identity of the image. That's something that a lot of cultures can't do with ease.

[catstaff]

From ylangylang (snipping massive amounts of pictures in the interests of not taking up the whole post with the quote) ...which married, affluent women from Korea wore, yes people would be offended, because those types of hair were considered "inferior" by western modernizing forces and there were forced hair cuttings and stuff. Not going to go into that but just know that during the course of modernization there was a lot of ****ed up stuff.

 

Another question that touches on something like that... what about "learn by doing" type activities?

 

I belong to the Society for Creative Anachronism, a recreational/educational group that studies and selectively re-creates the Middle Ages. "Selectively" meaning, we prefer to leave out things like the plague, food poisoning, and intolerance. One of the ways we truly immerse ourselves in the research, is to create a "persona" for use at SCA events. Your persona cannot be an actual documented historical figure, but must be someone who might have lived in a given time and place, generally between the fall of Rome and the death of Queen Elizabeth I. As an example, my own persona is Olwen ferch Cadfael, daughter of a Welsh traveling merchant and an English mother, born in 1120 and raised on the borders between the town of Shrewsbury in Shropshire and Gwynedd in Wales. When I'm at an SCA event, I dress in an attempt at period clothing (I'm a mediocre seamstress at best) and I answer to Olwen rather than my real name.

 

Yes, most people do take on European personas, since those are some of the easiest to research. But there are a large number of Middle Eastern/Moorish/North African personas at any given event as well, and even some from further away than that... Mongols, Mughals, and even a few Chinese and Japanese now and again.

 

So, in a hypothetical scenario, I decide I want to create a Korean persona. I study and research, and I learn to make a period-appropriate outfit complete with the elaborate hairstyle shown in the photos in the earlier post. I'm also not the best hairdresser, so I could see it taking me several weeks if not months to learn to either put my own hair up like that or (more likely, my hair is long, but not *that* long) manage to make a wig/headdress to give the appropriate look. Going to an event in that outfit and hairdo and persona would be, for me, a chance to show people, "Look at what I've learned! This is what was worn and this is what was considered beautiful and this is why!" But someone unaware of all this might see me in that outfit, say if I had to stop for gas on the way to the event, and just point and say "Nice costume, where's the party?" Even though my actual point in wearing it would be to show my respect for what I'd learned by getting everything as accurate as possible.

[Rosedamai]

Even though my actual point in wearing it would be to show my respect for what I'd learned by getting everything as accurate as possible.

NO. You do not show your respect by wearing that stuff. You're not a Korean royal person. You don't get to wear it.

 

Is that so hard to understand? Why? If you really want to show your respect, then support the dwindling artists who are taking their painstaking time and effort among massive social neglect.

 

Respect something that has to be accepted by the other person. Your way of showing respect is not something that can be accepted.

 

What did you do to earn it? Nothing. You don't get to wear it, period.

 

What you can do is make a presentation or something like that-but never, ever try to recreate something by wearing clothes, making hair, etc. Don't do that.

[philpot123]

I'm Anglican, and I've got to say the whole idea makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

 

It might be more accurate to say a lot of it is 'European' rather than 'Catholic', too. The architecture and stained glass, as well as the renaissance style-paintings, aren't restricted to any one denomination here. It would be a bit like putting a sushi resteraunt in an exact replica of a shinto temple. Or having a resteraunt where all the waiters dressed as bhuddist monks.

 

So, yeah, it makes me uncomfortable. Then again I've always felt that the buildings and traditions of *any* religion - wether I follow it or not - should be treated with some kind of respect and reverence.

Thanks for correcting me. I can see how it would make people uncomfortable for sure, it's just not majorly bothersome to me.

 

 

 

On the subject of flags, Mumford & Sons put on a concert in Bristol, Virginia a couple months back, pretty close to me. The whole city was decked out for them, moustaches and UK flags everywhere. Some people got pretty offended by the fact that, where there was an American flag, they would put a UK flag above it on the pole or the building. Thoughts?

 

Also, what about flying the Confederate flag, the "stars and bars"? I realize this is a different issue entirely, but I know there are people of color who are severely offended by the large presence of that flag around my city (one of our local highschools has the mascot "the rebel," a confederate soldier). To some of us (including myself) the confederacy is a legitimate and insteresting part of our state history and our own family history. So the confederate flag holds a certain significance. What's your opinion on "cultural" symbols that are offensive to certain people?

[Rosedamai]

So the confederate flag holds a certain significance. What's your opinion on "cultural" symbols that are offensive to certain people?

Don't do it.

[Zaxian]

You don't get to wear it, period.

I disagree. I think an individual can and should be able to wear what they want to when they want to, barring it causing actual harm to others (in the form of impersonation/fraud/deliberate provocation).

 

I'm conflicted on the topic of 'cultural appropriation' - on the one hand, I can understand individuals being offended by others wearing (and thus seemingly 'disrespecting') dress they consider sacred in some way. And obviously, anyone who wears items with symbolic significance (whether from their own culture or another) with deliberate intent to mislead or offend is in the wrong.

 

On the other hand, if those individuals are in fact wearing things *in the style of* said items, without any implied slight on said culture, then they're perfectly within their rights to do so - and another person being offended by that should not stop them from being able to do so.

 

An example: if someone were to go around wearing clothes that resemble those of a traditional Roman Catholic nun, it would most likely be considered offensive by a number of people from that religion. But as long as that person were not claiming to be a nun (or was being mistaken for being a nun), nor were wearing it to deliberately mock nuns or the religion in question, then at most it could be said to be in bad taste.

 

(Edited for typo)

Edited October 4, 2012 by Zaxian

[Rosedamai]

On the other hand, if those individuals are in fact wearing things *in the style of* said items, without any implied slight on said culture, then they're perfectly within their rights to do so - and another person being offended by that should not stop them from being able to do so.

 

An example: if someone were to go around wearing clothes that resemble those of a traditional Roman Catholic nun, it would most likely be considered offensive by a number of people from that religion. But as long as that person were not claiming to be a nun (or was being mistaken for being a nun), nor were wearing it to deliberately mock nuns or the religion in question, then at most it could be said to be in bad taste.

Look. If you take sacred regalia from any culture, let alone one in which the expression of said culture was constantly oppressed by hair cuttings, etc, because you think you want to respect your culture, you're actually not respecting it because you're completely ignoring the context under which it was worn. Because you have to earn the said regalia. It's something that's sacred. What did you do to actually wear it? Hmmm? Nothing-so you don't get to wear the said thing.

 

Intent doesn't really matter in this one, because 1). you're taking something that's sacred without actually earning it and 2). for you to wear them is considered something profound, something that shows off your cultural knowledge and oh-so-culturally-sophisticated, whereas my ancestors had to fight (mostly lost) a battle to keep these sacred regalia. You haven't had to go through the cultural battles that was so deeply ingrained in our culture to keep traditional stuff out. For you to just take it because you want to teach other people about is basically equivalent you taking something that we'd fought for without experiencing any of the pain that we suffered from, and I take huge offense to that.

 

I'm actually pretty angry right now. Those are explicit stuff that you shouldn't wear. You can wear anything else, such as the simple hanbok that people wore in their everyday lives. I put out a list of stuff that you should explicitly avoid and people are like, but I want to wear them because it's pretty/because I want to educate others/whatever excuse you have. NO you cannot. Sorry. Anything else is fair game, but not these.

Edited October 4, 2012 by ylangylang

[Zaxian]

Look. If you take sacred regalia from any culture, let alone one in which the expression of said culture was constantly oppressed by hair cuttings, etc, because you think you want to respect your culture, you're actually not respecting it because you're completely ignoring the context under which it was worn. Because you have to earn the said regalia. It's something that's sacred. What did you do to actually wear it? Hmmm? Nothing-so you don't get to wear the said thing.

 

Intent doesn't really matter in this one, because 1). you're taking something that's sacred without actually earning it and 2). for you to wear them is considered something profound, something that shows off your cultural knowledge and oh-so-culturally-sophisticated, whereas my ancestors had to fight (mostly lost) a battle to keep these sacred regalia. You haven't had to go through the cultural battles that was so deeply ingrained in our culture to keep traditional stuff out. For you to just take it because you want to teach other people about is basically equivalent you taking something that we'd fought for without experiencing any of the pain that we suffered from, and I take huge offense to that.

 

I'm actually pretty angry right now. Those are explicit stuff that you shouldn't wear. You can wear anything else, such as the simple hanbok that people wore in their everyday lives. I put out a list of stuff that you should explicitly avoid and people are like, but I want to wear them because it's pretty/because I want to educate others/whatever excuse you have. NO you cannot. Sorry. Anything else is fair game, but not these.

I said nothing about attempting to show respect (or lack thereof), nor of teaching anyone about a culture. (I think you're mixing up my comments and catstaff's just a bit here.)

[catstaff]

NO. You do not show your respect by wearing that stuff. You're not a Korean royal person. You don't get to wear it.

 

Is that so hard to understand? Why? If you really want to show your respect, then support the dwindling artists who are taking their painstaking time and effort among massive social neglect.

 

Respect something that has to be accepted by the other person. Your way of showing respect is not something that can be accepted.

 

What did you do to earn it? Nothing. You don't get to wear it, period.

 

What you can do is make a presentation or something like that-but never, ever try to recreate something by wearing clothes, making hair, etc. Don't do that.

I get that I'm not a Korean royal person, and I've obviously shown my ignorance in that I was under the impression that the women in your photos were modern-day women taking part in a presentation or demonstration of the past culture, as opposed to them actually being current-day members of Korean royalty or nobility. And since your post did not originally identify the Korean women as nobility, but simply as "affluent married women", I was under the impression that such hairstyles and clothing was not something restricted to royalty or nobility, but something that any wealthy married woman might have worn.

 

But I'm not a half-Welsh, half-English girl from 1140, either. Or a Saxon maiden from 1024, or a Viking dairymaid from 1217, or a noblewoman in the English court in 1569, or a Turkish woman in the day of Suleiman the Magnificent, or a Mughal woman of Kashmir during 1573, or a Moorish woman from the Caliphate of Cordoba during 982. I do not claim to be any of these things in real life. But with the SCA's philosophy of learning-by-doing, I might choose to study and re-create any of those personas for an SCA event, making my own clothing to the best of my ability and learning the ideas behind the clothing... was -this- color restricted to nobles? And if so, why? Was -that- fabric considered something that was only good enough for peasants? Why was that?

 

And more to the point, is it disrespectful to the Viking culture, or the Saxon, Moorish, Tudor, Ottoman, Mughal, etc... to try to re-create the best parts of that culture in the present day?

 

Edited to add, I think we've also hit a current cultural stumbling block, too. Because now I'm seeing the words sacred regalia being used. Again, in the post I originally referenced, I didn't see the word sacred being applied to the hairstyles in question. So I think I'm also missing something, because I've never heard the words sacred regalia used to identify anything but religious clothing/items.

Edited October 4, 2012 by catstaff

[Rosedamai]

I get that I'm not a Korean royal person, and I've obviously shown my ignorance in that I was under the impression that the women in your photos were modern-day women taking part in a presentation or demonstration of the past culture, as opposed to them actually being current-day members of Korean royalty or nobility. And since your post did not originally identify the Korean women as nobility, but simply as "affluent married women", I was under the impression that such hairstyles and clothing was not something restricted to royalty or nobility, but something that any wealthy married woman might have worn.

 

But I'm not a half-Welsh, half-English girl from 1140, either. Or a Saxon maiden from 1024, or a Viking dairymaid from 1217, or a noblewoman in the English court in 1569, or a Turkish woman in the day of Suleiman the Magnificent, or a Mughal woman of Kashmir during 1573, or a Moorish woman from the Caliphate of Cordoba during 982. I do not claim to be any of these things in real life. But with the SCA's philosophy of learning-by-doing, I might choose to study and re-create any of those personas for an SCA event, making my own clothing to the best of my ability and learning the ideas behind the clothing... was -this- color restricted to nobles? And if so, why? Was -that- fabric considered something that was only good enough for peasants? Why was that?

 

And more to the point, is it disrespectful to the Viking culture, or the Saxon, Moorish, Tudor, Ottoman, Mughal, etc... to try to re-create the best parts of that culture in the present day?

Do you actually know that when the people recreate dramas featuring the dybasties and such in the past, you get professionals and artisans who have worked on this all their life to come and try to recreate it as possible? Which given that medieval dramas do in the western world, or at least that was my impression, it wouldn't be quite a stretch of imagination to think that we do here as well?

 

Our traditional culture has underwent a severe oppression and erasure, by the actions of your people. Is it so hard to understand that as such we may not want you to take our sacred or royal regalia which you eradicated in the first place and to treat it as some sort of learning item? Unless say you are taking part in a cultural exhibition by Koreans or supported by Koreans no you cannot do this.

 

I wonder if me and my people are part of ancient traditions like the Vikings and Tudors., because we are not. I am not Turkish so I cannot speak for say the Ottoman empire but I think it is sth that you need to tread lightly upon.

 

Zax8an-sorry about that. But I disagree with the premise that as long as you do it without an intent to mock you can wear anything you want.

[catstaff]

Do you actually know that when the people recreate dramas featuring the dybasties and such in the past, you get professionals and artisans who have worked on this all their life to come and try to recreate it as possible? Which given that medieval dramas do in the western world, or at least that was my impression, it wouldn't be quite a stretch of imagination to think that we do here as well?

 

Our traditional culture has underwent a severe oppression and erasure, by the actions of your people. Is it so hard to understand that as such we may not want you to take our sacred or royal regalia which you eradicated in the first place and to treat it as some sort of learning item? Unless say you are taking part in a cultural exhibition by Koreans or supported by Koreans no you cannot do this.

 

I wonder if me and my people are part of ancient traditions like the Vikings and Tudors., because we are not. I am not Turkish so I cannot speak for say the Ottoman empire but I think it is sth that you need to tread lightly upon.

 

Zax8an-sorry about that. But I disagree with the premise that as long as you do it without an intent to mock you can wear anything you want.

Okay, I can see the emotional sense in saying that if you're not a member of the culture which was oppressed, you don't get to try to study and re-create that which was lost.

 

But at the same time, I think you might be applying the broad brush a little heavily. I'm the first to admit, my knowledge of Korea and Korean history is limited, but as I understand it, there was plenty of cultural oppression and erasure happening well before the ending of WWII and the occupation/division of Korea by Soviet and American forces. I won't deny the American and Soviet had a share of it, but your posts make it sound as though there was no problem at all until 1945-ish.

 

Also, when it comes to questions of culture appropriation, what's your take on things like taekwondo, which is very much one of the more widely known martial arts in the US?

 

How about other situations... say, Native Americans? I'm absolutely not going to deny that the US government started right in back in 1787 with George Washington to try to "civilize" the natives into assimilating with the US culture. And when that didn't work (particularly between the end of the War Between the States and the 1890s), the government didn't have a problem with sending in the military to harass, beat, or massacre them into submission. However, that does not mean "my people" did this, even though I'm a white American... "my people", my ancestors were still in Ireland having their culture oppressed and eradicated by the English during that same time period. And then when they did finally come over here, it was to find signs posted all over the place: "Help Wanted. Americans Only. No Irish Need Apply."

 

A Native American friend once told me that while she's against teaching the actual religion of her tribe to anyone not of the tribe, she welcomed the chance to teach the culture to anyone who approached respectfully, with a desire to learn. Because she felt that was the best way to counter the eagle-feathers-are-cool type of people... by teaching non-members of the culture about the culture, so that -they- would be able to smack some sense into the hipsters without their feelings being dismissed as, "Well, but you're just prejudiced against white people."

 

And hopefully someone will be able to find something that makes sense in my rambling. Please do feel free to call on me for clarifications... I often find that in discussions like this one, both/all sides have some equally valid points that aren't easily articulated, and I really am trying to understand all the views.

 

 

 

[philpot123]

Don't do it.

So I should give up part of my heritage because some people are offended by it?

 

 

 

What about instruments from various cultures that are used in worship or ritual? Is it wrong to learn them, own them, and appreciate them?

[Ripan]

And more to the point, is it disrespectful to the Viking culture, or the Saxon, Moorish, Tudor, Ottoman, Mughal, etc... to try to re-create the best parts of that culture in the present day?

Well, if I'm allowed to be a nit-picky archaeology student for a moment; it isn't exactly historically accurate if you just cherry-pick whatever parts of history you'd like and present only that (not accusing you of anything here, just generally speaking).

(btw, 1217 sounds like a pretty late date for the vikings to be around, at least here in Scandinavia. We account for the viking age to have been somewhere between 700 - 1100, after that came the medieval age of Scandinavia.)

 

A question I'd like to ask you though: what do you think makes up culture? Or cultural heritage?

[Syaoransbear]

It's not too hard to research stuff like this.

See, when I googled hairsticks I got absolutely nothing about Korea. I got mentions of their use originating in greek and rome and currently being used in japan, and that was it.

 

Since hairsticks did not originate in korea, perhaps it's your culture that has appropriated them?

[skauble]

I disagree. I think an individual can and should be able to wear what they want to when they want to, barring it causing actual harm to others (in the form of impersonation/fraud/deliberate provocation).

 

I'm conflicted on the topic of 'cultural appropriation' - on the one hand, I can understand individuals being offended by others wearing (and thus seemingly 'disrespecting') dress they consider sacred in some way. And obviously, anyone who wears items with symbolic significance (whether from their own culture or another) with deliberate intent to mislead or offend is in the wrong.

 

On the other hand, if those individuals are in fact wearing things *in the style of* said items, without any implied slight on said culture, then they're perfectly within their rights to do so - and another person being offended by that should not stop them from being able to do so.

 

An example: if someone were to go around wearing clothes that resemble those of a traditional Roman Catholic nun, it would most likely be considered offensive by a number of people from that religion. But as long as that person were not claiming to be a nun (or was being mistaken for being a nun), nor were wearing it to deliberately mock nuns or the religion in question, then at most it could be said to be in bad taste.

 

(Edited for typo)

 

I completely agree with you that it's people's right to wear what they want. But sometimes people tend to think that having the right to do something absolves them of any kind of fallout that occurs. It doesn't and yet they often get surprisingly outraged that someone takes issue with their actions because they believe that the right to do something means that people have to be okay with it. No one has to stop doing things, but they don't get an automatic pass on people's dislike of their actions.

 

To be honest, here's where I get kind of confused in this whole thing.

 

You have person A, like ylangylang, whose culture has experienced this horrible traumatic attempt to erase it that they're still struggling to deal with. They see person B wearing something that's sacred or meaningful to their culture, and they explain the significance and ask them not to wear it.

 

So, for a minute, picture a scale in your mind. On one side is person A's genuine pain and sincere concern for her culture.

 

On the other side you have the fact that person B likes wearing it. That they think it's cool. That they think it's a nice nod to the other culture.

 

Now, none of those things on the B side of the scale are necessarily bad things. But I would ask, sincerely, does B actually come away with more weight than A?

 

And that's the crux of a lot of this – Much of the time when someone “borrows” something that has special meaning to another culture, they do it because they enjoy whatever the thing is. If it's a Native American headdress, then they may think it's fun to wear, that it's really attractive – it gives them a nice feeling when they have it on.

 

But that's the kind of nice feeling they can get from a lot of things. It doesn't have to come from that headdress because that actually doesn't have the kind of significance for them that it has for the other group of people. It's not a crushing sacrifice not to use it, in the vast majority of cases.

 

We're not going to lose our freedom to do things if we don't do this one thing. And, of course, it's our right to do it, but when something means so much to one person and so much less to the other, it's not really about rights, it's about kindness and compassion and empathy.

 

Are there going to be people who may try to take advantage of that kindness at some point? Unfortunately, yes, there will be. But that seems like a sad reason to write off kindness – because we never, ever want to be duped.

 

Are there going to be times when people have legitimate reasons for wearing X? Yes. Life's complex and there are a lot of times when people have a good reason for wearing/using an item in question. Are there tons of things in various cultures that aren't at all problematic to use? Of course.

 

So nothing in life is an absolute. But if someone has a real concern, a genuine hurt, and all the thing really means to us is some fun and the chance to exercise a right that's not going to disappear on us, then what does it actually cost us to help a fellow citizen of the world out?

[KageSora]

See, when I googled hairsticks I got absolutely nothing about Korea. I got mentions of their use originating in greek and rome and currently being used in japan, and that was it.

 

Since hairsticks did not originate in korea, perhaps it's your culture that has appropriated them?

From what I saw, ylangylang wasn't objecting to the use of hairsticks in general--but specific designs and materials that held special cultural significance.

 

Like, it'd not be massively culturally offensive to just have some plain, basic things, but using ones that are traditionally only worn by royalty would be offensive.

 

 

(Correct me if I misread, though, brain isn't at 100% today)

Edited October 4, 2012 by KageSora

[catstaff]

Well, if I'm allowed to be a nit-picky archaeology student for a moment; it isn't exactly historically accurate if you just cherry-pick whatever parts of history you'd like and present only that (not accusing you of anything here, just generally speaking).

(btw, 1217 sounds like a pretty late date for the vikings to be around, at least here in Scandinavia. We account for the viking age to have been somewhere between 700 - 1100, after that came the medieval age of Scandinavia.)

 

A question I'd like to ask you though: what do you think makes up culture? Or cultural heritage?

Okay, that 1217 date was a random pick on my part and a rather stupidly late one.

 

As far as the SCA goes, members freely admit, we're not always completely historically accurate in attitude. If we were, we'd have an awful lot of clashes between people with, say, French and English personas in the 1500s, etc. But at the same time, the idea -is- to learn about your personally chosen time and place in history. We attempt to be accurate in our garb, for example, using whatever documentation we can find. This includes extant examples if any, descriptions in written documents, paintings, etc.

 

We freely admit that plenty of what we do is best-guessing, or using modern substitutions due to cost. For example, I make most of my warm-weather SCA dresses from cotton cloth, even though linen or linsey-woolsey would be more historically accurate, simply because I can generally find cotton in colors that approximate what would be historically available at $4/yard or less, whereas linen would run me $12/yard or more and is more care-intensive than the cotton besides. That said, I go for browns and light blues and greens that would be generally available to all but the poorest people of my chosen time period and location, based on what I know of available dyes and their relative costs at that time. I avoid reds and purples as they would almost certainly be costlier than my persona would have been able to afford in any quantity. A red hair ribbon, that could be done. A red apron, maybe, if it was "feast-day" clothing, only worn a couple of times a year for special occasions. A red dress, no, too expensive for a relatively humble merchant's daughter.

 

As far as what I think makes up culture or cultural heritage... I think it's a way of life lived by the majority of people in any given area at any given time. The language spoken, the music and art of the time and place, the foods eaten and the clothing worn. All of that is part of a cultural heritage.

 

And culture and cultural heritage is subject to change. Not just due to conquest, although that certainly is one reason, but anything from the introduction of a new food or a new animal, to a change in weather patterns can change the culture.

 

Going back to Ireland for this example, plenty of people today pretty well automatically put potatoes and Ireland together along with the Great Potato Famine of the 1840s. And yet the potato had only just arrived in Ireland within a few years of 1600... prior to that, oats were the predominant crop, with barley running in second place. The acceptance of the potato as a food crop led to a major population boom in Ireland, even among the landless, because they could now grow enough potatoes for their own consumption on a much smaller portion of rented land while planting a cash crop to pay the actual rent with on the bulk of that rented land.

 

Likewise, the horse changed the way of life for the American Indian, especially the western tribes. Once partnered with the horse, they could travel farther and faster, and carry more material goods with them. Hunting grew easier, as did war.

[Nectaris]

I think that one thing that would help a lot, rather than just saying "don't do it" is to point out something that they CAN use from the culture at the same time. If the objection is that something is sacred to the culture, surely there is something that isn't sacred that can be used without problem.

 

Another way to combat this would be to get people to see things within their own culture as something other than drab and boring, as I am sure many do.

[Ripan]

catstaff, thank you for a very detailed explanation, I'm glad to see you put a lot of thought into it

 

As long as people are admitting, and making sure that the participants or spectators are aware that a re-enactment may not be a perfect presentation I'm fine with it. However if they had claimed absolute historical accuracy, and claim they're trying to teach people something of history in the form of a play that has flaws, then I would show no mercy on them

 

I actually currently reside in a town that is well-known for it's medieval theme and the re-enactments in summertime. The whole town is commercially presented as a "genuine medieval experience" with UNESCO's stamp of approval. But really, it doesn't take much critical thinking to see just how shallow that really is.

A teacher of mine once made an inquiry about the people who visited these re-enactments, to find out why they wanted to participate, and the resounding answer amongst most where that they simply wanted to have fun and play dress-up - the historical learnings had a very low priority it seemed. Of course you'd rather be a knight than a dirty, boring beggar - and thus we have 90% of the males dressed as knights.

This, I actually have no problem with. Not these people who are aware that they're just there to have fun. What bothers me are the advertising people shouting something about "time-travelling" when the whole thing is actually quite an absurd spectacle. Not to mention, how people present some of the stories from the olden days have definitely changed: the traitor woman who sold the freedom of the entire island to the invading tyrant king is now suddenly the tragic heroine of a heart-pounding love story!

 

 

The thing about culture and cultural heritage, the way we learnt about it, is that it isn't something completely tangible. Culture is more like a bowl, to fill with trinkets and certain traits that people associate with this-and-that- culture.

You seem to have a similar idea that the culture-fenomenon is not necessarily something that's perfectly clear and tangible, but what if i had asked you "What is French culture?" (just a random example), what are the symbols for French culture, what makes up the French culture?

When discussing this in class it seemed like a lot of very homogenous and almost stereotypical images came up to fill the bowl, but also some things that baffled others - while others thought of it as obvious.

Long story short: It seems that "culture" have become almost a "fashion-word" that people frequently use when addressing customs, traditions and national symbols, but when you ask those people what culture and cultural heritage is lots of them quiet down in pondering silence. And when they do answer the answers may be almost stereotypical and/or differentiating parts; for an example: person A thinks that ABBA is definitely a part of Swedish cultural heritage, if you'd ask me however - I'd subtract them from the cultural-heritage vessel, and add a keyed fiddle instead.

 

 

Your idea of culture and cultural heritage appears to me to be (and please excuse me if I'm wrong) heavily based in nature, quite literal and very historical view of the past, it kinda gives of the image of something that is dead and unchangeable - and there is nothing wrong in firmly believeing in the roots to the past. But if I may give you something to think of, even if I'm not asked to do so:

How people view the past is changeable. It will change with the times.

 

 

Aaah, I did a long and sorta-unrelated-to-just-about-anything post ^^; Sorry about that.

___

 

On another note:

 

Another thing I learnt in that class is that where there is cultural union, there is cultural alienation and exclusion.

When you define a group by certain default traits (may be cultural traits), you always exclude those who do not fit these default traits. Leaving out those who have no relation, and/or those who may not meet all the defining traits but just a few.

And I think this thread actually stands as a pretty good example of that.