Cultural appropriation

[Rosedamai]

Of course the threat of eradication is a huge part of it. Ylangylang, your people, if I understand correctly, are actively fighting against losing a huge part of your history and your culture. The European royalty that we playact as and sometimes even poke fun at didn't face that, for the most part. There is a sort of a common element though, in that those styles of dress and behavior have passed completely out of modern western culture; the European royals that are still around dress more or less like all other modern western people. Period films and historical reenactment is the only way we really keep those traditions alive. The difference that might allow us to take it more casually is that we lost our traditions to the slow erosion of time and new fads, and not to violence and oppression.

Basically this. Thanks!

Thing is, all of the things you guys have mentioned so far, have not come from cultures that were considered inferior by another race. People haven't ignored the less pleasant part of your culture and just took the pretty things. It's not the same.

And thank you St. Jimmy-that's what I was mostly trying to get at and failing. This is exactly what's happened and is happening to Native American "headdresses", Japanese geisha "outfits", Indian "bindis" and many other examples. You can't just ignore the horrible stuff that happened and just take elements that look pretty. It's just...not right.

Edited October 6, 2012 by ylangylang

[DragonNighthowler]

I managed to remain only mildly offended at the notion that the Confederacy was all about white supremacy. Far from it in fact, you'll find racism was more prevalent in the north pre-reconstruction.

 

Why? Why would I want to celebrate my heritage? Oh I don't know, because I have ancestors who fought and died for the rights that the flag of the Confederacy represented? The fact that it's an important part of both my state's history and my own family history? The same reason ANYONE ELSE would want to celebrate their heritage??

 

Come on. What culture hasn't hurt people in the past? North African Muslims enslaved Europeans en masse from the 1500s to the 1800s, and extremists claiming the banner of Islam have killed thousands in recent years. Should Muslims stop appreciating their culture? As AngelKitty said, should we tear down all crosses and forbid Christian worship because people in the past misused the Bible? What about Mongolian culture? They were pretty rough. Some of those Chinese dynasties, shew, there were some human rights violations there...

 

Seriously. Consistency. If I am expected to respect other cultures and heritages by not appropriating their articles of cultural significance for my own aesthetic pleasure (a concept that I wholeheartedly agree with), I would expect the same courtesy in not being condemned for appreciating a flag that symbolizes my heritage.

Let me point a slight correction.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista

 

Muslims tried to conquer Europe much earlier than that. The Reconquista lasted for 800 years, starting with Don Pelayo in Covadonga and finnishing with Doña Isable La Católica in 1492.

[philpot123]

Let me point a slight correction.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconquista

 

Muslims tried to conquer Europe much earlier than that. The Reconquista lasted for 800 years, starting with Don Pelayo in Covadonga and finnishing with Doña Isable La Católica in 1492.

Referring to this period of history, an interesting read as well.

 

Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters amazon

[TikindiDragon]

Thing is, all of the things you guys have mentioned so far, have not come from cultures that were considered inferior by another race. People haven't ignored the less pleasant part of your culture and just took the pretty things. It's not the same

And thank you St. Jimmy-that's what I was mostly trying to get at and failing. This is exactly what's happened and is happening to Native American "headdresses", Japanese geisha "outfits", Indian "bindis" and many other examples. You can't just ignore the horrible stuff that happened and just take elements that look pretty. It's just...not right.

Hmmmm. I'm not entirely sure that anything from Traditional Japanese culture can be considered to be something that anyone forcibly tried to wipe out. I'm 99% certain the bindi never has been either.

 

I will go back to: appropriation can happen to any culture, from any culture.

 

I am not trying to minimise the pain of minorities that are having sacred items appropriated, but they most certainly do not have a monopoly on it.

[WereJace]

Hmmmm. I'm not entirely sure that anything from Traditional Japanese culture can be considered to be something that anyone forcibly tried to wipe out. I'm 99% certain the bindi never has been either.

I am guessing that that whole bit where India was invaded by a foreign nation that did its very best to Christianize the populace by trashing temples and forcing conversion might have involved a bit of pressure to avoid traditional and religious modes of dress and decoration. And, to modern times, in quite a few western nations, South Asian girls and women who wear bindis and/or henna are singled out for abuse that specifically addresses the bindi. White people who appropriate the bindi don't recieve the same racist, sexist language because of their fashion statement.

 

Edit: and traditional Japanese dress along with the women who wear it are frequently fetishised and sexualised, in my experience.

Edited October 7, 2012 by WereJace

[TikindiDragon]

I am guessing that that whole bit where India was invaded by a foreign nation that did its very best to Christianize the populace by trashing temples and forcing conversion might have involved a bit of pressure to avoid traditional and religious modes of dress and decoration. And, to modern times, in quite a few western nations, South Asian girls and women who wear bindis and/or henna are singled out for abuse that specifically addresses the bindi. White people who appropriate the bindi don't recieve the same racist, sexist language because of their fashion statement.

 

Edit: and traditional Japanese dress along with the women who wear it are frequently fetishised and sexualised, in my experience.

Funny you should say that - there's a very large indian population in the UK (which would be the invading country concerned) and weirdly I can't say I've ever seen people called out and insulted for wearing a bindi. Which I really should have done by this point, as my uncle married a lovely indian lady who does wear the traditional marriage bindi.

 

Re fetizisation - heck, that happens to almost everything. Seriously. If it exists there is a fetish for it. Personally I really don't think that counts as 'marginalisation'.

 

Incidently - I find it quite amusing that people seem to have an issue with my pointing out that cultural appropriation happens to and in a lot of places. I'm quite baffled why some of you feel the need to either rationalise it so anywhere that's being appropriated from is marginalised in some way, and/or to imply that things *can't* be appropriated from a western culture. Is this like the same "you can't be racist to a white man" thing?

[Rosedamai]

Funny you should say that - there's a very large indian population in the UK (which would be the invading country concerned) and weirdly I can't say I've ever seen people called out and insulted for wearing a bindi. Which I really should have done by this point, as my uncle married a lovely indian lady who does wear the traditional marriage bindi.

 

Re fetizisation - heck, that happens to almost everything. Seriously. If it exists there is a fetish for it. Personally I really don't think that counts as 'marginalisation'.

 

Incidently - I find it quite amusing that people seem to have an issue with my pointing out that cultural appropriation happens to and in a lot of places. I'm quite baffled why some of you feel the need to either rationalise it so anywhere that's being appropriated from is marginalised in some way, and/or to imply that things *can't* be appropriated from a western culture. Is this like the same "you can't be racist to a white man" thing?

I think skauble had hit the nail on the head and she said that if the UK didn't like the Union Jack being used as a fashion statement they can make their voices heard with ease, which a lot of cultures cannot do. While I do agree that appropriating from a Western source is just as bad, if you found it offensive you can put a stop to it with relative ease. I on the other hand cannot.

 

Fetishizing is okay, but it's not okay when it's against people for several reasons. 1. It reduces people to sexual objects which we should refrain from. I see a lot of points about body objectification in the sexism thread. Why this isn't held up when fetishization enters the topic is beyond me. 2. It plays into stereotypes. Take, for example, the geisha image. Not only is it inaccurate of the way geishas actually live, it plays into the same orientalist trope that East Asians are submissive exotic hypersexual playthings and I personally have a lot of issues against that. Asian women as a whole living in predominantly Western countries have issues eith that. Ultimately it is a tad racist. 3. As stated above, it is not an accurate depiction and is dishonourable to real actual living geishas themselves.

 

I and you cannot speak for the experiences that women of Indian descent face because we are both Indian. However there is a good site called http://thisisnotindia.tumblr.com/ where there are multiple accounts of cringeworthy racism thrown at Indian people. Perhaps it will show you how much discrimination that Indian women actually face.

[WereJace]

Funny you should say that - there's a very large indian population in the UK (which would be the invading country concerned) and weirdly I can't say I've ever seen people called out and insulted for wearing a bindi. Which I really should have done by this point, as my uncle married a lovely indian lady who does wear the traditional marriage bindi.

 

Re fetizisation - heck, that happens to almost everything. Seriously. If it exists there is a fetish for it. Personally I really don't think that counts as 'marginalisation'.

 

Incidently - I find it quite amusing that people seem to have an issue with my pointing out that cultural appropriation happens to and in a lot of places. I'm quite baffled why some of you feel the need to either rationalise it so anywhere that's being appropriated from is marginalised in some way, and/or to imply that things *can't* be appropriated from a western culture. Is this like the same "you can't be racist to a white man" thing?

Your relatives experience doesn't erase the experiences of all of the others who have undergone such discrimination. People I know have been treated poorly and singled out for that specific expression of their heritage, while non-South Asians have not been treated anywhere near similarily for wearing the same item.

[Sorrowgrave]

Frankly I'm from the south, and I find it VERY offensive when people here wear belt buckles with the confederate flag on it.

It's a symbol of oppression. There's nothing else about it.

 

 

In my family there's a few hairstyles that you just do not wear.

 

is one of them.

Here the only women who get to wear those are grandmothers who raised more than three children.

 

If you didn't do that, you can't wear that hair style. My great grandmother wears it, my grand mother and great aunts don't.

 

 

And on the native american thing,

 

I have tribe blood, on both sides.

 

but I never made any effort to figure out which tribe. So thus I do not consider myself native American , nor do I do anything that has to do with any of the tribes cultures. I frown at people who do dress in Native American garb, unless they can tell me which tribe they have connections to, and are wearing clothing that matches that tribe.

 

Honestly the only time I even look at native american stuff is when it collides with my own culture, a mix of pagan and wiccan themes and herb uses.

 

 

[philpot123]

Frankly I'm from the south, and I find it VERY offensive when people here wear belt buckles with the confederate flag on it.

It's a symbol of oppression. There's nothing else about it.

False. It's a symbol of state's rights and a celebration of heritage. The Confederacy did not exist for oppression. You can get offended all you want, it doesn't change the fact that several of my ancestors fought and died for that flag, I respect state's rights, and it's representative of my heritage. It's a symbol of a culture, not of oppression. There's plenty else about it.

[Sorrowgrave]

tell that to Henry Hezekiah Dee and Charles Eddie Moore

 

 

Edited October 7, 2012 by Sorrowgrave

[TikindiDragon]

Your relatives experience doesn't erase the experiences of all of the others who have undergone such discrimination. People I know have been treated poorly and singled out for that specific expression of their heritage, while non-South Asians have not been treated anywhere near similarily for wearing the same item.

Actually that was more of a point about the difference between countries, rather than saying it doesn't happen where you are. *shrugs*

 

@ylangylang: As it happens I'm not actually all that happy about the use of the Union Jack. But I, personally, am completely incapable of doing anything about it. Why? Because big companies would just laugh it off, same as they would with any other complain made by a single individual. Sure, the *government* could get stroppy about it... but who's to say how much economic blowback there might be from it. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, it could, but once something has been appropriated - wherever it's been appropriated from - it's not always that easy to change the meaning back.

 

I'm still feeling slightly attacked here, I've got to admit. Which I really *don't* understand, as I've not said anything that I though implied people shouldn't stand up against it. They should! What I'm saying is the "I'm more oppressed!" line of reasoning is... odd. What the hell is wrong with me saying "all oppression (appropriation) is wrong regardless of scale or scource"?

[WereJace]

I strongly doubt racism against South Asians has been completely eliminated in England, but I welcome the input of a person of said origin to correct my assumption.

[Fuzzbucket]

I strongly doubt racism against South Asians has been completely eliminated in England, but I welcome the input of a person of said origin to correct my assumption.

I'm not of said origin but I have a few said origin friends who would agree that it has NOT....

 

Not 100% sure what countries you would include here, but Paki-bashing is huge - and Indians from India get called filthy Pakis too - and Japanese people "Nips...."

 

You also get people objecting to living in areas with Indian and Pakistanis in general becaise "they crowd 50 people in one room, throw their garbage out the windows and stink of curry".

 

And so on.... The same kind of thing happens to some Chinese people I know....

 

Sadly the English are pathetically xenophobic. There is also the small matter of the variously filthy Frogs, Krauts, Polacks - you name it...

 

I am ashamed....

[lightbird]

Yeah, I have a classmate who moved to Birmingham and said that she has problems finding a good job - with a Master degree - since, like me, she's Eastern European and there seems to be the assumption that Eastern European = Polish = "lazy". :|

Edited October 8, 2012 by lightbird

[Rosedamai]

False. It's a symbol of state's rights and a celebration of heritage. The Confederacy did not exist for oppression. You can get offended all you want, it doesn't change the fact that several of my ancestors fought and died for that flag, I respect state's rights, and it's representative of my heritage. It's a symbol of a culture, not of oppression. There's plenty else about it.

Phil, (may I call you phil?) you and I and most of the people on this forum are NOT African American. If anything, we are the ones who've benefited in some way or another from slavery. As such, we don't get a say in whether this particular symbol is reclaimed or not because we are the oppressors. It's only reclamation when the oppressed party gives their permission to be used in certain ways. The Confederation did support slavery, and that is a big issue for African Americans. I don't think you should gloss over that especially as someone who have benefited from that oppression.

 

I'm still feeling slightly attacked here, I've got to admit. Which I really *don't* understand, as I've not said anything that I though implied people shouldn't stand up against it. They should! What I'm saying is the "I'm more oppressed!" line of reasoning is... odd. What the hell is wrong with me saying "all oppression (appropriation) is wrong regardless of scale or scource"?

I feel that one of the reasons why I'm coming across as angry is because I AM angry and stressed due to personal real life stuff, but I'm sorry if I've said something hurtful or aggressive.

 

I'll try to explain why I feel that cultural appropriation of the Union Jack is a much smaller issue than those of marginalized cultures, bear with me if I sound unclear, do ask me questions and such.

 

This is from a post on the differences between appreciation and appropriation-

3) What is the history/meaning of objects/languages/rituals in the culture? Are you aware of the meanings/history of these things? Will you be using them in a way that misrepresents them, or diminishes their power? If yes/unsure, don’t do it.

There is very little chance of the Union Jack standing in for something that's other than British, because your language is used around the world on this very forum, because European history is (in my experience anyways) something that is taught around the world in every single history book unless they're specialized in some other region-the AP world history textbook itself is mostly centered on European/American history. Not to mention that your culture is also easily accessible. However, marginalized cultures have had (literally for some of them) their language die out, their culture erased, their history erased because there's no one alive left to tell them. Thus they have little or no say on how their cultural items with a big significance to them should be used.

 

That's something that I have an issue with-because, inevitably during the process of said item becoming a fashion icon, it becomes fetishized, corrupted, and usually the profits don't even go to the people who've created them in the first place. It's doubly an insult if you take it into account that people have died for wearing said symbols-you now have people from other races, sometimes the very people who've oppressed them, taking the symbols. That to me practically says that "if you (oppressed people) do this, it's bad, but if we (not oppressed people) do this, it's cool." And a lot of the times the effect that said item creates-whether it be a geisha outfit, a native American headdress, or exotic "African" prints that are actually sacred-plays into the stereotyped view of other cultures in the past, such as Orientalism, the "Noble Savage" trope, and so on. So comparing the use of the Union Jack to the appropriation of bindis and headdresses is like comparing a person stepping on your foot to a person giving you internal hemorrage-both are bad, just the degrees are different.

 

I hope I explained myself well.

Edited October 9, 2012 by ylangylang

[AngelKitty]

Phil, (may I call you phil?) you and I and most of the people on this forum are NOT African American. If anything, we are the ones who've benefited in some way or another from slavery. As such, we don't get a say in whether this particular symbol is reclaimed or not because we are the oppressors. It's only reclamation when the oppressed party gives their permission to be used in certain ways. The Confederation did support slavery, and that is a big issue for African Americans. I don't think you should gloss over that especially as someone who have benefited from that oppression.

You know who else supported/engaged in slavery? As well as genocide, looting, and religious/cultural oppression?

 

The British. As well as the Spanish, the French, and any other country that took part in colonization

 

And yet I don't hear anyone saying the British should stop displaying their flag because it might offend someone whose ancestors or who themselves were oppressed, because the British flag stands for the British people and British culture. And British colonialism did way more damage to people all over the world than the Confederacy did. In a nice twist of fate, the Confederacy would never have existed if not for British colonialism. It's true, think about it.

 

Granted, Great Britain is still a country and the Confederacy isn't, but the point still stands - there is culture and pride symbolized by the flag of a people that goes beyond past oppression and, in fact, has nothing to do with it. It's possible to love your people and your culture while decrying past wrongs, just as the British have done.

 

That aside, since we haven't had any Blacks speak up here (or if they have I missed it), I just did a search trying to find some Black people's opinions on the Confederate flag ("african americans confederate flag" and "blacks against confederate flag" were the strings I used) and the first result was this, amusingly enough. On the next page, there was this, which is the only actual collection of all-Black opinions on the Confederate flag I've found so far. Here's the stance of the Texas NAACP on the Confederate flag on license plates. Here's another debate on the flag.

 

I noticed that many of the people who view it as racist or who find it frightening are people who were raised in areas where Southern culture isn't that pervasive. So, you also need to account for context- is it someone familiar with the South seeing it, or someone from the North? Seeing the Confederate flag everywhere even makes white Northerners anxious.

 

Likewise, is it someone in Georgia flying the Confederate flag, or someone in New York? The Georgian is most likely just displaying Southern pride and is not a threat or a racist, but the New Yorker flying the Confederate flag is more likely to be a white supremacist and someone people should be worried about.

 

For anyone who cares about my Confederate-flag-flying-status: as much as I love it down here, I was born and raised and always will consider myself a Northerner. Therefore, I won't fly or wear the Confederate flag - it's not my flag to fly any more than the Union jack is.

 

I also learned that there are African-American flags. Interesting.

 

And WOW that was way more to write than I intended to. Sorry. o_o

Edited October 9, 2012 by AngelKitty

[catstaff]

I noticed that many of the people who view it as racist or who find it frightening are people who were raised in areas where Southern culture isn't that pervasive. So, you also need to account for context- is it someone familiar with the South seeing it, or someone from the North? Seeing the Confederate flag everywhere even makes white Northerners anxious.

 

Likewise, is it someone in Georgia flying the Confederate flag, or someone in New York? The Georgian is most likely just displaying Southern pride and is not a threat or a racist, but the New Yorker flying the Confederate flag is more likely to be a white supremacist and someone people should be worried about.

 

Yes, context definitely makes a difference. So does one's initial exposure, as far as the associations of the symbol are concerned.

 

I grew up in the north and my first exposure to the Confederate flag was on tv in fall of 1979... painted on the roof of a 1969 orange Dodge Charger called the General Lee. Back in those days, at least in my school system, the War Between the States wasn't covered in any sort of depth before about the sixth grade, and I was in fourth. So, neither the name nor the flag had any associations for me save for that car, and the tv show Dukes of Hazzard, and a pair of actors who were among my earliest crushes. And yes, as a kid, I had a Dukes of Hazzard t-shirt with the car and showing the flag. Back then, it didn't mean a thing to me except that I loved the show.

 

To this day, my first thought on seeing the Confederate flag is of Dukes of Hazzard. And when your earliest knowledge of a given symbol... in this case, the Confederate flag... is something that had nothing to do with any of the known negative connotations, it's hard to see it as something threatening. Your intellect tells you it's a bad thing, associated with white supremacy and racism and oppression, but at the same time, your emotional response is a good one because the memories it triggers are good ones of giggling with friends in front of the tv watching "two modern-day Robin Hoods" outwitting the corrupt county commissioner and his equally crooked sheriff.

 

(Edited because I can't spell today.)

Edited October 9, 2012 by catstaff

[Obscure_Trash]

I hate to butt into the conversation like this, but I'm really bothered by something I just learned.

 

I am white. I have dreadlocks. I had no idea until now that at least some people consider this cultural appropriation and now I feel awful.

 

I tried looking this up and could only find differing opinions from white people who had nothing to do with rastafarianism besides knowing what it was. Does anyone have insight for me?

 

~

 

Also, the confederate flag discussion has been interesting. It's actually taught me a lot. I had no idea that it was such a deep rooted thing in Southern heritage/culture and could never figure out how someone could so proudly display the flag like that. I get now that most of the people I've seen didn't mean it as a racist thing.

 

I won't pick sides, but thanks for teaching me something. o3o

[philpot123]

Phil, (may I call you phil?) you and I and most of the people on this forum are NOT African American. If anything, we are the ones who've benefited in some way or another from slavery. As such, we don't get a say in whether this particular symbol is reclaimed or not because we are the oppressors. It's only reclamation when the oppressed party gives their permission to be used in certain ways. The Confederation did support slavery, and that is a big issue for African Americans. I don't think you should gloss over that especially as someone who have benefited from that oppression.

 

 

I feel that one of the reasons why I'm coming across as angry is because I AM angry and stressed due to personal real life stuff, but I'm sorry if I've said something hurtful or aggressive.

 

I'll try to explain why I feel that cultural appropriation of the Union Jack is a much smaller issue than those of marginalized cultures, bear with me if I sound unclear, do ask me questions and such.

 

This is from a post on the differences between appreciation and appropriation-

There is very little chance of the Union Jack standing in for something that's other than British, because your language is used around the world on this very forum, because European history is (in my experience anyways) something that is taught around the world in every single history book unless they're specialized in some other region-the AP world history textbook itself is mostly centered on European/American history. Not to mention that your culture is also easily accessible. However, marginalized cultures have had (literally for some of them) their language die out, their culture erased, their history erased because there's no one alive left to tell them. Thus they have little or no say on how their cultural items with a big significance to them should be used.

 

That's something that I have an issue with-because, inevitably during the process of said item becoming a fashion icon, it becomes fetishized, corrupted, and usually the profits don't even go to the people who've created them in the first place. It's doubly an insult if you take it into account that people have died for wearing said symbols-you now have people from other races, sometimes the very people who've oppressed them, taking the symbols. That to me practically says that "if you (oppressed people) do this, it's bad, but if we (not oppressed people) do this, it's cool." And a lot of the times the effect that said item creates-whether it be a geisha outfit, a native American headdress, or exotic "African" prints that are actually sacred-plays into the stereotyped view of other cultures in the past, such as Orientalism, the "Noble Savage" trope, and so on. So comparing the use of the Union Jack to the appropriation of bindis and headdresses is like comparing a person stepping on your foot to a person giving you internal hemorrage-both are bad, just the degrees are different.

 

I hope I explained myself well.

Definitely! I prefer Phil.

 

 

While I realize that the Confederacy has connections to slavery, I think it's honestly ridiculous to condemn a people and a culture for one issue, when the flag represents more than that and the war was not primarily about that. Beyond that, there was huge amounts of hypocrisy and racism in the North. It's not as if anywhere north of the M/D line was a happy go lucky place for people of color to reside pre-civil war or post. Some northern states even had laws prohibiting black immigration. The slaves that were owned in the north pre-abolition laws were treated harshly and often just as inhumanely as the worst instances of abuse in the south. If you read the slave narratives, interviews with actual slaves, the vast majority of them say there life was better before reconstruction, because it was during reconstruction and afterwards that harsh racism against them became commonplace in the south, and there were few effective programs in place to integrate them into society after their masters ceased to care for them.

 

What I'm saying is not that American slavery was right. Far from it. It was founded on an abhorrent slave shipment trade, and there were abuses aplenty in the system. What I'm saying is that the south is painted with a broad, inaccurate brush by most. The North did not abolish slavery for any sort of moral reason to begin with. They sold their slaves down south because it was not economically feasible to keep them any longer. The South was not simply fighting to keep their slaves. They were fighting for their constitutional right to be independent states. The majority of the confederacy only seceded after Lincoln called for troops to be used to attack his own people. This was not something the people in the south would support, and it's not something I would have supported. It's that backbone that the flag represents. It's not racism, it's not white supremacy. It's our independent nature, our freedom, and our willingness to stand up for what we believe is right even when our own nation is attacking us because of it.

 

 

As AngelKitty said, the confederacy is not the only place with a history of slavery. AngelKitty seems to be much better at this whole flag defense thing than I am

 

 

Do I think it's cool for racist rednecks to be flying a couple sets of stars and bars out the back of their pickup, shouting derogatory words at any black person they pass? No. No no no. I hate it, it's terrible, and I've called people out in my community for racism before. But the idiots shouldn't define my right to be proud of my culture and ancestry by displaying a meaningful symbol.

[skauble]

I've typed out a reply to this topic so many times - only to not post it in fear of offending someone. Instead of arguing back, and risking hurting someone, I shall just say this:

 

I am offended that people are holding me responsible for what other people of my skin colour have done. The colour of my skin - which is random luck as far as I'm concerned - does not give me a responsibility for what anyone of that skin tone has done. When you say "your people" did this to my people, you are dividing us by skin tone. My people - every human on this planet who ever was and ever will be is my people, and when people say that as I have this amount of pigment in my skin it must mean I am responsible for what people with similar pigment did - it really upsets me.

 

I don't think I worded this well, but I can't think of any other way to say it.

I'm not sure of the exact situation you're adreesing, but as far as people talking about things being done by this group or that one, the problem isn't necessarily that someone is directly responsible for what someone else did. Sometimes the issue is that a group of people continue to benefit from what those other people did.

 

For instance, I'm white and I live in the U.S. That means that even though I've never owned a slave, I don't support oppressing people, and I don't want more than my fair share of things in life, I'm still benefiting from the fact that that the original oppression happened.

 

So I agree with you that it's not really fair to say that someone in the past did X and so people in the present are still guilty of that exact thing. However, I do think it's important to acknowledge that people can continue to benefit from practices that have been stopped. Because that really does create an important power dynamic where people continue to be marginalized. Just because people decide that everyone actually is equal doesn't mean that equality becomes a complete reality.

 

Incidently - I find it quite amusing that people seem to have an issue with my pointing out that cultural appropriation happens to and in a lot of places. I'm quite baffled why some of you feel the need to either rationalise it so anywhere that's being appropriated from is marginalised in some way, and/or to imply that things *can't* be appropriated from a western culture. Is this like the same "you can't be racist to a white man" thing?

I can't speak for England, but here in America the problem people have with racism directed at white people isn't that it doesn't exist, it's that it's completely lacking in systemic power. White people hold the vast majority of positions of power, and so their racism can create large scale consequences. Also, because our society has been built to accommodate white people, it's easier for them to wield power against people of color.

 

Also, the white racism thing tends to ignore one basic fact – white people never had any realistic basis for hating black people or judging them as “lesser”. However, black people have a whole bunch of legitimate reasons to dislike white people. And while that doesn't mean that racism towards whites can't exist, it makes it somewhat different given the fact that intolerance there is often predicated on their past treatment and current institutionalized disadvantaging.

 

I'm still feeling slightly attacked here, I've got to admit. Which I really *don't* understand, as I've not said anything that I though implied people shouldn't stand up against it. They should! What I'm saying is the "I'm more oppressed!" line of reasoning is... odd. What the hell is wrong with me saying "all oppression (appropriation) is wrong regardless of scale or scource"?

I'm sorry if I've made you feel attacked in my responses, as that certainly wasn't my intention.

 

As for saying that "all oppression (appropriation) is wrong regardless of scale or source" I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with that. However, there actually are differing levels of severity.

 

It's kind of like if you trip someone walking down the road, then you're a jerk. But if you trip a blind person who's walking down the road, you're a much bigger jerk. It's the same act, but with the blind person, they have no chance to see it coming, and thus possibly protect themselves, and they can be far less likely to be able to handle the fall in a way that minimizes the damage it can do.

 

And that can be the difference between doing something to a group of people who have the power in a society and doing something to a group that's marginalized.

 

Do I think it's cool for racist rednecks to be flying a couple sets of stars and bars out the back of their pickup, shouting derogatory words at any black person they pass? No. No no no. I hate it, it's terrible, and I've called people out in my community for racism before. But the idiots shouldn't define my right to be proud of my culture and ancestry by displaying a meaningful symbol.

I don't live in the South, so I don't want to say that it doesn't exist, but I think that part of the issue may be, from the perspective of other parts of the country, that there doesn't seem to be a substantial outcry towards groups who are definitely using that flag to symbolize racism. Because I think that a lot of people would be very open to separating the flag from the concept of racism if they felt that there was outrage or a concerted effort to confront those who continue to purposefully imbue it with that meaning.

 

But, like I said, I don't want to dismiss that that could very well be happening and those of us outside the region just aren't aware of it.

[philpot123]

I've looked up a bit about dreadlocks in the past (I desperately want them myself), and they're not just linked Rastafarianism, and they date back all the way to (who guessed it?) ancient Egypt. IMO, you're fine, Sock. I don't think dreads are a 'sacred' hairstyle unless you want to connect them to religious meanings. Again, IMO, it's a hairstyle - You shouldn't feel awful about it.

 

Here's the Wikipedia link for dreadlocks.

Yeahh, and the Rastas I know don't get upset about things like that either. They aren't the kind for angry protests... if they were, they'd have a lot of stuff to protest. Let's talk about that! What about all the Rasta stuff that's been appropriated into American culture? You can't walk into a store without seeing a Rasta lion or "Rasta" colors around everywhere. Is that bad?

[TikindiDragon]

As you've pointed out, the Rasta lion and colors are nearly EVERYWHERE. Heck, walk into a clothing section of Wal-Mart and you'll see Marley shirts, or shirts adorned with the lion and colors (and, if you're in the men's section, pants and hats.) Tams seem to be pretty popular, too...

Of course it could be pointed out that all those things regarded as 'Rasta' have been broadly appropriated from other scources in the first place.

[philpot123]

Of course it could be pointed out that all those things regarded as 'Rasta' have been broadly appropriated from other scources in the first place.

That's very true.

[blah]

This thread has been bothering me for a while now and as you can see, I've needed a while to organize my thoughts.

 

I had a strong feeling of "wrong wrong wrong" while reading this thread and was very surprised at myself.

 

I am not an intolerant idiot, I usually let people be who they are and I'm also not an unkind person. I usually don't go against people's wishes, why would I. Yet a voice in my head (maybe I'm just going crazy, who knows) kept yelling "no" to the complaints in this thread.

 

I think I have figured it out. Being European, I live in the nice tradition of beheading kings, not worshipping them. They have nice weddings on TV and gloriously awful coffee cups are sold with their picture. That's pretty much all that's left.

 

There were also long wars that made sure state, royalty and religion are now different things. I strongly believe in democracy.

 

I am also German and Germans learn very early on, that it is not a good idea to be proud of Germany. Most Germans simply aren't that attached to their country. I don't know if that attitude is justified, but I think it's healthy to keep a little distance to look at things.

 

I strongly believe, any kind of faith or worship is very personal. What other people do with it, can not harm me. In fact, I think they should treat it in any way they want. It is important to me alone. And what is being discussed in this thread aren't people who are delibaretly trying to offend, don't go there.

 

I think it is extremely dangerous to worship things or people to the extent that you're upset that someone is wearing a necklace that might resemble some symbol. Or freak out because they think "Hey, that's cool". Or go and kill them because they printed a picture in a newspaper. Or blow up buildings because a couple of minutes of film material were published.

 

So to me, Cultural appropriation sounds more like a good thing. Yes, parts of your culture are lost, that's what happens. Always and to every culture. In the bigger picture, one or two hundred years are nothing. New things will come. It's called life. And it doesn't stop you from living and enjoying your own culture.