What do you think of Cultural Appropriation?

[Romaki]

There's a difference between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation. What you think of is "not bad" is cultural appreciation, like people partaking in different cultures and enjoying them while not being a part of it themselves. This includes eating food from different countries, but also different clothes and tradition if they're guided by someone who's actually a part of the culture or just visiting their country.

Cultural appropriation is taking the culture and disrespecting it. A kid dressing up as a geisha is mostly questionable regarding the topic, but not offensive since they're just appreciate a culture without trying to "own" it. What cultural appropiation is is selling a culture as a halloween costume and wearing it. Really anything that takes from a culture without giving back to it, like treating dream catchers as your aesthetic.

If you can't emphatise with it, try thinking of your family's tradition being used as an excuse to party and get drunk. People who don't understand cultural appropriation are often religious, so go with that. Just imagine if someone held a party and made it church-themed. Just people in religious clothing getting wasted and using sacramental bread and wine as their snacks. Offensive, disrespectful, but not world-ending.

 

[seliph]

I understand this, but if someone is purely taking that culture with cero bad intentions, they are free to wear bindis. I know many people are still mocked nowadays for wearing traditional clothes of their cultures, but I think THAT is the problem, and not cultural appropriation. We cannot blame racism and discrimination on people who are just wearing things from a foreign culture.

intentions don't matter, you are intentionally wearing pieces that we are mocked for knowing that you will face zero societal repercussions and therefore it is not okay, especially if it's just for your own personal pleasure.

if you're invited to do so it's different, for example if you're invited to a hindu wedding you are likely invited to wear associated clothing/accessories and it's fine if you do so. but participating in it just for an aesthetic or for instagram views when people who are actually of the race/religion/etc in question are still marginalized is incredibly disrespectful.

edit: also on the topic of christianity... considering catholicism/christianity is the "default" religion in the west and 1. hasn't faced any sort of widespread discrimination and 2. was also forced upon so many eastern cultures, indigenous communities, and other marginalized groups by europeans (and still is actually) i don't really think it's an good comparison to use, granted it may get the point across.

 

[LuchaSloth]

Someone else's culture is not fashion or just cloth

No one is saying that they are "just" those things...but, that they are also those things.

Think of the limitations of human dress. At some point...before there were ever cultural or religious implications tied to a headdress, it was just a piece of cloth. Along comes a group of people who appropriate that cloth into a more meaningful garb. Now they claim it as theirs. No one else can utilize this garb without "disrespecting" what they claim that it stands for. Something about that seems kind of off, no?

I think a good modern example of this is the situation with the lgbt community having the rainbow as a symbol. Certainly the rainbow existed long before it was ever claimed by this community. But, where do we stand now? If you wear an item of clothing with rainbows on it...you can be sure that a large percentage of the population are going to assume that you have certain feelings about that community. Of course, in your mind, you can be enjoying a rainbow for no reason other than enjoying a rainbow. No?

Another good example is the Swastika, appropriated from Buddhism.

In the end, who is to say where the line exists for "claiming" imagery to serve one purpose or another?

 

[trashpedia]

Eh, as someone who is Vietnamese and living in the US, I don’t mind it when people want to learn more about my culture, but I do find it strange when people do take things from my culture purely for the sake of aesthetic and don’t do any research.

I think a really easy example of cultural appropriation would be vegans or vegetarians claiming to be Buddhist simply because they don’t eat meat and do it purely for the aesthetic, often getting a Buddha head statue and decorating them with flowers. If they actually did research and were truly interested in becoming Buddhists, they would have understood that Buddha head statues could be seen as offensive because in the past, British sailors would cut the heads to Buddha statues to sell as souvenirs aka a symbol of western imperialism.

 

[Lancelot]

No one is saying that they are "just" those things...but, that they are also those things.

Think of the limitations of human dress. At some point...before there were ever cultural or religious implications tied to a headdress, it was just a piece of cloth. Along comes a group of people who appropriate that cloth into a more meaningful garb. Now they claim it as theirs. No one else can utilize this garb without "disrespecting" what they claim that it stands for. Something about that seems kind of off, no?

I think a good modern example of this is the situation with the lgbt community having the rainbow as a symbol. Certainly the rainbow existed long before it was ever claimed by this community. But, where do we stand now? If you wear an item of clothing with rainbows on it...you can be sure that a large percentage of the population are going to assume that you have certain feelings about that community. Of course, in your mind, you can be enjoying a rainbow for no reason other than enjoying a rainbow. No?

Another good example is the Swastika, appropriated from Buddhism.

In the end, who is to say where the line exists for "claiming" imagery to serve one purpose or another?

Idk if I’m being dumb but is being gay a culture?

 

[LuchaSloth]

Idk if I’m being dumb but being gay isn’t a culture?

Of course it is. Culture is any form of shared thoughts or ideals...especially social ones.

If there is a "community", then it is a culture. You can certainly be gay without being a part of that culture. But, there is a gay culture.

 

[seliph]

No one is saying that they are "just" those things...but, that they are also those things.

Think of the limitations of human dress. At some point...before there were ever cultural or religious implications tied to a headdress, it was just a piece of cloth. Along comes a group of people who appropriate that cloth into a more meaningful garb. Now they claim it as theirs. No one else can utilize this garb without "disrespecting" what they claim that it stands for. Something about that seems kind of off, no?

I think a good modern example of this is the situation with the lgbt community having the rainbow as a symbol. Certainly the rainbow existed long before it was ever claimed by this community. But, where do we stand now? If you wear an item of clothing with rainbows on it...you can be sure that a large percentage of the population are going to assume that you have certain feelings about that community. Of course, in your mind, you can be enjoying a rainbow for no reason other than enjoying a rainbow. No?

Another good example is the Swastika, appropriated from Buddhism.

In the end, who is to say where the line exists for "claiming" imagery to serve one purpose or another?

cloth and the rainbow come from nature which cannot be appropriated. humans taking elements from nature and giving it a meaning is not appropriation. you are correct about the modern swastika being a creation of appropriation.

Post automatically merged: Apr 22, 2020

Idk if I’m being dumb but is being gay a culture?

no but there is definitely gay culture

 

[Sprinkles_penguin]

There's a difference between cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation. What you think of is "not bad" is cultural appreciation, like people partaking in different cultures and enjoying them while not being a part of it themselves. This includes eating food from different countries, but also different clothes and tradition if they're guided by someone who's actually a part of the culture or just visiting their country.

Cultural appropriation is taking the culture and disrespecting it. A kid dressing up as a geisha is mostly questionable regarding the topic, but not offensive since they're just appreciate a culture without trying to "own" it. What cultural appropiation is is selling a culture as a halloween costume and wearing it. Really anything that takes from a culture without giving back to it, like treating dream catchers as your aesthetic.

If you can't emphatise with it, try thinking of your family's tradition being used as an excuse to party and get drunk. People who don't understand cultural appropriation are often religious, so go with that. Just imagine if someone held a party and made it church-themed. Just people in religious clothing getting wasted and using sacramental bread and wine as their snacks. Offensive, disrespectful, but not world-ending.

I completely understand all this, if you're trying to use an element from another culture that has a specific meaning, you should be aware of the core values and the meaning and symbolism of that object in the other culture. That's why I believe it's OK if a white woman wears an Indian dress IF she's aware of the meaning of that dress and what does it represent. I wouldn't be offended if a non-Christian and non-European person wore traditional Spanish, Mexican or European clothes.

 

[LuchaSloth]

humans taking elements from nature and giving it a meaning is not appropriation

I don't believe I ever claimed this to be the case. I merely meant to imply that wearing cloth a certain way, or presenting the rainbow as a symbol are two things that I don't see any group holding the exclusive right to. Because, that is what we are talking about at the core of this discussion.

If a cultural garment is only seen as being "culturally important" due to the manner in which it is fashioned or worn...then, you are telling other people they cannot wear cloth in that manner(?) But, you said it yourself that wearing cloth (in any manner) is a natural right. So, I'm not sure why it becomes an exclusive right for any group of people to claim a specific garment as "belonging" to their culture, or being "insensitive" to wear outside of that culture. Especially when there is even the very real possibility that one could accidentally construct a similar garment without being socially aware of what the cultural implications are. Which brings us back to the real problem being those who wear culturally significant items for the intent of mocking or disgracing said culture. So long as you aren't doing that, I believe it's fine to utilize whatever garments or symbology you choose to.

 

[thatveryawkwardmayor]

i think context is key when discussing cultural appropriation. it's not as trivial as enjoying food from a different culture but it's how you go on about wearing or doing something from someone else's culture, especially if they're a minority/marginalized.

technically hijabs dont belong to any specific religion. Christians and Jewish people use to wear them way before islam, but of course, they've fallen out of fashion. hijabs are now arguably apart of islamic culture for women, and its important to be mindful of that and respect the importance of it. but i've worn head scarfs/head wraps before as a protective style for my kinky hair.

similarily i personally wont get offended if i see a non-black person wear dreads or box braids, but if they're doing it in an obviously degatory way to make fun of africans i would.

 

[seliph]

I don't believe I ever claimed this to be the case. I merely meant to imply that wearing cloth a certain way, or presenting the rainbow as a symbol are two things that I don't see any group holding the exclusive right to. Because, that is what we are talking about at the core of this discussion.

If a cultural garment is only seen as being "culturally important" due to the manner in which it is fashioned or worn...then, you are telling other people they cannot wear cloth in that manner(?) But, you said it yourself that wearing cloth (in any manner) is a natural right. So, I'm not sure why it becomes an exclusive right for any group of people to claim a specific garment as "belonging" to their culture, or being "insensitive" to wear outside of that culture. Especially when there is even the very real possibility that one could accidentally construct a similar garment without being socially aware of what the cultural implications are. Which brings us back to the real problem being those who wear culturally significant items for the intent of mocking or disgracing said culture. So long as you aren't doing that, I believe it's fine to utilize whatever garments or symbology you choose to.

sorry it seemed like that's what your were inferring with your post, plus i've witnessed others making those claims so that's the conclusion i came to lol

i didn't say wearing any cloth in any way is a natural right, i said wearing cloth isn't appropriating nature itself because nature isn't a culture, which is what i interpreted your post as saying.

 

[Sir Takoya]

If cultural appropriation's real then we should stop watching anime and wearing kimonos in animal crossing. It's only 'appropriation' when it's not a popular culture which is dumb.

 

[seliph]

If cultural appropriation's real then we should stop watching anime and wearing kimonos in animal crossing. It's only 'appropriation' when it's not a popular culture which is dumb.

anime and video games aren't part of any racial/religious culture lmao. anime is made to be watched and video games are made to be played.

 

[LuchaSloth]

because nature isn't a culture

You know...in many ways, I think nature is the biggest culture there is. It's the only thing that every single person shares, whether they want to or not. Environmentalism is certainly a culture. Naturism is a culture too (albeit, one about being naked. Lol). Most religions revolve around the sun. The bible has all that stuff about the creation of the earth. I think nature and the earth itself are indeed culture. Which is a fitting segue for Earth Day, which is what today is. Lol.

 

[Sir Takoya]

Oof. Exactly the reaction I was expecting. Oh well. Gotta love how it was taken into the context of video games only.

 

[thatveryawkwardmayor]

Oof. Exactly the reaction I was expecting. Oh well. Gotta love how it was taken into the context of video games only.

re-read this whole entire thread and try again. it doesnt sound like you attempted to understand what cultural appropriation is.

 

[Sprinkles_penguin]

edit: also on the topic of christianity... considering catholicism/christianity is the "default" religion in the west and 1. hasn't faced any sort of widespread discrimination and 2. was also forced upon so many eastern cultures, indigenous communities, and other marginalized groups by europeans (and still is actually) i don't really think it's an good comparison to use, granted it may get the point across.

I never considered christianity the default religion, I mentioned it as an example because
1. Another user stated she was Christian
2. I am Catholic, so it's a personal example

In fact, Christian people were and are still prosecuted and discriminated against all over the world. Early Christians were prosecuted in the Roman Empire (and later on in the Byzantine Empire), they were even blamed for burning a city! When the Ottoman Empire invaded Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, many Christians were enslaved and sold throughout the Empire. The most notable case of this is the Arab invasion of the Iberian peninsula, after which many Christians were prosecuted and enslaved. There are many other examples of this:

Many Catholic people were forced into Protestantism in England after the Protestant Reformation, and many were killed or prosecuted. During the French Revolution, Catholics were killed in large quantities or deported somewhere else. Around the same time, Japan, China and India adopted strict anti-christian politics. Japan completely banned Christianity and deported all priests. Indian Kingdoms killed many Christians, and many were forcefully converted to Islam/Hinduism. China tortured, jailed and killed thousands of Christians.

In the US, Catholics were prosecuted numerous times. For example, the KKK was against the Catholic Religion and many priests were murdered during that time.

The Armenian, Greek and Assyrian Genocides that took place in the Ottoman Empire were commanded to eliminate Orthodox Christians from that area. Around 2 million people were murdered in these three events.

Starting from the 19th century, Mexican president Benito Juárez pushed a violent anti-catholic agenda in Mexico, burning multiple churches and taking properties away from the Church, like lands, furniture and money. After the Mexican Revolution, religious freedom was severely damaged, as priests were no longer allowed to wear their clerical clothes and in some cases, they weren't allowed to vote. Mexican president Plutarco Elías Calles limited the practice of Catholicism nationwide, and later on on Christmas Day, the Mexican president in charge implemented the worship of the aztec god Quetzalcoatl instead of Santa Claus/Jesus. Now THAT'S cultural appropriation. During the Cristero War in Mexico, 4000 priests were either murdered or deported. The Cristero rebels which fought for freedom of practice of their religion were hanged by the government as a sign of threat. With the support of the KKK, the government killed 5000 Cristero rebels.

During the Russian Revolution around 500,000 Orthodox Christians were murdered in order to remove the power of the church to establish the USSR. Many other were forcefully converted into atheism, and churches and other religious establishments were destroyed or vandalized by the Communist Party. Under the rule of the soviets, Poland, a primarily Catholic country, suffered from oppression. Many churches were closed and the Polish had to practice Catholicism secretly.

Under the rule of Nazi Germany, anti-catholic doctrines were promoted and many Catholics were victims of the Holocaust, which is almost never talked about. Under fascist Spain, churches and cathedrals were burned and around 7000 priests and other members of the clergy were killed.

Jehova's Witnesses were prosecuted in the US, Canada, Singapore and Cuba. The Mormons were opressed by the US, so they had to flee to Utah.

In Madagascar in the 19th century, 100k Christians were killed after the Queen of Madagascar prohibited Christianity.

Even nowadays, Christians face persecution or discrimination. In many countries around the world, Christians are murdered, jailed and tortured and many churches are burned or vandalized. Some examples of these countries are Sudan, Cuba, Bolivia, Zanzibar and Chile.

The situation for Christians is even worse in East Asia or the Middle East. In China, 20 million Christians face persecution. In India, many churches are vandalized or burned, and many members of the clergy are tortured. This country, has actually recently been one of the main countries accused of Christian Prosecution. In Indonesia, many Christians are victims or riots and bombings. In fact, three Christian girls were beheaded in Indonesia. North Korea, Sri Lanka and Pakistan are not too far behind as well.

In the Middle East the situation is even worse. 200k Christians were exiled from Egypt. 35 Christians were imprisoned in Saudi Arabia. In other countries like Iraq, Syria and Israel, there are strong anti-christian movements, for instance Al Qaeda, which is known for bombing several churches. Many others face violence and jail.

In Sweden, Finland and Russia, a few cases of vandalization and burning of churches have taken place.

I could keep talking on and on about this for many more hours, but I'll stop here because It think it's enough. It's estimated that nowadays 100 million Christians worldwide face violence or discrimination.

So in conclusion, yes, Christians have suffered widespread discrimination. Just because it happened before/doesn't happen were you live doesn't mean it never happened.

 

[cornimer]

edit: also on the topic of christianity... considering catholicism/christianity is the "default" religion in the west and 1. hasn't faced any sort of widespread discrimination and 2. was also forced upon so many eastern cultures, indigenous communities, and other marginalized groups by europeans (and still is actually) i don't really think it's an good comparison to use, granted it may get the point across.

yeah that's why I brought in in haha, thought more people would be able to relate. But totally agree

 

[Alienfish]

I think it's thrown around way too easily to be honest. You should of course be respectful but if you're gonna throw it at every person for doing perfectly fine things like eating some food or wearing this and that hat because they like and respect just. no.

I do agree people need to stop selling and making disrespectful dress up attire but that goes for any (sub)culture tbf

 

[Milele]

As a person who is "white" but also from a non-anglosaxon country and would be considered a minority in America, I think cultural appropriation is wrong when the culture "owning" the thing said so. Like dreamcatchers and native american headdresses - they actively try to stop us from wearing it.
But nothing pisses me off more than white people yelling "cultural appropriation" at things that in fact aren't hurting anyone. It got to an absurd point where it's a trend for a person of color to accompany a white person participating in something so that they dont get called out on the internet for it.
Also I think we should consider WHERE exactly the "appropriation" happens. I found it really uncomfortable that an asian girl in an asian country was bullied into unbraiding her cornrows (i think it was in Japan). See, Japan is already very racist towards black people and to them, no matter how they'd wear their hair, they would look like aliens. Wearing cornrows in this situation seems harmless, or even helpful - normalising something!

Which gets me to my point: shouldn't it be ok to have a "look" based on a minority culture, while embracing its origins, so it can be normalised? It seems like an easy way to stop something from being "weird" to others while from this percieved "weirdness" harassment is often born.