Wow, this thread has become the usual dumpster fire, glad I had a busy day. Just wanted to point out what SHOULD have been obvious from my post: I don’t think ANYONE is qualified to ask questions about race, never mind answer them. Particularly governments and other institutions. Geneticists tell us race is social construct not a scientific one. But by continuing to ask this question we perpetuate racism. My kids High School is over 90% nonwhite. That includes a tremendous number of what racists call “mixed race” kids. From all over the globe. This is the future of the USA, “light brown people”, to whom the question of their race seems ridiculous. I often can’t tell among my daughter’s friends a Latina from a Central Asian or Filipina, and why should I?
Upthread you said “what privilege?” It seemed so obvious to me, the privilege actually under discussion, to access a culture’s intellectual property without being accused of appropriation. According to this doctrine, somewhere in one’s heredity between “full blooded (fill in the blank)” and “not at all (fill in the blank)” one loses said privilege. Hence the reference to the “one drop rule”, since the whole thing turns on race and heredity rather than culture. I doubt that my Ashkenazi grandfather who emigrated here from Brazil would be considered Latino if he had wanted to open a kosher Churrascaria today.
I appreciate the quotes and history. Thank you for posting them. I think the issue I have is the idea of claiming something that is fairly universal, and criticizing people who participate in that behavior, if those people do not match the critic’s beliefs on the qualifications to participate in that behavior.
“Dreadlocks” is a modern word for a hairstyle that was fairly common across a broad swath of cultures, from Vikings and Celts, Indigenous Americans, Jews, and is very much associated with India. And of course Egypt, and the Rastafarian movement. A much older word is “Jata”.
None of that excuses someone who discriminates against you on the basis of a hairstyle. But neither does it give anyone the moral right to claim exclusive ownership on something that has had very wide use among large numbers of people, from vastly different cultures, over thousands of years.
Also, the Mooney film quote posted by @melz2 is funny, but Brad Pitt did not play the Mexican in the film, and the last samurai in that film was not Cruise, but a character played by Ken Watanabe.
Furthermore, this is a deeper issue than someone just being butthurt because they look ridiculous in a specific hairstyle, and get ‘clocked’ for it - people can obviously wear whatever they want, but they won’t be free from ridicule and criticism because of their choices.
So that trumps not having to worry about being shot by the cops with no consequences for the shooters?
And why shouldn’t we talk about race? Do you think ignoring it will make the very real world consequences of the construction of race just go away? Do you really think that ignore it helps?
I believe one can fight racism without participating in perpetuating it as an institution, as does asking the question “what percentage of non-oppressor genetic heritage are you, that you believe you’re entitled to create that dish, wear that fashion, or play that music?”
But you’re saying to stop talking about race and issues around culture and race? How are we meant to deal with those subjects if we can’t talk about them? Or are you just arguing that cultural appropriate is not a thing, full stop? That everyone is entitled to do whatever they want, with no criticism, because culture has nothing to do with race as a social construct/system of power?
We can’t do both, though. We can’t both ignore race and deal with the problems of racism. We can’t fix the problems if no one is “qualified” to ask questions.
The key is to not listen to the critics. I prefer joyful people who are celebrating history and culture however the hell they want to, with no gatekeepers but of their own choosing. The joyful people are the ones that will make a better world for us all, because they are happy lifting others up, not dragging them down.
Racism is a thing. A bad thing. It should be talked about and battled in term of how it affects people adversely. Racism as metric, measuring who is what race and what they do or don’t get because of it is also a bad thing. In my view qualifying people to wear dreadlocks is no different than qualifying people to use the “whites only” water fountain. I know people who identify as African American with light skin and blonde dreads. Good thing we don’t actually have fashion police the way Jim Crow had it’s police.
You admonished me a few days ago in another thread that there are other countries, I remind you of the same. There’s few places in the world where someone wasn’t Oppressed by their neighbors, and race was frequently a factor. The notion that every cultural relationship on the globe needs to be defined by who was an oppressor and who was a victim is absurd and demeaning. Is a Japanese less entitled than a Korean to wear a dreads or play Andean panpipes? But that’s the place where this appropriation obsession leads. Cultural exchange of art, technology and ideas is as old as culture itself, both through peaceable trade and conquest. I guess the ultimate “appropriation” was Rome adopting the religion of some weird cult from the middle east.
And even that’s “helped”, you’re the historian and not me, but I’ve heard that in large part the civil rights legislation of the 60’s was essentially just returning the law to the status quo of the reconstruction era. There any truth to that?
This thread is about as much of a ‘success’ as I expected.
Appropriation isn’t merely about music, or hairstyles or who’s allowed to wear what fashion trends; it’s about an unearned sense of entitlement and a glib disregard for other people’s struggles to be seen as worthwhile, to be seen as human beings with agency.
I’m not sure that’s the best way to approach it. I mean, sure, some people absolutely act like being criticized about something is a threat to their ability to do it because they’re thin skinned idiots.
To use the example above though, I’m a pretty big Beatles fan. When I start thinking about rock and roll and appropriation, it’s not in terms of someone busting down my door and taking away all my Beatles records. Instead it’s an issue of how how comfortable I am supporting the artists, given rock and roll’s appropriative roots, not to mention George Harrison er… borrowing rather heavily from Indian music. Obviously no one is stopping me from buying the handful of albums I don’t already have, but, given that I do care, should I? I would hate to stop listening to the Beatles if it’s not a big deal, but I’d also hate to make things worse if it is.
I think for anyone arguing in good faith, that’s more of the issue than if it’s legal or not. I do realize that the first clause of that previous sentence is a hell of a qualifier though.
Also, please note I’m using the Beatles as an example here, I’m not really looking for answers to the hypotheticals there.
It varies depending on the historically oppressed group – those of Irish or Polish descent in the U.S.? Still calling them oppressed would be very misleading. Calling them never oppressed would also be misleading, even though the degree and quality of that was very different than that black people in the U.S. experienced both historically and now.
That’s the thing about appropriation, and what makes it distinct from racism - every tradition has warts all over it from being passed from one group forced to travel from their homeland to those they bump into along their move. Right down to the foods we eat and the clothes we wear.
Cultural appropriation is literally everywhere, but that doesn’t mean it should be so openly dismissed. Nearly every single complaint about cultural appropriation that is made is based around a group that has and is being taking advantage of economically by the population that has the current share of the capital. You have a group systemically not afforded access the benefits the exoticism of their culture brings because another group that has a consolidation in institutional power is withholding that benefit from them.
The easiest and most relatable example to me is in media. I posted a video above comparing Pocahontas to Moana - one movie considered exploitative of selling the trappings of a culture draped over a standardized story a company run exclusively by white men created, the other cuts much deeper and involved many more of the members of the culture in the film even though it was made by the same white guys with the same story beats as Pocahontas. You don’t have to stray very far into the grey area before most people celebrate the work instead of condemn it.
And for another bizarre Disney example of stripping cultures for profit, the video brings up Brother Bear which has a magical Alaskan scene set to sweeping music. Bulgarian music used because it too was assumed to be exotic enough that the audience would feel the scene felt more Inuit with that music. Now no one saw Brother Bear, but the movie went out of its way to swap a cultural tradition with a different cultural tradition to sell the first culture as more exotic - which is an insult to both cultures.
In the end it’s not a clean cut thing and no one says it is, which is why it’s a ridiculous argument to say that a line in the sand must be drawn at all when the cultures that are complaining just want some empathy.
Does this fact affect you: that Harrison’s “borrowing” exposed the wonders of Indian music to millions of people who might otherwise never have heard it, and some of them followed the bread crumbs back to Ravi Shankar and other Indian musicians and their traditions? I discovered King Sunny Ade and other African musicians through English musicians who paid tribute to them. Peter Gabriel was explicit about his influences and was very active in promoting the musicians who had influenced him. He founded the long running WOMAD festival in part to expose them.
Just as his solo career was taking off, Gabriel participated in a one-shot Genesis reunion in order to finance his WOMAD – World of Music, Arts and Dance – Festival. WOMAD was designed to bring various world musics and customs to a Western audience Peter Gabriel Songs, Albums, Reviews, Bio & More | AllMusic
Not much, because I, personally, don’t think Harrison’s borrowing was problematic. I used it as an example because the fact that he did borrow from another culture is unquestionable, and because rock and roll had already come up, it was an easy example. I’m not particularly concerned about The Beatles, but it was a handy example that seemed to fit well.
I never said you did; it wasn’t intended as an attack, merely trying to add nuance to:
Just to clarify, are you under the impression that historically oppressed groups no longer experience oppression institutionally, culturally, and individually?
The answer there is “it depends on the group”, rather than a flat-out yes or no.
