Author Topic: some thoughts on cultural appropriation  (Read 84432 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6217
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1845 on: April 08, 2019, 09:38:17 AM »
Judging by the lyrics it sounds more like a spoof of country:

Quote
Yeah, I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more
I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more (Kio, Kio)
I got the horses in the back
Horse tack is attached
Hat is matte black
Got the boots that's black to match
Ridin' on a horse, ha
You can whip your Porsche
I been in the valley
You ain't been up off the porch, now
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Ridin' on a tractor
Lean all in my bladder
Cheated on my baby
You can go and ask her
My life is a movie
Bull ridin' and boobies
Cowboy hat from Gucci
Wrangler on my booty
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Can't nobody tell me nothin'
You can't tell me nothin'
Yeah, I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more
I'm gonna take my horse to the old town road
I'm gonna ride 'til I can't no more
I got the-

And musically it's not "country" at all.

Either way, I don't believe it's an egregious example of "cultural appropriation."

Offline Captain Video

  • Superhero of the Silver Screen
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3129
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1846 on: April 08, 2019, 10:03:28 AM »
Its true the song doesn't say anything about mama.
Or trains, or trucks, or prison, or getting' drunk.

“Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Online Calinthalus

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6316
    • My Page
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1847 on: April 08, 2019, 10:05:33 AM »
Its true the song doesn't say anything about mama.
Or trains, or trucks, or prison, or getting' drunk.
If we write him a letter and tell him, will he write another verse to make it the perfect Country & Western song?
"I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image."
--Stephen Hawking

Offline Captain Video

  • Superhero of the Silver Screen
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3129
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1848 on: April 08, 2019, 10:23:48 AM »
Im ok with the concept of "Country Trap" Why not? I used to listen to "Country Punk"

(click to show/hide)

I cant agree that there is any such thing as CA other than derogatory mascots and the like but this goes double for music and food. 

I'm actually sitting at Zac Browns campground right now

(click to show/hide)
“Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6217
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1849 on: April 08, 2019, 10:52:24 AM »
Its true the song doesn't say anything about mama.
Or trains, or trucks, or prison, or getting' drunk.

If we write him a letter and tell him, will he write another verse to make it the perfect Country & Western song?

I wonder how many suburban housewives learned about David Allan Coe by that charming little song, then went on to discover the rest of his catalog is full of horrendous racist, sexist and homophobic songs like "N***** Fucker," "Fuckin' in the Butt" and "Little Suzie Shallow Throat".
« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 10:54:54 AM by John Albert »

Online Calinthalus

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6316
    • My Page
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1850 on: April 08, 2019, 11:09:46 AM »
Rest of his catalog?  That was one album.


He has long distanced himself from that album.  He wrote the whole thing for Shel Siverstein as a joke.  He lost to rights to it (as well as every other song he had written to that point) in a bankruptcy back in the pre-internet age.  He refuses to play those tracks and refuses to promote the "underground" sales of that album.


Most of them are shitty "shock" tracks like a ton of people were doing in the '70s.
"I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image."
--Stephen Hawking

Offline Captain Video

  • Superhero of the Silver Screen
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3129
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1851 on: April 08, 2019, 12:01:10 PM »
Its true the song doesn't say anything about mama.
Or trains, or trucks, or prison, or getting' drunk.

If we write him a letter and tell him, will he write another verse to make it the perfect Country & Western song?

I wonder how many suburban housewives learned about David Allan Coe by that charming little song, then went on to discover the rest of his catalog is full of horrendous racist, sexist and homophobic songs like "N***** Fucker," "Fuckin' in the Butt" and "Little Suzie Shallow Throat".

Suburban housewives listen to David Allan Coe? LOL

Guy is a racist asshole regardless of the songs.
“Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Offline Beleth

  • Administrator Emeritus
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8087
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1852 on: April 08, 2019, 02:25:28 PM »
I've watched enough of Adam Neely's videos to know that he discusses serious music theory in an entertaining, often humorous, way (IMHO). I'm sure he's serious about this too. What did he leave out?

This guy came out of nowhere...
How were the Scots harmed? How were they oppressed by hip hop artists? Who else is complaining about this injustice?

Good questions!

Is harm to the originating culture necessary to consider something "cultural appropriation"? The research I've done so far is unclear on this point.

How is harm measured to a culture? Are Indians actually harmed by this, for instance?

Why does it matter who else is complaining?

I asked first. Please answer my questions to resolve them so that we can move on to your next point you are attempting to make.

"Why does it matter who else is complaining"

Culture implies plurality of people. That is a minimum requirement. Is your YouTube friend Adam Neely the only one complaining about the Scots snap?

My answers to your questions depend on your answers to mine, so I can't answer first.

Adam Neely is not my friend. I do subscribe to his channel, but that is the limit of our relationship. Besides, he's not complaining about the Scottish snap; he's just pointing out the gray area of CA where it exists.

So? Maybe there is no climate change / global warming because it's cold in the north pole? I am starting to think he didn't find cultural appropriation because there wasn't any in the scenarios he fabricated in the first place? I vote confirmation bias...

Unless there is a group of scottish people out there complaining they have had their heritage stolen.

Does that mean you aren't going to answer my questions? Or should I infer from this reply that your answer to "Is harm necessary?" is "No." and your answer to "How is harm measured to a culture?" is "It isn't measured."?

If your standpoint is that culture implies plurality of people, and it takes more than one person to complain about cultural appropriation, then I would reply to that with the absurd but inevitable conclusion from those two statements is that cultural appropriation can be solved by eliminating all those who follow the appropriated culture. No one left = no one to complain = no harm done, according to your statements. That is simply ghastly and unconscionable.

Not only you are putting words in my mouth, you are also not making a whole lot of sense and drawing some really strange conclusions... **shrugs**.

I am afraid I am unable to follow your thought process. Please try again.

Okay.

Please answer my questions:
- Is harm to the originating culture necessary to consider something "cultural appropriation"?
- How is harm measured to a culture?
I expect to pass through this world but once;
any good thing therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now;
let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.
-- Stephan Grellet

Offline haudace

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Reality under scrutiny
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1853 on: April 08, 2019, 08:06:00 PM »
I've watched enough of Adam Neely's videos to know that he discusses serious music theory in an entertaining, often humorous, way (IMHO). I'm sure he's serious about this too. What did he leave out?

This guy came out of nowhere...
How were the Scots harmed? How were they oppressed by hip hop artists? Who else is complaining about this injustice?

Good questions!

Is harm to the originating culture necessary to consider something "cultural appropriation"? The research I've done so far is unclear on this point.

How is harm measured to a culture? Are Indians actually harmed by this, for instance?

Why does it matter who else is complaining?

I asked first. Please answer my questions to resolve them so that we can move on to your next point you are attempting to make.

"Why does it matter who else is complaining"

Culture implies plurality of people. That is a minimum requirement. Is your YouTube friend Adam Neely the only one complaining about the Scots snap?

My answers to your questions depend on your answers to mine, so I can't answer first.

Adam Neely is not my friend. I do subscribe to his channel, but that is the limit of our relationship. Besides, he's not complaining about the Scottish snap; he's just pointing out the gray area of CA where it exists.

So? Maybe there is no climate change / global warming because it's cold in the north pole? I am starting to think he didn't find cultural appropriation because there wasn't any in the scenarios he fabricated in the first place? I vote confirmation bias...

Unless there is a group of scottish people out there complaining they have had their heritage stolen.

Does that mean you aren't going to answer my questions? Or should I infer from this reply that your answer to "Is harm necessary?" is "No." and your answer to "How is harm measured to a culture?" is "It isn't measured."?

If your standpoint is that culture implies plurality of people, and it takes more than one person to complain about cultural appropriation, then I would reply to that with the absurd but inevitable conclusion from those two statements is that cultural appropriation can be solved by eliminating all those who follow the appropriated culture. No one left = no one to complain = no harm done, according to your statements. That is simply ghastly and unconscionable.

Not only you are putting words in my mouth, you are also not making a whole lot of sense and drawing some really strange conclusions... **shrugs**.

I am afraid I am unable to follow your thought process. Please try again.

Okay.

Please answer my questions:
- Is harm to the originating culture necessary to consider something "cultural appropriation"?
- How is harm measured to a culture?


I have answered this line of questioning a multitude of times in this thread.

Cultural appropriation occurs when a practice by a non-dominant culture is made irrelevant in favor of a similar version adopted by the dominant culture. Non dominant cultural practice can be marginalized or suppressed even to the point of extinction.

One specific example of this is portraits of God or Jesus which have over time somehow become represented by a blond blue eyed human in the western world. To be fair, a similar trend is observed in Asia where depiction of Jesus are Asiatic (non middle eastern).

Religious figures God and Jesus have been appropriated in full in the western world to the point that it is laughable to even attempt to bring up an ethnic God/Jesus. Even though Jesus was originally Jewish and most likely middle eastern, this never stopped people from turning into anti-Semites strangely enough.



Some Christians in specific parts of Asia would probably feel alienated by a different 'type' of Jesus the same way Megyn Kelly was taken aback by the thought of an ethnic Jesus.

This stuff always happens world wide. The only exception is that western world has become progressive enough to discuss these view points.

Now to answer your other question about harm. Honestly, it is clear this is a matter of opinion in this subforum :). Loss of culture, the history, is harmful in my honest opinion.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2019, 08:10:02 PM by haudace »

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6217
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1854 on: April 09, 2019, 04:39:13 PM »
Rest of his catalog?  That was one album.

It was a compilation album of tracks off some of his earlier, more obscene records.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 05:38:46 PM by John Albert »

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6217
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1855 on: April 09, 2019, 05:38:11 PM »
Cultural appropriation occurs when a practice by a non-dominant culture is made irrelevant in favor of a similar version adopted by the dominant culture.

This doesn't make sense to me. How can a cultural practice be "made irrelevant"?

Irrelevant to what? As decided by whom? In whose "favor" is the new "similar version" adopted? 


Non dominant cultural practice can be marginalized or suppressed even to the point of extinction.

Are you suggesting that, for example, if Taco Bell becomes too popular, that might cause ethnic Mexicans to stop eating their traditional tacos? Is there any evidence of this happening in real life?


One specific example of this is portraits of God or Jesus which have over time somehow become represented by a blond blue eyed human in the western world. To be fair, a similar trend is observed in Asia where depiction of Jesus are Asiatic (non middle eastern).

Don't forget about Black Jesus.

Most cultures tend to depict their gods with features similar to their own. How has this marginalized or suppressed anything?

The earlier paintings of Jesus from the Renaissance, Middle Ages and Antiquity still exist. Far from being suppressed, they're still among the most popular depictions of Jesus.


Religious figures God and Jesus have been appropriated in full in the western world to the point that it is laughable to even attempt to bring up an ethnic God/Jesus.

Laughable to whom? Certainly not to the people of the ethnic groups who identify with their own ethnic depiction of God.

Do you think that the recontextualization of "Black Jesus" does not offer a genuine faithful appeal, with its parallels to the history and struggles of black people in America?


Even though Jesus was originally Jewish and most likely middle eastern

How do you know what he looked like? There are no surviving firsthand depictions or physical descriptions of Jesus. That's assuming he ever existed at all.


Some Christians in specific parts of Asia would probably feel alienated by a different 'type' of Jesus the same way Megyn Kelly was taken aback by the thought of an ethnic Jesus.

That's because the entire purpose of religious iconography is to humanize a god, saint, or mythological figure to make them more relatable to the congregation. That's why most cultures tend to represent their gods with features similar to their own ethnicity. Who is being harmed by this practice?


If you want to talk "cultural appropriation" with regard to Christianity, now that's a discussion worth having.

There are plenty of examples of Christian missionaries discouraging or banning various cultural practices deemed ungodly under a Christian worldview, and recontextualizing other practices and festivities into celebrations of Christian mythology. Thus they reshaped the entire cultures to integrate Christianity as deeply as possible, as the populations were converted en masse.

A similar thing might happen in an economic context, I suppose. Like when an American company such as McDonald's comes into a new country with "localization strategy" and "regional offerings" to drive some of the more traditional mom and pop restaurants out of business. But is there any evidence that these situations completely stomp out the prior cultural practices? By all outward appearance it just adds a veneer of Americanization to the overall landscape.


This stuff always happens world wide.

That's because it's just the organic way in which culture spreads through human civilizations. Culture is always changing, with new practices being adopted and old ones falling by the wayside. It's usually not anybody's fault.   
 

The only exception is that western world has become progressive enough to discuss these view points.

And some sanctimonious, self-described "progressives" have latched onto that concept as an opportunity to play the blame game.

Don't get me wrong, I can surely see the harm in a dominant culture making public mockery or pantomime of the culture of some minority. That is certainly a harmful practice, but not because it renders the culture "irrelevant" (which I don't believe it necessarily does). That kind of thing is harmful because it belittles an already marginalized people in the eyes of the population at large.

« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 06:30:38 PM by John Albert »

Offline haudace

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Reality under scrutiny
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1856 on: April 09, 2019, 09:36:35 PM »
Cultural appropriation occurs when a practice by a non-dominant culture is made irrelevant in favor of a similar version adopted by the dominant culture.

This doesn't make sense to me. How can a cultural practice be "made irrelevant"?

Irrelevant to what? As decided by whom? In whose "favor" is the new "similar version" adopted? 

Don't play obtuse. For instance, an ethnically Jewish middle eastern Jesus is irrelevant to Christians in the western world.

Quote
The earlier paintings of Jesus from the Renaissance, Middle Ages and Antiquity still exist. Far from being suppressed, they're still among the most popular depictions of Jesus.

Which ones? Where are these popular depictions of a middle eastern Jesus in western christianity?

Quote
Religious figures God and Jesus have been appropriated in full in the western world to the point that it is laughable to even attempt to bring up an ethnic God/Jesus.

Laughable to whom? Certainly not to the people of the ethnic groups who identify with their own ethnic depiction of God.

Megyn Kelly is laughing about a black Jesus on TV on a major American network company.

Quote
Even though Jesus was originally Jewish and most likely middle eastern

How do you know what he looked like? There are no surviving firsthand depictions or physical descriptions of Jesus. That's assuming he ever existed at all.

You wrote this:
"Certainly not to the people of the ethnic groups who identify with their own ethnic depiction of God."
"Most cultures tend to depict their gods with features similar to their own. "
"That's because the entire purpose of religious iconography is to humanize a god, saint, or mythological figure to make them more relatable to the congregation."
"That's why most cultures tend to represent their gods with features similar to their own ethnicity."

I think you already have the answer to your own questions.

Also, I also have many doubts over the historicity of Jesus. There are far too many similarities with other ancient mythical / religious personalities from other regions surrounding Israel.

Some Christians in specific parts of Asia would probably feel alienated by a different 'type' of Jesus the same way Megyn Kelly was taken aback by the thought of an ethnic Jesus.

That's why most cultures tend to represent their gods with features similar to their own ethnicity. Who is being harmed by this practice?

Refer to: "Now to answer your other question about harm. Honestly, it is clear this is a matter of opinion in this subforum :). Loss of culture, the history, is harmful in my honest opinion."
I have no other suitable answer. **shrugs**

One way to interpret my response is that people can appreciate and tolerate another culture some more by recognizing its contributions. But like I said, this is a matter of opinion. Things that have been stated here lead me to believe some do not even consider that foreign cultures are to be valued - instead preferring integration or assimilation into the dominant culture.

So yeah - harm is in the eye of the beholder.

Quote
If you want to talk "cultural appropriation" with regard to Christianity, now that's a discussion worth having.

There are plenty of examples of Christian missionaries discouraging or banning various cultural practices deemed ungodly under a Christian worldview, and recontextualizing other practices and festivities into celebrations of Christian mythology. Thus they reshaped the entire cultures to integrate Christianity as deeply as possible, as the populations were converted en masse.

Generally, you are describing the history of where I was born :) with one exception. The missionaries did NOT discourage/ban/re-contextualize. That wording trivializes a bit what colonials did in some parts of the world. They outright eliminated, often through force and subjugation of native populations, any sort of practices and festivities they deemed ungodly :).

Quote
A similar thing might happen in an economic context, I suppose. Like when an American company such as McDonald's comes into a new country with "localization strategy" and "regional offerings" to drive some of the more traditional mom and pop restaurants out of business. But is there any evidence that these situations completely stomp out the prior cultural practices? By all outward appearance it just adds a veneer of Americanization to the overall landscape.

Hilariously, up here in Canada, Tim Hortons ("timmies") has undergone some kind of corporate change / takeover where they no longer follow their traditional old cooking/preparation of food. They took shortcuts and it shows. Friends and acquaintances occasionally complain about it.

Tim Hortons is often associated with our Canadian-ness but many people are definitely switching over to McDonald's. Voting with their wallets.

Loss of traditional timmies is unfortunate BS. There is also a reddit thread where people like to wallow over the loss https://www.reddit.com/r/canada/comments/aq2hyl/tim_hortons_what_happened/

This stuff always happens world wide.

That's because it's just the organic way in which culture spreads through human civilizations. Culture is always changing, with new practices being adopted and old ones falling by the wayside. It's usually not anybody's fault.   

Why does this feel like you are playing defense lawyer for someone?
 
The only exception is that western world has become progressive enough to discuss these view points.
Don't get me wrong, I can surely see the harm in a dominant culture making public mockery or pantomime of the culture of some minority. That is certainly a harmful practice, but not because it renders the culture "irrelevant" (which I don't believe it necessarily does). That kind of thing is harmful because it belittles an already marginalized people in the eyes of the population at large.

Lol this part ticks me off so much.

Imagine if I said water is wet. Then you come in: Noooooooooooooooooooooooo, water is not wet but it certainly is a liquid.

Me: Yo that guy fell.
You: People are not necessarily falling they are just attracted by earth's gravity. The idea of falling is a misunderstanding of reference frame. Think about it, someone on the other side of the planet is "falling" towards you. From your perspective they are falling up! It is much better to say earth gravity is attracting them to properly describe the physical phenomenon.

Me: renders the culture "irrelevant"
You: Nooooo not irrelevant. It belittles an already marginalized people etc...

What the actual f*** dude? ??? ???

Offline John Albert

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6217
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1857 on: April 10, 2019, 12:41:05 PM »
Cultural appropriation occurs when a practice by a non-dominant culture is made irrelevant in favor of a similar version adopted by the dominant culture.

This doesn't make sense to me. How can a cultural practice be "made irrelevant"?

Irrelevant to what? As decided by whom? In whose "favor" is the new "similar version" adopted? 

Don't play obtuse. For instance, an ethnically Jewish middle eastern Jesus is irrelevant to Christians in the western world.

"Play obtuse"? No.

The above statements are nebulous. I'm asking for clarification. 

Your "Jesus" example is not really a case of cultural appropriation. Nobody knows what Jesus really looked like, if he ever existed at all. Hence, there is no original or single correct way to depict Jesus. Jesus is a mythological figure, so artists of all cultures depict him however they prefer.


Quote
The earlier paintings of Jesus from the Renaissance, Middle Ages and Antiquity still exist. Far from being suppressed, they're still among the most popular depictions of Jesus.

Which ones? Where are these popular depictions of a middle eastern Jesus in western christianity?

The most common features of Jesus throughout the centuries are a dark beard and long, brown hair. The Byzantines tended to depict him with olive skin and wavy hair. The early Catholic depictions also have dark eyes and hair.

The blond hair and blue eyed Jesuses are actually quite rare. The earliest ones came from Northern Europe where those traits are common. There was also a resurgence of the blond Jesus image in the 19th and 20th Century. But those newer depictions have not replaced the older ones.

I don't understand where you get the idea that a blond, blue-eyed Jesus has "replaced" the earlier depictions or made them irrelevant. Since the advent of "blond Jesus," we've also had "Black Jesus" and "Asian Jesus." A simple Google search will reveal lots of various depictions of Jesus. Some of them portray a man with the kind of features that you personally deem to be authentic.


Quote
Religious figures God and Jesus have been appropriated in full in the western world to the point that it is laughable to even attempt to bring up an ethnic God/Jesus.

Laughable to whom? Certainly not to the people of the ethnic groups who identify with their own ethnic depiction of God.

Megyn Kelly is laughing about a black Jesus on TV on a major American network company.

It's not surprising that some other culture is laughable to a racist Fox TV pundit like Megyn Kelly. 

But are you holding Megyn Kelly up as emblematic of the views of Western society in general? Or even just American society?

And that is supposed to be evidence that "blond Jesus" is cultural appropriation?


Refer to: "Now to answer your other question about harm. Honestly, it is clear this is a matter of opinion in this subforum :). Loss of culture, the history, is harmful in my honest opinion."
I have no other suitable answer. **shrugs**

So you're admitting it's just your opinion that "loss of culture" is harmful. Yet you haven't shown any examples of a "loss of culture" resulting from cultural appropriation.


Why does this feel like you are playing defense lawyer for someone?

Maybe because you're accusing entire societies of doing something very bad, and I don't see it that way?


The only exception is that western world has become progressive enough to discuss these view points.

Don't get me wrong, I can surely see the harm in a dominant culture making public mockery or pantomime of the culture of some minority. That is certainly a harmful practice, but not because it renders the culture "irrelevant" (which I don't believe it necessarily does). That kind of thing is harmful because it belittles an already marginalized people in the eyes of the population at large.

Lol this part ticks me off so much.

Imagine if I said water is wet. Then you come in: Noooooooooooooooooooooooo, water is not wet but it certainly is a liquid.

Me: Yo that guy fell.
You: People are not necessarily falling they are just attracted by earth's gravity. The idea of falling is a misunderstanding of reference frame. Think about it, someone on the other side of the planet is "falling" towards you. From your perspective they are falling up! It is much better to say earth gravity is attracting them to properly describe the physical phenomenon.

Me: renders the culture "irrelevant"
You: Nooooo not irrelevant. It belittles an already marginalized people etc...

What the actual f*** dude? ??? ???

I don't know what to say to this. I just gave my opinion on the matter.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. What I said was, that mocking or belittling the culture of a marginalized people is the harmful part.

It has nothing to do with "replacing" or "destroying" somebody's culture or history. That sounds more like imperialism, which is a far more purposeful and coordinated threat than mere cultural appropriation.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 01:20:01 PM by John Albert »

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4900
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1858 on: April 10, 2019, 02:07:25 PM »
Also just about every Indian restaurant I have ever been too has vegetable biryani and they are all owned by people from India.

Much like the "chop suey" created by Chinese American immigrants to suit American palates, "vegetable biryani" and "chicken tikka masala" are not really authentic Indian dishes.

I thought chop suey was the below. ;)

(click to show/hide)

Cultural appropriation or not?

Why wouldn't this particular Indian food (that I've never heard of before) be subject to evolution?

Biryani has a history in the context of Indian cuisine. It represents the Persian and Arabian influences on the cuisine, and is related to kabsa in Middle Eastern cooking. The basis of those dishes is rice and meat; it's what the dish is. A vegetarian simmered rice dish is properly called a pulao, not a biryani.

The whole point of the article's criticism of "vegetable biryani" was that it's not an authentic evolution of Indian food, but a bastardization of an Indian dish by a non-Indian cook who clearly does not understand the cuisine. It's not a moral judgment about whether it's okay to make and sell an inauthentic desi-themed food to an unwitting public, but a simple point of fact that it's technically incorrect to call a rice and vegetable dish "biryani."   

On the whole, Indian people seem very proud of their country's unique food, so this kind of objection is not surprising. It's up to you whether or not you choose to respect the opinion of an Indian person who grew up eating that cuisine.

Fair enough, but it seems to imply in your text that if an Indian cook had "bastardized" it, it would be a different matter. That criteria seems a little dubious to me.

Also, why would it be totally different if a vegetarian option was made, based on soy, for example? Meatballs can have a vegetarian substitute and still be called meatballs. Vegetarian meatballs.

If there is a demand for a vegetarian version, then such a version is very likely to appear, as Captain Video's anecdote seems to suggest.

This appeal to laissez faire capitalism argument would probably make the bastardization even more obnoxious in the eyes of food purists. After all, we're talking about India, the most vegetarian country in the world by far. As such, Indian food culture is perhaps the world's most vegetarian-friendly. So it's not surprising for an Indian to express disdain over some non-Indian restaurant offering a cheap veggie knock-off of one of their country's most popular dishes.

Maybe not surprising that some Indians are disdained. I suppose other Indians might be in favor of it. And yet other Indians indifferent. I have a hard time getting fired up over it.

To think of a particular food as having some sort of essence seems fallacious to me. Foods and cuisines are evolving, not static.

It's not that the food has an unquantifiable "essence" as such. It's that the names of dishes have meaning for the people who know that particular food, and people familiar with the cuisine are able to recognize when some traditional dish is being made incorrectly.

Fair enough.

I've learned that the tacos we eat in Sweden are very different from the ones you can find in Mexico. Apparently they are rather Swedified tacos. We used minced meat as filling, which they apparently don't in Mexico.

Who told you that? Mexican tacos quite often contain minced meat.

A colleague of mine who has visited Mexico told me that.

There is as it happens a distinction between sushi in Japan and Western-style sushi. Again, I find this hard to object to, and have a hard time to understand why others would find it objectionable.

Look at this Japanese seafood pizza with squid ink sauce, or these so-called "sushi burritos" for that matter.

As far as I'm concerned, all the variety just makes food more interesting.

I completely agree! :)

https://twitter.com/Birdyword/status/1038807797184352256
"I’m a member of no party. I have no ideology. I’m a rationalist. I do what I can in the international struggle between science and reason and the barbarism, superstition and stupidity that’s all around us." - Christopher Hitchens

Offline haudace

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Reality under scrutiny
Re: some thoughts on cultural appropriation
« Reply #1859 on: April 17, 2019, 08:25:44 AM »
Cultural appropriation occurs when a practice by a non-dominant culture is made irrelevant in favor of a similar version adopted by the dominant culture.

This doesn't make sense to me. How can a cultural practice be "made irrelevant"?

Irrelevant to what? As decided by whom? In whose "favor" is the new "similar version" adopted? 

Don't play obtuse. For instance, an ethnically Jewish middle eastern Jesus is irrelevant to Christians in the western world.

"Play obtuse"? No.

The above statements are nebulous. I'm asking for clarification. 

What exactly did you find nebulous?

Have you seen a middle eastern Jesus mainstream in the western world?

Your "Jesus" example is not really a case of cultural appropriation. Nobody knows what Jesus really looked like, if he ever existed at all. Hence, there is no original or single correct way to depict Jesus. Jesus is a mythological figure, so artists of all cultures depict him however they prefer.


Jesus of Nazareth is very confusing indeed. Dude, I am not trying to argue whether or not Jesus was historical as an atheist I also am very skeptical of certain things about this character. But let's stop pretending that it is impossible to approximate where the Jesus Christ character originated.

There are Egyptian Gods, Norse Gods, Mayan Gods etc... There is no doubt where these belief systems began and became prominent. Imagine depicting Odin with any other features that aren't European.

Anyways, your point about preference is not true at all especially after I have posted a clip of Megyn Kelly mocking the possibility of an ethnic Jesus or a Santa on a major TV network, while her other colleagues are nodding in agreement. This is a symptom of cultural appropriation.

Nobody knows what Jesus really looked like, if he ever existed at all. Hence, there is no original or single correct way to depict Jesus. Jesus is a mythological figure,

Do you remember the outcry when people wanted to make spiderman or Heimdall another ethnicity?

It is very apparent the character of being mythological or fictional is not particularly important in these types of conversation.


Quote
The earlier paintings of Jesus from the Renaissance, Middle Ages and Antiquity still exist. Far from being suppressed, they're still among the most popular depictions of Jesus.

Which ones? Where are these popular depictions of a middle eastern Jesus in western christianity?

The most common features of Jesus throughout the centuries are a dark beard and long, brown hair. The Byzantines tended to depict him with olive skin and wavy hair. The early Catholic depictions also have dark eyes and hair.

The blond hair and blue eyed Jesuses are actually quite rare. The earliest ones came from Northern Europe where those traits are common. There was also a resurgence of the blond Jesus image in the 19th and 20th Century. But those newer depictions have not replaced the older ones.

My whole point that was probably missed is that Jesus stopped being middle eastern.

Here is your google search: https://www.google.com/search?biw=1920&bih=937&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=8Aa3XJH9MJCRggeh4KrADg&q=jesus&oq=jesus&gs_l=img.3..0l5j0i67l2j0l3.9509.10027..10245...0.0..0.86.423.5......1....1..gws-wiz-img.9lpRj4fw6p8

I don't understand where you get the idea that a blond, blue-eyed Jesus has "replaced" the earlier depictions or made them irrelevant. Since the advent of "blond Jesus," we've also had "Black Jesus" and "Asian Jesus." A simple Google search will reveal lots of various depictions of Jesus. Some of them portray a man with the kind of features that you personally deem to be authentic.

This is a simple misunderstanding of the point I am trying to make.

I don't personally believe in Jesus or any other divinities, gods and I have a hard time with superstitious beliefs in general. It is not my opinion or personal view that Jesus is considered to be a Jew from Galilee or Nazareth or whatever.

I am simply describing an example of cultural appropriation where a Jesus in the western world is no longer an expected ethnicity.

Quote
Religious figures God and Jesus have been appropriated in full in the western world to the point that it is laughable to even attempt to bring up an ethnic God/Jesus.

Laughable to whom? Certainly not to the people of the ethnic groups who identify with their own ethnic depiction of God.

Megyn Kelly is laughing about a black Jesus on TV on a major American network company.

It's not surprising that some other culture is laughable to a racist Fox TV pundit like Megyn Kelly. 

But are you holding Megyn Kelly up as emblematic of the views of Western society in general? Or even just American society?

And that is supposed to be evidence that "blond Jesus" is cultural appropriation?

Jesus not being middle eastern, even the possibility of it being a laughing matter, is a symptom of cultural appropriation. But that was only an example. Now, picture going to Alabama and showing imagery of an ethnic Jesus.

But if you want to get into a conversation how racist certain portion of the American society is:
1. Look at the number of how many people voted for Donald Trump even after his racist dishonest rhetoric. Dude received 62,984,828 votes according to wikipedia.

2. This picture should send chills down your spine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_in_the_United_States_criminal_justice_system



Refer to: "Now to answer your other question about harm. Honestly, it is clear this is a matter of opinion in this subforum :). Loss of culture, the history, is harmful in my honest opinion."
I have no other suitable answer. **shrugs**

So you're admitting it's just your opinion that "loss of culture" is harmful. Yet you haven't shown any examples of a "loss of culture" resulting from cultural appropriation.


Why does this feel like you are playing defense lawyer for someone?

Maybe because you're accusing entire societies of doing something very bad, and I don't see it that way?

Nope - just realizing how frustrating it is to be a person in my position... You are in a very privileged position, all you have to do is deny. The burden of proof is not on you. It is really hard when arguing with someone who is ardent on denying every single smallest thing. Walls erected everywhere lol.

We view things very differently. To me, it is not a matter of opinion. For you, it is.

The only exception is that western world has become progressive enough to discuss these view points.

Don't get me wrong, I can surely see the harm in a dominant culture making public mockery or pantomime of the culture of some minority. That is certainly a harmful practice, but not because it renders the culture "irrelevant" (which I don't believe it necessarily does). That kind of thing is harmful because it belittles an already marginalized people in the eyes of the population at large.

Lol this part ticks me off so much.

Imagine if I said water is wet. Then you come in: Noooooooooooooooooooooooo, water is not wet but it certainly is a liquid.

Me: Yo that guy fell.
You: People are not necessarily falling they are just attracted by earth's gravity. The idea of falling is a misunderstanding of reference frame. Think about it, someone on the other side of the planet is "falling" towards you. From your perspective they are falling up! It is much better to say earth gravity is attracting them to properly describe the physical phenomenon.

Me: renders the culture "irrelevant"
You: Nooooo not irrelevant. It belittles an already marginalized people etc...

What the actual f*** dude? ??? ???

I don't know what to say to this. I just gave my opinion on the matter.

It felt distracting, contrarian and dismissive.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. What I said was, that mocking or belittling the culture of a marginalized people is the harmful part.

It has nothing to do with "replacing" or "destroying" somebody's culture or history. That sounds more like imperialism, which is a far more purposeful and coordinated threat than mere cultural appropriation.

I agree imperialism is too strong of a word. What is the end result of "mocking or belittling the culture of a marginalized people" though? In what way, is it harmful? To me, that is low level oppression.

Evidently, I have an answer to this question, my comment history in this thread shows it. On the other hand, I honestly don't know where yours takes you... What do you think is the consequence of mocking/belittlement behavior?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 08:28:39 AM by haudace »