4 ms·

Cultural appropriation is one of those notions I've never quite been able to grasp. Are there notable cases where it causes people real, tangible harm?

by fenomas 11y ago

Zikes 11y ago
There is little that could be said about cultural appropriation that could not also be said about interracial marriage. It's good that you can't grasp the notion, because it is based in irrational thinking.
- StudyAnimal 11y ago
  Very good analogy! Actually it isn't even an analogy its more like the hard science.
forgingahead 11y ago
Of course not. "Harm" doesn't come into it, it is always about manufactured outrage and the money that can be generated from such manufactured outrage.
tomlock 11y ago
Depends on what you consider tangible harm. It came close recently in this instance: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-20/australian-couple-mobbed-in-india-over-hindu-deity-tattoo/6867722 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-20/australian-couple-mobb...
- cthalupa 11y ago
  I imagine he was asking for tangible harm to the culture being appropriated, and not tangible harm coming to someone doing the appropriation because people were offended.
Alosio 11y ago
I think examples of harm, would be how like in the 20th century African American musicians had a much more difficult time selling their music, but the same music would garner a much larger audience if played by white musicians. Its not simply white people performing black music, that is wrong, but rather that the white people filled a demand for black music that could have been supplied by the original culture were the market not racist. Its like, no direct racism, but making racism easier? If those white people had said "No I will not play this music", then the market would either have had to listen to black muscians or not get the music at all.
- noobermin 11y ago
  To be honest, that might be confusing the consequent with the cause. To me, that sounds like racism is the original issue, at blacks having their music not listened to really is just a part of the larger society's racism towards blacks in general. It's not that appropriation was the problem, but racism will lead to appropriation.
  - Alosio 11y ago
    I think the the appropriation can still be said to be a problem in that the people appropriating music might not even be racist, there is nothing inherently wrong with playing or selling another cultures music. But by doing so they are "aiding and abetting" a racist society by enabling racists to listen to music they desire, from people they desire. If they choose not to it makes it harder for racists to be racist.
  - potatolicious 11y ago
    When it comes to culture, the consequent and the cause are not easily separable and often feed back into each other. It's very hard (indeed, practically impossible) to say that X culture existed because of Y culture - in reality they were all tangled up in each other and likely self-reinforcing. In reality X causes Y causes X causes Y causes Z causes Y causes X. Which IMO is the case if we're talking about the 50s cover phenomenon - the covers arose out of pre-existing racist culture, but said racism was allowed to more easily persist itself via the covers, which allowed radio stations an avenue to provide black R&B (that the audience clearly wanted) without forcing people to confront the fact that it's black R&B by relabeling it and dropping an all-white cover band on it. The success of said white cover bands (who were able to get much more airtime than their black counterparts, because duh reasons) was also used to reinforce the superiority of the white covers over the originals. Sadly, a lot of things have feedback loops built into them, it makes untangling cause and effect pretty hard. Not sure how familiar you are with the phenomenon - it's all rather fascinating, if not a bit depressing to study. It wasn't so much that black bands weren't being listened to - they were, some managed to chart, and they were at the very forefront of a generation's changing preferences. The (to some people, alarming) popularity of these bands is what prompted the covers in the first place, in large part driven by concerned parents who feared their children listening to black musicians, but were under the gun to provide an alternative outlet for a new generation whose tastes were markedly different than their parents'. I think there's a pretty strong case that the cover band phenomenon made it easier for existing racism to persist - though of course that's not particularly quantifiable - in any case I think it's not particularly farfetched to say that the whole phenomenon was harmful. If you're interested in listening to some concrete examples (all of these are on Spotify), the aesthetics here are fascinating: Sh-Boom by The Chords, covered by The Crew-Cuts (whose band name clearly wins the award for "least subtle reflection of society's fears in the 50s") Tutti Frutti by Little Richard, covered by Pat Boone (who was a central figure in the cover phenomenon, and largely built his career on covering and out-charting a vast number of black musicians) and because we just celebrated Back to the Future Day - Earth Angel by The Penguins, covered the Crew-Cuts (again with them!)
jahewson 11y ago
I assume that blackface and minsteral shows would be the cannonical example. While not ill-intentioned, they were inarguably insensitive and trivialising towards people who were very much marginalised at that point in time. That may have lead to a reinforcement of stereotypes which ensured continued marginalisation - so a harmful feedback loop. Of course that couldn't be more different from the events of this news piece. The arrogance of the "offendees" is an astounding exercise in suppressing cultural awareness and integration. Talk about supremacy.
- venomsnake 11y ago
  > I assume that blackface and minsteral shows would be the cannonical example. In eastern Europe and Russia blackface is chimney sweeper usually. Also there are virtually no black people there. The world is big.
  - pluma 11y ago
    Not sure why this was downvoted. When I was a child (in Germany) blackface was common for chimney sweeper costumes (representing soot). I grew up in a city but there was only one black kid in our entire school -- and to be frank, it would have never occurred to me to shame him for his skin colour. I'm aware of the implications of blackface in the US (and of blackface used to actually imitate darker skin tones) but it's incredibly insulting to assume that the US is representative for all Western cultures.

Cultural appropriation is one of those notions I've never quite been able to grasp. Are there notable cases where it causes people real, tangible harm?

by fenomas 11y ago

Cultural appropriation is one of those notions I've never quite been able to grasp. Are there notable cases where it causes people real, tangible harm?

Zikes 11y ago

There is little that could be said about cultural appropriation that could not also be said about interracial marriage. It's good that you can't grasp the notion, because it is based in irrational thinking.

StudyAnimal 11y ago
Very good analogy! Actually it isn't even an analogy its more like the hard science.

forgingahead 11y ago

Of course not. "Harm" doesn't come into it, it is always about manufactured outrage and the money that can be generated from such manufactured outrage.

tomlock 11y ago

Depends on what you consider tangible harm. It came close recently in this instance: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-20/australian-couple-mobbed-in-india-over-hindu-deity-tattoo/6867722 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-20/australian-couple-mobb...

cthalupa 11y ago
I imagine he was asking for tangible harm to the culture being appropriated, and not tangible harm coming to someone doing the appropriation because people were offended.

Alosio 11y ago

I think examples of harm, would be how like in the 20th century African American musicians had a much more difficult time selling their music, but the same music would garner a much larger audience if played by white musicians. Its not simply white people performing black music, that is wrong, but rather that the white people filled a demand for black music that could have been supplied by the original culture were the market not racist. Its like, no direct racism, but making racism easier? If those white people had said "No I will not play this music", then the market would either have had to listen to black muscians or not get the music at all.

noobermin 11y ago
To be honest, that might be confusing the consequent with the cause. To me, that sounds like racism is the original issue, at blacks having their music not listened to really is just a part of the larger society's racism towards blacks in general. It's not that appropriation was the problem, but racism will lead to appropriation.
- Alosio 11y ago
  I think the the appropriation can still be said to be a problem in that the people appropriating music might not even be racist, there is nothing inherently wrong with playing or selling another cultures music. But by doing so they are "aiding and abetting" a racist society by enabling racists to listen to music they desire, from people they desire. If they choose not to it makes it harder for racists to be racist.
- potatolicious 11y ago
  When it comes to culture, the consequent and the cause are not easily separable and often feed back into each other. It's very hard (indeed, practically impossible) to say that X culture existed because of Y culture - in reality they were all tangled up in each other and likely self-reinforcing. In reality X causes Y causes X causes Y causes Z causes Y causes X. Which IMO is the case if we're talking about the 50s cover phenomenon - the covers arose out of pre-existing racist culture, but said racism was allowed to more easily persist itself via the covers, which allowed radio stations an avenue to provide black R&B (that the audience clearly wanted) without forcing people to confront the fact that it's black R&B by relabeling it and dropping an all-white cover band on it. The success of said white cover bands (who were able to get much more airtime than their black counterparts, because duh reasons) was also used to reinforce the superiority of the white covers over the originals. Sadly, a lot of things have feedback loops built into them, it makes untangling cause and effect pretty hard. Not sure how familiar you are with the phenomenon - it's all rather fascinating, if not a bit depressing to study. It wasn't so much that black bands weren't being listened to - they were, some managed to chart, and they were at the very forefront of a generation's changing preferences. The (to some people, alarming) popularity of these bands is what prompted the covers in the first place, in large part driven by concerned parents who feared their children listening to black musicians, but were under the gun to provide an alternative outlet for a new generation whose tastes were markedly different than their parents'. I think there's a pretty strong case that the cover band phenomenon made it easier for existing racism to persist - though of course that's not particularly quantifiable - in any case I think it's not particularly farfetched to say that the whole phenomenon was harmful. If you're interested in listening to some concrete examples (all of these are on Spotify), the aesthetics here are fascinating: Sh-Boom by The Chords, covered by The Crew-Cuts (whose band name clearly wins the award for "least subtle reflection of society's fears in the 50s") Tutti Frutti by Little Richard, covered by Pat Boone (who was a central figure in the cover phenomenon, and largely built his career on covering and out-charting a vast number of black musicians) and because we just celebrated Back to the Future Day - Earth Angel by The Penguins, covered the Crew-Cuts (again with them!)

jahewson 11y ago

I assume that blackface and minsteral shows would be the cannonical example. While not ill-intentioned, they were inarguably insensitive and trivialising towards people who were very much marginalised at that point in time. That may have lead to a reinforcement of stereotypes which ensured continued marginalisation - so a harmful feedback loop. Of course that couldn't be more different from the events of this news piece. The arrogance of the "offendees" is an astounding exercise in suppressing cultural awareness and integration. Talk about supremacy.

venomsnake 11y ago
> I assume that blackface and minsteral shows would be the cannonical example. In eastern Europe and Russia blackface is chimney sweeper usually. Also there are virtually no black people there. The world is big.
- pluma 11y ago
  Not sure why this was downvoted. When I was a child (in Germany) blackface was common for chimney sweeper costumes (representing soot). I grew up in a city but there was only one black kid in our entire school -- and to be frank, it would have never occurred to me to shame him for his skin colour. I'm aware of the implications of blackface in the US (and of blackface used to actually imitate darker skin tones) but it's incredibly insulting to assume that the US is representative for all Western cultures.