5 ms·

The idea that all cultures belong to "mankind" is grease for the wheels of appropriation. People have a right to choose what they share with others. There's a

The idea that all cultures belong to "mankind" is grease for the wheels of appropriation. People have a right to choose what they share with others. There's a certain phrase that people from my county use to express surprise and approval. It isn't widely known. When I use it around neighbors, they know what I'm conveying, and it identifies us as kindred. I could tell you what it is, and you might like it. You might even start using it just because you like the sound of it. And it might become very popular, and soon, all kinds of people from all kinds of places might bond over its use. Hell, people might even make T-shirts. But I choose not to. It's a shibboleth for me and the folks back home, and that use is valuable to us. You don't have the right to force me to share it. If I wanted to explore its etymology, survey exactly how widely it's used, or argue that it's related to a similar phrase in a nearby region, I could certainly do those things and might choose to. But if I don't, human culture as a whole doesn't get a crack at it just because I passed on the opportunity. It's a bit of a contrived example, because I'm not talking about the Bhagavad Gita here, but I hope you see what I'm getting at. The transmission of culture between peoples should be based on a mutual interest in sharing and learning, not some sense of global entitlement.

kwhitefoot 9y ago
I think that is the first time I have seen shibboleth used in a neutral way. Everywhere else I have seen it used there has always been an implication that the making of distinctions like this was negative. I'm not making a value judgement here, it just struck me as unusual.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pbhjpbhj 9y ago
I couldn't disagree more. You lose nothing if I too wear a tartan pattern, say. You're just being mean. FWIW it's a stage toddlers go through, not wanting other's to use what they use or do what they do. Assuming you're USAmerican, USA has "appropriated" the scientific culture of Russia by also going to space; appropriated the beer making culture of Europe; appropriated the Television/Computer culture of Britain; the number system born from Indian/Persian culture; appropriated the high-fashion culture of Paris/Milan/etc. in some of it's cities; appropriated the food culture of Mexico/Germany/Italy/wherever; appropriated the traditional medicines that gave rise to drugs like aspirin; et cetera. Why do you want to stop positive advancements from being adopted by everyone, is it just greed? Why do you care what culture the music someone else listens to was born from. Of course you should be allowed to not adopt other's culture if that's your choice, only use anything you've created from scratch yourself (tool use I think arose out of E. African culture, better avoid that) - otherwise you're appropriating somebody's culture in some way.
- FroshKiller 9y ago
  Did you miss this bit? "The transmission of culture between peoples should be based on a mutual interest in sharing and learning, not some sense of global entitlement."
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    No. Define "mutual interest"? If something in your culture benefits me, why does my use of it have to be dependent on that also benefiting you? Indeed if its a loss for a small people group but a benefit globally then surely that's a positive thing. Would you for example argue lack of distinctiveness as a negative thing, in which case you could be blocking all sharing by demanding "mutual interest".
  - FroshKiller 9y ago
    I don't want to be rude, pbhjpbhj, but I'm honestly not sure how to respond to that. I don't think I'm the right person to have that talk with you, and even if I am, this certainly doesn't seem like the right place or time.
    - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
      Fair enough. Though I'm interested if you can give specifics, like tell us what culture you identify with primarily and what aspects of that culture you want to keep for only people you identify as 'in' (belonging, if you will). Maybe expand and show what you're foregoing from other cultures, like if you're not Chinese so avoid cultivated rice, or whatever.
d0lph 9y ago
So you're saying that since your culture does not belong to mankind, that it belongs to you and your neighbors?Certainly you can't be forced to teach others this phrase, but neither can you stop someone else from using it. Other countries often appropriate English words and phrases, and yet it's not considered offensive.
- FroshKiller 9y ago
  Well, being a member of mankind, my culture does at some point stop being "my" culture alone. If my neighbors and I were to perish, I couldn't stop cultural anthropologists from trying to piece together our ways to better understand us. And I really wouldn't want to, honestly. But I certainly don't want a bunch of carpetbaggers helping themselves to my culture in a way that would erode its meaning. So as a living member of the culture, I choose to share or not share based on what I value, why I value it, and how best I judge to nurture it. Would it be better for me, my people, and humanity if I shared this? Do I judge there is more value in not sharing while we are alive? Do I have a responsibility to preserve and transmit my culture--at least among my people? Simple language is an example that breaks down fast, because I don't really lose anything by teaching you a phrase and its meaning. If my words live in one more mouth, there aren't fewer words for me to say. But even the meaning of words can change based on who uses them and how. A better example might be a sacred text. I may have a "family Bible" handed down through centuries. The book itself might be a valuable cultural artifact, and the individual contributions by my ancestors might constitute a body of knowledge of interest to others. But it isn't anyone else's right to demand access to my "family Bible." There is no onus on my family to produce a digital copy, no moral obligation to permit visitors to leaf through its pages. And you certainly may not hire men with guns to come into my home and take it just because I leave it on the coffee table instead of a safe. You may not kick in my door to preserve it just because the cat sleeps on it. But when I am dead and no kin remain to claim it? Take it, study it, put it in a museum.
panglott 9y ago
It can be grease for the wheels of appropriation, sure. And that kind of universalization can be a further cultural attack on minority peoples—saying that not even the language shared between mother and child is the legitimate domain of the people. But archaeological remains aren't really necessarily an artifact of the culture that lives there now. Sometimes there is a continuous cultural tradition that claims them, and sometimes not. The Mississippian mounds of the midwestern US aren't an artifact of the U.S. of A., for example—they were in danger of being looted by Americans more than anything, in the 19th century certainly. And much as an international militia for the defense of archaeological remains is a bad idea, I think the OP was talking more about ISIS blowing up the Temple of Baalshamin in Palmyra or the Taliban blowing up Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. The locals are likely descended from the people who built those structures, but we do all lose something. These religious structures were not shibboleths, but public structures into which people poured their creativity, their personality, their values, their traditions to communicate them within and beyond their community. I am not a Christian, but I am moved by the Sistine Chapel—this was Michaelangelo's goal. I am moved by the Hagia Sophia, by the Ishtar Gate. If the Romans decide to blow up the Vatican, or the Canadians invade Missouri and carry off the artifacts of Cahokia, it's a loss to more than the residents of Rome and St. Louis. Even if (as with Palmyra &c.) it's locals who object most strongly and are the most injured.
- FroshKiller 9y ago
  "We" as outsiders only lose the potential of having that culture shared with us. If your co-worker wrecks his car, you haven't lost the ability to drive it. You never had it. He might have chosen to let you drive it, or he might have chosen to let you ride in it, but you haven't lost anything just because the car might have been useful to you. Sympathy is the appropriate response. Being ready to help people defend their culture in a conflict is fine, being ready to help people preserve culture before a conflict is fine, being available to help people recover what they can after a conflict is fine, but undermining people to preserve your expectation of value (like by hiring mercenaries to secure archives in a conflict zone) is not. That is an important difference.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
vgh 9y ago
"Shibboleth"? Cultural appropriation!

kwhitefoot 9y ago

I think that is the first time I have seen shibboleth used in a neutral way. Everywhere else I have seen it used there has always been an implication that the making of distinctions like this was negative. I'm not making a value judgement here, it just struck me as unusual.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pbhjpbhj 9y ago

I couldn't disagree more. You lose nothing if I too wear a tartan pattern, say. You're just being mean. FWIW it's a stage toddlers go through, not wanting other's to use what they use or do what they do. Assuming you're USAmerican, USA has "appropriated" the scientific culture of Russia by also going to space; appropriated the beer making culture of Europe; appropriated the Television/Computer culture of Britain; the number system born from Indian/Persian culture; appropriated the high-fashion culture of Paris/Milan/etc. in some of it's cities; appropriated the food culture of Mexico/Germany/Italy/wherever; appropriated the traditional medicines that gave rise to drugs like aspirin; et cetera. Why do you want to stop positive advancements from being adopted by everyone, is it just greed? Why do you care what culture the music someone else listens to was born from. Of course you should be allowed to not adopt other's culture if that's your choice, only use anything you've created from scratch yourself (tool use I think arose out of E. African culture, better avoid that) - otherwise you're appropriating somebody's culture in some way.

FroshKiller 9y ago
Did you miss this bit? "The transmission of culture between peoples should be based on a mutual interest in sharing and learning, not some sense of global entitlement."
- pbhjpbhj 9y ago
  No. Define "mutual interest"? If something in your culture benefits me, why does my use of it have to be dependent on that also benefiting you? Indeed if its a loss for a small people group but a benefit globally then surely that's a positive thing. Would you for example argue lack of distinctiveness as a negative thing, in which case you could be blocking all sharing by demanding "mutual interest".
- FroshKiller 9y ago
  I don't want to be rude, pbhjpbhj, but I'm honestly not sure how to respond to that. I don't think I'm the right person to have that talk with you, and even if I am, this certainly doesn't seem like the right place or time.
  - pbhjpbhj 9y ago
    Fair enough. Though I'm interested if you can give specifics, like tell us what culture you identify with primarily and what aspects of that culture you want to keep for only people you identify as 'in' (belonging, if you will). Maybe expand and show what you're foregoing from other cultures, like if you're not Chinese so avoid cultivated rice, or whatever.

d0lph 9y ago

So you're saying that since your culture does not belong to mankind, that it belongs to you and your neighbors?Certainly you can't be forced to teach others this phrase, but neither can you stop someone else from using it. Other countries often appropriate English words and phrases, and yet it's not considered offensive.

FroshKiller 9y ago
Well, being a member of mankind, my culture does at some point stop being "my" culture alone. If my neighbors and I were to perish, I couldn't stop cultural anthropologists from trying to piece together our ways to better understand us. And I really wouldn't want to, honestly. But I certainly don't want a bunch of carpetbaggers helping themselves to my culture in a way that would erode its meaning. So as a living member of the culture, I choose to share or not share based on what I value, why I value it, and how best I judge to nurture it. Would it be better for me, my people, and humanity if I shared this? Do I judge there is more value in not sharing while we are alive? Do I have a responsibility to preserve and transmit my culture--at least among my people? Simple language is an example that breaks down fast, because I don't really lose anything by teaching you a phrase and its meaning. If my words live in one more mouth, there aren't fewer words for me to say. But even the meaning of words can change based on who uses them and how. A better example might be a sacred text. I may have a "family Bible" handed down through centuries. The book itself might be a valuable cultural artifact, and the individual contributions by my ancestors might constitute a body of knowledge of interest to others. But it isn't anyone else's right to demand access to my "family Bible." There is no onus on my family to produce a digital copy, no moral obligation to permit visitors to leaf through its pages. And you certainly may not hire men with guns to come into my home and take it just because I leave it on the coffee table instead of a safe. You may not kick in my door to preserve it just because the cat sleeps on it. But when I am dead and no kin remain to claim it? Take it, study it, put it in a museum.

panglott 9y ago

It can be grease for the wheels of appropriation, sure. And that kind of universalization can be a further cultural attack on minority peoples—saying that not even the language shared between mother and child is the legitimate domain of the people. But archaeological remains aren't really necessarily an artifact of the culture that lives there now. Sometimes there is a continuous cultural tradition that claims them, and sometimes not. The Mississippian mounds of the midwestern US aren't an artifact of the U.S. of A., for example—they were in danger of being looted by Americans more than anything, in the 19th century certainly. And much as an international militia for the defense of archaeological remains is a bad idea, I think the OP was talking more about ISIS blowing up the Temple of Baalshamin in Palmyra or the Taliban blowing up Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. The locals are likely descended from the people who built those structures, but we do all lose something. These religious structures were not shibboleths, but public structures into which people poured their creativity, their personality, their values, their traditions to communicate them within and beyond their community. I am not a Christian, but I am moved by the Sistine Chapel—this was Michaelangelo's goal. I am moved by the Hagia Sophia, by the Ishtar Gate. If the Romans decide to blow up the Vatican, or the Canadians invade Missouri and carry off the artifacts of Cahokia, it's a loss to more than the residents of Rome and St. Louis. Even if (as with Palmyra &c.) it's locals who object most strongly and are the most injured.

FroshKiller 9y ago
"We" as outsiders only lose the potential of having that culture shared with us. If your co-worker wrecks his car, you haven't lost the ability to drive it. You never had it. He might have chosen to let you drive it, or he might have chosen to let you ride in it, but you haven't lost anything just because the car might have been useful to you. Sympathy is the appropriate response. Being ready to help people defend their culture in a conflict is fine, being ready to help people preserve culture before a conflict is fine, being available to help people recover what they can after a conflict is fine, but undermining people to preserve your expectation of value (like by hiring mercenaries to secure archives in a conflict zone) is not. That is an important difference.
- logfromblammo 9y ago

vgh 9y ago

"Shibboleth"? Cultural appropriation!