TL:DR: I can't define it, I won't define it, but it's offensive, shut up.All of this lies at the root of why cultural appropriation is indefensible. It is, without question, harmful. It is not inherent to writing representational and inclusive fiction, it is not a process of equal and mutually beneficial exchange, and it is not a way for one culture to honor another. Cultural appropriation does damage, and it should be something writers and other artists work hard to avoid, not compete with each other to achieve.
Overwhelmingly, I get the impression that the definition of cultural appropriation is "cultural exchange that I don't like".
Pretty much undefined, although interestingly enough there is a very verbose Wiki Page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation Apparently is some sort of cultural intellectual property transgression. How that's possible and who owns the rights to the IP... yeah grey area.
Hmm. I'm reading the article now and I can kind of see the point about wanting to protect the significance or religious or cultural iconography. If something's value is partly in the message it conveys, diluting or distorting that message in a way could harm that value.
There's definitely a basis for criticising cultural appropriation in situations like what you're describing. I think the real problem with appropriation arises when ignorance comes into it. White people making burritos is fine, wearing a ceremonial Native American headdress to Coachella, simply because it looks cool, isn't.
Well, first nations people have varying opinions about frybread, actually. It's a Colonized product, meaning it didn't exist until colonizing Europeans showed up and flour was being used in trade. First nations people throughout north america generally used corn, or other flours to make other flatbreads (such as tortillas), however, so there's varying views, as I said. Some first nations people decide to own it as a product, and some see it as an example of colonization and the broader problem of low food choice on reservations. If you're interested in more info about the First nations food situation, this is a decent vid: As for the Kimonos, I think it's easiest to think about it in levels. Wearing a heavily japanses influenced dress? 100% a-ok. Wearing a Kimono made for you by a Japanese maker that you paid a fair wage for? Go for it, though you might ask yourself why you want a kimono specifically so bad and why another dress would not do. Wearing an antique kimono with someone's history all over it (symbols, colours, etc)? pretty sketch, especially because you're wearing a delicate antique. Wearing a costume kimono? No Bueno. someone else's historical daily culture, and to an extent their current culture isn't a costume. Wearing a costume kimono and full "geisha" makeup? #realbad Being a eurpoean person playing the role of an asian person in a movie? Full retard. ------- As much as I got a bit cheeky near the end, does that make sense? Like, having respect for a culture, and loving the designs of a culture, and being influenced by them are all great. Fetishizing a culture, or using that cultures symbols as a costume are not okay. Are there people who go overboard with this? Sure, but there are also people who ask Mongolian people if they know how to make sushi because they "all look the same". The attitudes are equally bad, but at least the first one usually comes from being sick and tired of dealing with idiots, and not from being an idiot themselves.
Where is that line drawn? Do we end up banning all costumes? Are construction worker costumes banned because a hard hat and yellow vest aren't toys, they're important pieces of safety equipment that can save a person's life. They shouldn't be trivialized. Do we ban cowboy costumes, because western expansion was an important part of the early and mid 1800s expansion and continues to be both a modern career and a source for rodeo cultures? Here's the line I see: a non-Japanese person wearing a kimono to a costume party isn't worth criticism. But someone wearing a kimono to a costume party and playing up Asian stereotypes and using their fingers to make their eyes look slanty is worthy of criticism. But even that has nothing to do with cultural appropriation and everything to do with the person being a racist jerk.Wearing a costume kimono? No Bueno. someone else's historical daily culture, and to an extent their current culture isn't a costume.
Well, there was definitely a lot of argument around Toronto Pride with police people's uniform's being a "Part of their identity", so maybe ask those people. I don't think a uniform like a hard hat is part of an identity, and don't see it as a problem. Others obviously disagree. The difference here, though, is respect. Cowboys, to take your have respect in north american culture. When you dress up as one, you're identifying with that part of your culture and you're saying "this is a strong, brave person that I want to emulate." Generally, (and of course we can only ever talk in generalities about this stuff because specificity means going down into a weird case by case basis of every costume ever worn), there is a societal history in america as seeing asian people, and asian men in particular as weak and effeminate ( For more information on this, have a listen to this episode of the One From the Vault podcast which talks about crossdressing laws and how they were used to deal with asian immigration in the US). They do not have a history in the US of respect and masculinity (even the respect for Samurai is a recent thing), and usually when one makes a costume out of them, it's to get a laugh. That's the difference. I think the broader point is that we don't get to decide what other people in other cultures find offensive. You can argue all day about having the "right to offend", but if you piss people off, Don't be mad if they treat you like shit or call you out for doing something they don't like, right?Here's the line I see: a non-Japanese person wearing a kimono to a costume party isn't worth criticism. But someone wearing a kimono to a costume party and playing up Asian stereotypes and using their fingers to make their eyes look slanty is worthy of criticism.
I agree that's the difference, and I don't think mocking or stereotyping a culture is appropriation, it's racism or homophobia or misogyny or another negative bias worthy of scorn. I agree, though that gets muddied because a small number of people within a culture don't get to decide for the entire culture what is or is not offensive.and usually when one makes a costume out of them, it's to get a laugh. That's the difference.
I think the broader point is that we don't get to decide what other people in other cultures find offensive.
I guess I'll play devils advocate and ask why it's not ok for a white woman to dress as a geisha? Or for that matter a black man? If gender can be fliuid why can't race or culture? Imo people get upset way too easily and want to control what others can and cannot do. If someone wants to rave in faux native head dress I say go for i if that enhances their trip. Why can't an Asian guy wear full cowboy gear? Or colonial clothes or even a uniform from the civil war? IMO Nobody owns a cultural copyright on those even if they think they do. We're just too afraid that someone might get offended and that we get offended in anticipation that someone else might. As for Mongolians and sushi its kind of a weird example, if someone cooks a lot they may very well know how to make it. If they don't they probably don't know, regardless of ethnicity. We live in such a global society it's silly to limit oneself to only food or dress from your own little ethnic sub group.
I'd recommend looking at my reply to WanderingEng for an answer on Cowboys, and you can expand that to civil was garb as well. I would say that someone from the North wearing a Southern Confederacy uniform would definitely get some flack at a party unless you were in a reenactment group or some such, and for similar reasons to these other costumes- It's not generally coming from a place of celebration, it's coming from a place of ... well, mockery feels like a strong word but it's in the right direction. For the Mongolian Sushi example, I think I made it pretty clear the person wasn't asking if they knew how to make sushi because they know the Mongolian person is a good cook. they're doing it because of the colour of their skin. If I wasn't clear then, I'm certainly doing my best to be so now. If you take on a race, are you willing to take on the baggage of that race, too? If you decide to be black, are you going to advocate for all of the issues that face black people and people of darker skin where you live? Are you willing to be seen as lesser and effeminate because you're an asian man? (again, see my comment to wanderingEng for a source on this stereotype) The difference here is that you're like a race "drag" character. Like a drag queen, who puts on their femininity for one night, or for a performance, but can scrub it all away and still be treated as a man, you would be washing off your black-ness, or your asian-ness to be treated as a white person again. Regular asian people or black people can't scrub off their skin colour and be treated with more respect, as you would be doing.If gender can be fluid why can't race or culture?
So the reason I don't call myself a feminist unless I feel like explaining myself is because it's too broad of a word so I'm not achieving anything by saying it. The term cultural appropriation has the same problem I feel. Are people dressing in drag considered offensive ? As a woman it doesn't bother me if a man puts on a dress or make up one night since they'll never actually be me. They will always be the man just in different clothing. Does dressing like a tomboy make me less of a woman for the day ? I think that's bullshit and it's 100% the other side of the coin. We can't say that a man is actually changing their experience by dressing in drag but say women are always women. They'll never change their overall life experience by throwing on a dress. Now am I going to get upset and think things like oh he can walk around in a dress without worrying about access to women's reproductive healthcare ? Not even a little, I can throw on some combat boots and put my hair in a ponytail without having to worry about getting weird looks at the park with my niece. ;) I'm sure your're well aware of the whole controversy that now exists over feminists using language that suggests you need to be born female to be a woman. Like protest signs at the women's march saying things like pussy power alienating trans women. The thing is though that myself and a trans woman do not have the same life experience. I do not envy their life experience but we can't deny they are different. In the 70's they did a study ( and I do hope if they did it now it would be different however I'm thinking it won't have changed much.) were they took the same baby but dressed it in pink or blue to see how adults would react. When they thought the baby was female they talked about how beautiful she was and when they thought the baby was male they talked about what career he would have. So who is the woman's march for ? Is it wrong to discuss women's issues in the context of women who were born that way ? Are we allowed to talk about pussy power when it's about woman's reproductive health ? This isn't "cultural" but it's absolutely relevant to the discussion of different life experiences not being respected as such. Should it bother me that people who did not experience my childhood as a girl are trying to push into "my space" without taking on my baggage ? Are we not allowed to make clever slogans about our ovaries when we are talking about women's reproductive healthcare? Some people do think this which was evident after that march. I agree with what WanderingEng said about intent, if a guy dresses like a girl and starts making fun of women I'll just show him up like I've done countless times in my life. Shit feels good. I don't want some guy in a dress to take on my baggage. I would rather he just know not to fuck with me. At my first job one of the managers I worked with uncomfortably asked me if I was expecting a certain job in the summer that my female manager was going to give to a male simply because they were male ( I was more qualified) since he knew me. When she mentioned it to two of my male managers they both told her to watch out because they knew I wouldn't just take that. I can't wash off my femininity but honestly I don't know why I would want too. I have baggage and I have problems but I take pride in myself and what my gender has achieved. I take pride in earning that job, and I take pride that my bosses knew I wouldn't accept anything less than I deserved. Men can enjoy their dress today and wearing pants when it's hot AF out to look "professional". I might not get treated with respect because I was born with certain parts but I get treated with respect in every job I've ever had because I demand it without having to dress less feminine. Sometimes I get annoyed that I have a bit more of a struggle but I actually find people who haven't struggled at all to be incredibly boring. Sometimes I falter and forget to respect myself enough or demand that others give me the same respect but I'm 23 ffs. Is mocking another culture shitty ? Sure, but it's not fair to assume somebody is always mocking you. Blackface and the slanty eye thing are obviously mocking. Dressing in a kimono isn't mocking somebody, it's just enjoying a piece of clothing until you know, the slanty eyes come out.
Ok. there's a lot to unpack here. Let me start by saying that I myself am a trans woman, so this will colour my perspective. Let's start with Drag. I personally have conflicting feeling about drag, but at the end of the day I realize that they're generally about me and not about the people performing, so i leave them to have fun. Drag is performative, inherently. A person dresses up as a hypermasculine or hyperfeminine character for the purpose of entertainment. While in costume, they are generally treated as the gender that their "character" is, though this isn't an across the board truth. The point being from all this is that when a man dons women's clothing for the purpose of drag performance, they are being performatively feminine without having to deal with all of the real world issues of being a woman. This is why i made the comparison that I did - when people co-opt race and culture, they are able to live in that skin and then walk away from it once they are done, or once they get bored, or once they get hurt. People of colour don't get that luxury, and that's what people need to recognize and respect, and it's what they're not respecting when they use another person's culture as a costume. Moving on to another kettle of fish altogether. You're right. you and I have vastly different life experiences. I didn't have to go through puberty in high school as a woman. I'm in the process of what you could call a second puberty now, but it's pretty different, and it's definitely not in high school. So yes, we have different experiences. But there are also multitudes of other women who for one reason or another are unable to have children, and there are trans men who are in the process of having children, while presenting as a man. There are women who are infertile, there are women who can't have vaginal intercourse without pain, there are intersex women who don't have a fully formed vagina, and intersex women who have unclear genitalia, or even penises naturally. What you have to recognize is that when you discuss "women's issues in the context of women who were born that way", you are excluding all of those people. All of those women are women who were born that way (and for the record, i didn't "become a woman" either. I was born the way I am, and I'm a woman). You are saying "my feminism is for people who look like me and whose bodies act exactly like mine." That's a pretty shit way to think, in my view, but my feminism is intersectional and includes all of those people. When I talk about reproductive health it includes ALL of those people, because otherwise we're only having half of a conversation or less. There is no unified experience of being a woman. that's true. But there are many times when people do something offensive and don't even realize that it's offensive. It doesn't have to be intentional. The problem with this is that often, as a defense mechanism, people double down on being offensive by then repeating the action KNOWING that the other person finds it offensive. Indeed, that very defense mechanism is what 90% of this conversation is about, the other 10% generally boiling down to " Well if I can't make fun of X, who can I make fun of?" Again, i feel like I should clarify, it's not always about "mocking" people. Sometimes it's a fetishization of culture. Kimonos are pretty special and specific garb. remember, we're not talking about this kind of kimono: Go ahead and wear that thing, no one cares. We're talking about this kind of kimono. It's heavy, It's impractical, it takes a very long time to put on (and you need help to tie it properly) and If you're not going to a tea ceremony or a wedding, you'd better have a pretty good reason to wear one or you're a lunatic (or a masochist). It's the equivalent of walking around in a wedding dress (including its current cultural use). Like I said in my original post, if you really want to wear one of these, and you get one made for you by someone in Japan who you paid a fair wage, then go for it. I would suggest you question why exactly you want to do that, though. Is it because you love the garment, or is there a fetishization of that culture going on? Why not just buy a dress that has a Japanese influence, or has some kimono detailings? It'd be more practical, for one. If it "must" be a kimono, then I'd suggest there's something more about what the garment represents than the garment itself that you are looking for, meaning that there's a level of cultural fetishization going on.The thing is though that myself and a trans woman do not have the same life experience. I do not envy their life experience but we can't deny they are different.
So who is the woman's march for ? Is it wrong to discuss women's issues in the context of women who were born that way ?
t's not fair to assume somebody is always mocking you.
Dressing in a kimono isn't mocking somebody, it's just enjoying a piece of clothing
First of all I started my post by telling you I don't generally use the term feminism because it doesn't mean anything specific to me so I would ask that you refrain from defining "my feminism" for me. I get that you've dealt with shit but I don't appreciate you projecting it on me and find it very rude. The issue you list about women including those that can't have babies or have pain during sex are reproductive health issues. Women who have been identifying as female since day one have different life experiences from those that haven't. This isn't just about puberty, we were treated differently in our youth and that shapes us. I didn't say I have a problem with anybody who wants to be included in feminism but I've definitely seen it in certain circles. This is basically my problem with feminism, my believing one thing doesn't mean another "feminist" does as well. Poor descriptive word. The point is the baggage isn't the same and if somebody was identifying as male for part of their life they benefited from that during the same formative years that those identifying as female did not. Some feminists have a problem with that. They take issue that somebody who enjoyed this privilege now wants to dictate how they are allowed to express themselves as feminists. It's not like these groups hide away never to be seen on the internt. Everybody in that situation has a point. I wouldn't like if some rich woman who had never been in a position where she has to deal with certain issues tried to tell me how I was allowed to be as a feminist. Just like how a woman of colour doesn't wants a privileged white woman to tell her how she is allowed to express herself. I also see how others want to be included in that circle. What is the difference though of saying well you can't dress like me because you haven't dealt with my shit and saying well you can't call yourself a women because you haven't dealt with my shit ? Women do all have varying experiences just like people of every race, religion, and economics status have. We have general stats for all of them even so. I'm for live and let live. On the topic of fetishizing since this is another one of those words that gets thrown around poorly what is the difference between fetishizing a feature and being attracted to it ? I see this a lot with bigger girls, when is it fetishizing and when is it just that somebody is attracted to larger women ? What is the difference between fetishizing a kimono and thinking it's cute ?
People celebrate with Christmas trees because there was an appropriation of the Anglo and German tradition by the marketers in 30s New York. Of course the Anglos and Germans appropriated it from the Pagans. Of course the Pagans appropriated it from anyone else who thought trees were pretty enough to revere. Religious iconography has not been different in the past, so why would it be now? Another example: people say that we should keep the Christ in Christmas as opposed to using X-Mas. But in many Christian relgions in the world, there is a heavy use of a symbol called the Chi-Rho which is an appropriation of the Greek letters used to spell Christ's name, Khristos. This is the origin of X-Mas as it is often seen as deferential to NOT use the name of Christ and better to replace it with an initial: X. So we've appropriated a symbol from a language's alphabet that we don't use, to express a saying (Merry X-Mas) that we don't even understand anymore, to celebrate a holiday that many people don't understand past presents under a tree that we stole from another religion. There is no such thing as cultural appropriation. It's just a mixing of cultures that the masses never cared about until recently.
I think there's a difference between gradual cultural blending due to regional/cultural/language proximity, such as what you're describing, and say me, getting a religiously significant Hindu tattoo just because I think it looks cool when I know very little about Hinduism, am not personally invested in Hinduism, and have no intention of converting to Hinduism. There are lines, they're just blurry.
But when we go back to the original cultural appropriation of Rock and Roll, we often see that's the same thing that happened there. Regional, cultural proximity. Here's the wiki article quote on the orgins of rock and roll. The migration of many former slaves and their descendants to major urban centers such as St. Louis, Memphis, New York City, Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland, and Buffalo (See: Second Great Migration (African American)) meant that black and white residents were living in close proximity in larger numbers than ever before, and as a result heard each other's music and even began to emulate each other's fashions.[21][22] Radio stations that made white and black forms of music available to both groups, the development and spread of the gramophone record, and African American musical styles such as jazz and swing which were taken up by white musicians, aided this process of "cultural collision".
I fail to see the point you're making. Rock and Roll and Jazz are both artistic and musical movements. They're neither, in my opinion, signficantly religious or culturally iconographic (though I will admit that religion has affected both forms of music and that they're iconic of black culture in a way, but not iconic as in "this static image represents black America"). I'm also completely aware that regional, cultural, and linguistic proximity leads to blending, acknowledge that, and am not disputing it. The original point I was making, is that beyond things like art or clothing or music, is that religion has a deeply personal value to people of all cultures and that I think its understandable that many people think it's important that others be respectful of the significance of belief systems that to them are very profound. I'll also say that I'm well aware that the sharing of and blending of religious beliefs is very much a part of every religion and plays a role in the development of religious thought and philosophy throughout history. Once again though, I think it's important to point out that a large part of that sharing is through proximity and an admiration of the viewpoints of others, and that there is a difference, but the lines are blurry.
I think a good example of that would be the swastika for cultural appropriation. You'll see it all the time in Asia still because they don't associate it was Nazi-ism, but instead with Buddhism. Clearly it does damage. But I don't feel that religion has any special significance above any other form of culture.
The swastika would go back to my point of appropriating a symbol with significant meaning could devalue that meaning. Now to a large number of people, instead of it meaning something auspicious and good, it means something hateful and sinister. I think we're only in disagreement as to whether or not religion should be treated as a sacred cow (heh.)
There was a time when offense over cultural appropriation was limited to blackface. There was a time when offense over cultural appropriation was limited to segregationists pretending to be Cherokee. Then we got to the point where offense over cultural appropriation was limited to majority ethnicities pretended to be minorities, even when they were being advocates for that minority. Now we're up in arms over white girls making burritos.