[Tsundoku]

Gorefest, on 22 July 2019 - 11:50 AM, said:

Cause, on 22 July 2019 - 08:20 AM, said:

I'm confused then because this taylor swift stealing the word squad seems to have been a legitmate complaint that was made.

I think the 'complaint' was that a lot of teeny pop media outlets portray it as if it was Taylor Swift etc who introduced the term into modern pop culture to mean a fashionable or hip group of people, even though a number of hip hop and rap outfits have been using the term for decades already. So it isn't about who invented the term, but the observation that certain pop journalists are making it out is if this is a new original concept when really it has been around in the music scene for decades. Just not the music scene that they would normally report on.

Not really something to lose sleep over in the larger scheme of things.

Didn't you know each successive generation invents concepts ... that were around in previous generations? As each generation becomes more tech-reliant but more averse to actual research and fact, this is just going to get weirder. I'm sure one of my son's contemporaries will invent jeans one day.

[QuickTidal]

Tsundoku, on 22 July 2019 - 12:37 PM, said:

Gorefest, on 22 July 2019 - 11:50 AM, said:

Cause, on 22 July 2019 - 08:20 AM, said:

I'm confused then because this taylor swift stealing the word squad seems to have been a legitmate complaint that was made.

I think the 'complaint' was that a lot of teeny pop media outlets portray it as if it was Taylor Swift etc who introduced the term into modern pop culture to mean a fashionable or hip group of people, even though a number of hip hop and rap outfits have been using the term for decades already. So it isn't about who invented the term, but the observation that certain pop journalists are making it out is if this is a new original concept when really it has been around in the music scene for decades. Just not the music scene that they would normally report on.

Not really something to lose sleep over in the larger scheme of things.

Didn't you know each successive generation invents concepts ... that were around in previous generations? As each generation becomes more tech-reliant but more averse to actual research and fact, this is just going to get weirder. I'm sure one of my son's contemporaries will invent jeans one day.

Also, ask Gen-Z what the best movies of all time are...you will not get a title that was made prior to 2000.

[Aptorian]

I'm pretty sure Transformers 2 came out after 2000.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Gorefest, on 22 July 2019 - 11:50 AM, said:

Cause, on 22 July 2019 - 08:20 AM, said:

I'm confused then because this taylor swift stealing the word squad seems to have been a legitmate complaint that was made.

I think the 'complaint' was that a lot of teeny pop media outlets portray it as if it was Taylor Swift etc who introduced the term into modern pop culture to mean a fashionable or hip group of people, even though a number of hip hop and rap outfits have been using the term for decades already. So it isn't about who invented the term, but the observation that certain pop journalists are making it out is if this is a new original concept when really it has been around in the music scene for decades. Just not the music scene that they would normally report on.

Not really something to lose sleep over in the larger scheme of things.

The use of the term to specifically apply to female empowerment (and female friendship) was significantly different from its popular usage in hip-hop (which is, commercially, the dominant genre of US popular music, and frequently misogynistic).

Including it in a list of terms that black people 'invented' is ridiculous. But yes, she almost certainly appropriated it from black hip-hop groups.

It's become fashionable to tendentiously extend condemnations of 'cultural appropriation' and 'thievery' to the point of (unironic) absurdity. Like accusing an Armenian-American woman of 'cultural genocide' for 'stealing' sexualizing her big butt. When there are legitimate underlying complaints about media and society, they tend to get lost in counterproductive attacks on the appropriators (with 'cultural appropriation' having almost achieved the status of 'racist' as a condemnation, and frequently being equated with it... which in the widest sense of the current leftist usage of the term to mean anything which distally supports systems which maintain or further white dominance is technically true---of 'white' people breathing, or shopping at 'white' businesses, or listening to music that gives profit to white people when you could be listening to music that exclusively gives profit to black people).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 22 July 2019 - 03:28 PM

[QuickTidal]

Azath Vitr (D, on 22 July 2019 - 03:14 PM, said:

Gorefest, on 22 July 2019 - 11:50 AM, said:

Cause, on 22 July 2019 - 08:20 AM, said:

I'm confused then because this taylor swift stealing the word squad seems to have been a legitmate complaint that was made.

I think the 'complaint' was that a lot of teeny pop media outlets portray it as if it was Taylor Swift etc who introduced the term into modern pop culture to mean a fashionable or hip group of people, even though a number of hip hop and rap outfits have been using the term for decades already. So it isn't about who invented the term, but the observation that certain pop journalists are making it out is if this is a new original concept when really it has been around in the music scene for decades. Just not the music scene that they would normally report on.

Not really something to lose sleep over in the larger scheme of things.

The use of the term to specifically apply to female empowerment (and female friendship) was significantly different from its popular usage in hip-hop (which is, commercially, the dominant genre of US popular music, and frequently misogynistic).

Including it in a list of terms that black people 'invented' is ridiculous. But yes, she almost certainly appropriated it from black hip-hop groups.

It's become fashionable to tendentiously extend condemnations of 'cultural appropriation' and 'thievery' to the point of (unironic) absurdity. Like accusing an Armenian-American woman of 'cultural genocide' for 'stealing' sexualizing her big butt. When there are legitimate underlying complaints about media and society, they tend to get lost in counterproductive attacks on the appropriators (with 'cultural appropriation' having almost achieved the status of 'racist' as a condemnation, and frequently being equated with it... which in the widest sense of the current leftist usage of the term to mean anything which distally supports systems which maintain or further white dominance is technically true---of 'white' people breathing, or shopping at 'white' businesses, or listening to music that gives profit to white people when you could be listening to music that exclusively gives profit to black people).

Indeed, I've said it before as well. Most of the people who currently accuse others of "cultural appropriation" have come so far away from the line of what that phrase actually means that it's quite insane.

When you are accusing Coldplay and Beyonce of it for daring to shoot a video in India during Holi with Beyonce in a Sari...you've lost the fucking plot.

I think my second favourite misuse/abuse of the term is white people not being allowed to wear cornrow braids...as if a hairstyle is somehow intrinsically "off limits"...when braids of that kind have been used by ancient cultures going back as far as Egypt and all across the mediterranean, or descriptions of the Visigoths from the romans. The practice of braiding one’s hair, cannot be traced to a particular woman in some remote village thousands of years ago, whether Fulani, Visigoth or Phoenician. Hairstyles are not cultural appropriation, no matter how much some people might want to be outraged.

[worry]

Don't you guys think, ultimately, it's less useful to adjudicate every individual 'accusation' of cultural appropriation than it is to simply take the opportunity to recognize the historical stakes of appropriation, ongoing and new iterations, and the consequences of both as a through line of history to now? Does it really matter if any one instance is less dramatic or consequential than another, if it fits into the whole and that whole is massively consequential? Can you recognize that the people describing the phenomenon, studying it, who take it seriously, have the very same capacity to distinguish those qualities as you do? Perhaps in many or most cases, 'accusation' isn't even the right framework.

For one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't discount the notion that the trend in media -- the same media who make a bundle off of painting college campuses as liberal loony farms, who balk at the notion of protesting Nazis who were invited to speak by Young Republicans, who denigrate concepts like "trigger warnings" and "safe spaces" at every opportunity, who are ever on the lookout to extinguish progressive dissent or suppress minority contributions -- deliberately frame these descriptions of appropriation in the glibbest possible manner, or sensationalize the shallower examples to crowd up the issue? And perhaps have contributed to a broader unconscious bias that is kneejerk skeptical and dismissive. Who do you think has a bigger motivation to poison the well: those with a stake in treating appropriation seriously, scholars of the subject, or those who have a stake in treating it unseriously?

Further, please think about how much you engage with the more serious examples. And is focusing on the 'unserious' examples, as you see them, a way to avoid engaging the larger phenomenon? Do you only or largely think about cultural appropriation when you see an example you don't agree with? Are you being glib? Are you treating the concept of cultural appropriation more as an accusation to get defensive about, rather than as a description of a phenomenon -- with countless inputs, big and small, more important and less important -- that invites examination and reflection? And anyway, doesn't everybody -- but particularly the beneficiaries of these broadly perpetuated social phenomena -- need practice not getting defensive when they're brought up? I know I do.

This post has been edited by worry: 22 July 2019 - 07:48 PM

[worry]

Anyway, in less rhetorical thinking out loud news, and what I meant to post about but forgot, is the Trump admin hyper-charging 'expedited removal'. Starting tomorrow, ICE and CBP agents will have the authority anywhere in the country (not just the 100 mile 'border zone' traditionally reserved for CBP) to detain and deport anyone they suspect of being without status and in the US less than two years. Without seeing a judge. If the person they suspect of this cannot, on the spot, prove they've been here more than two years: absolute authority to deport immediately in the hands of these agents.

[Malankazooie]

[Silencer]

worry, on 22 July 2019 - 08:56 PM, said:

Anyway, in less rhetorical thinking out loud news, and what I meant to post about but forgot, is the Trump admin hyper-charging 'expedited removal'. Starting tomorrow, ICE and CBP agents will have the authority anywhere in the country (not just the 100 mile 'border zone' traditionally reserved for CBP) to detain and deport anyone they suspect of being without status and in the US less than two years. Without seeing a judge. If the person they suspect of this cannot, on the spot, prove they've been here more than two years: absolute authority to deport immediately in the hands of these agents.

"Papers, please."

[Aptorian]

Anyone know if the Trump administration has made their orders of leather trenchcoats from Hugo Boss yet?

[worry]

Silencer, on 23 July 2019 - 02:51 AM, said:

"Papers, please."

Even papers aren't enough sometimes. Lawful status (up to and including citizenship) is not and has never been the point.

[Silencer]

worry, on 23 July 2019 - 04:12 AM, said:

Silencer, on 23 July 2019 - 02:51 AM, said:

"Papers, please."

Even papers aren't enough sometimes. Lawful status (up to and including citizenship) is not and has never been the point.

Indeed, they ask for papers but then they decide yours aren't legitimate, or were obtained falsely, or, or, or...

[Cause]

Yip, I must say I hve noticed America has a weird habit of enforcing immigration policy not by official laws but at the discretion of border agents. My greencard was won by lottery, their seems to be an undertstanding that you don't win and immigrate the next day, you have time? How much time? Well at the discretion of the border control agent who first greets me when I try to enter the country. He has full authority to decide if I made an effort to immigrate, did I take too long. Maybe he got divorced that weekend, maybe he thinks my English isn't good enough. Who knows but there is no hard and fast rules. There is no way to go and be confident you did what your supposed to.

It must be difficult and incredibly stressfull for borderline immigrants, such as asylum seekers, to live under that kind of uncertainty.

Edit- Trump saying he could win the Afghan war in a week, he just doesn't want to kill ten million people? He thinks this is a clever thing to say. He clearly doesn't seem to understand any American president can theoretically kill ten million people in a week if they wanted to, there is a reason they don't. Killing ten million people in Afghanistan would mean the objective of the war has changed. The man cant stand being seen as weak.

This post has been edited by Cause: 23 July 2019 - 09:42 AM

[QuickTidal]

Not to take us too far off-topic, and if a Mod wants to split this convo off from the US Politics thread, that's cool.

worry, on 22 July 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

Don't you guys think, ultimately, it's less useful to adjudicate every individual 'accusation' of cultural appropriation than it is to simply take the opportunity to recognize the historical stakes of appropriation, ongoing and new iterations, and the consequences of both as a through line of history to now?

Are we meant to do a case-by-case for shit that's not currently in the social consciousness right now? I would mention actual cases of cultural appropriation (like War Bonnets at Coachella) if those were in the news cycle, and therefore the consciousness of society...but it isn't. The term has shifted onwards to ridiculous things that can't be defined as such... even though people want it to be.

To me it's VERY useful to call out the shitty "Calls" on this, and at least try to spread education about what cultural appropriation IS and ISN'T rather than allow it to become a blanket phrase that means essentially "Stay in your lane, don't experience and enjoy other cultures not your own"...which is almost where we've gotten.

Furthermore, I can point out WAY more cases of 'Not Cultural Appropriation' than 'Cultural Appropriation' in the news.

An Aside: Watch the new Aziz Ansar Netflix special, as he very poignantly discusses this and the extremes it's gone to and sees through the chaff.

worry, on 22 July 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

Does it really matter if any one instance is less dramatic or consequential than another, if it fits into the whole and that whole is massively consequential?

It matters as much as anything that is out there in droves of information and misinformation. I can flip this around to be about climate change. Does it really matter that any one instance of climate change information or misinformation is less dramatic of consequential than another? Yes, it very much does matter. Context matters. History matters. Information matters. Trying to steer the conversation away from the "instances" and attempting to look at the "whole" when the whole is massively flawed like that, is a mistake.

worry, on 22 July 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

Can you recognize that the people describing the phenomenon, studying it, who take it seriously, have the very same capacity to distinguish those qualities as you do?

Do they? Because it was Amanda Stenberg who called out white people for wearing braids...and called it cultural appropriation. So no, they don't if that's what they pulled from one of the Jenning girls deciding to put braids in her hair (or anyone else). You don't get to cultural trademark a hairstyle that has been around for thousands of years. If people who largely bring these things into the salacious light for the court of public opinion to diagnose are using the phrase wrong and trying to dictate what others can and can't do with their lives when it's not remotely trampling on anything culturally "sacred" (like a war bonnet), then no I don't.

worry, on 22 July 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

For one thing, I'm sure you wouldn't discount the notion that the trend in media to deliberately frame these descriptions of appropriation in the glibbest possible manner, or sensationalize the shallower examples to crowd up the issue? And perhaps have contributed to a broader unconscious bias that is kneejerk skeptical and dismissive. Who do you think has a bigger motivation to poison the well: those with a stake in treating appropriation seriously, scholars of the subject, or those who have a stake in treating it unseriously?

The idea being what? That I'm stupid and letting the media dictate my feelings (not the case)? Or that when the media focuses in on the fight about a white girl wearing a traditional Chinese dress to prom (Again, check out the Aziz Ansari special, he comments on this, and does it well), and makes it a far bigger deal than it should be...I'm meant to look away or have a broader conversation...No. I'm not about to have a broader conversation when the topic is these ridiculous callouts in our outrage culture, because that base is flawed. We need to change the base. So I'm commenting on the instances instead. This is how it works.

worry, on 22 July 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

Further, please think about how much you engage with the more serious examples. And is focusing on the 'unserious' examples, as you see them, a way to avoid engaging the larger phenomenon?

Pardon me? How are the examples I noted "unserious"? Would you care to list the "serious ones" so I know the difference? Listen, the bottom line is that there are VERY few things on this planet with all its diverse cultures that are so sacrosanct as to be deemed any kind of cultural appropriation. Instead, the through line now is "don't enjoy and experience other cultures, don't wear clothes that originated in other cultures, don't participate in any aspects of other cultures, it's not for you"....instead of the idea that a number of things (usually related to religion, or more staid aspects of various cultures should be treated with some reverence and not flippantly displayed for fashion or other reasons) should be respected.

Plaid. Did you realize that plaid/tartan could very easily BE cultural appropriation if the Scottish highlanders who used it as a political statement protesting a rule they disagreed with decided to make that so. They didn't. And I will 100% bet that you own plaid currently, or have worn it in the past (most people have). As such, we could very easily slip into the notion that it's off-limits because of the struggle associated with its origins. We don't because that would be ridiculous. It's not the 1700's anymore and Scottish people are proud to share their fabric design with the world. Your country is a melting pot of cultures, you either agree with that or you don't I guess.

worry, on 22 July 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

Do you only or largely think about cultural appropriation when you see an example you don't agree with?

Usually because very few instances of cultural appropriation deserve that phrase as a descriptor. Moreover it seems to more and more be simply an opportunity for white people to out-woke each other by swinging their weight around about staying in ones lane. It's actually pretty easy to identify cases of actual cultural appropriation, usually because after white people try to out-woke each other, the people of that supposedly appropriated culture will chime in and say it's not appropriation to them.

worry, on 22 July 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

Are you being glib? Are you treating the concept of cultural appropriation more as an accusation to get defensive about

I have a Happi Coat. A traditional Japanese garment usually worn to festivals. It was gifted to my father when he visited Japan by the people at Dainippon Screen, a company he worked closely with in the 80's. At the time we were not sure of our full Japanese heritage (and my Japanese Great Grandma and her family). He wore it to an event they gave and they were all so excited he did so. This has been handed down to me. I will hand it down to my daughter. She has blonde hair, the pale Scottish skin of my wife's family, and blue eyes. One day, she might wear the Happi Coat, and there are an absolute SLEW of woke people who would very possibly/probably tear her a new one for daring to wear a traditional Japanese garment...not realizing that A. It was given to my father by Japanese people in Japan who not only didn't know he was part Japanese, but in the full expectation that he might wear and enjoy it, and B. That my daughter actually has Japanese blood in her, regardless of how she looks.

Am I being glib? No. I'm trying to prevent the situation in which we all have to live in our own tiny little beige-ass bubbles where other cultures are forbidden because of the colour of our skin, or the location and manner of our upbringing.

Also, defensive? No. Informed. Being informed about what is and isn't cultural approbation is KEY to enjoying other cultures and understanding them. The more we see the phrase misused, the more insulated from things we will get.

worry, on 22 July 2019 - 07:46 PM, said:

And anyway, doesn't everybody -- but particularly the beneficiaries of these broadly perpetuated social phenomena -- need practice not getting defensive when they're brought up? I know I do.

It's not about "getting defensive". It's about allowing cultures to intermingle the way we wish they would, so that racism doesn't continue to rage unabated when we put up walls between cultures and people get more and more xenophobic as a result. If the conversation was focused on things that are indeed culturally appropriated, then we would be talking about it. But no, instead we are talking about how practicing yoga might be an appropriation, or how Avril Lavigne shot a video that included Hello Kitty paraphernalia and Japanese backup dancers is somehow the epitome of terrible...when neither of those things fit the criteria. This is what the media focuses on. I cannot help that. I also cannot help that most of the cases of this phrase being levelled at things in the last decade or so have been wrong about it up to and including people who should be smarter about such things, not being so.

If I can't go to another country, immerse myself in their culture, and take some things from that which I enjoy and add them to my life for vibrancy...then we are all just living in little boxes. Unless those things I'm adding from that culture are sacrosanct in some way religiously, or significant on that level (and this all depends on distance of time to the event/culture really...Ancient Pagan cultures, for example, are rampantly appropriated these days and no one bats an eye because they are so long in our past...Thor is a goddamn beloved Marvel superhero FFS), then I don't feel like there should be any issue with it, and the more people call out that there is an issue just muddies the water with chaff.

[worry]

I can't tell if you think my post was aimed at you specifically or not, rather than one more contribution to the general topic as it came up, but I suppose it doesn't matter because we do seem to genuinely disagree.

1) I was planning to never watch the new Aziz Ansari special, I'm afraid. But maybe for you I'll do it, QT. I'll have to think about it.

2) It's absolutely antithetical to me to think of this issue in terms of categorizing "Cultural Appropriation" vs "Not Cultural Appropriation" like sorting duds on a factory line. Of course I'm not calling you or others here stupid, but this is a surprisingly binary sciences-brained framing of a clearly humanities-rooted, exploratory, explicatory issue. The point isn't to identify and classify instances of cultural appropriation like new species of insect, or even extreme weather events as part of a larger phenomena. It's about seeing how the threads in a tapestry draw a bigger picture. It's about situating behaviors in a historical context of plunder, eradicating denial, and ultimately fostering reconciliation or at least honesty.

3) In that light, it seems to me you're conflating this (imo wrongheaded) judiciary project of determining rightness/wrongness of claims with a more apt (though not necessarily everyone's place to do it) good faith/bad faith determination. Of course there are occasional bad faith claims, as there is in anything. But it strikes me as framing this issue predominantly as people trying to get one over on you, like they are accusing folks of appropriation in order to throw them off guard and thus take advantage/profit in some way. I don't relate at all to that, this claim or perception that most instances of calling out cultural appropriation are illegitimate and perhaps even fraudulent.

4) In corollary to that, I don't know how else to say it, but your post (in both its aspect and its argument) still strikes me as, yes, defensive. I don't think that's the only aspect of your post or POV -- clearly you have an admirable ideal that involves joyous and non-exploitive cultural sharing, which I share. But this focus on adjudication, and this out-of-step-with-reality claim that most claims are wrong, really strikes me as closed off and declarative rather than open and conversative. Evocation of the boogie man of 'outrage culture' -- a meta-narrative with not much actual narrative to back it up -- only strengthens that perception for me.

5) The framing of some of the examples you use does, I have to say, strike me as glib. I'm sorry, I don't mean to get your back up by saying that. But I'll explain, even though I don't think you'll agree with me in the end. So for instance, framing Amandla Stenberg's position on Kylie Jenner and cornrows as ahistoric, because she didn't take into account the millennia of hairstyle variety globally -- I would say that actually removes rather than adds context. The accurate context is that Kylie Jenner is a big influential name in the fashion industry, which has a rich history of appropriation, and is a white woman who has routinely extracted from black culture (style, vocab, cultural products) to enrich herself in that industry, which also routinely shuts out black creatives. The idea isn't that white people cannot wear cornrows because they are the sole province of black people, it's that Kylie Jenner specifically extracted culture from black Americans, industrialized, and mass marketed it for her own gain and divorced from its roots. Likewise, the issue with yoga isn't that people outside its roots should never practice it, it's that a billion dollar industry has been extracted from its creators without respect or credit, and the people of its cultural roots have largely been cut off from having input in or even receiving the fruits of that industrialization. It's exploitive capitalist cultural plunder. 'Practicing yoga' isn't the issue and framing it that way isn't very openhanded.

I dunno, I wrote that all amidst work so it might not be as laser focused as your post. At its most basic, my argument is that it's not productive to even view cultural appropriation from a determinative standpoint rather than an analytic one, that fosters broader thought, stronger forethought, broader empathy, and self-reflection on the part of participants -- rather than this defensive "don't accuse me of something I'm not doing" posture people so often take when it comes up (which, yeah, I still think the whole adjudication thing is in service of).

This post has been edited by worry: 23 July 2019 - 08:42 PM

[worry]

Quick break, so I hope to make a more concise point on one thing you said. Regarding being able to see more bad examples than good examples in the news, I don't think that's the best way to view it. The better way to view it imo is that by the time you hear about it in the news, it has already been filtered through dismissive and antagonistic hands to become a sensationalist caricature of the original point.

So take Amandla Stenberg referring to the Kylie Jenner cornrows thing as appropriation...the caricature is essentially "black celebrity says white people can't wear cornrows". It's reductive and dismissive, and wasn't her point. Which is, as you know, the status quo's stance on all black things: dismiss and caricaturize. And I'm afraid that when you spend more time addressing these straw man versions of real issues, you legitimize the caricature -- in the same way various other 'crazy SJW' concepts get warped and stigmatized. Ultimately, that has the opposite effect of your intent.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 23 July 2019 - 08:38 PM, said:

I can't tell if you think my post was aimed at you specifically or not, rather than one more contribution to the general topic as it came up, but I suppose it doesn't matter because we do seem to genuinely disagree.

1) I was planning to never watch the new Aziz Ansari special, I'm afraid. But maybe for you I'll do it, QT. I'll have to think about it.

2) It's absolutely antithetical to me to think of this issue in terms of categorizing "Cultural Appropriation" vs "Not Cultural Appropriation" like sorting duds on a factory line. Of course I'm not calling you or others here stupid, but this is a surprisingly binary sciences-brained framing of a clearly humanities-rooted, exploratory, explicatory issue. The point isn't to identify and classify instances of cultural appropriation like new species of insect, or even extreme weather events as part of a larger phenomena. It's about seeing how the threads in a tapestry draw a bigger picture. It's about situating behaviors in a historical context of plunder, eradicating denial, and ultimately fostering reconciliation or at least honesty.

3) In that light, it seems to me you're conflating this (imo wrongheaded) judiciary project of determining rightness/wrongness of claims with a more apt (though not necessarily everyone's place to do it) good faith/bad faith determination. Of course there are occasional bad faith claims, as there is in anything. But it strikes me as framing this issue predominantly as people trying to get one over on you, like they are accusing folks of appropriation in order to throw them off guard and thus take advantage/profit in some way. I don't relate at all to that, this claim or perception that most instances of calling out cultural appropriation are illegitimate and perhaps even fraudulent.

4) In corollary to that, I don't know how else to say it, but your post (in both its aspect and its argument) still strikes me as, yes, defensive. I don't think that's the only aspect of your post or POV -- clearly you have an admirable ideal that involves joyous and non-exploitive cultural sharing, which I share. But this focus on adjudication, and this out-of-step-with-reality claim that most claims are wrong, really strikes me as closed off and declarative rather than open and conversative. Evocation of the boogie man of 'outrage culture' -- a meta-narrative with not much actual narrative to back it up -- only strengthens that perception for me.

5) The framing of some of the examples you use does, I have to say, strike me as glib. I'm sorry, I don't mean to get your back up by saying that. But I'll explain, even though I don't think you'll agree with me in the end. So for instance, framing Amandla Stenberg's position on Kylie Jenner and cornrows as ahistoric, because she didn't take into account the millennia of hairstyle variety globally -- I would say that actually removes rather than adds context. The accurate context is that Kylie Jenner is a big influential name in the fashion industry, which has a rich history of appropriation, and is a white woman who has routinely extracted from black culture (style, vocab, cultural products) to enrich herself in that industry, which also routinely shuts out black creatives. The idea isn't that white people cannot wear cornrows because they are the sole province of black people, it's that Kylie Jenner specifically extracted culture from black Americans, industrialized, and mass marketed it for her own gain and divorced from its roots. Likewise, the issue with yoga isn't that people outside its roots should never practice it, it's that a billion dollar industry has been extracted from its creators without respect or credit, and the people of its cultural roots have largely been cut off from having input in or even receiving the fruits of that industrialization. It's exploitive capitalist cultural plunder. 'Practicing yoga' isn't the issue and framing it that way isn't very openhanded.

I dunno, I wrote that all amidst work so it might not be as laser focused as your post. At its most basic, my argument is that it's not productive to even view cultural appropriation from a determinative standpoint rather than an analytic one, that fosters broader thought, stronger forethought, broader empathy, and self-reflection on the part of participants -- rather than this defensive "don't accuse me of something I'm not doing" posture people so often take when it comes up (which, yeah, I still think the whole adjudication thing is in service of).

'When I started writing about cultural appropriation 10 years ago, it felt important to stress how these small annoyances laddered up to a pervasive grievance. The phrase was still relatively unknown (the word "appropriation" still showed up as a squiggly red underline in my word processors), and the concepts weren't commonly discussed outside of academia. [...]

The sort of pipe-dream world I had envisioned, where cultural differences would be celebrated and shared in full, not just in caricature, and definitely not as a tool to demean or discriminate...I don't have to tell you that that did not happen. Instead, cultural appropriation seemed to expand in definition to the point of absurdity; in turn, these instances became platforms that exacerbated racial tensions. [...]

More people today "know" about cultural appropriation than when I started writing about it ten years ago. Ignorance is clearly not the issue; boiling down a complicated phenomenon into a string of Tweetable hot takes has not made it easier for people to transform a passing interest in an aspect of another culture to seeking out a deeper understanding of it. In fact, talking about cultural appropriation the way that we have seems to have made us more callous and closed-off on all sides. It has simplified our differences instead of shining a light on our complexities.

In our fight against caricatures, we’ve somehow reinforced them. [...]

Publications [...] know that provoking basic feelings of outrage and injustice will turn into clicks that they can sell — and that is a problem with our advertising and media institutions. Twitter pundits know that attacking a young woman for racism will earn them a disproportionate amount of likes. It's a form of moral currency — and as much a problem with our tech algorithms as it with our contemporary rhetoric.'


https://www.yahoo.co...-193000220.html

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 23 July 2019 - 09:29 PM

[worry]

Interesting. To be frank, I think that article has elements that support both QT and me (which isn't to say we're 100% opposite sides or anything, but where we do disagree). I do think -- maybe given the nature of her job -- she overestimates how much 'outrage culture' actually permeates non-extremely-online spaces (besides being the basis of the dismissive lens through which the news likes to filter all 'crazy SJW' issues). And the notion that to point out appropriation = shaming people strikes me as patently false. But there's definitely some food for thought throughout too.

This post has been edited by worry: 23 July 2019 - 09:56 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

worry, on 23 July 2019 - 08:38 PM, said:

The accurate context is that Kylie Jenner is a big influential name in the fashion industry, which has a rich history of appropriation, and is a white woman who has routinely extracted from black culture (style, vocab, cultural products) to enrich herself in that industry, which also routinely shuts out black creatives. The idea isn't that white people cannot wear cornrows because they are the sole province of black people, it's that Kylie Jenner specifically extracted culture from black Americans, industrialized, and mass marketed it for her own gain and divorced from its roots.

She's literally married to a black man, and she's been dating black men for a long time. Black hairstyles are prominent on black musicians and sports stars---the idea that Kylie Jenner would mislead most US pop culture consumers into believing that she created cornrows, or that they're not predominantly a black hairstyle, seems highly unlikely. The surprise and appeal of cornrows on non-black women (or on Asian-American professional athletes like Jeremy Lin, who can also benefit financially from popularity associated with their personal appeal) probably comes from hybridity and/or miscegenation, not appropriation or racial domination or 'erasure' of their connection with black people.

Quote

Likewise, the issue with yoga isn't that people outside its roots should never practice it, it's that a billion dollar industry has been extracted from its creators without respect or credit, and the people of its cultural roots have largely been cut off from having input in or even receiving the fruits of that industrialization. It's exploitive capitalist cultural plunder.

The type of 'yoga' you're referring to was developed by Indian people to appeal to Western audiences; the primary source of the poses is not traditional Indian yoga at all, in which poses like lotus position are primarily intended as aids for long periods of sitting meditation, but Scandinavian gymnastics blended with body training exercises from South Indian wrestling.

https://www.yogajour...s-greater-truth

https://www.newyorke...-invention-yoga

The teaching lineages they started and brought to the United States are now, as a consequence of the tiny South Asian population of the United States at the time, primarily white, and the type of yoga traditionally practiced in India is radically different (focused on pranayama, meditation, and theory rather than poses or exercises), so there are relatively few South Asian practitioners. However, many people who otherwise never would have gone to India to practice traditional Indian yoga, or to practice Westernized yoga with Indian practitioners, have gone and continue to go to India and benefit the economy. Economically, the worldwide popularity of 'yoga' is a net positive for Indian people, and it leads a considerable subset of people to pranayama and traditional Indian yoga.


It also helps a lot of people get in shape.

[worry]

Why are you telling me this?