I've had several discussions with people before on the subject of cultural appropriation. As I'm thinking about getting a few different historical images inked on to my skin I was thinking about the particular cultures they came from and that even if they were/are genetically linked to me I have as little in common culturally with a migration era Dane, or a pre-Celtic pict, or a continental Celt as I would with a Minoan, a Bronze Age "Chinese" person, or an Iron Age Indo-Persian. Most folks, even those who deem themselves culturally sensitive and social justice oriented seem to base their judgements primarily on very observable surface level attributes like skin colour and the accompanying preconceived judgements about an individual's lineage. This seems to me as racist as attitudes those groups often decry. So I wonder how do the rest of you consider the cultures which came before as "valid" or "invalid" as a part of someone's cultural identity. Is it a genetic component? Is it a familiarity with a particular culture? Is it an internalization of certain attitudes? Is it knowing the language?
Cultural appropriation is nonsense. As long as you're sensitive to avoiding genuinely offensive gestures (y'know, don't get a tattoo of any religious deities engaged in obscene acts with each other, or a toothbrush moustache tattooed on your upper lip), you're not actually going to offend anyone other than hypersensitive college kids if you borrow a decorative pattern from elsewhere in the world.
Culture and genetics are not equivalent, unless you are talking about a cultural trend that takes to appropriating or reclaiming iconology based on genetic heritage. At the end of the day symbols can have different meanings to different people, and some may take offence and others be indifferent. If you're displaying the symbols of dead cultures, then you can not be said to have any true understanding of those symbols as they were known... but at least there isn't anyone who can call you out for appropriating their culture :dunno:
If I like the image, I'm getting it inked on my skin. Anyone who has a problem with it can go rant on Twitter or whatever it is overly sensitive people do these days.
I think if I were to get a Black Panther Party tattoo, a Pan-African flag, or maybe some passages from the Q'ran or a Norse swastika, then I might offend some people other than hypersensitive college kids.
I've been sitting on the john so long that my left leg fell asleep and I can't move it. (no really, that's my situation right now) I'm more worried about the pins and needles I'm going to get standing up than I am about cultural appropriation.
I remember there being a massive kickoff about native American head dresses being worn at festivals last year. Mainly from the native American community. Seemed fair enough when I looked into their reasons even though my initial response was less than accommodating.
Sure, but that's not appropriation, you just like it aesthetically, or it means something personal to you. Getting some iron age Irish symbol on your **** because you think it has some personal connection to you, even though you've never lived there and it's been generations since anyone in your family did... that is shallow sentimentality and appropriation. Not that I think people shouldn't do it, but I also think it's fine if Irish people point and laugh at the cultural tourist.
The tattoo was just the impetus for the thought. I really couldn't give a Flying Spaghetti Monster what the hypersensitive baby brigade thinks
Cultural apropriation seems like nonsense on the surface level. Things like hairstyles, music and clothing are all just superficial imo. That's not apropriation, that's assimilation and integration. David Harrison had a very good point about people being offended by heavily religious, or heavily political tattoos. For instance, the swastika, or the Black Panther movement, or a copy of religious text. I'm not sure that's appropriation or just being a douchenozzle though.
I hadn't heard about that. It's kind of hard to argue with this: "Sinclair feels the ban is a long time coming because this sort of appropriation “happens all the time”. “People have been dressing up like Indians for 150 years,” he says. “It’s about celebrating the conquest of indigenous people. People don’t understand how degrading it is to have a sacred object within a culture stolen and appropriated and misused in an inappropriate setting.” Many indigenous people want to enjoy a music festival just like anybody else. “That’s impossible to do that when you have people celebrating genocide standing right beside you.”" - http://www.theguardian.com/culture/...sic-festival-headdress-cultural-appropriation
Unless they're Hindu deities, in which case it may be appropriate. Although that tatoo would offend people for other reasons.
Yeah, I think the offence it causes is the issue, not the appropriation itself. If I dress up like a vicar or a Viking, no-one will be offended. If I dress up like an African shaman, complete with black makeup, or an SS officer, everyone will think I'm a douche.
I think of it as a hobby only. Some of my ancestors came from the Scottish Highlands. They're actually the only ones I care about, and that's because of -- to answer your question -- hobbyist interest. There's nothing Scottish or even Celtic in American culture, and anyone in my family who was actually Scottish died at least two generations before I was born, but for the same reason scrapbookers scrapbook and kung-fu people do kung-fu and bikers bike, I sometimes have an interest in Scottish things. And I always cheer for the blue-painted Picts in movies. I would think the same of any such tattoo you put on yourself.
And what is wrong with that? It's not hurting anyone. People should be able to express themselves how they want to and if they are interested in different cultures shouldn't be deterred from learning about them simply because they aren't connected to the culture either ethnically or socially. I drink tea every day, haven't upset any Chinese people yet. What I find ironic is that proponents are trying to fight racism by basically saying everyone should stick to their own culture. That's what the racists have been saying all along.
If we're talking about Jews being offended by Swastikas, Black people being offended by reminders of Slavery and empire, or First Nations peoples being offended by their ceremonial garb being appropriated by sports and corporations, I think that's all been going on a long time. It's just that no-one cared what they thought. If we're talking about people who spend their lives being offended on behalf of other people, then that can get annoying, and is, in its own way, often a form of appropriation. I'm not easily offended, but I don't think it's very nice to laugh at people who are.
It's worse than that. People can't even talk about things like racism, sexism etc... For fear of being labeled racist even if their ideals fall in line with the PC police.
You didn't quote the bit where I said I didn't have a problem with people doing that, just as there's nothing wrong Irish people thinking you're an eejit for feeling a cultural affinity with them.
