To not fully understand "cultural appropriation"

[hettyGreek]

It seems like its a US phrase that is slowly getting adopted in the UK.

For the most part I just don't get it. If something is racist just call it racist.

I don't have any issue with someone white having dreadlocks for instance. These have been worn by many people of different cultures across the earth. Or am I missing something? If anything its funny if one culture try to take ownership of something that has a very mixed origin.

Some people wouldn't care, but others would still feel uncomfortable about it.

Peoples feelings are their feelings. Doesn't always means it's reasonable.

Also feeling uncomfortable is different to demanding people don't wear anything with a poppy on as its offensive. Besides which dd has had loads of non war memorial clothes with poppies on.

the problem is when they don't even try to understand what they are doing or wearing, especially in the case of indigenous artifacts which have cultural or religious symbolism.

I agree. But you can't tell that by looking at someone when they walk past you. Have their photo taken, put a post on Instagram. For example.

The problem with CA is that a lot of people using the phrase don't understand it or the culture of the person try are aiming it at.

Like the example I have in my first post. A pupil complained that my dds friend was committing CA for wearing double braids. Having no idea that they are not corn rows and have been a 'European' hair styles going back years. The result (even though the school stamped on it) is that girls daren't wear their any sort of braid in their hair.

This pupil has effectively appropriated braids from white European girls at school, using the definition given earlier of to take exclusive possession of :

While CA can be real and damaging, it's being used by people who don't understand it and becoming something ridiculous.

Is the "taking over" (meeting that definition, if only at the earlier stages of it) of a christian, jesus-based christmas by a multi-faith santa-based one appropriation?
Or was the taking over of yule by christians appropriation?

Both are examples of an aggressor (i'm using "commercialism" as the bad guy in the first) taking over and appropriating the beliefs and customs of a smaller culture?

(Materialism is probably a better word there)

Blair's saris
What do people think of Cherie's obsession with wearing saris?

So is a man insisting he is a woman, wearing womens clothes, doing their hair in a traditionally female style "gender appropriation"?

I agree with those who said it leads to increased segregation. If you live and work amongst different cultures, as much of the world does these days, there will be adoption of certain customs, in both directions.

I doubt there can be many cultures that have not "appropriated" some aspect of another culture. Britain has been invaded centuries ago and so we have Celtic, Italian whatever mixed in. This is the same the world over. Where do you draw the line? Where is the cut off point? An example are simple garments that probably everyone owns. Kimonos, used as dressing gowns. My family are Japanese and wear them nowadays for very special occasions and for everyday they wear western clothing. So is it wrong for them to wear western clothing or wrong for others to wear an important garment for lounging around in? Sometimes people are offended on other's behalf where no offence actually exists.

The issue with people allowing to wear what they want without mocking others is when do you know it's not mocking

Native American head dress some are only worn by particular people within their society I have no idea which ones are and which are not

I think what it really comes done to is a back lash against the White Christian culture that has made our society what it is and how it has been able to take what they liked from cultures regardless of the impact and make it their own now some are saying no you can't do that it is not yours and we want that respected or at least acknowledged yet some are saying no don't be so daft so again being told is ok and not ok and what to do and not to do

It's part of the changes we are going through it may seem petty to some but it's history coming back on us. We pay for our fathers sins and all that ...

So is a man insisting he is a woman, wearing womens clothes, doing their hair in a traditionally female style "gender appropriation"?

A man insisting he is a woman
Yes
Wearing women's clothes, doing their hair in a traditionally female style
No

Just my opinion though, as a woman.

So is hair straightening CA then? But only if you have 'black' hair? Or Jean Paul Gautier in his kilts (is he still doing those?). The little very blonde blue eyed boy at DSs school weaking a silk Chinese suit (he is a quarter Chinese). Anyone dying their hair red? Jeans - they are American mens workwear aren't they? Big sleeve tattoos?

People do like to label things these days and seem to miss the real or big issues. Is it just soft targeting?

yeah they could all be seen as it, but its mainly an issue when its from cultures that have been systematically oppressed that its actually a problem

Can't remember who posted it but some Japanese people are Christian and there are many Catholic churches etc in Japan. They do tend to "over do" things over there though. The village in UK where I live currently, hold animal blessing services once a year, in a church. Maybe the same as the do thing in Japan?
Oh and don't even get me started on "California Rolls" they are an American interpretation of Sushi. I'm only offended because they are disgusting, not because they are a cultural appropriation. lol

oops. i meant "dog thing" in Japan

One of my neighbours has a Buddha statue in their front garden. I don't think they are Buddhist though and I like him as he looks very happy and jolly. My Mum is Shinto but she is not at all religious and she has several different Buddhas in her home as she just likes them.

I do think that the western world has taken so much and is still taking from the other parts of the world (using the word taken lightly ) that the backlash is starting to happen now. This is because because of social media being able to give people a voice. A voice that cannot be silenced by newspapers, governments and tv.
It's not just appropriation debate that is taking place but also debates about artefacts which where taken and stored in places like the British museum by archeologist and anthropologists during the European invasion of what become their colonies. It would not surprise me if the British museum in thirty years time, half the things were taken back to its right full owners. Or they have them on loans. It will happen unless the EU stops it by bringing in a law. Greece may want their marbles, the western Africans will come for theirs too. I know someone who said there is a statue that his tribe wants back. They can't afford a court case like Amal and clooney can for the Greeks. The Chinese and Japanese will come for their things too. So will the South Americans.

The Scots were forbidden by law to wear kilts. And you could only traditionally wear a kilt of your clan. If you did not belong to the clan, you could not wear it. Kilts had real cultural meaning and were seen at times as a sign of resistance to the English conquerors.
So presumably the fact that a lot of time has passed since this has been the case, that now makes it acceptable as a fashion item?

debbriana it wouldn't surprise me either, about the British museum. Only I think it won't take 30 years.

Those countries trying to get back what belongs to them, have been going on for quite a few years already. I think some stuff has already gone back, and some stuff is now on loan.

I think it is very fair that, these things be returned.

I think the artefacts point is an excellent one.

I do think these should be returned.

But it's not CA. The British museum isn't claiming the artifacts are British or taking credit.

Also a lot of the countries own governments were complicit at the time in selling these treasures and removing them from the country of origin. They were bought, in a lot of cases. Meaning they are now property of the person buying them. It's all very complicated.

But given the definition of 'appropriation' given earlier, it does seem to fit.

Certainly there are issues around how some countries came into possession of antiquities, but before calling for wholesale return, isn't it worth taking into account the ability of the "home country" to actually look after any of it?

Not all nations have the resources - or even the will - for major conservation, which raises the question of whether claims that "they stole our so-and-so" aren't more about political point scoring than something more worthy

while Iraq was being invaded, the museum in Baghdad was cleaned out. The same in Egypt, India, Africa etc etc. It's theft and yes those peoples have been asking for repatriation of their history e.g. North American Indian tribes have been asking for their dead remains, religious artifacts, war bonnets etc to be returned and they are slowly being given back. They are also asking that baseball, football etc teams not be allowed to continue to name themselves using anything referring to NAI. CA is part and parcel of this disrespect to groups that are at the bottom of the totem pole.

It's definitely not CA but it's in the same line of debate. The reason behind it is the same. The statue for the western African country would go back to the kingdom it was taken from. It's worshiped and has meaning and value for its people. When it's taken back it won't be in a museum. It would be worshiped by its people. In the British museum it has no meaning. It's something for tourist and British public to look at. There are some antiquities being stored at the anthropological cupboards of UCL. Those will be almost impossible to know about unless you are student of anthropology or have dealings with the university.

I also agree that some countries won't be able to look after their artefacts and it might be best left where they are now. In the future if the people want it they should be able to have back.

The Native American campaigns to have the names changed is very valid. The power behind the teams seems to be a lot stronger because of how much they would lose in revenue. The name sells at the expense of one group of people, the abuse they suffered and still suffering.

Original for the hair straightening is on the other thread. Read if you want to. I don't thing I want to talk about hair anymore. The hair debate is a small thing that is easier to pick on because probably you have celebrities to use as examples and easy target. It fits the dailymail side bar.
By the way, most of the hair debate when you follow it properly it's not about hair itself outside of the dm. It's about the celebrities picking parts of what Americans refer to as black culture but not getting involved with the black lives matter debate or other debates that involve black matters.

Absolutely think that if a person was to wear a piece of clothing the way cherie Blair does with her saris there shouldn't be a problem. It's when people turn it into costumes and it losses its value and meaning.

In Europe and America they may have a growing numbers of atheist and non believers but in other parts of the world people still believe in God and other gods. It holds meaning to them. They may not have written their stories down but it's told through theses totem poles, statues, pottery and other things. The drawings tell stories and history of the people it belongs to and they look at it as something that is theirs to keep. Their inheritance as a race or group of people. Something, that gives them identity.
The same thing could be said for the Ghanaian design on their clothing. It has meaning. A lot of the African prints have meaning. It's because that was how they as people recorded their history. Most are not just random blocks put together to look nice.

Yes I know someone will come along and say that the fabric and design on how to wear it was appropriated. Yes, It it was. The difference is, it's been given meaning. It's not a costume. The people that wear the fabric value it. To them it's not the commercial sense that's important. Probably, it was to the people who first sold it.