Cultural appropriation

[Aurorus Ruber]

I have long heard about how many on the far left disapprove of the practice of cultural appropriation. However, I have always been somewhat unclear about what constitutes cultural appropriation. Does any cultural borrowing by someone who happens to belong to a privileged culture constitute appropriation because of their dominance over the originating culture?

For instance, I have often come across critiques of white musicians appropriating musical traditions such as rock and hiphop from people of color. Some recent examples include Miley Cyrus, Iggy Azalea, and Macklemore, and I have seen similar criticisms that musicians like Elvis or Led Zeppelin appropriated Blues, etc. How would white musicians go about eschewing cultural appropriation in this case? Would that mean reviving European musical traditions like classical and folk music?

[Devrim]

Cultural appropriation is a good thing. Without it human development would have been much slower.

Devrim

[Creative Destruction]

Cultural appropriation is a good thing. Without it human development would have been much slower.

Devrim

no, cross cultural exchange is a good thing. cultural appropriation is something else and is pernicious. it's a majority culture co-opting, or borderline to outright mocking, an oppressed minority culture for aesthetic or financial reasons. (shithead hipsters wearing plains indian war bonnets, for example.) i'm not usually one to say "you're not a leftist if..." but i really can't see how you can reconcile being a leftist and supporting something like cultural appropriation.

[motion denied]

Cultural appropriation is not a bad thing, I'm all for it.

Some of this theory's proponents seem to suffer from an awkward case of nationalism. They ignore that humanity developed through a diverse and infinite relations between people from different parts of the globe. We're all cultural appropriators. Or should you start developing your own "St. Louisian alphabet"?

I'm probably not the more knowledgeable person on the subject, since I've only seen this used once IRL and could not take it seriously.

EDIT: Katy Perry is awesome. This alone should prove cultural appropriation a great thing.

[motion denied]

also, that's why in the coming cultural revolution led by myself we will hunt anthropologists and culturalists.

Our world is too good for such non-sense.

[Creative Destruction]

Cultural appropriation is not a bad thing, I'm all for it.

Some of this theory's proponents seem to suffer from an awkward case of nationalism. They ignore that humanity developed through a diverse and infinite relations between people from different parts of the globe. We're all cultural appropriators. Or should you start developing your own "St. Louisian alphabet"?

I'm probably not the more knowledgeable person on the subject, since I've only seen this used once IRL and could not take it seriously.

again, cross cultural exchange is not the same as cultural appropriation. to make this clear: the fur traders in the North American wilderness circa 1840s did generally not appropriate the Amerind cultures they traded with. they exchanged cultural artifacts and knowledge with each other, based on who they traded with and what it is they were trading or selling (for the most part -- there's a varied history here that has to do with white mountain men being complete assholes to Indians.)

contrast that with an example of cultural appropriation: primarily white new agers who appropriate mostly plains indian culture, or what they think of as being plains indian culture, for their own financial or "spiritual" gain. or, like i said before, hipsters appropriating caricatured versions of Indian cultural symbols for their aesthetic benefit. there's nothing to be gained in this except the dilution or caricaturing of an oppressed people's culture. you can extend this to sports team mascots who appropriate images of indians or use offensive cartoons for their mascots.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think cultural appropriation is something that can be consciously controlled, but I think it's clear that under certain circumstances, like those described by the op, it can be pretty fucking unfair. The appropriation itself isn't the issue though, its still the society its taking place in that's the problem.

I think exchange and appropriation are the same things, its not as if one culture ever asks another for permission before stealing a good idea, it's always appropriation

[Rosa Partizan]

no, cross cultural exchange is a good thing. cultural appropriation is something else and is pernicious. it's a majority culture co-opting, or borderline to outright mocking, an oppressed minority culture for aesthetic or financial reasons. (shithead hipsters wearing plains indian war bonnets, for example.) i'm not usually one to say "you're not a leftist if..." but i really can't see how you can reconcile being a leftist and supporting something like cultural appropriation.

on the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, I've been experiencing that at least in Germany, this has become ridiculous and batshit insane feminist bloggers go crazy over stuff like dreamcatchers and dreadlocks. Well, going crazy over dreadlocks might be ok, they're disgusting and hippiesque.

[Creative Destruction]

on the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, I've been experiencing that at least in Germany, this has become ridiculous and batshit insane feminist bloggers go crazy over stuff like dreamcatchers and dreadlocks. Well, going crazy over dreadlocks might be ok, they're disgusting and hippiesque.

this just points to having to pick your battles. dreamcatchers themselves aren't an issue. the issue is that (mostly) white people will claim some deeper spiritual meaning with them based on a culture they know probably nothing about or the reasoning/history behind the symbol, and you can say that about many appropriated items.

dreadlocks are an interesting issue. there are some fair skinned people who would prefer dreadlocks because it'd be a good and stylish way to control their otherwise kinky hair. there's nothing wrong with them or culturally specific with dreadlocks that would merit them being called "appropriation." now, if you had dreadlocks and were wearing Jamaican themed wears, talking about Rasta and faking a Jamaican patois... that's an issue. that's cultural appropriation.

one thing that kind of complicates this discussion is that it is complicated. and a lot of people are incredibly hardheaded when it comes to discussion that don't have clear and exact lines.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Why on Earth should communists care about the spiritual meaning of anything? This is beyond ridiculous - and it shows what happens when discussion of actual material violence is replaced by talking about hurt feelings, as much of the liberal-inspired "left" does.

[motion denied]

dreadlocks are an interesting issue. there are some fair skinned people who would prefer dreadlocks because it'd be a good and stylish way to control their otherwise kinky hair. there's nothing wrong with them or culturally specific with dreadlocks that would merit them being called "appropriation." now, if you had dreadlocks and were wearing Jamaican themed wears, talking about Rasta and faking a Jamaican patois... that's an issue. that's cultural appropriation.

No, that's called, at most, "being a fucking idiot". There's nothing oppressive or exploitative here. Nothing.


The unique and exotic people from afar should be preserved as a museum piece. Any contacts with the ~oppressive cultures~ will corrupt and destroy the spiritual purity of these societies (that have nothing to do with us, of course). As a member of an "oppressed culture", however assimilated and corrupted by the white devil, I should say: stop patronising me, bruv.

[Creative Destruction]

Why on Earth should communists care about the spiritual meaning of anything? This is beyond ridiculous - and it shows what happens when discussion of actual material violence is replaced by talking about hurt feelings, as much of the liberal-inspired "left" does.

they shouldn't. they should care about an oppressed people being taken advantage of due to the actions of the ruling culture.

[Creative Destruction]

No, that's called, at most, "being a fucking idiot". There's nothing oppressive or exploitative here. Nothing.

it is exploitative, for reason i already explained.

[Orange Juche]

on the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, I've been experiencing that at least in Germany, this has become ridiculous and batshit insane feminist bloggers go crazy over stuff like dreamcatchers and dreadlocks. Well, going crazy over dreadlocks might be ok, they're disgusting and hippiesque.

See that's where it gets silly and problematic - people go wayyy to far with it (in my opinion), I mean, dreadlocks being culturally appropriative? So when it comes to stuff like that, I tend to think it's silly and it's this "Tumblr culture" gone to some bizarre extreme.

But there is cultural appropriation that is a problem, a good example being things like American sports fans (mostly white) of teams like the Chiefs and Indians wearing Indigenous American headdresses and doing chants and "tomahawk chops" and such in such a way that it's essentially mocking native culture - culture that some of these people still practice. It's racist, in that instance.

So, I'd argue, it depends. Wearing a yin-yang symbol or playing the kalimba because it sounds neat to you isn't "appropriation", it has to be in a place where you're essentially disrespecting the culture by caricaturing it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

they shouldn't. they should care about an oppressed people being taken advantage of due to the actions of the ruling culture.

So how is someone from Jamaica disadvantaged by white people wearing dreadlocks? I mean materially disadvantaged.

[Creative Destruction]

So how is someone from Jamaica disadvantaged by white people wearing dreadlocks? I mean materially disadvantaged.

newsflash! "exploitation" can come in forms other than material deprivation.

aside from that, it's not dreadlocks themselves. did you ignore the entire part where i introduced nuance into it? or did you want to be a dishonest shithead in this discussion, as well?

[Creative Destruction]

The unique and exotic people from afar should be preserved as a museum piece. Any contacts with the ~oppressive cultures~ will corrupt and destroy the spiritual purity of these societies (that have nothing to do with us, of course). As a member of an "oppressed culture", however assimilated and corrupted by the white devil, I should say: stop patronising me, bruv.

are you intentionally being dumb?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

newsflash! "exploitation" can come in forms other than material deprivation.

aside from that, it's not dreadlocks themselves. did you ignore the entire part where i introduced nuance into it? or did you want to be a dishonest shithead in this discussion, as well?

Oh, and what is this non-material exploitation? Does it have something to do with spiritual value? Because that is the only "nuance" you've introduced into this discussion.

I am not being dishonest. For the last few years many an ostensible lefitist has completely assimilated the liberal nonsense that oppression is about hurt feelings, not about material, structural violence. I think it's ridiculous. What's next, worrying about the hurt feelings of white people when someone calls them a "cracker"?

[Orange Juche]

are you intentionally being dumb?

I hope Get a Job, Hippie! says "Yes, actually! You jolly got me there, friend!" :lol:

[Creative Destruction]

Oh, and what is this non-material exploitation? Does it have something to do with spiritual value? Because that is the only "nuance" you've introduced into this discussion.

it has to do with marginalizing a people's culture even further, to the point of cartoonishness and exploitation. are plains indian folks materially deprived by some white dickhole selling dream catchers at a mainly-white farmers market? probably not. but, it is a small piece in a larger picture that contributes to mythologies built up around native culture (which are unfairly generalized and assumed to be monolithic by a bunch of people) that pretty much reduces people to seeing them as something not human. this does have consequences in our reality, like refusing to deal with the actual human issues surrounding oppression of native peoples.


I am not being dishonest. For the last few years many an ostensible lefitist has completely assimilated the liberal nonsense that oppression is about hurt feelings, not about material, structural violence. I think it's ridiculous. What's next, worrying about the hurt feelings of white people when someone calls them a "cracker"?

lol. this is your go to argument for views you disagree with. that they're "liberal." yes, that is exactly you not engaging honestly with the argument.

[motion denied]

I'm being partially obtuse. Partially. Some people are spending too much time on tumblr and/or reading too much academic garbage.

This thread right here is campus politics. Now we have some spiritual exploitation or whatever. The word you're looking for is "disrespect". It's, as pointed, the hurt-feelings politics. What a joke. I'm done, have fun.

[consuming negativity]

Cultural appropriation happens when things are used out of context in a manner that is not positive. If you were to go to Saudi Arabia, dressing like a Saudi Arabian person is not cultural appropriation. You wouldn't be standing out and getting attention for doing it - you'd be blending in with the culture, and also getting more functional clothing for the environement. And if you were to go to an Indian reservation in America and, with permission of the people there, participate in a ceremony of some sort with them, you would also not be appropriating anything. However, if you were to then go and simplify the ceremony down, and proclaim yourself as a Shaman selling spooky Indian insight to white people, that would be appropriation. You would be destroying or otherwise misrepresenting the part of the culture, and doing so for your own personal gain. And if enough misrepresentation is public, it can have the effect of drowning out the reality so that most people really think that your bullshit re-creation is the real deal. That's why it's very bad - it's basically cultural imperialism.

[Aurorus Ruber]

This issue has always confused me since deliberately avoiding foreign cultural influences sounds rather nationalistic and even xenophobic to me. Imagine a white musician expunging all non-European influence from their style and emulating European folk music. Sure they would avoid cultural appropriation, but such cultural purism hardly seems like something the left would praise.

[Creative Destruction]

This issue has always confused me since deliberately avoiding foreign cultural influences sounds rather nationalistic and even xenophobic to me. Imagine a white musician expunging all non-European influence from their style and emulating European folk music. Sure they would avoid cultural appropriation, but such cultural purism hardly seems like something the left would praise.

you don't have to avoid cultural influence or exchange to avoid cultural appropriation.

[Slavic]

lol. this is your go to argument for views you disagree with. that they're "liberal." yes, that is exactly you not engaging honestly with the argument.

Maybe that's because your argument is basically liberal in nature. It seems to postulate that people have some sort of right to preserve their culture and any appropriation of said culture is a direct attack on said people.

Let me twist your white dude wearing a native american headdress selling wind charms at a market example. You claim that this act not only degrades the native american culture, but also somehow dehumanizes the individual.

What if I dressed in lederhosen and went to a fair to sell various German sausages and cheeses. I am not German, but I do like their food. Does my act degrade the German culture and dehumanizes its members? Since I am wearing one of their folk attire and selling products that they consume.

[Creative Destruction]

Maybe that's because your argument is basically liberal in nature. It seems to postulate that people have some sort of right to preserve their culture and any appropriation of said culture is a direct attack on said people.

No, my argument has to do with how instances of cultural appropriation can actually harm an oppressed group. Misrepresenting a culture attached to a group of oppressed peoples can lead to major misrepresentations, stereotypes and other issues that cause the ruling culture to disregard them and their concerns. I already gave an example of how this can happen.

This isn't a "liberal" set of ideas. In fact, liberals are just as, if not more, hard-headed about accepting that cultural appropriation exists and is harmful as some of the people are in this thread. It mostly comes from theories arising around postcolonialism and cultural imperialism; Edward Said, etc. He wasn't a particularly liberal theorist... unless you're some revolutionary-than-thou asshole.


Let me twist your white dude wearing a native american headdress selling wind charms at a market example. You claim that this act not only degrades the native american culture, but also somehow dehumanizes the individual.

And I gave you an example of how this happens.


What if I dressed in lederhosen and went to a fair to sell various German sausages and cheeses. I am not German, but I do like their food. Does my act degrade the German culture and dehumanizes its members? Since I am wearing one of their folk attire and selling products that they consume.

It would be appropriation, but you need to note my post on the previous page, where I said that there are blurred lines, and it's not hard and fast. Some instances are more harmful than others. Obviously, Germans are not a generally oppressed group, so this act of appropriation does not have the corresponding power to harm, say, German Americans or Germans abroad, as it would with native people.

This does not preclude a greater analysis of capitalism and a need to destroy it. In fact, it would be desirable to do this because the harmful power of cultural appropriation would go away. If this was an idea that we need to deal with this only and within the context of capitalism, it would certainly make it liberal. That's not what I'm arguing, though. Absent any actual revolutionary fervor -- which does not actually exist -- it's important to take these things into consideration because they exist in our reality, right now.

[Devrim]

newsflash! "exploitation" can come in forms other than material deprivation.

aside from that, it's not dreadlocks themselves. did you ignore the entire part where i introduced nuance into it? or did you want to be a dishonest shithead in this discussion, as well?

"Hey, my trust fund may have been paid for by the riches that my family amassed during the period of the slave trade, but at least I don't appropriate people's culture by wearing dreadlocks".

This thread is reallt bringing out the worst aspects of the petite-bourgeois influence on the North American left.

Devrim

[Creative Destruction]

"Hey, my trust fund may have been paid for by the riches that my family amassed during the period of the slave trade, but at least I don't appropriate people's culture by wearing dreadlocks".

This thread is reallt bringing out the worst aspects of the petite-bourgeois influence on the North American left.

Devrim

You'd have a point if that's what I was saying. But it wasn't, moron.

[Aurorus Ruber]

you don't have to avoid cultural influence or exchange to avoid cultural appropriation.

Well ok, what would you consider an example of the difference between music influenced by other cultures and a musician engaging in cultural appropriation?

[Creative Destruction]

Well ok, what would you consider an example of the difference between music influenced by other cultures and a musician engaging in cultural appropriation?

Well, keep in mind that for a lot of cases there will be grey areas and it isn't clear cut; however, the clearest examples I can think of:

The development of country music was influenced by old time music in Appalachia and acoustic delta blues, and a lot of cross cultural exchange was had, in many cases, simply because of proximity and similar economic circumstances between black blues musicians and white old time/country musicians. On the other hand, Led Zeppelin appropriated a lot of blues music for their own enrichment and gave no credit due to the artists they basically lifted from and barely a recognition of where it came from. (There was even a lawsuit around it that Led Zeppelin lost.)

[Lord Testicles]

What exactly is cultural appropriation and why should I care?

Because after reading the "examples" section on the wiki page I had to consciously stop my eyes from rolling.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

it has to do with marginalizing a people's culture even further, to the point of cartoonishness and exploitation.

"Spiritual exploitation". I mean, "exploitation" has an established meaning in Marxist theory, it's not simply an insult to hurl at people you consider mean.

Fuck me, are we supposed to care about the purity and dignity of "people's" cultures now? If that is not the very epitome of modern liberalism, I don't know what is. Socialists concern themselves with the material status of the proletariat and oppressed groups. We can leave spiritual values to the priests.


are plains indian folks materially deprived by some white dickhole selling dream catchers at a mainly-white farmers market? probably not.

The main problem with your politics is that, having said this, you feel the need to continue.


but, it is a small piece in a larger picture that contributes to mythologies built up around native culture (which are unfairly generalized and assumed to be monolithic by a bunch of people) that pretty much reduces people to seeing them as something not human. this does have consequences in our reality, like refusing to deal with the actual human issues surrounding oppression of native peoples.

This is straight-up paranoia. Oppressed groups are oppressed by capitalist society, not by "mythologies". Mythologies have been built up around both native American and Southern white culture, yet only one of these groups is oppressed. I wonder why (hint: it has nothing to do with bad people thinking bad thoughts and daring to sell a dreamcatcher, the unspeakable bastards, but the nature of American capitalism).


lol. this is your go to argument for views you disagree with. that they're "liberal." yes, that is exactly you not engaging honestly with the argument.

Do you need some camomile for that aching belly? The fact is that your analysis has nothing to do with the materialist class analysis that defines Marxism and class-struggle anarchism. And I assume you are not a fascist.

I mean look at this:





What if I dressed in lederhosen and went to a fair to sell various German sausages and cheeses. I am not German, but I do like their food. Does my act degrade the German culture and dehumanizes its members? Since I am wearing one of their folk attire and selling products that they consume.

It would be appropriation, but you need to note my post on the previous page, where I said that there are blurred lines, and it's not hard and fast. Some instances are more harmful than others. Obviously, Germans are not a generally oppressed group, so this act of appropriation does not have the corresponding power to harm, say, German Americans or Germans abroad, as it would with native people.

You seem to be saying either that Germans abroad are oppressed as Germans, which is, well, it indicates a long-term relationship with reality, to put it politely, or that appropriation is in fact not connected to oppression as socialists understand it. Instead, it "degrades" cultures. How horrible.

[Devrim]

You'd have a point if that's what I was saying. But it wasn't, moron.

I am not sure what has impressed me most on this thread. I can make up my mind whether it is the completely petite-bourgeois defence of property rights on a supposedly communist website, or your equally stunning demonstration of your wit and repertoire.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I am not sure what has impressed me most on this thread. I can make up my mind whether it is the completely petite-bourgeois defence of property rights on a supposedly communist website, or your equally stunning demonstration of your wit and repertoire.

Devrim

Property rights of cultures, even. Because as we know cultures are really good units for a materialist analysis of society and are in fact homogeneous monoliths that can claim rights to this and that.

The worst part is that our friend from the IOPS is appropriating the image of Rosa Luxemburg, who I strongly suspect would have disliked Parecon nonsense immensely.

[Lord Testicles]

You seem to be saying either that Germans abroad are oppressed as Germans, which is, well, it indicates a long-term relationship with reality, to put it politely, or that appropriation is in fact not connected to oppression as socialists understand it. Instead, it "degrades" cultures. How horrible.

I think you mean long-distance relationship with reality? I hope we all have a long-term relationship with reality.

Just saying... :)

[DOOM]

As I see it, what you guys are calling cultural appropriation is really just the product of capitalism. Globalized capitalism allows us to transfer ideas and culture at a faster and more productive rate, effectively allowing us to become heavily influenced by them - "appropriating" them. However, as this is a byproduct of post-industrialized capitalism, there's no sense in singling this issue out. In fact, it's regressive and shortened up critique of capitalism, even possibly acting as a hotbed for xenophobia, nationalism and some cold-war-esque isolationism.
It really sounds like culturalism, moralism and other immaterialist stuff to me, but whatever.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I think you mean long-distance relationship with reality? I hope we all have a long-term relationship with reality.

Just saying... :)

Watching the metaphysical juggling act going on in this thread has confused me. I'd make myself some tea but I'm afraid I might accidentally appropriate some part of an exotic foreign culture.

[Devrim]

lol. this is your go to argument for views you disagree with. that they're "liberal." yes, that is exactly you not engaging honestly with the argument.

I don't think that I have ever used the word 'liberal' on this site to describe anyone's ideas until now, but yours on this subject fit the term down to the tee.

Devrim

[#FF0000]

For instance, I have often come across critiques of white musicians appropriating musical traditions such as rock and hiphop from people of color. Some recent examples include Miley Cyrus, Iggy Azalea, and Macklemore, and I have seen similar criticisms that musicians like Elvis or Led Zeppelin appropriated Blues, etc. How would white musicians go about eschewing cultural appropriation in this case? Would that mean reviving European musical traditions like classical and folk music?

I think this could probably be answered by looking at musicians like Iggy Azalea and Macklemore and exploring what makes them different from, say, Eminem, Aesop Rock, the Beastie Boys and other white hip-hop artists who managed to avoid criticism along these lines.

[#FF0000]

But there is cultural appropriation that is a problem, a good example being things like American sports fans (mostly white) of teams like the Chiefs and Indians wearing Indigenous American headdresses and doing chants and "tomahawk chops" and such in such a way that it's essentially mocking native culture - culture that some of these people still practice. It's racist, in that instance.

Yeah this is the angle I agree with the most. I can understand a little where people are coming from when they talk about cultural appropriation. No one likes a tourist and I can understand feeling slighted when (for example) you see some rich kid playing salt-of-the-earth or being some pan-handling crustlord for fun while it's something other people have no choice but to live with.

At the very least folks who wear native american headdresses n bindis n make costumes of other cultures are acting in a way that's racist. Especially when they're making costumes of groups that don't really have a voice in white supremacist societies.

[Creative Destruction]

I don't think that I have ever used the word 'liberal' on this site to describe anyone's ideas until now, but yours on this subject fit the term down to the tee.

Devrim

You should probably continue to refrain from using it since you still don't know what it means or describes, apparently. 870, either.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

According to some peoples here because I wear hijab and am Russian/Romani I am appropriating someone's culture somehow and am somehow some anti-Semitic/Orientalist for doing so. Idk. But fuck whoever I do what the fuck I want. Punk rock you fucking asshats.

[Creative Destruction]

lol

[Slavic]

According to some peoples here because I wear hijab and am Russian/Romani I am appropriating someone's culture somehow and am somehow some anti-Semitic/Orientalist for doing so. Idk. But fuck whoever I do what the fuck I want. Punk rock you fucking asshats.


Such a poser.

Obviously the hijab is a birthright held solely by those who came from Muslim wombs. Unless your mother is Muslim then you must be a trendy infidel hipster who is defrauding and demoralizing the delicate and sensitive Muslim culture.
:rolleyes:

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Such a poser.

Obviously the hijab is a birthright held solely by those who came from Muslim wombs. Unless your mother is Muslim then you must be a trendy infidel hipster who is defrauding and demoralizing the delicate and sensitive Muslim culture.
:rolleyes:

Yeah because no Romani women are Muslim and Islam doesn't happen to be my religion and the thing I'm most passionate about and is important in my life. You're right, I'm just some dirty **** wearing some improper scarves in her hea because I'm not brown enough you're right.

[Chaos316]

Why on Earth should communists care about the spiritual meaning of anything?

Dude, Christianity has been used to characterize oppressed people as savages. You don't think that is important? When Indigenous women are the most raped group of people on the planet. They are mostly raped by White men, and fits the narrative that they are promiscuous and seducers of White men, which has been going on since European got to this country. You don't think that is important though.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Well, keep in mind that for a lot of cases there will be grey areas and it isn't clear cut; however, the clearest examples I can think of:

The development of country music was influenced by old time music in Appalachia and acoustic delta blues, and a lot of cross cultural exchange was had, in many cases, simply because of proximity and similar economic circumstances between black blues musicians and white old time/country musicians. On the other hand, Led Zeppelin appropriated a lot of blues music for their own enrichment and gave no credit due to the artists they basically lifted from and barely a recognition of where it came from. (There was even a lawsuit around it that Led Zeppelin lost.)

So you would say that shared experiences and living conditions and giving credit where credit is due make a difference. In more contemporary terms, one can distinguish a white rapper from a poor urban environment who acknowledges their influences from one raised in a wealthy suburb with no real cultural or experiential connection to hiphop.

[Creative Destruction]

So you would say that shared experiences and living conditions and giving credit where credit is due make a difference. In more contemporary terms, one can distinguish a white rapper from a poor urban environment who acknowledges their influences from one raised in a wealthy suburb with no real cultural or experiential connection to hiphop.

I would say so, yes. And this has been the experience of musicians like Eminem, or, in the blues world, Stevie Ray Vaughan.

[Depardieu]

Cultural appropriation is a good thing. Without it human development would have been much slower.

Devrim

some really disturbing and short sighted posts in this thread

didnt expect to see so many self proclaimed materialists fail so utterly at contextualizing social relations

[John Nada]

I don't think culture appropriation is necessarily bad. Like listening to rap, eating Chinese and Mexican food, going to a sweat lodge, taking peyote and iboga, etc. It's when that culture gets used as a commodity. Stuff that was once radical or unique gets turned into another product for some rich white guy(not that other rich people are better). I mean shit, a lot of stuff on the radical left gets used like this too. It becomes a bad thing when the people of that culture becomes the product, perpetuating stereotypes. Like Native Americans have some special connection to nature, Asians are great at martial arts, Blacks are great singers, Latinos are great workers. I mean look at movies that have POC or White actors in (Black/Brown/Red/Yellow)face using cultural stereotypes for the plot. How often do bigots use even seemingly positive stereotypes for hate speech? I don't think it's the disease in itself, so much as a symptom of capitalism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I find the ideas behind "cultural appropriation" to largely consist of cultural essentialism. It also strikes me as being the liberal counterpart to racial seperatism (with "culture" substituting for "race" as the essential property that must not be mixed).

The two "best examples" I've seen given - people wearing traditional dress for Halloween and sports teams having names like Redskins etc - are better characterised as crass ignorance and plain old racism, respectively.

Another thing - I have never, ever seen anybody accused of so-called "cultural appropriation" when it comes to cuisine. Why is that?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You should probably continue to refrain from using it since you still don't know what it means or describes, apparently. 870, either.

Somehow I think an experienced communist militant knows what liberalism is more than some tumblr-influenced person with a made-up ideology.


The two "best examples" I've seen given - people wearing traditional dress for Halloween and sports teams having names like Redskins etc - are better characterised as crass ignorance and plain old racism, respectively.

To be honest, I don't think the first example is necessarily ignorance at all, even if we ignore the fact that defining a "traditional" dress is extremely hard. Not everything needs to be historically accurate and the last thing we need is some Lord High Everything Else dictating what the "appropriate" and "inappropriate" uses of some cultural artifact are.

[Aurorus Ruber]

Another thing - I have never, ever seen anybody accused of so-called "cultural appropriation" when it comes to cuisine. Why is that?

I have often wondered about that myself. Does it constitute cultural appropriation for a white person to eat or prepare foods like falafel or pho? Or would it only become a problem if they opened a restaurant and sold such foods despite not belonging to their originating culture?

[Quail]

I read this article (http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/cultural-exchange-and-cultural-appropriation/) about the difference between cultural appropriation and cultural exchange a while back and remember it being alright.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Reading that article raised even more problems for me. The author uses the word respect as though it had universal definition, and then proceeds to deal with it from a very Anglo point of view. Even reading this thread illustrates that the concept of exchange vs. appropriation is almost alien for people outside of the US and UK.

[Devrim]

Reading that article raised even more problems for me. The author uses the word respect as though it had universal definition, and then proceeds to deal with it from a very Anglo point of view. Even reading this thread illustrates that the concept of exchange vs. appropriation is almost alien for people outside of the US and UK.

I think it is very much an American thing even though it might seep over into the UK and the rest of the anglosphere a little. Even within these areas it is a very new thing. People wouldn't have even thought about it 30 years ago. Most people in the world today wouldn't know what people were whining about. In fact I think most people who are being 'culturally appropriated' wouldn't even realise it.

The article Quail links to seems really reactionary to me.

Devrim

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

I read this article (http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/cultural-exchange-and-cultural-appropriation/) about the difference between cultural appropriation and cultural exchange a while back and remember it being alright.

Having read that article, I think it's become clear in my mind that we shouldn't give a crap about 'culture'. All the issues raised in the article fall either under plain old racism or are invalid concerns based on culture essentialism.

Wear 'traditional Nigerian clothes' whenever you like, that's fine. Put them on and make fun of the people that commonly wear them with racial caricatures, and that would be racist.

Why should those clothes be respected? There's nothing actually special about them; they are just clothes. Treat them accordingly - wear them.

If the culture states that only Nigerian people can wear them, and it's offensive for other people just to put them on, then fuck that. Your culture of racism deserves no 'respect'.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1. Culture is material, and relates fundamentally to forms of life (ie the totality of which is co-constitutive with modes of production). It is only in the context of colonial and capitalist violence in which "culture" becomes objects and habits disconnected from the social forms that they arose from (commodification).

2. Insofar as the commodification and rending apart of "culture" and forms of life is a necessary part of capitalism ("All that is solid melts into air . . .") it is a site of struggle. One's attitude toward that struggle depends on one's take on the "progressive" nature of capitalism. So, for example, while many more-or-less orthodox Marxists, liberals, and others would hold that ostensibly "pre-"capitalist forms of life are on the wrong side of history, cultural appropriation becomes irrelevant and inevitable. On the other hand . . .

3. . . . if one holds that "pre-"capitalist forms of life do not necessarily precede capitalism, or constitute a "lower" level of development, cultural appropriation becomes an important cite of struggle. Insofar as cultures resist commodification and become sites of struggle against accumulation, there is a real efficacy in, say, punching out a hipster for wearing a war bonnet (beyond the immediate emotional satisfaction).

4. None of this is to, however, affirm liberal conceptions of cultural appropriation which are more concerned with the preservation of niche markets than with culture as a site of anti-capitalist struggle. A version of "cultural appropriation" that holds sacrosanct objects and images of a culture - divorced from the real political and economic practices that animate them - is some utter garbage.

[Creative Destruction]

Somehow I think an experienced communist militant knows what liberalism is more than some tumblr-influenced person with a made-up ideology.

lol. just more evidence that you're a fucking moron, i guess. i don't know what "tumblr-influenced person" or a "made-up ideology" means in respect to me. my ideology is on pretty firm ground and i've never been on tumblr. you apparently still don't know what a "liberal" is.

[Quail]

I've just re-read the article and it doesn't come across as particularly reactionary to me. I don't think that "culture" is something that we should put on a pedestal and respect unconditionally, but I don't think that was what the article was trying to say.

Cultural appropriation is a form of racism because it takes clothes or practices generally associated with marginalised groups of people and turns them into a caricature, a costume, etc.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I've just re-read the article and it doesn't come across as particularly reactionary to me. I don't think that "culture" is something that we should put on a pedestal and respect unconditionally, but I don't think that was what the article was trying to say.

Cultural appropriation is a form of racism because it takes clothes or practices generally associated with marginalised groups of people and turns them into a caricature, a costume, etc.

But isn't that what people in this thread are saying? The actual underlying issue is racism, and the society that creates it. The fact that someone wore clothes from another culture isn't what's causing the probem, that act only becomes harmful in the context of a society which creates and operates on racism. The whole topic seems to be taking issue with a symptom rather than the cause, and from that perspective it really does come off as an example of liberal politics. I'm not calling anyone a liberal however just to be clear.

[Creative Destruction]

But isn't that what people in this thread are saying? The actual underlying issue is racism, and the society that creates it. The fact that someone wore clothes from another culture isn't what's causing the probem, that act only becomes harmful in the context of a society which creates and operates on racism. The whole topic seems to be taking issue with a symptom rather than the cause, and from that perspective it really does come off as an example of liberal politics. I'm not calling anyone a liberal however just to be clear.

no, there are people in this thread who have said, outright, that it is a good thing.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No they've said cultural appropriation is a good thing, which it is. I haven't seen anyone make comments in favor of racism. You seem to be interested in attacking cultural appropriation itself rather than the context in which it becomes harmful, that's what not making sense. Cultural appropriation will take place regardless, the only thing we can fix is the conditions it takes place in. Telling one group not to dress like another group does nothing to the conditions though, it's totally superficial.

[Orange Juche]

The two "best examples" I've seen given - people wearing traditional dress for Halloween and sports teams having names like Redskins etc - are better characterised as crass ignorance and plain old racism, respectively.

Well cultural appropriation is obviously racist, but it is a very specific racist type of act - using cultural activities in a way that one is just cluelessly taking them as their own while at the same time characaturizing them and, therefore, mocking that culture.

I've seen a lot of accusations of cultural appropriation that I personally felt really weren't (because like with everything, there's people who take things to ends that are a bit silly - I've seen "following Eastern Religions" as an example of appropriation. The extreme end is, if you're an American and do or enjoy anything from any culture anywhere outside of here and your own culture, you're a piece of shit racist, and I'm not being hyperbolic.)

And then I've seen accusations of cultural appropriation - by people of some cultures, where I could easily see where they're coming from (the Indigenous American one is the most profoundly obvious in the United States, so that's the best example to use). I think the distinction is important to make from just plain old racism, because it's typically something people do out of ignorance - and awareness of cultural appropriation makes it less likely to happen - though I don't think it happens nearly as much as some like to make it out to seem.

I think, too, it all comes down to - if that's an existing culture, what do people in that culture say about it? Is what's going on culturally appropriative, are they put off by when people outside the culture do x thing?

[Quail]

But isn't that what people in this thread are saying? The actual underlying issue is racism, and the society that creates it. The fact that someone wore clothes from another culture isn't what's causing the probem, that act only becomes harmful in the context of a society which creates and operates on racism. The whole topic seems to be taking issue with a symptom rather than the cause, and from that perspective it really does come off as an example of liberal politics. I'm not calling anyone a liberal however just to be clear.

I think there can be some value in drawing attention to the symptoms anyway though. I suppose the point is that if you genuinely see (for example) Native Americans as human beings and equals, you wouldn't choose to wear a headdress associated with their culture as a costume. So by drawing attention to and questioning the symptom, you also question the structures which create that symptom.

[Creative Destruction]

No they've said cultural appropriation is a good thing, which it is. I haven't seen anyone make comments in favor of racism. You seem to be interested in attacking cultural appropriation itself rather than the context in which it becomes harmful, that's what not making sense. Cultural appropriation will take place regardless, the only thing we can fix is the conditions it takes place in. Telling one group not to dress like another group does nothing to the conditions though, it's totally superficial.

no, i spoke about how it is harmful within the context of a capitalist society and how speaking about cultural appropriation doesn't negate a wider analysis of capitalism or the need to abolish it.

but that's not to say it isn't "superficial" within the context of a capitalist society and that harm can't or shouldn't be reduced. there is wider harm that should demand all of our attention, but that doesn't mean we can't devote time to ameliorating shit that is happening right now and embedding it in our larger critique. i've already given examples of how cultural appropriation can be substantially harmful, so you're free to go read back through my posts to find out what i'm actually saying.

[Devrim]

Cultural appropriation is a form of racism because it takes clothes or practices generally associated with marginalised groups of people and turns them into a caricature, a costume, etc.

I think that one of the things that really needs to be pointed out is that nothing is actually being taken from anybody. People copy things. That is the way of cultural exchange. Those who originally had those things are not dispossessed of them. I doubt that most people in Nigerian would know or care if a few weird Americans wear their clothes.

The people who do have an interest in these sort of things are the segments of the petite-bourgeoisie in the US for whom culture has become a part of the capital that they can trade in. The cultural items that they object to having appropriated are no longer an everyday part of their lives, but now a commodity that they can sell*.

In this case it matters to them in very real terms. People 'appropriating' the commodity that they are selling effects its market value.

Of course capitalism is commodifying all cultural forms. Where folk music and folk dances for example were once things practised on a regular basis by members of a community, they have now become something that is sold to both those outside the 'community', as well as those whose grandparents may have been a part of a real community where this culture was a real living thing. This is not only the mass produced spectaculars such as Riverdance, or Anadolu Ateşi, but also on a much smaller level in the form of folk dance lessons etc.

The article is reactionary in that it attempts to turn culture into a commodity that certain people have ownership over and others don't, and it is not the people amongst whom that culture who developed who are claiming ownership of it. It is a segment of the middle class in America who have their ethnic background amongst those people and now think they can profit out of commodifying it.

Devrim

*This isn't to say that everybody who goes on about cultural exchange is repackaging culture and selling it as a commodity merely that they come from a social segment where people do.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I think there can be some value in drawing attention to the symptoms anyway though. I suppose the point is that if you genuinely see (for example) Native Americans as human beings and equals, you wouldn't choose to wear a headdress associated with their culture as a costume. So by drawing attention to and questioning the symptom, you also question the structures which create that symptom.

Oh I see the value of pointing it out for sure. I live in the US so I absolutely get the cringe effect of seeing some white idiot with a dream catcher in their car. For me personally with my background I find the recent influx of clearly uncommitted white people becoming Muslim to be very irritating to put it mildly. I just don't accept this concept of mutual exchange that's being presented as an "acceptable" form of appropriation, I think it's bankrupt and idealist, cultures steal from one another without permission, good ideas belong to no one in the end.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

lol. just more evidence that you're a fucking moron, i guess. i don't know what "tumblr-influenced person" or a "made-up ideology" means in respect to me. my ideology is on pretty firm ground and i've never been on tumblr. you apparently still don't know what a "liberal" is.

Just to clarify, the phrase "experienced communist militant" was a reference to Devrim, not me. I think Devrim has been active in the movement for longer than I've been alive.

And really, you're a "council communist" who sympathises with the IOPS. Um, OK. And you're really into ParEcon. That's why I said your ideology was "made-up" - it didn't emerge organically from the movement, it's just some dudes' grotesquely convoluted scheme. Also, as I said, you appropriate the image of Rosa Luxemburg without showing any understanding of her politics or importance.

This sort of nonsense is really popular on tumblr. Maybe you aren't on tumblr but I would wager my bollocks that the person you first heard the phrase "cultural appropriation" from was.

The main point is this: proponents of the "cultural appropriation" analysis have claimed that it harms people in some manner throughout this thread. (The one exception is TGDU, who correctly links the analysis to the notion that pre-capitalist relations of production are somehow "good" because they are opposed to capitalist accumulation - although of course this does not engage the manner in which capitalism in the periphery of the imperialist system relies on pre-capitalist atavisms, along with being completely ass-backwards.) Well, what harm? That's the question no one is answering.

[Creative Destruction]

Just to clarify, the phrase "experienced communist militant" was a reference to Devrim, not me. I think Devrim has been active in the movement for longer than I've been alive.

And really, you're a "council communist" who sympathises with the IOPS. Um, OK. And you're really into ParEcon. That's why I said your ideology was "made-up" - it didn't emerge organically from the movement, it's just some dudes' grotesquely convoluted scheme. Also, as I said, you appropriate the image of Rosa Luxemburg without showing any understanding of her politics or importance.

there's no use interacting with your revolutionary-than-thou bullshit. i know politics enough to know how to identify shitty politics and you definitely have shitty politics.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ha ha, alright, have fun being a "council communist" in the same organisation as Albert and Chomsky and preparing for that fateful day when you too could calculate indicative prices and be forced to work by a "socialist" society.

[Depardieu]

I think that one of the things that really needs to be pointed out is that nothing is actually being taken from anybody. People copy things. That is the way of cultural exchange. Those who originally had those things are not dispossessed of them. I doubt that most people in Nigerian would know or care if a few weird Americans wear their clothes.

The people who do have an interest in these sort of things are the segments of the petite-bourgeoisie in the US for whom culture has become a part of the capital that they can trade in. The cultural items that they object to having appropriated are no longer an everyday part of their lives, but now a commodity that they can sell*.

In this case it matters to them in very real terms. People 'appropriating' the commodity that they are selling effects its market value.

Of course capitalism is commodifying all cultural forms. Where folk music and folk dances for example were once things practised on a regular basis by members of a community, they have now become something that is sold to both those outside the 'community', as well as those whose grandparents may have been a part of a real community where this culture was a real living thing. This is not only the mass produced spectaculars such as Riverdance, or Anadolu Ateşi, but also on a much smaller level in the form of folk dance lessons etc.

The article is reactionary in that it attempts to turn culture into a commodity that certain people have ownership over and others don't, and it is not the people amongst whom that culture who developed who are claiming ownership of it. It is a segment of the middle class in America who have their ethnic background amongst those people and now think they can profit out of commodifying it.

Devrim

cultural appropriation often takes place when cultural heritage which hasnt been commodified is turned into a commodity by the ruling white capitalist class. it's essentially a form of furthering capitalist hegemony at the expense of people who are marginalized from capitalist trade relations.

food, as some have pointed out in this thread, is something which is for the most part already commodified so that's why people rarely complain about its appropriation.

[RedMaterialist]

Cultural appropriation is a form of racism because it takes clothes or practices generally associated with marginalised groups of people and turns them into a caricature, a costume, etc.

In the US this sort of thing happens all the time. Black kids wear baggy jeans, long shorts, or low riding pants. Within a yr or two white kids are wearing the same thing, and within 5 yrs old white guys are wearing khaki shorts down to their mid calves.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm not sure old white people adopting fashion that way constitutes a caricature or a costume in the sense that quail is talking about. I'm also not sure that fashion manifests or spreads in such a simplistic linear way. I've been around long enough for the '80s' to come back into style about 3 times now and I'm not even 30, how are you going to track which culture appropriated what during those cycles, how do you separate them?

[Lily Briscoe]

What exactly is the meaning of presenting that as some sort of criticism anyway (@redmaterialist)? It's almost like some people think there would be something 'progressive' about fashion trends being kept strictly segregated along ethnic/racial lines, 'because culture'.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I wonder if redmaterialist has taken into account the role advertising professionals of other ethnicities play in creating black fashion trends as well, not to mention a host of other players in the process.

[#FF0000]

It's almost like some people think there would be something 'progressive' about fashion trends being kept strictly segregated along ethnic/racial lines, 'because culture'.

I don't think it's a matter of fashion trends, tho. We're not talking about Harajuku fashion becoming popular outside of Japan. we're talkin about, for example, people wearing native american warbonnets for aesthetics.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think it's a matter of fashion trends, tho. We're not talking about Harajuku fashion becoming popular outside of Japan. we're talkin about, for example, people wearing native american warbonnets for aesthetics.

Which is bad because... warbonnets are sacred? I mean, Native American workers aren't materially hurt because some hipster wears a warbonnet.

[#FF0000]

Which is bad because... warbonnets are sacred? I mean, Native American workers aren't materially hurt because some hipster wears a warbonnet.

Since when is "materially hurt" the standard? Are women "materially hurt" by "make me a sandwich" jokes?

EDIT: (And what does it mean, exactly? I think an argument could be made that appropriation like this reinforces racism/white supremacism/whatever and contributes to the oppression of the folks being appropriated. That isn't an argument I'm comfortable articulating, but yeah)

[Slavic]

Culture is extremely subjective. To start with you can to pick a set of attributes and lump people together in a group that all share these attributes. One can look at a particular geological expanse and come up with numerous cultures and subcultures within its population.

Everyone in this thread though seems to be speaking of appropriating "ethnic" culture, not culture in general. Native American headbands, African American music/baggy clothes, etc. and how White people are stealing their cultural symbols.

Native Americans don't "own" headbands, African Americans don't "own" baggy pants. Yes these items are or where prevalent in these categorized groups, but that doesn't mean they have some sort of culturally value that must be preserved and hidden from other cultures.

Since this thread seems to be US oriented. The US is fairly diverse compared to other countries, there have been large immigration waves to the country. There is a plethora of cultures here and there is bound to be sharing and exchanging of symbols. That is how culture works.

[Hermes]

Sorry for interjecting, but despite how many people are saying that 'cultural appropriation is only the sharing and exchanging of symbols', I don't think anyone in this thread has stated that the 'sharing and exchanging of symbols' is bad. I think there's a misunderstanding somewhere in definition.

I think the best way to look at it, for me, is (as others have said) a specific form of racism. I'm not sure why people would object to that analysis.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Since when is "materially hurt" the standard? Are women "materially hurt" by "make me a sandwich" jokes?

Some of them are, yes, when that joke is made in certain contexts. I.e. when it is used to reinforce systematic violence and coercion against women by conveying both the social expectation that women preform unpaid domestic labour for "their" men, and the implicit threat about what happens otherwise. I mean, that's why we oppose them (again, in some contexts). The point is not in the bad words but in their relation to material oppression.

Hipsters wearing warbonnets... doesn't do that. It might cause offence. Perhaps it "degrades" some culture or other - and that assumes that it even makes sense to talk about cultures as monolithic entities. So what.

As for why we should focus on material harm, part of the reason is that by focusing on hurt feelings the liberal-inspired left obscures the actual material class dynamics of society, ties itself down in ridiculous crusades that more often than not play into the hands of reactionaries ("gay men are appropriating the culture of black women" is one I heard of recently), and generally analyses society in a shitty pointless way. My favourite, simply because I encounter the claim so much, being bisexual, is supposed gay "biphobia". "Oh no a gay person said something mean about me this is exactly like being killed for my orientation."


EDIT: (And what does it mean, exactly? I think an argument could be made that appropriation like this reinforces racism/white supremacism/whatever and contributes to the oppression of the folks being appropriated. That isn't an argument I'm comfortable articulating, but yeah)

How? Again, the problem seems to be that people conceive of racism as a system of bad thoughts. Well people have bad thoughts about whites as well. That doesn't mean that anti-white racism is a thing.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Why is culture worth protecting? I think Devrim gave the best (and perhaps the only) answer to that question


I think the best way to look at it, for me, is (as others have said) a specific form of racism. I'm not sure why people would object to that analysis.

But how is wearing a war bonnet racist?

[Hermes]

But how is wearing a war bonnet racist?

I hate to just quote someone else, but I think Orange Juche gave a better explanation than I could (sorry if you're reading the same post twice):


See that's where it gets silly and problematic - people go wayyy to far with it (in my opinion), I mean, dreadlocks being culturally appropriative? So when it comes to stuff like that, I tend to think it's silly and it's this "Tumblr culture" gone to some bizarre extreme.

But there is cultural appropriation that is a problem, a good example being things like American sports fans (mostly white) of teams like the Chiefs and Indians wearing Indigenous American headdresses and doing chants and "tomahawk chops" and such in such a way that it's essentially mocking native culture - culture that some of these people still practice. It's racist, in that instance.

So, I'd argue, it depends. Wearing a yin-yang symbol or playing the kalimba because it sounds neat to you isn't "appropriation", it has to be in a place where you're essentially disrespecting the culture by caricaturing it.

I don't necessarily think that wearing a war bonnet is racist, but the caricature often made of indigenous americans while doing so definitely is, to me.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I don't necessarily think that wearing a war bonnet is racist, but the caricature often made of indigenous americans while doing so definitely is, to me.

So it's only racist if you stereotype native Americans while doing it? I'd agree with that statement. I've heard people say that it's inherently racist for a white person to wear one for any reason. I've even heard people say the same about certain textile patterns associated with native American tribes!

I still don't see the point in treating this as cultural appropriation though, since you seem to agree that the problem isn't cultural appropriation but is instead general racism.

[Hermes]

So it's only racist if you stereotype native Americans while doing it? I'd agree with that statement. I've heard people say that it's inherently racist for a white person to wear one for any reason. I've even heard people say the same about certain textile patterns associated with native American tribes!

I still don't see the point in treating this as cultural appropriation though, since you seem to agree that the problem isn't cultural appropriation but is instead general racism.

Well, it is cultural appropriation, by definition, yes? Which doesn't mean that everything that fits the definition of cultural appropriation is racist. I guess what I'm saying then, is that certain forms of cultural appropriation are a problem because they're racist. Obviously racism is the 'main' or center problem, but I don't see the harm in identifying the forms it takes, etc.

(I didn't really realize how many people had changed their names recently until today)

[Rugged Collectivist]

Well, it is cultural appropriation, by definition, yes? Which doesn't mean that everything that fits the definition of cultural appropriation is racist. I guess what I'm saying then, is that certain forms of cultural appropriation are a problem because they're racist. Obviously racism is the 'main' or center problem, but I don't see the harm in identifying the forms it takes, etc.

(I didn't really realize how many people had changed their names recently until today)

Right, but cultural appropriation is only racist in a very narrow context, so criticizing "cultural appropriation" in the abstract is nonsensical.

[Xena Warrior Proletarian]

Well, it is cultural appropriation, by definition, yes? Which doesn't mean that everything that fits the definition of cultural appropriation is racist. I guess what I'm saying then, is that certain forms of cultural appropriation are a problem because they're racist. Obviously racism is the 'main' or center problem, but I don't see the harm in identifying the forms it takes, etc.

(I didn't really realize how many people had changed their names recently until today)

Certainly. But cultural appropriation isn't always racist. It can be, but isn't necessarily. There's nothing wrong with cultural appropriation, but instead racism. Just like how jokes can be racist, but there's nothing wrong with jokes.

The problem isn't cultural appropriation. The problem is racism.

[John Nada]

Certainly. But cultural appropriation isn't always racist. It can be, but isn't necessarily. There's nothing wrong with cultural appropriation, but instead racism. Just like how jokes can be racist, but there's nothing wrong with jokes.

The problem isn't cultural appropriation. The problem is racism.I think Quail pointed out the difference between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation. Exchange is usual good and bound to happen. Appropriation is turning the exchange into a minstrel show. Capitalism will use whatever one is the most profitable.

[Hermes]

Right, but cultural appropriation is only racist in a very narrow context, so criticizing "cultural appropriation" in the abstract is nonsensical.

Based on the definition of cultural appropriation that I'm aware of, I agree that criticizing it in the abstract is nonsensical. I think, although I don't want to speak for any of them and am almost certainly wrong, that many of the people in this thread would have no quarrel with that statement. Most of what I've read in this thread has been careful to include context, etc.


Certainly. But cultural appropriation isn't always racist. It can be, but isn't necessarily. There's nothing wrong with cultural appropriation, but instead racism. Just like how jokes can be racist, but there's nothing wrong with jokes.

The problem isn't cultural appropriation. The problem is racism.

I agree, but I think there is value in acknowledging that cultural appropriation can be racist, in the same way there's value in acknowledging that jokes can.

I mean, how many people, when it's pointed out that their jokes are racist/sexist/etc, respond that it's just a joke! or otherwise acting like humor/comedy is immune to criticism/analysis/etc. That is, I don't think it's useless to examine the ways in which racism is shown, even if one knows that one can't effectively end that practice without ending racism itself.

--


I think Quail pointed out the difference between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation. Exchange is usual good and bound to happen. Appropriation is turning the exchange into a minstrel show. Capitalism will use whatever one is the most profitable.

I was under the impression that, while cultural appropriation has negative connotations, it doesn't necessarily have negative meaning. I'm only working off the wiki page for my definition, though.

[#FF0000]

The problem isn't cultural appropriation. The problem is racism.

I think "cultural appropriation" is inherently racist. I also think it's separate from cultural exchange or a simple "spread" of culture.

[Slavic]

I think "cultural appropriation" is inherently racist. I also think it's separate from cultural exchange or a simple "spread" of culture.

So can we just say that cultural appropriation is just acting out a stereotype.

I mean, if it is separate from cultural exchange and spreading of culture, then what the hell left is there to actually categorize as cultural appropriation.

[Aurorus Ruber]

I am asking about this, of course, because the whole concept of cultural appropriation has raised some questions for me that I have never specifically seen answered. Ever since I first heard about the concept of cultural appropriation, I have wondered just what opponents of cultural appropriation would prefer white people do instead. If white people performing hiphop and other music of Black origin constitutes appropriation of Black culture, what kind of music would those opponents recommend for white musicians instead? In other words, I am interested in what concrete solutions that opponents of cultural appropriation propose.

[#FF0000]

Hipsters wearing warbonnets... doesn't do that. It might cause offence. Perhaps it "degrades" some culture or other - and that assumes that it even makes sense to talk about cultures as monolithic entities. So what.

Do racial slurs do that? Does blackface do that? I'd say that cultural appropriation, on top of being tone-deaf and simply "offensive", ends up reducing groups and cultures and the people who belong to those groups and cultures to stereotypes -- dehumanizing people and contributing to their continued suffering.

I don't think material harm and "simple offense" are entirely separate. Plus, even if this was a case of "just being offensive" -- then why not stop anyway? I mean, if it's common practice in a society to do things that marginalized groups find insulting or degrading, do you think it's likely that marginalized group isn't also materially harmed in some other way?

I think it's profoundly naive to suggest that this kind of thing isn't part of systemic racism.

[Rugged Collectivist]

Do racial slurs do that? Does blackface do that? I'd say that cultural appropriation, on top of being tone-deaf and simply "offensive", ends up reducing groups and cultures and the people who belong to those groups and cultures to stereotypes -- dehumanizing people and contributing to their continued suffering.

I don't think material harm and "simple offense" are entirely separate. Plus, even if this was a case of "just being offensive" -- then why not stop anyway? I mean, if it's common practice in a society to do things that marginalized groups find insulting or degrading, do you think it's likely that marginalized group isn't also materially harmed in some other way?

I think it's profoundly naive to suggest that this kind of thing isn't part of systemic racism.

But does the example cited (White hipsters wearing war bonnets) actually reduce native Americans to a stereotype?

[Krasnyymir]

"Cultural appropriation" is an invention of identity politics, and the identity hustlers that make a very good living of being outraged on behalf of the group they claim to represent.

Take for example the current "controversy" over war bonnets, redskin/Indian team names etc.

If you ask most people who are actually Native American, the vast majority would point out how things like suicide rates, low standard of loving, no jobs, bad education and an epidemic of substance abuse, sexual abuse and violence are concrete problems that matter a hell of a lot more to them, than the name of a professional sports team in Cleveland, or a celebrity wearing a war bonnet on the cover of a magazine.

Who are the people that DO get upset, insulted and outraged? A small clique of bourgeois academics, (most of whom are only part native, and have actually never lived on a reservation, but instead lived a comfortable middle class life) who make a very nice living from teaching diversity-related classes at corporations and colleges, and from being professionally outraged, and create controversies like we've recently seen.

The purpose of this is twofold: It creates a diversion for the working class native Americans, from their corrupt leadership and the very real and concrete problems they're facing, and it splits and divides the working class into different groups, instead of uniting them.

In real life, culture is a living, breathing thing. Cultures blend and borrow from each other. They're not static objects that can be "appropriated".

[Krasnyymir]

"Cultural appropriation" is an invention of identity politics, and the identity hustlers that make a very good living of being outraged on behalf of the group they claim to represent.

Take for example the current "controversy" over war bonnets, redskin/Indian team names etc.

If you ask most people who are actually Native American, the vast majority would point out how things like suicide rates, low standard of loving, no jobs, bad education and an epidemic of substance abuse, sexual abuse and violence are concrete problems that matter a hell of a lot more to them, than the name of a professional sports team in Cleveland, or a celebrity wearing a war bonnet on the cover of a magazine.

Who are the people that DO get upset, insulted and outraged? A small clique of bourgeois academics, (most of whom are only part native, and have actually never lived on a reservation, but instead lived a comfortable middle class life) who make a very nice living from teaching diversity-related classes at corporations and colleges, and from being professionally outraged, and create controversies like we've recently seen.

The purpose of this is twofold: It creates a diversion for the working class native Americans, from their corrupt leadership and the very real and concrete problems they're facing, and it splits and divides the working class into different groups, instead of uniting them.

In real life culture is a living, breathing thing. Cultures blend and borrow from each other. They're not static objects that can be "appropriated".

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Do racial slurs do that? Does blackface do that? I'd say that cultural appropriation, on top of being tone-deaf and simply "offensive", ends up reducing groups and cultures and the people who belong to those groups and cultures to stereotypes -- dehumanizing people and contributing to their continued suffering.

Do racial slurs do that? Well, no, not by themselves. Of course, racial slurs are often used to intimidate members of oppressed racial and colour groups, and that means that, used in a certain way and in certain contexts, these terms contribute to structural racism. But not because of the terms themselves - indeed pretty much any term can be substituted for racial slurs, the point is in how it's used.

The explanation seems to be that "cultural appropriation" reduces cultures to stereotypes, which in turn reduces people to stereotypes, which in turn contributes to their oppression somehow. But this is an entirely idealist explanation - people wear certain symbolic objects which makes people think this, which makes people think something else, and them structural violence happens. Which, in addition to being completely un-materialist, flies in the face of the actual situation on the ground - white people in Japan are stereotyped as all monkeys, but they are not oppressed, whereas I am not aware of any stereotypes about the Pamiris, but I have no doubt they are oppressed.


I don't think material harm and "simple offense" are entirely separate. Plus, even if this was a case of "just being offensive" -- then why not stop anyway? I mean, if it's common practice in a society to do things that marginalized groups find insulting or degrading, do you think it's likely that marginalized group isn't also materially harmed in some other way?

That is an odd question - you're asking if marginalised groups are marginalised. Well, yes. But the question is whether hipsters wearing warbonnets contributes to that marginalisation. And the usual explanation makes no sense - not to mention it's vague.

And if it made sense, it would follow that Germans are oppressed because people make fun of sausages and lederhosen. I mean, really?

[Quail]

Do racial slurs do that? Well, no, not by themselves. Of course, racial slurs are often used to intimidate members of oppressed racial and colour groups, and that means that, used in a certain way and in certain contexts, these terms contribute to structural racism. But not because of the terms themselves - indeed pretty much any term can be substituted for racial slurs, the point is in how it's used.


I'd say the only context in which it's okay to use racial slurs is in a discussion about the words themselves. As an example, I grew up in a small, very white and kind of racist town in the countryside. Loads of people would say stuff like, "Let's go get some food from the Chinky." There was no malicious intent behind it really, mostly ignorance, but it really isn't cool to use racial slurs to describe a takeaway. Why? Because it dehumanises an entire group of people and reduces them to a slur. If you don't have the basic respect not to use racial slurs then I don't think that you can really have any respect for the people those slurs refer to.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I'd say the only context in which it's okay to use racial slurs is in a discussion about the words themselves. As an example, I grew up in a small, very white and kind of racist town in the countryside. Loads of people would say stuff like, "Let's go get some food from the Chinky." There was no malicious intent behind it really, mostly ignorance, but it really isn't cool to use racial slurs to describe a takeaway. Why? Because it dehumanises an entire group of people and reduces them to a slur. If you don't have the basic respect not to use racial slurs then I don't think that you can really have any respect for the people those slurs refer to.

Be that as it may, my point was that these slurs are not necessarily part of structural racism. Again, I refer to the example of Japan: a white person in Japan might be called a "white pig" or whatever - but they are not oppressed (if anything being white in Japan - I mean white as in Euro-American - has its perks from what I know).

[Quail]

Be that as it may, my point was that these slurs are not necessarily part of structural racism. Again, I refer to the example of Japan: a white person in Japan might be called a "white pig" or whatever - but they are not oppressed (if anything being white in Japan - I mean white as in Euro-American - has its perks from what I know).

I don't know much about the situation in Japan, but doesn't it depend on who is using a slur and who it is directed at? A slur used by a marginalised person against a privileged person isn't part of structural racism, but a slur used by a privileged person against a marginalised person is. Maybe you are underestimating the impact that feeling dehumanised by the people around you might have on marginalised groups of people.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't know much about the situation in Japan, but doesn't it depend on who is using a slur and who it is directed at? A slur used by a marginalised person against a privileged person isn't part of structural racism, but a slur used by a privileged person against a marginalised person is. Maybe you are underestimating the impact that feeling dehumanised by the people around you might have on marginalised groups of people.

I don't think I am underestimating it (although I don't think privilege theory is a good explanation of these issues), and in fact I explicitly noted that slurs can be part of systematic racism. But not because of the slurs as such, but because of their functional role in perpetuating systematic violence. There is a difference between being possibly offensive to certain individuals or cultures (whatever that means, come to think of it), and participating in oppression.

[#FF0000]

If you ask most people who are actually Native American, the vast majority would point out how things like suicide rates, low standard of loving, no jobs, bad education and an epidemic of substance abuse, sexual abuse and violence are concrete problems that matter a hell of a lot more to them, than the name of a professional sports team in Cleveland, or a celebrity wearing a war bonnet on the cover of a magazine.

The irony here is that you're not talking about "actual Native Americans" here. You're making up a hypothetical Native American that agrees with you. There are plenty of people who are "actually Native American" who are upset by the conditions most Native Americans live in, as well as a major national football team using a racial slur for their name.

Here's a short list of some of them, for reference

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians
Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma
Comanche Nation of Oklahoma
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (Washington)
Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan)
Hoh Indian Tribe
Inter Tribal Council of Arizona
Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians (California)
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (Michigan)
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians, Gun Lake Tribe (Michigan)
Menominee Tribe of Indians (Wisconsin)
Oneida Indian Nation (New York)
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin
Navajo Nation Council
Penobscot Nation
Poarch Band of Creek Indians
Samish Indian Nation (Washington)
Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians (Michigan)
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes (Idaho)
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe (North Dakota)
The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation (North Dakota)
United South and Eastern Tribes (USET)
Advocates for American Indian Children (California)
American Indian Mental Health Association (Minnesota)
American Indian Movement
American Indian Opportunities Industrialization Center of San Bernardino County
American Indian Student Services at the Ohio State University
American Indian High Education Consortium
American Indian College Fund
Americans for Indian Opportunity
Association on American Indian Affairs
Buncombe County Native American Inter-tribal Association (North Carolina)
Capitol Area Indian Resources (Sacramento, CA)
Concerned American Indian Parents (Minnesota)
Council for Indigenous North Americans (University of Southern Maine)
Eagle and Condor Indigenous Peoples’ Alliance
First Peoples Worldwide
Fontana Native American Indian Center, Inc. (California)
Governor’s Interstate Indian Council
Greater Tulsa Area Indian Affairs Commission
Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council (Wisconsin)
HONOR – Honor Our Neighbors Origins and Rights
Kansas Association for Native American Education
Maryland Commission on Indian Affairs
Medicine Wheel Inter-tribal Association (Louisiana)
Minnesota Indian Education Association
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
National Indian Child Welfare Association
National Indian Education Association
National Indian Youth Council
National Native American Law Student Association
Native American Journalists Association
Native American Indian Center of Central Ohio
Native American Journalists Association
Native American Rights Fund (NARF)
Native Voice Network
Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs
Nottawaseppi Huron Band of Potawatomi (Michigan)
North Carolina Commission of Indian Affairs
North Dakota Indian Education Association
Office of Native American Ministry, Diocese of Grand Rapids (Michigan)
Ohio Center for Native American Affairs
San Bernardino/Riverside Counties Native American Community Council
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
Society of Indian Psychologists of the Americas
Southern California Indian Center
St. Cloud State University – American Indian Center
Tennessee Chapter of the National Coalition for the Preservation of Indigenous Cultures
Tennessee Commission of Indian Affairs
Tennessee Native Veterans Society
Tulsa Indian Coalition Against Racism
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Unified Coalition for American Indian Concerns, Virginia
The United Indian Nations of Oklahoma
Virginia American Indian Cultural Resource Center
Wisconsin Indian Education Association


The purpose of this is twofold: It creates a diversion for the working class native Americans, from their corrupt leadership and the very real and concrete problems they're facing, and it splits and divides the working class into different groups, instead of uniting them.

Combating racism is not dividing the working class -- the working class is already divided by racism. The fact of the matter is that there is no unified working class and some groups of people have to deal with extra bullshit on top of what we all already have to deal with as workers, and we have to address these issues if we actually want to see a liberated humanity.


In real life culture is a living, breathing thing. Cultures blend and borrow from each other. They're not static objects that can be "appropriated".

No one suggested or thinks that culture is a static thing and for the nth time, cultural exchange is different from cultural appropriation. Further, I'd say that cultural appropriation is what creates a "static object" of culture -- a distorted, stereotypical reproduction completely disconnected from people's actual lived experiences.

[#FF0000]

I don't think I am underestimating it (although I don't think privilege theory is a good explanation of these issues), and in fact I explicitly noted that slurs can be part of systematic racism. But not because of the slurs as such, but because of their functional role in perpetuating systematic violence. There is a difference between being possibly offensive to certain individuals or cultures (whatever that means, come to think of it), and participating in oppression.

But dehumanizing people is a part of that oppression, isn't it?


That is an odd question - you're asking if marginalised groups are marginalised. Well, yes. But the question is whether hipsters wearing warbonnets contributes to that marginalisation.

This is an interesting point because it got me wondering -- what contributes more to the marginalization of Native Americans? The rich kids in warbonnets, or the white people hand-waving the issue and telling that it isn't a big deal?

Isn't being degraded, insulted, and then ignored by the larger society a part of being marginalized? Wouldn't listening to Native groups when they came out against these things they found disparaging be a step in the right direction?

I mean, this is mainly where I'm approaching this from. I mean, we have all these groups who've been ignored and stepped on for 200 or so years coming out saying the term "Redskins" is disparaging or saying that they find rich kids wearing warbonnets degrading and insulting and I don't really see what's so revolutionary about saying "nah fuck off".

[Tim Cornelis]

How is wearing a custome once a year cultural appropriation? No cultural aspect is integrated into a lifestyle.

[#FF0000]

How is wearing a custome once a year cultural appropriation? No cultural aspect is integrated into a lifestyle.

I don't think that keeps it from being racist. Plus, that's only one example. Maybe a better one would be Urban Outfitters, who sells/sold clothes based on Native American designs -- sometimes outright stealing designs from Native artists to put on their shirts.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But dehumanizing people is a part of that oppression, isn't it?

That depends. If we're talking about putting African women into zoos, forcing the Kayan to work as tourist attractions, or something like that, then yes, that is part of the special oppression of minority groups. However it seems that some people take "dehumanisation" to mean approaching the culture "of" oppressed groups with anything less than reverent awe, which is the sort of thing a bored petit-bourgeois might mistake for oppression.


This is an interesting point because it got me wondering -- what contributes more to the marginalization of Native Americans? The rich kids in warbonnets, or the white people hand-waving the issue and telling that it isn't a big deal?

Isn't being degraded, insulted, and then ignored by the larger society a part of being marginalized? Wouldn't listening to Native groups when they came out against these things they found disparaging be a step in the right direction?

I mean, this is mainly where I'm approaching this from. I mean, we have all these groups who've been ignored and stepped on for 200 or so years coming out saying the term "Redskins" is disparaging or saying that they find rich kids wearing warbonnets degrading and insulting and I don't really see what's so revolutionary about saying "nah fuck off".

This illustrates precisely why this sort of liberal orientalism is problematic. Ostensibly, the demand is that Native Americans be listened to, which implies that their viewpoint (or rather the viewpoint of certain Amerindian individuals) be considered, not that it be automatically accepted. But what is really demanded is that everything a Native American person (or any other member of an oppressed group) says about their oppression be accepted at face value as good politics and so on.

Well, actually, in most cases we are not dealing with "oppressed people" in abstract, or with proletarian members of doubly oppressed groups, but with a small layer of affluent members of the middle strata, some of which are genuine members of oppressed groups and some of which are hemisexual trans-dragons and so on, the sort of people who thrive in an academic setting. This is illustrated nicely by the invocation of the plight of... Native artists whose profits are "stolen" by evil corporations. So what's next, are we going to join the crusade for the preservation of the corner deli, the fast food wagon? Devrim was right: people are complaining because others turned "their" culture into commodities before they were able to do so.

And even if we are talking about actual oppressed proletarians, the task of communists is not to tail the consciousness of the proletarians and the oppressed, but to contradict it, to provide a scientific analysis of their oppression. The actual consciousness of oppressed groups and workers is largely determined by bourgeois society, and is often explicitly reactionary. Most proletarians will not blame generalised commodity production and private property for their problems - they'll blame banks, immigrants, the president etc. Some women blame transgender people for their oppression. Some bisexuals have invented the notion of homosexual "biphobia". Should we simply accept all of that guff? That is the difference between communism and liberalism.

[#FF0000]

That depends. If we're talking about putting African women into zoos, forcing the Kayan to work as tourist attractions, or something like that, then yes, that is part of the special oppression of minority groups.But then what about minstrel shows and blackface? When rich white college kids wear blackface and eat fried chicken for Martin Luther King Day, are we wrong to call that racist? Is that not racist?


However it seems that some people take "dehumanisation" to mean approaching the culture "of" oppressed groups with anything less than reverent awe, which is the sort of thing a bored petit-bourgeois might mistake for oppression.What? Who are these "some people"? Who in this thread ever expressed that opinion? We're talking about not making costumes out of racist stereotypes of people and their cultures.



This illustrates precisely why this sort of liberal orientalism is problematic. Ostensibly, the demand is that Native Americans be listened to, which implies that their viewpoint (or rather the viewpoint of certain Amerindian individuals) be considered, not that it be automatically accepted. But what is really demanded is that everything a Native American person (or any other member of an oppressed group) says about their oppression be accepted at face value as good politics and so on.

I'm not saying to just accept it at face value -- I'm taking for granted that people in this thread see dressing up as a racist stereotype of a native american is racist. I think it's reasonable to be insulted by someone wearing a racist costume based on you or using a racial slur. How that racism fits into a broader system of oppression isn't something I feel I can articulate well, but on this basic level I think it's absurd to say anyone is wrong for wanting it to stop.

[Devrim]

I think it's reasonable to be insulted by someone wearing a racist costume based on you or using a racial slur.

Do you think we can ban St. Patrick's day in the US and all these people dressing up as leprechauns and the like.

Devrim

[#FF0000]

Do you think we can ban St. Patrick's day in the US and all these people dressing up as leprechauns and the like.

Devrim

Naw considering all sorts of Irish-American organizations are involved in st patrick's day events and beyond that ~no one cares~ so I don't think that's an apt comparison.

[Devrim]

Naw considering all sorts of Irish-American organizations are involved in st patrick's day events and beyond that ~no one cares~ so I don't think that's an apt comparison.

I don't think 'Irish Americans' are particularly Irish. Surely nationality is partially about shared experience, which being American not Irish, they don't have. How many Irish people would you need to object to Americans behaving like idiots to have them banned. I'm sure I could find them.

Devim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think there is a lack of clarity in this thread over what constitutes cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation refers to when the culture of an original grouping is taken for use by another group in society; most commonly it is radical minority cultures that are appropriated into the western mainstream for the purpose of profit and neutralisation.

Examples might include the commodification of the 'Che Guevara' brand. bell hooks, in her book Teaching to Transgress, highlights an excellent example where southern (US) black vernacular has found its way into the lexicon of ordinary young whites. What once was a radical action (to have altered standard English into a language that American blacks had ownership of, rather than dependence on) has now been neutralised and its radical nature eradicated through an act of cultural appropriation.

[#FF0000]

I don't think 'Irish Americans' are particularly Irish. Surely nationality is partially about shared experience, which being American not Irish, they don't have. How many Irish people would you need to object to Americans behaving like idiots to have them banned. I'm sure I could find them.

Devim

I'm on board with abolishing plastic paddies.

[Geiseric]

So how is someone from Jamaica disadvantaged by white people wearing dreadlocks? I mean materially disadvantaged.

Wow you did not read those posts. White record companies rip off jamacian and african american culture so they can make money without contributing to the well being of the people who came up with it. Its not rocket science.

[Geiseric]

Do you think we can ban St. Patrick's day in the US and all these people dressing up as leprechauns and the like.

Devrim

Except that people in ireland dont even celebrate it like americans who simply get ripped? Same thing with Cinco de Mayo.

[#FF0000]

Except that people in ireland dont even celebrate it like americans who simply get ripped?

I am p. sure that is how they celebrate it in Ireland

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wow you did not read those posts. White record companies rip off jamacian and african american culture so they can make money without contributing to the well being of the people who came up with it. Its not rocket science.

As I also said in my post above, in addition to the profit-seeking element, there is also the cultural and social element whereby the initial authenticity (and perhaps radical nature of the culture in opposition to monolithic, mainstream 'white' patriarchal culture(s)) is diluted and even lost completely.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But then what about minstrel shows and blackface? When rich white college kids wear blackface and eat fried chicken for Martin Luther King Day, are we wrong to call that racist? Is that not racist?

Except, of course, these are examples of actions intended to show hostility to American blacks. They are part of racism because of the intent and the message they convey, not because of the costumes themselves. But is it racist for someone to dress up in Lederhosen? Not in any sense in which racism is something that ought to concern the socialist left.


I'm on board with abolishing plastic paddies.

Because they're not "authentically" Irish? That's the sort of crap nationalists spout.


Do you think we can ban St. Patrick's day in the US and all these people dressing up as leprechauns and the like.

To be fair, leprechauns aren't a race, although I'm sure there are peeps on Tumblr who think they are leprechauns and are currently recoiling in horror from my racist statement.


Wow you did not read those posts. White record companies rip off jamacian and african american culture so they can make money without contributing to the well being of the people who came up with it. Its not rocket science.

Well-being of what people? The petite-bourgeoisie. Well too bad, so sad, but communists have better things to do than support the petite bourgeoisie against the haute bourgeoisie.

[Hermes]

Except, of course, these are examples of actions intended to show hostility to American blacks. They are part of racism because of the intent and the message they convey, not because of the costumes themselves.


I'm sorry to keep interjecting myself in a conversation in which I'm way out of my element, but I'm not sure you're quite right in saying that blackface, or even minstrel shows, were intended to show hostility to American blacks. I mean, you listen to the people who get caught using blackface, and they'll try to justify it as a joke, or that their black friend doesn't think it's racist, etc. I've never known someone to respond with an outright admittance that they chose to do it to show their opinion of black people. My knowledge of minstrel shows isn't that great, but as far as I'm aware, they weren't so much 'hostile' as paternalistic, etc. They showed the same fascination with another person's culture (regardless of whether it was accurate) that you can see today, with the people who get caught up in neo-paganism or something along those lines.

That is, it seems to me that it's racism almost regardless of intent. Also, I'm probably just misreading you here, but I thought you said earlier that it didn't matter what message it conveyed?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well-being of what people? The petite-bourgeoisie. Well too bad, so sad, but communists have better things to do than support the petite bourgeoisie against the haute bourgeoisie.

If communists aren't here to oppose the subordination of oppressed cultures and minorities around the world against white capitalist patriarchy, then seriously what are we here to do? :rolleyes:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If communists aren't here to oppose the subordination of oppressed cultures and minorities around the world against white capitalist patriarchy, then seriously what are we here to do? :rolleyes:

And, again, all of the classes that make up minority groups have been collapsed together into one of the "oppressed cultures", removing every difference between the proletariat, the petite bourgeoisie, and probably the haute bourgeoisie as well. How is it any concern of ours if some minority petit-bourgeois artist was "ripped off" by record companies? If that artist had been able to package and sell "his" culture before the record companies, the proletarian members of "his" minority group would not benefit in any way.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And, again, all of the classes that make up minority groups have been collapsed together into one of the "oppressed cultures", removing every difference between the proletariat, the petite bourgeoisie, and probably the haute bourgeoisie as well. How is it any concern of ours if some minority petit-bourgeois artist was "ripped off" by record companies? If that artist had been able to package and sell "his" culture before the record companies, the proletarian members of "his" minority group would not benefit in any way.

The working class is a great mass, but a diverse one. I think this obsession with 'class' being this unitary, homogenous thing really undermines our ability to interact with diverse sections of the working class.

As I have said above though, I think it is high-time that the revolutionary left abandoned this obsession with labelling any attempt to address the diversity of the working class as 'identity politics' or 'petty bourgeois'.

[#FF0000]

Except, of course, these are examples of actions intended to show hostility to American blacks. They are part of racism because of the intent and the message they convey, not because of the costumes themselves.

But "intent" doesn't have anything to do with racism, though. People very often aren't aware that they're doing/saying something racist. Would it have been better if instead of portraying black people the way they did, as some "noble savage" instead?


But is it racist for someone to dress up in Lederhosen?I don't think so, because like you said, context is important, and "ethnic Germans" or whatever aren't victims of systemic racism anywhere I'm aware of!


And, again, all of the classes that make up minority groups have been collapsed together into one of the "oppressed cultures", removing every difference between the proletariat, the petite bourgeoisie, and probably the haute bourgeoisie as well.

I don't disagree with you here entirely -- but I don't think we have to throw the baby out w/ the bathwater and totally abandon these issues of race and gender and whatever else. Like VIL said, doing so would be to shoot ourselves in the foot, making sure we continue with our pretty poor record of successfully organizing across race and ethnic groups in the US

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The working class is a great mass, but a diverse one. I think this obsession with 'class' being this unitary, homogenous thing really undermines our ability to interact with diverse sections of the working class.

As I have said above though, I think it is high-time that the revolutionary left abandoned this obsession with labelling any attempt to address the diversity of the working class as 'identity politics' or 'petty bourgeois'.

Except, of course, not one poster who has posted in this thread has said that "attempts to address the diversity of the working class" are petit-bourgeois, unless you're exclusively referring to what is known as "privilege theory" (and not, for example, Dick Frazer's thesis on black workers as a colour caste that gives American capitalism its specific character). What I object to is not the notion that black proletarians are oppressed in a specific way that differs from the way in which white proletarians are oppressed, but the notion that black proletarians can be collapsed into a uniform "black people" together with black artists, black shopkeepers, black "community leaders", black academics and so on. I mean, the example Geis cited has bugger all to do with black proletarians.


But "intent" doesn't have anything to do with racism, though. People very often aren't aware that they're doing/saying something racist. Would it have been better if instead of portraying black people the way they did, as some "noble savage" instead?

I think it's quite ridiculous to say that racism never has anything to do with intent. Sure, racism is structural and not individual, but part of structural racism is the exclusion and the implied threat of violence. Here intent plays a crucial role. It's not about the words, anything can be used as a threat if the intent is clear.


I don't think so, because like you said, context is important, and "ethnic Germans" or whatever aren't victims of systemic racism anywhere I'm aware of!

Yeah, cool, but it still "reduced their culture to a caricature". I think it is immediately clear to everyone with a functioning brain that dressing up in lederhosen is not racist, but given the explanations for the claim that "cultural appropriation" is racist that people on this thread have put forward, it should be. So...

And it's not just obviously wrong with groups that are not oppressed. I think, for example, that everyone understands that the use of the bisexual F. Mercury as a gay icon is not bigoted against bisexuals, although I'm fairly sure there are academic bisexuals who would make that claim.


I don't disagree with you here entirely -- but I don't think we have to throw the baby out w/ the bathwater and totally abandon these issues of race and gender and whatever else. Like VIL said, doing so would be to shoot ourselves in the foot, making sure we continue with our pretty poor record of successfully organizing across race and ethnic groups in the US

Actually, it's a bit irritating to receive this sort of canned response, since I never said the socialist movement needs to abandon issues of special oppression. But at the same time the class divide within oppressed groups needs to be kept in mind - the liberals have no problem organising women, for example - proletarian women together with their bourgeois "sisters" who stab them in the back at first opportunity. "There is power in sisterhood", indeed. Power for the bourgeoisie.

[DannyMorin]

A slur used by a marginalised person against a privileged person isn't part of structural racism, but a slur used by a privileged person against a marginalised person is.

Just because an ethnic majority person uses a slur against an ethnic minority person does not mean that racism is part of the structure of that society.

[Five Year Plan]

Does this mean that if revleft ever had a Halloween party, and I showed up dressed as a Native American, that at least a couple of the posters here would follow me around haranguing me as a racist contributing to structural oppression of Native Americans as a result of my costume choice?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Except, of course, not one poster who has posted in this thread has said that "attempts to address the diversity of the working class" are petit-bourgeois, unless you're exclusively referring to what is known as "privilege theory" (and not, for example, Dick Frazer's thesis on black workers as a colour caste that gives American capitalism its specific character).

The relative privilege of those of us who are white, male and straight is undeniable, though. If we refuse to acknowledge this, then we are only going to perpetuate the disconnect between class analysis on the one hand, and analyses of social control/oppression based on gender/sexuality and race on the other.


What I object to is not the notion that black proletarians are oppressed in a specific way that differs from the way in which white proletarians are oppressed, but the notion that black proletarians can be collapsed into a uniform "black people" together with black artists, black shopkeepers, black "community leaders", black academics and so on.

Logically, this doesn't make sense though. If black proletarians are oppressed in a specific way that white proletarians are oppressed, then it is explicitly the case that their oppression differs precisely because they are black.

As I said above, the working class is a diverse mass, and I think the same idea can be carried across to analysis of race; 'black', or even more specifically 'black American' should not be seen as a catch-all epithet for homogenous experiences.

But whilst this is true, I think that practically it is more important, in terms of reconciling race politics and class politics, to examine critically the differences in the lived experiences of black people and people of colour, compared to the experiences of white people. To the extent that we want such an endeavour to be successful, it is not actually that helpful to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no 'black American' identity, or pretend that where this is the case it is not as important as the class nature of the person/group involved, since it seems very clear that many black Americans view their identity more strongly in racial terms than in class terms, which is not surprising given their history.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The relative privilege of those of us who are white, male and straight is undeniable, though. If we refuse to acknowledge this, then we are only going to perpetuate the disconnect between class analysis on the one hand, and analyses of social control/oppression based on gender/sexuality and race on the other.

What an extremely ignorant thing to say. Marxist analyses of the various forms of special oppression generally predate the earliest "privilege theory" articles by decades. "Privilege theory" is a liberal fad from the late eighties, and if you think that the socialist movement simply ignored issues of women's, queer, black etc. liberation before "privilege theory" became popular with a small academic "leftist" stratum usually free of any formal party affiliation, that says something about your knowledge of the socialist movement (and the knowledge of most proponents of privilege theory, from my experience).


Logically, this doesn't make sense though. If black proletarians are oppressed in a specific way that white proletarians are oppressed, then it is explicitly the case that their oppression differs precisely because they are black.

Because they are black, and because they are workers. The black bourgeoisie aren't the one who are being gunned down by the pigs - in fact one of their own is currently the pig-in-chief and jailer-in-chief for American imperialist capitalism.


As I said above, the working class is a diverse mass, and I think the same idea can be carried across to analysis of race; 'black', or even more specifically 'black American' should not be seen as a catch-all epithet for homogenous experiences.

But whilst this is true, I think that practically it is more important, in terms of reconciling race politics and class politics, to examine critically the differences in the lived experiences of black people and people of colour, compared to the experiences of white people. To the extent that we want such an endeavour to be successful, it is not actually that helpful to bury our heads in the sand and pretend that there is no 'black American' identity, or pretend that where this is the case it is not as important as the class nature of the person/group involved, since it seems very clear that many black Americans view their identity more strongly in racial terms than in class terms, which is not surprising given their history.

Be that as it may, Marxist aim to analyse society as it is, not as some people imagine it to be. Black workers, in fact, generally do think of the black bourgeoisie as "their own", and of white workers as a group that is alien if not hostile to their interest. As communists, our task is not to pat them on the back for that, pushing them into the ever-loving embrace of "their" bourgeoisie, but to explain how people like Jackson or Obama are opposed to their interest, and how the white worker has the same interest as they do - including the full liberation of blacks from racist American capitalism.

[Geiseric]

I am p. sure that is how they celebrate it in Ireland

They dont dress like leprechauns, die in drunk driving accidents, or do anything other than a peaceful drinking session at a pub with friends and family. Americans have access to, and partake in consuming a multitude of drugs on St. Paddys day.

[Geiseric]

What an extremely ignorant thing to say. Marxist analyses of the various forms of special oppression generally predate the earliest "privilege theory" articles by decades. "Privilege theory" is a liberal fad from the late eighties, and if you think that the socialist movement simply ignored issues of women's, queer, black etc. liberation before "privilege theory" became popular with a small academic "leftist" stratum usually free of any formal party affiliation, that says something about your knowledge of the socialist movement (and the knowledge of most proponents of privilege theory, from my experience).



Because they are black, and because they are workers. The black bourgeoisie aren't the one who are being gunned down by the pigs - in fact one of their own is currently the pig-in-chief and jailer-in-chief for American imperialist capitalism.



Be that as it may, Marxist aim to analyse society as it is, not as some people imagine it to be. Black workers, in fact, generally do think of the black bourgeoisie as "their own", and of white workers as a group that is alien if not hostile to their interest. As communists, our task is not to pat them on the back for that, pushing them into the ever-loving embrace of "their" bourgeoisie, but to explain how people like Jackson or Obama are opposed to their interest, and how the white worker has the same interest as they do - including the full liberation of blacks from racist American capitalism.

Except for the fact that most white workers are more often than not racist, and express that through explicit hatred of all social welfare.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What an extremely ignorant thing to say. Marxist analyses of the various forms of special oppression generally predate the earliest "privilege theory" articles by decades. "Privilege theory" is a liberal fad from the late eighties, and if you think that the socialist movement simply ignored issues of women's, queer, black etc. liberation before "privilege theory" became popular with a small academic "leftist" stratum usually free of any formal party affiliation, that says something about your knowledge of the socialist movement (and the knowledge of most proponents of privilege theory, from my experience).

Of course, whether or not Marxism analysed forms of special oppression is largely irrelevant if contemporary Marxist parties/movements are unable or unwilling to connect these forms of oppression to class struggle, or connect class struggle to these forms of oppression.

I'm not sure that the idea of privilege is confined at all to a small academic leftist stratum, though it is true that it is an idea that has gained traction within the feminist academic milieu, which is something that needs to be challenged by feminist and socialist workers.


Because they are black, and because they are workers. The black bourgeoisie aren't the one who are being gunned down by the pigs - in fact one of their own is currently the pig-in-chief and jailer-in-chief for American imperialist capitalism.

This ignores that as recently as a few decades ago, whether you were working- or middle-class, male or female, racism against black Americans was structural and deep in US society. It doesn't mean the experiences of all black Americans were uniform, but it is historically ignorant to not acknowledge black American identity.


Black workers, in fact, generally do think of the black bourgeoisie as "their own", and of white workers as a group that is alien if not hostile to their interest.

Indeed.


As communists, our task is not to pat them on the back for that, pushing them into the ever-loving embrace of "their" bourgeoisie, but to explain how people like Jackson or Obama are opposed to their interest, and how the white worker has the same interest as they do - including the full liberation of blacks from racist American capitalism.

This is just everything that is wrong with the attitude of many Marxists towards amalgamating analyses of race and class. How seriously arrogant to think that you can go into black communities and just change their opinions through your divine intervention. What do you seriously think you will achieve with such a paternalistic attitude?

It's the age old arrogance of Marxists; "if only these black folk knew what was good for them". It may surprise you, but there are deeply embedded historical, social, and cultural causes for the strength of the black American identity, and thinking that all that is needed to get over these issues is a good ol' Marxist explanation is so arrogant, so mis-guided. It contains no space for a critical discussion bound for once by race, not class.

Black American identity is strong because they have a strong beef with the oppression they suffered from white folk, historically and currently. If, as white people, we don't allow for a critical examination of our own history, our own culture, our own social position, why should any black folk listen to our supposedly 'enlightened' ideas about emancipation and revolution?

[Five Year Plan]

Does this mean that if revleft ever had a Halloween party, and I showed up dressed as a Native American, that at least a couple of the posters here would follow me around haranguing me as a racist contributing to structural oppression of Native Americans as a result of my costume choice?

This was a serious question, peeps.

[Geiseric]

This was a serious question, peeps.

Hahaha no shit! Youd be as bad as the most vulgar frat boys. That would be tantamount to wearing blackface and faking ebonics.

[Geiseric]

Of course, whether or not Marxism analysed forms of special oppression is largely irrelevant if contemporary Marxist parties/movements are unable or unwilling to connect these forms of oppression to class struggle, or connect class struggle to these forms of oppression.

I'm not sure that the idea of privilege is confined at all to a small academic leftist stratum, though it is true that it is an idea that has gained traction within the feminist academic milieu, which is something that needs to be challenged by feminist and socialist workers.



This ignores that as recently as a few decades ago, whether you were working- or middle-class, male or female, racism against black Americans was structural and deep in US society. It doesn't mean the experiences of all black Americans were uniform, but it is historically ignorant to not acknowledge black American identity.



Indeed.



This is just everything that is wrong with the attitude of many Marxists towards amalgamating analyses of race and class. How seriously arrogant to think that you can go into black communities and just change their opinions through your divine intervention. What do you seriously think you will achieve with such a paternalistic attitude?

It's the age old arrogance of Marxists; "if only these black folk knew what was good for them". It may surprise you, but there are deeply embedded historical, social, and cultural causes for the strength of the black American identity, and thinking that all that is needed to get over these issues is a good ol' Marxist explanation is so arrogant, so mis-guided. It contains no space for a critical discussion bound for once by race, not class.

Black American identity is strong because they have a strong beef with the oppression they suffered from white folk, historically and currently. If, as white people, we don't allow for a critical examination of our own history, our own culture, our own social position, why should any black folk listen to our supposedly 'enlightened' ideas about emancipation and revolution?

Welcome to the sparts, they think that last paragraph applies to everything.

[Five Year Plan]

Hahaha no shit! Youd be as bad as the most vulgar frat boys. That would be tantamount to wearing blackface and faking ebonics.

Does this mean that you think drag queens contribute to the structural oppression of women?

[Geiseric]

Does this mean that you think drag queens .Contribute to the structural oppression of women?

Not necessarily, they're not being vulgar towards women by doing that. Theyre not taking anything "stareotypically womanesque" or imitating anyhing other than clothing. What do you even mean by "dress like a native american"? Is that how narrow your view on race is? There are hundreds of different groups that consider themselves native from Mexico to Alaska.

But the most important question is how do you dress as a "white person" on halloween and why doesnt anybody do that?

[Five Year Plan]

Not necessarily, they're not being vulgar towards women by doing that. Theyre not taking anything "stareotypically womanesque" other than clothing. What do you even mean by "dress like a native american"? Is that how narrow your view on race is? There are hundreds of different groups that consider themselves native from Mexico to Alaska.

1ytCEuuW2_A

We are talking about a Halloween party here where I only dressed like a general stereotype of a Native American (head-dress, deerskin shorts, etc.), not went around saying over-the-top things like "Me Tonto, you Zorro." Your attempt to draw a distinction here does not work.

And you obviously haven't seen a drag queen in your day, have you? It's about so much more than clothing.

The question still stands: why is one a contribution to racism, but the other not a contribution to sexism? I think this is driving home the point 870 is trying to make, but which you try to avoid by taking ridiculous cheap shots at "the Sparts."

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Except for the fact that most white workers are more often than not racist, and express that through explicit hatred of all social welfare.

That doesn't change the fact that the objective class interest of white workers is the same as the objective class interest of black workers and includes the liberation of black workers from all forms of racist oppression. Of course in periods of low struggle and low class consciousness, the attitudes of workers are chiefly determined by the forms bourgeois ideology takes in their immediate environment. This is something communists need to struggle against.


Of course, whether or not Marxism analysed forms of special oppression is largely irrelevant if contemporary Marxist parties/movements are unable or unwilling to connect these forms of oppression to class struggle, or connect class struggle to these forms of oppression.

Oh, but they are able, except they do so in a way that is disagreeable to you as it does not amount to a popular front with the "good" black, woman etc. bourgeoisie.


I'm not sure that the idea of privilege is confined at all to a small academic leftist stratum, though it is true that it is an idea that has gained traction within the feminist academic milieu, which is something that needs to be challenged by feminist and socialist workers.

Of course it is confined to that milieu. If you told the person on the street that they "have privilege", they would correct you for your atrocious grammar. More importantly, the overwhelming majority of socialist groups rejects this sort of analysis, with good reason.


This ignores that as recently as a few decades ago, whether you were working- or middle-class, male or female, racism against black Americans was structural and deep in US society. It doesn't mean the experiences of all black Americans were uniform, but it is historically ignorant to not acknowledge black American identity.

As recently as a few decades ago, the black bourgeoisie was embryonic at best, and to the extent that it did exist it was spared the worst horrors of racist America, as it is to this day. Or consider South Africa, for example. The black bourgeoisie is not oppressed - people like Mbeki and Zuma are the exploiters, not an oppressed layer. But murderous racism against black and coloured workers is still very much alive. The petite bourgeoisie, as always, stand in the middle, not feeling the brunt of racist oppression but not being free of it either.


This is just everything that is wrong with the attitude of many Marxists towards amalgamating analyses of race and class. How seriously arrogant to think that you can go into black communities and just change their opinions through your divine intervention. What do you seriously think you will achieve with such a paternalistic attitude?

It's the age old arrogance of Marxists; "if only these black folk knew what was good for them". It may surprise you, but there are deeply embedded historical, social, and cultural causes for the strength of the black American identity, and thinking that all that is needed to get over these issues is a good ol' Marxist explanation is so arrogant, so mis-guided. It contains no space for a critical discussion bound for once by race, not class.

Black American identity is strong because they have a strong beef with the oppression they suffered from white folk, historically and currently. If, as white people, we don't allow for a critical examination of our own history, our own culture, our own social position, why should any black folk listen to our supposedly 'enlightened' ideas about emancipation and revolution?

It's the age-old arrogance of the tailists: the claim that, by contradicting the consciousness of oppressed groups and workers, communists are being paternalistic (as opposed to tailists who just smile and nod whatever is being said, which is not paternalistic at all). And of course, Marxists are all white, aren't they? Noted American black Marxists like James and Frazer - these don't exist.

[Geiseric]

1ytCEuuW2_A

We are talking about a Halloween party here where I only dressed like a general stereotype of a Native American (head-dress, deerskin shorts, etc.), not went around saying over-the-top things like "Me Tonto, you Zorro." Your attempt to draw a distinction here does not work.

And you obviously haven't seen a drag queen in your day, have you? It's about so much more than clothing.

The question still stands: why is one a contribution to racism, but the other not a contribution to sexism? I think this is driving home the point 870 is trying to make, but which you try to avoid by taking ridiculous cheap shots at "the Sparts."

Despite his point about drag queens, which I think is BS seeing as i've grown up in SF, there is no such thing as a "native american". That category is applied to all brown people in the US who arent Latino or Black (many of whom might still be native descended) who live on reservations, or in seperated communities. Lol and most of them dont wear a head dress and deerskin.

Organizations may rise which attempt to represent native americans, however that is only because the administration seperates the population on those terms.

I dont see how you could try to compare those things seeing as there isn't a universal, pan race, "woman culture," which is being mocked by men. Men dont need that kind of thing. The only people angry about drags are sex frustrated men. Anyways despite your ignorance about sexism and racism, we should get back on topic.

[Five Year Plan]

Despite his point about drag queens, which I think is BS seeing as i've grown up in SF, there is no such thing as a "native american". That category is applied to all brown people in the US who live on reservations. Lol and most of them dont wear a head dress.

I dont see how you could try to compare those things seeing as there isn't a universal "woman culture." The only people angry about drags are sex frustrated men.

There weren't people in North America sharing common descent from hunter-gatherer groups that migrated across the Bering Strait tens of thousands of years ago? That the stereotype doesn't live up to the obvious variegation within the indigenous groups is irrelevant. That is, after all, why we call them stereotypes. Not all women wear high heels, and some have never worn them at all. Does that mean a drag queen who wears them isn't performing the role of a female stereotype?

Why don't you just admit that you have no answer besides your reflexive impressions about types of people who tend to be upset about this or that phenomenon?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

By the way, VIL, you can stop saying "us whites" and so on - I'm not from America and I'm currently not in America, where I'm from "whiteness" isn't really a factor as the majority of oppressed groups tend to be pretty chalky themselves. And I think this explains some of my probably very visible disgust for notions about "cultural appropriation" - I'd spent my childhood listening to people drone on and on about how the evil Serbs or the degenerate Americans or the crafty British stole this and that from "us". And to see this old nationalist canard resurrected as the last word in progressive thought doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence in people who peddle that sort of bullshit.

[Geiseric]

By the way, VIL, you can stop saying "us whites" and so on - I'm not from America and I'm currently not in America, where I'm from "whiteness" isn't really a factor as the majority of oppressed groups tend to be pretty chalky themselves. And I think this explains some of my probably very visible disgust for notions about "cultural appropriation" - I'd spent my childhood listening to people drone on and on about how the evil Serbs or the degenerate Americans or the crafty British stole this and that from "us". And to see this old nationalist canard resurrected as the last word in progressive thought doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence in people who peddle that sort of bullshit.

Maybe because racism in croatia is different than in America?

[Geiseric]

There weren't people in North America sharing common descent from hunter-gatherer groups that migrated across the Bering Strait tens of thousands of years ago? That the stereotype doesn't live up to the obvious variegation within the indigenous groups is irrelevant. That is, after all, why we call them stereotypes. Not all women wear high heels, and some have never worn them at all. Does that mean a drag queen who wears them isn't performing the role of a female stereotype?

Why don't you just admit that you have no answer besides your reflexive impressions about types of people who tend to be upset about this or that phenomenon?

I have no answer to your false dichotomy, no. Why dont you put on blackface and dance around oakland if you feel so strongly about this? That stareotypes dont match with reality is irrelevant? Can you elaborate on that?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Question: what if I genuinely like Japanese culture and in particular kimonos and geisha culture. Would it be wrong for me to wear a kimono? Cuz they're pretty cute.

[Geiseric]

Question: what if I genuinely like Japanese culture and in particular kimonos and geisha culture. Would it be wrong for me to wear a kimono? Cuz they're pretty cute.

No. If you understand and appreciate the history and culture surrouding those there is no problem. Ignorance is the problem when white people dress up like native americans, like a cartoon of sitting bull, in order to look good or be popular at parties, at colleges who have rediculous shit like the "redskins" as their mascot. Or when white people start opening hipster taquerillas, selling the same style of food in an environment catering to white consumers, intentionally. Ffs they dont even play mexican music at chipotle.

This happens in nearly every area of american pop culture, from music to movies. Blaxploitation films, rap music like Rick Ross and NWA, and modern reggae music catered by nearly an all white fanbase take the asthetic of black culture but strip it of its class content by making it likeable for white people, intentionally. Then white rappers like Vanilla Ice and Eminem started becoming more famous than black rappers, changing the entire conversation.

The problem is fetishization and chauvanism surrounding race culture, its out of hand and is becoming uncontrollable.

[Five Year Plan]

I have no answer to your false dichotomy, no. Why dont you put on blackface and dance around oakland if you feel so strongly about this? That stareotypes dont match with reality is irrelevant? Can you elaborate on that?

I didn't say it was irrelevant. It's relevant to the question asked, which is why you assume the performance one stereotype is racist, but that the other is perfectly okay. Bonus question: do you even know what a dichotomy is? I presented an analogy, not a dichotomy. And it was a perfectly reasonable analogy.

[Geiseric]

I didn't say it was irrelevant. It's relevant to the question asked, which is why you assume the performance one stereotype is racist, but that the other is perfectly okay. Bonus question: do you even know what a dichotomy is? I presented an analogy, not a dichotomy. And it was a perfectly reasonable analogy.

Drag isnt supporting a stareotype. So it is a false comparison. You need a better example. Im not sure if there is a "woman stareotype". There are gender roles but drag has nothing to do with that.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's the age-old arrogance of the tailists: the claim that, by contradicting the consciousness of oppressed groups and workers, communists are being paternalistic (as opposed to tailists who just smile and nod whatever is being said, which is not paternalistic at all).

This is a caricature, at best. At worst it is a real distortion of what i've very clearly said above: that we need to critically engage with racial and gender politics, and not reduce our analysis of society to class analysis by itself.

Of course, merely paying lip service to this, through being incredibly patronising, is no better than doing nothing at all. We need to genuinely engage with racial and gender politics; in the USA, I think comrades over there in particular need greater critical engagement with racial politics, to really understand why it is black Americans feel black first and proletarian second (in terms of the working class elements of black America).

To reduce the entire process of critically engaging with why the black American identity has evolved, historically, culturally, socially (and yes, economically), in the wake of slavery and its replacement with the Jim Crow Laws, and the racism that continues to pervade US society in particular but also here in the UK, to 'smiling and nodding' indicates that you are not really taking this process seriously. As such, you are essentially closing off the avenue to genuine engagement with black people and people of colour (And by extension, probably women as well).

[Five Year Plan]

Drag isnt supporting a stareotype. So it is a false comparison. You need a better example. Im not sure if there is a "woman stareotype". There are gender roles but drag has nothing to do with that.

You claim to be conversant in gay culture, citing the fact that you live San Francisco, yet apparently you aren't aware of the fact that drag performances are about something called camp, a style that aims to expose the artificiality of female stereotypes by performing them exaggeratedly to the point of absurdity. As I said, it is the performance of a stereotype, as would be my wearing an "Indian" costume to the party. The fact that this wearing of the Indian outfit could also be camp is verified by simply recalling the musical group Village People. Remember that one guy who was dressed in an Indian outfit? He wasn't a Native American. It was all camp.

Shall I bring out the Price is Right fail horn again, or are you finally going to admit that you are talking out of your ass, as is typical with you?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

By the way, VIL, you can stop saying "us whites" and so on - I'm not from America and I'm currently not in America, where I'm from "whiteness" isn't really a factor as the majority of oppressed groups tend to be pretty chalky themselves. And I think this explains some of my probably very visible disgust for notions about "cultural appropriation" - I'd spent my childhood listening to people drone on and on about how the evil Serbs or the degenerate Americans or the crafty British stole this and that from "us". And to see this old nationalist canard resurrected as the last word in progressive thought doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence in people who peddle that sort of bullshit.

I've just been reading a lot of history in the past year about racism in the US, and i've been making links with racism in the UK, and the lack of a civil rights movements here.

So my focus has generally been on racial politics and racial emancipation for black people & people of colour. I guess in different areas of the world, other struggles take prominence, so we might be crossing wires somewhat in terms of the relevance of what we are talking about.

I would think, though, that the point about stretching our politics of class analysis to intertwine with gender and race politics still stands across different areas of the world.

[Lily Briscoe]

@ 'Vladimir Innit Lenin'

Left politics in the US tends to be far, far more focused (sometimes to the point of obsession) around race and culture and things like gay rights and whatever than around class, which is very often entirely neglected (and when it is mentioned, it tends to be explicitly petty bourgeois, e.g. 'the little guy', the hard-working small business owner fighting against the "1 percent"), so you're entire point about the necessity of a greater focus on racial politics in America instead of reducing everything down to class is honestly kind of bizarre.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

@ 'Vladimir Innit Lenin'

Left politics in the US tends to be far, far more focused (sometimes to the point of obsession) around race and culture and things like gay rights and whatever than around class, which is very often entirely neglected (and when it is mentioned, it tends to be explicitly petty bourgeois, e.g. 'the little guy', the hard-working small business owner fighting against the "1 percent"), so you're entire point about the necessity of a greater focus on racial politics in America instead of reducing everything down to class is honestly kind of bizarre.

I've seen some good work done on racial politics in the USA (or heard from people doing it!), but the failure of the communist left is to generalise the relationship between class, race, and gender. Perhaps there has been progress made that i'm un-aware of, but it seems to me that racial politics is done, class politics is badly done, gender politics is badly done, but that there is not much of a culture of intersecting the three so that the US has an effective, diverse, workers' movement.

[#FF0000]

words

What do you think of blackface, then? I brought up before that there are hella racist rich kids who put on blackface and "dress black" for costume parties. Do you think this is racist?

[Lily Briscoe]

I've seen some good work done on racial politics in the USA (or heard from people doing it!), but the failure of the communist left is to generalise the relationship between class, race, and gender. Perhaps there has been progress made that i'm un-aware of, but it seems to me that racial politics is done, class politics is badly done, gender politics is badly done, but that there is not much of a culture of intersecting the three so that the US has an effective, diverse, workers' movement.
The US doesn't have a workers movement or a "communist left". It has a bunch of lefty academics running for city council, holding shitty activist rallies, and blogging about cultural appropriation and LGBTQLMNOPtrans*dragon identity.

[#FF0000]

@ 'Vladimir Innit Lenin'

Left politics in the US tends to be far, far more focused (sometimes to the point of obsession) around race and culture and things like gay rights and whatever than around class, which is very often entirely neglected (and when it is mentioned, it tends to be explicitly petty bourgeois, e.g. 'the little guy', the hard-working small business owner fighting against the "1 percent"), so you're entire point about the necessity of a greater focus on racial politics in America instead of reducing everything down to class is honestly kind of bizarre.

I don't want to speak for VIL but I don't think anyone is saying "we need to focus on more of this or less of that". It seems more like he's trying to say that the only way a working class movement can be effective is if it addresses issues of racism and sexism.

[Five Year Plan]

What do you think of blackface, then? I brought up before that there are hella racist rich kids who put on blackface and "dress black" for costume parties. Do you think this is racist?

As with all forms of "cultural appropriation," I think it depends on the context. I'm sure you're aware of this since you take your revolutionary firmness on racial politics and issues so seriously, but following the Civil War black comedy troupes performed blackface minstrel shows across the country, often in front of black audiences, and sometimes in the employment of black-owned companies. As they did so, they not only created a platform for the spread of blues styles that later became popular bridges over racial divides, they also performed in a way that was decisively anti-racist, and played up (as in camp) the artificiality of racial hierarchy. One of the mainstays of minstrel shows was Jim Crow, who was known for his ability to outwit and trick white people.

There were also, of course, non-transgressive performances that reinforced existing racial hierarchies, were performed by white actors, in front of white audiences.

The issue isn't nearly as straight-forward and simple as you and others here want to depict it, and the fact that you all want to depict it that way indicates to me that you haven't thought or read seriously about the issue. Cultural forms aren't static things you can lazily categorize into racist or anti-racist labels willy nilly. They are dynamic sites of cultural conversation that take place between performers and audiences. And similar appearing conversations can have very different substance, depending on the context of who is doing the performing and who is doing the spectating. If you do want to change your mind, a hella fine book is Love and Theft: Blackface Minstrelsy and the American Working Class.

[#FF0000]

The issue isn't nearly as straight-forward and simple as you and others here want to depict it, and the fact that you all want to depict it that way indicates to me that you haven't thought or read seriously about the issue.

Uh, no I know the history dude and I never suggested these things are "straight-forward" in the abstract. But in 2014 we know damn well the implications of black face in the context I described. I'm not talking about this stuff in an abstract sense -- I'm talking about things in the here and now, where native american tribes and organizations point to things like clothing stores mimicking or copying actual native art and designs, people selling/wearing warbonnets as accessories, or sports teams using racial slurs as a name.

I think we can all agree as a baseline that some rich white kid walking about dressing like that is acting like an idiot, right?

[Five Year Plan]

Uh, no I know the history dude and I never suggested these things are "straight-forward" in the abstract. But in 2014 we know damn well the implications of black face in the context I described. I'm not talking about this stuff in an abstract sense -- I'm talking about things in the here and now, where native american tribes and organizations point to things like clothing stores mimicking or copying actual native art and designs, people selling/wearing warbonnets as accessories, or sports teams using racial slurs as a name.

I think we can all agree as a baseline that some rich white kid walking about dressing like that is acting like an idiot, right?

Based on a lot of what you've said in this thread, I'm not really sure that you do know the history, to be totally frank with you. At least we are in agreement: you can't point to a cultural form in abstraction and try to cram it into some political box without looking at the concrete performance itself.

I'm not sure how you can compare a racially charged white-supremacist performance of blackface minstrelsy with selling designs that had their historical origins in specific subcultures. The two things seem to be entirely different in a lot of ways. Just one of many differences I can explain: a racist blackface show denigrates the racial target; whereas a design appropriated from an oppressed subculture recognizes its beauty, and tries to monetize it by selling it as a commodity.

These issues raise a lot of important questions about the relationship between oppressed cultures and subcultures, cultural symbols, and capitalism. Is a white clothing designer who sells shirts with certain subcultural patterns on them being racist or ethnocentric? What if a black clothing designer tries to sell "authentic black culture" (whatever that is) by doing the same thing? Incidentally, this latter phenomenon is what happened a lot in the heyday of black nationalism in the early 1970s.

To answer your last question, though: yes, in my own anecdotal experiences, I have found that white kids who walk around trying to appropriate hip-hop cultural tropes tend not to be the brightest people. Then again, I try not to judge a book by its cover.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Maybe because racism in croatia is different than in America?

You're missing the point, again. It's not about Croatia as such - Devrim could tell you similar stories about Turkey, I imagine, other members could tell you similar stories from Portugal, France (let's not forget what sticks-in-the-mud the French authorities are when it comes to their glorious culture). "Cultural appropriation" is an old bogeyman of the nationalists, and the ease with which some liberals and ostensible socialists have assimilated the term tells us a lot about their politics.

I mean, in this very thread we have two statements that are unambiguously nationalist, BIABA's statement about "plastic Paddies" (people don't take Irish culture seriously enough, the nerve of them!) and your statement that "they don't even play Mexican music at the Chipotle", which I assume is some sort of restaurant as music doesn't generally play in chilli peppers.


This is a caricature, at best. At worst it is a real distortion of what i've very clearly said above: that we need to critically engage with racial and gender politics, and not reduce our analysis of society to class analysis by itself.

Of course, merely paying lip service to this, through being incredibly patronising, is no better than doing nothing at all. We need to genuinely engage with racial and gender politics; in the USA, I think comrades over there in particular need greater critical engagement with racial politics, to really understand why it is black Americans feel black first and proletarian second (in terms of the working class elements of black America).

To reduce the entire process of critically engaging with why the black American identity has evolved, historically, culturally, socially (and yes, economically), in the wake of slavery and its replacement with the Jim Crow Laws, and the racism that continues to pervade US society in particular but also here in the UK, to 'smiling and nodding' indicates that you are not really taking this process seriously. As such, you are essentially closing off the avenue to genuine engagement with black people and people of colour (And by extension, probably women as well).

Again, this is just uninformed. It's not as if socialists couldn't see black people until some white liberals started writing sob stories about how horribly privileged they were. The black question has always been central to American revolutionary Marxism, from the days of the Communist League to the major split in the SWP on the black question.

And generally speaking, talking about the need to "engage critically with" or "interrogate" something is academic liberal code for "write obtuse articles, pat self on back".

And there is no alternative - either you think class contradictions are the principal contradictions in modern society, in which case your refusal to contradict those black workers who put race first is equivalent to "smiling and nodding", or you think race does come first, in which case you're simply not a Marxist. I charitably assumed the former.


I don't want to speak for VIL but I don't think anyone is saying "we need to focus on more of this or less of that". It seems more like he's trying to say that the only way a working class movement can be effective is if it addresses issues of racism and sexism.

You don't say. And everyone else in the thread was advocating that socialists forget about issues of racism and sexism. No, sorry, VIL is advocating a particular kind of "addressing issues of racism and sexism", as evidenced by his talk of a "culture of intersecting" etc. etc., the liberal privilege theory model that is almost assumed by default on RevLeft and is rejected and mostly derided by actual socialist groups.

[#FF0000]

I'm not sure how you can compare a racially charged white-supremacist performance of blackface minstrelsy with selling designs that had their historical origins in specific subcultures. The two things seem to be entirely different in a lot of ways.

Well, there's a lot of examples being thrown around in this thread, and I didn't mean to compare those two specific examples. I was comparing your example of the native american costume to kids who dress up in blackface for a costume.


These issues raise a lot of...1970sIt's definitely possible to take cues from other cultures in a respectful way -- I think people do it all the time. I don't know if it's possible to set any hard and fast barriers as to what's "okay" and what isn't. Context, and all that.


the liberal privilege theory model that is almost assumed by default on RevLeft and is rejected and mostly derided by actual socialist groups.

Like who? I'm interested in this -- the only really good of privilege theory I found was from some anarchist group years n years ago

[Five Year Plan]

This discussion reminded me of an excellent example of the dynamics of cultural forms, and how you can't "read" racism off straight-forwardly from the mere presence of stereotypes or even commoditisation of racial symbols: Speedy Gonzales.

While many guilt-ridden white liberals, mired in privilege theory, were busy hand-wringing about the whole thing, the cartoon character actually became a beloved character among Latinas and Latinos, and was for many of them a representation of qualities that had long been denied any association with their heritage.

An article detailing this can be found at http://voxxi.com/2013/10/03/speedy-gonzales-an-icon-and-symbol-for-hispanics/

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Like who? I'm interested in this -- the only really good of privilege theory I found was from some anarchist group years n years ago

I really meant it when I said "all of them"... the rhetoric of the PLP in the seventies was superficially similar to the more modern "privilege theory" but they dropped it after breaking the SDS apart. Obviously groups like the ICL or the ROL (or SWGfAANLNCI) (do they still exist?) have their own theories - blacks as a colour-caste, and as an oppressed nation, respectively. I think the ISO people explicitly wrote against privilege theory several times. The only group I'm not sure of is Solidarity, who are so amorphous they probably don't have a position on that.

[Devrim]

By the way, VIL, you can stop saying "us whites" and so on - I'm not from America and I'm currently not in America, where I'm from "whiteness" isn't really a factor as the majority of oppressed groups tend to be pretty chalky themselves. And I think this explains some of my probably very visible disgust for notions about "cultural appropriation" - I'd spent my childhood listening to people drone on and on about how the evil Serbs or the degenerate Americans or the crafty British stole this and that from "us". And to see this old nationalist canard resurrected as the last word in progressive thought doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence in people who peddle that sort of bullshit.Maybe because racism in croatia is different than in America?

And contrary to popular belief not everybody on these boards is American. In many countries in the world, the whole idea of 'whiteness' in the sense of US left uses it, doesn't really relate to anything. This racism and sectarianism in this country for example has no relation to skin colour whatsoever*.

Devrim

*Yes there are actually a few black people, students and professional footballers, and there is racism against them, but their numbers are absolutely tiny.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No, sorry, VIL is advocating a particular kind of "addressing issues of racism and sexism", as evidenced by his talk of a "culture of intersecting" etc. etc., the liberal privilege theory model that is almost assumed by default on RevLeft and is rejected and mostly derided by actual socialist groups.

You mean the 'actual socialist groups' that are doing fuck-all or close to fuck-all in the real world to advance any sort of emancipation for any sort of oppressed group?

You can bury your head in the sand all you like and deride race and gender politics as 'identity politics' or 'liberal privilege theory', but the fact is that they are ideas that have gained and continue to gain a great deal of traction with ordinary folk, outside of the academic milieu, and if your 'actual socialist groups' don't want to get on board with that then:

a) they will continue to be irrelevant, as the world leaves them to their cold-war re-enactment bullshit; but more importantly
b) it will be a great lost opportunity if the wave of race politics that is decades deep, and the current wave of feminism (for example in the UK) is lost to liberal identity politics because the 'actual socialist groups' told all the young people who aren't cynical and bound to their cold war fantasies and notions that black people/people of colour, women, and the LGBT community aren't really as important as going around with worker-ist, class struggle slogans trying to enlighten the stupid poor people.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And contrary to popular belief not everybody on these boards is American. In many countries in the world, the whole idea of 'whiteness' in the sense of US left uses it, doesn't really relate to anything. This racism and sectarianism in this country for example has no relation to skin colour whatsoever*.


I think this is a really important point. However, even if 'whiteness' has different/less significant connotations in some parts of the world in terms of the inner make-up of that society, it is also true that, because 'whiteness' does have certain connotations in the US that this affects other parts of the world, culturally, where imperialism takes the US.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

And contrary to popular belief not everybody on these boards is American. In many countries in the world, the whole idea of 'whiteness' in the sense of US left uses it, doesn't really relate to anything. This racism and sectarianism in this country for example has no relation to skin colour whatsoever*.

Devrim

*Yes there are actually a few black people, students and professional footballers, and there is racism against them, but their numbers are absolutely tiny.

I think that Geis was trying to say that a Croat bonehead claiming that the evil French stole the cravat from us (real-world example) is nationalist but complaints about "plastic Paddies" and how some Mexican restaurant "doesn't even" play Mexican music are not nationalist because of reasons.


You mean the 'actual socialist groups' that are doing fuck-all or close to fuck-all in the real world to advance any sort of emancipation for any sort of oppressed group?

You can bury your head in the sand all you like and deride race and gender politics as 'identity politics' or 'liberal privilege theory', but the fact is that they are ideas that have gained and continue to gain a great deal of traction with ordinary folk, outside of the academic milieu, and if your 'actual socialist groups' don't want to get on board with that then:

a) they will continue to be irrelevant, as the world leaves them to their cold-war re-enactment bullshit; but more importantly
b) it will be a great lost opportunity if the wave of race politics that is decades deep, and the current wave of feminism (for example in the UK) is lost to liberal identity politics because the 'actual socialist groups' told all the young people who aren't cynical and bound to their cold war fantasies and notions that black people/people of colour, women, and the LGBT community aren't really as important as going around with worker-ist, class struggle slogans trying to enlighten the stupid poor people.

Again, you seem to be arguing with someone who only exists in your head. No one has said that issues of gender or race should not be addressed. But they should be addressed on Marxist ground, in a Marxist manner, not by simply absorbing a liberal fad. Of course, as Strix noted, the American left is actually suffering from a dearth of "class struggle slogans" as it seems most "leftists" would rather talk about "the one percent" and so on. Finally, the notion that "privilege politics" is penetrating beyond the usual academic milieu is laughable, even in America, where people apparently have a soft spot for that sort of nonsense. Ask people on the street what they think about privilege theory if you care to.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I've had people who are certainly far from being well read intellectuals talk about privilege theory to me, even if they weren't aware of it. That shit is all over the internet, so it's actually sorta common here now. It's just not articulated very well.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I've had people who are certainly far from being well read intellectuals talk about privilege theory to me, even if they weren't aware of it. That shit is all over the internet, so it's actually sorta common here now. It's just not articulated very well.

I think there's a difference between using one or two terms from a theory (I see people using radfem terms all the time) and accepting the theory as such. Also, I think you might be overestimating the number of people who hang around tumblr/political blogs/whatever.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

How else does a theory begin to spread in a population if not in bits and pieces at a time though? I'm sure your second statement is true for older segments of the population but I've had enough uneducated service workers drop privilege theory talking points to cause me to disagree in the case of people 30 and below.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I think there's a difference between using one or two terms from a theory (I see people using radfem terms all the time) and accepting the theory as such. Also, I think you might be overestimating the number of people who hang around tumblr/political blogs/whatever.

Tbh, I know where he's going with this. I've had people discuss and agree with a lot of radical political shit I've put out with never the word Communism, Socialism, etc. being mentioned. Also, I've had coworkers without my own egging on, discuss whether or not, it would beneficial to fuck up the scabs breaking the picket line. You'd be surprised really. No, they may not consciously accept or be aware of revolutionary theory or praxis but the important thing is people are noticeably sympathetic and hypothetically could be wooed into it, if something big were to ever happen. Have you not noticed how violent others get immediately when it's payday and the pat is fucked? They're ready to storm company HQ and hang the executives. It's not like people aren't aware aware of these things just, like Ethics said about privelages theory, it's not articulated well.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No one has said that issues of gender or race should not be addressed. But they should be addressed on Marxist ground, in a Marxist manner, not by simply absorbing a liberal fad.

And this is your problem - you think that those nice little black people and nice little women should just absorb themselves into the Marxist movement. Why would women in the UK do that when the biggest 'Marxist' party in the country has covered up an allegation of rape, and whose main theoretical leader is a white male intellectual?

I think in order to gain any genuine traction with race and gender issues, you need to accept that Marxism doesn't have a monopoly on these political issues, and if Marxists aren't prepared to accept that, then it's the Marxist current that will die a lonely, irrelevant death.

[Lily Briscoe]

I've met more 'uneducated' unskilled workers who were scientologists and larouchites than ones who were proponents of privilege theory (none), for whatever that's worth.

Of course plenty of workers talk about people who are privileged, but in my experience, this tends to refer to being well-off/sheltered/having an expensive education (etc.), not having white or male or heterosexual (or whatever) 'privilege'.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Well it's all anecdotal either way, I wasn't trying to imply rigorous proof on my part. Just trying to illustrate that I've seen it in contexts outside of tumblr and obscure books. So maybe six months ago, I met a lady at a friends house who explained her experience with thin privilege while on the job at WalMart, which was sort of surreal on its own because thin privilege had up until then solely existed on the internet as a mean spirited joke for me. I've had others as well, but like i said its anecdotal. There are some things discussed on this board as if they are incredibly pressing issues for humanity but in the real world I've never encountered so i get what the suggestion was, but I really have seen people talk about privilege theory outside of the internet.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Tbh, I know where he's going with this. I've had people discuss and agree with a lot of radical political shit I've put out with never the word Communism, Socialism, etc. being mentioned. Also, I've had coworkers without my own egging on, discuss whether or not, it would beneficial to fuck up the scabs breaking the picket line. You'd be surprised really. No, they may not consciously accept or be aware of revolutionary theory or praxis but the important thing is people are noticeably sympathetic and hypothetically could be wooed into it, if something big were to ever happen. Have you not noticed how violent others get immediately when it's payday and the pat is fucked? They're ready to storm company HQ and hang the executives. It's not like people aren't aware aware of these things just, like Ethics said about privelages theory, it's not articulated well.

No, I'm aware people can recognise when they're being fucked over, "even" if they are not aware of theory, which is why class consciousness is a possibility. But as much as the privilege theory people want to equate the two, recognising that you're being fucked over does not mean that you accept the rubbish notions of privilege theory, from the notion of "privilege" supplanting that of oppression to "consciousness raising", the notion that political struggle is the domain of the "privileged" etc.


And this is your problem - you think that those nice little black people and nice little women should just absorb themselves into the Marxist movement. Why would women in the UK do that when the biggest 'Marxist' party in the country has covered up an allegation of rape, and whose main theoretical leader is a white male intellectual?

I think in order to gain any genuine traction with race and gender issues, you need to accept that Marxism doesn't have a monopoly on these political issues, and if Marxists aren't prepared to accept that, then it's the Marxist current that will die a lonely, irrelevant death.

Newsflash: women already participate in Marxist movements. The movement for women's liberation was dominated by Marxists in the only period when it produced anything resembling results. The rest is the usual tailist, pop-front guff - "Oh you have to accept that Marxism is not complete so that we can join hands with these nice liberals." Well, no. Fuck liberals. Marxism is complete, and you can play the numbers game as much as you want, ten revolutionaries will accomplish more than ten thousand liberals, tailists and other denizens of the marsh.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Newsflash: women already participate in Marxist movements.

You mean like the woman who was allegedly raped by a member of the central committee of the largest Marxist party in the UK, and then asked by their disputes committee whether she was drunk or not?

Women may participate in Marxist movements, but Marxism by no means operates in a vacuum and there are many, many horrific examples where parties claiming to uphold Marxist ideology have replicated the patriarchy and sexism that pervades wider capitalist society.


The movement for women's liberation was dominated by Marxists in the only period when it produced anything resembling results.

Speculation.


The rest is the usual tailist, pop-front guff - "Oh you have to accept that Marxism is not complete so that we can join hands with these nice liberals."

Your lack of respect for feminism as a distinct arena of struggle capable of achieving results without the Marxists coming to prop them up will never, ever achieve anything other than alienating feminist women (including feminist proletarian women).


Marxism is complete, and you can play the numbers game as much as you want, ten revolutionaries will accomplish more than ten thousand liberals, tailists and other denizens of the marsh.

OK good luck with your revolution. I wish you and your 9 pals all the luck in the world sitting in your parents' basement drafting the programme that will lead those stupid workers and peasants to glorious red flag waving and state monopolies on business. :rolleyes:

Whilst you do that, the rest of us will actually swallow our pride and engage with women and minority groups on a respectful level - you should try it.

[Five Year Plan]

Women may participate in Marxist movements, but Marxism by no means operates in a vacuum and there are many, many horrific examples where parties claiming to uphold Marxist ideology have replicated the patriarchy and sexism that pervades wider capitalist society.

Marxism is no different than any other movement in that it is comprised of actual people, who make actual mistakes, or otherwise sometimes engage in foolish or destructive behavior. What's striking is that you want to hold Marxists' feet to the fire on the issue, but don't do the same for liberal feminist movements.


Your lack of respect for feminism as a distinct arena of struggle capable of achieving results without the Marxists coming to prop them up will never, ever achieve anything other than alienating feminist women (including feminist proletarian women).I don't see where 870 is showing any lack of respect for the importance of women's issues as an identifiable area of struggle. He just refuses to cede that territory to liberals on the grounds that this or that Marxist covered up a rape allegation in some highly bureaucratized party in England in such and such year.

If you don't think women's liberation requires working-class revolution, then I guess you won't see the importance of drawing clear class lines between liberalism feminism and what I call Marxist feminism (what 870 chooses to call, for his own reasons, just "Marxism"). The point 870 is making here is that whatever movement women have outside of a Marxist program is going to keep them mired in class society, and the patriarchal structures of oppression that emerge from it. It's not disrespectful to point this out. It just happens to be reality.


OK good luck with your revolution. I wish you and your 9 pals all the luck in the world sitting in your parents' basement drafting the programme that will lead those stupid workers and peasants to glorious red flag waving and state monopolies on business. :rolleyes:In light of how privilege theory has even fewer devotees than Marxism, if you don't take into account obscure seminars in the Ivory Tower, I think this jab at 9 pals is a little hypocritical.


Whilst you do that, the rest of us will actually swallow our pride and engage with women and minority groups on a respectful level - you should try it.What do you mean by respectful? I think the approach 870 has defended in this thread has been more than respectful. You seem to be conflating respectfulness with uncritical acceptance and tailing.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Marxism is no different than any other movement in that it is comprised of actual people, who make actual mistakes, or otherwise sometimes engage in foolish behavior.

Sorry, i'm not letting you get away with calling rape, or the accusation that rape is the woman's fault, 'a mistake', or merely 'foolish behaviour'. If this wasn't a communist party we were talking about you'd be up in arms, but because it was a higher up in a communist party it's now a mistake, or merely 'foolish behaviour'.

This is precisely the dismissive, patriarchal attitude that Marxists like you refuse to address that prevents any meaningful engagement with the feminist movement.


What's striking is that you want to hold Marxists' feet to the fire on the issue, but don't do the same for liberal feminist movements.

This is childish. You clearly have no intention at all of abandoning your dismissive attitude of feminist issues, so I don't know why you expect anybody else to suddenly accept the Marxist worldview..


I don't see where 870 is showing any lack of respect for the importance of women's issues as an identifiable area of struggle. He just refuses to cede that territory to liberals on the grounds that this or that Marxist covered up a rape allegation in some highly bureaucratized party in England in such and such year.

870 said that Marxism is complete and that nobody is dismissing women's struggle. I was just pointing out that, not only do men lead the largest socialist/communist parties in the UK, but that in the largest single socialist party in the UK, there is a culture of patriarchy and rape apology.

I don't really give a shit what 870s opinion is, I do care when somebody on this board attempts to portray Marxism as complete when, at least in this country, it has a terrible record on issues of patriarchy and sexism.


If you don't think women's liberation requires working-class revolution, then I guess you won't see the importance of drawing clear class lines between liberalism feminism and what I call Marxist feminism (what 870 chooses to call, for his own reasons, just "Marxism"). The point 870 is making here is that whatever movement women have outside of a Marxist program is going to keep them mired in class society, and the patriarchal structures of oppression that emerge from it. It's not disrespectful to point this out. It just happens to be reality.

This is fair. However, I ask you a question: what right does the Marxist left to assume that it will subsume other struggles? That doesn't seem a particularly realistic way of genuinely engaging with and uniting with, in this case, feminists. I don't think being dismissive to people fighting for minority rights because they do not do so under the Marxist banner is particularly productive, since they are also losers under capitalist society, but sometimes for different reasons than workers who are white and male, and their proletarian elements even more so.


In light of how privilege theory has even fewer devotees than Marxism, if you don't take into account obscure seminars rooms in the Ivory Tower, I think this jab at 9 pals is a little hypocritical.

Well i'm not an academic privilege theorist so there's no hypocrisy coming from me. I don't think the fact that feminism is often infested with academic liberals makes the failures of Marxism any less apparent.

Like I have been saying, instead of taking potshots at other arenas of struggle, we should be willing to engage with them in an honest and self-critical way.

[Five Year Plan]

Sorry, i'm not letting you get away with calling rape, or the accusation that rape is the woman's fault, 'a mistake', or merely 'foolish behaviour'. If this wasn't a communist party we were talking about you'd be up in arms, but because it was a higher up in a communist party it's now a mistake, or merely 'foolish behaviour'.

This is precisely the dismissive, patriarchal attitude that Marxists like you refuse to address that prevents any meaningful engagement with the feminist movement.

So you're saying it wasn't a mistake? Mistakes range from first-degree murder to spitting on the sidewalk in Singapore. Rape is a mistake, and it's also a highly destructive patriarchal behavior. Since I was discussing this on a revolutionary board, I thought the latter was already assumed to be true, and didn't need demagogic soapboxing to drive the point home. I guess I was wrong.


This is childish. You clearly have no intention at all of abandoning your dismissive attitude of feminist issues, so I don't know why you expect anybody else to suddenly accept the Marxist worldview..You haven't explained how I or 870 have dismissive attitudes toward women's issues. You just keep repeating the accusation over and over again. I could just as easily turn the tables and say that by miring the women's movement in liberalism and anti-Marxism, you are being dismissive toward women's emancipation, which requires a program for anti-capitalist revolution. I won't do that, though, because (a) it's a cheapshot, and (b) won't move the discussion along.


870 said that Marxism is complete and that nobody is dismissing women's struggle. I was just pointing out that, not only do men lead the largest socialist/communist parties in the UK, but that in the largest single socialist party in the UK, there is a culture of patriarchy and rape apology.What 870 means by this, and I agree with him, is that Marxism has all the methodological tools necessary to understand forms of oppression that affect women, ethnic minorities, and so on. It doesn't needed to be added to by liberal do-gooders who want to appropriate women's issues away from a class-informed approach to them.


I don't really give a shit what 870s opinion is, I do care when somebody on this board attempts to portray Marxism as complete when, at least in this country, it has a terrible record on issues of patriarchy and sexism. Marxism as a body of thought doesn't "do things." Marxists do things, like make mistakes, and engage in foolish and destructive behaviors. When they do so, they are not following a Marxist political program. If you want us to believe that rape and covering up rape allegations are the result of adopting a Marxist political program, you're going to have to try a little harder than say this Marxist over here or that Marxist organization over there raped a person or covered up rape allegations. You may as well attribute rape to blonde hair, and point to instances where a blonde committed rape.


This is fair. However, I ask you a question: what right does the Marxist left to assume that it will subsume other struggles? That doesn't seem a particularly realistic way of genuinely engaging with and uniting with, in this case, feminists. I don't think being dismissive to people fighting for minority rights because they do not do so under the Marxist banner is particularly productive, since they are also losers under capitalist society, but sometimes for different reasons than workers who are white and male, and their proletarian elements even more so.Marxism doesn't "subsume" women's issues by placing them behind class issues. It foregrounds the links between women's oppression and class by placing class in the background of any discussion of women's issues rather than not talking about it at all. It also insists that women's issues (and race issues and sexual issues) be dealt with from a class-informed, revolutionary anti-capitalist perspective. You seem to think that it means not talking about women's issues at all, and focusing only on class to the exclusion of these other issues. That's an outright caricature, and demonstrates no awareness of the history of Marxist movements worldwide.


Well i'm not an academic privilege theorist so there's no hypocrisy coming from me. I don't think the fact that feminism is often infested with academic liberals makes the failures of Marxism any less apparent.

Like I have been saying, instead of taking potshots at other arenas of struggle, we should be willing to engage with them in an honest and self-critical way.

If you're not one of the academic liberals peddling privilege theory, then you're one of fewer than 9 pals. That was my point.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

This is childish. You clearly have no intention at all of abandoning your dismissive attitude of feminist issues, so I don't know why you expect anybody else to suddenly accept the Marxist worldview..

Oh, and when has Five Year Plan been dismissive of women's issues (not "feminist issues", as the issues are not defined by theory)? Here is the crux of the problem: you think that anyone who is dismissive of liberal feminism is dismissive of women's issues, as if one can't talk about abortion rights while at the same time criticising figures like Dworkin etc.


870 said that Marxism is complete and that nobody is dismissing women's struggle. I was just pointing out that, not only do men lead the largest socialist/communist parties in the UK, but that in the largest single socialist party in the UK, there is a culture of patriarchy and rape apology.

That would only make sense if the actions of the SWP disputes committee had anything to do with Marxism, if they were motivated by Marxism. They weren't. In fact the SWP is known for playing fast and loose with Marxism, including amusingly enough their support to liberal feminist in certain instances (unlike the other great macho dinosaur of the British left, the erstwhile WRP).


This is fair. However, I ask you a question: what right does the Marxist left to assume that it will subsume other struggles? That doesn't seem a particularly realistic way of genuinely engaging with and uniting with, in this case, feminists. I don't think being dismissive to people fighting for minority rights because they do not do so under the Marxist banner is particularly productive, since they are also losers under capitalist society, but sometimes for different reasons than workers who are white and male, and their proletarian elements even more so.

And again, you equate Marxism with white male workers (where has sexuality and gender expression disappeared to?). In fact, funnily enough, the only Marxist theorist mentioned by name in this thread was the very much black Dick Frazer, whose wife, by the way, was an important theorist in her own right. This is ridiculous. No one is dismissing the struggle of the doubly-oppressed workers. But at the same time we fight for communist political leadership and a clear class line in these struggles, not because we're evil commies who want power (some power we'd get), but because liberal political leadership poisons, destroys and perverts these struggles.

[Rosa Partizan]

this is one of the most not only sensitive, but especially racist articles I've ever come across in this whole blogger-awareness-feminist-trigger-queer-leftist-blahblah thing (stop blogging or even writing in general goddamn, 95% of these blogs and articles are utter nonsense crap)

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/04/why_i_cant_stand_white_belly_dancers/?source=newsletter


Women I have confronted about this have said, “But I have been dancing for 15 years! This is something I have built a huge community on.” These women are more interested in their investment in belly dancing than in questioning and examining how their appropriation of the art causes others harm. To them, I can only say, I’m sure there are people who have been unwittingly racist for 15 years. It’s not too late. Find another form of self-expression. Make sure you’re not appropriating someone else’s.


[...]


But, here’s the thing. Arab women are not vessels for white women to pour themselves and lose themselves in; we are not bangles or eyeliner or tiny bells on hips. We are human beings. This dance form is originally ours, and does not exist so that white women can have a better sense of community; can gain a deeper sense of sisterhood with each other; can reclaim their bodies; can celebrate their sexualities; can perform for the female gaze. Just because a white woman doesn’t profit from her performance doesn’t mean she’s not appropriating a culture. And, ultimately, the question is this: Why does a white woman’s sisterhood, her self-reclamation, her celebration, have to happen on Arab women’s backs?


http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120405044625/fantendo/images/c/c0/Ohgodwhy.png

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

This is not 4Chan or Chitchat. No memes in the learning forum.
If something is worth saying, then say it with detail and clarity. If it only warrants a meme, don't post it.

(Infraction applied)

[Lily Briscoe]

Arab women are not vessels for white women to pour themselves and lose themselves in; we are not bangles or eyeliner or tiny bells on hipshttp://www.salon.com/2014/03/04/why_i_cant_stand_white_belly_dancers/?source=newsletter

This is the author of that article, by the way:

https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4063/4569060093_bf16f736c5_z.jpg
No idea how she manages to convince herself that she's not a 'white woman', but she clearly is, even by 'American standards'...

[Rosa Partizan]

Strix, do you (or anyone else) know more about her? Is she related to feminism in any way? Because if so, this


This dance form is originally ours, and does not exist so that white women can have a better sense of community; can gain a deeper sense of sisterhood with each other; can reclaim their bodies; can celebrate their sexualities

would be highly disturbing. So her cultural sensitivity weighs more than solidarity and community among women, more than owning your body and sexuality and feeling comfortable with it. The more often I read this article, the more ridiculous and self-righteous it becomes. I understand where the CA argument comes from, but what the fuck does this have to do with it? This is one of the few internet articles where you can read the comment section without having your brain hurting. Several people write they themselves do belly dance and got more interested in the culture and manners, some of them even started learning the arabic language. In how far is this exploiting or ridiculing the arabic culture?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Removed a bunch of one-liners and bullshit from this thread.
Seriously, this is potentially an important discussion that seriously effects the way the white left relates to struggles of third-world peoples and others.
Probably, given that this is Learning, I should have just handed out a shit-tonne of infractions, but since so many people were out of line I figured I should cut some slack. From this point forward: quit fucking around, and seriously/sincerely grapple with the topic, or fuck off to Chit-chat.

@Strix:
WTF race-policing. Like, yeah, "passing" is a thing, and it's really fucking complicated. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume you're ignorant. Advice: Go read a bit about "white passing" and POC struggles.

[Devrim]

Removed a bunch of one-liners and bullshit from this thread.
Seriously, this is potentially an important discussion that seriously effects the way the white left relates to struggles of third-world peoples and others.

What on earth is the 'white left'?

Personally, I think stuff like this should be mocked because it's absurd. I have never heard anything like this in the Middle East. I presume that people living here have slightly more important things to complain about than somebody having fun doing a dance that some of them also do.

It certainly has no connection to "the struggles of third world peoples" at all. The people complaining about cultural appropriation are Americans. They may be descended from people from other countries, but they themselves are Americans because only Americans complain about cultural appropriation.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Removed a bunch of one-liners and bullshit from this thread.
Seriously, this is potentially an important discussion that seriously effects the way the white left relates to struggles of third-world peoples and others.
Probably, given that this is Learning, I should have just handed out a shit-tonne of infractions, but since so many people were out of line I figured I should cut some slack. From this point forward: quit fucking around, and seriously/sincerely grapple with the topic, or fuck off to Chit-chat.

@Strix:
WTF race-policing. Like, yeah, "passing" is a thing, and it's really fucking complicated. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume you're ignorant. Advice: Go read a bit about "white passing" and POC struggles.

The odd thing is, I remember people mocking the cultural petite-bourgeoisie and their oh-so-sad struggles in the thread about Lawrence and Wishart, with general approval. Oh, but we can't have that here, the fight against "cultural appropriation" is so important, no? Or maybe it's just a bunch of "POC" (how nice of liberals who use the term, by the way, to completely erase the special status of blacks in American capitalism - and don't kid yourself, the US and Canada are the only countries where that term is used widely, well, "widely" among the self-proclaimed left) members of the petite bourgeoisie and self-appointed "community leaders" crying because people don't respect their culture (read: they're profiting from it and not giving them a cut). I mean, what's next, are we going to join the Greek nationalists complaining about the name of Macedonia? Those filthy Slavs appropriated Greek cultural terms, after all.

Oh, and raqs sharqi is not "an Arab" dance but a specifically Egyptian one, and one that, horror of horrors, includes Western influence (in fact it fucking postdates Western "belly dancing" and was developed by the Hollywood-influenced Egyptian film industry). Perhaps raqs sharqi is itself cultural appropriation that needs to be destroyed in our quest to purge the world of any cross-cultural influence.

Also, don't kid yourself, "the white left" is the only one that cares about this, unless you're going to count "POC" newspaper columnists and academics as part of "the left".

[Lily Briscoe]

Removed a bunch of one-liners and bullshit from this thread.
Seriously, this is potentially an important discussion that seriously effects the way the white left relates to struggles of third-world peoples and others.
Probably, given that this is Learning, I should have just handed out a shit-tonne of infractions, but since so many people were out of line I figured I should cut some slack. From this point forward: quit fucking around, and seriously/sincerely grapple with the topic, or fuck off to Chit-chat.

@Strix:
WTF race-policing. Like, yeah, "passing" is a thing, and it's really fucking complicated. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume you're ignorant. Advice: Go read a bit about "white passing" and POC struggles.
Lol, you are such a caricature.

The 'race policing' is in the article. I just think it's ironic, with all the author's whining about how e.g. When you type in "belly dance" to google images, the first photos you see are supposedly of white women (whose background the author can apparently discern with a glance) etc., that the author turns out to be literally indistinguishable from any other white person. I don't think it is because of 'passing', either; plenty of Americans with Arab background are white.

Anyway, it's hardly some penetrating political criticism, and the article wouldn't be any less stupid if the author was "brown" (to use her own terminology), but I just thought it was funny.

[Devrim]

Oh, and raqs sharqi is not "an Arab" dance but a specifically Egyptian one, and one that, horror of horrors, includes Western influence (in fact it fucking postdates Western "belly dancing" and was developed by the Hollywood-influenced Egyptian film industry). Perhaps raqs sharqi is itself cultural appropriation that needs to be destroyed in our quest to purge the world of any cross-cultural influence.

But are even the 'original' forms pure? Is it a Turkish or an Arab thing? Either the Turks with their 'Oryantal Dans', or the Arabs with their 'Raqs Sharqi' (which both actually mean the same thing anyway) must be culturally appropriating the other.

In fact, the roots of Oriental dance are thought to go much deeper with different theories suggesting that it has its roots in Greece, or amongst Roma in India. It could well be a mix of both with a splash of Egyptian culture, and Turkish step nomad culture added for good measure. That's cultural appropriation. It is the way the world works.

Devrim

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

But are even the 'original' forms pure? Is it a Turkish or an Arab thing? Either the Turks with their 'Oryantal Dans', or the Arabs with their 'Raqs Sharqi' (which both actually mean the same thing anyway) must be culturally appropriating the other.

In fact, the roots of Oriental dance are thought to go much deeper with different theories suggesting that it has its roots in Greece, or amongst Roma in India. It could well be a mix of both with a splash of Egyptian culture, and Turkish step nomad culture added for good measure. That's cultural appropriation. It is the way the world works.

Devrim

No, I'm sorry, Devrim, it's back to steppe-riding for both of us. We wouldn't, after all, want to appropriate the culture of the Romans and Persians, particularly since we don't care about the deeper meaning of their culture and how authentic our interpretations of their traditions are.

Perhaps we've appropriated horse-riding too, though. Oh, I've confused myself in the head, I'm going back to banging stones against one another and hoping that the petit-bourgeois self-appointed defenders of POC culture (TM) don't object.

[Lily Briscoe]

Strix, do you (or anyone else) know more about her? Is she related to feminism in any way?
In the Salon article, it says it was done as a part of a series by 'feminists of color' or something like that. If you type her name into a search, she has a website and a wiki entry (it's 4am, I drank too much and I'm trying to type this on my phone, so there's no way I'm gonna bother trying to link that shit sorry:)).

[Devrim]

There's a word for this. It's 'Columbusing'

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BWeFHddWL1Y

I watched the video. I wouldn't have know it was supposed to be funny if it hadn't said 'humor' at the start.

It's not what it is at all though. There are lots of people who do bellydancing all across the world. They may do it for whatever reason; to help keep fit, to spice up their sex life or a whole multitude of things. Nobody in the Middle East is annoyed about this. Nobody is saying that we must stop Westerners from belly-dancing. Nor are people belly dancing outside the Middle East claiming they invented it. It even comes with some tacky pseudo-Middle Eastern clothing, so we are all sure where it has its roots.

What's the problem with people dancing and having fun?

Devrim

[Lord Testicles]

Does the idea of cultural appropriation boil down to: "White" culture should not be sullied by the culture of others and that all cultures should try to be exclusive, ethnocentric and racially oriented?

[motion denied]

Does the idea of cultural appropriation boil down to: "White" culture should not be sullied by the culture of others and that all cultures should try to be exclusive, ethnocentric and racially oriented?

Whites should stick to their (oppressive) cultures and stop appropriating others'.

Fully agree /UKIP

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Because nobody bothered to grapple with this last time I posted it, and instead went on slaying the imaginary liberal PC policeman I am:


1. Culture is material, and relates fundamentally to forms of life (ie the totality of which is co-constitutive with modes of production). It is only in the context of colonial and capitalist violence in which "culture" becomes objects and habits disconnected from the social forms that they arose from (commodification).

2. Insofar as the commodification and rending apart of "culture" and forms of life is a necessary part of capitalism ("All that is solid melts into air . . .") it is a site of struggle. One's attitude toward that struggle depends on one's take on the "progressive" nature of capitalism. So, for example, while many more-or-less orthodox Marxists, liberals, and others would hold that ostensibly "pre-"capitalist forms of life are on the wrong side of history, cultural appropriation becomes irrelevant and inevitable. On the other hand . . .

3. . . . if one holds that "pre-"capitalist forms of life do not necessarily precede capitalism, or constitute a "lower" level of development, cultural appropriation becomes an important cite of struggle. Insofar as cultures resist commodification and become sites of struggle against accumulation, there is a real efficacy in, say, punching out a hipster for wearing a war bonnet (beyond the immediate emotional satisfaction).

4. None of this is to, however, affirm liberal conceptions of cultural appropriation which are more concerned with the preservation of niche markets than with culture as a site of anti-capitalist struggle. A version of "cultural appropriation" that holds sacrosanct objects and images of a culture - divorced from the real political and economic practices that animate them - is some utter garbage.

[Buttscratcher]

this just points to having to pick your battles. dreamcatchers themselves aren't an issue. the issue is that (mostly) white people will claim some deeper spiritual meaning with them based on a culture they know probably nothing about or the reasoning/history behind the symbol, and you can say that about many appropriated items.

dreadlocks are an interesting issue. there are some fair skinned people who would prefer dreadlocks because it'd be a good and stylish way to control their otherwise kinky hair. there's nothing wrong with them or culturally specific with dreadlocks that would merit them being called "appropriation." now, if you had dreadlocks and were wearing Jamaican themed wears, talking about Rasta and faking a Jamaican patois... that's an issue. that's cultural appropriation.

one thing that kind of complicates this discussion is that it is complicated. and a lot of people are incredibly hardheaded when it comes to discussion that don't have clear and exact lines.
I agree it's stupid, but it's not really an actual issue at all, it's the people's decision to dress and behave as they please provided they aren't harming anyone, etc, etc.

[Rafiq]

if one holds that "pre-"capitalist forms of life do not necessarily precede capitalism, or constitute a "lower" level of development, cultural appropriation becomes an important cite of struggle. Insofar as cultures resist commodification and become sites of struggle against accumulation, there is a real efficacy in, say, punching out a hipster for wearing a war bonnet (beyond the immediate emotional satisfaction).

If we presume that levels of development exist, then Marxists have traditionally defined development as the summation of a society's technological capacity, artistic, cultural progress (how rapidly culture changes), ideological and political sophistication, and the magnitude of how well they are able to properly conceptualize the world around them (science). Evidently, pre-capitalist societies are then in lesser social epochs. This is inarguable.

If we want to say that levels of development do not exist - then all we are left with is class interest: The proletarian class is concerned with the abolishment of its current condition (derived from its very condition to begin with) and the conquest of the state, a movement derived from the present state of things. It has absolutely no reason to concern itself with the well-being, or preservation of pre-capitalist societies. Indeed the role of Communists taking control of the state in (relatively) pre-capitalist societies like China was destroying the vestiges of the previous order, and the establishment of the foundations for capitalist relations (acting as an eternal romantic bourgeoisie - a long term political Jacobinism).

Now if we disregard the Marxist notion of progress, and the notion of class interest, what exactly do we have left? This is why some people are skeptical of the notion of cultural appropriation and the infatuation western liberals have with pre-capitalist societies. Why? An escapist projection of their imminent desires exclusive to capitalism onto societies that are explicitly incapable of it to begin with? A substitution for real politics (like privilege theory)? Aesthetic appeal of such societies? To aesthetically appreciate them ALREADY presumes tastes fundamentally shaped by your surroundings, the capitalist condition.

Opposing the appropriation of cultural relics of pre-capitalist societies is reactionary. The Communists have their heads turned forward, and only forward.

Of course I can only be suspicious of some of the users who might "agree" with me, and I'm talking about 870. In a previous thread he defended these "authentic" pre-capitalist societies and their preservation. Who knows...

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

But are even the 'original' forms pure? Is it a Turkish or an Arab thing? Either the Turks with their 'Oryantal Dans', or the Arabs with their 'Raqs Sharqi' (which both actually mean the same thing anyway) must be culturally appropriating the other.

In fact, the roots of Oriental dance are thought to go much deeper with different theories suggesting that it has its roots in Greece, or amongst Roma in India. It could well be a mix of both with a splash of Egyptian culture, and Turkish step nomad culture added for good measure. That's cultural appropriation. It is the way the world works.

Devrim

Indeed, which is why I, alone, am the only one who can belly dance. Stop stealing muh shit world. Does anyone else here even know how to "belly dance," legitimately or am I the only one? Cuz I find it wildly amusing dances I do every day, all day, for fun and boredom is being so heatedly discussed.

[Hagalaz]

Is there an actual point to this thread?:confused:

[Slavic]

Is there an actual point to this thread?:confused:

Did you try to read it?

I found this segment from the previous blog article particularly hilarious.

"Find another form of self-expression. Make sure you’re not appropriating someone else’s."

So apparent white people can only do white people stuff and brown people can only do brown people stuff. Time to go listen to Johann Sebastian Bach and eat sour kraut since that's the only "cultural" things I'm allow to do now.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I don't care about cultural appropriation - people "steal" what is useful to them. There are some legitimately annoying forms of it though - for instance, the caricature of certain cultural norms by outsiders, or their exploitation by capital.

Rafiq - while I agree with you that Communists must look forward, I think the notion that non-Western societies are necessarily inferior in all aspects should be questioned. Take a silly example - there are legitimate health benefits to yoga. Sure, when the yogis who invented it tried to explain it, they did so through metaphysical systems which seem dated by today's standard, but the methods and systems remain useful for many.

I don't think culture and ideology functions in a linear manner - I'm not sure you do either, but it's the implication of claiming that the superior ideological and material state of Europe entails that European culture must be superior in all other aspects, and there is nothing that Europeans would reasonably want to appropriate. Some societies develop methods and systems for dealing with particular problems that other societies don't. Thus, the more sophisticated systems of production and the ideologies which went with it did not lead to a universally better world view, so much as one which was more reliable in certain areas related to the preservation and expansion of their social order (such as systematized research into the nature of things - the physical sciences and medicine - or liberal capitalism)

I think you legitimately mistrust the petit-bourgeois habit of fetishizing non-western societies and we should be wary/critical of this, but I think we can go too far in the other direction too.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because nobody bothered to grapple with this last time I posted it, and instead went on slaying the imaginary liberal PC policeman I am:

"Nobody bothered to grapple" with it because, in fact, you yourself point out what's wrong with the position, the petit-bourgeois-romantic notion that pre-capitalist social forms are worth preserving in the face of capitalist onslaught - what Marx once derisively termed "feudal socialism". A "socialism" that has nothing to do with the sort of thing this site is ostensibly about.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

"Nobody bothered to grapple" with it because, in fact, you yourself point out what's wrong with the position, the petit-bourgeois-romantic notion that pre-capitalist social forms are worth preserving in the face of capitalist onslaught - what Marx once derisively termed "feudal socialism". A "socialism" that has nothing to do with the sort of thing this site is ostensibly about.

Yet, on the contrary, Marx's Hegelian idealist baggage vis-a-vis progress is totally worth holding on to? If anyone is guilty of romanticism, it's those who imagine a steady march from necessity to freedom care of the world-spirit clumsily reimagined as modes-of-production. Like, uh, no.

[#FF0000]

I think opposition to cultural appropriation falls more in the realm of "not being an asshole" than politics.

[Rafiq]

I don't care about cultural appropriation - people "steal" what is useful to them. There are some legitimately annoying forms of it though - for instance, the caricature of certain cultural norms by outsiders, or their exploitation by capital.

Rafiq - while I agree with you that Communists must look forward, I think the notion that non-Western societies are necessarily inferior in all aspects should be questioned. Take a silly example - there are legitimate health benefits to yoga. Sure, when the yogis who invented it tried to explain it, they did so through metaphysical systems which seem dated by today's standard, but the methods and systems remain useful for many.

I don't think culture and ideology functions in a linear manner - I'm not sure you do either, but it's the implication of claiming that the superior ideological and material state of Europe entails that European culture must be superior in all other aspects, and there is nothing that Europeans would reasonably want to appropriate. Some societies develop methods and systems for dealing with particular problems that other societies don't. Thus, the more sophisticated systems of production and the ideologies which went with it did not lead to a universally better world view, so much as one which was more reliable in certain areas related to the preservation and expansion of their social order (such as systematized research into the nature of things - the physical sciences and medicine - or liberal capitalism)

I think you legitimately mistrust the petit-bourgeois habit of fetishizing non-western societies and we should be wary/critical of this, but I think we can go too far in the other direction too.

Well no, I have certain qualms over the very notion of "levels of development" bare bones to begin with, this is only a useful form of terminology when discussing class demographics and the implications it has for Communists in that area. Of course advance and progress is relative.

But Communism itself is relative to the circumstances brought forth by capitalism, as it is an ideology by, and for the proletarian class (which only exists within capitalism). Certainly, it is possible to appropriate (no pun intended) other classes into an alliance, who might potentially benefit from the dictatorship of the proletariat (landless peasantry, for one). But the fact of the matter remains that the notion of progress, rather than an objective historical phenomena, is ideological. And the notion of progress for Communism regards progress by the standards of the conditions which bore it in the first place.

I do think, however, that the notion of progress is not worth abandoning. As far as we are concerned, yes capitalism is the most progressive stage of humanity: Because our notion of progress is defined by present circumstances. But is this worth abandoning? No.

I think that Communist ideology must necessarily take heed something from Lenin: that only when you enrich yourself with the treasures all of mankind has to offer, can you be a communist. Being a Communist means utilizing the ability to recognize the spirit of Communism in all present civilizations, to fit the national, cultural historical legacy of the people's of all places into the paradigm of Communism. Useful, even ideologically to even the European proletariat are the moments of class struggle found in all histories between classes who resemble, and remind us of the struggle of the proletariat for class power.

All in all, not only am I for cultural appropriation, I think it is at the very essence of Communism to appropriate the histories, and 'national' relics of all peoples and all civilizations to fit into its ideological universe: This is how legitimacy is gained. Communism (the movement) must consume the entire Earth, or it will be extinguished wherever it might reside.

[Rafiq]

Yet, on the contrary, Marx's Hegelian idealist baggage vis-a-vis progress is totally worth holding on to? If anyone is guilty of romanticism, it's those who imagine a steady march from necessity to freedom care of the world-spirit clumsily reimagined as modes-of-production. Like, uh, no.

But the trends described my Marx were real, whole-scale sentiments reflected by the petite bourgeois class. An opposition to what 870 calls "the onslaught of capitalism" in retrospect to these pre-capitalist societies is grounded in real, identifiable class sentiments of the petite bourgeoisie - it is identifiably reactionary and goes hand in hand with the ugliest historical political trends. The Khmer Rouge comes to mind.

[Ocean Seal]

It genuinely makes me sad to see so many leftists talk about "tumblr" culture and how cultural appropriation is not "materially oppressive" and how its "liberal" to defend the spiritual meaning of things to the point where you sound like Ron Paul zombies. This essentially boils down to white privilege, and I feel as if a lot of revlefters are unintentionally (I hope) racist.

Its not about what people believe in, I don't care for anyone's spiritual beliefs, but it is rather mocking and disrespectful to act as if you are a part of something which involved quite a deal of historical suffering without even examining any information about it.

Let's take an example:
Many indigenous cultures struggled against the very cultures which are imitating them to the point where their spiritual resistance was a political one. The Great Plains native Americans were under equipped and out-manned against the imperial armies of the United States. To compensate for this many of them performed rituals like wearing white cloaks which would protect them from bullets which unfortunately didn't work out too well for them.

As a result when people imitate these actions without being well-read in the history or respectfully acknowledging the sacrifices that many native people made, instead choosing to simply take the culture for granted.

To make perfectly clear what I am trying to say it would be as if you wore native American headdresses or any really type of get up, and at the same time couldn't give any less of a fuck for the people who created those artifacts instead choosing to act like asses when wearing them by 1. chanting around/ supporting a team name which is a racial slur as some sports fans do (promoting the idea that Amerindian culture is alien and their language is primitive) or by 2. acting like a smug asshole who either doesn't share cultural information because he believes he is wearing something to promote the idea that he is more cultured than everyone else (hence capitalizing on oppression as a basis for his privilege) 3. The classic hipster the worst one: wearing the artifact of a conquered people ironically to poke fun at the defeated culture as if they were defeated by being the inferior culture.

To address material concerns, I would first like to say that I have never had my life materially worsened because of racial epithets or because people around me would say subtly racist things. This did however impact the climate in which I went to school/work/my neighborhood in.

After I moved from a predominantly latino community to a wealthier asian/white community (where the students were ~55% asian ~40% white and the administrators were white) I found quite a few things disconcerting. Latinos/blacks typically made up 4-5% of the school.

1a. Racial slurs/jokes about latinos in science
2a. Being racially excluded from many social circles where the ethnic makeup was racially homogeneous.
3a. Being told how unfair it was that I got affirmative action/ Being asked what race I would mark on applications for programs.

While all of these things are annoying none of them "materially disadvantage" me.

But lets talk about things that were a symptom of these.

1. Being stopped for truancy... when high school students were allowed to leave campus if they didn't have classes. And I don't think I've ever heard a story about anyone else getting stopped.

2. The story behind 3a is the following. I had gotten into a pretty difficult science program which interestingly enough did not offer affirmative action (of the 75 students 2 were latino, 20-25% were women, 0 were black). When I broke the news a teacher asked me what race I had applied as. This is a pretty rude question, and in fact it made me realize that she didn't believe that I could do it without the help of the government. Which sort of underscored why she had never nominated me for any of the programs which required the school to send a select few students.

3. The school had also never given me so much as a commendation (which is something that they would do for a plethora of students far less achieving than me), or even a shout out, or any information about improving myself and acted surprised when I got into good universities (which I assume they rationalized through the lens of affirmative action). This was brought to you by 2a the condition which allowed for social circles to be ethnically constructed in turn allowed administrative circles to be ethnically exclusionary.

Now I hope that for those of you who took the time to read my post you will find that perhaps you shouldn't be so obnoxious/dismissive of the oppression of other cultures because they don't fit the bill for your definition of oppression.

Tl;dr: Oppression doesn't have to have direct material consequences if it creates an environment where material consequences are facilitated.

[Slavic]

^

Dude, your entire high school story has absolutely nothing to do with cultural appropriation; it has everything to do with structural racism which is not being discussed at hand.

Not to mention that your points against cultural appropriation are actions of just plain racism and these have already been brought up and agreed upon. This being said, you can't tell me that because I am white, that I can not purchase a dream catcher or keffiyeh just because I think they look cool.

It is beyond ridiculous that aesthetics is being associated with oppression.

[motion denied]

Its not about what people believe in, I don't care for anyone's spiritual beliefs, but it is rather mocking and disrespectful to act as if you are a part of something which involved quite a deal of historical suffering without even examining any information about it.

Great stories from Uni time. Probably the first time I've encountered the evils of appropriating culture outside of the internet. Some students decided that they'd start using African ornaments to stand for whatever and reaffirm their African identity. When you say "act as if you're part of something" is pretty much what they did. Their families, literally, have been living here for centuries, they're no more African than the average Brazilian white person, who most probably has European and African ancestors.


I had written a long response with personal experience as well, but I don't think I want to get into this.

I'll just leave this as a sign of disgust at the "white privilege" and "racism" accusations: \(o.o)/

I'm glad this is a first world internet/academia fad. Academics gotta eat, tumblrs gotta tumblr etc.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I find it amusing that the posters who are against this "cultural appropriation" nonsense tend to be from regions where ethnic chauvinism assumes a much sharper form than in the US. I mean, when I was a kid, my family was nearly deported on account of our origin, and if we were deported we would have quite possibly been killed or ended up in a concentration camp. But I'm sorry they don't even play Mexican music at the Chipotle. That must be hard on you.

People have entirely replaced a materialist stance that traces events to the material conditions of society, chiefly economic, with a quasi-Laclauan obsession with discourse as if words are going to determine the material reality.

[Devrim]

As I write this I can hear the celebrations going on outside to celebrate 'victory day', an orgy of nationalist celebrations celebrating the Greeks being pushed into the sea and the ethnic cleansing that followed, events which tore apart communities and have left antagonisms that remain to the current day.

It's a good job that nobody stole one of the Greek folk dances*, or it would have really got serious.

Devrim

*of course Turkish and Greek folk dances are pretty similar.

[Ocean Seal]

^

Dude, your entire high school story has absolutely nothing to do with cultural appropriation; it has everything to do with structural racism which is not being discussed at hand.

Not to mention that your points against cultural appropriation are actions of just plain racism and these have already been brought up and agreed upon. This being said, you can't tell me that because I am white, that I can not purchase a dream catcher or keffiyeh just because I think they look cool.

It is beyond ridiculous that aesthetics is being associated with oppression.
You can wear a keffiyeh or buy a dream catcher if you want, if you wear a keffiyeh despite supporting the Palestinian genocide, deride Arab culture, etc. that is cultural appropriation.

And yes aesthetics are part of oppression.

And as for my personal story the point wasn't cultural appropriation merely that certain conditions facilitate systematic racism without being a part of them directly.


Great stories from Uni time. Probably the first time I've encountered the evils of appropriating culture outside of the internet. Some students decided that they'd start using African ornaments to stand for whatever and reaffirm their African identity. When you say "act as if you're part of something" is pretty much what they did. Their families, literally, have been living here for centuries, they're no more African than the average Brazilian white person, who most probably has European and African ancestors.
Except they were trying to find their own culture after being expelled from the dominant white culture ala Marcus Garvey / back to Africa type of thing.



I had written a long response with personal experience as well, but I don't think I want to get into this.

I'll just leave this as a sign of disgust at the "white privilege" and "racism" accusations: \(o.o)/
Oh no you're disgusted when I wasn't even referring to you, but hey maybe I should have gone to this thread more thoroughly. Its good to remember that you are the victim here. What do you need? How can I repair your injured psyche?


I'm glad this is a first world internet/academia fad. Academics gotta eat, tumblrs gotta tumblr etc.

Thank god you have all of this figured out, if tumblr/academics support something we have to be against it.





I find it amusing that the posters who are against this "cultural appropriation" nonsense tend to be from regions where ethnic chauvinism assumes a much sharper form than in the US.I mean, when I was a kid, my family was nearly deported on account of our origin, and if we were deported we would have quite possibly been killed or ended up in a concentration camp.

This echoes what many Israelis/Sean Hannity/basically any white person who knows better says.

"Why are you complaining when there are other people doing worse things"
Because the bad of many does not erase the fault of any.





But I'm sorry they don't even play Mexican music at the Chipotle. That must be hard on you.

So hard man :crying:. I made about 20 posts on tumblr about it. But then I realized that they gave double-meat for free essentially so I kept coming in. Really man, I get it, chipotle is a massive chain and just like any other capitalist institution which never cared for any culture. No I never noticed, nor did I care that chipotle wasn't "authentic", but I do care if you wear a poncho, a sombrero and talk about how its great to get drunk and sleep all
day.



People have entirely replaced a materialist stance that traces events to the material conditions of society, chiefly economic, with a quasi-Laclauan obsession with discourse as if words are going to determine the material reality.
Vulgar-materialism

[Lily Briscoe]

You can wear a keffiyeh or buy a dream catcher if you want, if you wear a keffiyeh despite supporting the Palestinian genocide, deride Arab culture, etc. that is cultural appropriation.

That really isn't what people mean when they talk about 'cultural appropriation', and I feel like people in this thread who are arguing for opposition to 'cultural appropriation' are being constantly reduced to altering what is actually meant by it (e.g. "but minstrel shows!"), presumably because they know on some level how ridiculous it is.

I think the article about belly dancing is a much better illustration of the way the concept is used.

[Devrim]

You can wear a keffiyeh or buy a dream catcher if you want, if you wear a keffiyeh despite supporting the Palestinian genocide, deride Arab culture, etc. that is cultural appropriation.

One would presume from its name that it is an Iraq thing originally and not a Palestinian thing. Did the Palestinians 'appropriate' it?

Devrim

[motion denied]

Except they were trying to find their own culture after being expelled from the dominant white culture ala Marcus Garvey / back to Africa type of thing.

I have problems understanding possession over culture.

Anyway, as I said, this culture is hardly "theirs". For centuries have their families lived here, they were "appropriating culture" as much as your hipster. They have no more cultural connections to Africa than anyone born in this country.

Also it's funny you mention Garvey, a racial supremacist and self-proclaimed fascist, who had his ideas deemed "fantastic and reactionary" by C.L.R. James.



Oh no you're disgusted when I wasn't even referring to you, but hey maybe I should have gone to this thread more thoroughly. Its good to remember that you are the victim here. What do you need? How can I repair your injured psyche?

Well, you said it to any and everyone, apparently.


Thank god you have all of this figured out, if tumblr/academics support something we have to be against it.

You know what I meant, come on.

[Ocean Seal]

One would presume from its name that it is an Iraq thing originally and not a Palestinian thing. Did the Palestinians 'appropriate' it?

Devrim
No through cultural exchange the keffiyeh became a symbol of resistance of the Palestinian people in a manner which (I would imagine) most Iraqis support. So no, don't be dense you read the sentence well enough to come up with a better response.


I have problems understanding possession over culture.

Anyway, as I said, this culture is hardly "theirs". For centuries have their families lived here, they were "appropriating culture" as much as your hipster. They have no more cultural connections to Africa than anyone born in this country. [QUOTE]

Except they were brought to the Americas by force, and taken out of the dominant Brazilian culture (through a very pervasive racism), so they adapted their culture to one of resistance.

[QUOTE=Herr Unrat;2785931]
Also it's funny you mention Garvey, a racial supremacist and self-proclaimed fascist, who had his ideas deemed "fantastic and reactionary" by C.L.R. James.

I don't think you really get it. I mention Garvey-ism or whatever his ideology was as an altogether different phenomenon. One of describing Africans as desirable people after being denigrated by white-supremacism. But yeah if you can say the word fascist enough about someone who I mentioned to illustrate a point, I guess you can refuse to answer my questions.



Well, you said it to any and everyone, apparently.

And now I say it to you. And I really hope that you are doing it unintentionally.

[motion denied]

Except they were brought to the Americas by force, and taken out of the dominant Brazilian culture (through a very pervasive racism), so they adapted their culture to one of resistance.

Their ancestors, assuming they were all slaves, yes. No doubt about it. There is racism? I'm not that much of an idiot to deny an obvious fact. However, they did grow up in Brazil, they're Brazilians, so is their culture. "Brazilian" culture is a giant mix of African, European, native etc. The greatest writer in the country's history was black, one the greatest poets was a direct descendant of slaves. It is sometimes hidden? You bet it is, and people un-hide it, they bring it to light.

I don't know if African culture is so marginalized - on the contrary. It is a chief commodity. Why tourists come to Bahia, Rio etc? Besides the landscapes, beaches, there is the food, music, dances, Carnaval. Olodum is known world-wide. Careful, I'm just saying that certain aspects of African culture are very well exploited not only by the State, or companies, but by the communities themselves. Hip hop and funk, on the other hand, associated not only with blacks, but with poor people in general are considered unwanted, or synonymous with crime and drugs. Natives are perceived as lazy? Yes, no doubt. African religions, with some exceptions depending on location, are marginalised? Again, yes.

All I am saying is: some petty-bourgeois university student using (and forbidding others to) an ornament is not fighting racism. Confronting the police against black and poor genocide, denouncing how black workers are paid less than white workers or questioning why African history is not taught in schools, that is fighting racism. Unveiling the complementarity between capitalism and racism, that's being radical. Segregating marches (because white people are not allowed to attend), that's racist.

Then again, being black and using an afro hairstyle will get you problems, such as being "randomly" selected by the police, etc.


I don't think you really get it. I mention Garvey-ism or whatever his ideology was as an altogether different phenomenon. One of describing Africans as desirable people after being denigrated by white-supremacism. But yeah if you can say the word fascist enough about someone who I mentioned to illustrate a point, I guess you can refuse to answer my questions.

I wasn't trying to make a point at all. It was just an observation.



And now I say it to you. And I really hope that you are doing it unintentionally.

Listen, I'm being as polite as I can. I would expect you to be as well. I don't know anything about you, you don't know anything about me. You don't get to call me racist. Say why, or how I am a white supremacist, otherwise, go fuck yourself.

[motion denied]

Unbelievable, because I don't believe "cultural appropriation" is a thing, or that I don't think wearing an ornament is fighting racism (the best way to fight something without actually fighting it), I'm a racist.

[erased - no drama!]

[Ocean Seal]

Their ancestors, assuming they were all slaves, yes. No doubt about it. There is racism? I'm not that much of an idiot to deny an obvious fact. However, they did grow up in Brazil, they're Brazilians, so is their culture. "Brazilian" culture is a giant mix of African, European, native etc. The greatest writer in the country's history was black, one the greatest poets was a direct descendant of slaves. It is sometimes hidden? You bet it is, and people un-hide it, they bring it to light.
You are essentially denying that there are different cultures within a geographical area. And yes culture is rather exclusive both along class and race lines. A simple example has to do with the pigment of Jesus' skin lightening and the exclusion and marginalization of black contributions to music (rock and roll especially) which was a case where cultural appropriation had material consequences. Do you have anything to say to that?



I don't know if African culture is so marginalized - on the contrary. It is a chief commodity. Why tourists come to Bahia, Rio etc? Besides the landscapes, beaches, there is the food, music, dances, Carnaval. Olodum is known world-wide. Careful, I'm just saying that certain aspects of African culture are very well exploited not only by the State, or companies, but by the communities themselves. Hip hop and funk, on the other hand, associated not only with blacks, but with poor people in general is considered unwanted, or synonymous with crime and drugs.

Another example to support my case. The commodification of their culture is a form of exploitation from which the ruling culture benefits (as they commodity it and make money), while the ruled culture does not have material benefit from it. Again more of the "material evidence" that you wanted.




Listen, I'm being as polite as I can. I would expect you to be as well. I don't know anything about you, you don't know anything about me. You don't get to call me racist. Say why, or how I am a white supremacist, otherwise, go fuck yourself.

You're right, I don't know you, that's why I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Hoping that you aren't doing it on purpose. I only have your comments to go on. So if you ask me my frank opinion of you, I don't think you are a racist. I think you are very stubborn, and rather than be wrong, you dig yourself further into a hole/

[QUOTE=Herr Unrat;2785972]
Unbelievable, because I don't believe "cultural appropriation" is a thing, or that I don't think wearing an ornament is fighting racism (the best way to fight something without actually fighting it), I'm a racist.

[consuming negativity]

The existence of self righteous idiots who hate belly dancing and fun does not mean that cultural appropriation doesn't exist. Likewise, someone not understanding the difference doesn't make them a racist. Stop being ignorant assholes.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well...this thread went in no time from cultural appropriation to black face and minstrel shows in order to argue that cultural appropriation is somehow bad.

So basically...the use of cultural aspects in order to stereotypically caricaturize said culture is bad.

And yes. I agree...

However...

That is not what cultural appropriation actually is.

[PhoenixAsh]

@ Geiseric...on womens oppression and drag:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/347420.shtml

http://feministcurrent.com/8932/why-has-drag-escaped-critique-from-feminists-and-the-lgbtq-community/

[motion denied]

You are essentially denying that there are different cultures within a geographical area.

Where do you draw the line? Or there is an unified, monolithic black culture and an equally unified and monolithic white culture and yet another unified and monolithic native culture?


A simple example has to do with the pigment of Jesus' skin lightening and the exclusion and marginalization of black contributions to music (rock and roll especially) which was a case where cultural appropriation had material consequences. Do you have anything to say to that?

Well, the rhythms that gave origin to rock and roll, while preponderantly developed and performed by black people, were a mix, not only of instruments bur also of other rhythms. According to Hobsbawm, Jazz is a mixture of African, Spanish, Anglo-Saxon and French cultures. In fact, as the slaves were forbidden to use their instruments, they had to use the white men's instruments. Who appropriated who?


Another example to support my case. The commodification of their culture is a form of exploitation from which the ruling culture benefits (as they commodity it and make money), while the ruled culture does not have material benefit from it. Again more of the "material evidence" that you wanted.The "ruled culture" does. Not to the extent of the other, alright, but they do. Which brings us to another point: down south there was a massive immigration of Germans and Poles. The chief tourist attractions of these places are the remains of German tradition (they even have an Oktoberfest). Now, they are descendents of a "ruling culture," but their culture is transformed in a commodity too.

That's because capital will make it a commodity, it knows no bounds.


So if you ask me my frank opinion of you, I don't think you are a racist. I think you are very stubborn

Fair enough.

[Devrim]

No through cultural exchange the keffiyeh became a symbol of resistance of the Palestinian people in a manner which (I would imagine) most Iraqis support. So no, don't be dense you read the sentence well enough to come up with a better response.

Oh, I forgot. It's all about you, isn't it? And when we talk about cultural appropriation that is certainly the case because it is an idea that is virtually confined to the US. Where I am sitting though, Puşi is not primarily seen as a "symbol of Palestinian resistance", but as a Kurdish thing, so I don't see it like that. Would I be culturally appropriating the Palestinians if I wore one, or would I be just trying to keep my ears warm in winter?

One of them whole problems with this idea is how it is deeply based in bourgeois ideology using terms derived from how people deal with commodities to describe a completely different process. The mechanisms by which cultural ideas are spread are not the same as the mechanisms by which goods are exchanged on the market.

The kufiya, or puşi was neither exchanged nor appropriated by the Palestinians or the Kurds from the Iraqis. The Iraqis as a people did not sit down and haggle to see what they could get in return for it (exchange) not was something taken away from them that they could no longer use (appropriation). Culture spreads in a completely different way.

Devrim

[Lord Testicles]

Where do you draw the line? Or there is an unified, monolithic black culture and an equally unified and monolithic white culture and yet another unified and monolithic native culture?

This. Everyone does seem to be talking about culture as if it is one homogeneous monolithic entity that is organised along ethnic lines.

David Cameron and myself are both white but I'm certain that we share completely different cultures. Different people of the same colour in the same town can have different cultures so what exactly is white or black culture?

The more I think about the idea of "cultural appropriation" the more it seems to have racist undertones. Don't be wearing dreadlocks and doing that belly-dancing, that's what the non-whites do.

[Aurorus Ruber]

The more I think about the idea of "cultural appropriation" the more it seems to have racist undertones. Don't be wearing dreadlocks and doing that belly-dancing, that's what the non-whites do.

Yeah, something like that has crossed my mind as well. Imagine two white people, both of whom studiously avoid any cultural influences outside their European background. One of them wants to avoid engaging in cultural appropriation for progressive reasons. The other takes great pride in their pure European ancestry and consequently eschews foreign influences. Does the psychological intent of each person behind their policy of cultural purism alone determine how we evaluate it ethically?

[Rosa Partizan]

http://www.dailydot.com/opinion/5-things-white-people-cultural-appropriation/

eating watermelon is cultural blahblah. Stop this crap already, you pseudoleftist douches.

He sounds like a German autonomous nationalist. They appreciate any culture as long as those cultures remain among themselves. I feel like an idiot for having believed in this racist concept some time ago.