Yoga class cancelled due to cultural appropriation

[maryanne]

This thread and the one about Thanksgiving have been interesting to follow and have given me a lot to think about.  As best as I can tell maybe the equivalent for me would be a group of frat boys, atheists, or any other group of non-Christians getting together and setting up a baptismal pool and taking turns dunking each other to mock the Christian ritual of baptism. 

 

The thing is even though I'm Christian and baptism is pretty significant religious ritual to me, the only part of a mock-baptism that would bother me would be if they actually said "In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."  Even then, though, I wouldn't expect them to stop because it offended me, although depending on the circumstances I might leave.  Otherwise, I leave it God's hands to deal with the mockers in whatever way he sees fit.

[The Girls' Mom]

I'm currently enrolled in college.  The PC, don't step on anyone's toes, guard every single word that comes out of your mouth, everyone is offended by everything culture is exhausting and very prevalent on campuses.  You can't even discuss race or culture issues intelligently because someone will be offended, and you may be accidentally bullying someone (yes, really).  So, yes, it affects me.  I've been accused of being racist because I mentioned that I look very white, although I have AA ancestry.  (how that is racist when I was stating a fact about my skin color and misconceptions about it, I have no idea) When my classes have become so sanitized that I can't learn anything real, it affects me.  When I can't enjoy the wonderful things other cultures have brought into the world because...appropriation...yes I find it stupid. The PC hysteria in the media deserves laughter.  Somehow we are supposed to be both blind to race and ethnicity while also separating cultures carefully so we don't step on toes by doing something that belongs to another culture.  Its a lose-lose situation.

Things that are done to mock other cultures, or demean them, are wrong.  Sharing or adopting practices of another culture because you find them inspiring or beautiful is not.  

 

On the flip side, and maybe a rabbit trail, the lack of exposure to other cultures is causing a lot of misunderstanding and fear right now.  I have people in my life right now that think everyone of middle eastern descent has terrorist roots.  It is fear and hysteria caused by ignorance.  Ignorance that could be alleviated if they were exposed to more middle eastern peoples and culture.  

BTW, as a TN hillbilly, feel free to take my culture and run with it.  Y'all can have all the pinto beans and cornbread you want.  

 

Edited November 25, 2015 by The Girls' Mom

[happi duck]

This topic interests me...

My college age daughter struggles with anxiety and the idea of CA is causing her much distress. She doesn't want to hurt anyone and really stresses over whether or not she's inadvertently a part of CA.

 

For example, yoga and meditation can be very helpful for anxiety but she doesn't want to be part of CA by pursuing these practices.

 

I try to ease her mind but discussing CA seems to be common in her age group.

 

So I'm listening in hoping to be able to explain why it's okay to try yoga and meditation.

 

Eta: of course now I'm confused if it's even okay :(

Edited November 24, 2015 by happi duck

[Reefgazer]

Yup to all of this. I do what I damned well want to do, and if someone is offended they aren't obligated to socialize with me.  I've had a bunch of politically-correct PC friends for about 20 years; we drive each other nuts.  But they let me toot my own horn and they toot theirs and all's been well with that for a very long time.  People who are intolerant of others, no matter what flag the others are flying, don't last very long in our group.

I think everyone should go nuts culturally appropriating everything. Really go to town with it and have unlimited fun. It makes life more interesting. Those from the culture something came from are free to point out whatever they wish. Flood the world with information. People have the freedom to learn or not. I am fantastically over people wanting the world to be ridiculously sensitive about every little thing. Some things hurt and affect lives, because they create hostile environments and encourage discrimination. Others are annoyances. The PC mind police wannabes who want everyone bending over backwards and afraid of our own shadows out of their brand of sensitivity are the ones making a mockery of sensitivity. This doesn't encourage anyone to focus on real problems that actually affect inclusion. I think it makes people more likely to roll their eyes and walk away from even trying to be inclusive.

 

[Corraleno]

This topic interests me...

My college age daughter struggles with anxiety and the idea of CA is causing her much distress. She doesn't want to hurt anyone and really stresses over whether or not she's inadvertently a part of CA.

 

For example, yoga and meditation can be very helpful for anxiety but she doesn't want to be part of CA by pursuing these practices.

 

I try to ease her mind but discussing CA seems to be common in her age group.

 

So I'm listening in hoping to be able to explain why it's okay to try yoga and meditation.

 

Eta: of course now I'm confused if it's even okay :(

 

 

I think the percentage of people who consider yoga classes to be CA is extremely small, and not representative of how most Indians feel. There has been a "Take Back Yoga" movement, strongly supported by Indian Prime Minister Modi, but the goal is not to prevent westerners from practicing it, it's to encourage more Indians to practice it and to remind people that its spiritual roots are in Hinduism:

 

Sheetal Shah, a senior director of HAF [Hindu American Foundation], which spearheaded the “Take Back Yoga†campaign, said: “Nobody owns yoga. Our idea was not to claim ownership; it was just to acknowledge that the philosophy behind yoga is based in Hinduism.â€

 

 Some Indians do feel that the really "bastardized" versions of yoga (nude yoga, kickboxing yoga, etc) probably should not be called yoga. I can definitely understand that, although I think it's unlikely that they will be able to reclaim that word given the commercial investment in those sorts of things in the west.

 

Another objection that Indians have stems from the attempt by a yogi in L.A. (Bikram Choudhury, who calls himself "the yogi to the stars") to copyright a specific sequence of poses and to prevent other yoga studios from using or teaching those poses. "He was not successful, but Indians learned a lesson. ... They are documenting 1500 yoga poses, some by videotape, which will be added online next year, to help prevent the misappropriation of yoga by commercial enterprises..."

 

As for meditation, the Dalai Lama is a vocal proponent of mindfulness mediation for all people, and he has actively encouraged scientific research into the physical and psychological benefits of meditation. The Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh has written dozens of books and made it his life's work to bring mindfulness meditation to the west.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2015 by Corraleno

[happi duck]

I think the percentage of people who consider yoga classes to be CA is extremely small, and not representative of how most Indians feel. There has been a "Take Back Yoga" movement, strongly supported by Indian Prime Minister Modi, but the goal is not to prevent westerners from practicing it, it's to encourage more Indians to practice it and to remind people that its spiritual roots are in Hinduism:

 

 

Some Indians do feel that the really "bastardized" versions of yoga (nude yoga, kickboxing yoga, etc) probably should not be called yoga. I can definitely understand that, although I think it's unlikely that they will be able to reclaim that word given the commercial investment in those sorts of things in the west.

 

Another objection that Indians have stems from the attempt by a yogi in L.A. (Bikram Choudhury, who calls himself "the yogi to the stars") to copyright a specific sequence of poses and to prevent other yoga studios from using or teaching those poses. "He was not successful, but Indians learned a lesson. ... They are documenting 1500 yoga poses, some by videotape, which will be added online next year, to help prevent the misappropriation of yoga by commercial enterprises..."

 

As for meditation, the Dalai Lama is a vocal proponent of mindfulness mediation for all people, and he has actively encouraged scientific research into the physical and psychological benefits of meditation. The Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh has written dozens of books and made it his life's work to bring mindfulness meditation to the west.

Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to post this.

[Bluegoat]

I disagree. They're becoming more common, especially on college campuses. 

 

Yes, this.  I agree, the yoga thing sounds obviously idiotic, for many reasons.  But there is increasingly  movement by what seems to be people really invested in identity politics in that direction. 

 

Some of the examples of what is "wrong" use of other cultures in this thread are I think expended views of what constitutes appropriation - for exmple the idea that changing  practice or artifact is in itself appropriation (so, say, something like hot yoga.)   

 

I gave n exmple local to me early in the discussion -  new ply based on Chinese forms of theater.  The guy who wrote it was not mocking - it wasn't even comedic - he was a serious artist inspired by an art-form to create something new.  It in no way affected the expression of Chinese theater by Chinese people.  Not mocking, nor filing to take it seriously s n rt form, nor filing to knowledge the source of inspiration (though any idiot could see the source.)

 

But many people are insisting that it is cultural appropriation, and in fact the play is not happening.  Indeed the comment after the discussion group said that the intent (respectful engagement, or treating it as a serious art form in this case) is totally irrelevant to whether it is appropriation, which would seem to conflict with what has been the more commonly accepted understanding.

 

I also think that the idea that children pretending to be people other than themselves is appropriation is pretty much off the chart in terms of crazy. 

 

I think this is a really scary phenomena, it is, IMO, very likely to lead to cultural fascism - that is what you get when you begin to believe that particular ideas belong to particular cultures or ethnicity.  Many horrible things can be justifies on that basis - that is for exmple very closely related to the reason some people believe Islam should be eradicated.

[Bluegoat]

I think the percentage of people who consider yoga classes to be CA is extremely small, and not representative of how most Indians feel. There has been a "Take Back Yoga" movement, strongly supported by Indian Prime Minister Modi, but the goal is not to prevent westerners from practicing it, it's to encourage more Indians to practice it and to remind people that its spiritual roots are in Hinduism:

 

 

 Some Indians do feel that the really "bastardized" versions of yoga (nude yoga, kickboxing yoga, etc) probably should not be called yoga. I can definitely understand that, although I think it's unlikely that they will be able to reclaim that word given the commercial investment in those sorts of things in the west.

 

Another objection that Indians have stems from the attempt by a yogi in L.A. (Bikram Choudhury, who calls himself "the yogi to the stars") to copyright a specific sequence of poses and to prevent other yoga studios from using or teaching those poses. "He was not successful, but Indians learned a lesson. ... They are documenting 1500 yoga poses, some by videotape, which will be added online next year, to help prevent the misappropriation of yoga by commercial enterprises..."

 

As for meditation, the Dalai Lama is a vocal proponent of mindfulness mediation for all people, and he has actively encouraged scientific research into the physical and psychological benefits of meditation. The Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh has written dozens of books and made it his life's work to bring mindfulness meditation to the west.

 

These are legitimate gripes, IMO, but not cultural appropriation.  Nude yoga is really in part derived from yoga.  That's how ideas work, they develop over time, you can see that within cultures s well, and often people object that the essence of the thing is being compromised or lost.

 

The copyright issue - I think there is a lot of common ground between an individual trying to claim ownership of an idea, and a group, including an ethnic group.

[marbel]

I think it is a worthy topic as well. I think this definition of when something is cultural appropriation is a good starting point: 

 

<snip>

 

Wearing bindis, dashikis, dreadlocks, saris, kilts, clogs, or any other type of clothing that is not native to your own culture without acknowledging the history these clothes come from or the oppression that some people who wear those clothes have to face because they are different from the majority culture in a specific country."  

<snip>

 

I'm kind of stuck on this bit.  How does that work on a practical level?

 

If I wear clogs, how am I supposed to acknowledge that they are not native to my culture?   A sign on my back?  Tell everyone I see that I understand the history of my clogs?  Yes, I'm being silly on purpose.  But, the question hangs there - how would I do that?    (Oh and are we talking about Japanese clogs or Dansko type?)

 

Should the Men in Kilts window-washing company only hire workers who are "entitled" (for lack of a better word) to wear kilts?  Put signs on their trucks acknowledging the history of the kilt and oppression that goes along with it?

 

Really, I'm not being snarky. Nor do I mean to make light of oppression. But what the heck would that look like? 

 

Does Anne Lamott get a pass on the dreadlocks because people think she's cool?   Or maybe she has acknowledged her appropriation of dreadlocks - but how would I know she has? 

 

[Katy]

I'm kind of stuck on this bit.  How does that work on a practical level?

 

If I wear clogs, how am I supposed to acknowledge that they are not native to my culture?   A sign on my back?  Tell everyone I see that I understand the history of my clogs?  Yes, I'm being silly on purpose.  But, the question hangs there - how would I do that?    (Oh and are we talking about Japanese clogs or Dansko type?)

 

Should the Men in Kilts window-washing company only hire workers who are "entitled" (for lack of a better word) to wear kilts?  Put signs on their trucks acknowledging the history of the kilt and oppression that goes along with it?

 

Really, I'm not being snarky. Nor do I mean to make light of oppression. But what the heck would that look like? 

 

Does Anne Lamott get a pass on the dreadlocks because people think she's cool?   Or maybe she has acknowledged her appropriation of dreadlocks - but how would I know she has? 

 

 

Not to mention, what about when cultures overlap, but the offended person doesn't know that?  If you see a blonde wearing clogs and that offends you, how are we supposed to inform you of Scandinavian clogs?  Or that they have a long tradition in Scotland too?

[Corraleno]

These are legitimate gripes, IMO, but not cultural appropriation.  Nude yoga is really in part derived from yoga.  That's how ideas work, they develop over time, you can see that within cultures s well, and often people object that the essence of the thing is being compromised or lost.

 

I think that Indians who feel that stripping yoga of it's spiritual component, and commercializing it in ways that do not feel authentic to them, are coming from a similar place as Christians who feel that Christmas is being stripped of it's spiritual component and becoming commercialized in ways that are disrespectful to Christians. And I do think that some Christians would say that that constitutes cultural appropriation of a religious practice by nonChristians. I can understand the sentiment in both cases, but I agree with you that such objections cannot truly reverse centuries of cultural change; that is an inevitable aspect of human culture.

 

 

The copyright issue - I think there is a lot of common ground between an individual trying to claim ownership of an idea, and a group, including an ethnic group.

 

Although in the case of Bikram yoga, the ethnic group was trying to prevent one of their own group from claiming certain cultural practices as his personal intellectual property, precisely so that the practices would be available to everyone. That's the opposite of claiming that a certain ethnic group "owns" certain types of food, music, hairstyles, or whatever, and that no one outside the group ever has the right to use those. But I do see the parallel in that in both cases one entity (individual or ethnic group) is trying to claim intellectual property rights to things that others feel belong to humans in general, not one particular group. In some cases I think the line is clear (Rachel Dolezal claiming a Black identity and making a career of it), in others (e.g. claiming that dreads are an exclusively Black hairstyle) I think the line is more problematic. And some, like canceling the yoga class or objecting to ethnic restaurants, are just downright stupid and not supported by the vast majority of those whose cultures are supposedly being appropriated.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Corraleno

[Word Nerd]

I'm kind of stuck on this bit.  How does that work on a practical level?

 

If I wear clogs, how am I supposed to acknowledge that they are not native to my culture?   A sign on my back?  Tell everyone I see that I understand the history of my clogs?  Yes, I'm being silly on purpose.  But, the question hangs there - how would I do that?    (Oh and are we talking about Japanese clogs or Dansko type?)

 

Should the Men in Kilts window-washing company only hire workers who are "entitled" (for lack of a better word) to wear kilts?  Put signs on their trucks acknowledging the history of the kilt and oppression that goes along with it?

 

Really, I'm not being snarky. Nor do I mean to make light of oppression. But what the heck would that look like? 

 

Does Anne Lamott get a pass on the dreadlocks because people think she's cool?   Or maybe she has acknowledged her appropriation of dreadlocks - but how would I know she has? 

 

 

I wondered the same thing. With a German, English, Irish, and Scottish heritage, how would I even determine what my "own culture" is? Is American culture—and what does that mean, since it's a blend of many different cultures—the only culture I can legitimately wear or use something from without that use being appropriation? 

[Bluegoat]

I think that Indians who feel that stripping yoga of it's spiritual component, and commercializing it in ways that do not feel authentic to them, are coming from a similar place as Christians who feel that Christmas is being stripped of it's spiritual component and becoming commercialized in ways that are disrespectful to Christians. And I do think that some Christians would say that that constitutes cultural appropriation of a religious practice by nonChristians. I can understand the sentiment in both cases, but I agree with you that such objections cannot truly reverse centuries of cultural change; that is an inevitable aspect of human culture.

 

 

 

 

 

I think I am on the same page here - I agree that both are similar, but I see it as just the nature of ideas over time.  People give new meaning.

 

I have seen an example of what I thought was inappropriate use of Christian symbols, where a fashion designer made a whole collection of clothes with icons on them.  They were beautifully beaded and I can see why they would be inspiring,  but I think on the inappropriate side.  But not because they were "stolen."

 

 

 

Although in the case of Bikram yoga, the ethnic group was trying to prevent one of their own group from claiming certain cultural practices as his personal intellectual property, precisely so that the practices would be available to everyone. That's the opposite of claiming that a certain ethnic group "owns" certain types of food, music, hairstyles, or whatever, and that no one outside the group ever has the right to use those. But I do see the parallel in that in both cases one entity (individual or ethnic group) is trying to claim intellectual property rights to things that others feel belong to humans in general, not one particular group. In some cases I think the line is clear (Rachel Dolezal claiming a Black identity and making a career of it), in others (e.g. claiming that dreads are an exclusively Black hairstyle) I think the line is more problematic. And some, like canceling the yoga class or objecting to ethnic restaurants, are just downright stupid and not supported by the vast majority of those whose cultures are supposedly being appropriated.

 

 

Yes,  I was thinking the individual's claim of ownership was similar to a claim by a particular ethnic group to own an idea. 

 

Even if we wanted that, there is no such thing as a pure ethnicity or a pure culture.  That won't be different in the future any more than it was in the past.

 

[Word Nerd]

I was wondering how this thread turned out overnight! Guess I got my answer - more hyperbole.

 

Yes, the danger to Western society is over-eager college students imposing PC fascism across our nations. Gotcha.

 

And more misrepresentation.

[Farrar]

I see both lots of absurd hyperbole and some deeper discussion.

[SKL]

So I guess the yoga pants threads are a goner....

[KungFuPanda]

Wow. I missed this thread. I'm going to go teach a bellydance class now . . . IN yoga pants. ::ducking::

[Cammie]

 

 

 

As a white woman who wears bindis and saris frequently (or more frequently than most white women) with a white brother who has had dreadlocks for 20 years...I guess I resemble this comment!

 

I think perhaps the bigger problem is that peopel who see me or my brother think they have a right to assume the motivation behind what we wear or do.  Without knowing us, our backgrounds, our history, our mindset you cannot judge what we do just because it looks like "appropriation."

 

I think the real issue is RESPECT and not appropriation.  If you do not respect another culture....that is a problem.  If you choose to incorporate elements of that culture specifically because you DO respect that culture then I don't see a problem.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Cammie

[marbel]

As a white woman who wears bindis and saris frequently (or more frequently than most white women) with a white brother who has had dreadlocks for 20 years...I guess I resemble this comment!

 

I think perhaps the bigger problem is that peopel who see me or my brother think they have a right to assume the motivation behind what we wear or do.  Without knowing us, our backgrounds, our history, our mindset you cannot judge what we do just because it looks like "appropriation."

 

I think the real issue is RESPECT and not appropriation.  If you do not respect another culture....that is a problem.  If you choose to incorporate elements of that culture specifically because you DO respect that culture then I don't see a problem.

 

See, that's what I mean.

 

It just seems like... more and more, people are making assumptions about others' motivations, and assuming the worst (disrespect).

 

(I don't have a beef with Anne Lamott's dreadlocks. I don't care one way or another; I don't know much about her except she's a writer and I have enjoyed some of her books.  it's just an example I thought of.) 

 

[Ms.Ivy]

This cultural appropriation stuff is so enlightening.  As a second-generation homeschooler, whose mother seriously wore the homeschool "uniform", I will now be offended if I ever see a non-homeschooling person wearing a jumper dress.  To some in the 90s, it was just a passing style.  But in my persecuted sub-culture, it had SIGNIFICANCE.   

[Tsuga]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/23/university-yoga-class-canceled-because-of-oppression-cultural-genocide/?tid=sm_fb

 

After all, misappropriating another culture's religious practice is no different than a construction paper feather costume at Thanksgiving...  or is it?  Is this the logical end of political correctness run wild?

 

In other opinions, isn't ALL culture due to cultural appropriation?

 

I saw this. It's positively bizarre. By the standards of this college, no more anoraks or kayaking either.

 

 

I think that Indians who feel that stripping yoga of it's spiritual component, and commercializing it in ways that do not feel authentic to them, are coming from a similar place as Christians who feel that Christmas is being stripped of it's spiritual component and becoming commercialized in ways that are disrespectful to Christians. And I do think that some Christians would say that that constitutes cultural appropriation of a religious practice by nonChristians. I can understand the sentiment in both cases, but I agree with you that such objections cannot truly reverse centuries of cultural change; that is an inevitable aspect of human culture.

 

 

I agree, and I think therefore that Christians should keep their Christmas and Hindus and yogis can keep their practice but you can't stop anyone else from doing it.

 

I do think it's really eye-lollingly tacky to pursue yoga as a social status sport.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REcxr3e91WY

 

What I don't agree with is that Christianity is stolen in the same way as colonialized cultures are stolen. True, neither Christians nor Indians benefit financially from cross or Namaste tee-shirts (not to MENTION "Namaste, Bitches!" tee-shirts).

 

But the Christian churches which object to the commodification object to it on moral grounds and generally as a group are not downtrodden, whereas at least in some cases, most of the minorities objecting to the commodification of native goods object because they are poorer and less advantaged. The NFL owns pro-football which is arguably a cultural phenomenon and it does piss me off that I can't draw a Seahawks logo on a tee-shirt without risking being sued. But they didn't appropriate this from someone else and then make money off it. They built it up and there wasn't a mass appropriation.

 

Whereas, nobody ever gave natives the chance to patent the kayak or the anorak or any number of things.

 

So they don't get paid for its use.

 

As i understand that's the main difference in the objection. Christians don't want anybody to make money off something. The Indians in this case don't want the colonizers to make money off their things, because they themselves would like the profits.

[Laurie]

 

 

 . The NFL owns pro-football which is arguably a cultural phenomenon and it does piss me off that I can't draw a Seahawks logo on a tee-shirt without risking being sued. But they didn't appropriate this from someone else and then make money off it. They built it up and there wasn't a mass appropriation.

 

 

 

I'm confused.  Would you mind taking a look at this:   http://burkemuseum.blogspot.com/2014/01/in-search-of-true-inspiration-for.html#.VlUi17-tTS0

 

Is it possible that some Native Americans might object to the team taking this design for their logo?  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cammie]

Honestly, saying you can never do something or wear something or use something that another culture used first...is patently ridiculous.  Cultures have been borrowing from each other since the beginning of time.  That is how we have grown and developed.

 

It is just that when you do that...you should do it with love and respect. 

 

This is not about "cultural appropriation" this is about dignity.

[KungFuPanda]

I don't often disagree with you Cammie, but sometimes it isn't appropriate to just take something from another culture because you 'love and respect it'. It's equally important that the way you take it ( or even IF you take it - better to be given it, imo ) is felt as loving and respectful by the original culture.

How is that even possible? Nobody can speak for a culture and the people within the culture can give heart felt and valid, but conflicting opinions.

[SKL]

I saw this. It's positively bizarre. By the standards of this college, no more anoraks or kayaking either.

 

 

I agree, and I think therefore that Christians should keep their Christmas and Hindus and yogis can keep their practice but you can't stop anyone else from doing it.

 

I do think it's really eye-lollingly tacky to pursue yoga as a social status sport.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REcxr3e91WY

 

What I don't agree with is that Christianity is stolen in the same way as colonialized cultures are stolen. True, neither Christians nor Indians benefit financially from cross or Namaste tee-shirts (not to MENTION "Namaste, Bitches!" tee-shirts).

 

But the Christian churches which object to the commodification object to it on moral grounds and generally as a group are not downtrodden, whereas at least in some cases, most of the minorities objecting to the commodification of native goods object because they are poorer and less advantaged. The NFL owns pro-football which is arguably a cultural phenomenon and it does piss me off that I can't draw a Seahawks logo on a tee-shirt without risking being sued. But they didn't appropriate this from someone else and then make money off it. They built it up and there wasn't a mass appropriation.

 

Whereas, nobody ever gave natives the chance to patent the kayak or the anorak or any number of things.

 

So they don't get paid for its use.

 

As i understand that's the main difference in the objection. Christians don't want anybody to make money off something. The Indians in this case don't want the colonizers to make money off their things, because they themselves would like the profits.

 

Had there been a legal patent on kayaks when they were invented, it would have expired before the white people first laid eyes on them.  Patents (and copyrights) only provide a very temporary monopoly.  And it's not like all Western inventors patented their technology.

 

The inventions of westerners are copied worldwide with little restraint - sometimes even in spite of a valid patent.  I don't think it's more wrong when some people do it vs. other people.  But then I'd call that commercial / technological imitation, not cultural appropriation.

Edited November 25, 2015 by SKL

[EmseB]

I answered that a while ago with an example of something that might happen in my real life. I gave an example of what a yoga-bothered student could do.

 

I really think we can all do better than shrug our shoulders and say 'oh, I'm not even going to bother thinking about appropriation because I can't consult every single person in a particular culture.'

 

It's not even the consulting every single person.  It's acknowledging that those cultures are individuals, with differing opinions, just like I'm an individual with individual preferences.  I don't need to consult every single person because I can know, without asking anyone, that there are going to be varying opinions, because people are individuals and aren't some amorphous "group" that can be boiled down to one opinion on a subject.  I'd honestly be sort of weirded out if someone thought they knew my opinion on something just because I went to a certain church, or hung out with a certain group, or was born into a certain family.  Why make assumptions?

 

Sometimes people just like things.  And when you're talking about music, or art, or a sport, or dance, or a style...humans see other people doing it, they like it, so they try to do it as well because they enjoy it, sometimes with their own twist.  This isn't malicious or horrible or even really worthy of note.

 

It's not even about shrugging things off...it's just that personal preference or liking something someone else does isn't even a thing to be shrugged off.  It's just what humans do.

[luuknam]

Wearing bindis, dashikis, dreadlocks, saris, kilts, clogs, or any other type of clothing that is not native to your own culture without acknowledging the history these clothes come from or the oppression that some people who wear those clothes have to face because they are different from the majority culture in a specific country."  

 

And, maybe it's a good idea to not list random examples from other cultures without knowing their history and cultural significance, since I'm feeling kind of odd having clogs trotted out as an example of something that some people are oppressed for wearing. Y'all are welcome to wear clogs whenever. And I'm sure that my fellow Dutch will be more than happy if you order some original Dutch clogs from NL to support the Dutch economy (though unless it says "made in NL", it may be made in China for all I know).  Not that NL is historically oppressed, other than during WWII, and the Napoleonic Wars, and when we were ruled by the Spanish for half as long as they ruled Mexico (we even have in our anthem that we honor the king of Spain - so much for cultural appropriation), and the Romans of course, and who knows who else. But I haven't heard about clogs being an issue. I prefer more comfy shoes though (my grandparents loved clogs for yard work though).

[Bluegoat]

I saw this. It's positively bizarre. By the standards of this college, no more anoraks or kayaking either.

 

 

Whereas, nobody ever gave natives the chance to patent the kayak or the anorak or any number of things.

 

So they don't get paid for its use.

 

As i understand that's the main difference in the objection. Christians don't want anybody to make money off something. The Indians in this case don't want the colonizers to make money off their things, because they themselves would like the profits.

 

I don't think that is the reason they objected though, in this case?  I'm not sure where you got that impression?

 

I m not particularly a believer in the idea of intellectual property, but even in modern law there are limits on how long it lasts.  Patents and copyrights only last a given number of years. People in most pre-modern cultures copied good ideas freely - the benefit to  new technology or idea came from its actual use.  I don't see it making more sense to say that someone, or a group, should make money from the design of the kayak than any more than from the wheel or writing Beowulf.

[Cammie]

I don't often disagree with you Cammie, but sometimes it isn't appropriate to just take something from another culture because you 'love and respect it'. It's equally important that the way you take it ( or even IF you take it - better to be given it, imo ) is felt as loving and respectful by the original culture. 

 

Sadie - you are right, we are usually on the same side of issues on the forum.

 

I simply cannot even begin to fathom how I would navigate these questions of cultural appropriation in my own life.

 

If I wear a sari and a bindi (as I do often) to a wedding here - everyone loves it - lots of compliments.  My in-laws love me to wear traditional clothes.  The shopkeepers seem very happy to sell me traditional clothes.  I get more respect on the street (and better prices) when I am in traditional clothes.

 

Now, if one person felt I had inappropriately appropriated Indian culture and were upset seeing a white women wearing Indian clothes  what should I do about that?

 

Does it become cultural appropriation because one person from the originating culture doesn't think I have a right to wear a sari?  That they didn't think it respectful for a non-Hindu to wear a bindi?

 

Or because one person doesn't like to see a white woman with a nose ring?

 

Or because one person doesn't like to see my brother in dreadlocks?

 

This idea that culture BELONGS exclusively to one set of people really doesn't sit well with me or my experiences in the world.  And actually it starts to feel a little bit like cultural exclusion.  And how do we even start to define "culture" in the multi-ethnic world most of us live in?

 

I prefer the world I grew up in where most people were Peace Corps returned volunteers and their apartments were draped with fabrics from around the world, and we listened to music from everywhere and people love and appreciated cultural activities from around the world and adapted some of them into their own lives.

 

The world I would like to live in is one where we can all share the best of our own respective backgrounds and have them acknowledged and shared by others.

[shawthorne44]

One thing that just hit me.   The office that can cancelled the Yoga class had received NO complaints.  It wasn't that no one taking the class complained, but that no one even outside the class complained.  There is something insultingly paternalistic about the office deciding for someone else that they are or should be offended.  i get this cartoon image of someone in the office patting someone from India on the head saying, "Don't worry your little head about it.  You aren't aware enough to be offended, so I'll be offended on your behalf"   

 

I really can't see how saying "The XYZ in your culture is so cool, I think I will do/wear XYZ"  can be a bad thing.   

[Bluegoat]

The other thing bout comp lints is - what if the people who don't like it are kind of idiots, or people who want attention, or whatever?  That is lwys possible, nd they might even be really bothered, but that doesn't make the compliant reasonable.

 

It doesn't require  lot of people to make a fuss, especially with the internet, especially when there is  lot of attention to be had from certain people by being upset - some people seem to be very motivated by that kind of response.

 

I don't really think that some people being upset is alone a good way to make  determination on whether something is a bad thing.

[Amira]

I can agree with a lot of what Cammie writes, especially since I am also an expat who has incorporated so many things from all over the world in my life.  I have yurts and skulls hanging on my Christmas tree, there are Tastoanes masks and Huichol artwork on my walls, I celebrate Hanukkah and Dia de los Muertos and Eid al-Fitr, I make laghman and tamales horneados, and so much more. All of those things help me remember people and places I love. I am glad that so many people around the world have been willing to share with me what they have.

 

But I still think cultural appropriation can be a problem- when people publicly and thoughtlessly use bits and pieces of someone else's past, present, and future without caring about the context of where it came from or how it makes others feel when they do that. That's when it becomes appropriation to me rather than appreciation. I don't think there is always a clear way to tell which it is.  When we bought our Tastoanes masks in Guadalajara, we went to several different mask makers' homes to choose the masks and to learn about them.  All three of the mask makers spent a long time teaching us, in Spanish, about their masks and their backgrounds.  I don't feel that it is wrong for me to hang them in my house, and all three mask maskers gave us permission to do so, but someone coming into my house would have no way to know whether those masks were appropriative or not- and for some people, they always will be, no matter what.  That's okay, although I hope they'd talk to me about it rather than just thinking I was wrong.  But if I feel like I did things right on my side, I can deal with some people thinking I'm wrong. I imagine that most people wouldn't think Cammie is appropriating Indian culture even though a few people might think she is.

 

I love Cammie's last line about all of us sharing what we have. I just think that we need to make sure that culture is shared freely and used in a appropriate way rather than taken and exploited.  It's not always easy to figure it out, but I don't think it's impossible at all.

 

 

 

[marbel]

<snip>

 

 When we bought our Tastoanes masks in Guadalajara, we went to several different mask makers' homes to choose the masks and to learn about them.  All three of the mask makers spent a long time teaching us, in Spanish, about their masks and their backgrounds.  I don't feel that it is wrong for me to hang them in my house, and all three mask maskers gave us permission to do so, but someone coming into my house would have no way to know whether those masks were appropriative or not- and for some people, they always will be, no matter what.  That's okay, although I hope they'd talk to me about it rather than just thinking I was wrong.  But if I feel like I did things right on my side, I can deal with some people thinking I'm wrong. I imagine that most people wouldn't think Cammie is appropriating Indian culture even though a few people might think she is.

 

<snip>

 

Would it have been different if you'd just bought the masks in a market?   What if you bought them without being educated on them - just because you liked them - and then came home and researched them?  If the mask-makers sold them to you, does that imply permission?  

 

I can't understand how someone coming into your home and seeing them could assume appropriation on your part.  Unless you told them you stole the masks and were mocking the culture that produced them, I guess. 

 

How do stores like Ten Thousand Villages and other artisan marketplaces fit into this? If I buy an "African Rhythm Thumb Piano" made in Burkina Faso for a musical friend of mine, is it OK if he uses it?    Is it OK for me even to buy it?  Is TTV wrong to sell those things to wealthy white people in the US? 

 

If I sound snarky, I don't mean to.  I'm really trying to figure this out.  No one has really answered my question upthread about kilts and clogs and how someone is supposed to prove they are not appropriating those items. 

 

The cross symbol, worn as jewelry, used to be a sign that the wearer was Christian.  That was in my lifetime, not centuries ago.  Now there are lots of people walking around wearing crosses as jewelry who are not Christian and either don't know or don't care that it is (used to be?) a Christian symbol.  I'm not offended though I don't get it, because it is a strong symbol to me. Would you (general you, not Amira) think I was wrong if I complained about the appropriation of the cross as a fashion statement for nonChristians? 

 

Edited for clarity, I hope.

 

 

Edited November 25, 2015 by marbel

[aug17girl]

 

 

If I sound snarky, I don't mean to.  I'm really trying to figure this out.  No one has really answered my question upthread about kilts and clogs and how someone is supposed to prove they are not appropriating those items. 

 

The cross symbol, worn as jewelry, used to be a sign that the wearer was Christian.  That was in my lifetime, not centuries ago.  Now there are lots of people walking around wearing crosses as jewelry who are not Christian and don't know that it is (used to be?) a Christian symbol.  I'm not offended though I don't get it, because it is a strong symbol to me. Would you (general you, not Amira) think I was wrong if I complained about the appropriation of the cross as a fashion statement for nonChristian

Sorry quoted this and now don't know how to delete post.

Edited November 25, 2015 by aug17girl

[PeacefulChaos]

I had typed up a whole response to stuff last night and then something happened - did the forums go down? - and it was lost.  

 

Sigh.

 

I don't even remember half of what I said - my brain tends to work best in the middle of the night, but now I'm blank lol.  :D

 

Either way, I just wanted to say that I was dreaming about cultural appropriation last night.  :lol:  I can't remember the context, or anything that was happening, but there was a constant 'But is this CA?' through the whole thing.  

 

:lol: :lol: 

[LucyStoner]

There are a lot of people in the United States walking around wearing crosses and not knowing the Christian origins of crosses? That statement seems incredulous to me.

[wintermom]

One thing that just hit me.   The office that can cancelled the Yoga class had received NO complaints.  It wasn't that no one taking the class complained, but that no one even outside the class complained.  There is something insultingly paternalistic about the office deciding for someone else that they are or should be offended.  i get this cartoon image of someone in the office patting someone from India on the head saying, "Don't worry your little head about it.  You aren't aware enough to be offended, so I'll be offended on your behalf"   

 

I really can't see how saying "The XYZ in your culture is so cool, I think I will do/wear XYZ"  can be a bad thing.   

 

:iagree:   This is exactly my take on the decision. And based on information in another article about this issue, "[the Student Federation] suspended the class as part of a review of all their programs to make them more interesting, accessible, inclusive and responsive to the needs of students."  There were no complaints about the class, and the program participants were not consulted about their views on the activities. Were I a disabled student at Ottawa U, I'd be furious that some idiot decided to cancel my fitness class because he felt it didn't sound responsive enough to everyone's needs. The class is for the needs of disabled students. The instructor was trying to fill their needs by tailoring the name of the class, but they couldn't find a French one quick enough. What a fiasco.

[Bluegoat]

There are a lot of people in the United States walking around wearing crosses and not knowing the Christian origins of crosses? That statement seems incredulous to me.

 

To me too. I think it is not uncommon though for them to be worn for fashion.

 

Now the icon dresses I mentioned earlier, and I've seen people with icon bracelets, who don't seem to have any idea of their meaning.

[marbel]

There are a lot of people in the United States walking around wearing crosses and not knowing the Christian origins of crosses? That statement seems incredulous to me.

 

I guess what I meant was, it doesn't matter to them.   I will edit my post.

 

But, that wasn't the main point anyway.

Edited November 25, 2015 by marbel

[Word Nerd]

I really think we can all do better than shrug our shoulders and say 'oh, I'm not even going to bother thinking about appropriation because I can't consult every single person in a particular culture.'

 

We've been thinking about appropriation throughout this thread, and it's been an interesting discussion. We just have different conclusions about whether a change in behavior is warranted. I'm comfortable with my own approach, which is quite similar to what Cammie and others have shared, and I don't see a need to "do better" in this area. Your personal convictions are not my obligations to follow, and vice versa. 

Edited November 25, 2015 by Word Nerd

[regentrude]

I find the various definitions and examples for "cultural appropriation" interesting. 

 

Is the dirndl a cultural appropriation? Should I, as a person of German heritage (not just distant heritage, but actual German birth and upbringing) feel offended by Americans wearing dirndls?

Somebody will point out that Germans are not oppressed by Americans and thus I have no reason to be offended.

Historically, the dirndl was the work dress of Austrian and Bavarian female servants. It was appropriated by the Austrian upper class as fashionable in the late 19th century. I am fairly certain people wearing dirndls have not studied, and fully appreciate, the dirndl's history.

 

Do I as an immigrant have the right to celebrate Thanksgiving, or is this cultural appropriation? I don't have pilgrims in my ancestry and simply enjoy having a festive meal with my friends and family.

 

It seems to me that the people who decry CA are very selective; it seems to be appropriation only if it happens to certain cultures but not others.

One pp listed a number of everyday things and habits we have incorporated from a variety of cultures around the world. I cannot imagine cultures growing and developing without taking things, techniques, and inspirations, from others. In some areas, this is what leads to progress. Like appropriating the idea of an alphabet based language...

Which immediately raises the question whether an oppressed/minority culture adopting a successful custom/habit/technique from a majority culture/colonial nation etc should be equally guilty of cultural appropriation.

Edited November 25, 2015 by regentrude

[Tanaqui]

There are a lot of people in the United States walking around wearing crosses and not knowing the Christian origins of crosses? That statement seems incredulous to me.

 

Some of them are Christian....

 

But honestly, I find it's too much work to try to understand what Scalia is thinking at any given moment. Don't worry, I know he doesn't represent all Christians!

[regentrude]

 It seems to me that most people who think CA is PC nonsense don't yet understand what CA means. 

Power differentials between cultures are an integral aspect of  the concept of CA.

 

So integrating aspects of other cultures is OK as long as the culture of origin is a powerful one (irrespective of whether taken by a powerful or powerless recipient) and only not OK if the culture of origin has less power (however that is defined)?

 

All history is a history of cultural appropriation. Especially the US American one. You cannot have a melting pot without it. Most immigrants came from situations of very strong power differentials - they would not have needed to emigrate otherwise.

 

"Give me your tired, your poor"... but we must not integrate elements of their cultures...

Edited November 25, 2015 by regentrude

[marbel]

 It seems to me that most people who think CA is PC nonsense don't yet understand what CA means. 

 

Power differentials between cultures are an integral aspect of  the concept of CA. 

 

I honestly don't understand the animus towards the concept on this thread. Nor the general lack of understanding. It's not a tricky concept. 

 

tbh, a lot of the objections ( not all ) come across as privileged defensiveness.

 

It's not defensiveness, it's the lack of clarity.  Some of us have asked specific questions about this but they are not getting answered.  If it's not tricky, why aren't you answering the questions?

 

"Shut up, she explained."

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

I think some of the animus is from thinking that a person might be accused of C.A. when they have no idea that something is from another culture and even if they did, their knowledge of history is so poor they might not even know that country A was oppressed by country B.

 

Whatever happened to charity-assuming good intentions of others until there is good proof otherwise? If you add it all together, we have to constantly be worried that everything we say and do will offend somebody unintentionally. Most people are against racism, but who wants to constantly be worried that some innocuous comment will have people accusing them of racism, mysoginy, white privilege, homophobia, ableism, or hating transgender people, etc. Add on people getting worked up about politics, religion, or money and it's a wonder anybody talks at all.

[regentrude]

I am still trying to understand what exactly is considered CA. So here are three simple questions:

 

1. Is it CA if a white singer performs spirituals that originated from black slaves?

 

2. is it CA if an African American performs Italian opera?

 

3. Is it CA if a Chinese singer performs German Lieder (art songs)?

Edited November 25, 2015 by regentrude

[marbel]

So integrating aspects of other cultures is OK as long as the culture of origin is a powerful one (irrespective of whether taken by a powerful or powerless recipient) and only not OK if the culture of origin has less power (however that is defined)?

 

All history is a history of cultural appropriation. Especially the US American one. You cannot have a melting pot without it. Most immigrants came from situations of very strong power differentials - they would not have needed to emigrate otherwise.

 

"Give me your tired, your poor"... but we must not integrate elements of their cultures...

 

There's a twist to this too:  many cultures have at one time been oppressed, and then at another time have been powerful.  What then?

 

[regentrude]

Oh man, I'm done. Done like a Thanksgiving turkey. 

 

You don't believe cultural appropriation is a problem, it's a norm, and power differentials don't make a difference. Dressing up as in Indian is exactly the same as dressing up as a Pilgrim. OK. To each their own.

 

Spare me the lecture on multicultural societies and melting pots. I live in one. I get it.

 

I asked a specific question for clarification. I did not "lecture"; I merely expressed that I do not understand how a multicultural society is supposed to work if aspects cannot be shared between cultures.

As an immigrant (whose culture is different from the majority culture), I would have liked an answer to my question: what exactly constitutes CA?

 

Also, with respect to the multicultural society, this raises another interesting question:

if it is OK for something to be passed from the majority culture to the minority culture, but not the other way around, does that not cement inequalities? It seems to me as if cultural traits migrating only in one direction would reinforce that culture as more powerful - which is exactly not the desired outcome.

 

Edited November 25, 2015 by regentrude

[unsinkable]

Hey! Let's talk about pies and football!

[Jean in Newcastle]

The first pies were made by Romans.  Unless you are Italian and specifically from Rome, you better not make any.  CA, you know.