Cultural Appropriation

[Twolittleboys]

 

I did not read the replies but only the OP (sorry to all those who hate that) but personally I am not a fan of worrying about "cultural appropriation" aside of the most glaring cases. What is so wrong about adapting other people's customs etc. to your own needs? That is one of the main ways societies change (and quite often for the better). It seems a bit stingy to grudge others the same experiences (again I am not talking about really glaring examples here) - like if you are not 100% Italian you can't eat pizza? I honestly don't quite get the whole thing. (I will get around to reading the replies sometime soon and maybe will change my outlook)

[Frances]

25 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think I have some difficulty with this from time to time.  While Christianity is not a minority group obviously, actively living an openly and very religious lifestyle is.  Definitely there was teasing at school etc. it’s ok to be nominally Christian but not super Christian (is that a thing?!)

maybe my experience was different due to not being mainstream I don’t know.  Just some musings as I’ve tried to reconcile my lived experience with the frequently stated - Christians are a majority and never persecuted in modern society that floats around here.

I don’t think being teased at school rises to the level of oppression. While certainly there have been times in US history that some groups of Christians (Mormons, Catholics, and Jehovah Witnsses come readily to mind) have been discriminated against or persecuted for their beliefs, Christianity is still the dominant religion in this country and in general, it’s far more acceptable to be religious than not. How far do you think an openly atheist presidential candidate would make it in the primaries?

Do Christians in the US sometimes get mocked, ridiculed, teased, called hypocrites, condemned, etc? Absolutely, but they also wield enormous political power and their beliefs are frequently cited as reasons that certain laws should be made or changed. In fact, Christian beliefs have frequently been used throughout the history of our country as justification for denying rights to various minority groups.

[Liz CA]

6 hours ago, SereneHome said:

I really shouldn't be commenting bc 1) it might get me banned or 2) I will not be very liked around here and I like this board, but....what the heck

I think the whole thing is beyond ridiculous.  I think there are plenty of ways that people learn from different culture and if they want to incorporate various activities, traditions, foods or whatever else in their lives bc they like it - it's a good thing.  It's a great thing!

How something so wonderful has been turned into a any kind of wrong-doing  just boggles my mind. 

 

 

Agreed. My mother loved Italian food and learned how to cook it in Northern Europe. I have discovered over the years Asian style dishes I love. I am not Asian. 

Perhaps the term cultural appropriation is of the internet age - when we can google recipes, lifestyles, clothing, etc. from every corner of the earth and try to reproduce them. This was a lot harder before the world wide web when you either needed someone to show you or you needed to get your hands on books describing fashion, recipes, decorations, etc from another culture. I don't see anything inherently negative at all.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Liz CA

[Farrar]

One of the things that’s tricky to me about calling atheist church weddings appropriation (apart from the lack of power imbalance) is that the only reason the atheists in question want such a thing in the first place is that they’re culturally Christian, just not spiritually or religiously believers. It’s like... a non-religious Jew who breaks a glass at their wedding and gets married under a hoopah isn’t appropriating anything. Plus, the church is financially benefiting. And some churches - such as Unitartians - specifically don’t care and come by their churchy traditions culturally honestly.

[Kate in Arabia]

12 minutes ago, Liz CA said:

 

Agreed. My mother loved Italian food and learned how to cook it in Northern Europe. I have discovered over the years Asian style dishes I love. I am not Asian. 

Perhaps the term cultural appropriation is of the internet age - when we can google recipes, lifestyles, clothing, etc. from every corner of the earth and try to reproduce them. This was a lot harder before the world wide web when you either needed someone to show you or you needed to get your hands on books describing fashion, recipes, decorations, etc from another culture. I don't see anything inherently negative at all.

 

Also agreed.

I'm a white southerner married to a man from India for 20+ years.. I cook Indian food, and wore a sari to a wedding I went to not long ago (not an Indian wedding); maybe I got the side-eye from some folks, but I've been living with the Indian culture for years, the sari was a gift from my sister-in-law and I think I look good in it (if I do say so myself ??), so...

Maybe it has more to do with negative intentions and stereotypes..

[Ausmumof3]

53 minutes ago, Frances said:

I don’t think being teased at school rises to the level of oppression. While certainly there have been times in US history that some groups of Christians (Mormons, Catholics, and Jehovah Witnsses come readily to mind) have been discriminated against or persecuted for their beliefs, Christianity is still the dominant religion in this country and in general, it’s far more acceptable to be religious than not. How far do you think an openly atheist presidential candidate would make it in the primaries?

Do Christians in the US sometimes get mocked, ridiculed, teased, called hypocrites, condemned, etc? Absolutely, but they also wield enormous political power and their beliefs are frequently cited as reasons that certain laws should be made or changed. In fact, Christian beliefs have frequently been used throughout the history of our country as justification for denying rights to various minority groups.

Well I live in Australia so it’s different here I think.  We’ve had at least one non religious prime minister.  I think that overall we’re far less openly religious anyway.  Outside of people from our church most people I personally either aren’t or don’t really talk about it.

i agree that it’s not oppression on the level of government or political opposition but more on the level of low level antagonistic sentiment. 

Im not arguing that it’s systemic or anything.  I’m just trying to figure out why my lived experience doesn’t mesh with the prevalent view here on the forum.

[Ausmumof3]

https://www.news.com.au/national/no-religion-tops-religion-question-in-census/news-story/a3b45e6b2e35df695932a83535078f51

I found some stats for Aus.  It looks like Christianity if you group all types is still the majority.  However it’s lowest in my age demographic of 18-35 which might explain some of the experience.  

[TheReader]

8 hours ago, ocolateblip said:

Yes, you are right about why the Maui costume was considered offensive. An actual wearer of tribal tattoos, provided they understood and were acting in accordance with the cultural meanings of those tattoos would very likely be fine, especially because someone getting such a tattoo would likely go to someone who also held the meanings as important. Random Joe Tattoo giving tribal butterflies as a $49 chair special is not okay, however.

I do understand what you’re saying about children just wanting to dress up as Disney characters innocently, but especially because islanders have already dealt with most of their culture being turned into campy novelties, it just isn’t something that should be done by non-islanders. As far as the costume verses actual tattoos, I agree that an actual tattoo is worse, and I think there is a level of hypocrisy there, or maybe I just haven’t seen any recent uproar about tribal tattoos since they aren’t very popular anymore.

ETA: The movie was fine. It honored the culture and didn’t characterize it, and Disney used islanders as the voice actors and consulted with islanders during the writing and production.

 

This makes a lot of sense, and helps me better understand this. That was the one area I was still not really grasping fully; you did a great job explaining it. Thank you for doing so, and being kind about it. 

[Ravin]

9 hours ago, TheReader said:

This is actually a big problem; there is so so so so so much fake Native American style jewelry out there (usually labeled as "Southwest style") and it's very detrimental to the actual Native American artists selling currently. Not sure if this falls under cultural appropriation or something else, but yes, it's a definite problem. 

 

 

Thank you! This helps me understand it, a lot. So this is why the Moana costume with the tattoos was offensive (treated it as entertainment, for profit, although the movie itself was not deemed offensive I don't think....?) but the wearing of actual tribal tattoos, presuming the wearer understands the meaning and is obtaining them for a valid reason, is not......yes? Or still no, because the tattoo artist providing the tribal (or Celtic, or Chinese symbol, or etc.) tattoo is not doing so with any understanding, but only as a means of profit.....? 

I guess I still kind of stumble over those two examples, because Disney has always made costumes of their characters, and the intent of a child dressing up for Halloween is....just to look like their favorite Disney character. They aren't being offensive in & of themselves, poking fun, stealing it, etc. To me it would almost seem more the reverse, in my mind....that the child's costume is more innocent than an actual person getting actual tattoos because "that looks awesome!" with no understanding of what they've put on themselves, or even if they know "it's the symbol for turtle" or whatever, they don't maybe understand that in the culture they took it from, the turtle, and that symbol, is a symbol for fertility and was worn as a prayer or hope for being able to conceive. (I just more or less made that up, no one go looking for what culture I'm talking about). 

But it seems there's way more uproar over the Moana costume (or was) than over the saturation of tribal symbols, etc, on real people, in real tattoos, with no clue what they're wearing. Which seems weird to me, so maybe I don't understand this concept as well as I thought.....

 

 

 

Tribal tattoos and the Moana costume were two separate issues, and confusing them muddies the waters.

With respect to Moana, some vocal people whose culture and sacred stories were used as fodder for the setting, characters, etc. were offended by the way a most important mythological figure/folk hero was portrayed as basically a self-centered Western celebrity caricature to get laughs. For those people, the whole movie was an act of cultural appropriation. That opinion was far from universal, though.

The costume you refer to brought a whole other layer of offense because it paired this taint of appropriation with what amounted to Polynesian blackface. Putting someone else's skin on, especially for white people in the U.S. with the whole history of blackface, minstrel shows, etc., smacks of racism. It's not the little kids who just wanted to dress up like their favorite character who committed this offense, though, it was Disney for designing and selling this costume. The tattoos on the costume "skin" were only one component of that.

Tribal tattoos, generally, is an art style for tattoos that, while it may have been inspired by various types of tribal art from various cultures, is its own thing. A generic "tribal" tattoo is not cultural appropriation in the same sense that, say, a white Westerner taking a specific  Maori ta moko tattoo design and getting it done at your tattoo parlor down the street would be. Those tattoos are applied in a particular way, at particular times, to particular people, and if you aren't Maori you shouldn't wear one unless, maybe, you've been invited into Maori culture in a significant way that includes an invitation to do so--in the right way, at the right time, applied by a tohunga ta moko (traditional Maori tattoo artist).

[Ravin]

8 hours ago, TechWife said:

My mother mind is boggled as well. I do think that the term, cultural appropriation, as a specific definition or explanation. 

I think what may be happening is that people who don’t have a good grasp on the meaning of cultural appropriation are using it in a more inclusive manner than that for that which it wasn’t intended. What started out as inappropriate use of Native American clothing (wrong person wrong place wrong time wrong reason. It has now morphed in to being overly careful about the food we it - I like Tacos so I take advantage of the Taco Tuesday special. Some people are making noise that that is cultural appropriation, when I’m just eating a lunch special. So how would I respond to the person who comes up to me as I am enjoying my tacos and wants to educate me on how I shouldn’t be doing that because of cultural appropriation. How do I start the conversation? 

Taco Tuesday is not cultural appropriation. Give me a break.

[Ravin]

8 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think I have some difficulty with this from time to time.  While Christianity is not a minority group obviously, actively living an openly and very religious lifestyle is.  Definitely there was teasing at school etc. it’s ok to be nominally Christian but not super Christian (is that a thing?!)

maybe my experience was different due to not being mainstream I don’t know.  Just some musings as I’ve tried to reconcile my lived experience with the frequently stated - Christians are a majority and never persecuted in modern society that floats around here.

Yeah, in large parts of the U.S. (like where I grew up), it's the kid whose family doesn't go to church who is ostracized and teased. Not as much now as three or four decades ago, but unless someone goes to a church that is decidedly a minority in the region and does things very differently from the larger churches, being actively and openly religious in the U.S. generally is accepted--at least if one is some stripe of Christian.

 

[TheReader]

12 minutes ago, Ravin said:

 

Tribal tattoos and the Moana costume were two separate issues, and confusing them muddies the waters.

With respect to Moana, some vocal people whose culture and sacred stories were used as fodder for the setting, characters, etc. were offended by the way a most important mythological figure/folk hero was portrayed as basically a self-centered Western celebrity caricature to get laughs. For those people, the whole movie was an act of cultural appropriation. That opinion was far from universal, though.

The costume you refer to brought a whole other layer of offense because it paired this taint of appropriation with what amounted to Polynesian blackface. Putting someone else's skin on, especially for white people in the U.S. with the whole history of blackface, minstrel shows, etc., smacks of racism. It's not the little kids who just wanted to dress up like their favorite character who committed this offense, though, it was Disney for designing and selling this costume. The tattoos on the costume "skin" were only one component of that.

Tribal tattoos, generally, is an art style for tattoos that, while it may have been inspired by various types of tribal art from various cultures, is its own thing. A generic "tribal" tattoo is not cultural appropriation in the same sense that, say, a white Westerner taking a specific  Maori ta moko tattoo design and getting it done at your tattoo parlor down the street would be. Those tattoos are applied in a particular way, at particular times, to particular people, and if you aren't Maori you shouldn't wear one unless, maybe, you've been invited into Maori culture in a significant way that includes an invitation to do so--in the right way, at the right time, applied by a tohunga ta moko (traditional Maori tattoo artist).

 

Thanks; I didn't mean to confuse or muddy the waters, was just honestly asking. Your example earlier, about wearing Navajo jewelry vs. wearing Navajo buns, actually helped clear it up for me a lot too; my grandma owns an art gallery that is a member of IACA and sells Native American jewelry (she works directly with the artists), and so all of your examples there really helped me "get it." 

And that's a good point, about Disney being the one committing the offense with the Moana costume; that makes sense. Likewise the difference between tribal style vs. tribaly significant artwork used as tattoos. Thanks for explaining all of it; I am truly working on sorting it all out in my mind. I think because there is so much misuse of the term "cultural appropriation" it had me all muddled up -- what's true cultural appropriation, what's someone being offended for something that doesn't really fall in that category (like the use of Merry Christmas by/to non-Christians, or an athiest using a church &/or including Christian scripture in their wedding service as part of their ceremony, or things like that....or the Latin woman who said non-Latin women couldn't/shouldn't wear big hoop earrings....). 

But I think I get it now; thanks for being willing to jump in and help explain it to me. 

 

 

[TheReader]

6 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Ultimately, I think this is where things get confusing.  Sometimes, it's hard to know what might be culturally significant to someone and what actions might be disrespectful.  For example, it would never have occured to me that anyone would be offended by an atheist getting married in a church.  Of course, I would have assumed that most cases where that might happen would be cases where the atheist was marrying someone of that church so.....I dunno.

 

 

Yes, I agree with this, too. For instance, perhaps from my own ignorance, when the girl wore a traditional style Chinese (I think it was...?) red dress to prom or something.....I mean, you can buy those all over the place in certain areas, and I had no idea that would have carried a particular significance any more than guys donning kilts for all kinds of things (whether Scottish heritage or not). But there was a ton of uproar over that when it happened. 

I think the key is, if we're the one accidentally doing this, how do we respond when we're educated about what we did? Genuine apologies for accidentally offending/culturally appropriating without being aware? Or entitled "Oh, I didn't know it meant that, so it's really not a problem, sorry, not sorry."?  

Or, more importantly, if we are the one who sees the offense.....how do we handle that? Stealth photos/video and take to the internet to share our outrage at what we witnessed? Or a discreet conversation with the person, "Hey, you probably don't realize, but did you know that in X Culture, that symbolizes Y, and it's not really something to be worn/done by those outside the culture? I know it's confusing, but....." and have a conversation. Even striking up an innocent, "Oh, are you (insert culture)? I had no idea! When did you (insert whatever was needed to be done to earn the wearing of whatever it is)? Oh, you didn't/don't know what I'm talking about? Oh, I'm sorry, the thing you are wearing is actually a pretty significant symbol in our culture, that means......I just assumed. You might want to reconsider; it's kind of taboo for someone to wear that who hasn't done the thing..." 

Maybe that's the heart of the problem, though; so many these days are so quick to jump right to internet shaming rather than address something one-on-one and give the person at least the chance to correct themselves if they just simply didn't know. 

[Ravin]

11 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I think that this is true, I do think that it has to come from all sides as well.  Meaning, all parties involved should probably generally try to start from an assumption of the good intentions of the other people.  Persons choosing Halloween costumes should generally think about what might or might not offend others, culturally or otherwise (because seriously, even from a non cultural standpoint, some costumes can be really offensive.)  I think persons offended by particular Halloween costumes should start with the assumption that the costumed person isn't trying to hurt someone else and probably  doesn't really understand what or why what they have is offensive.  Now obviously there are mean and nasty a******s everywhere of all cultures so sometimes someone knows that what they are doing is offensive and they don't care, and sometimes someone is just looking for something to be offended by.  But generally, I think if we assume people aren't a******s, the discussions become easier and more productive.

 

(I just used Halloween Costumes as an example, I think the concept applies to most things that might be considered cultural appropriation)

 

I always try to look at: what is the context? What history of oppression should I be aware of? What is the intent? Is there ignorance or willful disregard/racism at play? Who is doing it? Who is going to be offended?

I mean, with the example of the Chinese dress worn for prom, here's how I see it: the Chinese vendor obviously doesn't care, and China has its own (ongoing) history of colonizing, dominating, and appropriating other cultures. But Chinese-American immigrants faced a great deal of oppression and outright racism in the 19th century, even as the U.S. used their labor. Unlike poorly treated laborers from, say, Ireland, they were excluded from "whiteness" by the majority culture far more extremely, the opportunity to gain citizenship was withheld for a long time, then bans on further immigration from China were put into place, they were looked down on for their culture, pressured to assimilate, etc. So there is some bitterness there when privileged white Americans start borrowing from the culture their great-grandparents had to abandon just to keep a foothold at the bottom in this country. So it's not 21st century Chinese that are likely to see the dress as appropriation, it's some Chinese-Americans.

 

[livetoread]

I think it gets complicated, too, as to who speaks for the appropriated culture. There is the generally agreed upon offensive appropriation (blackface), there is a wide middle ground, and then there are a few on the fringes who think no one but Mexicans from a certain region should eat tacos (I don’t know if that is a real example, but probably). So things get messy as often the loudest, most extreme voices are the ones getting attention, which encourages people to dismiss the concept and dig in to their “side”. 

As someone in a group likely to offend, I have to figure out who to listen to, and who makes a good point versus who takes it too far. I really appreciate this conversation, because understanding the foundation and principles behind the concept makes that easier. I find these movements fascinating with their legitimate principles so often imperfectly and messily applied. No movement that challenges the status quo is always logical and clear. There are conflicting messages, and at the end of the day, one still has to decide whether to eat tacos while white. If we allow the extreme voices on any side to be the voice of the movement, we would be paralyzed, but if we dismiss the concept behind the extreme voices, we risk being unkind and miss the chance to make our society a better place.

 

[Violet Crown]

16 hours ago, TechWife said:

Another example would be that I was once asked by someone who isn't a Christian what they could do to "celebrate Lent."

"Abstain from all meat, eat one meal a day after 3 pm, pray intensely, read the Scriptures and the lives of the Saints, examine your conscience, repent and confess your sins, and give alms generously to the poor." Possibly they won't ask again.

Quote

Then this doesn't even touch on the realization that "Christmas" and "Easter" don't actually have a Christian origin - so were they "adopted" "adapted" or "culturally appropriated?"

They weren't adopted, adapted, or appropriated, as they do actually have Christian origins. Why ever would one think otherwise?

[Dmmetler]

I struggle with this. As a teen, I loved playing jazz. I still do. I love the music, th improvisation, and the combination of complete freedom within a structure. I love the history and heritage and stories behind it. I love that it’s an American art form with global roots. I didn’t pursue it Professionally largely because I discovered just how hard it was to be a woman when I started playing clubs. I didn’t see that as cultural appropriation largely because my instructors were mostly Black men who wanted to pass that down to anyone, including little white girls who weren’t much bigger than their saxophone. I saw it as appreciation, and I think, so did they. 

 

But now, I have a creative teen girl of my own who loves to rap. She loves the wordplay, the flow, and improvisation. Basically, the same things I loved about Jazz, except that for her, words are her instrument, not a saxophone. But it feels weird to hear her do it, even in her bedroom. Because while I was welcomed into learning about Jazz and how to play it in the 1980’s, I don’t think DD would be welcomed into the Rap culture now. I don’t know if she can appreciate without appropriating. 

 

On the Halloween costume thing, DD adored Tiana (because she got to be a princess and a frog, and had an alligator as a friend). When DD wanted to be Tiana for a friend’s princess party, I asked her friend’s mother if this would be a problem, knowing that for her daughter, Tiana was the only princess who looked like her. Her response was “Honey, do you know how rare it is for a little Black girl to see a little White girl WANT to be a black character?”. 

[Bluegoat]

2 hours ago, Ravin said:

 

Tribal tattoos and the Moana costume were two separate issues, and confusing them muddies the waters.

With respect to Moana, some vocal people whose culture and sacred stories were used as fodder for the setting, characters, etc. were offended by the way a most important mythological figure/folk hero was portrayed as basically a self-centered Western celebrity caricature to get laughs. For those people, the whole movie was an act of cultural appropriation. That opinion was far from universal, though.

The costume you refer to brought a whole other layer of offense because it paired this taint of appropriation with what amounted to Polynesian blackface. Putting someone else's skin on, especially for white people in the U.S. with the whole history of blackface, minstrel shows, etc., smacks of racism. It's not the little kids who just wanted to dress up like their favorite character who committed this offense, though, it was Disney for designing and selling this costume. The tattoos on the costume "skin" were only one component of that.

Tribal tattoos, generally, is an art style for tattoos that, while it may have been inspired by various types of tribal art from various cultures, is its own thing. A generic "tribal" tattoo is not cultural appropriation in the same sense that, say, a white Westerner taking a specific  Maori ta moko tattoo design and getting it done at your tattoo parlor down the street would be. Those tattoos are applied in a particular way, at particular times, to particular people, and if you aren't Maori you shouldn't wear one unless, maybe, you've been invited into Maori culture in a significant way that includes an invitation to do so--in the right way, at the right time, applied by a tohunga ta moko (traditional Maori tattoo artist).

 

So, who gets to decide, if the community has a variety of viewpoints, just like any other group?  People keep talking about asking for permission, but who gets to speak for the group - there are a heck of a lot of things that are widely reviled as offensive now, but it's generally a very vocal group of people saying it.  If you ask the person down the street the answer is often that they don't give a fig.

I don't have much patience for the costume business either.  For one thing, the motivation of Disney was the same in both cases - to make money.  Having consulted or not.  They are part and parcel of the same thing.  If people have an objection to their stories being used as capitalist trade-goods, they probably shouldn't be involved with anything along those lines.  As for "putting on someones skin" if we are telling little kids that their ethnicity determines what they are allowed to do, even f we only tell them passively, we shouldn't be surprised that they carry on believing that when they are older, for themselves and others.  It's just setting up a new power differential based on ethnicity, not disputing the idea that such a thing should exist at all.

[Bluegoat]

54 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

I struggle with this. As a teen, I loved playing jazz. I still do. I love the music, th improvisation, and the combination of complete freedom within a structure. I love the history and heritage and stories behind it. I love that it’s an American art form with global roots. I didn’t pursue it Professionally largely because I discovered just how hard it was to be a woman when I started playing clubs. I didn’t see that as cultural appropriation largely because my instructors were mostly Black men who wanted to pass that down to anyone, including little white girls who weren’t much bigger than their saxophone. I saw it as appreciation, and I think, so did they. 

 

But now, I have a creative teen girl of my own who loves to rap. She loves the wordplay, the flow, and improvisation. Basically, the same things I loved about Jazz, except that for her, words are her instrument, not a saxophone. But it feels weird to hear her do it, even in her bedroom. Because while I was welcomed into learning about Jazz and how to play it in the 1980’s, I don’t think DD would be welcomed into the Rap culture now. I don’t know if she can appreciate without appropriating. 

 

On the Halloween costume thing, DD adored Tiana (because she got to be a princess and a frog, and had an alligator as a friend). When DD wanted to be Tiana for a friend’s princess party, I asked her friend’s mother if this would be a problem, knowing that for her daughter, Tiana was the only princess who looked like her. Her response was “Honey, do you know how rare it is for a little Black girl to see a little White girl WANT to be a black character?”. 

 

I really think it's lovely that young kids want to be heroes from all kinds of backgrounds.  I've been contemplating whether I should ixne my sons plans to be Black Panther for Halloween for similar reasons - I think its fine but I'd rather he not run into trouble out trick-or-treating.  It's not occurred to him that his ethnicity would have anything to do with pretending to be a superhero.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Bluegoat

[TechWife]

3 hours ago, Ravin said:

Taco Tuesday is not cultural appropriation. Give me a break.

I absolutely agree with you. So how could I explain to someone who says it is that it is not? Without having a more complete understanding of cultural appropriation, I am unsure of how to go about it. 

[marbel]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

I absolutely agree with you. So how could I explain to someone who says it is that it is not? Without having a more complete understanding of cultural appropriation, I am unsure of how to go about it. 

I think I would start by asking the person to explain very specifically how eating that  particular food is cultural appropriation. Seriously, you are sitting in a Chipotle (or wherever) and someone approaches you and tells you to get out because you're not of Mexican ancestry?  You should not be the one who has to explain anything.

[happi duck]

I wish there were easy ways to define things.  Then the taco police could just succinctly be told "enjoying food of other cultures is xyz not cultural appropriation.  CA is abc."

Sometimes naming a problem makes it easier for the population to collectively go "ah ha! Now I get it!"  I don't think that has happened with the term CA.

[KidsHappen]

17 hours ago, Frances said:

I’ve actually heard primarily of the reverse, Christians being upset when they are wished Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas. I think both are completely ridiculous.

Just using this as a jumping off point but Christian appropriation of Pagan holidays is the number one example of cultural appropriation that I can think of.  As a matter of fact, many Christians do not celebrate these holidays for just this reason.

[LMD]

15 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I think I have some difficulty with this from time to time.  While Christianity is not a minority group obviously, actively living an openly and very religious lifestyle is.  Definitely there was teasing at school etc. it’s ok to be nominally Christian but not super Christian (is that a thing?!)

maybe my experience was different due to not being mainstream I don’t know.  Just some musings as I’ve tried to reconcile my lived experience with the frequently stated - Christians are a majority and never persecuted in modern society that floats around here.

I do get what you mean, I agree with the difference between cultural Christianity and personal lived faith Christianity, and that the latter is often not comfortable in our modern world. 

But that is at an individual level, not a class analysis level. At a class level in the west, Christianity has a majority of the population and therefore institutional and cultural support. That is class privilege, even if individuals have particular bad experiences because of their faith (btdt).

Non mainstream denominations probably feel the discomfort more, true.

[LMD]

Also, I love tacos. Anyone who snarks at me for eating a taco will get thoroughly ignored - cos tacos!

Ditto for pizza, sauerkraut, curry, fried rice, my mother in law's delicious cabbage rolls and tortes from the old country.... 

Okay, maybe just don't bother me if I'm eating. ?

[Arcadia]

7 hours ago, TheReader said:

Yes, I agree with this, too. For instance, perhaps from my own ignorance, when the girl wore a traditional style Chinese (I think it was...?) red dress to prom or something.....I mean, you can buy those all over the place in certain areas, and I had no idea that would have carried a particular significance any more than guys donning kilts for all kinds of things (whether Scottish heritage or not). But there was a ton of uproar over that when it happened. 

 

She wore a red qipao which is commonly used as a bridal gown. This link explains most of the significance of the gown http://asiaweddingnetwork.com/en/magazine/fashion/1359-7-things-you-need-to-know-about-qipao-bridal-couture

If she has opt for a color other than red or gold, the people who were annoyed may not be as bothered. I read that she thinks the gown is pretty and she just wanted to wear a pretty dress for prom.

Due to being very petite, I had my bridal qipao tailor made. Besides even daily wear qipao used to be all tailor made and mine cost about $300 and up due to quality of materials and labor costs.

I also think it’s the occasion. Wearing a chinese traditional clothing during a Chinese New Year celebration at school, recreation center, temple is likely to be interpreted as joining the festivities. A much older child or adult wearing a chinese traditional clothing as a Halloween costume would have people wondering what’s the motive. Prom tends to be associated with the western style prom dresses. People who won’t offended were also thinking that it is not cultural appropriation but an attention grab. There are so many prom dresses to choose but she wanted to stand out. So while the first guy to kick a fuss about her wearing a qipao on social media might have been over the top in his annoyance, it isn’t hard to understand that someone might be annoyed that a traditional costume gets regarded as a suitable prom dress just because it’s pretty. While I am chinese, there are some traditional chinese clothing that is not my culture and I can be seen as doing the annoying tourist thing of wearing their traditional clothing to look pretty or as a souvenir photo shoot. 

ETA:

Panda Express is seen as a fast food franchise selling American style Chinese fast food. It isn’t regarded in the same category as a small family owned ethnic food stall. 

Edited October 18, 2018 by Arcadia

[Rosie_0801]

I read an article recently by an autistic woman who said she felt books like 'The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night' and 'The Rosie Project' are cultural appropriation.

[Rosie_0801]

10 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

While I am chinese, there are some traditional chinese clothing that is not my culture and I can be seen as doing the annoying tourist thing of wearing their traditional clothing to look pretty or as a souvenir photo shoot. 

 

Indigenous Australians in my part of the country would be considered culturally appropriating if they made the desert style dot paintings.

[Farrar]

2 hours ago, happi duck said:

I wish there were easy ways to define things.  Then the taco police could just succinctly be told "enjoying food of other cultures is xyz not cultural appropriation.  CA is abc."

Sometimes naming a problem makes it easier for the population to collectively go "ah ha! Now I get it!"  I don't think that has happened with the term CA.

I think part of the point of these terms is to shift our perceptions and engage with the ideas. I think... it's an ongoing process rather than a simple line. Which... yeah, I get why that's tiring and frustrating. But it's also tiring and frustrating for people who have had their cultural foods, art, music, etc. taken from them over time or mocked. I dunno.

[Arcadia]

14 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

So it would make sense that an American teenager wouldn't know that it might be considered offensive to wear a bridal gown for prom.

Keziah Daum did know it is a chinese gown even if she didn’t know it was traditionally used mainly as a bridal gown. 

Chines faced racial discrimination in US.

From PBS http://www.pbs.org/kqed/chinatown/resourceguide/story.html

“The only ethnic group in the history of the United States to have been specifically denied entrance into the country, the Chinese were prohibited by law to testify in court, to own property, to vote, to have families join them, to marry non-Chinese, and to work in institutional agencies.

...

Reacting to the America's fear of the "yellow peril," in 1877 Denis Kearney organized the Workingman's Party with the rallying cry, "The Chinese Must Go!" which led to the looting and burning of many Chinese businesses.

More than thirty anti-Chinese legislations were enacted during the l870's at both the state and local levels. (See legislation section) The result of this codified racism was to exclude Chinese from many occupations and to deprive them of full participation in a society they had helped to build. Culmination of this discriminatory legislation resulted in the Chinese Exclusion Act of May 6, l882. This act suspended the immigration of Chinese laborers for ten years.

...

Angel Island, the immigration station on San Francisco Bay, opened in 1910 to enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, is where two hundred fifty thousand Chinese immigrants were processed. The average detention was two weeks, the longest was twenty-two months.”

[Arcadia]

3 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Your previous posts specifically referenced the fact that it it is traditionally a bridal gown as the reason for the offense.  And it says 

So, does it matter if she knew it was a Chinese gown?

 

There are levels and intensity of annoyance. The guy who started the social media backlash said he was angry because it is a chinese gown. 

There are many people who see modernized qipao as a tourist souvenir. What I am saying regarding the color and traditional purpose is that there is a subgroup of people who won’t be offended by anyone wearing a modern qipao because the wearer likes it, but would be thinking twice when the qipao is in a more traditional design and color and worn in a social event.

For example Hollywood stars have worn the “modernized qipao” over the decades. The photos in this NY Post link (easier to read in reader view) illustrates that stars wear the chinese gown for the attention they get and people expect stars to dress for attention  https://nypost.com/2015/05/04/these-17-stars-were-wild-for-chinese-styles-long-before-the-met-gala/

[DesertBlossom]

2 hours ago, Danae said:

 

Americans might not find wearing a bridal gown to be offensive, but they would certainly think it was odd to wear a white, full length, lace covered gown and veil to prom. Yes, people shop for prom clothes at bridal shops, but they're buying things sold as formal wear not traditional wedding gowns.

What about little girls dressing up as brides for Halloween? Most people don't find that offensive or odd Even corpse bride costumes aren't offensive and according to my quick google search, they are rather popular. Even with the knowledge that a red chinese gown is considered a wedding gown, I can see why Americans are surprised to find out that someone would be offended by a chinese prom gown. Because doing the same thing in our own culture isn't offensive. Not to say that they don't have a right to be offended...

[DesertBlossom]

10 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

And I think this brings it all the way back around.  It is totally possible for a person to consider all angles of a particular choice, and still come up with a result that is offensive to someone.  

 

But whose responsible when someone takes offense?  There's a quote I like... “He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool.” 

I have seen people make a mockery of certain religious symbols or beliefs that I have... and while I find it disappointing and irreverent, I'm not "offended" because well, there's just not enough time for that. If it's done inadvertently, it might be worth gently pointing out if I thought the person was going to be open to it. But people who are intentionally offensive aren't really worth the time or energy and I think they will eventually feel the effects of their own insensitivity.

[DesertBlossom]

2 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

My sister uses a phrase...

 

Offense is taken, not given.

Obviously the phrase does not take into account the fact that there are of course people who are a******s.  But, I think when considering cultural realtions, it's a phrase that it might be good to keep in mind.  The idea that I don't want to offend as I do XYZ.  I think its important to consider what might be offensive to others.  I also think others should consider what a persons intent and general background is.

 

 

7

Bolding mine.  Agreed.

Most non-a******s do consider what might be offensive to others and are willing to change when they find out they'be been inadvertently insensitive. But we also can't please everyone all the time, especially those who seem to be looking to be offended. If it were me, I might reconsider wearing the Chinese prom dress. But if I wanted to wear gigantic hoop earrings even though that's been claimed by some latina women.... I'd probably file that under "you just can't please everyone."

 

[YaelAldrich]

To go back to non-Christians using churches/Christianity in wedding ceremonies.  In Japan, the modern tradition (!) is to do both a Japanese ceremony (with hood for the bride to hide her horns) and a Western church like ceremony complete with a minister to conduct the ceremony.  Now less than 2% of Japanese are Christian.  The church is fake and minister is some Western/Caucasian guy who looks appropriately ministerial (is that a word?).  My Orthodox Jewish rabbi husband was told to take a minister job from a lapsed Catholic who did the job on the side.  To me, a half Korean, half Black, converted to Orthodox Judaism from the Southern Baptist church, it smacks of cultural appropriation and not in a positive way.

We Jews have a dress up holiday (Purim) and sadly, there are people who dress up in a way that is offensive (blackface, overdone Chinese/Japanese with done up eyes and chopsticks in hair, Mexican janitors, etc).  Other Jews (both Jews of Color and lack thereof) try to educate and give alternate costume ideas. 

[goldberry]

23 hours ago, Farrar said:

Basically, I think some cases are clear. Some cases are dumb. But I think we have to be willing to engage the question and think it through when people bring it up about something, because that's what makes us a thoughtful society. Or... it should.

 

Wonderful summation.  I don't get mad about or offended by the *idea* of cultural appropriation. I don't think the idea on its own is silly or ridiculous snowflake talk. Some accusations absolutely are.  But it's a valid question to give consideration as our society becomes more and more multicultural, how to honor and borrow and appreciate without stealing or mocking.  It's not about "always being afraid of offending someone".  It's about taking .5 seconds to consider our choices and the implications they might have on other people.

Oh, and tacos=yummy, but Panda Express=gross.  That's all I have to say on THAT subject! ?

[Xahm]

I think that one thing that muddies the waters is the current "click bait" culture where a well-meaning but, bless her heart, foolish 21 year old publishes a rant about taco Tuesday being cultural appropriation, then very conservative news organizations with low journalistic standards publish this far and wide with headlines like "you'll never guess what liberals say you can't do now!"

Some things seem clear-cut to me. In kindergarten, we made "deer-skin" Indian costumes out of brown felt, complete with beaded fringes and made-up "Indian symbols" scrawled in marker. I wouldn't be ok with my kids doing the same today and was very surprised to see Facebook evidence last Thanksgiving time that this still takes place in many schools, even with face paint to make things even more generic "Indian-ish."

One way that I understand it is remembering how I felt when I heard in a  dumb children's tv show: "The meaning of Easter is being with family!" That was a punch to the gut for me as I'm willing to let there be all manner of secular trappings enjoyed by all, but please don't just make up an insipid meaningless meaning to my most-holy day of the year. That's how I felt as a member of the majority religion. How much worse would it be if I'd heard that from the mouth of someone whose ancestors had stolen the lands of my ancestors, or enslaved them, or banned them from the country, leaving me with little more of my heritage than those religious symbols which they were now skewing for their own purposes.

[laundrycrisis]

People should cook, eat, dress, wear,  sing, make, sell, celebrate whatever they want to, regardless of their own race or heritage.  People who don’t like it can look away, walk away,vote with their feet / wallet, and mind their own bleeping business.  The tendency to outrage is the bigger problem.  Nobody has a right to not “be offended” by someone else enjoying expressing or embracing a cultural element they like.  IMO, telling anyone that they can't do any particular thing because they are the "wrong" race or heritage is racism. 

Freedom is a higher value to embrace than cultural identity.  Attempting to restrict through social pressure what is okay for a group to do or not based on nothing but race/heritage - to me, this is a frightening line of thinking to support.  IMO people should appropriate freely, and people should "blaspheme" freely, and people should criticize those in power freely, because these are important freedoms to have, that do not exist everywhere, and they should be exercised, or they may be lost, either legally, or through mob action based on popular culture, or through a gradual slide of government actions away from recognizing the freedom. 

If I don’t think it’s cool for someone to do xyz culture thing because they aren’t xyz, I can think that, but it’s insane to believe that my opinion is worth more than their freedom to the xyz thing.  I also don’t think leggings are real pants and shouldn’t be worn around town as if they are, but it would be silly to expect that the leggings people should have any shame just because I don’t like leggings.  Anyone's opinion about another person's use of cultural elements is about the same as my opinion on leggings. It's my issue, not theirs, and I have no justification to outrage. 

Edited October 19, 2018 by laundrycrisis
punctuation

[Murphy101]

It’s my opinion that any culture not appropriated eventually dies out.

While I agree it’s nice not to purposely insult individuals, cultures can’t grow if they don’t get used and incorporated by people outside the minority. Especially a shrinking minority.

By all means educate on origins and meanings, but we can’t control cultural appropriation for the most part and we can’t presume by looking at people whether they should be allowed to incorporate certain culture elements or not. A very Anglo looking person might be more Hispanic or NA and vice versa. 

[Guest]

Was there any outcry about the movie Coco? (I’m asking genuinely.) I just watched this recently and thought it was very sweet. But I am wondering if anyone spoke out about this movie because this is based around a spiritual day and celebration. 

[HomeAgain]

11 minutes ago, Quill said:

Was there any outcry about the movie Coco? (I’m asking genuinely.) I just watched this recently and thought it was very sweet. But I am wondering if anyone spoke out about this movie because this is based around a spiritual day and celebration. 

Quite a bit.  Disney got a bug up their butt and tried to trademark the phrase Dia De Los Muertos.  It was not taken kindly and did not endear people to the movie, and actually sunk their profits some. It doesn't matter how respectfully they might have tried to portray the culture, they kicked themselves and let their motives be known while they did it.

[Murphy101]

1 hour ago, HomeAgain said:

Quite a bit.  Disney got a bug up their butt and tried to trademark the phrase Dia De Los Muertos.  It was not taken kindly and did not endear people to the movie, and actually sunk their profits some. It doesn't matter how respectfully they might have tried to portray the culture, they kicked themselves and let their motives be known while they did it.

 

Has anyone ever been in doubt that movies want to make big profits?

ugh. Trademark day of the dead? What about trademarking Easter or Christmas or Halloween? *smh*

[marbel]

10 hours ago, xahm said:

<snip>

One way that I understand it is remembering how I felt when I heard in a  dumb children's tv show: "The meaning of Easter is being with family!" That was a punch to the gut for me as I'm willing to let there be all manner of secular trappings enjoyed by all, but please don't just make up an insipid meaningless meaning to my most-holy day of the year. That's how I felt as a member of the majority religion. How much worse would it be if I'd heard that from the mouth of someone whose ancestors had stolen the lands of my ancestors, or enslaved them, or banned them from the country, leaving me with little more of my heritage than those religious symbols which they were now skewing for their own purposes.

 

17 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

<snip>

And for the third-I don't think celebrating being with family is an insipid meaningless meaning.  When family is what nurtures your soul, celebrating being with them and those relationships is something that is VERY meaningful for many people.  

<snip>

Except that the statement about Easter is simply incorrect.  The meaning of it is not "being with family."  Of course a kids' tv show isn't going to delve into the origins and meaning of Easter but surely the producers could come up with something better to say.  Of course meaningful family celebrations can be part of it, but that's not the meaning of it.

 

[laundrycrisis]

46 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

So, this post is interesting and I think it does skirt awful close to selfishness.  At the same time I agree with a lot of it.  I agree that there is no right to "not be offended."  And I really agree with the idea of freedom being a higher value to embrace than cultural identity.  I also value...not being an a*****e.  I think that considering how others might feel about my own actions is an important thing as well.  IOW...being NICE to each other is something I value highly as well.  Individuals are not islands and shouldn't behave as such.  So I guess, for me, this post sort of captures the very fine balance between the individual rights  and the way the individual functions within the society that he/she lives in.  

Regarding cultural elements and how people relate to or use them - to be an axxhole or not is a choice that a free person can make, but the freedom to make that choice is important.  To be nice or not is also the choice of a free person.  When there is an attempt to force these things on people, through either legal or social means, IMO a line is crossed.  Also there is the question of who gets to decide what defines an axxhole or nice ?  There will be different views.  So, I have an idea of what is axxhole behavior, though it may not be illegal, just mean.  I will not like seeing someone behave that way, but I will defend their freedom to make that choice. 

If a company wants to make a movie that appropriates elements of a culture, fine.  If people choose to not see that movie because they don't agree with that, fine.  If white women want to sell burritos made with authentic recipes, fine.  If people choose not to buy the burritos, fine.  But mob-like outrage over any of these is crossing a line. 

Edited October 19, 2018 by laundrycrisis

[TheReader]

17 hours ago, Arcadia said:

 

She wore a red qipao which is commonly used as a bridal gown. This link explains most of the significance of the gown http://asiaweddingnetwork.com/en/magazine/fashion/1359-7-things-you-need-to-know-about-qipao-bridal-couture

If she has opt for a color other than red or gold, the people who were annoyed may not be as bothered. I read that she thinks the gown is pretty and she just wanted to wear a pretty dress for prom.

Due to being very petite, I had my bridal qipao tailor made. Besides even daily wear qipao used to be all tailor made and mine cost about $300 and up due to quality of materials and labor costs.

I also think it’s the occasion. Wearing a chinese traditional clothing during a Chinese New Year celebration at school, recreation center, temple is likely to be interpreted as joining the festivities. A much older child or adult wearing a chinese traditional clothing as a Halloween costume would have people wondering what’s the motive. Prom tends to be associated with the western style prom dresses. People who won’t offended were also thinking that it is not cultural appropriation but an attention grab. There are so many prom dresses to choose but she wanted to stand out. So while the first guy to kick a fuss about her wearing a qipao on social media might have been over the top in his annoyance, it isn’t hard to understand that someone might be annoyed that a traditional costume gets regarded as a suitable prom dress just because it’s pretty. While I am chinese, there are some traditional chinese clothing that is not my culture and I can be seen as doing the annoying tourist thing of wearing their traditional clothing to look pretty or as a souvenir photo shoot. 

ETA:

Panda Express is seen as a fast food franchise selling American style Chinese fast food. It isn’t regarded in the same category as a small family owned ethnic food stall. 

I appreciate your explanation; thank you. 

I did understand, after the fact, that it was an issue, but I used it in my post as an example of something people would not have understood to be wrong -- much like you indicate later in the thread, it's been widely worn in Hollywood over the years, sold in tourist markets all over the US for decades (I tried on several when I spent a summer in NYC in college, 20-some years ago), and I am fairly certain (though with zero documentation) that this girl who did this recently wasn't the first to have done so, ya know?

It's been a "costume" that's infiltrated American culture already, for a long time. And so people just weren't/aren't aware it would be offensive. Heck, I am a well-educated adult and am embarrassed to admit I would not have known, and was not aware of the history/extent of the history of Chinese oppression/racism in the US in the late 1800s/early 1900s as described later in this thread. 

And, like I mentioned also, what makes this not okay but kilt wearing is largely seen as okay? This article on the history of the kilt suggests a very similar history to the gipao: originally designed for practical reasons, evolved to be more efficient/modern, banned and worn as an act of rebellion, which caused the popularity to grow, reserved for military dress & illegal for others, worn in ceremonies, weddings, etc. today. Similar cultural significance.....yet this has been deemed okay for Westerners to grab onto, celebrate, wear, etc. (at least, it sure seems that way...).....which likely further clouded the issue for the girl who chose to wear the gipao. Even if she knew the significance of it.....I can completely understand why she would not have realized it was a bad idea, ya know?

But....my point originally was just to use that example as a jumping off point to ask/discuss -- isn't the bigger question "how do we respond when we are made aware of our ignorance/accidental offense?" and also "shouldn't we try and educate, converse, etc. rather than blast social media with the offenses we see?" 

[Murphy101]

49 minutes ago, marbel said:

 

Except that the statement about Easter is simply incorrect.  The meaning of it is not "being with family."  Of course a kids' tv show isn't going to delve into the origins and meaning of Easter but surely the producers could come up with something better to say.  Of course meaningful family celebrations can be part of it, but that's not the meaning of it.

 

 

I agree except I can’t underatand why a kids show can’t delve into the origins. Catholics have no problem explaining the origins to their kids. 

[goldberry]

58 minutes ago, laundrycrisis said:

Regarding cultural elements and how people relate to or use them - to be an axxhole or not is a choice that a free person can make, but the freedom to make that choice is important.  To be nice or not is also the choice of a free person.  When there is an attempt to force these things on people, through either legal or social means, IMO a line is crossed.  Also there is the question of who gets to decide what defines an axxhole or nice ?  There will be different views.  So, I have an idea of what is axxhole behavior, though it may not be illegal, just mean.  I will not like seeing someone behave that way, but I will defend their freedom to make that choice. 

If a company wants to make a movie that appropriates elements of a culture, fine.  If people choose to not see that movie because they don't agree with that, fine.  If white women want to sell burritos made with authentic recipes, fine.  If people choose not to buy the burritos, fine.  But mob-like outrage over any of these is crossing a line. 

 

I agree with your general concept here except that freedom also includes the right for individuals to express their opinions.  What you are calling "mob like outrage" is people expressing their opinion or dislike of a behavior. It only gets labeled like you are labeling it when it is an opinion disagreed with.  Is the pro-life movement "mob like outrage"? Or is it exactly what you are referring to, people expressing their disapproval through social means? You make a distinction of mean vs illegal.  Someone has the freedom to be mean, and I also have the freedom to say I think that's mean and express my disapproval.  It goes both ways.  People seem to view their own expression of disapproval as freedom of speech, and other people's expression as mob outrage.  Writing blogs, comments, articles, organizing groups and protesting, etc, is done on both sides of a position.  Something does not have to be illegal for people to have the freedom to take a position on it.  Why does that freedom only apply to some positions, but for other positions it's mob outrage?

Editing to add, social pressure has been very useful in changing society, from racism to misogyny.  It's a valid form of expression.  It can be positive as well as negative.

 

Edited October 19, 2018 by goldberry

[bolt.]

5 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

It’s my opinion that any culture not appropriated eventually dies out.

While I agree it’s nice not to purposely insult individuals, cultures can’t grow if they don’t get used and incorporated by people outside the minority. Especially a shrinking minority.

By all means educate on origins and meanings, but we can’t control cultural appropriation for the most part and we can’t presume by looking at people whether they should be allowed to incorporate certain culture elements or not. A very Anglo looking person might be more Hispanic or NA and vice versa. 

I think I hear what you mean in this post, but your vocabulary makes it “sound bad” to people who understand cultural appropriation as a clear and specific sociological concept.

I think you mean that cultures that are not shared, transferred, borrowed and/or generally spread around through interaction with neighbouring cultures will eventually die out.

That’s true. It’s an important and meaningful point.

However, ‘appropriation’ is not the right word for that process. ‘Appropriation’ is not the only way that cultures spread, interact or change the world around them. It is only *one* of the ways that happens. ‘Appropriation’ describes *only* cultural transfers that are unethical expressions of power, privilidge or oppression.

Sociology has other words for healthy, natural, and wholistic forms of culture blending and transmission.

Think of the vocabulary this way: Countries have political leadership, and those leadership structures change in a variety of ways all the time, all over the world. *One* of the ways a leadership structure can change is through a ‘coup d’etat’ — which is a clear, specific term for one type of changeover. Most people think that’s a ‘bad way’ for things to change. There are other words for ‘good ways’ to have a political changeover.

Or this way: one way that artwork changes hands is through looting in wartime. People who oppose, specifically, looting are not actually opposed to the buying and selling, giving or inheriting of artwork.

People world not say, “Art would die out without looting.” — even though it is true that art would die out with some form of transference. It just means that respectful (and lawful) forms of transfer are preferred.

[laundrycrisis]

4 minutes ago, goldberry said:

 

I agree with your general concept here except that freedom also includes the right for individuals to express their opinions.  What you are calling "mob like outrage" is people expressing their opinion or dislike of a behavior. It only gets labeled like you are labeling it when it is an opinion disagreed with.  Is the pro-life movement "mob like outrage"? Or is it exactly what you are referring to, people expressing their disapproval through social means? You make a distinction of mean vs illegal.  Someone has the freedom to be mean, and I also have the freedom to say I think that's mean and express my disapproval.  It goes both ways.  People seem to view their own expression of disapproval as freedom of speech, and other people's expression as mob outrage.  Writing blogs, comments, articles, organizing groups and protesting, etc, is done on both sides of a position.  Something does not have to be illegal for people to have the freedom to take a position on it.  Why does that freedom only apply to some positions, but for other positions it's mob outrage?

Editing to add, social pressure has been very useful in changing society, from racism to misogyny.  It's a valid form of expression.  It can be positive as well as negative.

 

You are right - some actions are okay, and some are not.  Suggesting that large numbers of people not see a movie is fine.  Attempting to shut down a company's website through attacks or preventing their employees from getting into and out of their place of work, or exposing employees' personal information and encouraging personal attacks on their character would not be fine (I'm not saying these happened - they are hypothetical examples.)  Not buying a burrito is fine.  Encouraging others to not buy a burrito is fine.  Forming a human blockade around their place of business daily so they cannot run their business is not fine.  

[Murphy101]

Basicly peer pressure isn’t new and it isn’t illegal most of the time. Whether we agree with various areas that it comes into play or not. I don’t really get the whole boycott/support X cause stuff most of the time. But I just stroll/scroll on by.  

For example, when the Twilight movies came out there was a hoopla about how the author stole NA culture elements and twisted them into something they aren’t and then didn’t share her profits or the fame with the tribes referenced in her books. 

I lost a friend because I completely disagree with that stance.