Forum: Author Hangout

The concept of cultural appropriation is much broader than this. It has been applied to ethnic food, costumes, hair styles, even language itself.

You refer to Gary Oldman's character in Quentin Tarantino's "True Romance," of course.

It was a writers' conference, after all, which probably explains the focus on writing rather than hairstyles.

bb

No, I don't. None of the items I mentioned has anything to do with movies.

I don't dispute your assertion that the cultural appropriation term has been applied to the whole universe (indeed, the NYT piece cites the student government leaders at a college in [I forget where] who were impeached for wearing sombreros).

That said, Gary Oldman's character in that movie, a "black" drug dealer, checked all your boxes: hair, costume, patois and, I think, ethnic food (ribs). His *character* was a white guy acting totally as a black guy. It was part of the character's shtick. The character was guilty of cultural appropriation. I meant the example as a joke, but it applies precisely to your definition.

Oldman claimed in an interview he learned everything he needed for the role from his own [presumably black] drug dealer, but he might have been kidding.

bb

The food appropriation is about ethnic themed restaurants.

This one is dead on. If the chefs and line cooks, at the very least, don't match the cuisine, stay away. EDIT: But not because of "cultural appropriation," but because they probably don't know what they're doing.

Although that isn't always the case. The staff, including at least some of the cooks, at our local French bakery are experts at baking French, even though they are almost all latinos.

bb

Most "Mexican food" served outside of the border states usually isn't very Mexican in nature. Most "Chinese food" served in the U.S. is in a comparable state. Even "Italian Food" is different in the U.S. than its Italian counterpart.

I don't know how many "most" means, but the days of refried beans and rice and something drowned in red sauce presented as "Mexican" and chop suey presented as Chinese are fading where I live. There's too much competition in the SF Bay Area from real ethnic restaurants.

Here's five:

China Village, Albany, CA (Szechuan)

Yank Sing, San Francisco (dim sum)

La Ciccia, San Francisco (Sardinian)

Doña Tomás, Oakland, CA (Mexican)

The Slanted Door, San Francisco (Vietnamese)

I don't know whether these folks are preparing the dishes exactly the way their chefs' mothers did, but I've met the chefs at La Ciccia and China Village, and I'd hate to argue to them their cuisine isn't authentic.

Sure, dishes are adapted all the time to local tastes, but as I pointed out above, the caricature restaurants have some stiff competition.

All generalizations are bad.

bb

@Bondi Beach
All generalizations are bad.
Looks like a generalization to me. Is it a brigadier, major, lieutenant, or four star General ization? Or maybe a five star, Generalization of the Army?

Generalization is the process by which flag officers multiply under cover of night or a national emergency---genuine or manufactured---and thereby infest a hitherto lean military organization, much in the way lantana infests Australian gardens or Scottish thistle does likewise with gardens in California.

bb

Sure, dishes are adapted all the time to local tastes

As an expansion on your comment, I suspect that if someone were to go to China and eat the same dish in different places, they would find the dishes are prepared differently according to local and personal preferences.

When someone exploits another the first person gains a benefit at the expense of the other person.

When a person makes use of another the first person gains a benefit without hurting the other person, and will often benefit the other person as well.

According to my wife, the English major and principal authority on literature in our household, "Orphan Master" is an excellent novel. She hasn't read Kim's book. I haven't read either of them.

I don't understand how the author of "Orphan Master" gained a benefit at the expense of someone [the North Koreans?] else, solely because he is a white male American.

On re-reading Kim's complaint, she says *she*, not the North Koreans, is the one exploited---somehow---because she didn't get the coverage the white guy got. (Kim was born in Seoul and immigrated with her family when she was 13 years old.)

So, did Martin Cruz Smith exploit Russian (or Soviet) culture when he wrote Gorky Park without, apparently, ever having visited the Soviet Union? Did Tom Clancy wrongly appropriate U.S. Navy submarine culture when he wrote The Hunt for Red October without ever having served on or even stepping aboard a submarine?

Can you offer us an example of "cultural appropriation" that exploits the appropriated culture rather than making use of it for the writer's own purposes?

Forget Kim for the moment---her argument is the white guy got better treatment from his Korea book because he's white than she did, being Korean-American, from her own, both on the topic of North Korea. So she's the injured party, she says, not the appropriated culture itself.

So really this is all about injury to the writer rather than the appropriated culture, is that it?

bb

Can you offer us an example of "cultural appropriation" that exploits the appropriated culture rather than making use of it for the writer's own purposes?

The closest I can mention at this time is a woman who uses a man's name for her writings - maybe she didn't think she can sell as a woman.

I was speaking against the attitude of the Shriver and her claims. However, the point made in the NYT articles is exactly the issue I was raising with it - absolutely no discussion on the quality of the work or the authors, but one says "I'm being hard done by, because I'm of that race, so i should get better coverage." As I said, she either didn't write as well as the man, or didn't promote her book as well.

The closest I can mention at this time is a woman who uses a man's name for her writings - maybe she didn't think she can sell as a woman.

You mean someone like Mary Ann Evans, the Victorian author who wrote as "George Eliot"? Leaving aside the whole question of equal quality (the Korean thing), I'm not clear on how she exploited anything, since the device was to facilitate getting published in the first case. (Never read any of her stuff, so maybe I'm missing something.)

I was speaking against the attitude of the Shriver and her claims.

Shriver, the keynote speaker in Brisbane, was arguing against the whole cultural appropriation thing, saying it's hogwash for many of the reasons raised in this discussion.

I guess it boils down to, "The white guy took a Korean thing and made more (although probably some would say *any*) money and acclaim out of the Korean thing than I, an authentic Korean, did." (Again, we leave aside the question of quality.)

I'm guessing the argument ends up as, "You can't take anything at all that's not yours and make something of it," which is jackassery at its finest. That leads back to the original question: doesn't all fiction exploit / make use of another's experience and culture and life? Yes.

If I make a better taco than my buddy Rodrigo, that's one thing. But these folks seems to be arguing that I shouldn't even think about making a taco at all.

bb

You mean someone like Mary Ann Evans, the Victorian author who wrote as "George Eliot"?

I was taking a shot at Margaret Anne Shriver writing under the name Lionel Shriver - - I read the original post's first paragraph as Shriver attacking the use of culture you weren't raised in. If she's saying it's OK to write about a culture or time you researched but didn't directly experience, then I agree.

If she's saying it's OK to write about a culture or time you researched but didn't directly experience, then I agree.

Exactly. She attacks the folks who say writing about another's culture is "cultural appropriation" and says the concept is nonsense. She apparently put on a sombrero during part of her speech, to poke a little more fun at the idea she was attacking.

Sorry, my original post didn't make it clear she was attacking the idea, not supporting it. And the conference organizers didn't like that. At all.

bb

she was attacking the idea, not supporting it. And the conference organizers didn't like that. At all.

Because they're probably trying to include MORE minority voices, and she just declared war on them. It's not that clear cut, but you can see how inviting those little recognized, just to be told everyone is entitled to profit off their life experiences is like taking a freezing cold shower. There's the truth of words, and then there are words that cut--whether true or not.

The cultural appropriation meme as it is writ in the larger culture does no favors for minority authors. The opposite in fact. The whole movement around preventing "cultural appropriation" would see white people enjoying reading their works as "cultural appropriation"

Believe me, I don't know a single black man or woman who would object to selling their goods to a white audience. They may feel more satisfied to sell to other blacks--as that strikes at satisfaction--but ultimately, you'll never amount to diddly if no one knows about you.

Most of the complaints about cultural appropriation isn't about wearing cornrows--though that's an element--it's instead benefiting from the culture without understanding it or appreciating the lives of the people involved.

My Rock & Roll appropriation was deeply felt, because most of the white artists made huge sums, while the black artists who invented the styles which were appropriated received a pittance. However, having lived in Chicago for years, I can honestly tell you, the artists were more than willing to credit the original black artists (in private at least) for birthing the movement.

Part of an unjust system involves recognizing that it's unjust. Minorities will never get the same breaks that others will, and those in the majority can't avoid being benefitted. However, it helps everyone to pull together, and to help out when you can. Taking without giving back doesn't help anyone, but giving away everything benefits no one either.

@samuelmichaels

I wasn't saying that was the author's intent. I was commenting that the organizers weren't pleased because they (supposedly) were struggling to attract minority authors, and she gets up and say, "We (privileged authors) should be able to appropriate anything we want". Again, she's got a valid point, but it runs counter to the image the group was trying to convey that minority voices are welcomed.

To get an idea of the impact, imagine if the next academy awards was, once again, all white, but someone stood up and declared "We whites should be free to play any role we want". It's a valid statement, but the timing is poorly executed.

I found this very confusing. How is defending the right of authors to write about other traditions attacking minorities?

That's a question best directed to the conference organizers, but apparently the whole idea of "cultural appropriation" is that it exploits minorities when non-minorities (or any non-member of the culture, presumably) writes about the minority culture and thereby exploits them.

bb

It's actually a question for CW, who wrote

she just declared war on [minority voices]

Well, sure, but on the assumption---possibly wrong---that by "she" CW referred to the keynote speaker and her attack on the whole concept of "cultural appropriation," it's the conference organizers, unhappy with her speech, who need to explain why what she said is an attack on minorities.

That they believe it was an attack is evidenced by their quick organization of a rebuttal conference, and their deletion of links on their website to the keynote address. They also claim the keynoter did not speak to the topic they assigned her.

But you're right, let CW speak for himself.

bb

If I make a better taco than my buddy Rodrigo, that's one thing. But these folks seems to be arguing that I shouldn't even think about making a taco at all.

Even worse, they're arguing for the erection of greater walls than Trump ever proposed, which not only block access to a country, but also lock out anyone else appreciating or even recognizing anything about your culture.

How the hell can people learn to accept Muslims if they refuse to allow us to learn about and experience their culture (not that I've heard them complaining about it, quite the opposite, in fact).

In the end, if you're trying to publish in a given country, you've got to market your work (and direct the story) so it appeals to the citizen of that country. If that means playing up to your oppressors, then you've got to bit your lip and do it. If you want anyone to appreciate your experiences, often you have to invite a WASP voice in to tell your story. It's as simple as that.

IF Kim had lived for 31 years in Korea my view as to her knowledge would have been different.

Kim spent several months teaching English to kids of the North Korean elite in 2011 and drew from that experience for her memoir.

Adam Johnson, the author of Orphan Master's Son, spent five days in North Korea in 2007.

As far as Kim's qualifications go, I think trying to figure out who has a bonafide claim to being authentic [insert flavor at issue] is about as useful as deciding whether hamburgers or hot dogs are more authentically American.

bb

IF Kim had lived for 31 years in Korea my view as to her knowledge would have been different.

The more I think about it, though, the issue seems to be more how come that non-member of the culture gets to make more money / prestige / awards/ whatever off of the culture than the authentic (however that is defined) member makes, not necessarily how accurate the picture of the culture the non-member paints.

However, Tony Hillerman not only isn't criticized but is honored by the Navajo Nation for his portrayal of Navajo cops and Navajo culture in his Joe Leaphorn / Jim Chee series. His books probably earned more than any cop thriller written by a native Navajo. They also portray the culture, warts and all, very sympathetically.

bb

The member wrote a type of book that as a category simply doesn't get money / prestige / awards / whatever.

Right. That certainly answers the immediate example we've been discussing. Indeed, there can't really be any discussion about how my apple is shinier than her orange, unless she's going to argue that no matter what, people are going to give more kudos to the non-member's apple than the member's orange. It's absurd.

Which leaves the question of what the heck "cultural appropriation" is, and what's a good example of two comparable books, fiction or non-fiction, that illustrate it (sticking to books for the moment). In music, I guess, we've already had examples of white musicians making money off of music by African-Americans.

I'm still unable to make the argument, for the sake of argument, that "cultural appropriation" means anything at all or that, if it does, it's bad.

bb

The closest I can mention at this time is a woman who uses a man's name for her writings - maybe she didn't think she can sell as a woman.

There are plenty of male Mills & Boone authors who use female pen names at the behest of the company, which recognises that slushy romances sell better if the purchasers think the authors are female.

On the subject of cultural appropriation, there's another topic which encourages people of all persuasions to try their hand at writing gay fiction ;)

AJ

The NYT article has a link to a book review of the Korean-American's book. The book is describe as "a chilling memoir of this Korean-American author's 2011 stint as a visiting English instructor at a North Korean ­university". In other words non-fiction

Did you see her subsequent letter to the editor to complain the reviewer got key concepts of her book entirely wrong? She's not a happy camper.

bb

Apparently you either didn't bother to read her letter to the editor yourself, or you didn't understand the point of my comment.

She did not dispute the one point that is pertinent to my comment. She did not dispute that her book was a memoir, a work of non-fiction.

Wow. I wasn't disputing your comment at all. I was making an additional observation. And I wasn't suggesting *she* was disputing your comment.

I was, I thought, adding a little note of interest to the discussion about her, by pointing out she was pissed practically from the get-go by how her book was reviewed.

You apparently did not understand my comment.

bb

If the precursor to Roots was too difficult for white readers to make it past the first 5 pages because of all the white guilt, then don't blame someone else for stealing your thunder!

White guilt and liberal weenism is what stopped the entire literary critical world from calling out Alex Haley's Roots for the plagarized work it was. So Haley doesn't get a pass just because the work he plagarized wasn't a success, for whatever reason.

(I liked his Autobiography of Malcolm X, although I didn't know at the time he was the ghostwriter.)

There's no crime in writing a better story, but plagarizing, or even "borrowing" without giving credit is fatal, or should be.

bb

Minorities have been railroaded for thousands of years, and it's not about to change anytime soon.

Very true. In many parts of the country, whites are the minority.

Heck look at any form used by any government agency including Social Security or Welfare. Preferential treatment and benefits are given based on color and cultures.

Show us where on the U.S. Social Security Administration application for retirement benefits it offers preferential treatment or benefits based on color or culture. A link to the actual application form would be helpful.

bb

(Not my personal opinions)

If they aren't your opinions, whose are they?

This is also the first time I have ever heard someone being labeled a Racist for defining a situation and then asking for an explanation.

Of course many of us back down when the 'Racist' label is hung on them, so it is an effect tactic to win a dispute. I personally think that many people see Racism in everyday events that have nothing to do with race.

Anyone who questions a declaration that something is racist is immediately labeled a racist.

"Cultural appropriation" is about finding racism everywhere.

As I said, I don't know much about "Cultural appropriation", but from the discussion here in the Forum, it seems to be about a person making money from artistic efforts relating to a culture other than their own. The examples used in this Forum have mostly related to the culture of different nationalities - Nationality is not race.

William Shakespeare, a highly respected English poet, playwright, and actor, wrote a play and made money from his play Romeo and Juliet. It was a play about two Italian people in love who were members of two feuding Italian families to include their cultural beliefs.

If I apply your interpretation of "Cultural Appropriation", then Shakespeare was a Racist.

From what I have observed of "civil rights' activists questioning a declaration, they are not asking for an explanation. Their 'questioning' seems to take the form of civil disobedience and violence at a demonstration.

Their not the ones questioning. They declare X is racist and any one who questions that is then labeled a racist.

Your statement is confusing. It sounds as if you are saying that the civil rights activists are labeling X as racist, and the civil rights activists label anyone who disagrees with them as a racist.

"Your statement is confusing. It sounds as if you are saying that the civil rights activists are labeling X as racist, and the civil rights activists label anyone who disagrees with them as a racist."

If you don't believe the above statement is true, then you have not been paying attention to the news reports over the last few years.

I do believe the statement is true. I've seen many of the news reports. I also noted that many of the claims of racism had no factual basis, or if there was a factual basis, it was not made clear in the news reports.

The reason I made the statement to DS is he appears to be saying that just because an activist expresses an opinion of racism, the opinion has to be true. If someone sees no factual basis for the opinion and questions its validity, the activist labels the person a racist.

That may be a very effective tactic, but it makes those of us still sitting on the fence about the specific topic think the activist and their supporters are ignorant people and then their opinion on that subject becomes highly questionable. They would be better served by explaining why X is racism to those who question their opinion. Labeling someone as a racist just makes them resist what the activist is supporting.

Only the feelings of the victim matters, not the actual facts.

You are wrong. Racism is about the Racist's acts and actions, not the emotions of the Racist's victims.

racism isn't about bias, it's about power

Wrong again. Racism has everything to do with the bias of the Racist. The power wielded by the Racist may help them avoid retribution; it doesn't make them rigt.

This is why they say minorities can't be racist.

Again, I disagree. It doesn't matter what 'they' say. Anyone who commits an act of Racism, regardless of their race, is a Racist.

Of course that isn't reversible for a white person feeling the same things.

I prefer a single standard for all people. All that type of double standard does is make people angry with each other.

From the news reports I've seen so far the "hate" crimes / "hate" speech laws have been used against a lot of whites who committed despicable acts, so it's not clear who you mean by 'they' and 'them', but I can guess by the tone of your comment. I personally feel that anyone who commits a racially motivated crime should be punished not only for the crime but for the reason they committed the crime, regardless of the perpetrator's race.

If the perpetrator of a crime admits or if it can be proven that he committed the crime because the victim was Black, White, Asian, Jewish, Muslum, or whatever, then that is very different from the realm of thought crime.

Nobody wants to be called racist, in particular, no white person wants to be found in a face to face confrontation with a racial minority where they're being accused of being racist if they can avoid it, particularly in this modern age of social media.

I'm white and I've been the victim of racism several times. Whites aren't the only perpetrators.

AJ

By far my favorite line to ever hear in person while in the Navy was a pair of guys(who were black) loudly protest that another black guy was NOT black.

That's a constant refrain in some quarters. It's partially a focus issue (we need to stand together and resist the pressures to shut up and sit down), but it's partly a cultural thing. I was discussing the conflict between American blacks and American-Jamaicans, who have an entirely different work ethic. As a result, while most American blacks harp on how no one takes them seriously, the Jamaicans get along with everyone, share the same values and are willing to sacrifice to achieve their goals (not that blacks don't want the same things, but they just take a more round-about route getting there).

However, that conflict between the two groups is long-standing (Jamaicans were taking the jobs that blacks wanted back in the 1800s since the English system dictated that only the eldest son could inherit anything, so every other ambitious family member would either head to America, since they it cost so much to return to England.)

Agreed, but there is a very vocal segment among social justice/anti-racism activists in the US that claim that only whites can be racist. That segment gets the majority of the media attention.

Very true! It is also why many of us are upset with the media and the social justice/anti-racism activists.

I don't recall being a victim of racism. However, back in the late 60's, our wonderful Government decided, due to the civil right's movement, to practice what we at the time called reverse racism.

The Government mandated that employers bring the racial balance of their employees into alignment with the local racial balance. This could have been done via attrition, but the Government set a deadline for implementation of the mandate that prevented that option from being used.

I knew one woman who was laid-off so her employer could give her job to a black woman. A lot of people lost their jobs because of this mandate. Her ex-coworkers let her know that her replacement was not qualified for the position and failed to perform the duties of the position. The employer would not let the woman go, because they could not find a qualified black woman to replace her. The ex-coworkers had to take-on the extra workload, and the layed-off woman got to stand in the employment line.

I'm white and I've been the victim of racism several times. Whites aren't the only perpetrators.

I agree, but there's often a huge disconnect when someone who's been privileged all their lives, suddenly decries those who've been forced--despite their best intentions--to scrimp and save and face outright discriminations. It's one thing to face discrimination occasionally, and another to face it every day of your life. I've seen both sides of the equation, and I try to remember that, for all my issues, I've had a pretty easy life and people have often bent over backward for me. For that, I'm thankful and I try to pay it forward (in thoughts, if not always in actions).

Their not the ones questioning. They declare X is racist and any one who questions that is then labeled a racist.

You're confusing minorities with Donald Trump, who's quick to take any attack on him, however apt, and accuse those attacking him of exactly the same thing, to rob the attack of it's impact. Republican's learned that trick decades ago. If you steal someone's words, they no longer have a message to convey!

Yes, but it's always someone from a white European culture appropriating something from the culture of someone of "color". It's never "cultural appropriation" if it goes the other way around.

That is because the definition of Cultural appropriation seems to be:

Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of a different culture. Cultural appropriation is seen by some as controversial, notably when elements of a minority culture are used by members of the cultural majority; this is seen as wrongfully oppressing the minority culture or stripping it of its group identity and intellectual property rights.

Are you saying that it is okay for a person of a minority group to the elements of a majority culture to
strip the majority culture of their group identity and intellectual property rights?

You still haven't responded to my original question:

If they aren't your opinions, whose are they?

It's an exaggeration/caricature of the publicly stated opinions of the activists pushing the "cultural appropriation" meme. I thought that would be obvious.

Obvious or not, Dominions Son labeled REP a Racist.

Since I am REP, I take offense at being labeled a Racist because I questioned the validity of the 'Cultural Appropriation' movement.

If you checked the definitions of Racist and Racism, you would find that a Racist is a person who practices Racism, and Racism is the practice of using Race as the basis for making decisions and determining what actions one should take.

Nothing in my remarks were racially oriented, so it was wrong of you to label me a Racist. That is especially true since you know nothing about me other than my one post in which I acknowledged being a fat, 70-year old man.

Then I apologize.

Apology accepted.

Yes, but it's always someone from a white European culture appropriating something from the culture of someone of "color". It's never "cultural appropriation" if it goes the other way around.

I'm sorry, but this entire discussion has been bordering on outright racism for some time. Claims that protestors seek violence to promote their cause, that they're too stupid to state anything eloquently, or that they have anything of value to offer reeks of stereotypical racist dogma.

If we're discussing ideas here, then let's discuss the ideas, rather than sound bites and stereotypes. You don't need to deride anyone you don't agree with, just view their statements and decide whether they have any merit or not. Attack the idea and not the people!

D.S., you're obviously on another rant, and no appeal to rationality, reason, logic or understanding will stand in front of your unblemished wrath.

When you're willing to discuss ideas with slightly less outright hatred and disdain, then we can discuss ideas, but lately, you seem inclined to belittle everyone and dismiss their ideas out of hand if they don't kowtoe to your biased opinions. THis isn't a discussion forum, it's a "Everyone SHUT THE HELL UP if they don't agree with me!" rant site.

You're the one telling some one to shut up, I've done no such thing.

You've effectively shut down several ongoing constructive conversations until every participant convinces you, on a point by point basis, that every technique they employ to make their stories easier to read is 100% effective, a clearly impossible objective since writing isn't like baking a cake.

I didn't deride the author of the article. I instead stated that I understood where they were coming from, but thought they were oversimplifying things, as you can't change human behavior, and expecting parity is unrealistic. However, I've been fighting upstream combating all the 'cultural appropriation' is a grand conspriacy against the white man theme that's been running rampant in this discussion. Frankly, I'm getting sick of people trying to control other people's discussions. I don't mind anyone asking questions or offering their opinions, but when they insist that everyone else halt their discussions to cater to their preconceptions (that editing for brevity is useless, or that 'cultural issues' is a buzz word for 'White hatred'), I have a hard time NOT speaking out.

I'm obsessive, writing multiple messages to make a variety of points, but you've been nothing but manipulative, trying to shut down entire conversations.

Make all the racist comments you want, after all, you're not entirely wrong, but allow others to offer their opinions too, instead of shouting down any alternative voices.

Personally, I'd have loved to discuss the value in restraining plots with you, but I'm so fed up with your techniques, I'm about to quit visiting the forum entirely until you fade from the scene. (I've done this before, as my medical disability makes me susceptible to common stresses, making me a common target of online bullies since I'm such an easy target.)

No discussion is worth this much vile and belittlement! I can talk to anyone on this board on a one-to-one basis, I don't need your non-constructive abuse.

Does anyone else hear an echo in here? :-)

I disappeared after posting it, so never noticed the duplication (my computer froze, then went into overdrive when it woke up resulting in a half-finished post).

Good news, though, DS and I made up. He admitted he's been having a tough time of late (no details) and was being purposefully antagonistic (in the level of his responses, at least). Since I'm going through something similar (why I blew up at him), I can relate. Everyone has bad days/weeks.

I ASK ONLY THIS: Will you please try to limit the NUMBER of times you pursue any one point? If you've made the same point half-a-dozen times and they don't understand, please end your side of an exchange

I've been a perpetrator of that kind of response, typically when I'm not sure others get the point I'm trying to make, so I'll repeat it over and over in different words--a useless enterprise if they didn't get it the first dozen time--as they're typically making the point they really don't care.

He was questioning whether cutting length really benefits a story, while the rest of us discussing which techniques worked and which didn't. I'd have participated if he's opened a new discussion where we could honestly discuss his concerns about how much to edit--as I've had my own issues with that, but he wouldn't quit shouting on people unresponsive because they were discussing something different.

It's not an uncommon scenario. You're trying to bring up a side-concern, like apple rot, and everyone else is concentrating on orange spots. You need to target you message so it gets the attention it deserves. Shouting at people who aren't listening doesn't advance anyone's knowledge.

But again, that's more my issue than his, and I suspect most of us have been guilty of it. I'll add this, though, Switch was excellent in making very specific suggestions, which helped both camps.

This forum is, on the whole, rather more polite than normal.

I agree. I've moderated a number of forums in my time and I think Lazeez is doing a good job in steering between letting people vent but stomping on outright abuse.

AJ

I BEG Lazeez to start using the "sin bin" ("penalty box" or whatever). I think he should to protect the (profits of the) site!

Instead of a "Sin Bin" (where someone drops a quarter every time they use a naughty word), if writers lost a tenth of a point on their scores every time they bitched about scoring, it would likely curtail the discussions rather abruptly.

Note: Just teasing, Laz. This isn't a serious suggestion!

Thus, a white American rock start building off elements from hip hop music is cultural appropriation,

I thought hip hop was about ghettos and criminals, not about race!

From what I have observed of "civil rights' activists questioning a declaration, they are not asking for an explanation. Their 'questioning' seems to take the form of civil disobedience and violence at a demonstration.

I don't think I've ever met a civil rights activist who goes out, seeking to inspire violence, since the violence is usually directed at them! Instead, they're trying to force people to rethink their positions, so they're trying to rephrase the debate and raise questions. Violence is an unpleasant byproduct, but one which silence won't avoid.

If you can tell a story which reaches more readers than someone from the culture you're writing about, then more power to you. At least you're spreading knowledge. But they key is to understand what the fuck you're talking about, so you don't spread more cultural stereotypes rather than an honest description of the people, and especially don't lift someone's else plot or text in a single piece. Make sure you have something unique to say, rather than merely 'appropriating' someone else's viewpoint!

I don't think I've ever met a civil rights activist who goes out, seeking to inspire violence

Off the top of my head, I would say you are probably right about civil rights activists; at least about those who favor peaceful solutions.

I know that our media presents the worst case views of anything, because that is what sells papers and boosts viewing rating. Personally I don't trust anything they present me. However, I do see what they present.

Please explain how a peaceful activist's organization of a demonstration turns into a group of angry rioting people who destroy public and private property, which is what the media presents to me as news. They don't show the calm peaceful start of the demonstration or what setoff the demonstrators, they just show the violence which is what they believe their viewers want to see.

I don't think I've ever met a civil rights activist who goes out, seeking to inspire violence, since the violence is usually directed at them!

Sadly, CW, I have. They stand well back in the crowd, start the violence, and then fade. They figure any publicity is good publicity. Also, with some matters the media side with the trouble making activists and look for ways to put the blame on others.

Many years back an anti-uranium activist at a rally against yellow cake exports threw a half brick at a motorcycle cop escorting the truck. First reports were live and showed the thrown half brick coming out of the crowd, later reports only showed the now unconscious cop riding his bike into the crowd of protestors.

Unfortunately, that is the type of so called "unbiased" news reports we get here in the US.

If you recall the fall of the US Embassy in Iran back in 1979, before the Embassy fell a team of US journalist filmed the demonstrators setting a full size US flag on fire. Where do think the Iranians got that flag. It's not the type of thing you can go into an Iranian store and buy. Some years later, I read about one of the US media people admitting to giving the flag to the Iranians so they could film it being burned.

This is also the first time I have ever heard someone being labeled a Racist for defining a situation and then asking for an explanation.

You may have missed a debate about immigration. Not supporting unlimited immigration is frequently branded racist.

Mentioning the many downsides to religions such as Islam is also branded racist.

'Racist' is one of the favourite words of the professionally offended :(

AJ

Yes, I did miss that debate.

I would have modified 'professionally offended' in your comment to 'professionally and personally offended'.

That's not cultural appropriation, it's fraud.

I agree, but Cultural Appropriation seems to be more about making money than anything else.

Actually, the "cultural appropriation" movement in the US started on college campuses and was directed mostly at "ethnic" themed parties by frats and white students adopting "ethnic" fashions.

To the extent it's about making money, it's about drumming up donations for the activists pushing it.

Hmm, who gets to ask for the money for a toga party?

My response to that sort of emotional blackmail would be to ban anything to do with that ethnic culture being in the frat due to liability and cost concerns. Then see how they like having their culture totally ignored.

There is an example in Australia where objections to "cultural approbation" are valid. It is paintings and artifacts created in the style of historical indigenous art, and sold as if they were the work of living indigenous artists

There's also the other issue where some mixed blood artists are claiming to be selling traditional Aboriginal art, but are creating and selling the style of artwork they were encouraged to make by Geoffrey Bardon, an art teacher. Although much like the traditional style they were different because the dots were more excessive in the new style.

You also raise the question of Albert Namatjira doing very realistic landscapes as per the European style of painting, as against the traditional Aboriginal style. Was he doing this approbation in reverse?

Although much like the traditional style they were different because the dots were more excessive in the new style.

Ernest, this is important. Were the dots "excessive" because there were too many of them, or because each one was larger than regulation size?

We need to be able to define our degrees of cultural appropriation (N.B.: *not* "approbation") to ensure we capture the requisite degree of subtlety in this conversation.

bb

According to what I found on Wikipedia, the problem isn't really excessiveness.

This is traditional artwork:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yankee_Hat_art-MJC.jpg

This is what's being palmed off as traditional artwork and is a style invented by a white, according to the full blood Aboriginal who told me:

http://australianativeart.com/

http://art-educ4kids.weebly.com/aboriginal-art-and-patterning.html

The theme is often traditional, but it's not painted in the traditional way.

Ernest, this is important. Were the dots "excessive" because there were too many of them, or because each one was larger than regulation size?

From what i was told, about twenty years ago, by an Aboriginal artist in a remote Queensland community, the use of dots in traditional arts was to cover something not allowed to be shown to the person viewing it yet, and they would only take up less than 5% of what was drawn. While what is being sold as traditional Aboriginal arts now is 95% dots, more like using dots to make a picture. Thus it isn't anything like traditional paintings or artwork at all. That being so, it's hard to say it's stolen from them.

True, but I think they were more worried about what he might say to them that would cause dissension and labor problems.

he was shuffled forward on the assumption he had a different kind of business to attend to than the locals did. Business that either probably didn't necessarily involve the same staff members,

Exactly. Generally, the only occasions where U.S. citizens and locals would be waiting for the same service would be (a) passing the security check to enter the facility, and (b) seeking a notarial service.

Locals aren't going to be in the passport renewal line, and U.S. citizens generally aren't in the immigrant or non-immigrant visa line.

Exceptions: local adult with U.S. citizen minor; U.S. citizen filing an immigrant visa petition for a relative; the U.S. citizen is a resident locally and well and favorably known to the post; the post is so small everyone is in the same line until sorted out or recognized for a different service, as you point out.

Of course, it may in fact have been the [implied] unfair priority treatment, but that is unlikely.

NB: There hasn't been a U.S. Consular Service since 1924, when the Rogers Act merged it and the Diplomatic Service and created the U.S. Foreign Service. (Fun fact: the consuls wanted the prestige the diplomats had, and the diplomats wanted the $$ the consuls earned, since at the time diplomats were mostly self-financing.)

There is one U.S. embassy and any number (from 0 to n) of consular posts in a foreign country, along with any number of cultural centers and CIA installations with inadequate security.

bb

I didn't write that I am a UK citizen and according to the notice everyone in the queue was applying for a visa to enter the USA, in my case for unpaid work (at that time it was a B1B2 visa which had no expiry date.) The person who pulled me out of the queue was white and had a US accent.

No question it may have been straight preferential treatment based on passport, if not skin color. Also, a UK citizen would be a quick and easy visa encounter compared to one with a local almost anywhere in Africa.

bb

For some complainers their scores might become negative numbers.

what do you mean might for some it's sure to happen, due to the frequency of the complaints.