Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Consequences of Cultural Appropriation

PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 3:31:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Perhaps the title is somewhat misleading. This thread is not concerned with the negative consequences of cultural appropriation, but rather the negative consequences of the concept of cultural appropriation. Allow me to explain.

There are many individuals who view cultural appropriation as an evil or bad thing and, consequently, put down what they deem to be instances of appropriation. For example, some people don't like rappers or hip-hop artists who are white while others attack people for putting their hair in box braids. The concept that cultural appropriation is bad has led us to a point where it actively encourages segregation of cultures based on skin color. Instead of enjoying multiculturalism or allowing cultures to mix and combine to possibly form something new, there is a mindset of preserving the original culture, as though it can be contaminated.

Reasonably speaking, there can be examples of cultural appropriation that are deemed disrespectful or, in some instances, insulting; however, such cases of people who are white adopting elements of the "black culture" can hardly be seen as such. Instead, this idea that cultural appropriation is repulsive has driven parts of society to a point where they reflect somewhat racist and bigoted ideals, refusing to agree with people who are white try out new hair styles or make new music.

I find this detrimental because I've been raised with the idea that I should love and learn about other cultures, and we should realize that we are all human and that race and culture shouldn't be something that separate us. Perhaps this is why I react negatively when people decry an action as "cultural appropriation." I also see a similar effect taking place with the concept of white privilege, where people can judge one another on the basis of their skin color to infer what benefits they may or may have not received in life. These concepts, while attempted to remind people of racism in America, simply seem to reinforce segregation and make the racial and cultural divides between people more distinct.

What does everyone else think about this matter?

Disclaimer: I am not arguing for or against the existence of cultural appropriation or white privilege. This thread is merely a discussion concerning the impacts these concepts and their results have had on society.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 6:40:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 3:31:44 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Perhaps the title is somewhat misleading. This thread is not concerned with the negative consequences of cultural appropriation, but rather the negative consequences of the concept of cultural appropriation. Allow me to explain.

There are many individuals who view cultural appropriation as an evil or bad thing and, consequently, put down what they deem to be instances of appropriation. For example, some people don't like rappers or hip-hop artists who are white while others attack people for putting their hair in box braids. The concept that cultural appropriation is bad has led us to a point where it actively encourages segregation of cultures based on skin color. Instead of enjoying multiculturalism or allowing cultures to mix and combine to possibly form something new, there is a mindset of preserving the original culture, as though it can be contaminated.

Reasonably speaking, there can be examples of cultural appropriation that are deemed disrespectful or, in some instances, insulting; however, such cases of people who are white adopting elements of the "black culture" can hardly be seen as such. Instead, this idea that cultural appropriation is repulsive has driven parts of society to a point where they reflect somewhat racist and bigoted ideals, refusing to agree with people who are white try out new hair styles or make new music.

I find this detrimental because I've been raised with the idea that I should love and learn about other cultures, and we should realize that we are all human and that race and culture shouldn't be something that separate us. Perhaps this is why I react negatively when people decry an action as "cultural appropriation." I also see a similar effect taking place with the concept of white privilege, where people can judge one another on the basis of their skin color to infer what benefits they may or may have not received in life. These concepts, while attempted to remind people of racism in America, simply seem to reinforce segregation and make the racial and cultural divides between people more distinct.

What does everyone else think about this matter?

Disclaimer: I am not arguing for or against the existence of cultural appropriation or white privilege. This thread is merely a discussion concerning the impacts these concepts and their results have had on society.

I do not believe you are fully aware of what 'cultural appropriation' is and what it refers to so allow me to explain as much about the concept as I can and explain why it is harmful and looked down upon by many people. Cultural appropriation is a practice that typically involves members of a dominant group exploiting the culture of non-dominant or marginalized groups - often with little understanding of the latter"s history, experience, and traditions. It is much more complex than "adopting elements of a different culture" - it is pretty much stealing elements of a non-dominant culture, taking credit for it, profiting from it, or making a mockery of it all together. That is what the word "appropriate" means - to take to or for oneself; take possession of to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

That is why it is harmful. It has nothing to do with people wanting to segregate or alienate themselves or exclude other people from taking interest in their culture. But there is a fine line between appropriating another culture, and showing appreciation for another culture. Cultural appropriation is disrespectful and has been so commonplace throughout history. For example, dressing up in 'blackface' is a form of cultural appropriation, and that was used to mock, shame, and dehumanize African Americans, their culture, and ethnic identity for decades.

Today, you see appropriation of black culture in music, fashion, and film. While black Americans were shamed for their culture, suddenly it became acceptable when the dominant culture exploits it and profits from it. This is cultural appropriation and it has consequences. One being the fact that the non-dominant culture often gets erased completely and gets no recognition for their cultural influences. This is the case with the music industry in the 1950's when white musicians appropriated the musical style of black musicians because African Americans were not widely accepted or respected in the entertainment industry or society in general at that time. This led record executives to have white recording artists replicate the sound of black musicians which resulted in musical genres like rock-n-roll being largely associated with white Americans despite the fact that black musicians were pioneers of the genre. And to this day, white musicians still profit from this and blacks are still not fully accepted into the genre. And it had financial consequences for the black musicians who helped make rock-n-roll a success as they never received any profit or recognition for their contributions to the music they produced. So as you can see from this one example, this is why people are so vocal against cultural appropriation. It is stealing and exploitation.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 6:57:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is the case with the music industry in the 1950's when white musicians appropriated the musical style of black musicians because African Americans were not widely accepted or respected in the entertainment industry or society in general at that time. This led record executives to have white recording artists replicate the sound of black musicians which resulted in musical genres like rock-n-roll being largely associated with white Americans despite the fact that black musicians were pioneers of the genre.

This argument always seemed a bit ridiculous me. A HUGE amount of the old Jazz standards were written by Cole Porter. 'Stormy Weather' was written by two white men, and it was first sung by a white woman, yet Lena Horne became famous for it. Jazz was really a melting pot, and artists have always borrowed from one another. Rock may have drawn from the blues, but the blues were still the blues, and rock is still rock, and they took their separate evolutionary tracts. Were white people racist in their reaction to music? Absolutely. But blaming the artists for cultural appropriation, in a field which was forged by musical conversations between different cultural communities, seems puritanical to the point of farce.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 7:19:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 6:57:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is the case with the music industry in the 1950's when white musicians appropriated the musical style of black musicians because African Americans were not widely accepted or respected in the entertainment industry or society in general at that time. This led record executives to have white recording artists replicate the sound of black musicians which resulted in musical genres like rock-n-roll being largely associated with white Americans despite the fact that black musicians were pioneers of the genre.

This argument always seemed a bit ridiculous me. A HUGE amount of the old Jazz standards were written by Cole Porter. 'Stormy Weather' was written by two white men, and it was first sung by a white woman, yet Lena Horne became famous for it. Jazz was really a melting pot, and artists have always borrowed from one another. Rock may have drawn from the blues, but the blues were still the blues, and rock is still rock, and they took their separate evolutionary tracts. Were white people racist in their reaction to music? Absolutely. But blaming the artists for cultural appropriation, in a field which was forged by musical conversations between different cultural communities, seems puritanical to the point of farce.

You obviously dismissed everything I said and went right into the defensive mode. Good job! First of all, I never said anything about jazz music. That is a completely different genre of music from the one I mentioned in my first post. Therefore whatever you have to say about that is completely irrelevant because it's nothing more than a red herring argument. Second, if you actually read what I said, you would notice that I never accused any artists of directly appropriating culture, even though they were, it was the record executives who introduced the replication of sound and style from black Americans and profited most from it. The artists, who were white, simply gained more recognition for it. They are "the face" of a genre that was largely influenced and introduced by black Americans from the start. And lastly, there are no "conversations between different cultural communities" involved if certain cultures are denied recognition while the dominant one takes all the credit, exploits and profits from said cultures. That is cultural appropriation, and yes it was and still is present in the music industry.
ironslippers
Posts: 509
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2015 9:10:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The entire concept of Cultural Appropriation is inciteful and just another spark to feed the flames of cultural division. One should instead interpret such things cultural acceptance. Nothing is created in a vacuum, ALL that we are exposed to are variations of what came before, blind to the culture that revised a specific subject. This becomes obvious in the history of the arts.

The culture that financially profits from it, is baised on the culture that has the finances to purchase. There for it's not suprising that Elvis sold more albums than James Brown. (note: I recognize many artist have been taken advantage of for their contribution)

An example would the Rastafari, a religion with roots in africa, monotheism created for blacks that spawned reggae music out of Jamaica and ended up being hugely popular US colleges (white men) in the late 70s. This should be seen has a homage, not a fleecing to the black man.

Basketball created by one culture and dominated by another

As for the minstral shows these were nothing more than a poor choice of entertainment that parallelled the Jim Crow laws after the civil war.

Think about this: With Hip-Hop there is no discrimination of the types or origin of music being sampled.

Generally speaking Cultural Appropriation is BS
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 1:38:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 6:40:04 AM, briantheliberal wrote:

I do not believe you are fully aware of what 'cultural appropriation' is and what it refers to so allow me to explain as much about the concept as I can and explain why it is harmful and looked down upon by many people.

In this thread, I used the definition provided by Wikipedia.

"Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by a member or members of a different culture."

Cultural appropriation is a practice that typically involves members of a dominant group exploiting the culture of non-dominant or marginalized groups - often with little understanding of the latter"s history, experience, and traditions. It is much more complex than "adopting elements of a different culture" - it is pretty much stealing elements of a non-dominant culture, taking credit for it, profiting from it, or making a mockery of it all together.

This is not the definition of cultural appropriation but rather what cultural appropriation could lead to. Other than this minor issue over the definition, I agree that cultural appropriation can have negative impacts such as the ones you have mentioned.

That is why it is harmful. It has nothing to do with people wanting to segregate or alienate themselves or exclude other people from taking interest in their culture.

I am aware that cultural appropriation has nothing to do with segregation (since it is the exact opposite).

I am saying that, instead, that the perception of cultural appropriation in today's society has become so negative that the very definition has been skewed to be one that is considered bad. An example of this is your definition of cultural appropriation, which is different from the one offered by Wikipedia (simply adopting elements of a culture). But I digress, since I'm not concerned with the definition of cultural appropriation, but rather the response to it and perception of it in society.

This perception (not cultural appropriation itself) has encouraged the segregation of different cultures so that now if someone who is white wants to get a certain hair style, they can't do so without being put down. That is an undeniable example of segregation of cultures based on skin color.

Today, you see appropriation of black culture in music, fashion, and film.

While the issue of the origins of some genres of music are debatable and a somewhat separate discussion, I am concerned with the effects of the backlash against cultural appropriation. As I said, I acknowledge that appropriation has had its negative effects in society and can continue to do so.

Continuing onwards, people want so badly for cultural appropriation to not happen that anything that could possibly be perceived as cultural appropriation is shot down, not allowing any mixing of cultures. This is an overall negative effect on society.

For example, some consider white rappers or hip-hop artists to be an instance of cultural appropriation. This is blatantly judging artists on the basis of race, even if the intentions are pure in wanting the origins of the culture to remain known to the public.

Lastly, I ask what you mean by "black culture." What is "black culture"? Because I am almost positive that the culture of people who are black are very different in different regions of the world, such as the U.S. as compared to many African countries (and even among those countries there are different cultures).

Could I similarly claim that there is a "white culture"? Yes, there are many different nationalities that are considered white with their own cultures (e.g. Germans), but the same situation occurs with that of "black culture."
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 1:42:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 7:19:35 AM, briantheliberal wrote:

You obviously dismissed everything I said and went right into the defensive mode. Good job! First of all, I never said anything about jazz music. That is a completely different genre of music from the one I mentioned in my first post. Therefore whatever you have to say about that is completely irrelevant because it's nothing more than a red herring argument. Second, if you actually read what I said, you would notice that I never accused any artists of directly appropriating culture, even though they were, it was the record executives who introduced the replication of sound and style from black Americans and profited most from it. The artists, who were white, simply gained more recognition for it. They are "the face" of a genre that was largely influenced and introduced by black Americans from the start. And lastly, there are no "conversations between different cultural communities" involved if certain cultures are denied recognition while the dominant one takes all the credit, exploits and profits from said cultures. That is cultural appropriation, and yes it was and still is present in the music industry.

This is a somewhat separate discussion from the one offered in the thread, but I'd still like to partake in it.

Can you confidently say that these individuals appropriated black culture? I ask because I am not sure if they simply took elements of the blues and worked on that base to make a new form of music "rock n roll" or they simply copied it. For my own knowledge, can you also direct me to any specific examples?

If the former, then I'd hardly consider it cultural appropriation. Yes, it would be important to realize that the origins of such music came from the blues and other musical genres, but it's still an entirely separate genre that was created from it. After all, many scientists are credited with many amazing discoveries, when in reality they looked at the research of their predecessors, combined it with their own research, and then made a discovery. They didn't do it alone. But we still credit it with them, because they're the ones to have made the discovery.

If it was the latter, however, then I'd agree that it is an example of negative cultural appropriation.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 4:37:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In this thread, I used the definition provided by Wikipedia.

"Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by a member or members of a different culture."

Not that I approve of Wikipedia being used as a valid source of information, but below the first sentence it explains further in detail what cultural appropriation is and specifies that it is more than just "adoption of another culture".

"Cultural appropriation may eventually lead to the imitating group being seen as the new face of said cultural practices. As minority cultures are imitated by the dominant culture, observers may begin to falsely associate certain cultural practices with the imitating culture, and not with the people who originated them. This is often seen in cultural outsiders' use of an oppressed culture's symbols or other cultural elements, such as music, dance, spiritual ceremonies, modes of dress, speech and social behaviour, among other cultural expressions."

This is not the definition of cultural appropriation but rather what cultural appropriation could lead to. Other than this minor issue over the definition, I agree that cultural appropriation can have negative impacts such as the ones you have mentioned.

Actually, it is the very definition of cultural appropriation. Even Wikipedia agrees with that definition. The very definition of the word "appropriate" means to steal, or take ownership of something that does not belong to you.

I am aware that cultural appropriation has nothing to do with segregation (since it is the exact opposite).

Actually it is not the "exact opposite". People who oppose the appropriation of their cultures do not do so with the intention of segregating themselves. They oppose it with the intent to preserve what is theirs and not allow others to exploit what they deem as important to their ethnic identity. The opposite of culture appropriation is cultural appreciation, which involves taking interest in, learning about, and understanding elements of a different culture, while recognizing its significance, as opposed to stealing and mocking elements of another culture. You cannot do that and appropriate another culture at the same time.

I am saying that, instead, that the perception of cultural appropriation in today's society has become so negative that the very definition has been skewed to be one that is considered bad. An example of this is your definition of cultural appropriation, which is different from the one offered by Wikipedia (simply adopting elements of a culture). But I digress, since I'm not concerned with the definition of cultural appropriation, but rather the response to it and perception of it in society.

The "perception" of cultural appropriation is negative because the concept itself is negative or has a negative connotation. Appropriating other cultures shows a lack of consideration and respect for those cultures. And as I mentioned earlier, even Wikipedia states it is more than "simply adopting elements of a culture" in case you did not notice what it said passed the first line. If you are really concerned with the response and perception then your concern should align with reality, and the reality is, cultural appropriation is stealing, and stealing is offensive.

This perception (not cultural appropriation itself) has encouraged the segregation of different cultures so that now if someone who is white wants to get a certain hair style, they can't do so without being put down. That is an undeniable example of segregation of cultures based on skin color.

False. And this response shows a lack of understand of the very concept itself. Realize that the negative reactions that people have towards white people for what you mentioned has much more to do with just wearing a hairstyle. For example, black people are still put down, denied and fired from jobs, suspended from schools, and stereotyped simply for wearing, preserving and styling their NATURAL afro, curly and coarse textured hair. For decades, black women were effectively barred in public from wearing their natural hair without it being tied down or straightened. Suddenly when white people think its "trendy" and "cool" to wear dreads and afros, it becomes acceptable, but only for them. Yet, these elements have been apart of black identity from birth, and that is why it is frowned upon. Black people do not have to privilege of being themselves without being judged until the dominant culture decides to take, exploit, and profit from it. This is wrong.

While the issue of the origins of some genres of music are debatable and a somewhat separate discussion, I am concerned with the effects of the backlash against cultural appropriation. As I said, I acknowledge that appropriation has had its negative effects in society and can continue to do so.

Continuing onwards, people want so badly for cultural appropriation to not happen that anything that could possibly be perceived as cultural appropriation is shot down, not allowing any mixing of cultures. This is an overall negative effect on society.

It wouldn't be shot down if it weren't appropriated to begin with. When people actually take the time to understand and appreciate other cultures instead of exploiting and mocking them, only then will a healthy mixing of cultures take place.

For example, some consider white rappers or hip-hop artists to be an instance of cultural appropriation. This is blatantly judging artists on the basis of race, even if the intentions are pure in wanting the origins of the culture to remain known to the public.

Also false. Why is it that Eminem is accepted in rap music but not Iggy Azalea? Because Eminem's music is authentic, and he doesn't pretend to be something he isn't. Iggy's music is not. She is a white Australian women from a middle class family in Sydney yet when she raps she tries to imitate a stereotypical black Southern accent and lies about personal struggle in her music. Yet you would immediately assume that people dislike her simply because she is white when it is because she is a blatant appropriator of black hip-hop culture.

Lastly, I ask what you mean by "black culture." What is "black culture"? Because I am almost positive that the culture of people who are black are very different in different regions of the world, such as the U.S. as compared to many African countries (and even among those countries there are different cultures).

By "black culture" I am obviously referring to black American sub-culture. That is typically what it is referred to in the U.S. since most black people here are African American.

Could I similarly claim that there is a "white culture"? Yes, there are many different nationalities that are considered white with their own cultures (e.g. Germans), but the same situation occurs with that of "black culture."

There is no such thing as "white culture". Unlike black people in the Americas, most white people have not had their origins deliberately stripped from them.
Fly
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 4:31:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This topic immediately causes me to think of Iggy Azalea. Not a fan...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 6:14:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 6:40:04 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 8/3/2015 3:31:44 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Perhaps the title is somewhat misleading. This thread is not concerned with the negative consequences of cultural appropriation, but rather the negative consequences of the concept of cultural appropriation. Allow me to explain.

There are many individuals who view cultural appropriation as an evil or bad thing and, consequently, put down what they deem to be instances of appropriation. For example, some people don't like rappers or hip-hop artists who are white while others attack people for putting their hair in box braids. The concept that cultural appropriation is bad has led us to a point where it actively encourages segregation of cultures based on skin color. Instead of enjoying multiculturalism or allowing cultures to mix and combine to possibly form something new, there is a mindset of preserving the original culture, as though it can be contaminated.

Reasonably speaking, there can be examples of cultural appropriation that are deemed disrespectful or, in some instances, insulting; however, such cases of people who are white adopting elements of the "black culture" can hardly be seen as such. Instead, this idea that cultural appropriation is repulsive has driven parts of society to a point where they reflect somewhat racist and bigoted ideals, refusing to agree with people who are white try out new hair styles or make new music.

I find this detrimental because I've been raised with the idea that I should love and learn about other cultures, and we should realize that we are all human and that race and culture shouldn't be something that separate us. Perhaps this is why I react negatively when people decry an action as "cultural appropriation." I also see a similar effect taking place with the concept of white privilege, where people can judge one another on the basis of their skin color to infer what benefits they may or may have not received in life. These concepts, while attempted to remind people of racism in America, simply seem to reinforce segregation and make the racial and cultural divides between people more distinct.

What does everyone else think about this matter?

Disclaimer: I am not arguing for or against the existence of cultural appropriation or white privilege. This thread is merely a discussion concerning the impacts these concepts and their results have had on society.

I do not believe you are fully aware of what 'cultural appropriation' is and what it refers to so allow me to explain as much about the concept as I can and explain why it is harmful and looked down upon by many people. Cultural appropriation is a practice that typically involves members of a dominant group exploiting the culture of non-dominant or marginalized groups - often with little understanding of the latter"s history, experience, and traditions. It is much more complex than "adopting elements of a different culture" - it is pretty much stealing elements of a non-dominant culture, taking credit for it, profiting from it, or making a mockery of it all together. That is what the word "appropriate" means - to take to or for oneself; take possession of to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate:

Why is this inherently bad and how is one to decide if something is appropriation or just respectful imitation?

http://dictionary.reference.com...

That is why it is harmful. It has nothing to do with people wanting to segregate or alienate themselves or exclude other people from taking interest in their culture. But there is a fine line between appropriating another culture, and showing appreciation for another culture. Cultural appropriation is disrespectful and has been so commonplace throughout history. For example, dressing up in 'blackface' is a form of cultural appropriation, and that was used to mock, shame, and dehumanize African Americans, their culture, and ethnic identity for decades.

This example doesn't make sense. How is this appropriation, if the "blackface" is representing a culture that is being mocked? There is no ownership of it; there is no taking of the culture. By your own words, you say that "blackface" was used to mock, shame, and dehumanize African Americans, which means that the culture was never taken, since the "blackface" was still in control of it, and whites were making fun of him.
How is it appropriation if you acknowledge the source?

Today, you see appropriation of black culture in music, fashion, and film. While black Americans were shamed for their culture, suddenly it became acceptable when the dominant culture exploits it and profits from it. This is cultural appropriation and it has consequences. One being the fact that the non-dominant culture often gets erased completely and gets no recognition for their cultural influences. This is the case with the music industry in the 1950's when white musicians appropriated the musical style of black musicians because African Americans were not widely accepted or respected in the entertainment industry or society in general at that time. This led record executives to have white recording artists replicate the sound of black musicians which resulted in musical genres like rock-n-roll being largely associated with white Americans despite the fact that black musicians were pioneers of the genre. And to this day, white musicians still profit from this and blacks are still not fully accepted into the genre. And it had financial consequences for the black musicians who helped make rock-n-roll a success as they never received any profit or recognition for their contributions to the music they produced. So as you can see from this one example, this is why people are so vocal against cultural appropriation. It is stealing and exploitation.

How is this different than a corporation mimicking a corporate plan of action that works?
How is this different than reverse engineering a product to sell a competitor (e.g. iPod and Zune)?
How is this different than going to Mardi Gras (Catholic), St. Patrick's Day (Irsih), Oktoberfest (German), or a Cinco de Mayo (Mexican) celebration? How is it different than a business to exploit these celebrations for profit?
How is this different than Hollywood embracing Norwegian films and trying to copy them?
How is this different than a fashion designer being influenced by French design?
How is this different than any Renaissance Fair, which didn't even occur in our country?
How is this different than, say the Teen Titans cartoon, being influenced by Anime or British animation?
How is this different than wearing a hijab because you like the way it feels? Or as a display of solidarity? Or marketing hijabs to the correct culture, but are not part of said culture (i.e. white Christian making money selling hijabs to Muslim women)? Why is this bad?

Also, how is this stealing anything from a culture if you create something new from its influence, especially if you acknowledge its roots? Is it appropriation if I am influenced by Langston Hughes, and my style mirrors him? How is that different than Mika or Fun having a clear Queen style about them (these are bands)?

I get the anger if influence is not intentionally hidden in an effort to continue a narrative, or if it is for the sole purpose of mockery, but if I were to wear dreadlocks because I think they look cool, how is that viewed as bad?
My work here is, finally, done.
j50wells
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 12:50:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think it's really about wining, not on your part, but on the part of the people who claim such things. It's like a kid on recess mad because he figured out a way to hit the tether ball just right and win all the time, but another kid copies the kid and starts winning too. The first kid is a winer if he complains about it.
It's that way with Cultural Appropriation. That word is actually just a pretty word that someone put over the top of wining. There's no such thing as a criminal action involving the fact that some people learned something from another culture.
Cultures can learn things from each other. I don't hear white America crying when they see a black man buy a house with a picket fence and go duck hunting down at the river. That actually is white culture. Neither should a black man be upset if a white man sings rap. It's just good, fun music. The very fact that someone is calling this a problem is illogical.
I mean we could come up with a list that would prove that we all contribute to American culture. Modern Christmas and Thanksgiving...white culture. Rap....black culture. Hot Mexican food...Hispanic. We could go on and on like this.
It's disturbing to me to see grown adults act like this. This is really just underlying tribalism. And we know that a United States can't stand when a tribal ideology like this is celebrated.
But the reality is that historically, different cultures don't unite together. They usually divide. The media has tried to keep cultures together with movies that celebrate unity, and also TV shows and radio. However, there is a sub-culture that keeps driving the division further and further apart.
One day we will wake up and find that the USA is just what we call it when we look at a map, but that in reality we are separate people's with separate ideas, living in different regions on a big continent.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 6:19:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Why is this inherently bad and how is one to decide if something is appropriation or just respectful imitation?

I kind of already answered all of these questions in my last post. The concept has a negative connotation because it involved stealing, exploiting, and mocking other, often less dominant, cultures.

That is why it is harmful. It has nothing to do with people wanting to segregate or alienate themselves or exclude other people from taking interest in their culture. But there is a fine line between appropriating another culture, and showing appreciation for another culture. Cultural appropriation is disrespectful and has been so commonplace throughout history. For example, dressing up in 'blackface' is a form of cultural appropriation, and that was used to mock, shame, and dehumanize African Americans, their culture, and ethnic identity for decades.

This example doesn't make sense. How is this appropriation, if the "blackface" is representing a culture that is being mocked? There is no ownership of it; there is no taking of the culture. By your own words, you say that "blackface" was used to mock, shame, and dehumanize African Americans, which means that the culture was never taken, since the "blackface" was still in control of it, and whites were making fun of him.
How is it appropriation if you acknowledge the source?

It is cultural appropriation because ethnic identity, as well as the physical features associated with it, are directly correlated with a person's culture. In American history, blackface was used to mock African Americans' ethnic identity, which included mocking their culture, customs, and behavior. That's why stereotypes (eating watermelon, dancing in an exaggerated manner, and speaking a stereotypical "black" way) were often portrayed in blackface. It is the intentional mocking of another group's culture/ethnic identity. They took what wasn't theirs, exaggerated it, and used it for racist, comedic purposes.

Today, you see appropriation of black culture in music, fashion, and film. While black Americans were shamed for their culture, suddenly it became acceptable when the dominant culture exploits it and profits from it. This is cultural appropriation and it has consequences. One being the fact that the non-dominant culture often gets erased completely and gets no recognition for their cultural influences. This is the case with the music industry in the 1950's when white musicians appropriated the musical style of black musicians because African Americans were not widely accepted or respected in the entertainment industry or society in general at that time. This led record executives to have white recording artists replicate the sound of black musicians which resulted in musical genres like rock-n-roll being largely associated with white Americans despite the fact that black musicians were pioneers of the genre. And to this day, white musicians still profit from this and blacks are still not fully accepted into the genre. And it had financial consequences for the black musicians who helped make rock-n-roll a success as they never received any profit or recognition for their contributions to the music they produced. So as you can see from this one example, this is why people are so vocal against cultural appropriation. It is stealing and exploitation.

How is this different than a corporation mimicking a corporate plan of action that works?

Corporations aren't people. They don't have ethnic identity or culture. So this is not a sound comparison. However, corporations, or rather the people who run them, can promote the appropriation of certain cultures by exploiting and profiting from them.

How is this different than reverse engineering a product to sell a competitor (e.g. iPod and Zune)?

See above.

How is this different than going to Mardi Gras (Catholic), St. Patrick's Day (Irsih), Oktoberfest (German), or a Cinco de Mayo (Mexican) celebration? How is it different than a business to exploit these celebrations for profit?

These are all actual examples of cultural appropriation.

How is this different than Hollywood embracing Norwegian films and trying to copy them?

You just answered your own question.

How is this different than a fashion designer being influenced by French design?
How is this different than any Renaissance Fair, which didn't even occur in our country?
How is this different than, say the Teen Titans cartoon, being influenced by Anime or British animation?

You might want to read the example I chose again so see that these are clearly not even similar to the one I chose.

How is this different than wearing a hijab because you like the way it feels? Or as a display of solidarity? Or marketing hijabs to the correct culture, but are not part of said culture (i.e. white Christian making money selling hijabs to Muslim women)? Why is this bad?

Simply put, a hijab is not the latest trend or a fashion statement. It is an important and sacred element of Islamic culture and heritage. Wearing one because you "like the way it feels" or because you think it's "cool" is disrespectful to Muslim people. As for who is selling it, if they are selling them to Muslims whose intent is to wear them for the purpose in which it was intended, that isn't wrong and I never said it was. Please refrain from using red herring and straw man arguments.

Also, how is this stealing anything from a culture if you create something new from its influence, especially if you acknowledge its roots? Is it appropriation if I am influenced by Langston Hughes, and my style mirrors him? How is that different than Mika or Fun having a clear Queen style about them (these are bands)?

You have to understand the difference between cultural appropriation, and cultural appreciation. As I mentioned in my last post, appreciation of cultures involve actually taking interest in, learning about, and understanding elements of a different culture, while respecting it, recognizing its significance and acknowledging its influence. This includes learning a foreign language, understanding the sacred artifacts, customs, and traditions of a different culture, being aware of their contributions. You can't do that and appropriate another culture at the same time. There is no "appreciation" in wearing blackface, or taking credit for the elements of another culture while refusing to give them any recognition to their contribution.

I get the anger if influence is not intentionally hidden in an effort to continue a narrative, or if it is for the sole purpose of mockery, but if I were to wear dreadlocks because I think they look cool, how is that viewed as bad?

As I also mentioned before, you wearing dreadlocks is not necessarily the issue. The problem occurs when the group or culture in which the style came from gets demonized for that element of their culture, and suddenly it is only acceptable when members of the dominant culture think it's "trendy" and "cool" - that is when the fine line between appreciating elements another culture and appropriating them is broken.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2015 4:21:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/5/2015 6:19:54 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
Why is this inherently bad and how is one to decide if something is appropriation or just respectful imitation?

I kind of already answered all of these questions in my last post. The concept has a negative connotation because it involved stealing, exploiting, and mocking other, often less dominant, cultures.
The underlined is what I was more concerned with.
How is it appropriation if you acknowledge the source?

It is cultural appropriation because ethnic identity, as well as the physical features associated with it, are directly correlated with a person's culture. In American history, blackface was used to mock African Americans' ethnic identity, which included mocking their culture, customs, and behavior. That's why stereotypes (eating watermelon, dancing in an exaggerated manner, and speaking a stereotypical "black" way) were often portrayed in blackface. It is the intentional mocking of another group's culture/ethnic identity. They took what wasn't theirs, exaggerated it, and used it for racist, comedic purposes.
I get that, but I don't see the appropriation, since it was never claimed by whites as theirs (i.e. they didn't absorb that element into their culture).

How is this different than wearing a hijab because you like the way it feels? Or as a display of solidarity? Or marketing hijabs to the correct culture, but are not part of said culture (i.e. white Christian making money selling hijabs to Muslim women)? Why is this bad?

Simply put, a hijab is not the latest trend or a fashion statement. It is an important and sacred element of Islamic culture and heritage. Wearing one because you "like the way it feels" or because you think it's "cool" is disrespectful to Muslim people.
Is not wearing the latest fashion dress from Paris without understanding why it is fashionable not the same crime? I don't see why I have to be aware of anything to appreciate it for other reasons. It may be disrespectful or sacrilegious or ignorant, but if I wear a hijab because it looks cool, and say "I see these people wearing it, and I like it", how is that appropriation, since I am acknowledging the culture from where it came, even if for different reasons. Isn't this the same as the rock v. jazz issue? I hear jazz, I like it, I kick it up a notch and turn it into rock, and then say yeah, I was influenced by jazz. I wasn't aware I needed a history lesson about jazz to listen to it or be influenced by it.

As for who is selling it, if they are selling them to Muslims whose intent is to wear them for the purpose in which it was intended, that isn't wrong and I never said it was. Please refrain from using red herring and straw man arguments.

You said:
"It is much more complex than "adopting elements of a different culture" - it is pretty much stealing elements of a non-dominant culture, taking credit for it, profiting from it, or making a mockery of it all together."
If the Christian couldn't care less about the sanctity of the item sold, or is even not informed of why it is important to them, and is just doing it for the money, that seems to fit your definition, ergo, it is not a red herring or a straw man as it goes directly to your definition of appropriation.

Also, how is this stealing anything from a culture if you create something new from its influence, especially if you acknowledge its roots? Is it appropriation if I am influenced by Langston Hughes, and my style mirrors him? How is that different than Mika or Fun having a clear Queen style about them (these are bands)?

You have to understand the difference between cultural appropriation, and cultural appreciation. As I mentioned in my last post, appreciation of cultures involve actually taking interest in, learning about, and understanding elements of a different culture, while respecting it, recognizing its significance and acknowledging its influence. This includes learning a foreign language, understanding the sacred artifacts, customs, and traditions of a different culture, being aware of their contributions.
Except we are not talking about appreciating culture, are we? We are talking about appreciating a specific element or item of said culture. You are essentially saying that I must appreciate the element for the exact same reason as the culture does, and I disagree. I can l
You can't do that and appropriate another culture at the same time. There is no "appreciation" in wearing blackface, or taking credit for the elements of another culture while refusing to give them any recognition to their contribution.
Except, in my examples which you say are appropriation, recognition is wholly given to said group/culture. And, yes, blackface is ridicule, so it isn't an issue of appreciation (except for appreciating the fact that a culture can be made fun of, I guess), which counters your definition, since blackface is not whites taking anything from black culture (real or imaginary), but just making fun of it.

I get the anger if influence is not intentionally hidden in an effort to continue a narrative, or if it is for the sole purpose of mockery, but if I were to wear dreadlocks because I think they look cool, how is that viewed as bad?

As I also mentioned before, you wearing dreadlocks is not necessarily the issue. The problem occurs when the group or culture in which the style came from gets demonized for that element of their culture, and suddenly it is only acceptable when members of the dominant culture think it's "trendy" and "cool" - that is when the fine line between appreciating elements another culture and appropriating them is broken.
Using the Irish, drinking, and St Patrick's day in America.....you are assuming that:
1. That the element (drinking) is part of the culture (Irish).
2. The element is demonized by another culture (American).
3. The culture (Irish) are demonized for said element (drinking) specifically.
4. That any participant of drinking Guinness on March 17th is part of the oppressive culture (American).
5. That this participant demonized said culture or element in the past.
6. That this participant does not actually appreciate said culture.

Do you see how subjective and, frankly, prejudicial/racist this all is?
You are going to say that I have appropriated Irish culture because the Irish are identified by drinking, and only because I have demonized them in the past, and assuming that I am both partaking in said drinking because of the "holiday" and also because I have no appreciation for said event.
My work here is, finally, done.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2015 7:24:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 4:37:35 AM, briantheliberal wrote:

"Cultural appropriation may eventually lead to the imitating group ..."

Actually, it is the very definition of cultural appropriation. Even Wikipedia agrees with that definition. The very definition of the word "appropriate" means to steal, or take ownership of something that does not belong to you.

You may notice that Wikipedia very clearly states that cultural appropriation may lead to these negative consequences, but cultural appropriation itself does not have to include these things. Once again, cultural appropriation does not have to be a negative concept. It simply can lead to these detrimental consequences.


Actually it is not the "exact opposite".

By definition, it is. Segregation means to keep things apart. Cultural appropriation, whether for the good or bad, is the exact opposite in that cultures absorb aspects of one another.

The opposite of culture appropriation is cultural appreciation, which involves taking interest in, learning about, and understanding elements of a different culture, while recognizing its significance, as opposed to stealing and mocking elements of another culture. You cannot do that and appropriate another culture at the same time.

Once again, cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation are not exclusive, because their definitions are not exclusive as I have demonstrated above.


False. And this response shows a lack of understand of the very concept itself. Realize that the negative reactions that people have towards white people for what you mentioned has much more to do with just wearing a hairstyle. For example, black people are still put down, denied and fired from jobs, suspended from schools, and stereotyped simply for wearing, preserving and styling their NATURAL afro, curly and coarse textured hair. For decades, black women were effectively barred in public from wearing their natural hair without it being tied down or straightened. Suddenly when white people think its "trendy" and "cool" to wear dreads and afros, it becomes acceptable, but only for them.

First and foremost, people who are white should not be punished for injustices of the past by limiting their freedom of expression.

Secondly, I see little to no evidence that this adoption of hair style is okay for people who are white as compared to people who are black. Yes, in the past people may have fired others on the basis of such hair styles. But can you provide any evidence that would even suggest that the same work places accept people who are white with similar hair styles? If not, then there is no injustice in this regard. I also believe that no evidence of this exists because very few white people get such hairstyles, since it is usually not reasonable due to the simple biological differences in hair between people who are white and people who are black. As such, with so few people adopting such hairstyles, it can hardly be considered appropriation and cannot lead to the negative aspects of cultural appropriation. It is merely individuals who want to try out new hairstyles.

Just as hundreds of thousands of people who are black style their hair in whatever way they want, so too can people who are white. Furthermore, even if you managed to produce evidence that demonstrated that it is socially acceptable for people who are white but not black to wear those hairstyles in the workplace, you'd have to still accept people who are white who choose those hairstyles but don't wear them to the workplace.


It wouldn't be shot down if it weren't appropriated to begin with. When people actually take the time to understand and appreciate other cultures instead of exploiting and mocking them, only then will a healthy mixing of cultures take place.

I am confused by your somewhat contradictory statements.

Someone who chooses a certain hairstyle because they find it cool, beautiful, or interesting wouldn't be mocking and exploiting such a hairstyle. They would be appreciating it by default, because they find it cool, beautiful, or interesting.

Consequently, you'd have to discern the moral intentions of every individual who is white to see if they are getting a certain hairstyle because they want to mock a culture (which is a ridiculous concept as I stated above ... they would not wear that hairstyle to mock a culture) or if it's because they like and appreciate it.

This leads to a tense and awkward atmosphere where anyone who wants to try out anything from another culture has to constantly defend themselves and make it painfully and obviously clear that they have good intentions. Once again, this kind of atmosphere encourages segregation.


Also false. Why is it that Eminem is accepted in rap music but not Iggy Azalea?

This question assumes Eminem is accepted in rap music, yet I have seen individuals who do not accept Eminem because he is white. Regardless, let's assume those individuals are in the minority and that they don't really understand the concept of cultural appropriation.

Because Eminem's music is authentic, and he doesn't pretend to be something he isn't. Iggy's music is not. She is a white Australian women from a middle class family in Sydney yet when she raps she tries to imitate a stereotypical black Southern accent and lies about personal struggle in her music. Yet you would immediately assume that people dislike her simply because she is white when it is because she is a blatant appropriator of black hip-hop culture.

What detrimental effects has her mimicry resulted in? The only part of this that I can find wrong with is the fact that she lies about personal struggle. Mimicry in and of itself is not a bad thing. The only possible negative effect I could imagine is that, in the future, the vast majority of people would assume that Iggy Azalea had created rap or hip-hop, or that white people are somehow better at that genre of music. Of course, this seems highly unlikely, because so many people seem to disapprove of her and are quick to call out her instances of cultural appropriation.

If she has a lack of sincerity in her music, this is more suggestive of an issue of her personal character rather than one of cultural appropriation. Overall, her mimicry of black culture in rap (which many seem to put down) reflects that she enjoys that culture and wants to partake in the musical part of it.


There is no such thing as "white culture". Unlike black people in the Americas, most white people have not had their origins deliberately stripped from them.

Your argument doesn't follow. You justify the fact that there is no such thing as white culture on the basis that "most white people have not had their origins deliberately stripped from them."

Since when is this a requirement for a culture to exist? I'm almost 100% positive that a culture can exist without having its origins stripped from them. In fact, having your origins stripped from you seems like something that would help destroy a culture, not make one exist.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 2:28:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The underlined is what I was more concerned with.

I wasn't concerned with it because it doesn't exist. You can't "respectfully imitate" another culture. That is why that doesn't make sense and has no correlation to the topic at hand.

I get that, but I don't see the appropriation, since it was never claimed by whites as theirs (i.e. they didn't absorb that element into their culture).

Just because you "don't see" the appropriation, doesn't mean it's not appropriation. It is literally one of the most infamous examples of the concept. How is it difficult to see that the dominant culture during this time took what wasn't theirs, exaggerated it, and used it for racist, comedic purposes. That is the most prime example of the textbook definition of cultural appropriation.

Is not wearing the latest fashion dress from Paris without understanding why it is fashionable not the same crime? I don't see why I have to be aware of anything to appreciate it for other reasons. It may be disrespectful or sacrilegious or ignorant, but if I wear a hijab because it looks cool, and say "I see these people wearing it, and I like it", how is that appropriation, since I am acknowledging the culture from where it came, even if for different reasons. Isn't this the same as the rock v. jazz issue? I hear jazz, I like it, I kick it up a notch and turn it into rock, and then say yeah, I was influenced by jazz. I wasn't aware I needed a history lesson about jazz to listen to it or be influenced by it.

Not to come off as contemptuous, but could you make a point about the topic at hand without making asinine comparisons to something completely irrelevant? Misusing an artifact that should be worn for cultural/religious purposes as a fashion trend IS NOT the same as following an actual fashion trend. It's appropriation because you are taking something from another culture, exploiting it and misusing it for YOUR OWN purposes. That is what the word "appropriate" means - taking something that isn't yours for yourself. If you are not a Muslim, and you are wearing a hijab for whatever reason aside from its original purpose, you are appropriating an Islamic custom.

And in regards to your response towards the "rock v. jazz" issue. 1 - It is not the same as the hijab issue. 2 - You obviously didn't read the initial example I provided regarding rock n' roll music. And lastly, I never said that simply being INFLUENCED by or enjoying a different genre of music is cultural appropriation. Again, straw man arguments. Please refer to the distinction I made between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation I made in my last post.

You said:
"It is much more complex than "adopting elements of a different culture" - it is pretty much stealing elements of a non-dominant culture, taking credit for it, profiting from it, or making a mockery of it all together."
If the Christian couldn't care less about the sanctity of the item sold, or is even not informed of why it is important to them, and is just doing it for the money, that seems to fit your definition, ergo, it is not a red herring or a straw man as it goes directly to your definition of appropriation.

Profiting from it as in benefiting (monetarily or otherwise) from it by passing it off as THEIR OWN. Obviously if a Christian was selling hijabs to Muslims for whatever reason but she doesn't take exploit the use of the artifact itself for her own use, it's not appropriation. This example itself is outlandish anyway, and clearly not in alignment with the definition of cultural appropriation, nor is it an example of the concept.

Except we are not talking about appreciating culture, are we? We are talking about appreciating a specific element or item of said culture. You are essentially saying that I must appreciate the element for the exact same reason as the culture does, and I disagree. I can l

Except, we are, because your example is an example of cultural appreciation, not appropriation. The sooner you understand the difference, the better. Maybe at that point you will stop using examples that don't make sense and have nothing to do with the actual topic.

Except, in my examples which you say are appropriation, recognition is wholly given to said group/culture. And, yes, blackface is ridicule, so it isn't an issue of appreciation (except for appreciating the fact that a culture can be made fun of, I guess), which counters your definition, since blackface is not whites taking anything from black culture (real or imaginary), but just making fun of it.

False. Read the statement I made addressing this statement above again, this time slowly and more carefully if you actually want an explanation. Taking elements of another culture for your own use, which includes ridicule and perpetuation of racist stigmatization, is considered appropriation.

As I also mentioned before, you wearing dreadlocks is not necessarily the issue. The problem occurs when the group or culture in which the style came from gets demonized for that element of their culture, and suddenly it is only acceptable when members of the dominant culture think it's "trendy" and "cool" - that is when the fine line between appreciating elements another culture and appropriating them is broken.
Using the Irish, drinking, and St Patrick's day in America.....you are assuming that:
1. That the element (drinking) is part of the culture (Irish).

False, and ridiculous.

2. The element is demonized by another culture (American).

Also false, and ridiculous.

3. The culture (Irish) are demonized for said element (drinking) specifically.

See above.

4. That any participant of drinking Guinness on March 17th is part of the oppressive culture (American).

Also false.

5. That this participant demonized said culture or element in the past.

Also false.

6. That this participant does not actually appreciate said culture.

See above, and try not to make asinine and irrelevant comparisons, straw man arguments that have nothing to do with the actual topic.

Do you see how subjective and, frankly, prejudicial/racist this all is?

No, because your straw man arguments make no sense.

You are going to say that I have appropriated Irish culture because the Irish are identified by drinking, and only because I have demonized them in the past, and assuming that I am both partaking in said drinking because of the "holiday" and also because I have no appreciation for said event.

Again, more ridiculous straw arguments. I don't take logical fallacies seriously, and I never made any of these points, you did. Drinking is not an exclusive element of Irish culture, most cultures drink. That's like saying drinking milk is culture appropriation, which doesn't make sense. Drinking didn't come from Irish people. And last I checked, Irish-Americans are the second largest demographic in the United States, so I'm pretty sure all of the things you mentioned they are involved in regardless.

But that aside, this was the issue I had with you last time. You never seem to discuss/argue anything without straying off topic, and distorting my points.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 2:47:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 2:28:07 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
The underlined is what I was more concerned with.

I wasn't concerned with it because it doesn't exist. You can't "respectfully imitate" another culture. That is why that doesn't make sense and has no correlation to the topic at hand.

I very much disagree. And, since you disagree with this, we cannot agree on a framework for discussion, except in the most egregious of examples, of which we already agree it's wrong.


But that aside, this was the issue I had with you last time. You never seem to discuss/argue anything without straying off topic, and distorting my points.

I don't try to distort your point, I try to understand them by expanding on them and shedding them in different lights, to view the full breadth of what your view should mean, from a logical principled stance. I come up with counter examples to test your principle and/or to explore what the notion is and what it isn't. This is how I learn and this is how I think. These aren't strawmen, they are analogies. I'm sorry you see them differently.
My work here is, finally, done.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 3:34:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
You may notice that Wikipedia very clearly states that cultural appropriation may lead to these negative consequences, but cultural appropriation itself does not have to include these things...

Doesn't matter because Wikipedia isn't a valid source anyway. Anyone can go there and post whatever they please, that doesn't make it valid. The definition of the term itself clearly states that "appropriation" is the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.

By definition, it is. Segregation means to keep things apart. Cultural appropriation, whether for the good or bad, is the exact opposite in that cultures absorb aspects of one another.

False. There is no mutual exchanging of cultures in cultural appropriation. And by definition, appropriation is stealing.

Once again, cultural appreciation and cultural appropriation are not exclusive, because their definitions are not exclusive as I have demonstrated above.

Yeah, they are exclusive.

THIS is cultural appropriation > https://twitter.com...

THIS is cultural appreciation > https://twitter.com...

Do you see the difference? I do.

First and foremost, people who are white should not be punished for injustices of the past by limiting their freedom of expression.

You clearly didn't read what I said, because your response surely doesn't reflect that you have. I never said anything about white people being punished for anything. I also said nothing about limiting anyone's freedom of expression. Nice red herring and straw man arguments though.

Secondly, I see little to no evidence that this adoption of hair style is okay for people who are white as compared to people who are black. Yes, in the past people may have fired others on the basis of such hair styles...

"I see little to no evidence that this adoption of hair style is okay for people who are white as compared to people who are black." in other words - "I don't see it therefore it's not true" Right. It's still appropriation.

Here are a few examples of black people being fired/expelled over hair.
http://www.ibtimes.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://nypost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Show me the same for white people, then we'll talk about who actually gets "punished" and their freedom of expression "limited".

Just as hundreds of thousands of people who are black style their hair in whatever way they want, so too can people who are white...

See above. This wouldn't be an issue if black people weren't constantly discriminated against for it. Additionally, what you are requesting evidence for is incredibly convoluted. Try being reasonable in your request. That being said, I provided enough evidence, where is yours?

I am confused by your somewhat contradictory statements.

Someone who chooses a certain hairstyle because they find it cool, beautiful, or interesting wouldn't be mocking and exploiting such a hairstyle. They would be appreciating it by default, because they find it cool, beautiful, or interesting.

False. You are clearly being selective in your interpretation of the topic on purpose. Cultural appropriation is not just mocking, and exploiting (which that is), it's the dominant culture taking what doesn't belong to them. That is not appreciation.

Consequently, you'd have to discern the moral intentions of every individual who is white to see if they are getting a certain hairstyle because they want to mock a culture...

False. Appropriation is appropriation. That doesn't require knowing anyone's individual intentions.

This leads to a tense and awkward atmosphere where anyone who wants to try out anything from another culture has to constantly defend themselves and make it painfully and obviously clear that they have good intentions. Once again, this kind of atmosphere encourages segregation.

False. See above. They don't have to defend appropriation, we already know what it is. And you have no evidence that opposing appropriation encourages segregation.

This question assumes Eminem is accepted in rap music, yet I have seen individuals who do not accept Eminem because he is white...

So? What does that have to do with cultural appropriation?

What detrimental effects has her mimicry resulted in? The only part of this that I can find wrong with is the fact that she lies about personal struggle. Mimicry in and of itself is not a bad thing. The only possible negative effect I could imagine is that, in the future, the vast majority of people would assume that Iggy Azalea had created rap or hip-hop, or that white people are somehow better at that genre of music. Of course, this seems highly unlikely, because so many people seem to disapprove of her and are quick to call out her instances of cultural appropriation.

Personal struggle associated with black urban poor, which she exploited for her own personal gain. What is not wrong about this? That is cultural appropriation.

If she has a lack of sincerity in her music, this is more suggestive of an issue of her personal character rather than one of cultural appropriation. Overall, her mimicry of black culture in rap (which many seem to put down) reflects that she enjoys that culture and wants to partake in the musical part of it.

See above. Again enjoying or appreciating another culture is not the same as appropriating that culture.

Your argument doesn't follow. You justify the fact that there is no such thing as white culture on the basis that "most white people have not had their origins deliberately stripped from them."

Because they haven't. Can black Americans directly trace their origins to any of the native African people their ancestors were stolen from? No. But white people generally can trace their origins in Europe. In fact, most white Americans are of German heritage, Irish second, and English third. Does this exist for black Americans? I don't believe it does.

Since when is this a requirement for a culture to exist? I'm almost 100% positive that a culture can exist without having its origins stripped from them. In fact, having your origins stripped from you seems like something that would help destroy a culture, not make one exist

Congrats, that last statement describes exactly what cultural appropriation leads to. Seems as if you do understand the topic after all. That being said, I said it's called "black culture" because in America, most black people are African American and they are commonly referred to as just black, that is why. If it were Brazil, it would be afro-Brazilian culture and so on.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2015 3:41:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 2:47:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 8/7/2015 2:28:07 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
The underlined is what I was more concerned with.

I wasn't concerned with it because it doesn't exist. You can't "respectfully imitate" another culture. That is why that doesn't make sense and has no correlation to the topic at hand.

I very much disagree. And, since you disagree with this, we cannot agree on a framework for discussion, except in the most egregious of examples, of which we already agree it's wrong.

I respect that you disagree, but could you show me an example of someone respectfully imitating another culture without resorting to offensive stereotypes or being culturally inaccurate?

But that aside, this was the issue I had with you last time. You never seem to discuss/argue anything without straying off topic, and distorting my points.

I don't try to distort your point, I try to understand them by expanding on them and shedding them in different lights, to view the full breadth of what your view should mean, from a logical principled stance. I come up with counter examples to test your principle and/or to explore what the notion is and what it isn't. This is how I learn and this is how I think. These aren't strawmen, they are analogies. I'm sorry you see them differently.

But the problem is, your examples do not align with what my points actually are. That is the problem. You simply can't argue against a point, but comparing it against another point, especially one that has no similarities. They come off more as distortions than actual analogies. I apologize if you feel I came off as very blunt in my responses but they usually triggers that kind of reaction, because I feel as if you are being dishonest.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 7:00:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 7:19:35 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 8/3/2015 6:57:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is the case with the music industry in the 1950's when white musicians appropriated the musical style of black musicians because African Americans were not widely accepted or respected in the entertainment industry or society in general at that time. This led record executives to have white recording artists replicate the sound of black musicians which resulted in musical genres like rock-n-roll being largely associated with white Americans despite the fact that black musicians were pioneers of the genre.

This argument always seemed a bit ridiculous me. A HUGE amount of the old Jazz standards were written by Cole Porter. 'Stormy Weather' was written by two white men, and it was first sung by a white woman, yet Lena Horne became famous for it. Jazz was really a melting pot, and artists have always borrowed from one another. Rock may have drawn from the blues, but the blues were still the blues, and rock is still rock, and they took their separate evolutionary tracts. Were white people racist in their reaction to music? Absolutely. But blaming the artists for cultural appropriation, in a field which was forged by musical conversations between different cultural communities, seems puritanical to the point of farce.

You obviously dismissed everything I said and went right into the defensive mode. Good job! First of all, I never said anything about jazz music. That is a completely different genre of music from the one I mentioned in my first post. Therefore whatever you have to say about that is completely irrelevant because it's nothing more than a red herring argument. Second, if you actually read what I said, you would notice that I never accused any artists of directly appropriating culture, even though they were, it was the record executives who introduced the replication of sound and style from black Americans and profited most from it. The artists, who were white, simply gained more recognition for it. They are "the face" of a genre that was largely influenced and introduced by black Americans from the start. And lastly, there are no "conversations between different cultural communities" involved if certain cultures are denied recognition while the dominant one takes all the credit, exploits and profits from said cultures. That is cultural appropriation, and yes it was and still is present in the music industry.

Denied recognition? I am sorry, but this is nonsense. When were people like B.B. King, Chuck Berry, John Lee Hooker, and Robert Johnson denied credit? By whom? The masses? Sure, but not by the people involved in the music. Anyone who knows anything about rock music, and blues, knows that these guys started it all. Hell, the most widely recognized guitar god was a black guy (Hendrix).

I agree with the OP. The concept of "cultural appropriation" is harmful, it breeds nothing but resentment on the part of one group and scorn on the part of the other groups.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 7:13:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/4/2015 4:37:35 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
In this thread, I used the definition provided by Wikipedia.

"Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by a member or members of a different culture."

Not that I approve of Wikipedia being used as a valid source of information, but below the first sentence it explains further in detail what cultural appropriation is and specifies that it is more than just "adoption of another culture".

"Cultural appropriation may eventually lead to the imitating group being seen as the new face of said cultural practices. As minority cultures are imitated by the dominant culture, observers may begin to falsely associate certain cultural practices with the imitating culture, and not with the people who originated them. This is often seen in cultural outsiders' use of an oppressed culture's symbols or other cultural elements, such as music, dance, spiritual ceremonies, modes of dress, speech and social behaviour, among other cultural expressions."

This is not the definition of cultural appropriation but rather what cultural appropriation could lead to. Other than this minor issue over the definition, I agree that cultural appropriation can have negative impacts such as the ones you have mentioned.

Actually, it is the very definition of cultural appropriation. Even Wikipedia agrees with that definition. The very definition of the word "appropriate" means to steal, or take ownership of something that does not belong to you.

I am aware that cultural appropriation has nothing to do with segregation (since it is the exact opposite).

Actually it is not the "exact opposite". People who oppose the appropriation of their cultures do not do so with the intention of segregating themselves. They oppose it with the intent to preserve what is theirs and not allow others to exploit what they deem as important to their ethnic identity. The opposite of culture appropriation is cultural appreciation, which involves taking interest in, learning about, and understanding elements of a different culture, while recognizing its significance, as opposed to stealing and mocking elements of another culture. You cannot do that and appropriate another culture at the same time.

I am saying that, instead, that the perception of cultural appropriation in today's society has become so negative that the very definition has been skewed to be one that is considered bad. An example of this is your definition of cultural appropriation, which is different from the one offered by Wikipedia (simply adopting elements of a culture). But I digress, since I'm not concerned with the definition of cultural appropriation, but rather the response to it and perception of it in society.

The "perception" of cultural appropriation is negative because the concept itself is negative or has a negative connotation. Appropriating other cultures shows a lack of consideration and respect for those cultures. And as I mentioned earlier, even Wikipedia states it is more than "simply adopting elements of a culture" in case you did not notice what it said passed the first line. If you are really concerned with the response and perception then your concern should align with reality, and the reality is, cultural appropriation is stealing, and stealing is offensive.

This perception (not cultural appropriation itself) has encouraged the segregation of different cultures so that now if someone who is white wants to get a certain hair style, they can't do so without being put down. That is an undeniable example of segregation of cultures based on skin color.

False. And this response shows a lack of understand of the very concept itself. Realize that the negative reactions that people have towards white people for what you mentioned has much more to do with just wearing a hairstyle. For example, black people are still put down, denied and fired from jobs, suspended from schools, and stereotyped simply for wearing, preserving and styling their NATURAL afro, curly and coarse textured hair. For decades, black women were effectively barred in public from wearing their natural hair without it being tied down or straightened. Suddenly when white people think its "trendy" and "cool" to wear dreads and afros, it becomes acceptable, but only for them. Yet, these elements have been apart of black identity from birth, and that is why it is frowned upon. Black people do not have to privilege of being themselves without being judged until the dominant culture decides to take, exploit, and profit from it. This is wrong.

While the issue of the origins of some genres of music are debatable and a somewhat separate discussion, I am concerned with the effects of the backlash against cultural appropriation. As I said, I acknowledge that appropriation has had its negative effects in society and can continue to do so.

Continuing onwards, people want so badly for cultural appropriation to not happen that anything that could possibly be perceived as cultural appropriation is shot down, not allowing any mixing of cultures. This is an overall negative effect on society.

It wouldn't be shot down if it weren't appropriated to begin with. When people actually take the time to understand and appreciate other cultures instead of exploiting and mocking them, only then will a healthy mixing of cultures take place.

For example, some consider white rappers or hip-hop artists to be an instance of cultural appropriation. This is blatantly judging artists on the basis of race, even if the intentions are pure in wanting the origins of the culture to remain known to the public.

Also false. Why is it that Eminem is accepted in rap music but not Iggy Azalea? Because Eminem's music is authentic, and he doesn't pretend to be something he isn't. Iggy's music is not. She is a white Australian women from a middle class family in Sydney yet when she raps she tries to imitate a stereotypical black Southern accent and lies about personal struggle in her music. Yet you would immediately assume that people dislike her simply because she is white when it is because she is a blatant appropriator of black hip-hop culture.

Lastly, I ask what you mean by "black culture." What is "black culture"? Because I am almost positive that the culture of people who are black are very different in different regions of the world, such as the U.S. as compared to many African countries (and even among those countries there are different cultures).

By "black culture" I am obviously referring to black American sub-culture. That is typically what it is referred to in the U.S. since most black people here are African American.

Could I similarly claim that there is a "white culture"? Yes, there are many different nationalities that are considered white with their own cultures (e.g. Germans), but the same situation occurs with that of "black culture."

There is no such thing as "white culture". Unlike black people in the Americas, most white people have not had their origins deliberately stripped from them.

No, most white people simply discarded their original culture. Not many German Americans read Goethe, Heine, or Mann. And when they do, it is usually not because these authors are German. Same with French Americans, when they do read Voltaire or Stendhal because these guys are French. Nor do German, Dutch, English, French, or Danish Americans have an undue amount of love and respect for Germany, Holland, England, France, or Denmark.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 8:01:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/7/2015 3:34:54 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
THIS is cultural appropriation > https://twitter.com...

THIS is cultural appreciation > https://twitter.com...

Do you see the difference? I do.

I don't see what is wrong with Angelina Jolie wearing the Hijab? In my experience people in Muslim countries appreciate it when Western women wear it while visiting or living in their countries. They see it as a sign of respect.

First and foremost, people who are white should not be punished for injustices of the past by limiting their freedom of expression.

You clearly didn't read what I said, because your response surely doesn't reflect that you have. I never said anything about white people being punished for anything. I also said nothing about limiting anyone's freedom of expression. Nice red herring and straw man arguments though.

Yeah, but that's what the concept of "cultural appropriation" leads to. People are always going to hold you accountable for what the dominant culture did in the past (if you are a part of it), and they are always going to be looking for a justification for what you do, whether it is wearing dreadlocks or playing funk music.

"I see little to no evidence that this adoption of hair style is okay for people who are white as compared to people who are black." in other words - "I don't see it therefore it's not true" Right. It's still appropriation.

Here are a few examples of black people being fired/expelled over hair.
http://www.ibtimes.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://nypost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Show me the same for white people, then we'll talk about who actually gets "punished" and their freedom of expression "limited".

First of all, you dismiss wikipedia as a source but you accept the Huffington Post?
Like PeacefulChaos said, there are very few "whites" who wear hairstyles similar to those of "blacks", however... I have been to schools where I've been asked (forced) to cut my hair because the school didn't approve of it (too long). I know people who have been fired or not accepted at all because their hair was "inappropriate" (mohawk, too long, spiky, etc.). This isn't discrimination, this is old people being cranky.

And in none of the links you posted do I see evidence that they are being fired/expelled because their hair is "black" as opposed to "indecent." And one of your examples was blatantly hypocritical, the one about the Hooters girl. You are complaining about "cultural theft" on the part of whites when they wear dreadlocks but you are defending "cultural theft" by blacks when they dye their hair blond. In any case I will pass judgment on that one while, as the phrase goes, the jury is out.

See above. This wouldn't be an issue if black people weren't constantly discriminated against for it. Additionally, what you are requesting evidence for is incredibly convoluted. Try being reasonable in your request. That being said, I provided enough evidence, where is yours?

Just off the net:
http://www.hr.com...
http://nypost.com...

I am confused by your somewhat contradictory statements.

Someone who chooses a certain hairstyle because they find it cool, beautiful, or interesting wouldn't be mocking and exploiting such a hairstyle. They would be appreciating it by default, because they find it cool, beautiful, or interesting.

False. You are clearly being selective in your interpretation of the topic on purpose. Cultural appropriation is not just mocking, and exploiting (which that is), it's the dominant culture taking what doesn't belong to them. That is not appreciation.

So, are you okay with Jews eating Chinese food on Christmas? Or is this also a case of the dreadful scourge of "cultural appropriation"?

False. Appropriation is appropriation. That doesn't require knowing anyone's individual intentions.

So white people should not wear dreadlocks or play Jazz, Funk, or Blues?

This leads to a tense and awkward atmosphere where anyone who wants to try out anything from another culture has to constantly defend themselves and make it painfully and obviously clear that they have good intentions. Once again, this kind of atmosphere encourages segregation.

False. See above. They don't have to defend appropriation, we already know what it is. And you have no evidence that opposing appropriation encourages segregation.

Well, most of the evidence for this is bound to be anecdotal. That said, I know people who don't listen to "rap" because it is "black music" and they don't want people thinking of them as "wiggers." This does not happen with Rock and Blues, because these genres were popularized before anyone came up with the concept of "cultural appropriation."

Personal struggle associated with black urban poor, which she exploited for her own personal gain. What is not wrong about this? That is cultural appropriation.

But isn't rapping about personal struggle considered to be a staple of rap music? In other words, isn't it almost a part of the music itself, like agonizing--often unrequited--love is part of the Blues? You almost can't write a Blues song that is not about that.

See above. Again enjoying or appreciating another culture is not the same as appropriating that culture.

How would a white rapper go about appreciating "black culture" without crossing the line into appropriation? The difference seems to be very subjective.

Since when is this a requirement for a culture to exist? I'm almost 100% positive that a culture can exist without having its origins stripped from them. In fact, having your origins stripped from you seems like something that would help destroy a culture, not make one exist

Congrats, that last statement describes exactly what cultural appropriation leads to. Seems as if you do understand the topic after all. That being said, I said it's called "black culture" because in America, most black people are African American and they are commonly referred to as just black, that is why. If it were Brazil, it would be afro-Brazilian culture and so on.

I think it would be much better for all of us, if everyone stopped thinking about "blacks" being different, and the very notion of a "black culture" was abandoned.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2015 9:24:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/3/2015 6:40:04 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 8/3/2015 3:31:44 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Perhaps the title is somewhat misleading. This thread is not concerned with the negative consequences of cultural appropriation, but rather the negative consequences of the concept of cultural appropriation. Allow me to explain.

There are many individuals who view cultural appropriation as an evil or bad thing and, consequently, put down what they deem to be instances of appropriation. For example, some people don't like rappers or hip-hop artists who are white while others attack people for putting their hair in box braids. The concept that cultural appropriation is bad has led us to a point where it actively encourages segregation of cultures based on skin color. Instead of enjoying multiculturalism or allowing cultures to mix and combine to possibly form something new, there is a mindset of preserving the original culture, as though it can be contaminated.

Reasonably speaking, there can be examples of cultural appropriation that are deemed disrespectful or, in some instances, insulting; however, such cases of people who are white adopting elements of the "black culture" can hardly be seen as such. Instead, this idea that cultural appropriation is repulsive has driven parts of society to a point where they reflect somewhat racist and bigoted ideals, refusing to agree with people who are white try out new hair styles or make new music.

I find this detrimental because I've been raised with the idea that I should love and learn about other cultures, and we should realize that we are all human and that race and culture shouldn't be something that separate us. Perhaps this is why I react negatively when people decry an action as "cultural appropriation." I also see a similar effect taking place with the concept of white privilege, where people can judge one another on the basis of their skin color to infer what benefits they may or may have not received in life. These concepts, while attempted to remind people of racism in America, simply seem to reinforce segregation and make the racial and cultural divides between people more distinct.

What does everyone else think about this matter?

Disclaimer: I am not arguing for or against the existence of cultural appropriation or white privilege. This thread is merely a discussion concerning the impacts these concepts and their results have had on society.

I do not believe you are fully aware of what 'cultural appropriation' is and what it refers to so allow me to explain as much about the concept as I can and explain why it is harmful and looked down upon by many people. Cultural appropriation is a practice that typically involves members of a dominant group exploiting the culture of non-dominant or marginalized groups - often with little understanding of the latter"s history, experience, and traditions. It is much more complex than "adopting elements of a different culture" - it is pretty much stealing elements of a non-dominant culture, taking credit for it, profiting from it, or making a mockery of it all together. That is what the word "appropriate" means - to take to or for oneself; take possession of to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

That is why it is harmful. It has nothing to do with people wanting to segregate or alienate themselves or exclude other people from taking interest in their culture. But there is a fine line between appropriating another culture, and showing appreciation for another culture. Cultural appropriation is disrespectful and has been so commonplace throughout history. For example, dressing up in 'blackface' is a form of cultural appropriation, and that was used to mock, shame, and dehumanize African Americans, their culture, and ethnic identity for decades.

Today, you see appropriation of black culture in music, fashion, and film. While black Americans were shamed for their culture, suddenly it became acceptable when the dominant culture exploits it and profits from it. This is cultural appropriation and it has consequences. One being the fact that the non-dominant culture often gets erased completely and gets no recognition for their cultural influences. This is the case with the music industry in the 1950's when white musicians appropriated the musical style of black musicians because African Americans were not widely accepted or respected in the entertainment industry or society in general at that time. This led record executives to have white recording artists replicate the sound of black musicians which resulted in musical genres like rock-n-roll being largely associated with white Americans despite the fact that black musicians were pioneers of the genre. And to this day, white musicians still profit from this and blacks are still not fully accepted into the genre. And it had financial consequences for the black musicians who helped make rock-n-roll a success as they never received any profit or recognition for their contributions to the music they produced. So as you can see from this one example, this is why people are so vocal against cultural appropriation. It is stealing and exploitation.

So Whites should have stayed out of the Hip Hop industry because they're just exploiting Black culture and erasing recognition of Hip Hop as being a Black invention?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 6:05:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 7:00:42 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 7:19:35 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 8/3/2015 6:57:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is the case with the music industry in the 1950's when white musicians appropriated the musical style of black musicians because African Americans were not widely accepted or respected in the entertainment industry or society in general at that time. This led record executives to have white recording artists replicate the sound of black musicians which resulted in musical genres like rock-n-roll being largely associated with white Americans despite the fact that black musicians were pioneers of the genre.

This argument always seemed a bit ridiculous me. A HUGE amount of the old Jazz standards were written by Cole Porter. 'Stormy Weather' was written by two white men, and it was first sung by a white woman, yet Lena Horne became famous for it. Jazz was really a melting pot, and artists have always borrowed from one another. Rock may have drawn from the blues, but the blues were still the blues, and rock is still rock, and they took their separate evolutionary tracts. Were white people racist in their reaction to music? Absolutely. But blaming the artists for cultural appropriation, in a field which was forged by musical conversations between different cultural communities, seems puritanical to the point of farce.

You obviously dismissed everything I said and went right into the defensive mode. Good job! First of all, I never said anything about jazz music. That is a completely different genre of music from the one I mentioned in my first post. Therefore whatever you have to say about that is completely irrelevant because it's nothing more than a red herring argument. Second, if you actually read what I said, you would notice that I never accused any artists of directly appropriating culture, even though they were, it was the record executives who introduced the replication of sound and style from black Americans and profited most from it. The artists, who were white, simply gained more recognition for it. They are "the face" of a genre that was largely influenced and introduced by black Americans from the start. And lastly, there are no "conversations between different cultural communities" involved if certain cultures are denied recognition while the dominant one takes all the credit, exploits and profits from said cultures. That is cultural appropriation, and yes it was and still is present in the music industry.

Denied recognition? I am sorry, but this is nonsense. When were people like B.B. King, Chuck Berry, John Lee Hooker, and Robert Johnson denied credit? By whom? The masses? Sure, but not by the people involved in the music. Anyone who knows anything about rock music, and blues, knows that these guys started it all. Hell, the most widely recognized guitar god was a black guy (Hendrix).

I agree with the OP. The concept of "cultural appropriation" is harmful, it breeds nothing but resentment on the part of one group and scorn on the part of the other groups.

"I am sorry, but this is nonsense."

What a mind-blowing refutation, good job... NOT! And judging from the abundance of ignorance in your response it is evident that you obviously lack comprehension of the topic. That is your issue. And the way I see it, the only thing that breeds resentment is people taking what doesn't belong to them, exploiting it, mocking it, misusing it, profiting from it, denying any form of recognition to the original owner, and calling it "sharing". But you tried, continue to wallow in your ignorance.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 6:07:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
No, most white people simply discarded their original culture. Not many German Americans read Goethe, Heine, or Mann. And when they do, it is usually not because these authors are German. Same with French Americans, when they do read Voltaire or Stendhal because these guys are French. Nor do German, Dutch, English, French, or Danish Americans have an undue amount of love and respect for Germany, Holland, England, France, or Denmark.

Irrelevant. They Assimilated to the ever evolving culture of the American mainstream. That still has nothing to do with what I said about cultural appropriation.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 6:35:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
THIS is cultural appropriation > https://twitter.com...

THIS is cultural appreciation > https://twitter.com...

Do you see the difference? I do.

I don't see what is wrong with Angelina Jolie wearing the Hijab? In my experience people in Muslim countries appreciate it when Western women wear it while visiting or living in their countries. They see it as a sign of respect.

"I don't see what is wrong with Angelina Jolie wearing the Hijab?" - DUH because that isn't cultural appropriation, that is cultural appreciation. I clearly specified that and posted that to show the difference between the two, which you clearly didn't understand.

Yeah, but that's what the concept of "cultural appropriation" leads to. People are always going to hold you accountable for what the dominant culture did in the past (if you are a part of it), and they are always going to be looking for a justification for what you do, whether it is wearing dreadlocks or playing funk music.

What?

"I see little to no evidence that this adoption of hair style is okay for people who are white as compared to people who are black." in other words - "I don't see it therefore it's not true" Right. It's still appropriation.

Here are a few examples of black people being fired/expelled over hair.
http://www.ibtimes.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://nypost.com...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Show me the same for white people, then we'll talk about who actually gets "punished" and their freedom of expression "limited".

First of all, you dismiss wikipedia as a source but you accept the Huffington Post?
Like PeacefulChaos said, there are very few "whites" who wear hairstyles similar to those of "blacks", however... I have been to schools where I've been asked (forced) to cut my hair because the school didn't approve of it (too long). I know people who have been fired or not accepted at all because their hair was "inappropriate" (mohawk, too long, spiky, etc.). This isn't discrimination, this is old people being cranky.

Nice deflection. You are really good at that. First of all, I never "dismissed" Wikipedia as a source, I simply stated that it was not a VALID source, because it's not. Second, HuffingtonPost, regardless of it's agenda, is an actual international news outlet. The stories being reported actually occurred, therefore they ARE valid. And lastly, no one is talking about old people banning hairstyles they don't like, this is about people of certain races and cultures being discriminated against for not being able, or refusing to assimilate into dominant culture.

And in none of the links you posted do I see evidence that they are being fired/expelled because their hair is "black" as opposed to "indecent." And one of your examples was blatantly hypocritical, the one about the Hooters girl. You are complaining about "cultural theft" on the part of whites when they wear dreadlocks but you are defending "cultural theft" by blacks when they dye their hair blond. In any case I will pass judgment on that one while, as the phrase goes, the jury is out.

1. How is an afro NOT "black" hair if they are black and BORN with afro textured hair?
2. The first example I chose shows cultural assimilation, or rather just experimentation NOT appropriation. So there is no hypocrisy or "cultural theft" especially when there are black people born with blonde hair. Blonde hair is not exclusive to "white people". Nice try though. The only hypocrisy here is from the dominant culture.
3. Dreads are used to preserve and style naturally afro textured "black" hair. It originated in West Africa. White people don't need dreads to preserve their natural hair. They took it a exploited it because they thought it was cool, not for its intended purpose. That is appropriation.

Just off the net:
http://www.hr.com...
http://nypost.com...

Neither of those examples have to do with race, ethnicity or culture. Again, nice attempt but you can at least try to stay on topic.

So, are you okay with Jews eating Chinese food on Christmas? Or is this also a case of the dreadful scourge of "cultural appropriation"?

1. Deflection.
2. Red Herring.
= Logically fallacious argument = invalid.

So white people should not wear dreadlocks or play Jazz, Funk, or Blues?

1. Straw man argument. Never said that.
Again logically fallacious argument. Try again.

Well, most of the evidence for this is bound to be anecdotal. That said, I know people who don't listen to "rap" because it is "black music" and they don't want people thinking of them as "wiggers." This does not happen with Rock and Blues, because these genres were popularized before anyone came up with the concept of "cultural appropriation."

That has nothing to do with cultural appropriation.

But isn't rapping about personal struggle considered to be a staple of rap music? In other words, isn't it almost a part of the music itself, like agonizing--often unrequited--love is part of the Blues? You almost can't write a Blues song that is not about that.

It would be if SHE DID NOT GROW UP IN WHITE SUBURBS OF AUSTRALIA. She lied in her music about experiencing challenges that black urban poor experience. Again, appropriation.

How would a white rapper go about appreciating "black culture" without crossing the line into appropriation? The difference seems to be very subjective.

Simple. Don't exploit it, don't mock it, don't use it for your own personal gain, don't call it yours if it doesn't originally belong to you by refusing to give any recognition to those who created it. That doesn't seem very subjective.

Congrats, that last statement describes exactly what cultural appropriation leads to. Seems as if you do understand the topic after all. That being said, I said it's called "black culture" because in America, most black people are African American and they are commonly referred to as just black, that is why. If it were Brazil, it would be afro-Brazilian culture and so on.

I think it would be much better for all of us, if everyone stopped thinking about "blacks" being different, and the very notion of a "black culture" was abandoned

How about not? Black Americans have their own culture, a culture they created and changed, and also had taken from them, for centuries. It should not be abandoned because you get offended when they don't like you stealing from them.
briantheliberal
Posts: 722
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 6:37:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/8/2015 9:24:33 PM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
At 8/3/2015 6:40:04 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 8/3/2015 3:31:44 AM, PeacefulChaos wrote:
Perhaps the title is somewhat misleading. This thread is not concerned with the negative consequences of cultural appropriation, but rather the negative consequences of the concept of cultural appropriation. Allow me to explain.

There are many individuals who view cultural appropriation as an evil or bad thing and, consequently, put down what they deem to be instances of appropriation. For example, some people don't like rappers or hip-hop artists who are white while others attack people for putting their hair in box braids. The concept that cultural appropriation is bad has led us to a point where it actively encourages segregation of cultures based on skin color. Instead of enjoying multiculturalism or allowing cultures to mix and combine to possibly form something new, there is a mindset of preserving the original culture, as though it can be contaminated.

Reasonably speaking, there can be examples of cultural appropriation that are deemed disrespectful or, in some instances, insulting; however, such cases of people who are white adopting elements of the "black culture" can hardly be seen as such. Instead, this idea that cultural appropriation is repulsive has driven parts of society to a point where they reflect somewhat racist and bigoted ideals, refusing to agree with people who are white try out new hair styles or make new music.

I find this detrimental because I've been raised with the idea that I should love and learn about other cultures, and we should realize that we are all human and that race and culture shouldn't be something that separate us. Perhaps this is why I react negatively when people decry an action as "cultural appropriation." I also see a similar effect taking place with the concept of white privilege, where people can judge one another on the basis of their skin color to infer what benefits they may or may have not received in life. These concepts, while attempted to remind people of racism in America, simply seem to reinforce segregation and make the racial and cultural divides between people more distinct.

What does everyone else think about this matter?

Disclaimer: I am not arguing for or against the existence of cultural appropriation or white privilege. This thread is merely a discussion concerning the impacts these concepts and their results have had on society.

I do not believe you are fully aware of what 'cultural appropriation' is and what it refers to so allow me to explain as much about the concept as I can and explain why it is harmful and looked down upon by many people. Cultural appropriation is a practice that typically involves members of a dominant group exploiting the culture of non-dominant or marginalized groups - often with little understanding of the latter"s history, experience, and traditions. It is much more complex than "adopting elements of a different culture" - it is pretty much stealing elements of a non-dominant culture, taking credit for it, profiting from it, or making a mockery of it all together. That is what the word "appropriate" means - to take to or for oneself; take possession of to take without permission or consent; seize; expropriate:

http://dictionary.reference.com...

That is why it is harmful. It has nothing to do with people wanting to segregate or alienate themselves or exclude other people from taking interest in their culture. But there is a fine line between appropriating another culture, and showing appreciation for another culture. Cultural appropriation is disrespectful and has been so commonplace throughout history. For example, dressing up in 'blackface' is a form of cultural appropriation, and that was used to mock, shame, and dehumanize African Americans, their culture, and ethnic identity for decades.

Today, you see appropriation of black culture in music, fashion, and film. While black Americans were shamed for their culture, suddenly it became acceptable when the dominant culture exploits it and profits from it. This is cultural appropriation and it has consequences. One being the fact that the non-dominant culture often gets erased completely and gets no recognition for their cultural influences. This is the case with the music industry in the 1950's when white musicians appropriated the musical style of black musicians because African Americans were not widely accepted or respected in the entertainment industry or society in general at that time. This led record executives to have white recording artists replicate the sound of black musicians which resulted in musical genres like rock-n-roll being largely associated with white Americans despite the fact that black musicians were pioneers of the genre. And to this day, white musicians still profit from this and blacks are still not fully accepted into the genre. And it had financial consequences for the black musicians who helped make rock-n-roll a success as they never received any profit or recognition for their contributions to the music they produced. So as you can see from this one example, this is why people are so vocal against cultural appropriation. It is stealing and exploitation.

So Whites should have stayed out of the Hip Hop industry because they're just exploiting Black culture and erasing recognition of Hip Hop as being a Black invention?

I am 100% certain that is not what I said. I am really getting tired of your petty, and ridiculous straw man arguments. You're dismissed.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 10:21:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 6:05:43 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 8/8/2015 7:00:42 PM, HououinKyouma wrote:
At 8/3/2015 7:19:35 AM, briantheliberal wrote:
At 8/3/2015 6:57:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
This is the case with the music industry in the 1950's when white musicians appropriated the musical style of black musicians because African Americans were not widely accepted or respected in the entertainment industry or society in general at that time. This led record executives to have white recording artists replicate the sound of black musicians which resulted in musical genres like rock-n-roll being largely associated with white Americans despite the fact that black musicians were pioneers of the genre.

This argument always seemed a bit ridiculous me. A HUGE amount of the old Jazz standards were written by Cole Porter. 'Stormy Weather' was written by two white men, and it was first sung by a white woman, yet Lena Horne became famous for it. Jazz was really a melting pot, and artists have always borrowed from one another. Rock may have drawn from the blues, but the blues were still the blues, and rock is still rock, and they took their separate evolutionary tracts. Were white people racist in their reaction to music? Absolutely. But blaming the artists for cultural appropriation, in a field which was forged by musical conversations between different cultural communities, seems puritanical to the point of farce.

You obviously dismissed everything I said and went right into the defensive mode. Good job! First of all, I never said anything about jazz music. That is a completely different genre of music from the one I mentioned in my first post. Therefore whatever you have to say about that is completely irrelevant because it's nothing more than a red herring argument. Second, if you actually read what I said, you would notice that I never accused any artists of directly appropriating culture, even though they were, it was the record executives who introduced the replication of sound and style from black Americans and profited most from it. The artists, who were white, simply gained more recognition for it. They are "the face" of a genre that was largely influenced and introduced by black Americans from the start. And lastly, there are no "conversations between different cultural communities" involved if certain cultures are denied recognition while the dominant one takes all the credit, exploits and profits from said cultures. That is cultural appropriation, and yes it was and still is present in the music industry.

Denied recognition? I am sorry, but this is nonsense. When were people like B.B. King, Chuck Berry, John Lee Hooker, and Robert Johnson denied credit? By whom? The masses? Sure, but not by the people involved in the music. Anyone who knows anything about rock music, and blues, knows that these guys started it all. Hell, the most widely recognized guitar god was a black guy (Hendrix).

I agree with the OP. The concept of "cultural appropriation" is harmful, it breeds nothing but resentment on the part of one group and scorn on the part of the other groups.

"I am sorry, but this is nonsense."

What a mind-blowing refutation, good job... NOT! And judging from the abundance of ignorance in your response it is evident that you obviously lack comprehension of the topic. That is your issue. And the way I see it, the only thing that breeds resentment is people taking what doesn't belong to them, exploiting it, mocking it, misusing it, profiting from it, denying any form of recognition to the original owner, and calling it "sharing". But you tried, continue to wallow in your ignorance.

Well, your rebuttal is not much either, this is what I actually said in response to your clearly false claim that the black musicians who created blues music were not given recognition:

"Denied recognition? I am sorry, but this is nonsense. When were people like B.B. King, Chuck Berry, John Lee Hooker, and Robert Johnson denied credit? By whom? The masses? Sure, but not by the people involved in the music. Anyone who knows anything about rock music, and blues, knows that these guys started it all. Hell, the most widely recognized guitar god was a black guy (Hendrix)."

You have not refuted my claims. It seems that it is because you can't. It also seems that you take this a bit too personally.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 10:24:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 6:07:49 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
No, most white people simply discarded their original culture. Not many German Americans read Goethe, Heine, or Mann. And when they do, it is usually not because these authors are German. Same with French Americans, when they do read Voltaire or Stendhal because these guys are French. Nor do German, Dutch, English, French, or Danish Americans have an undue amount of love and respect for Germany, Holland, England, France, or Denmark.

Irrelevant. They Assimilated to the ever evolving culture of the American mainstream. That still has nothing to do with what I said about cultural appropriation.

You said that there is no such thing as a "white culture" because whites had not had their culture stripped away from them, unlike blacks. I was just correcting you. "Whites" willingly, for the most part, abandoned their culture.

And look at the difference! We have on the one hand "black culture" and on the other "mainstream American culture". Don't you think it would be much better if "blacks" simply allowed their culture to be absorbed by the mainstream, rather than reacting aggressively and defensively against any attempts to assimilate it into the mainstream?
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/10/2015 11:12:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/10/2015 6:35:48 PM, briantheliberal wrote:
THIS is cultural appropriation > https://twitter.com...

THIS is cultural appreciation > https://twitter.com...

Do you see the difference? I do.

I don't see what is wrong with Angelina Jolie wearing the Hijab? In my experience people in Muslim countries appreciate it when Western women wear it while visiting or living in their countries. They see it as a sign of respect.

"I don't see what is wrong with Angelina Jolie wearing the Hijab?" - DUH because that isn't cultural appropriation, that is cultural appreciation. I clearly specified that and posted that to show the difference between the two, which you clearly didn't understand.

Sorry, it seems that the first link was not opening properly. Anyway, now that I have seen the pictures that grieved you so much, I still can't understand what offends you so much, neither can I see the difference. I dress like that all the time. I have Libyan hats, Kilts, Kimonos, Keffiyehs, Shewanis, and Ushankas; I wear them all the time, and I can't remember any time when a Libyan, Scottish, Japanese, Kuwaiti, Indian, or Russian person complained to me about it. Would you consider my actions as appropriation or appreciation?

Yeah, but that's what the concept of "cultural appropriation" leads to. People are always going to hold you accountable for what the dominant culture did in the past (if you are a part of it), and they are always going to be looking for a justification for what you do, whether it is wearing dreadlocks or playing funk music.

What?

I think it is self explanatory. If you wear dreadlocks how are people to know whether you are "appropriating" (bad) or "appreciating" (good)?

First of all, you dismiss wikipedia as a source but you accept the Huffington Post?
Like PeacefulChaos said, there are very few "whites" who wear hairstyles similar to those of "blacks", however... I have been to schools where I've been asked (forced) to cut my hair because the school didn't approve of it (too long). I know people who have been fired or not accepted at all because their hair was "inappropriate" (mohawk, too long, spiky, etc.). This isn't discrimination, this is old people being cranky.

Nice deflection. You are really good at that. First of all, I never "dismissed" Wikipedia as a source, I simply stated that it was not a VALID source, because it's not.

That's dismissing it as a source.

Second, HuffingtonPost, regardless of it's agenda, is an actual international news outlet. The stories being reported actually occurred, therefore they ARE valid.

Yes, but the reports might be incomplete or slanted, as were some of the links you posted.

And lastly, no one is talking about old people banning hairstyles they don't like, this is about people of certain races and cultures being discriminated against for not being able, or refusing to assimilate into dominant culture.

And in none of the links you posted do I see evidence that they are being fired/expelled because their hair is "black" as opposed to "indecent." And one of your examples was blatantly hypocritical, the one about the Hooters girl. You are complaining about "cultural theft" on the part of whites when they wear dreadlocks but you are defending "cultural theft" by blacks when they dye their hair blond. In any case I will pass judgment on that one while, as the phrase goes, the jury is out.

1. How is an afro NOT "black" hair if they are black and BORN with afro textured hair?

The same way that long straight hair is not "German" (for instance) because you were born with straight hair. Doesn't mean you can't cut it. Some Jews are also born with afro textured hair, but a Jewfro is not "Jewish".

2. The first example I chose shows cultural assimilation, or rather just experimentation NOT appropriation. So there is no hypocrisy or "cultural theft" especially when there are black people born with blonde hair. Blonde hair is not exclusive to "white people". Nice try though. The only hypocrisy here is from the dominant culture.

We don't know if there is any hypocrisy involved. The jury is still out. And, a few albinos aside, blonde hair is predominantly a trait of Indo-European ethnic groups.

3. Dreads are used to preserve and style naturally afro textured "black" hair. It originated in West Africa. White people don't need dreads to preserve their natural hair. They took it a exploited it because they thought it was cool, not for its intended purpose. That is appropriation.

How is that appropriation? That sounds to me like "appreciation". Unless you can show malicious intent, then there is nothing wrong with whites wearing dreads, specially when most of those who do love everything about "black culture", be it rap, funk, jazz, reggae, etc.

Neither of those examples have to do with race, ethnicity or culture. Again, nice attempt but you can at least try to stay on topic.

They do. Straight hair is more prevalent among Indo-Europeans--there you have race and ethnicity--and certain people like, for cultural reasons, to wear their hair long. So it is relevant to the topic.

So, are you okay with Jews eating Chinese food on Christmas? Or is this also a case of the dreadful scourge of "cultural appropriation"?

1. Deflection.
2. Red Herring.
= Logically fallacious argument = invalid.

How is it a red herring? We are talking about cultural appropriation, and I asked a genuine and relevant question, you are the one who is deflecting the argument. Answer the question.

So white people should not wear dreadlocks or play Jazz, Funk, or Blues?

1. Straw man argument. Never said that.
Again logically fallacious argument. Try again.

You are certainly very critical of whites who wear dreadlocks, and of white people who like rap and other "black music".

Well, most of the evidence for this is bound to be anecdotal. That said, I know people who don't listen to "rap" because it is "black music" and they don't want people thinking of them as "wiggers." This does not happen with Rock and Blues, because these genres were popularized before anyone came up with the concept of "cultural appropriation."

That has nothing to do with cultural appropriation.

Deflection. I addressed the point head on.

It would be if SHE DID NOT GROW UP IN WHITE SUBURBS OF AUSTRALIA. She lied in her music about experiencing challenges that black urban poor experience. Again, appropriation.

Can you prove that she lied? That she intentionally tried to portray herself as having lived a life different than her own? Or were the lyrics just part of her artistic persona? Not that this has any relevance to the topic at hand. Even if she did lie, so what? Again, if I wrote a blues song about a lost love, but I've never experienced that, I don't see what is the problem.

Simple. Don't exploit it, don't mock it, don't use it for your own personal gain, don't call it yours if it doesn't originally belong to you by refusing to give any recognition to those who created it. That doesn't seem very subjective.

This is very vague. Can you elaborate a bit more? How would you go about about "giving recognition to those who created it", for example?

How about not? Black Americans have their own culture, a culture they created and changed, and also had taken from them, for centuries. It should not be abandoned because you get offended when they don't like you stealing from them.

Only that no one has stolen "blacks" their culture. No one has barred black people from listening to rock, or blues, or jazz, or reggae, or whatever. And actually, I think there would be less resentment and hatred around if blacks stopped thinking of themselv
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/11/2015 6:00:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
<(8D)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL