What is "cultural appropriation" ?
If you steal something from me, you infringe on my possibility to use my property as I wish. If you steal my car, I can no longer use it. If you steal my intellectual property, for example the song I created, I can no longer make money with that song as I did before.
Most examples of "cultural appropriation" are just examples of cultural transfer, one culture adopts ideas or practices some other people invented. Did the Maori invent tattoos? Or maybe did their ancestors adopt it from some neighbor tribe long ago?
But when we in the West adopt tattoos or a music style Black people created, the possibility of those who used it before is not infringed. The Maori can still practice their tradition like they did before. Black people could still play the Blues like they did, even after white musicians started to adopt this kind of music.
IMO, the whole concept that a culture "owns" some idea is rubbish. Do we Germans "own" our words? Did Americans, when they adopted German words like "kindergarten" or "zeitgeist" steal our property? Does not make sense to me.
Most examples of "cultural appropriation" are just examples of cultural transfer, one culture adopts ideas or practices some other people invented. Did the Maori invent tattoos? Or maybe did their ancestors adopt it from some neighbor tribe long ago?
But when we in the West adopt tattoos or a music style Black people created, the possibility of those who used it before is not infringed. The Maori can still practice their tradition like they did before. Black people could still play the Blues like they did, even after white musicians started to adopt this kind of music.
IMO, the whole concept that a culture "owns" some idea is rubbish. Do we Germans "own" our words? Did Americans, when they adopted German words like "kindergarten" or "zeitgeist" steal our property? Does not make sense to me.
Comments (119)
It's a misused and misunderstood term as is apparent from your post. There are cases where vulnerable/dominated cultures may suffer degradation through misuse/misrepresentation of their practices/traditions by others and cases where they may not. But rather than analyze them, let's just bash a strawman, and by extension all things PC, because that's much easier and more fun than actually exploring the real damage to people and their way of life that can potentially be done by stupidly fucking with stuff that is very serious to them.
You're right. I'll stop eating burritos now.
Oh dear, I hope you find a more appropriate place to put them. :halo:
You seem emotionally invested in the topic. What most of us hear about the subject is college kids who demand that sushi be banned from campus menus, or that parties featuring Mexican sombreros are racist. What we hear about cultural appropriation mostly seems like childish acting out by spoiled leftists. If you can articulate some specific examples where it's really something that is evil, and perhaps give us some guidelines as to what's evil and what's silly, it would be helpful.
Some young woman wore a Chinese-influenced dress to the prom and the SJWs went nuts.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/04/american-woman-qipao-china-cultural-appropriation-minorities-usa-dress
Can you give me a razor by which I can distinguish the serious from the silly? That would be helpful. Telling me to stick a burrito up my ass isn't helpful. Perhaps you can see that.
Lol. Have I now upset your PC sensibilities? It was a joke. At least you got it, I suppose. Anyhow, try Googling cultural appropriation to find out what it is and why it may be more than what Fox News (or whoever) tells you. I'm not going to hold your hand on this.
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~rar/papers/RogersCT2006.pdf
"Cultural appropriation ... is an active process ...The active ‘‘making one’s own’’ of another culture’s elements occurs ... in various ways, under a variety of conditions, and with varying functions and outcomes. The degree and scope of voluntariness (individually or culturally), the symmetry or asymmetry of power relations, the appropriation’s role in domination and/or resistance, the nature of the cultural boundaries involved, and other factors shape, and are shaped by, acts of cultural appropriation."
Take the case of dot paintings by indigenous Australians. These are culturally unique and come from a rich, millennia-old, tradition of producing these paintings on bark using ochres made from clay and other natural ingredients. The pictures have special meanings and even the tiniest detail of a pattern can have a significance. The style is popular and affluent non-indigenous people buy paintings from aboriginal workshops to display in their homes. The sale of such paintings by indigenous people is a rare source of income for a people that suffer enormous socioeconomic disadvantage.
Sometimes non-indigenous businesses start making and selling their own paintings, that are either direct copies of aboriginal designs, or made up using the same general style, intended to look as though it was done in the indigenous tradition, but lacking any of the meaning that the original works had. Such businesses can get the paintings made in some low-wage country, without involving any indigenous people, and they undercut the authentic market, thereby taking income away from the indigenous people.
Would you agree that in that case, the activity of the non-indigenous business is harmful?
If so, it is then worth exploring less extreme cases. Perhaps the incident of the fashion designer Carolina Herrera launching a line using indigenous Mexican patterns, without using any indigenous Mexican people or allowing any profits to flow to the indigenous Mexican community, is what piqued your interest. It sounds bad to me, but I am not across the full details of the case, so I would be interested to see a discussion of that.
I think that is the crux of the issue ;)
Culture is one thing (hula dancing) material resources are a different thing. It isn't wrong for people in Iceland to practice hula dancing of the sort that is done in Hawaii. There is something wrong with the industrial production of SW American Indian folk art (blankets, pottery, baskets, etc.) by non-Indians and then wrecking the tribal economy by setting up markets for fake "authentic American Indian Art" down the road from the real tribal art sales rooms. There might be something wrong with tribal members selling fake folk art work too -- but this falls into the category of fair trade practices and unfair competition -- not cultural appropriation.
The accusation of "cultural appropriation" comes out of the authoritarian urge to forbid people from behaving normally -- like eating other culture's foods, wearing their fabric designs, or learning their languages.
I have heard uses that are absurd, so there is little question in my mind that it can be used poorly. I do think there are clear examples. I think the way black music was more or less stolen - paid very poorly for, rights not granted around, etc. - then appeared via white artists earlier in history is an example where the term has meaning. Of course white artists could be exploited by corporations, but blacks were per se exploited with a difference in quality and degree of exploitation. Other people made money off their work, people of other races. They often barely got by or did not get by while others stole the products of their culture. And this would include white artists who would use their songs adn not be exploited as badly by the industry as the blacks were.
The central question remains: Do human groups own their culture?
If you fail to see why some people are offended by misrepresentation there’s probably not much I can say. I do care if someone believes I have purposelessly offended them though when I haven’t (could be due to my ignorance or their’s), or possibly if they take an insult as a compliment.
There are other kinds of cultural appropriation, but this is one kind.
If someone is getting paid for it, they should. Disney don't let nobody touch their stuff even stuff made by a guy long dead. They even extended the copywrite via lobbying.
I don't think people own their culture, but if someone is getting paid, they should. If you are using a part of someone's culture and making them look like idiots,w hen they are not and/or when you are distorting that culture, that's ugly.
You are benefitting - if you are - through mispresentation and using something you either do not understand or twist for your own purposes. Yes, there will be all sorts of gray areas.
Black artists systematically did not get royalties for their music. White artists did. White artists or their companies/agents have to pay royalties on music written by black artists. The was systematic in the 50s.
Aboriginal art was copied by whites in Australia and sold as authentic aboriginal art.
@Coben has pretty well covered the type of examples I'd want to talk about though I may dig up a few more later. In any case, my issue here stems primarily from the fact that cultural appropriation is another buzz concept (like PC), the misuses of which are presented in the media as typical in a way that obscures the potential import of the issue in certain contexts. It's much more entertaining and profitable—and often politically expedient—to select examples of misguided, or even downright perverse, accusations of cultural appropriation—the "Unhand that burrito!"/"Unmouth that German phrase!" type—than to seriously explore the other side of it. And the result is a sowing of seeds of ignorance, the harvest of which is not only bushels of increased ad revenue but streams of useful idiots to spread an anti-PC, anti-left, anti-progressive message. (Of course, if overzealous/confused liberals kept themselves more in check, the media wouldn't have so much to buzz over, so it's not all on the newsies.)
I don't agree with that definition, by the way. I only steal something from you if I take something that was yours, against your consent, so that you no longer have it. If you still have all of the stuff you had, but something I did has an impact on your opportunities to do things with the stuff you have, that doesn't count as "stealing."
Unsurprisingly, I disagree with the conventional wisdom about "intellectual property."
Cultural appropriation primarily seems to be an idea people adopted to have something else to be offended/outraged by, because people seem to enjoy being offended/outraged, especially lately.
I thought, and at a glance the definitions I’ve found agree, that it is about the misappropriate use of certain cultural - in a disrespectful manner. I may have been wrong about part of what I thought which was more about misrepresenting certain cultural attributes (I was thinking of ‘cannibals’ being views as bloodthirsty killers).
I wouldn’t say copying is stealing either? With the dishonesty involved it is certainly not a great thing to do - I thought, and correct me if I’m wrong, this wasn’t a matter of plagiarism?
Funnily enough I’ve just been writing about how “sushi” is misrepresented in the west; many people think it refers to “sashimi” - is that cultural appropriation if people sell “sashimi” as “sushi”?
If I want to wear a bindi, cross, kimono or Indian headdress because I think it looks cool is that okay? If I sing with a Jamaican accent because I prefer tone is that okay?
What does ‘disadvantaged minority cultures’ mean anyway? Do we take this on a city by city basis or country to country?
Thanks
It's clearly not only about money. Even in the examples given, that's only part of the equation. Aping cultures' (especially endangered ones') traditions in a way that stereotypes or denigrates them, regardless of financial considerations, is just as much, if not more, a form of unwelcome appropriation. How damaging it is would depend on the power relations involved, the type of cultural behaviour copied, its importance to the culture, in what way its appropriated, the level of impact on the culture and so on. @Bitter Crank tucking into a bowl of Irish stew would not bother an Irish person in the least (though they might wonder why he couldn't find something decent to eat). On the other hand, a well-known actor wearing an American Indian headdress and traditional tattoos for fun and encouraging others to do so could be offensive and damaging. Etc.
I see people with all kinds of tattoos from all manner of different cultures. Basically I still don’t understand what the issue is - as in how to specifically distinguish between ‘misuse’ and simply ‘use’ of other cultural symbols and traditions.
I think you get plenty of crazies pushing against people because this term doesn’t seem clear enough.
Cultures subsist in a tension between the sacred and the taboo. That's the energy that holds them together. Threaten that dynamic and they can fall apart. I don't want to speak for any culture other than my own, but a basic understanding of how culture's function should allow for an appreciation of their strengths and vulnerabilities. And as @andrewk pointed out, there's a spectrum of affect there. Many accusations along these lines will be trivial and misguided, but some are not and even those that are don't justify the tin-foil-hat-left-wing-guilt-trip conspiracy theory fostered by the right-wing media that the stupider among us will gobble up like catnip .
I'm not sure what irish stew is. In this part of the world, irish stew, spaghetti, goolash, chilli, spanish rice, and chow mein descend from a single basic slurry: browned ground beef with chopped onions, and canned tomatoes in various forms, including ketchup. Canned mushroom or chicken soup are often added, along with just a few other ingredients, mostly canned.
I occasionally engage in promiscuous eating, so I gather other people around the world eat food that is quite a bit more interesting than our poorly appropriated versions. The Hung Aryans make delicious Goulasch, but here "goolash" is just the basic slurry plus elbow macaroni. Spaghetti is exactly the same thing. Goolash and spaghetti are indisquishable.
The basic slurry menu is what you get when you don't appropriate enough of other people's cultures. For instance, Actual Chinese chow mein would never, never never have cream of mushroom soup in it, and it wouldn't be served on canned fried noodles (at least not THOSE canned fried noodles).
Minnesotans are suspicious of smelly cheese, so you won't find hausfraus putting Kraft™ parmesan (sold as dry cheese in a plastic container) on the basic slurry + elbow macaroni. There won't be any obscure Eyetalien flavourings like parsley, sage, rosemary, or thyme either. Maybe just a slight bit of garlic salt. Garlic is much too smelly to actually put enough in food to taste it.
I'm in favour of raiding other people's cultures. It's the only way to get a decent meal around here. It might be the only way to get a better religion, more interesting fabrics, new ideas in tattoos, or sustainable agriculture. Maybe there are fucking rituals I'd like to try.
Now I don't want you to appropriate upper midwestern culinary culture. I want you to come here and steal it lock, stock and barrel. Take away all of the canned mushroom soup and canned chow mein noodles. Leave the markets stripped of the sacred 15 ingredients from which the menu of the Minnesota diet can be transposed. You've heard of turning Gold into Lead? Steal the secret, please.
Please deprive us of elbow macaroni, and the know how to brown hamburger and onions together. I like maid-rights (the basic slurry of beef, onions, ketchup, cooked thoroughly and served on a bun) but really, maybe the Afghanis would enjoy them for a few centuries while we eat their quite acceptable lentil and rice dishes.
So a white fashion designer sees a pattern from and decides to copy that pattern. It is unlikely that the design was a defining piece of the entire group of people. It is far more likely that the design was specific and "owned" by a small group of people. Then you could argue for stealing, infringement, copyright, etc. But it's not an entire culture. To say that an entire group of people are defined by one specific thing is usually inaccurate.
I don't believe in "culture."
What in the world? First, what would be evidence of this?
Quoting fishfry
First, if it's coming from college students who hold very little power or influence, particularly regarding political and social matters, then who cares? Second, in some of these stories, such as the incident at Oberlin and sushi, and Vietnamese banh mi sandwich, the truth is far more banal than the various publications, ranging from The Atlantic, The New York Times, and right-wing publications such as National Review and Breitbart led on. No one was demanding that these food be "banned" from campus. A Vietnamese student was disappointed that a cafeteria dish advertised as a traditional Banh Mi Vietnamese sandwich was made with the wrong type of bread, the wrong type of pork, and the wrong type of other fillings and that it was disrespectful to advertise it as such despite complete lack of authenticity. According to the original article from the Oberlin Review, several students who initially raised complaints wanted to meet and collaborate with the Oberlin dining service and cultural student organizations in order to rework the dishes. The way I think of it for myself, is if my school had 'New York Pastrami Sandwiches' but it was served on potato bread instead of traditional rye bread, I would seek to have it corrected. If someone unfamiliar with your cultural foods were given a very inauthentic version of it, you'd seek to have it corrected, surely. This happens across cultures.
It can be about money, yes, under most definitions I find. But it is not limited to this. The term seems to cover presenting facets of other cultures in disrespectful ways, getting cred or coolness by using facets of other cultures and more. I went for examples where I thought more people would agree something wrong is going on. Then we have a concept many can agree has some validity and from there we can move on to more controversial examples. I don't think everything that gets labelled CA is bad. I do think however that the concept can be useful and that there are examples of it happening.
I would wear a Indian headdress as a costume just as I’d wear a military uniform or other religious garb. Just because offensive is felt it doesn’t mean it is intended; it is almost like people are being primed to be offended and assume the worst in people.
I don’t accept this as a monetary issue either. If people produce bad copies of authentic art and get caught they should be prosecuted - false advertising. If they make bad copies of traditional art and sell them at a huge profit then good for them!
The fact that there are prejudices in the market place does not make the producer of goods guilty - when such items become mainstream you do tend to find people seeking out the ‘origin’ of this or that movement so even though the original pioneers are often celebrated after death they are still generally celebrated (this is a common feature of the most prominent artists in history).
False advertising is false advertising. If something doesn’t do what it says in the tin the buyer has the right to take their money elsewhere and inform the seller about the problem.
The west isn’t particularly great at replicating eastern food and the east isn’t particularly great at replicating western food. Such is life. Slowly people will adjust. My friend looked for traditional eastern food in Canada and couldn’t find anything like the original taste (cooked by people from the east).
Note: the most popular dish in the UK is Chicken Tikka Masala ... are Indian/Bangladeshi chefs offended by this?
All in all I don’t see anything of note that has any real application outside of a general anthropological investigation into how cultures blend and change over time. Sadly the idea has been strongly pushed to favour ideological views on racism and prejudice - was the phrase coined originally for political means or has it been appropriated by the extreme political ends of the spectrum as a platform for screaming? I don’t know of its original intent and how it became an issue of contention.
I'll read it, thanks. I do actually recognize what is meant by cultural appropriation in the context of disrespect and ignorance. I don't really think it's just eating burritos. I take your point. Still, what we read in the papers is the silliness of certain SJWs. Perhaps they'd make their own case stronger by not being parodies of themselves.
Quoting Maw
LOL, Well I've had plenty of "New York pizza" on the left coast, but never any actual New York pizza. But you don't actually go into Togo's or Subway and thoughtfully explain to them that the meat product they sell as pastrami is to actual pastrami as cardboard is to steak. Do you?
Quoting I like sushiSome on the right will be offended by someone wearing priest outfits, going as Jesus, wearing certain military uniforms if they are not earned, burning a flag, wearing the flag as part of an outfit, going as certain historical figures (per se or if there is something mocking about it) and so on. Hell, you can get beat up for wearing what is considered weird or the wrong clothes by conservatives.
Quoting I like sushiOnly bad copies? What if they are good copies being sold as authentic? If you make good or bad copies of powerful people's works of art, they will come after you and force you to stop, including jail time. A difference is that in one situation you have a group that has come up with something, which makes it harder to patent/copywrite. The other difference is the power. Regardless it is parasitic.
How about if we (a) try to not be offended by anything, and (b) don't treat it as taboo to offend the offendable?
If that is how you define the term great. It seems reasonable enough. How on earth this can be proven is a more confusing matter. Also, “using” meaning plagiarism is already considered bad news.
I don’t quite see how using an artistic style of another person/s - short of copying - is necessarily bad though. If things are being relabelled and repackaged with an intent to deceive then I am against it.
As to your second comment, I don’t care much really. Right, left, extreme conservatives, or zealous contrary liberalism ... they’re all equal prey to their own stupidity and I’ve no qualms about wearing any kind of garb if it suits me to do so for the reasons I choose - those offended can be offended.
I specifically said ‘bad’ because if they were good, or better, in quality then I doubt anyone would mind too much as it would draw attention to something great for everyone to benefit from. If they were falsely presented as being produced by someone that hadn’t produced them though that would be plagiarism/lies.
With exchanges between cultural traditions there will always be some degree of misrepresentation due to misunderstandings because the more distinct a culture the more room there is for such to happen. We certainly should remain aware that there are individuals out there who wish to purposefully misrepresent and demean others - that should be something to keep in mind and expand our perspectives rather than to double down imo.
I can understand that people feel ‘their cultures’ are being ‘stolen’ and twisted beyond recognition. Such positions are conservative not liberal - finding balance between traditionalism and fruitful exchanges is the heart of politics so I doubt we’ll see these kinds of discussions abate anytime soon (be this due to religion, cuisine, art or concepts).
When it comes to intellectual property I struggle to work out what is ‘just’ on ‘individually owned items’ let alone some supposed ‘cultural ownership’. I find that people who “own songs” having bought them from other artists to be a sorry state of affairs, yet I imagine some artists would defend still as a means to make a quick buck rather than being dismissed.
Would it be considered being offended if one got upset when others got offended? Then, I'm in. It would be lovely because I find that those with power are oddly the least able to deal with being their sacred cows and themselves being offended. IOW it is not just a negative rule for them. Then don't just need not to be offended, but they must shown respect and fawned over in ways they feel no obligation to aim at others.
So, sure, I am in. And I want everyone to also not treat people feeling offended as taboo either. A total free for all. With no economic punishments for any breaches. It can't hurt your job or your grades at all, for example, if some authority figure thinks you offended them. They can jsut be as offended as loudly and emotionally as they like, since this also would no longer be offensive. We all could. We could all be honest.
It's certainly going to be a tough set of guidelines. Adn we haven't even separated out what are issues of law and what are merely moral breaches. Quoting I like sushiThat's fine that you don't care and are consistant. Just wanted to point out that it's not just a left thing to get offended.Quoting I like sushi
Right to the last. The problem is, I think, that groups are not protected against plaigarism, though individual writers, say, are.Quoting I like sushi
Or people who don't really care. Stepping very quickly in and out of the issue I said I wanted to avoid, I would say that I don't think it should be a legal issue when someone mocks through lack of care or intention another culture in a way that is demeaning. I do think it can be an immoral act and one that should expect outrage and even boycotts and the like. Freedom there with consequences.
I think the relations between the target that is demeaned and the one demeaning does matter. Like making all asians look like glasses wearing morons or evil criminal geniuses was more offensive than any vaudville type shows asian americans might have put on for their own community making fun of whites. Back then. Now Asians are much more integrated and the myths around them have some balance between negative and positive ones. But earlier in history that kind of stuff was more obnoxious.
At some level it becomes a kind of propaganda that actually affects the people who are mocked in their sense of self. But that's another can of beans. The hot topic today of CA seems more about piecemeal instances of rudeness or perceived rudeness and not systematic demeaning stuff.
If one's offended when others are offended. Equating "upset" with "offended" is questionable. "Upset" is broader than "offended," as, for example, one is upset when one is worried about one's health, or when one is sad, but neither makes much sense to characterize as "offense."
Quoting Coben
If you're trying to not be offended, then sure, ideally that wouldn't be offensive to you. It's not that no one is going to be offended, but why don't we try not to be, and also not treat it as taboo when someone offends the offendable?
I agree it's broader, but is there a reason that expressing upsetness would be a taboo?Quoting Terrapin StationI am trying to put it in a wider context, where I find taboos on all sorts of perceived as not respectful enough interactions as widespread and for me most troublesome when the other person has the ability to hurt me, withhold something I need, punish me in practical ways. So in that context I don't see a reason to focus on one kind of getting upset about the way someone seemed to be implying or was implying something about me I didn't like.
Given that we are emotional creatures I would like to free up our ability to respond emotionally, but minimize the consequences where people actually get damaged for seeming to offend/upset someone. There is excess on the side of the PC around feeling offended. But then in my day to day life I encounter - in beauracries, in various authorities, in bosses, in police, and in the upper classes - for example as customers - extreme hypersensitivity to being insulted, offended or upset. I wish this was more central to the people who are upset that people are so easily offended. I want to see what people are willing to put on the table and are willing to experience themselves, especially when it affects some people in extremely damaging ways and also creates a culture of fear, where it is the rule to inhibit ourselves in the face of potential abuse and even just customary use of power.
If some people get offended by Miley Cyrus twerking I think it is fairly silly. On the other hand getting enraged about that in a context where there are all sorts of things most of us have to do and have to avoid doing to keep ourselves from being seen as offending or upsetting certain people in key positions or having certain kinds of power, I find that getting enraged at the people offended by Miley Cyrus fairly silly also.
If any starts making moves to put her in prison, ok, now we are getting into something.
I wonder if we are so used to not offending/upsetting in certain ways, since they just seem the natural consequences of power relationships in our societies (capitalist or communist) we focus on areas where we can vent and have some hope of shutting someone up.
It doesn’t make much sense to me to apply ‘plagiarism’ to demographic groups. The individuals, in teams or otherwise, produce items. The indigenous folk of Australia don’t have any right to claim they are artists of any value because some person on the other side of the country - who’s also indigenous - produces a work they deem part of them ... if you look at things like this it is clearly quite ridiculous.
I don’t quite see how national stereotypes are a big deal? All countries taunt each other playfully to some degree. I don’t see the harm in it and I have no issue with mocking Americans, French, Italians, Pakistanis, Indians, Germans, Japanese or Vietnamese attitudes ... it is the manner that matters. Such things are even apparent between different cities and different city districts AND even right down to what street you happen to live on.
Just because some idiots, and they are idiots, don’t get the joke or fail to laugh at themselves I’m not obliged to pander to their opinion or any publicized perception of what is ‘appropriate’ or otherwise. I also find many of these claim of ‘protecting the weak’ are often viciously condescending. As for Asians and glasses, a much larger proportion of Asians do need glasses - it is thought to be something genetic (stereotypes often carry some factual substance to them).
But as I point out, many of these stories are actually fairly innocuous. In this example, minority college students from other countries were upset at how their traditional cuisines were presented, and simply wanted to work with their university's food services to better prepare them. That's it. No one was trying to ban food. It's not even a noteworthy of a story. People just raised a hubbub because it's fashionable to get angry at students.
Quoting fishfry
Well New York pizza is a style of pizza, which can be made anywhere, just as Chicago style pizza is simply deep-dish pizza and can also be made anywhere. My point is is that food can be a very vital and proud expression of one's culture, and if someone finds that someone is treating a culturally important cuisine haphazardly or indifferently, people, across cultures and ethnicities, can rightly get upset.
It's normative enforcement with a dose of purism/conservatism (in the sense of "resistance to change") to it, without the realization that there are no factual norms--no facts about what people should be doing, how they should behave. It's an endorsement of over-the-top peer pressure, as if that's unquestionably positive.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. Even in this case, which is not all that serious, it's possible for a culture to be proud of a particular dish and not want a different inferior dish represented as it. Suppose Irish stew actually tasted good and that certain ingredients were vital for it to be considered Irish stew and some restaurant in a foreign country started selling some other crap that they called "Irish Stew" but that wasn't. An Irish person might feel that this restaurant had appropriated an aspect of their culture and misrepresented it causing people to think that a national dish of ours was of a lower quality than it is, and might feel somewhat aggrieved. It's not something you should necessarily go to court over or that most people would necessarily worry about, but it could be seen as an unwelcome appropriation, and the situation can be clearly distinguished from intellectual property rights (which do not apply to cultural traditions) and not getting what was paid for (we didn't buy the damn stew). Why is that difficult?
First off, there is no objective quality in that value sense of the term. The dish that someone feels is inferior someone else might feel is superior. There's not a right answer there as to which is the better-quality dish. It's just whatever one an individual prefers.
Secondly, "a culture being proud" is a very loose way of speaking at best. Cultures do not have unified minds. They're comprised of individuals and different individuals in the culture feel different ways about various things.
Joshi is plainly an idiot. Confusing misrepresentation with willful theft is unhelpful. It isn’t ‘appropriative’ it’s ignorance/laziness in an attempt to do something adventurous and of value. I can imagine the chefs in that canteen were perhaps not all that well educated and would’ve happily changed the dish if approached in a respectful manner; then there is no story though.
The students clearly articulated the issue they had with the food and it wasn't because they weren't "getting what they paid for". That's not even how meal plans typically work on college campuses. You're just making shit up.
It's all irrelevant since it is unpolicable.
Have you asked people if they would feel it to be a slur against their culture to be served a bad approximation of their traditional food?
There needs to be consistency in how the term is used. For historical reference into how cultures have shifted and reached around the globe the term likely has use. As a term used by individuals to make claims of disrespect on behalf of their ‘owned culture’ and everyone under its umbrella; no thanks!
Hyperbole is used to show the madness of these terms. When it leads to people being bullied for a hairstyle or item of clothing they like then it is just some bunch of idiots. The culture of ‘cultural appropriation’ spread in universities has serious faults attached to it. Just like the term ‘eugenics’ the original intent can be put to bad use - that appears to be what is happening with the term ‘cultural appropriation’ where people claim it to mean whatever suits their purpose at the time.
Where does the term originate?
Where it becomes an ideological tool of intolerance, it's being misused and that has happened, but the term as originally introduced (in the 70s) in its anti-colonialist sense has value. And it's intellectual laziness on both sides to misapply it: on the left to harass those engaged in harmless cultural cross-fertilisation, and on the right to dismiss the idea out of hand due to an inability to see past these misapplications or appreciate the importance of others' cultural behaviours, practices, symbols, and artefacts and their vulnerability to abuse. There's plenty of nuance there for those who want to look.
Yes, but apparently it isn't limited to that anymore. I just love it when these blossoms of American Leftist-culture are copy pasted in the exact same form to everywhere around the Globe. Hence you can find the same discussion everywhere.
So "Cultural Appropriation", that you earlier told more directly to be " the real damage to people and their way of life that can potentially be done by stupidly fucking with stuff that is very serious to them" is indeed used in different context. It's not about Americans getting upset about some other people taking in American mainstream culture (and doing stupidly fucking stuff with it), but namely that the culture of indigenous people or minorities is copied by the majority (or typically, by whites).
This discourse has popped up also in my country.
Yes, also we have the only indigenous people found in the EU, the Sami, and there has been also the discussion of cultural appropriation of Sami culture in this country. The argument has been around the wearing of the Sami traditional costume. And some in the Sami community (and others people supporting them) have argued that only Sami ought to use the costume. As the dress (or crude versions of something like it) is one typical thing tourists can buy as a souvenir when visiting Lapland, a brew for a heated debate is ready.
A Sami mother with her children in traditional dress, the gakti:
Of course the American discussion simply assumes with indigenous people same kind of situation as with the native Americans in the US: a traumatic history of persecution (equivalent to genocide), segregation, a huge racial wealth gap and strained relations between various people continuing to this day. A divide between natives and the colonizers. If copy pasted to the Sami and the Finns, it becomes quite funny, actually. In Finland Finns and Sami have lived beside each other for thousands of years. If there has been open hostility between the two, it happened in Antiquity/Bronze Age and has left no historical traces (other than the Sami live nowdays in the North). There is no wealth gap between the Sami people and Finns living in Lapland. There is absolutely no racial difference between them: the Sami are just as blonde and blue eyed as Finns are and according to the American insistence of putting people into separated racial groups, they (the Sami) would be considered white. This upsets the whole racism and intersectionality viewpoint of this debate, because the only ones that would be fond of "a white nomadic people" likely would be some loonie white-supremacists!
And as there hasn't been any kind of segregation between Finnish and Sami people, it means that the Sami actually have a huge row about just who can say he or she is Sami. How it is established that someone is or isn't Sami is a major problem. This makes even the estimates of Sami to differ from 50 000 to 100 000 people (here in Finland the estimates are that there are 6 000 to 9 000). The question has significance more than just who ought to have the right to wear the dress, it is a question of who can vote in the Sami parliament. The general Nordic model would give voting rights to any person that has learnt as mother tongue (first language) Sami or who's one or both parents, grandparents or great grandparents would have learnt it. The present Sami parliament (here) opposes this adamantly and wants a a far more stricter definition to being Sami. If the Sami get priviledges, thanks to them being an indigenous people, this creates some bitterness among the Finns living in Lapland, especial those that are in reindeer herding business too. And as there is no "Wounded knee" incident, not even the infamous eugenics programs that Swedes had against the Sami, hence there simply isn't the fuel of shame of past treatment that woke people surely would use in the issue. The only issue I know is that the Sami language wasn't taught at schools before 1992 (which could be argued by some as persecution), yet one has to understand that this is about this really is a small minority: there are far larger minorities in Finland (like the Roma or Russians) that don't have minority language status like the Sami (which they got earlier here than in Sweden).
But who cares about the small details when you can have a debate like "in the Big World" about cultural appropriation!
I don't think anyone here said this had something special to do with Americans or race. I didn't mention race once and the examples given were about Australia, America and other places. But it normally is a minority culture, as you agreed, complaining about a dominant culture degrading their practices and traditions through misuse. So, your example fits in well. As to whether their complaint is justified, that could be debated. So, an interesting example, but I'm unsure of the target of your critique.
No one is obligated to "see the importance" of anything, especially since importance is subjective. Likewise no one is obligated to conform to what anyone feels is the "proper application" of anything.
Just curious what the heck their argument would be for that.
This sort of thinking is the exact opposite of my disposition. I dont think that only category x ought to do anything. I hate ageism (only people of age (range) x ought to do y) sexism/genderism (only people of gender x ought to do y), etc. I'm fine with anyone doing whatever the fuck they want to do (anything that we allow some people to do). The big evil in my view is trying to control/restrict what other people can choose to do.
When it comes to something like clothing restrictions, the only thing I can see having some merit is clothing restrictions for practical reasons, such as only police officers being allowed to wear police uniforms of the locale in question, or clothing and other items necessary for hygienic purposes--for example, I can see restricting someone from bleeding all over public places.
When people talk about ‘theft,’ ‘murder,’ ‘violence’ or ‘rape’ in metaphorical terms (applied to abstract concepts) I am wary.
Without a thorough discussion on what ‘culture’ means and what ‘intellectual property’ is I don’t see how we can sensibly deal with another level of ambiguity - here or anywhere else.
The OP has opened up an interesting topic. I’m still confused about the meaning of the term; regardless of any political position being pushed by this or that zealous/naive group/s.
I don't think there's anything fair about that. You can't "misuse" or "misapply" a culture, and no one has a responsibility to represent a culture in any particular way. That seems related to what I call the "realism fetish" in aesthetics, which I hate especially when it comes to fictions.
And yeah, some of this seems related to the stupid arguments that people have been forwarding about intellectual property.
I wouldn't refer to 'they' here to the Sami in general, as I think majority don't care about if someone else uses their traditional dress or a cheap copy of it.
How do these things get to be debated? The media has to invent things to be scandals. This time the outcry was such a typical media event (as usual these things are): miss Finland wore a cheap costume bought from a masquerade-shop that looked like a Sami outfit. Media people were outraged. Oh, was she really, really sorry about it. And what ensued later was a debate about 'cultural appropriation'. It's only few 'woke' people who basically want to be in the media and have no problem of being a spokesperson for an indigenous people. Or in this case, a Sami artisan that makes herself the dresses who made the argument that nobody else than the Sami ought to use the costumes.
The basic argument is the typical one. That the dress/costume is important for their cultural identity and since how it looks is based on your family ties (hence when you marry you can change your costume to the new family's one), the details are important. Yet it's being used as a comical outfit and the culture is deprecated and not respected with improper use of the costume. Typically with bad "Made in China" copies of the costume.
Quoting Baden
I think you got the hang of it, but I'd say it's this lazyness of how the 'woke' journalists takes the a controversial media debate from the US and then tries to make a similar "controversy" in the domestic scene. So when the debate in the US has been about 'cultural appropriation', doesn't take long for the similar discussion to 'erupt' here too. That it never has been a problem before tells something.
1) Cannibals in Papua New Guinea can be falsely portrayed, and have been, as blood thirsty savages who kill people to eat them. The reason for this is actually to do with the belief that if they didn’t consume the brain of someone who’d murdered and/or raped another that the evil spirit with live on. The common view people used to have of them was due to misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding/ignorance of their traditional beliefs.
2) Because of the kind of misunderstandings as above such views of cannibal activity can be misapplied to others who practice cannibalism for various other reasons.
3) Misuse is simple enough. This is by misnaming/misrepresenting a cultural item or tradition. There are multiple examples of this you can probably think of yourself.
Note: MOST importantly I DO NOT view any of the above as ‘theft’.
Neither do I, I'd rather keep the original term 'appropriation' which has a different sense. I also like 'stupidly fucking with' but maybe that's a bit emotive. :)
Quoting I like sushi
We're not going to get a thorough discussion of culture here. It's too broad an issue. But cultural practices or artefacts that don't 'fit' in well with a modern connected capitalist super-culture can be vulnerable or at least seen as vulnerable by their cultural guardians to assimilation/degradation. Whether you care about that and how much you do is likely to be at least partly defined by your own cultural background. Getting a bird's eye view is difficult, but I think it's worth trying to see through the fog.
Those that do fit in well are vulnerable too. There is a common pattern in cultures where the unique becomes pop-culture and then this leads to a strange kind of renaissance and/or retro trend longing for some golden age. Eventually something new explodes onto the scene and the pattern repeats.
In the above sense I’m for isolationism as much as I am for globalism. I don’t see how humanity stands a chance without systematically shedding its skin every so often - only sorry part in the story is to lull in the shadow of the foreboding monolith of our future and wheedle out the best kind of existence we can as we see fit.
Thanks
Miss Finland was wearing it in a comical context? (Just curious--was she in a comedy movie, a comedy skit show, something like that?)
Also, it makes no sense to say that something is being deprecated and not respected just because it's set in a different context and/or it's not made by particular people/in a particular way.
If someone is asserting something in a nonfiction context, and you believe they're wrong about it, then you just assert what you take to be the correct claim in counterdistinction to it. What's the big deal? People claim things people believe are wrong all the time, about everything it's possible to make claims about. You just state your counter-claim.
If it's a fiction context, "falsely portrayed" doesn't apply. It's fiction.
Quoting I like sushi
That doesn't make any sense to me. What's the "misapplication"?
Quoting I like sushi
So misuse isn't actually another idea? It's just another term for "misrepresentation"?
I’m not trying to be nasty here, it’s just a small courtesy to let you know if I don’t reply to comments directed my way it isn’t because I didn’t read them.
Ditto on that. :up:
Likewise, obviously.
There's the water at any rate. (for Baden, too.)
Well, in order to move on, here's the outrageous she had to apologize for. No, it wasn't a comedy skit, but a dance act she was training for (and a picture from not even the actual show act):
Cultural appropriation scandal (among many):
Luckily the outfit wasn't worn in the actual competition.
And of course, some non-Sami have thought wearing the costume would even be a show of respect to the Sami or to show that one is from Lapland, but in our times of cultural appropriation, not so. Hence hopefully such pictures as these youngsters dressing like this in Northern Finland (likely celebrating end of school) is an issue of the past:
Another cultural appropriation scandal, this time when an alpine-skier athlete from Northern Finland decided to wear similarly a Sami look-a-like costume at her last skiing competition. She was from Rovaniemi, Lapland. This is the way the activists referred to this:
She apologized too.
But what is evident, if you listen to the vocal activists, is that the discourse is directly copied 100% from English speaking World, because this is the narrative that woke people use and they can relate to it easily. Hence they talk about colonization. Even with the referral to Finns being the 'white majority'. It works, you know.
Would this copying below be cultural appropriation itself, I don't know, likely not.
Anyway, enough of Sami dresses.
There's an argument to be made that mocking or denigrating the symbols of another culture is unethical, but the notion that one specific group of people owns the intellectual rights to a certain look or recipe or process is unpractical in the extreme.
As a general rule, if you're not being a dick, then "appropriating" elements of another culture is not a genuine cause for concern.
I don't know how you could read about the issue and be so glib.
Try this one:
https://everydayfeminism.com/2015/06/cultural-appropriation-wrong/
I don't necessarily agree with all of it but the author makes several very good points which should be useful for the mystified. The crux of it for me is that people generally don't appropriate with ill-intention but that doesn't mean they're not doing harm and it's not being a dick to oppose that.
The problem with this attitude is you go from criticizing the excessive victim playing of the Sami to creating victims out of those who insulted their culture. Some celebrity had to apologize for something! Shock/horror! Let's all run and rescue her from the evil liberals! You're only playing in reverse the same game you propose to be against.
And it can all be dealt with in a civilized way without rancour as long as everyone shows a bit of respect.
E.g.
Reps of Culture A: Please don't do X with cultural tradition/artefact Y.
Members of Culture B: Why not?
Reps of Culture A: *Provide good reasons why use is inappropriate.*
Members of Culture B: Ok, sure.
The people in both cultures believe that the stone age culture is inferior to the man-on-the-moon culture.
Which cultures advance and which stagnate is largely a matter of historical accident. For centuries, the smelly barbarians on the little peninsula of Asia called 'Europe' were far behind the peoples of the Middle East and Asia. Then things changed. Now they're changing again. All that is solid melts into air.
The 'cultural-appropriation' hoo-ha is the only way that people who believe that their culture is inferior can inflict some pain on those who have passed them in cultural development.
Man-on-the-moon cultures generally develop a higher ethical standard, as well as developing better engineering techniques. These advanced cultures extend their intellectual horizons beyond the limits of the tribe. ("Generally" higher -- there is only a loose coupling here between material and ethical advancement, and superior cultures are also superior in their ability to deal out death to those they see as their enemies. Africans have to hack each other to death with machetes, Europeans use Zyklon-B and fission bombs.)
So advanced cultures with advanced ethics are vulnerable to the emotional blackmail of those from less advanced cultures: they don't want to hurt the latter's feelings, so they pretend that "all cultures should be respected" etc.
No one really believes this, but the advanced culture people tend to respond the way you'd respond to a six-year-old who shows you his latest scrawled drawing --"Ohhh... that's VERY good."
It's just kindness., and to the credit of the person doing the pretending.
Ohhh... that's a VERY good post.
Some of the many things wrong with that article:
* Cultural appropriation isn't the same thing as racism
* Racism doesn't make any sense as something unintentional.
* It's not categorically, morally wrong to do something that might result in someone getting upset.
* Cultures do not "own" customs, traditions, mores, etc.
* Cultures are not isolated units that remain intact as isolated units; cultures obtain via interaction of individuals and necessarily evolve as individuals and interaction changes. People who think they're from different cultures, who are interacting, by doing so, are necessarily evolving their cultures into a different one based on those interactions. That's how culture works.
* So as people interact, they create a different culture, and that culture is their own.
* "Power dynamic" talk is typically a mess. Among the many problems with it is that it tends to cherry-pick particular facts, interactions, etc. to fit the narrative the author wants to create. If we're going to make claims about dominance, oppression, etc., then we need to set out what those terms are going to refer to in a manner that can't be seen as cherry-picked from the totality of data available, and then we need to show the empirical data to support claims about it.
* Saying that wearing clothing, say, is "taking" something from another culture employs the same nonsensical rhetoric that has been used in intellectual property discussions. That rhetoric is ad hoc, created by companies, under a capitalist system, who'd rather be able to legally threaten than have to be creative and figure out other ways to make money (where unfortunately that's necessary because of the capitalist system they're operating within).
* "But marginalized groups don’t have the power to decide if they’d prefer to stick with their customs or try on the dominant culture’s traditions just for fun." --Ridiculous as stated. There have been instances where some culture has been forced to not do certain things (clothing, language, etc.), but that has nothing to do with cultural appropriation. And it being morally wrong to force or pressure people to not do what they want to do re things like clothing and language certainly doesn't justify pressuring people to not do what they want to do re things like clothing and language, which is what "cultural appropriation" shaming is about.
* "it’s clear that not every person who speaks English does so by choice."--Obviously. I didn't speak English by choice. I speak English because I was raised in an environment where only English was spoken. That's how language works. You only speak languages by choice when you take up other languages later.
* "It’s a complicated issue that includes our histories, our current state of affairs, and our future" -- to whom? An issue only includes those things if an individual thinks about it that way.
* "as we act to eliminate oppression," -- If one sees "cultural appropriation" as oppression in any way, shape or form, one has much more serious issues to deal with than eliminating oppression.
. . . I didn't even get to the numbered points yet, but I'll leave it at that for now, since the above is already pretty long and I'm probably more or less wasting my time posting it here.
I've slipped into a world where everyone suddenly has the same opinions?
Quoting Doug1943
Oy vey.
At least you read it. I agree cultural appropriation isn't the same as racism. The author doesn't say it is afaik though there's a danger of conflation there. I'll take a look at your other points later.
She paints a picture of someone at a party being accused of cultural appropriation, And then she says, "And you think that’s a ridiculous accusation. You? Doing something racist?"
So there is a strong positive correlation between cultures which can build, say, nuclear power stations and the principle that deformed babies shouldn't be killed. (If there are any anti-abortion people here, please don't divert the thread. We're all aware of the formal irony.)
Cultures which cannot build nuclear power stations, or even smelt metal, don't have such a strong correlation.
So there are people in the world who bury deformed babies alive. But they're still in the stone age
Doing the same thing in an advanced culture is something that has to be hidden, done indirectly. Hypocrisy, vice and virtue, etc.
To advance materially is to provide the basis for advancing morally. We can take care of deformed children ... a primitive tribe may not be able to .. such a child may be a burden in a world where everyone lives on the margin. So they're killed.
That, in context, is presenting a point of view of someone who thinks they're being accused of racism not necessarily the author's view.
Just on this one as it's so very far off point. Cultures and particularly historically imperialistic cultures can deliberately destroy the languages of other cultures by forcing them to speak their own. The reason the Irish speak English as a first language and not Irish is because generations of Irish were deprived of the choice of speaking their own language and in fact punished for doing so. So, this is not about young Terrapin not being given the choice of speaking Swahili as a baby rather than English but about cultural power and dominance in the linguistic sphere, which though it isn't always as overt as the case I gave does still exist.
No disagreement on that. Nevertheless, it's worth pointing out that no one speaks their first languages by choice, especially as "It's clear that not every person who speaks English does so by choice" can give the impression that most do.
Or another way to put it is that when I read "It's clear that not every person who speaks English does so by choice," I think "Language by choice? Well, who does?" . .. the answer to which is, "People who choose to pick up another language later, via a school elective, self-study, etc."
You're better off using the reply and quote functions if you want to interact. It's not going to always be clear who you are directing your comments at otherwise and they won't be notified either.
Yes, you're right. Thanks. Just learning the customs here.
Just on the moral advancement / technological advancement proposed connection, it would be resassuring if it were true. It would suggest, for example, if we were ever visited by an alien culture, they would likely come with candy and donuts rather than plans to enslave us. The history of human slavery, colonisation, and genocide of indigenous peoples by more technologically advanced cultures suggests otherwise though. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to lionize less advanced cultures either. I just don't think looking at ethics in those terms is very useful. I wouldn't like to think what putting advanced weaponry into the hands of, say, the Yanomami might lead to (though even this supposedly violent traditional culture is subject to debate re the extent and causes of said violence) but I would have supported taking them off the British Raj and giving them to Ghandi and his "primitive" supporters. The situation is just more complicated and far less obvious then you've painted it.
Yes, it is. With respect to the Yamomani, I've read a plausible argument that it was whites, giving them steel axes and even shotguns, that really caused their problems. But everything you read nowadays about primitive cultures is so politically charged that you've got to take it all with a grain of salt. (You're probably familiar with the Darkness in El Dorado controversy.)
Obviously, in a forum where what we post is limited, not just by the technology but by others' patience in reading, a complicated argument can't be made in much detail.
That's why I referred to gas chambers and nuclear weapons, things which are products of advanced cultures, and used the phrase 'loosely coupled' to suggest that the connection between advanced technology and advanced morality is not some rigid, linear one.
So, for example, slavery is almost a human universal -- when tribes get advanced enough so that enslaving a defeated enemy makes more sense than just killing him. But as societies advance technologically -- and get the technology to put their enslavement on an industrial scale, as the Europeans did -- advanced morality comes creeping up behind. And eventually those Europeans abolish slavery.
Please note: I am NOT making a 'Europeans are superior' argument, and not even making the 'technologically advanced people are superior' argument, if by 'superior' we're talking about some innate essence. I think that the question of which peoples advance, and which stagnate, is largely due to historical accidents -- the English behind their channel don't need a monarch with a large standing army, and thus can develop the concepts of limited government. And as I said, even a minimal knowledge of history shows that advanced civilizations took root in several places outside Europe, while Europe stagnated.
Another point to note is that there are virtues cultivated in more primitive societies which are recognized as virtues by advanced societies, which themselves have them only in diminshed degree. I think these are mainly the group-above-self virtues, which individualistic capitalist society tends to undermine.
But then, as the industrial revolution progresses, illiterate peasants, or their children, become urban factory workers. Their children get sent to public schools. They absorb the idea that the world around them is understandable, not just an unchanging mysterious product of sky-gods. Such people are harder to treat like sheep, as witness Hong Kong and Sudan at the moment.
Of course all of this development is contradictory and uneven. But it seems to me that the trend is clear, even though, as someone put it, even among advanced peoples, "in the 21st Century lives the 13th".
I'm really making a quasi-Marxist argument, as you will probably recognize -- base and superstructure and all that . The question of the loose coupling of advanced social institutions and advanced economies, and the existence of contradictory tendencies alongside technical advance, was argued out by people much more clever than me back in the first part of the 20th Century, when some Marxists tried to apply the insights of Marx/Engels in a very mechanical way.
1. "It Trivializes Violent Historical Oppression, E.G: 'Redskins'"...
The Redskins name might be insensitive, and in that sense they're "being a dick", but beyond a bit of emotional resentment the "Redskins" is more of an anti-example. Modern Native American tribes aren't worried about baseball team names, they're worried about pipe-lines crossing their dwindling and degraded reserves, about the continual loss of their language and culture, and about the social problems afflicting many of their communities.
"2. It Lets People Show Love for the Culture, But Remain Prejudiced Against Its People, E.G white people owning restaurants that serve non white food"
I'm sure you'll agree with me that this one is too foolish. If a white person opens a Mexican style restaurant, it's stealing? When a Mexican person opens a Mexican style restaurant, are they obligated to share profits with all other Mexicans?
"3. It Makes Things ‘Cool’ for White People – But ‘Too Ethnic’ for People of Color. E.G white people 'get away with' cultural hair-styles that people of color are discriminated against because of"
This is one is too foolish to even address.
"4. It Lets Privileged People Profit from Oppressed People’s Labor. E.G: whites are stealing ideas from other cultures and it's not fair"
Same as number two, rubbish (and more and more racist).
"5. It Lets Some People Get Rewarded for Things the Creators Never Got Credit For"
The example they give is that black people invented rock and roll, but Elvis Presley got the credit...
Black people as a whole didn't invent rock and roll though, individuals did, and rather than learn their names we're supposed to just thank the entire black race?
"6. It Spreads Mass Lies About Marginalized Cultures. E.G Pocahontas"
The real story of Pocahontas is gritty and disturbing. Yes Disney made a kids film depicting a fictionalized series of events, but why should this be so offensive? Why is dressing up as "Pocahontas' considered offensive to Native Americans? Are they offended because we're not honoring the true story of Pocahontas?
"7. It Perpetuates Racist Stereotypes"
If we're not being a dick about it, what's so evil about stereotypes? The example they gave was that Katy Perry played a stereotype of the "submissive Asian woman" when she dressed up as a Geisha in one of her videos...
But what if an Asian woman dresses up as a submissive Geisha? Is she unfairly perpetuating a stereotype that will engender prejudiced harassment of other Asian women? I understand the logic of this example better than the others, but the crux can't simply be "but she was white, so it's bad".
"8. White People Can Freely Do What People of Color Were Actively Punished for Doing. Example, the British once banned Yoga British occupied India"
I don't understand this one either. Only Indians can do Yoga? Or whites are explicitly forbidden from doing Yoga because of their sins? This is all based around optics, not harm.
"9. It Prioritizes the Feelings of Privileged People Over Justice for Marginalized People"
As with the Redskins example, this is actually kind of backward thinking. Disney apologizing for Pocahontas wouldn't be "Justice for marginalized people". That this author associates the emotional safe space they are trying to create with "justice for marginalized people" betrays the pettiness of their initiative (or the irrelevance of their claims)
Feelings don't matter very much to me, what's more important are basic human needs. Having the Redskins change their name is inconsequential, whereas the destruction and pilfering of the environment that once sustained diverse Native American ways of life is not. If you talk to on-reserve natives, they'll tell you that clean lakes and rivers are their immediate concern.
Are there any examples here that I've mis-characterized? You seem to have proven my point for me. Cultural appropriation is a mostly rubbish concept....
Let's take a look at your critique then.
1. Quoting VagabondSpectre
Really? So this:
"The Washington Redskins name controversy involves the name and logo of the Washington Redskins, a National Football League (NFL) franchise. Native Americans have been questioning the use of the name and image since the 1960s, while the topic has received widespread public attention since the 1990s. Native Americans demanding change include tribal nations, national tribal organizations, civil rights organizations, and individuals. The largest of these organizations, the National Congress of American Indians, counted the enrollment of its member tribes as totaling 1.2 million individuals in 2013."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy
is just fake news or you're still being glib.
But let's not rely on Wikipedia. Here's a report about that little bit of emotional resentment that those 1.2 million American Indians represented by the NCAI don't really care about:
http://www.ncai.org/resources/ncai-publications/Ending_the_Legacy_of_Racism.pdf
"Native peoples remain more likely than any other race to experience crimes at the hands of a person from another race. Native youth experience the highest rates of suicide among young people. With studies showing that negative stereotypes and harmful “Indian” sports mascots are known to play a role in exacerbating racial inequity and perpetuating feelings of inadequacy among Native youth, it is vital that all institutions—including professional sports franchises—re-evaluate their role in capitalizing on these stereotypes.
...
The most discussed in the media of late has been the Washington football team, which uses the term “Redsk*ns. This derogatory name was created in 1932 – while the federal “Civilization Regulations” were still in place, confining Native people to reservations, banning all Native dances and ceremonies, confiscating Native cultural property and outlawing much of what was traditional in Native life.
...
The following document outlines the position of NCAI, the nation’s oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native advocacy organization, which has a clear position against derogatory and harmful stereotypes of Native people—including sports mascots—in media and popular culture. The information provided also includes historical and contemporary background information on “Indian” sports mascots and the widely supported efforts to end the era of harmful and racist mascots"
But let's ignore all that because it's all just based on a rubbish concept? And this is how you start your critique. Try harder.
Sure it sounds foolish when you represent it like that. But she didn't say it was "stealing" for a start and qualified that the problem was mostly in the wider economic context.
E.g.
"In the San Francisco Bay Area, I witness people taking what they like without wanting to associate with where it came from all the time. Here, recent transplants to the area write Yelp reviews in search of “authentic Mexican food” without the “sketchy neighborhoods” – which usually happen to be what they call neighborhoods with higher numbers of people of color. The Yelpers are getting what they want, at least in terms of the neighborhood, as gentrification rapidly pushes people of color out of their homes, and white-owned, foodie-friendly versions of their favorite “ethnic” restaurants open up.
...
So is every non-Mexican who enjoys a good burrito guilty of cultural appropriation? Say it ain’t so! That would include me and nearly everyone I know."
I don't think this is one the stronger points here but it's not looney tunes either.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Here's the crux of the text:
"For example, standards of professionalism hold back all kinds of people who aren’t white men. As a Black woman, there are many jobs that would bar me if I wore cornrows, dreadlocks, or an afro – some of the most natural ways to keep up my hair.
...
Compare that to fashion magazines’ reception of white teenager Kylie Jenner’s “epic” cornrows or “edgy” dreadlocks.
When Black women have to fight for acceptance with the same styles a young white woman can be admired for, what message does that send to Black women and girls?"
The target of criticism seems to be unequal treatment by institutions not the white teenagers who copy the hairstyles. I don't know the extent that that's a fair reflection of what actually happens in the U.S. but it doesn't strike me as completely implausible either. So, why is it too foolish to even think about?
That kind of rhetorical tactic will only discredit you. No-one here is pro-child abuse.
What's an example of some of those studies? Let's look at their methodology.
Several are linked to at the end of the paper. I await your analysis with bated breath.
Mostly a rubbish concept... As I ceded originally, the Redskins mascot is somewhat insensitive (it's "dickish"), but it's just not problem of comparable magnitude to what many Native Americans face. Suicide rates in Native American youth (among other social issues) is not primarily caused or significantly exacerbated by merely insensitive mascots. I can understand the idea that demanding respect from the MLB franchise is symbolic of being respected as a culture, but it will achieve exactly nothing. The NCAI has the spare time to take up the issue, and good for them, I wish them success, but it would be more meaningful to actually address the social problems directly.
Quoting Baden
I don't understand how the yelpers or the foodies or the white restaurateurs are gentrifying neighborhoods (it doesn't make sense). That said, gentrification happens, and sometimes people of color are priced out of their [s]own[/s] current homes, but it's just as just or unjust as when it happens to whites; it's capitalism.
Quoting Baden
It's foolish to taker seriously the idea that one's race determines what kinds of hairstyles, cuisines, careers, or practices we should or should not pursue. The article doesn't seem to be demanding that institutions cease discriminating against individuals from different cultures (that demand is an unwritten given), it's actually trying to explain why whites doing X is harmful. "When Black women have to fight for acceptance with the same styles a young white woman can be admired for, what message does that send to Black women and girls?" (the implication being: white people, stop wearing black hairstyles because it's not fair)
Asking for fair treatment is one thing, but asking for unequal treatment for others (whether to spare feelings, or to prevent gentrification) is another thing entirely.
I looked at a couple, but they didn't seem to be making claims about "negative stereotypes and harmful 'Indian' sports mascots playing a role in exacerbating racial inequity." Could you point me to one of the studies that claims this?
That they forbid certain hairstyles such as dreads or cornrows? (I'm guessing wildly at what you're referencing...).
My social-equity-gripe against the army is mainly for its homophobic policies. Their recruiters are "abelist" and "ageist", but unfortunately they have to be. I'm not opposed to female infantry (or women occupying other physically demanding positions) so long as they're physically capable of doing the job (on average men tend to be physically stronger and more physically durable than women, which is why men are more often suited for soldiering than women (maybe there's some psychological trends to be acknowledged as well, such as the male penchant for violence, but I'd rather not go there)).
No, I wouldn't think so. But there may be people who are naive about the reality of life among aboriginals, where the sensibilities of advanced societies with respect to children are not so common. The same problem is found in Australia, by the way.
I don't see that you've established anything other than what I conceded at the beginning of the discussion that the idea is often misapplied or applied overstrenuously. But the effect of using your language is dismissive with or without the 'mostly' and echoes the right-wing media's attempts to deride everything that's a concern of minorities by downplaying or mocking it. So, if, as per the first example, American Indian organizations who represent a people who have historically been treated abominably and are now amongst the most deprived in the country say their social problems are partly to do with negative stereotypes being inflicted on them and particularly their youth and that a major remaining stereotype is associated with a huge money-spinning football franchise, I'd be willing to take them seriously on the basis that they're the ones who are the authority on themselves and their problems. Anyway, I think we've reached the end here. It's a conversation I expected from the very beginning would be filled with mockery and contempt and I wanted to give the other side a fair shake. Which I've done I think.
Seems you didn't get what I was actually saying at all, just gave what indeed are the typical remarks made of "the excesses". And I responded to Terrapin Station. Hopefully you'll read my reply thoroughly.
My basic point is that the whole discourse of 'cultural appropriation' has a rigid framework and specific narrative which isn't at all changed no matter where it is applied. It isn't changed at all, because I the primary reason is that people relate things to other examples. Hence you can have in Finland a blonde blue-eyed young Sami activist talking about colonization and the oppression by the 'white' majority. This is a framework that works. The reason is of course that people are against colonialism, against a white majority repressing a minority, so you when talk about 'colonialism' and you make it to a racial issue. It's like appropriation of cultural appropriation, use of a specific narrative.
The basic problem of this is that you can find here clear aspects of what I would call 'the lithurgy'. A situation similar in Church where the priest in Sermon says something and the thing to do is to listen and nod in agreement. And because it's lithurgy, you actually don't debate it. You just nod in agreement, because that is what is meant to do...and don't pay any attention to it.
And this is actually counterproductive if you genuinely try to engage the public debate. This is my main point. If your objective is to get an academic position in studying indigenous people and minorities or to get yourself heard by the government, then this 'copy paste'-approach is totally logical. But there's a backlash if you talk about colonization and the repression of an indigenous people by a white majority. The simple fact is that when your 'colonizers' have come to the land before the birth of Christ, hence been thousands of years here too, the narrative of colonization makes no sense. Or the reference to race, because you absolutely cannot make any difference between a Finn and a Sami. The average 'man on the street' will find it strange and then if this then becomes 'the lithurgy', official truism that opposing makes you a bigot, then it makes just things worse.
Just to take a reality check on these issues, let's just take as example of what Amnesty International says what is wrong in Finland and Myanmar:
Finland:
Myanmar:
In one case the treatment of a minority is an issue, in another case it isn't.
I agree with most of that. We're pushing back at excesses and thoughtlessness from different directions. And the rhetoric is important on both sides I think.
But ... it doesn't help anyone to nurture the idea that they are victims. If there is a current injustice inflicted on a group -- and there have been plenty of such injustices in every nation on earth -- then correct it, and move on.
The real problems of, say, Native Americans and similar groups are located in the fact that many of them have not yet found a way to join the modern world, while retaining such of their customs as are comfortable to them and not in conflict with modern values. Sometimes well-meaning arrangements for them actually help cement them into a backward way of life.
The Jews provide us all with an example of how to succeed in the modern world, while retaining aspects of traditional culture, and, in a different way, so do the Choctaws. (Declaration of interest: I'm a descendant of Mosholatubee, the chief of the Choctaws who had to sign the grossly unjust Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Hill, by which they were forced to give up their fertile land in the Southern states and were put on the 'Trail of Tears'. Those who survived ended up in Oklahoma, thought by the whites to be not worth stealing, especially because of the nasty stinky black tarry stuff that oozed up from the ground in various places around the state. You can honor their memory by spitting into the ugly harsh face of Andrew Jackson whenever you handle a twenty-dollar bill.)
To the extent that the dominant culture puts obstacles in their path, let's remove those obstacles. More than that, let's take positive steps to make joining modernity possible. I don't know enough about conditions on Native American reservations to be concrete, but I would look first at educational opportunities there, and whether the legal arrangements in tribal areas make it easy to open a business.
I believe a good example of the right approach can be found in Australia, in the work of Noel Pearson on behalf of his fellow aboriginals.
In short, gesture politics is cheap. Real redress for peoples who were overrun by more advanced cultures might actually cost something.
Well, the Soviet Union did lead the space-race and was close even to getting a man to the moon first, if it wasn't for an enthusiastic German called Werner von Braun. So higher ethical standards of the Soviet Union? :roll:
Quoting Doug1943
'Found a way to join the modern world' sounds condescending. The cause is simply the low numbers of these groups and the lack of a sovereign nation state. Once when you do have a sovereign state, then other people will treat you as a citizen of that state, even if you have no love for it. It truly changes how you are treated.
It's not about 'finding a way' but simply resisting cultural assimilation. The way that entire people fade away is simple: you don't care a shit about the language your family or your ancestors and simply choose to be part of another group. And typically you are allowed to do that. Languages and hence entire people have assimilated to larger groups.
[quote="Doug1943";299300"]Sometimes well-meaning arrangements for them actually help cement them into a backward way of life.[/quote]I think that social welfare programs can be used as a veiled counter-insurgency strategy. Or just make booze and drugs cheap and available.
I think so. I think dialogue is mutually beneficial, because it's not a game of winning or losing. Excesses and thoughtlessness basically limit the dialogue. Or the will to have a dialogue. We have those wonderful echo-chambers to go to in this new age of tribalism.
[QUOTE]Well, the Soviet Union did lead the space-race and was close even to getting a man to the moon first, if it wasn't for an enthusiastic German called Werner von Braun. So higher ethical standards of the Soviet Union?[/QUOTE]
With respect to the Soviet Union: it actually did have pretty advanced ethical standards -- in some ways superior to those of free (capitalist) countries. But the official standards were in contradiction to actual practice. The Soviets paid lip-service to things like international brotherhood, racial equality, even sexual equality, while in practice being Russian nationalists and male chauvinists. (When I lived there, I heard some hair-raising expressions of opinions about Africans, for example.)
The standard of personal behavior taught to Soviet children was admirable. It was just that the whole edifice was sustained by hypocrisy: everyone knew that the near-unanimous support for the ruling party was maintained by force, and the claim that socialism could outdo capitalism in provision of material wealth -- the only 'rational' justification for its restrictions on freedom -- was eventualy also undermined. And when this happened, it didn't take long for the system to collapse.
I actually lived in the Soviet Union for a few months -- my then-wife was a Fulbright Exchange scholar and I accompanied her. Most people I tell the following to assume I am mad but ... the KGB fellow who was the 'minder' for all foreigners in the city we were in was actually, personally, a very decent fellow.
I think a better counter-example to my assertion is Nazi Germany. Even Nazi Germany in many respects had modern ethical standards, it just reserved them for able-bodied patriotic Germans. Even there, there were contradictions which revealed the tension between Nazi-ism and the modern concept of fair play for all: Iron Crosses awarded to known Jews, the US savagely lampooned for lynching Blacks.
But as I think I said, the Nazis were the extreme example of the uneven development of the cultural superstructure, really a historical aberration. But any theory which has too many ad hoc exceptions to its rule is not a good one, so if we see more repetitions of the Nazi case -- technologically-advanced societies which consistently and openly practice barbarism -- then my theory will have been disproved. )
[QUOTE]'Found a way to join the modern world' sounds condescending. The cause is simply the low numbers of these groups and the lack of a sovereign nation state. Once when you do have a sovereign state, then other people will treat you as a citizen of that state, even if you have no love for it. It truly changes how you are treated.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry if it sounds condesending. I believe people are a product of their material circumstances, including their past circumstance, ie. their history, not the result of some inner unchangeable essence, and certainly not blame-worthy for being born into such circumstances.
In the case of Native Americans, we can see that some were well on the way to high civilization -- the Incas, the Aztecs, (and the Mayas before some environmental catastrophe cut their progress short ) -- and then the Europeans arrived, and disease and gunpowder reduced them to the state they're in today.
I happen to agree that state sovereignty would be a useful experiment to try. It hasn't worked out very well in Africa, but it might among Native Americans. In any case, the right of peoples to self-determination is generally a good principle, and ought to apply to Native Americans, should they choose it. Of course, this would mean a multiplicity of states -- you're not going to get the Hopi and the Navajo into a single state, or not for long. Maybe this will come about in the future, in which, I believe, there is a very good chance that we shall see the break up of the American state.
I don't know if just being a citizen of a state earns you respect. You have to be the citizen of a state seen to be successful in one or more respects. When I was little -- a long time ago -- the Chinese were an object of derision. A few years after the Chinese Revolution, they became an object of fear. Twisting Machiavelli, I think we can affirm that it is better to be feared than derided.
And it's hard to become a successful state without having a high degree of education among your population. This is the delicious contradiction that will eventually undermine the mullahs and the Chinese Communists. Educated people want, for example, to be able to argue about free will and determinism, or the existence of God, or the errors or otherwise of dialectical materialism on forums like this.
I agree with you about welfare being a way to stupefy potentially-troublesome groups, although i doubt this was done consciously. Good intentions, road to hell, etc.
I like to think my position on the subject amounts to more than just mockery from conservative echo-chambers. If to log an opposing sentiment against the concept of cultural appropriation, or a specific instance thereof, is to deny the concerns of minorities, how can I say a solitary word against any of it?
Regarding the example of the "Redskins" mascot, it might seem insensitive, dickish, or insulting (and what is a slight but the semblance of one?), though from my perspective it's actually compassionate: progressive movements often shoot themselves in the foot by making unpersuasive and irrelevant appeals rather than having a tangible set of meaningful and positive goals to organize around at the outset. In the case under discussion, Native American groups need to worry primarily about pollution (e.g: fracking tainting lakes and rivers), crises in access to healthcare (including mental-health care), and full blown sovereignty dilemmas (at least in Canada where it is a re-opened question). Let's say hypothetically that the Redskins rebrand to something neutral. Then what? What will have been achieved? The insult of the insensitive mascot will have been eliminated, but the serious social injuries that need to be addressed will remain unchanged. I can see some sort of pragmatic argument that alleges having the mascot changed will be a positive symbolic gesture, but I very much doubt it if we can only make them change by sheer negative social pressure. Many Americans (and even some Native ones ) will look at the Redskins controversy and for whatever reason be unpersuaded that it is meaningful (especially when compared to the physically injurious aforementioned problems). Since getting the name changed will generate little or no physical change in the situations facing Native Americans, and it happens to generate opposition, why bother putting it anywhere near the top of the agenda?
Here is a thread I wrote about the situation facing First Nations peoples in Canada: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3812/first-nation-soverignty-and-the-canadian-government (I would be most appreciative if anyone interested in the thread could respond to it. It's a very informative post, and also (or so I thought) very thought provoking, but I only managed to attract a single respondent).
Imagine that we're trying to persuade an average American that we should address (with serious effort) the social injuries faced by Native Americans. Compare the approach I took in my own thread to the approach inherent in the cultural appropriation appeal. One inexorably demands negative action (that X stops doing Y) to address feelings, while the other inexorably demands positive actions to address substantial inequities across physical and political spectra. Frankly I see the Redskins issue as an unproductive waste of time which only serves to obfuscate those more important issues and to engender opposition from anyone unsympathetic to the aesthetic issue. If and when the Redskins do rebrand, I want it to be the autonomous consequence of genuinely changed beliefs (the positive desire to be more sensitive rather than a response to negative social pressure). I can see my approach being persuasive to almost everyone, and while I do not make specific policy recommendations (I reference the logistic difficulties facing policy-makers), I would be seriously surprised if anyone could come away from my thread with the impression that we ought to change nothing.
Reflecting more broadly on the topic of cultural appropriation, it can only coherently apply as an argument against cultural insensitivity, where the sentiments of the parent culture define what amounts to use/misuse of a cultural artifact. To the extent that use or misuse of a given emotionally significant cultural artifact is offensive, I think it should not be used or misused. Applying this to the Redskin mascot, it's not exactly use of an important artifact so much as it is a percievably racist portrayal of an entire ethnic category. I can see why the stereotype amounts to racism, but it's not exactly the kind of hate-based racism/prejudice/discrimination that has lead to negative social outcomes for many First Nations groups. Some Americans have made the argument that the Redskin mascot is actually a celebration of Native Americans (however foolish or misguided the thought might be in reality) which makes it an even less persuasive appeal overall. And because the entire idea of opposing harmful cultural appropriation is based on the premise that it leads to negative social outcomes, I feel obligated to voice my opinion that in terms of what's causally important, we have much bigger fish to fry.
A lot of what you've written above seems to amount to nothing more than the following falsity: X is more important than Y; therefore Y is not important. So, I'll grant there are almost certainly more pressing problems for American Indians but seeing as I have no special insight into how they view things, I'll take the community's word that this issue is at least worthy of attention.
In other words, I'd argue that if American Indian groups say the Redskins name and mascot are offensive and damaging to them and they want it changed, and there is significant justification for considering it offensive and damaging and no pressing ethical reason to retain it, it should be changed. Why not? That you happen to think it won't do much good for them is not remotely as convincing as the fact that they, or their representatives (presuming they are fairly representative of their community's wishes), think it will and have written a detailed report to explain why.
Other cases of (alleged) cultural appropriation, I'd similarly take on their own merits. I'm not wedded to the term, but I'm not allergic to it either. It seems to do some semantic work other terms don't.
Hmm, I wonder what systems you find lacking ethical standards. :wink:
Quoting Doug1943
Isn't that part of his job?
The most famous KGB chief in Finland, general Victor Vladimirov, was not only a very intelligent, cultured and decent fellow, but also a gentleman and very liked person here (and angered many Soviet embassadors with his personal relations with top Finnish politicians).
Here he is (in the white shirt) with President Kekkonen:
...and earlier in his career he was the chief responsible for KGB's assassinations. So yes, they can be decent guys.
I had the opportunity to visit the Soviet Union just before it collapsed. I spent a little bit over a week in Moscow with Muscovite family. Russians are very nice people. Yet the harsh totalitarian system beneath everything was real too. There was this fear (still then) beneath everything which we in the West don't have. In the West we just have to depict people in a totalitarian systems, especially those in leading roles or simply part of the system as vile, insane and utterly evil people. We simply cannot admit to ourselves that the people enforcing the totalitarian system might be totally OK guys.
Being a citizen of let's say Afghanistan or Somalia doesn't get much respect. But you are treated as an Afghan and that is a thing. Being an Afghan might not be the thing one actually relates to. The real thing that matters to one might be being a Pashtun, a Tajik, a Hazara or a Nuristani. After all, we did talk about Yugoslavians before, even if we knew that the country was made of many people. And we still talk about the British, even if we know that there are Scots and Welsh on the Island besides the English.
Quoting Doug1943
Not just that. You really have to have a collective will for independence. Just think about the Scots. They have wealth, history, an own culture, yet they are fine with being British. The English asked them kindly to stay and they stayed. Perfect example how you indeed can create an identity above an original historic identity.
Yep, the English are good if not the best in countering independence-movements, insurgencies and separatist movements.
The positions of special interest organizations not withstanding (which may or may not accurately represent the mosaic of different First Nations cultures and the diverse individuals that comprise them), my argument is about what is a practical or pragmatic means of addressing root issues (the same underlying issues being pointed to as a presumed consequence of, in part, cultural appropriation). The only people that the Redskins franchise is going to pander to are their actual fan-base, and the understanding that "redskins" and their mascot is a harmful and racist stereotype just isn't appealing to them; outside protests wont work. Our only other option to feasibly make them change the name would be legislation, which could almost never happen (what we consider "offensive" is too subjective and fluid to be enshrined in law). Simply put, it is a poorly chosen issue because it goes nowhere while burning fuel.
P.S When it comes to setting yourself up as a spokesperson for a culture, unless you've been elected by it (somehow...), I don't think there's much of a risk (almost any individual claiming to speak for an entire culture seems dubious to me). And yet, your ideas about what is socially harmful, why, and how we can address them can still be useful even if you don't belong to the culture(s) whose problems you're addressing. I'm of Acadian and Native American descent (ostensibly "Métis"), but that doesn't reflect on the truth of my statements (even though my experiences might give me insight (e.g: first generation student, inter-generational poverty/alcoholism, lost culture, etc...), my own experiences are anecdotal). I have never lived on a reservation, but I am still capable of comprehending the problems they tend to face and thinking about ways to address them, and you are too.
P.P.S: I realize we want to have different discussions, and I don't judge your lack of interest. My responses are intended as a defense of what I believe to be an ethical, empirical, and pragmatic argument.
Well, I'm just going to digest everything that's been said here anyhow. I'm not really satisfied with much of it including my own stuff. It's difficult not to get caught in a pincer between trying to be ethically aware and acting as a placeholder for a somewhat misguided standard liberal view. Ho hum...
All organized human groups have standards of behavior. Primitive tribes who are perfectly happy torturing captives to death have rigid codes of behavior within the tribe. As I see it, modernity involves the slow expansion of who the average person considers 'we'. In some respects it has even begun to extend outside our species.
I'm arguing that what Soviet schoolchildren were taught about how to behave was by and large what the children of all advanced societies are taught. Surely this isn't controversial?
Quoting ssu
Of course he was no doubt tasked to be pleasant to foreigners so that they would get a good impression of the Soviet Union ... and more than that. (We were casually asked by him, at the end of our stay there, if we would write reports on what was happening in the West. We advised him to tell his bosses to get a subscription to The Economist.)
All I can say is that I met a range of personality types among the Soviet officials we dealt with, some of them rather unpleasant -- sterotypical Russian bureaucrats, and people who were obviously dissemblers and deceivers. Our guy seemed like a very decent man, but of course my judgement could be completely lacking.
I believe it was the conventional wisdom in the West that the KGB, being actually aware of conditions in the West via the presence of their own agents there, was more 'liberal' -- or perhaps just more realistic about life in the West-- than the Soviet bureaucrats who read only their own propaganda. I believe something similar was said of the CIA as well. Both of these agencies also did pretty nasty things.
Could it be that a highly-cultured, 'liberal' person -- one able to at least pretend to see the other person's point of view, to make jokes about the shortcomings of his own system and its leaders -- in short, to advance the sort of persona that would make a 'target' likely to trust him ... could such a person also cold-bloodedly order or commit an assassination? I'm sure of it. People more well-read than me can probably suggest famous characters from history, or at least from literature, who meet this description. Wasn't Mussolini's son-in-law supposed to be a congenial fellow?
As for the Scots -- I reckon they'll be gone within a decade. [As for the English, my favorite saying about them is supposedly an Arab one: "Why is better to have the English as your enemy, than as your friend? Because if you are their enemy, they will try to buy you. But if you are their friend, they will try to sell you."]
And look for resurgent nationalism all over the place -- India, Canada, Spain of course ... and in the Russian Federation. Loyalty to the tribe will, in some of these places, erode that general ethical advance we've seen over the last century -- Yugoslavia is the terrible example. But the country to really worry about the revival of tribal-nationalism in, is the US, if the current mad craze for 'identity politics' spreads into the white population.
I think in the long run this resurgence of tribalism will prove to be a passing phase, and will burn out after a few decades, and the logic of globalized economics will reassert itself.
In any case, pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.
Here is a new article on this exact story, how it was manufactured and framed as an apotheosis of whiny woke college students, despite being largly overblown at best, and shaped by lies at worst.