Cultural Sensitivity/Appropriation and Anger

Parnerium wrote: I'm a little confused about whether you (and a few other people) are talking to people who have posted in this thread or if you're talking about ideas you've seen or heard elsewhere.

you and i have been specifically speaking with one another, but in my last post i was not specifically addressing you

this is an ongoing conversation among the various of the temple members -or you could say its is an extension or revisiting of previous conversation, as well as being one of a number of philosophically related discussions which have been picked up sporadically for at least a year or so, probably longer

Parnerium wrote: If he really understood how it worked, really understood the risks involved, and really understood how to accurately evaluate the capabilities of his followers, I wouldn't say he was appropriating it. Even if he wasn't in direct consultation with someone who is racially Native. Even if he was only doing it to make money.

It also wouldn't matter whether or not he charged for the experience.

well i think there are others whose criteria are quite a bit more strict than yours

heck even I would consider it appropriation
the difference being that i dont automatically attach a negative value to appropriating cultural practices and ideas, because i think thats exactly how culture grows and evolves and that evolution is good for the whole species

i would think of that more as cultural syncretism

but from what i understand, many natives DO feel that charging for the experience of a sweat lodge would demonstrate a huge lack of understanding for the practice and a lack of respect for the originating cultures

Parnerium wrote: There's never going to be a non-hypothetical situation where the only problem is pure cultural appropriation...

could that be because the appropriation itself doesnt cause any harm beyond that people are offended by it?

because that would be what ive been saying all along

i think i made a good case in the real world example you mentioned that the appropriation was not the decisive factor in the harm that was caused

im curious if you could construct a hypothetical situation where the only harm caused was a result of the appropriation alone and not a result of the additional elements of fraud or irresponsibility or something else ?

the best angle to take i think would be about promoting stereotypes, but even with that the real problem is believing in ones assumptions and a lack of critical thinking/review of evidence, and if those are properly addressed then the stereotype issue is basically overcome

Parnerium wrote: If you had learned those martial arts from a guy who saw Enter the Dragon once then made up a bunch of nonsense moves and called them The Ancient Chinese Art of Wushu I'd say that guy was appropriating and that you've been duped. However, if that guy did all those things but called it Punchy Punchy Knockdown or some other made up name, he wouldn't be manipulating the cultural legacy of Chinese martial arts and I wouldn't call it appropriation. Importantly, if he convinced you that this was a useful fighting style and it wasn't, I would still call him a con-man. But his method of con job wouldn't involve appropriation (which is a separate issue but that overlaps).

frauds, as a class, use whatever pretense they feel they can use most effectively to project credibility to their intended targets

that might be a plumber, or an inventor, or a priest, or a shaolin monk, but the problem is that they frauds, intent on exploiting people, not whether or not they are using a cultural disguise to commit their fraudulent acts

i could see why a chinese buddhist might feel more angry towards a con artist using the pretense of a shaolin monk than a pakistani muslim would for instance, but the reason such persons are dangerous to society is that they are misrepresenting themselves in order to exploit people

so we identify the problem as fraud or exploitation, rather than focusing on the fact that they used the cultural trappings of monks

there can be overlap, but we reduce thing to their irreducible elements (or the closest approximation we are able) for a reason

it is likely that all our hypothetical con-persons also eat bread, but we cannot connect the actual harm experienced by actual victims to the ingestion of bread by the perpetrators

and we can identify many, many instances of other people eating bread and it NOT causing any measurable harm to anyone else whatsoever
so we dont focus on bread as being a problem

is it really worse for a con to pretend to be a monk than to pretend to be an inventor? i mean if a fake monk convinces you to donate to 5 dollars to his fake temple and a fake inventor convinces you to invest your life savings on the prototype to his perpetual motion energy generator, what criteria stand out as being the MOST important factors for deciding the nature and magnitude of the harm?

Parnerium wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: wherever the religious rights of natives (or anyone else) are being violated, the law is being broken and whoever the violator is, they are in the wrong

This seems like an oversimplication of how people work. If I say "throwing gay people off of buildings is wrong" but then only try to solve that by addressing the individual actions of the specific people doing the throwing, I'll be much less effective at preventing such a thing in the future than if I address the greater causes. It's better to address the attitudes that the entire society holds about gay people, the systems of power being used to initiate the throwing, and the reasons that the people who watch/hear about the throwing have for intervening or not intervening.

"throwing people off of buildings" doesnt have to be qualified any further than "throwing people off of buildings" in order to be understood as wrong

gay people, white people, short people, people who fart a lot, whatever

murder is murder regardless of the demographic of the victim

its useful to understand the justifications behind various murders, but the wrongness of the act can be reduced to the act itself

you cant do that same reduction with cultural appropriation; theres always some other element present within the specific example that is the more accurately identified cause of harm (excepting of course if you consider feeling offended or seeing something which you dislike, to be a kind of harm)

hating people because they fart too much is not really fair but its perfectly legal; throwing them off of building is not

targeting a specific group for violence is not at all the same kind of social activity as dressing up as a belly dancer for halloween

one is a deliberately malicious act of hate and discrimination, consciously directed at a specific individual

the other is just being free person in a free country, having fun on a nationally celebrated holiday

you have to actually harm specific individuals in order for what youve done to be harmful or else it LITERALLY isnt hurting anyone

Parnerium wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: i fully support every persons (native american, africans, midgets, albinos, liberals, rednecks, EVERY PERSON'S) right to engage in whatever religious practice that they feel drawn towards or that they believe will enhance their life

So do I. If somebody who knows nothing about sweat lodges makes one in their backyard for their own spiritual growth, more power to them. But as soon as they start telling people that they know what they're talking about, I think that's where appropriation can start. Because that's when they start using other people for their own gain.

well it looks like we agree here

r3dleader wrote: ...
Now the mascot thing, that's because it is racist. It's offensive to my culture, sure, but the insult to my race is what gets me turned up about it. My culture isn't the same as a Cree's or Lakota's or Navajo's, but my race is. We all get smashed together, so for people to stand there and say it's not that big of a deal... Would it be ok if those people wore shirts that said Washington Niggers and had on blackface on national TV and talked about it how it is their right and they are just honoring the history of African Americans? Do the Chicken Jig and sing spirituals when they rallied? Then why is ok for them to do it to us?

yeah, believe it or not i do agree with this

whatever the original attitude was behind choosing the name, it is considered offensive in todays society and i think that they should change it

i dont think they should be forced to change it, rather i would change it if it were my decision, because that is the exemplary thing to do

on that note, if it were my decision i would also be using the association as a vehicle to promote native issues and generate positive change for native communities: embrace the mascot and use it to make a difference in the real world, youd not only be making society better but youd have the most loyal fan base in the history of sports and a PR identity to be greatly admired

I'm not here to argue any particular direction... and I'm choosing to have no opinion while I'm here...

I saw a comment somewhere else earlier on this topic... "Cultural appropriation is little more than today's racial segregation. It's judging your worthiness based on your ethnicity."

Thoughts?

Edan wrote: I'm not here to argue any particular direction... and I'm choosing to have no opinion while I'm here...

I saw a comment somewhere else earlier on this topic... "Cultural appropriation is little more than today's racial segregation. It's judging your worthiness based on your ethnicity."

Thoughts?

I think that culture, race, and ethnicity are all separate things. Cultural misappropriation is a double standard, but I think it is far from segregation.

OB1Shinobi wrote: but we reduce thing to their irreducible elements (or the closest approximation we are able) for a reason

What is that reason? That's a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

I don't think that's a useful practice, for the reasons I explained with the execution of gays example. Cultural appropriation in my view isn't about reducing any acts down to cultural appropriation. It's about analyzing the causes and methods of harm. Yes, throwing people off of buildings is wrong because that is murder. But actually stopping that harm (murder) from occurring requires us to think more broadly than "murder is wrong." We might, instead, need to address other things.

As an example, say we're looking at the practice of "separate but equal" in the Southern US. We can say "lynching is wrong because it is murder." But to use that as a justification for why we shouldn't talk about all of elements of race relations that make lynching possible and make it seem acceptable among the citizens would be a mistake. That's part of why civil rights movements didn't start with black people standing around saying "lynching is wrong." They addressed the other aspects of life (separate facilities) that increased the divide between blacks and whites that, in turn, made lynching so common.

My interest in cultural appropriation is not to say, "It is wrong, end of story." I think that approach is what you're arguing against when you say things like "its useful to understand the justifications behind various murders, but the wrongness of the act can be reduced to the act itself." That's not my position at all. It is to say that the practice of cultural appropriation can be what creates other harms. Yes, those other harms are the bad part. But where cultural appropriation is helping to cause that harm, I think it needs to be addressed. Just because it is not the "irreducible element" doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile concept. And it doesn't mean that looking critically at forms of cultural appropriation that contribute to harm is useless in favor of just focusing on the harm. Even you said yourself it's useful to understand the things behind murders.

We can say that living in poverty causes harm. But if we stop there and never look at what sorts of things contribute to poverty, then we'll never be able to actually stop the harm caused by poverty. Sure, the most basic element of the suffering might be poverty. But there's more to it. And I think it is worthwhile to talk about that "more." I think funding schools based on property taxes is a problem. Not because the concept of locally funding schools is bad. But because poverty is bad. And those practices help to keep poverty alive. In this case, the wrongness of the act is not the act itself. But that doesn't somehow make it not a problem. Reducing the discussion down to poverty isn't useful.

OB1Shinobi wrote: it is likely that all our hypothetical con-persons also eat bread, but we cannot connect the actual harm experienced by actual victims to the ingestion of bread by the perpetrators

But we can connect the cultural legacy/reputation of certain practices to how much people buy into the con job. That's why somebody would use the word "Wushu" and not the word "Bread." Because one is actually relevant to the situation and one is not.

OB1Shinobi wrote: is it really worse for a con to pretend to be a monk than to pretend to be an inventor? i mean if a fake monk convinces you to donate to 5 dollars to his fake temple and a fake inventor convinces you to invest your life savings on the prototype to his perpetual motion energy generator, what criteria stand out as being the MOST important factors for deciding the nature and magnitude of the harm?

Extracurricular activities are less important than grades when it comes to getting accepted to a college in the US. Does this mean that extracurricular activities are irrelevant because they are not the MOST important factor when deciding the outcome of the application?

Is it worse for a con to pretend to be a monk than to pretend to be an inventor? No. Does that mean that the two are entirely identical just because one isn't better or worse than the other? No. Things can be different without falling into some sort of hierarchy.

Edan wrote: I'm not here to argue any particular direction... and I'm choosing to have no opinion while I'm here...

I saw a comment somewhere else earlier on this topic... "Cultural appropriation is little more than today's racial segregation. It's judging your worthiness based on your ethnicity."

Thoughts?

i think that people bring different motives to the topic

there are some who speak of CA because they have seen their own heritage used in a way that is cheap and frivolous

i dont that all of think these people want to promote racial segregation (though some of them very well may but i dont believe it is the primary impetus), i think they feel reverence for the spirituality of their heritage and they dont like seeing that spirituality being treated irreverently
most especially there is a hugely tragic history involved here and to see their practices and images marketed by anyone but especially by whites has got to be salt in an emotional wound

the case they make has actually got quite a bit of merit to it, even if i seem not to acknowledge that

but there are others who push the idea simply because it affords them an opportunity to be hostile towards whites - plain and simple, these people are racist and socially destructive and their ideas need to be challenged
of course they claim the same motives as the first group, but really they are just hateful, and what they want is to contribute their own resentment into the cultural dialogue
when these people say "cultural appropriation" the quote about "judging your worthiness based on your ethnicity" is spot on

then i also i think there many who are simply high in trait-orderliness and who find it very disturbing to see people making light with established boundaries

some people are really attached to rules and and procedures and traditions, and its quite an insult and discomfort for them to see others who do not

orderliness is good up to a point, but left completely to its own momentum it has the potential to develop into authoritarianism: rigid, domineering, and controlling

so basically i think the statement was correct but that it doesnt apply to every person - each person has to be understood as acting from their own experience

Parnerium wrote:

OB1Shinobi wrote: but we reduce thing to their irreducible elements (or the closest approximation we are able) for a reason

What is that reason? That's a serious question, not a rhetorical one.

well the gist is the KISS principle

you could say that when addressing questions or problems, the most consistently effective method for producing the most consistently effective solutions involves identifying the specific effects and tracing them back to their most specific causes

eliminate anything that us extraneous

even using poverty as an example

Parnerium wrote: ...the practice of cultural appropriation can be what creates other harms. Yes, those other harms are the bad part. But where cultural appropriation is helping to cause that harm, I think it needs to be addressed. Just because it is not the "irreducible element" doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile concept.

personally, i dont see that appropriation actually does cause harm and i think that in any situation where you can demonstrate that real harm has been caused, you will always find another element, in addition to the appropriation

and that other element will be the element that makes the difference as to whether harm was caused or not

Parnerium wrote: We can say that living in poverty causes harm. But if we stop there and never look at what sorts of things contribute to poverty, then we'll never be able to actually stop the harm caused by poverty. Sure, the most basic element of the suffering might be poverty. But there's more to it. And I think it is worthwhile to talk about that "more." I think funding schools based on property taxes is a problem. Not because the concept of locally funding schools is bad. But because poverty is bad. And those practices help to keep poverty alive. In this case, the wrongness of the act is not the act itself. But that doesn't somehow make it not a problem. Reducing the discussion down to poverty isn't useful.

i agree with your ideas here, my way of processing facts and establishing cause-effect relationships is a bit more literal than most i think

the harm caused by cultural appropriation is mostly a psychological distress at witnessing it

thats not the same as being poor

if i am watching a tv show with some person of a different culture misusing or making fun of mosh pits or dungeons and dragons board game, i can change the channel

or i could think about it for a minute and understand that my persona experience with mosh pits and dungeons and dragons is still exactly the same as it was before i saw this program and that what i am seeing cannot alter that

if my little brother needs medicine and there is no food in the refrigerator, i cant change those things in the way i could change the tv channel

OB1Shinobi wrote: is it really worse for a con to pretend to be a monk than to pretend to be an inventor? i mean if a fake monk convinces you to donate to 5 dollars to his fake temple and a fake inventor convinces you to invest your life savings on the prototype to his perpetual motion energy generator, what criteria stand out as being the MOST important factors for deciding the nature and magnitude of the harm?

Extracurricular activities are less important than grades when it comes to getting accepted to a college in the US. Does this mean that extracurricular activities are irrelevant because they are not the MOST important factor when deciding the outcome of the application?

Is it worse for a con to pretend to be a monk than to pretend to be an inventor? No. Does that mean that the two are entirely identical just because one isn't better or worse than the other? No. Things can be different without falling into some sort of hierarchy.[/quote]

in the hypothetical that i used, the idea was that the harm was more measured by the cost - 5 dollars to a phoney monk might bum you out when you realize you were duped, but your whole life savings to the fake engineer and your whole life savings just got conned away from you

its ok with me if you dont see it the same way i do the way that i see it, some new age space cadet (who probably at least half-way believes his own B.S. anyway) is not any more repugnant for using cultural imagery than any other con artist

those people who send you the emails along the lines of "im a millionaire over-seas and i need your help taking care of my money, please loan me 1000 and i will pay you 100,000" are not a lesser category of fraud or exploiter than the couple who host sweat lodges at their property on the weekends for hipsters and new agers

I've really avoided this topic because I've said many times what I think of this.

Granted this is my opinion but I also am a Professor of Cultural Anthropology.

If it's your family's culture and you want to learn great, go for it. Do it the right way. Find out what your culture is, don't sit on YouTube for hours and become an expert. Most cultural experiences/teachings takes years if not a life time.

If it is not your culture, and you have no right to it leave it alone. It is not yours to learn, nor profit off of. If you are not of this culture but still want to learn many times there are opportunities for this but again, humble yourself and take the time to learn. Many times a culture/people will accept someone from the outside if they are doing good and are honest about themselves.

Learning culture takes time. It's not something that can be learned in a weekend and sometimes being born into a culture does not give you automatic birthright either.

If you don't understand it, don't speak on it and if you have no training in it do not do it/participate it.

I was discussing cultural appropriation with my old college professor (sociology) and she had an interesting take on it. She pointed out that it is natural human behavior to notice and highlight what makes us different from others. We actually study our biological, social and cultural differences in order to understand how these differences impact our interactions. Where we are failing, she believes, is in studying how much we are alike. Difference does not have to create division, but in the absence of a common threat, we tend to search for anyone even slightly different from ourselves and become suspicious of them. We steal culture that we find valuable and we destroy culture that is in conflict with our own, when the reality is that all of it is human culture.

She summed it up with a simple but profound question. If we all knew the meteor was coming and humankind would cease to exist next week, what culture would you identify as today?