Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[CiG]

I don't know that anybody would call blackface cultural appropriation. Having a black face isn't the same as having a culture that has ingredient preferences or fashion styles.

 

[Einherjar86]

I have to disagree. Blackface has gone hand in hand with cultural appropriation, and has been integral to American appropriation of black culture since the nineteenth century.

Cultural appropriation is sometimes so blatant it smacks us in the face. The Black and White Minstrel Show ran on British television for – what seems now to us, looking back at it – and astonishing 20 years, from 1958.

Even halfway through its run the show, in which white entertainers “blacked up” to sing songs in a Deep South of America style, was the subject of petitions calling for it to be taken off the air because of its in-your-face racism. It can hardly be seen now without an overwhelming feeling of embarrassment. How did we ever think that was acceptable?

The show was harking back to the minstrel shows in 19th-century America, and blackface was a popular form of entertainment until the enlightenment of the 1960s, coupled with rising racial tensions across the US, finally put paid to it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...s-blackface-performance-costume-a8356526.html

 

[CiG]

This is part of the problem I see and part of why I think this narrative is fundamentally nationalistic, because this comparison compares skin colour (arbitrary racial characteristic) with culture. It feeds directly into the notions of white nationalism which claims that minorities will be the direct cause of the downfall of the west because, by the sheer fact that they're non-white, they can never perpetuate western values nor integrate into white cultures.

The left utterly underestimates the degree to which they fuel nationalism.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure I follow. I mean, black culture can't be separated from skin color. That's not a leftist notion, it's just black culture. There are some cultures that aggregate around people of particular appearances.

The difference between white nationalism and those who support black culture is that the latter feel that black culture is an integral part of Western culture at large. You don't have Western (or American) culture without black culture. This is basically what Ralph Ellison wrote back in the 1950s.

This is why I don't totally buy the nationalist angle--because black culture doesn't fall along national boundaries, but American culture certainly does. "Culture" can apply to many different kinds of groups.

 

[CiG]

I'm not saying that black culture is nationalistic, I'm saying that the ideology of "that is cultural appropriation" and its obsession with reinforcing the boundaries around cultures is a nationalistic act. This is also why I said it is unintentionally nationalistic in my first comment.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I realize you're not saying black culture is nationalistic (unless we count black nationalism, which is one dimension of black culture). I'm merely calling into question whether cultural appropriation can be nationalistic if it's not appropriating something that falls along national boundaries.

But I think maybe I'm not entirely understanding the comparison. Are you intending this as a critique of the idea of cultural appropriation? If so, I'm not sure I follow the critique, since you seem to be comparing it to the "free movement" of immigration...? At least, that's how I understood it.

 

[Dak]

You don't have Western..... culture without black culture.

Depends on what we include in "culture", and whether or not it can be appropriated.

 

[Einherjar86]

Hmmm, well... I'd say that Western culture wouldn't be what it is without black culture. In all fairness.

 

[CiG]

I'm comparing it to Classical Marxism and internationalism, which as far as I'm aware has always been opposed to rigid social-sectarianism which seems to be the dominant mentality now. By free movement I don't mean the actual EU policy itself but rather the spirit behind such a notion, that people shouldn't be trapped in their culture nor rejected from another's.

More egregious forms of what you and others call cultural appropriation (black, red, yellow and brown face for example) are not things I would defend even if I don't agree that those are examples of the concept but rather just low-brow forms of racist entertainment, but a white woman at a prom wearing a culturally Asian prom dress should be an utterly uncontroversial act and an attempt to put a stop to such a practice is IMO a fundamentally nationalistic act.

It's an aggressive reinforcement of rigid borders around cultures.

I'm merely calling into question whether cultural appropriation can be nationalistic if it's not appropriating something that falls along national boundaries.

For example, the implication behind telling a white American woman not to wear a Chinese dress is that she should dress to suit her nation and leave the Chinese dresses to those who are Chinese, aka their nationality. It's the same case with the more common example of Mexican clothing, whether it be a caricature (ponchos, sombreros etc) or genuine articles of clothing that exist outside of tacky Halloween costumes like a huipil. Why should someone be demanded to dress within the boundaries of their nation's fashion?

Anyway, I'm just spitballing. This common leftist practice of going on about cultural appropriation feels nationalistic to me and conforms to many similar things said in the white nationalist circles I sometimes find myself in.

 

[Einherjar86]

No, I do understand what you're saying. I don't think it's wrongheaded, but I think there are more nuances to the comparison.

I'm comparing it to Classical Marxism and internationalism, which as far as I'm aware has always been opposed to rigid social-sectarianism which seems to be the dominant mentality now. By free movement I don't mean the actual EU policy itself but rather the spirit behind such a notion, that people shouldn't be trapped in their culture nor rejected from another's.

I think the more foundational idea of the "spirit," as you call it, is that people can practice their own culture anywhere they choose without being persecuted--not that people outside certain cultural practices can choose on a whim to move within them, somehow. Cultures aren't fixed in the same way that national borders are. When an American visits Australia, they're subject to abide by Australian law, but not to participate in Australian culture.

I think that over time people can change their culture. If a white person marries an Asian person and they move to Asia, maybe over time the white person adopts certain customs and practices. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a white person just acting Asian temporarily, or some such. That seems less respectful to me and more like entertainment, if not mockery.

I know that some might say that imitation is a form of flattery, but there's a difference between cultural appreciation and cultural amusement. More often than not, dressing up in Halloween costumes is a form of amusement that people by defend by calling it appreciation. To be crude, I think that's bullshit. In many cases, costumes are extremely stereotypical images of particular cultures that don't reflect widespread behavior or common practice. In other cases still, costumes may reflect what said cultures view as specialized practices that most members of that culture wouldn't--or couldn't--perform, much less someone dressing up for Halloween. It may even be the case that someone wearing a costume might intend it respectfully; but in that case, maybe the wearer should take the time to actually back up their "respect" with some research and realize that the costume itself is offensive and/or reductive in specific ways.

Finally, and from a more theoretical angle, while we see white people in America dressing up in various Latino or Asian costumes, we don't see Latinos or black people dressing up in "white American" costumes. It's the case that certain cultural images have been commodified, and commoditification can be read to reflect a cultural hierarchy whereby certain cultures only appear through various festivities, holidays, or costumes. I see this less as respect than as mere toleration, if not amusement.

I do see how criticizing cultural appropriation can be seen as nationalistic, and that might be a contradiction some leftists don't realize. I happen to think cultural appropriation should be criticized, just as I think that national borders are ultimately a necessary aspect of modern global development (fwiw, I wasn't trying to argue against borders in that last big showdown; I was just pointing out what I saw as a contradiction between nationalism and free market ideology).

More egregious forms of what you and others call cultural appropriation (black, red, yellow and brown face for example) are not things I would defend even if I don't agree that those are examples of the concept but rather just low-brow forms of racist entertainment, but a white woman at a prom wearing a culturally Asian prom dress should be an utterly uncontroversial act and an attempt to put a stop to such a practice is IMO a fundamentally nationalistic act.

I agree that this is a more questionable example, especially given that the wearer seemed to have more knowledge/respect for the culture. It wasn't a cheap Halloween costume, it was an expensive dress. And, if I recall, people in China actually weren't upset.

 

[CiG]

I don't really think it's a matter of integrating into a foreign culture, that kind of thing takes a lifetime. But I don't see why it's a problem to incorporate small elements of a foreign culture into your life in some way. Why should anybody be forced to remain within the boundaries of a culture they didn't choose?

Finally, and from a more theoretical angle, while we see white people in America dressing up in various Latino or Asian costumes, we don't see Latinos or black people dressing up in "white American" costumes.

Cowboys? Vikings? Also, I don't think I've ever seen someone complain about cultural appropriation when it's a non-white person appropriating a different non-white culture. It seems blatantly one-way.

And, if I recall, people in China actually weren't upset.

Most of the time the people in the country the appropriation is apparently happening to don't care, it would seem. At least, especially in the Asian examples.

Edit: I also think this is part and parcel of what has happened since the left abandoned Classical Marxism in favour of this weird intersectionalism or whatever you would call it. Essentially the abandoning of class politics, so much of what they propose is so utterly restricted to white majority western countries now. Very little of left-wing ideology today is universally applicable.

White privilege is meaningless outside of the west. Class privilege is relevant literally anywhere. Cultural appropriation similarly is an utterly useless and meaningless concept outside of the west.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't really think it's a matter of integrating into a foreign culture, that kind of thing takes a lifetime. But I don't see why it's a problem to incorporate small elements of a foreign culture into your life in some way.

But for what purpose and in what way, I guess is my main concern.

Cowboys? Vikings? Also, I don't think I've ever seen someone complain about cultural appropriation when it's a non-white person appropriating a different non-white culture. It seems blatantly one-way.

Ah, good points--cowboys at least, for sure. But I kind of feel like mostly white people dress up as cowboys... no? And furthermore, there were real black and Latino cowboys (maybe not Asian cowboys, but I'm not really sure).

You're right that it only goes one way, but this is where my progressive indoctrination comes into play and I have to point out that the modern image of the cowboy is part of the commodification system that produced all other cultural costumes. It goes one way because of that dynamics. White people don't care about it because they don't have to.

That's my take anyway.

Most of the time the people in the country the appropriation is apparently happening to don't care, it would seem. At least, especially in the Asian examples.

Speaking of systems of control, Asia is pretty high on that list. China, Japan, Singapore--they got that shit nailed down.

 

[Dak]

White people don't care about it because they don't have to.

Funnily enough I was going to say the opposite. Apparently only white people have enough privilege to allow getting mad about Halloween costumes rather than real issues. We're looking at peak First World Problems.

 

[Einherjar86]

Funnily enough I was going to say the opposite. Apparently only white people have enough privilege to allow getting mad about Halloween costumes rather than real issues. We're looking at peak First World Problems.

I think that confuses “getting mad” with acknowledging an issue. I’m not mad about cultural appropriation, but I think it’s worth pointing out. I am privileged enough to have time to address the issue, so I can put my privilege to good use. Lastly, the idea of cultural appropriation didn’t originate with white people, but among (I believe) postcolonial theorists, many of whom are people of color. But I could be wrong.

 

[Dak]

I think that confuses “getting mad” with acknowledging an issue. I’m not mad about cultural appropriation, but I think it’s worth pointing out. I am privileged enough to have time to address the issue, so I can put my privilege to good use. Lastly, the idea of cultural appropriation didn’t originate with white people, but among (I believe) postcolonial theorists, many of whom are people of color. But I could be wrong.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095652789

Looks like there's no conclusive origination, but Coutts-Smith appears to be white - not sure about Michael North.

The wiki on cultural appropriation is pretty hilarious. It gives a definition based on majority/minority oppression, and then gives lots of examples of it which do not involve majority/minority relationships, but often among national equals and in both directions among intranational classes.

 

[CiG]

But for what purpose and in what way, I guess is my main concern.

Speaking of systems of control, Asia is pretty high on that list. China, Japan, Singapore--they got that shit nailed down.

I really just don't think it matters. Leftists are the new eternal buzzkills, they're so insufferable and overly political that they try to ruin people's Halloween fun because of some clothing, usually worn by little kids let's be honest here. And furthermore it's a non-issue to the people from the country the costume appropriates from.

I'm not really sure how the systems of control are relevant in their reactions to examples of cultural appropriation. There are videos on Youtube showing the reactions over in those countries and it's overwhelmingly "it looks cute" or "I like that our culture is appreciated in other places."

Ah, good points--cowboys at least, for sure. But I kind of feel like mostly white people dress up as cowboys... no? And furthermore, there were real black and Latino cowboys (maybe not Asian cowboys, but I'm not really sure).

Well, in a majority white country, mostly white people dress up as everything. And yes there were real black and Latino cowboys, were there also not white people living in China or Mexico? That justification for minority kids dressing up as vikings or cowboys can easily be made for white kids wearing ponchos or oriental dresses.

You're right that it only goes one way, but this is where my progressive indoctrination comes into play and I have to point out that the modern image of the cowboy is part of the commodification system that produced all other cultural costumes. It goes one way because of that dynamics. White people don't care about it because they don't have to.

That's my take anyway.

Somewhat misses my point. It only goes one way which also implies that non-whites are never held accountable for appropriation of other non-white cultures. Also as per Dak's comment which he beat me to saying, it seems that the people who care about this non-issue are overwhelmingly white people and more specifically people who are very progressive of any race in the west. You have 12 progressive Japanese-Americans losing their minds over something and then you have people in Japan asking what the Japanese think about it and the two reactions couldn't be more different.

I don't like the whole "you're an Uncle Tom" mentality but tbh it applies much more to westernized progressive minorities than it does [insert black conservative thinker here].

 

[Dak]

The funny thing is that the official narrative is that "Russian trolls" are using these issues to divide the US. I don't think any Russian trolls are needed. They are only accelerating. SJWs and m/Marxists, while screaming about collusion, are acting in concert with Russian trolls.

 

[Einherjar86]

I was going to quote CIG, but I feel like the discussion of cultural appropriation is gravitating toward very specific and quite unhelpful examples such as costumes, which I realize I brought up. I don't think this helps to address the original comparison of cultural appropriation to a kind of "open borders" mentality, i.e. the liberal transmission of cultural forms across cultural boundaries.

I feel like I shouldn't have used costumes because it really doesn't get at the complexity of cultural appropriation and is too hot-button. The actual scholarship that I've read on cultural appropriation isn't on fashion but on literature, and what happens here is far from the kind of cultural appreciation that some argue for in fashion. In literary history, cultural appropriation usually takes the form of (generally speaking) the transmission of specific texts across cultural boundaries which are substantially altered--linguistically (obviously), ideologically (less obviously), and sometimes formally (slightly more obviously)--so as to obscure or sometimes erase the original cultural function of a particular work. When this happens, the work comes to represent certain values that may not correlate to those of the culture of origin, and that may in fact be used in opposition to the culture of origin.

Furthermore, this describes cultural appropriation not only in terms of white and non-white, but in its more appropriate context of cultural domination. In this respect, we can observe cultural appropriation occurring between, for instance, China and Japan, or Africa and France, or black folk culture and white American music (to give a few examples). It isn't always between white and non-white, and this isn't the sole focus of those who write about cultural appropriation in academia.

I'm concerned with the ways that appropriation alters the values associated with a particular cultural form in such a way that the culture of origin suffers due to the values perceived/imposed by the appropriating culture. I do believe that can happen with costumes, but the scholarship I've encountered deals with literature. Obviously, literary criticism attempts to overcome (or at least acknowledge) these barriers as best it can, but it still reflects on historical interpretations/translations, which gave rise to (for example) Western myths of the "noble savage" and the "primitive pacifist"--both of which have been shown to function in ways that reduce, demean, and deprive the cultures to which they're attributed, and that reveal some underlying proclivities of Western cultural values.

As I said, costumes don't quite get at this less visible yet, in many ways, more extensive network of appropriation.

As this relates to cultural appropriation = open borders (for the sake of argument): I think this is true. But as I've said in other arguments recently, open borders also correlate to the most faithful realization of a free market, that being a global free market. This is not to say, however, that in such a scenario all parties will remain equal--far from it. In a system of purely deregulated capital, wealth will absolutely accumulate in certain areas and vanish from others, leaving certain parties in the dust. Likewise, cultural appropriation may indeed resemble open borders, but it also inevitably yields inequity among the parties appropriated.

 

[CiG]

I can't really touch on cultural appropriation as relating to literature TBH. Nowhere near educated or well-read enough to do so.

Edit: funny coincidence, just saw this on my FB feed: Jamie Oliver accused of cultural 'appropriation' by minister after he launches jerk rice.

 

[Dak]

There's an irony here in that a legitimate critique of JP involves dismissing the basis for the broad-based post-modern critique. Not that this is new or anything.