I Wonder How Long Gulliver Will...
Politics1 min ago
Can Rice Be Cultural Appropriated ?
Can rice be cultural appropriated ?, labour mp Dawn Butler thinks so.
https:/
https:/
Answers
webbo, You need to remember, using the phrase 'cultural appropriatio
18:34 Sat 18th Aug 2018
"As you see it" seems to me to refer to something better described as "cultural mixing", which is of course perfectly fine and is part and parcel of society.
But cultural appropriation is to cultural mixing in roughly the same sense that stealing a painting is to photographing it. That's not quite a perfect analogy, but nevertheless it's along the right lines. It's related to historical context: what was the background of that cultural exchange? Was the exchange more one way than the other? What happened to the "originators" (not the owners, note)? Are they still able to enjoy the practices themselves today? How is the cultural element seen and used in the modern world by the non-original culture?
As an example of what cultural appropriation is *not*, then, would be a Jamaican woman cooking Roast Beef and Yorkshire puddings, because there was never a time when Jamaican people crossed over the seas to the UK, massacred the local population, but thought to enjoy their cooking while they were at it. On the other hand, historically, European peoples tended to absorb other cultural practices from tribes they'd enslaved and/or wiped out.
As a rough rule of thumb, then, cultural appropriation applies mainly (if at all) to the cultural practices of African and Native American peoples as used by Western societies. It's also probably best seen not as a practice of individuals -- in this case, for example, Jamie Oliver can cook whatever the hell he likes -- but of entire societies.
Hopefully I've reached peak patronising, and presumably now that I've explained it people will *still* disagree that there's a problem. That's fine -- the existence of Cultural Appropriation is controversial, and there are definitely plenty of howls of "that's CA!" that have nothing to do with it -- but at least now hopefully I've explained better what it is you think is rubbish :)
But cultural appropriation is to cultural mixing in roughly the same sense that stealing a painting is to photographing it. That's not quite a perfect analogy, but nevertheless it's along the right lines. It's related to historical context: what was the background of that cultural exchange? Was the exchange more one way than the other? What happened to the "originators" (not the owners, note)? Are they still able to enjoy the practices themselves today? How is the cultural element seen and used in the modern world by the non-original culture?
As an example of what cultural appropriation is *not*, then, would be a Jamaican woman cooking Roast Beef and Yorkshire puddings, because there was never a time when Jamaican people crossed over the seas to the UK, massacred the local population, but thought to enjoy their cooking while they were at it. On the other hand, historically, European peoples tended to absorb other cultural practices from tribes they'd enslaved and/or wiped out.
As a rough rule of thumb, then, cultural appropriation applies mainly (if at all) to the cultural practices of African and Native American peoples as used by Western societies. It's also probably best seen not as a practice of individuals -- in this case, for example, Jamie Oliver can cook whatever the hell he likes -- but of entire societies.
Hopefully I've reached peak patronising, and presumably now that I've explained it people will *still* disagree that there's a problem. That's fine -- the existence of Cultural Appropriation is controversial, and there are definitely plenty of howls of "that's CA!" that have nothing to do with it -- but at least now hopefully I've explained better what it is you think is rubbish :)
More ancient examples of Cultural Appropriation would be pretty much everything the Romans did in Gaul, Greece and Britain, or most likely aspects of many of the early Empires in the Middle East.
Essentially, then, the point is that if, at some point, one society conquered another, than absorbed that conquered society's culture into their own, then it's not really an exchange, is it? At the very least, cultural appropriation as a concept should encourage a better understanding of where these practices come from, even if the answer is not to stop using them altogether.
Essentially, then, the point is that if, at some point, one society conquered another, than absorbed that conquered society's culture into their own, then it's not really an exchange, is it? At the very least, cultural appropriation as a concept should encourage a better understanding of where these practices come from, even if the answer is not to stop using them altogether.
jim - You are only patronising me insofar as you as assume that I don't know what 'cultural appropriation' means, and that I need it explained to me in order to understand it.
The fact is, 'cultural appropriation' is a nonsensical phrase added to the lexicon of Oxford Dictionaries in 2017 and suddenly seized on by the frightfully 'right on' as a means to show how achingly empathetic they are with other 'subordinated' cultures.
This has gone on since the dawn of time, and no-one has bothered to try and see themselves as apologists of the actions of their ancestors which they cannot change.
This is literally political correctness, and it is a colossal arrogance of individuals to set themselves up as apologists for the actions of others by virtue of what they see as oppressive behaviour.
If people really do want to address genuinely oppressive behaviour, there is plenty of it around, there really is not need to waste everyone else's time by trumpeting imagined virtue to people are are not listening, and would probably not care less if they were.
The fact is, 'cultural appropriation' is a nonsensical phrase added to the lexicon of Oxford Dictionaries in 2017 and suddenly seized on by the frightfully 'right on' as a means to show how achingly empathetic they are with other 'subordinated' cultures.
This has gone on since the dawn of time, and no-one has bothered to try and see themselves as apologists of the actions of their ancestors which they cannot change.
This is literally political correctness, and it is a colossal arrogance of individuals to set themselves up as apologists for the actions of others by virtue of what they see as oppressive behaviour.
If people really do want to address genuinely oppressive behaviour, there is plenty of it around, there really is not need to waste everyone else's time by trumpeting imagined virtue to people are are not listening, and would probably not care less if they were.
jim360 - // At the very least, cultural appropriation as a concept should encourage a better understanding of where these practices come from, even if the answer is not to stop using them altogether. //
If Kim Kardashian wears her hair in braids, I am perfectly capable of understanding that the culture of hair-braiding is not inherently American, and therefore she has borrowed it from another culture.
The point is 'appropriation' means stealing, and she has clearly not stolen anything.
When you set yourself up as someone who tells someone else - usually a stranger - that they have stolen something, then you are being boorish, arrogant, and wrong, and that is why the term 'cutural appropriation' is such a mealy-mouted right-on PC stupidity coined by people with too much time, and too much pseudo-empathy to direct in interly unrequired directions.
If Kim Kardashian wears her hair in braids, I am perfectly capable of understanding that the culture of hair-braiding is not inherently American, and therefore she has borrowed it from another culture.
The point is 'appropriation' means stealing, and she has clearly not stolen anything.
When you set yourself up as someone who tells someone else - usually a stranger - that they have stolen something, then you are being boorish, arrogant, and wrong, and that is why the term 'cutural appropriation' is such a mealy-mouted right-on PC stupidity coined by people with too much time, and too much pseudo-empathy to direct in interly unrequired directions.
"...you assume that I don't know what 'cultural appropriation' means..."
If you knew what cultural appropriation means, why do you again give a non-example of it? We didn't "appropriate" culture from the Vikings and Romans, and yet you insisted in your earlier post that we had, and that this was a good thing.
No. That would be cultural exchange; the reverse process -- ie, what the Romans took from the Celts -- would have been appropriation. There is a difference.
Nor does the OED have any relevance to the issue, as Cultural Appropriation, in one form or another, has been discussed academically for maybe 40 years now. I agree that there are many examples of people screaming about it when it doesn't exist, but as is the usual way, one shouldn't allow the boorish loud idiots to distract you.
If you knew what cultural appropriation means, why do you again give a non-example of it? We didn't "appropriate" culture from the Vikings and Romans, and yet you insisted in your earlier post that we had, and that this was a good thing.
No. That would be cultural exchange; the reverse process -- ie, what the Romans took from the Celts -- would have been appropriation. There is a difference.
Nor does the OED have any relevance to the issue, as Cultural Appropriation, in one form or another, has been discussed academically for maybe 40 years now. I agree that there are many examples of people screaming about it when it doesn't exist, but as is the usual way, one shouldn't allow the boorish loud idiots to distract you.
Jim - // … but as is the usual way, one shouldn't allow the boorish loud idiots to distract you. //
I don't - because as you appear to fail to grasp, I am aware of the difference between people who want to highlight and change genuine oppression, and those who want to draw attention to themselves by their right-on honking about 'oppression'.
Clue - massacring people around the world because some people don't approve of the way they worship God is oppression, Kim Kardashian wearing her hair in braids is not.
I am sure I am not alone in being able to see and understand the difference, and I don't need it pointed out to me by attention-seeking media *** with too much time and not enough social conscience.
I don't - because as you appear to fail to grasp, I am aware of the difference between people who want to highlight and change genuine oppression, and those who want to draw attention to themselves by their right-on honking about 'oppression'.
Clue - massacring people around the world because some people don't approve of the way they worship God is oppression, Kim Kardashian wearing her hair in braids is not.
I am sure I am not alone in being able to see and understand the difference, and I don't need it pointed out to me by attention-seeking media *** with too much time and not enough social conscience.
// and no-one has bothered to try and see themselves as apologists of the actions of their ancestors// (A)
ow ! I read stuff and it is such rubbish I go ow !
remember I only have to cite one counter-example to refute (A) and show it is the usual AB bollux that we see day after day in thread after thread
erm germans ( 1944) we made mistakes in the east ( just before the Russians invaded and occupied G
Japanese - over the Rape of Nanking - I think they have just apologised havent they ? 250 000 dead
Germans ( again ) over the Holocaust - why didnt andie whilst writing A not think - oh holocaust - duh! A is obviously untrue
English and post imperial guilt - British Raj in India very bad when in fact according to contemporary criteria it wasnt
English apology over the mau mau (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/06/britain-maumau-empire-waiting)
Swiss spology to jews - https:/
I forget now who said that they accorded deep thought and research to their contributions - but clearly that is missing to night.
Hi Jim - have you noticed andie often confuses 'conclude' and 'assume'?
oh here's a good late entry
https:/
ow ! I read stuff and it is such rubbish I go ow !
remember I only have to cite one counter-example to refute (A) and show it is the usual AB bollux that we see day after day in thread after thread
erm germans ( 1944) we made mistakes in the east ( just before the Russians invaded and occupied G
Japanese - over the Rape of Nanking - I think they have just apologised havent they ? 250 000 dead
Germans ( again ) over the Holocaust - why didnt andie whilst writing A not think - oh holocaust - duh! A is obviously untrue
English and post imperial guilt - British Raj in India very bad when in fact according to contemporary criteria it wasnt
English apology over the mau mau (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/06/britain-maumau-empire-waiting)
Swiss spology to jews - https:/
I forget now who said that they accorded deep thought and research to their contributions - but clearly that is missing to night.
Hi Jim - have you noticed andie often confuses 'conclude' and 'assume'?
oh here's a good late entry
https:/
Let me put it this way, Andy: leaving this example aside, in which I'll grant you the issue of Jamie Oliver cooking jerk rice is not really worth kicking up a fuss about, it would be a brave man who walked up to, say, Aboriginal Australians or Native Americans and told them to stop fussing about their culture being appropriated, and that they were just attention-seeking media asterisks with too much time and not enough social conscience.
It's the sweeping and dismissive -- well, ignorance -- of your post(s) that I'm objecting to, as well as, by extension, everyone else's tacit support of it.
Not everything you first heard about on the internet was the invention of virtue-signallers, who are always the minority but who are irritatingly the only thing people seem to focus on whenever issues like this come up.
Now, you are welcome, as I say, to dismiss even the concerns of people who genuinely feel their cultures are being appropriated along with the rest, but that would be a mistake and one I would urge you to reconsider.
It's the sweeping and dismissive -- well, ignorance -- of your post(s) that I'm objecting to, as well as, by extension, everyone else's tacit support of it.
Not everything you first heard about on the internet was the invention of virtue-signallers, who are always the minority but who are irritatingly the only thing people seem to focus on whenever issues like this come up.
Now, you are welcome, as I say, to dismiss even the concerns of people who genuinely feel their cultures are being appropriated along with the rest, but that would be a mistake and one I would urge you to reconsider.
Well, whether meant kindly or not, consider it noted and ignored. I don't intend to "stick to physics" any more than I'd suggest that everyone else on this site keep away from it.
"Why you feel the need to present these apologies for whatever today's fashionable stupidity is I don't know..."
I have, shall we say, a little more sympathy for the issues where they arise. I clearly don't see it as "stupidity", at least not most of the time, and as I've already said at least five times the "stupid" cases are a useful distraction from more serious issues anyway.
"Why you feel the need to present these apologies for whatever today's fashionable stupidity is I don't know..."
I have, shall we say, a little more sympathy for the issues where they arise. I clearly don't see it as "stupidity", at least not most of the time, and as I've already said at least five times the "stupid" cases are a useful distraction from more serious issues anyway.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.