The Cracked Thread

It's more the trivialization of aspects of a culture and the like that's harmful. Do you think some white teenage girl who gets a bindi is going to understand its cultural relevance beyond "ooh exotic jewelry"? And do you think the manufacturer is going to care enough to educate them on that?

edited 28th Jul '15 6:26:52 PM by Odd1

For the record, the bindi has significance in the Hindu religion.

A market thing. It's like how people will use random foreign words to "spice up" their terminology. Like a "kimono duster" which is a real thing, and is sold, and is very much not a kimono.

Basically, if one person was doing something a bit off, it wouldn't be a problem. It's when society as a whole does it, and often times that is the result when the united states adopt it, because of how dominating they are.

Now when things aren't given the proper context, we use it randomly and without understanding.

A really simple one to get? Religious symbols. We will often look at eastern symbols and use them because we think they are cool, and as a result commercialize them. For instance I know a situation where someone tattoo'd an "om" symbol on their foot, which is kind of super taboo.

Not everything is religious level of devaluing, but it's often a microaggression. If it was JUST the one thing here and there it wouldn't be a problem, but it's that and so much more.

I don't think most people wearing jeans think about its origins rooting to the US Midwest workers nor people wearing clothing associated with the US black community think about the origins of the US black culture, nor the people who celebrate Halloween think about the Anglo-Germanic origins of the festival and etc.

Incorporating elements of different cultures that you like is nothing wrong, the Indian jewel maker isn't selling her craft to an American girl in New York, the chef in a shrimp restaurant in New Orleans isn't being harmed by the Filipino restaurant having sea food dishes associated with Florida.

I am a Brazilian, the whole Brazilian culture can be called a huge case of cultural appropriation from the Portuguese, the Dutch, the Spanish, the African slaves, the native Indians and even the Chinese and Japanese cultures. It didn't harm anyone in those countries and it helped creating a melting pot that is unique on its own.

Call it trivialization but it isn't a zero sum game, no culture is going to lose their identity because people in another culture are adopting traits of that culture. Sure people are going to use elements from other cultures without fully understanding them, but cultures change and so do the meanings of things like clothing items, foods and festivals.

Yes it is not a zero sum game, but it still exists as a microaggression, like I said.

Also wearing black originated clothing actually DOES cause problems and racial tension. Specifically in the "oh don't wear that it makes you look like you're from the ghetto, black person, but it's SO COOL when you wear it, white person."

The problem isn't getting people to agree it's omnipresent, it's getting people to agree it might be a problem for even a fraction of a second. Most people just dismiss it outright.

edited 28th Jul '15 8:39:29 PM by MrAHR

Microaggression to whom? The Havainas style flip-flops were pretty much a Brazilian thing and became a hit on the US and everyone in Brazil rejoiced for having something from the place making an impact abroad instead of being offended.

Hookah got pretty popular in my college town, even though it is usually described as "that thing Arabs smoke from", no one is trying to claim legitimacy over their uses. It didn't stop me from enjoying smoking it even though I have no idea how the Indian and Arab tradition dictate its use.

I looked after the Kimono Duster thing, from the images it is a duster with a cut reminiscing the Japanese Kimono, nothing outraging just fashion taking different elements and incorporating in clothing.

Take a look on the Japanese take on the Western culture, it is a lot more fascinating thing than it is offensive when you look at it, it doesn't mean they are giving micro aggressions to the US Biker culture nor the European Gothic culture when the mimic and add their own flavors to those sub cultures.

You enjoying something can still happen on an individual level. That has no impact on the societal implications.

And yes, there are cases where people are happy that they made a difference or are popular. That is not always the case. Like I said, I am not arguing that it is omnipresent, just that it exists at all. We know it exists because of concrete examples (the feather headdresses for example), and yet it's still an entire marathon run each time to prove that it might be worth discussing at all.

And yes, Japan does weird things, but Japan isn't the main dominant western power.

edited 28th Jul '15 8:50:27 PM by MrAHR

Wait, does it matter that Japan is or isn't Western dominant power? Cultural appropriation isn't one sided. If someone in Germany or in the US adopt something that is associated with another less prominent culture is bad but if someone in Angola adopt a British custom or a Philippine adopt parts of the American cosine isn't?

Sure there are a few cases where there are stereotypes involved, but it doesn't mean that people shouldn't adopt or use parts of different cultures they like, even if they are from the standing world powers.

For an example of appropriation of our culture that people are actually bothered by, the name of Lolita fashion trends in Japan perpetuates a harmful misunderstanding of the original novel. Same with the tendency to label underage fan service characters as "Lolis".

In theory I understand that appropriation is harmful, but in practice I wish more people that used the term explained WHY this particular instance is harmful. Considering the difference appropriation and normal cultural exchange is the harm it causes, calling somethng out as appropriation with the greater context is like saying "this thing is bad because it's bad" or worse "any and all cultural exchange is bad".

Rhyme Beat: I've been at that level before! It's very interesting, and you learn a lot. I personally think the term is too broad, and there should be more terms to cover other issues that are similar but not quite.

It takes a bit to get there, unfortunately, because like I said so much of the argument is based around people realizing it's a thing, and many folks are bad at explaining why it might be a problem.

The lolita one is interesting, because I actually think it developed separately in terminology. However the lolita fashion lines still contains infantilized patterns that can give the brand a bad name in general, last I checked.

edited 28th Jul '15 9:08:22 PM by MrAHR

Well for lolicon the term loli to describe the sexualization of minors is a case of Gone Horribly Right, now the Lolita fashion is more similar to the Gothic culture than it is to the paedophilic undertones of the Book.

Anyway Lolita used to be a popular girl's name, until the book came out.

edited 28th Jul '15 9:11:20 PM by AngelusNox

I thought the lolita thing was just an unfortunate coincidence, since the fashion is based on victorian clothing and has nothing to do with the book.

Generally I feel cultural appropriation is a pretty fine line to walk. Wearing a piece of clothing/jewelry/makeup associated with another culture isn't necessarily a bad thing, but if it trivialises or stereotypes the culture it comes from then it's harmful and wrong.

Like honestly green beer for Paddy's day contributes to the idea that green+alcohol is the summation of Irish culture, which is less than ideal, but to drink actual Irish drinks wouldn't be an issue even if it would be closer to 'appropriation'. When people essentially make up a fictionalised version of a real culture and then appropriate elements of that, then I see an issue. It almost always contributes to stereotypes or exotifies the culture. So calling all forehead jewelry a 'bindi' would be a problem, but not necessarily any white person wearing a bindi.

The flip side of this is that if someone wants to use an element of another culture, they should be knowledgeable enough about said culture to distinguish the real from the fictional. So not only should non-Hindus/non-South Asians make sure to wear an actual bindi, but they should be well-informed on the culture also and understand all the connotations the bindi holds. tl;dr, do your research properly and make sure you use elements of the actual culture and not the stereotypes.

So where do weeaboos and their over-obsession with their idea of Japan as some Otaku paradise come into play?

They'd fall under appropriating a fictionalised version of Japan, based on stereotypes in anime/manga rather than everyday Japanese life or culture. Generally looking at any culture as a utopia means that you're basing it on a very idealised and inaccurate version of said culture and failing to take into account the realities and nuances of their history and everyday life.

They and people who make green beer for St. Patrick's Day simplify and distort a culture into something it's not. At best it leads to exotification of said culture, at worst really harmful stereotypes (fighting/drunken Irish, anyone?).

edited 28th Jul '15 11:50:40 PM by VincentQuill

They're also bad and should feel bad. And probably already do.

@5076: The Other Wiki sez:

"In modern times, the bindi is worn by women of many religious dispositions in South Asia and Southeast Asia, and is not restricted to one religion or region."

So yeah, it seems to have lost its sacredness somewhere in the last 100 years.

I've been to Japan.

And let me tell you, it's actually one of the worse places to becomes an otaku, as ironic as it may sound.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-awful-traits-group-chats-bring-out-in-people/

There is not a single article on Cracked more accurate than this one.

"For instance I know a situation where someone tattoo'd an "om" symbol on their foot,"

Wait,

...what?

I'm sure he is an electrician with a deep respect for electrical currents.

Dude, did you see the Buddhist symbol she is likely refering to?

It looks nothing like the "On" word.

"On" ? Like, switching something on ? He was referring to "ohm", methinks.

Ah.