![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Many of the examples of cultural appropriation in this article fail to meet the requirements given by the very definition of the term. As much as the use of Native American or African artifacts in wrong contexts by modern day population may constitute cultural appropriation, having tattoos or pictures with Celtic, Ancient Egyptian or Oriental symbols definitely doesn't. They simply lack the "weaker party" factor as the Celts, Ancient Egyptians and Asian peoples are not and never really were a subjugated minority within the western society. On the contrary, they are a foundation of today's western society! Therefore it's rather a case of cultural diffusion than cultural appropriation.
The same goes for inspiration with fashion from Eastern Europe and the Near East. Firstly, those regions were not subject to western colonialism in that era. They were mostly at least as prosperous and culturally influential as France or England. No-one with a brain in the right place would say that the Ottoman Empire or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were just pushovers to the Western Europe in the early modern period. Their contributions to the collective culture cannot therefore be labelled as cultural appropriation. Same could be argued for India and China. Maybe they were not really independent or "on equal terms" with the western powers as countries, but their populations' level of social and technological advancement was on par with, say England, if not greater. That's why the British aristocracy copied the outfits and many customs of the Hindustani. They did so to legitimise themselves as rulers in the eyes of their new subjects (same did Alexander the Great with Persians, yet nobody deems it cultural appropriation).
With this rather long rant I postulate shortening the article by cutting out the nonsense parts (listed as bold below). If I left out any more examples wrong by definition please add them in.
PS: I am aware that examples related to Sinic and Hindu cultures are debatable but since they are it's better to exclude them altogether than present any false information.
" copying iconography from another culture's history such as Polynesian tribal tattoos, Chinese characters, or Celtic art worn without regard to their original cultural significance"
" Historically, some of the most hotly debated cases of cultural appropriation have occurred in places where cultural exchange is the highest, such as along the trade routes in southwestern Asia and southeastern Europe. Some scholars of the Ottoman Empire and ancient Egypt argue that Ottoman and Egyptian architectural traditions have long been falsely claimed and praised as Persian or Arab."
" During the 17th century, the forerunner to the three piece suit was appropriated from the traditional dress of diverse Eastern European and Islamic countries. The Justacorps frock coat was copied from the long zupans worn in Poland and the Ukraine,[47] the necktie or cravat was derived from a scarf worn by Croatian mercenaries fighting for Louis XIII, and the brightly colored silk waistcoats popularised by Charles II of England were inspired by exotic Turkish, Indian and Persian attire acquired by wealthy English travellers."
" By the 19th century the fascination had shifted to Asian culture. English Regency era dandies adapted the Indian churidars into slim fitting pantaloons, and frequently wore turbans within their own houses. Later, Victorian gentlemen wore smoking caps based on the Islamic fez, and fashionable turn of the century ladies wore Orientalist Japanese inspired kimono dresses. During the tiki culture fad of the 1950s, white women frequently donned the qipao to give the impression that they had visited Hong Kong, although the dresses were frequently made by seamstresses in America using rayon rather than genuine silk. At the same time, teenage British Teddy Girls wore Chinese coolie hats due to their exotic connotations."
" Archbishop Justin Welby of the Anglican Church has claimed that the crucifix is "now just a fashion statement and has lost its religious meaning.". Crucifixes have been incorporated into Japanese lolita fashion by non-Christians in a cultural context that is distinct from its original meaning as a Christian religious symbol."
" The leaders of ancient Israel strongly condemned the adoption of Egyptian and Canaanite practises, especially cutting the hair short or shaving the beard. At the same time, the Old Testament distinguishes the religious circumcision of the Hebrews, from cultures such as the Egyptians where the practise had aesthetic or practical purposes."
" During the early 16th century, European men imitated the short regular haircuts and beards on rediscovered Ancient Greek and Roman statues. The curled hair favoured by the Regency era dandy Beau Brummel was also inspired by the classical era."
" During the 17th century, Louis XIV began wearing wigs to conceal his baldness. Like many other French fashions, these were quickly appropriated by baroque era courtiers in England and the rest of Europe to the extent that men often shaved their heads to ensure their wig fitted properly."
" There are also ethnicity-related team names derived from prominent immigrant populations in the area, such as the Boston Celtics, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, and the Minnesota Vikings."
" Since at least the early 2000s, it has become increasingly popular for people not native to those cultures, to get tattoos of Indian devanagari, Korean letters or Han characters (traditional, simplified or Japanese), often without knowing the actual meaning of the symbols being used." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.47.129 ( talk) 13:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
An interesting historic example of Cultural Appropriation was/is the popularisation of kilts, tartan, bagpipes etc amongst Lowland Scots around 200 years ago. These things were only ever part of the minority celtic Highland culture until they suddenly became hugely fashionable in the anglic Lowlands, mainly thanks to the romantic writings of Sir Walter Scott. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.211.113 ( talk) 15:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I trimmed a lot of the criticism section because it relied too heavily on a single opinion piece in The Daily Beast (and, elsewhere, another by Cathy Young); we can mention those opinions, and I left some in, but building an entire section around them is tricky, especially if we end up placing WP:UNDUE weight on one or two opinion pieces. It would be better to find secondary sources describing opposition to the concept, rather than citing a bunch of op-eds. (Or, worse, just one or two op-eds - if we must cite opinion pieces, it's important to avoid putting too much weight on just one.) It's also important to avoid using them for statements of fact (which is another reason why we'd be better off finding reliable non-opinion secondary sources on criticism, which we can use for statements of fact.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
An editor listed "cultural apartheid" as a possible synonym for "cultural appropriation", citing the Urbandictionary website. A quick Web search found a number of citations of "cultural apartheid", but all were the opposite of "cultural appropriation"; they were all about maintaining cultural purism. Urbandictionary is hardly an authoritative source, especially in the face of etymology and usage. So I deleted the reference to "cultural apartheid". If anything, it seems that those who are extremely eager to denounce things as "cultural appropriation" are practioners of "cultural apartheid". That is, opponents of cultural borrowings are the ones practicing cultural apartheid. Pete unseth ( talk) 13:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
There was a recent Finnish Suomen Kuvalehti article on the origins of the term [1]. I'm not attempting to add any of this to the article, but I think the current wording of the article requires some back-up.
They asked two professors who failed to answer how the term was born and what scientific background it has. The third, Laura Huttunen, professor of social anthropology at the University of Tampere replied:
The term is not based on science. Cultural appropriation has no basis in the social sciences or science at all. It is an American term, used in describing struggle between cultural groups. It is quite contradictory and in many ways a bad concept. [It implies] that the world would be divided into cultures with clear boundaries with every one of them having own ancient contents. But the world does not work this way, our culture has borrowing, variation and combination. Cultural appropriation has been used to describe different and unsymmetric things, and because of that, it's from a researcher's point of view, a really difficult term - not an analytical tool.
Currently the lead states that "Cultural appropriation is a concept in sociology" based on a 2010 book by a philosopher, a 1996 text on aboriginal intellectual property rights which do not mention the term and a 2012 The Guardian column. This is inadequate for the the claim. The article also really needs a chapter on the origin of the term because it seems to be unclear. -- Pudeo ( talk) 12:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Just to make clear: what I'm talking about is the distinction with actual academic use vs. the use by social media bloggers like Yassmin Abdel-Magied, the Guardian columnists and MTV News writing about the outfits of celebrities. Too many of the references are about the latter, and some of the scholarly references are from 2007 and do not mention cultural appropriation, just intellectual property rights. -- Pudeo ( talk) 12:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There are so many statements made in general, especially so within the intro section, that are not corroborated in enough sources in my opinion. Again this seems more appropriate for the academic section and here it would give the article more leeway in presenting some differing opinions on the subject. Cultural appropriation is a very recent concept, there is bound to be some unavoidable wordiness if an inclusive perspective is given in this article, it would be good to keep it limited to specific sections to make the page more readable. Llamageddon ( talk) 11:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The section on "gender and sexuality" does not seem to fit in this article. It is only about people in acting roles, which is not the same thing as cultural appropriation. If an actress plays the part of a royal/prostitute/computer genius/accountant/medium -- then nobody complains that she is doing cultural appropriation. People may object to such casting as the section refers to, but they should create another article for that. It could include such things as people playing roles they do not fit ethnically/racially, such as Marlon Brando when he played a Japanese character in The Teahouse of the August Moon or a Mexican in Viva Zapata!; or David Carradine as a Chinese character in the Kung Fu American television program. Acting issues are not really the same as cultural appropriation. This section should be removed and a new article created on casting issues. Hope this is seen as constructive, not an attack. Pete unseth ( talk) 01:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to NOT put this in citation templates, since I would have to do all that by hand--plus I have a day job, and my lifespan is limited. I'll do minimal formatting though it breaks my heart to drop junk here.
Have fun. Hope someone will use this. Drmies ( talk) 16:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. I was recently reverted for an edit that tried to tone down the extent to which the article promoted the validity of 'cultural appropriation' as a concept to be frowned up. There will always be a preponderance of sources for a modern coinage explaining what is intended by said coinage, but I think the tone of article needs to elevated above either endorsing the theory/construct or decrying it as baloney. I think this will require some changes alike those in my original edit, and I'd like to see what other editors have to say. Zythe ( talk) 13:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The edits on August 1 have enlarged some topics under Whitewashing in some films even larger than the article Whitewashing in film. This part of the Cultural appropriation is now disproportinately large. Let's at least stop adding more example. What about removing any? Pete unseth ( talk) 00:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Part of "Whitewashing" in these cases is also cultural appropriation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKGWIKI ( talk • contribs)
I removed a statement from the article about Fox News and Bill O'Reilly and their views on Cultural appropriation
Fox News and host Bill O’Reilly have argued that cultural appropriation is an example of political correctness. [1] [2]
Neither of the sources support the statements. The first source while published on Fox News website is an article written by Jane Ridley of the New York Post. In the article she does not argue that cultural appropriation is an example of political correctness. She reports that a mother worries about the possibility that Halloween costumes are politically incorrect because of cultural appropriation. The second source is a Facebook post by Bill O'OReilly promoting an episode of No Spin News. He isn't arguing anything just promoting the show. we would need to watch the show to see what his views actually were. ~ GB fan 10:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
References
The Article is about "Cutural Appropriation," but it actually describes "Cultural MISappropriation." See the Metcalfe reference. Metcalfe is clear that the two are distinct, and that it's MISappropriation that is inappropriate (the bulk of this article), while Appropriation is not an issue.
Even if Metcalfe's thesis is rejected, the McDonald reference and Cambridge Dictionary [1] do not require the appropriation to be by a member of a dominant culture from an oppressed or minority culture. This is born out in the Avril Lavigne example, where she is accused of appropriating from the Japanese culture. The American and Japanese cultures are peers, with neither dominant over the other.
Examples and references contradict with the majority of the article. I do not want to edit the entire article to change "appropriation" to "misappropriation" without other input. 2Sal ( talk) 01:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Work out the problems in the lede or one of us is going to wholesale revert/cleanup. We had a stable lede for quite awhile. Please fix it so we don't have to. We decided to go with the understanding that the sources were using "Cultural Appropriation" to basically mean "misappropriation", even if they weren't phrasing it that way; the colonial element was/is assumed, unless they state otherwise. Really, if you read the sources it's always clear from context. @
2Sal:, I sympathize with what you're trying to do here, but I don't think the way you're going about it is helping. Please read what we're saying here and work in collaboration with other editors and what we have to deal with re - these issues with the phrasings in the sourcing. Trying to turn this article into something about equal cultural exchange, or trying to rewrite it as Cultural Misappropriation and drawing a hard distinction with Appropriation as equal exchange is not going to work here, due to how the sources use the two interchangeably. -
CorbieV
☊
☼
19:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. I'm reverting to the stable version. We have several sources cited in the lede that use "misappropriation" or "(mis)appropriation" in their titles or body text. We had the article this way for a while in the past. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
References
The second statement of the article claims "It is distinguished from equal cultural exchange due to the presence of a colonial element and imbalance of power". In both of the references cited I can only find one mention of colonizing and one of colnialism. I can find no reference that would support such a narrow definition. I think this needs to be rephrased at the least. I'm not sure "...colonial element 'or' imbalance of power." would really cut it. If we are claiming a colonial element is intrisical to all examples of cultural appropriation we should definitely have a more difinitive reference. Llamageddon ( talk) 16:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Go review WP:5P. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the legal arena, IP rights amount to a legal right to exclude others from using a concept or invention. Intellectual Property rights are not collective: It is utterly specious to claim that the people of one culture cannot adopt elements from another culture. This practice has been going on for as long as history itself, and probably far longer than that. It is certainly not true that such "rights" can only be defended by one culture, but not by another culture, simply based on an invented concept that one culture is somehow subservient to another. You'd be laughed out of court to even make this argument. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:1:D1AE:8321:EDB7 ( talk) 19:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
|
Is it useful for editors continually add new cases, complaining that they are additional examples of cultural appropriation? Inevitably there will be a new example at least once a month. The article should define cultrual appropriation and give some examples, but this is turning into a list of celebrity complaints. That is not what I think this article should be. What do otheres think? Pete unseth ( talk) 01:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the statement "Because of the presence of power imbalances that are a byproduct of colonialism and oppression, cultural appropriation is distinct from equal cultural exchange" as none of the cited sources support this statement. Two of the sources do not mention cultural exchange, two do not mention colonialism, and none of them mention both colonialism and cultural exchange, so it would require WP:SYNTH to phrase the statement in the way it is. Furthermore, the sources, even if we were to allow SYNTH, still do not support the statement. One of the sources simply describes Cultural Appropriation as "the loose idea of borrowing, sharing and being inspired by other cultures. Cultural appropriation in this sense is an awesome thing." The only source directly comparing cultural appropriation to cultural exchange does not frame the difference as being colonialism (which it does not mention) and actually says "cultural exchange suggests you give something in return for having taken something. If it’s culture that’s taken, then presumably what’s given back is the art. In which case the difference between appropriation and exchange, to be (maybe absurdly) logical about it, would have to lie with an assessment of the value of the art itself." The closest it comes to saying that the difference stems from a power imbalance is "So I find it less likely that a person can make art borrowing from a culture less empowered than his own. But again, that’s just the cold eye of the bookie. It doesn’t seem impossible for someone in the more powerful position to be able to have some insight in the other direction; it just seems difficult, and unlikely." This is hardly the same thing as what it is being used as a citation for, and is stated in a much less concrete way. Also, it is a bit of an issue that the sources, aside from not saying what it is claimed they say, are blogs and book reviews, and statements from them should therefore be attributed to the authors and not used for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 08:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem with this statement is that it's a fringe movement. While it's supported by the UN ( the UN is known for supporting some REALLY kooky things), it's not supported by law. Leaving this out gives the impression that there is some law against it when, in fact, there is no legal precedent, so legally speaking it isn't a violation of anyone's rights nor do most countries recognize such rights as legally enforceable/binding. Failing to mention that anywhere in the article and with the statement in the lead gives a LARGE amount of WP:UNDUE weight to one opinion on the subject. The only other close instance was the Washington Redskins name/logo trademark retraction which was later thrown out by the courts as an abuse of power by the Trademark/Patent office. Buffs ( talk) 16:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Buffs, we cannot tell if you are simply not reading the sources and edit summaries, or are consciously choosing to misrepresent them. The effect is the same: disruptive and deceptive. Due to these chronic misrepresentations and disruptions on your part, no one is required to keep going in circles with you on talk. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Many of the examples of cultural appropriation in this article fail to meet the requirements given by the very definition of the term. As much as the use of Native American or African artifacts in wrong contexts by modern day population may constitute cultural appropriation, having tattoos or pictures with Celtic, Ancient Egyptian or Oriental symbols definitely doesn't. They simply lack the "weaker party" factor as the Celts, Ancient Egyptians and Asian peoples are not and never really were a subjugated minority within the western society. On the contrary, they are a foundation of today's western society! Therefore it's rather a case of cultural diffusion than cultural appropriation.
The same goes for inspiration with fashion from Eastern Europe and the Near East. Firstly, those regions were not subject to western colonialism in that era. They were mostly at least as prosperous and culturally influential as France or England. No-one with a brain in the right place would say that the Ottoman Empire or the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were just pushovers to the Western Europe in the early modern period. Their contributions to the collective culture cannot therefore be labelled as cultural appropriation. Same could be argued for India and China. Maybe they were not really independent or "on equal terms" with the western powers as countries, but their populations' level of social and technological advancement was on par with, say England, if not greater. That's why the British aristocracy copied the outfits and many customs of the Hindustani. They did so to legitimise themselves as rulers in the eyes of their new subjects (same did Alexander the Great with Persians, yet nobody deems it cultural appropriation).
With this rather long rant I postulate shortening the article by cutting out the nonsense parts (listed as bold below). If I left out any more examples wrong by definition please add them in.
PS: I am aware that examples related to Sinic and Hindu cultures are debatable but since they are it's better to exclude them altogether than present any false information.
" copying iconography from another culture's history such as Polynesian tribal tattoos, Chinese characters, or Celtic art worn without regard to their original cultural significance"
" Historically, some of the most hotly debated cases of cultural appropriation have occurred in places where cultural exchange is the highest, such as along the trade routes in southwestern Asia and southeastern Europe. Some scholars of the Ottoman Empire and ancient Egypt argue that Ottoman and Egyptian architectural traditions have long been falsely claimed and praised as Persian or Arab."
" During the 17th century, the forerunner to the three piece suit was appropriated from the traditional dress of diverse Eastern European and Islamic countries. The Justacorps frock coat was copied from the long zupans worn in Poland and the Ukraine,[47] the necktie or cravat was derived from a scarf worn by Croatian mercenaries fighting for Louis XIII, and the brightly colored silk waistcoats popularised by Charles II of England were inspired by exotic Turkish, Indian and Persian attire acquired by wealthy English travellers."
" By the 19th century the fascination had shifted to Asian culture. English Regency era dandies adapted the Indian churidars into slim fitting pantaloons, and frequently wore turbans within their own houses. Later, Victorian gentlemen wore smoking caps based on the Islamic fez, and fashionable turn of the century ladies wore Orientalist Japanese inspired kimono dresses. During the tiki culture fad of the 1950s, white women frequently donned the qipao to give the impression that they had visited Hong Kong, although the dresses were frequently made by seamstresses in America using rayon rather than genuine silk. At the same time, teenage British Teddy Girls wore Chinese coolie hats due to their exotic connotations."
" Archbishop Justin Welby of the Anglican Church has claimed that the crucifix is "now just a fashion statement and has lost its religious meaning.". Crucifixes have been incorporated into Japanese lolita fashion by non-Christians in a cultural context that is distinct from its original meaning as a Christian religious symbol."
" The leaders of ancient Israel strongly condemned the adoption of Egyptian and Canaanite practises, especially cutting the hair short or shaving the beard. At the same time, the Old Testament distinguishes the religious circumcision of the Hebrews, from cultures such as the Egyptians where the practise had aesthetic or practical purposes."
" During the early 16th century, European men imitated the short regular haircuts and beards on rediscovered Ancient Greek and Roman statues. The curled hair favoured by the Regency era dandy Beau Brummel was also inspired by the classical era."
" During the 17th century, Louis XIV began wearing wigs to conceal his baldness. Like many other French fashions, these were quickly appropriated by baroque era courtiers in England and the rest of Europe to the extent that men often shaved their heads to ensure their wig fitted properly."
" There are also ethnicity-related team names derived from prominent immigrant populations in the area, such as the Boston Celtics, the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, and the Minnesota Vikings."
" Since at least the early 2000s, it has become increasingly popular for people not native to those cultures, to get tattoos of Indian devanagari, Korean letters or Han characters (traditional, simplified or Japanese), often without knowing the actual meaning of the symbols being used." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.47.129 ( talk) 13:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
An interesting historic example of Cultural Appropriation was/is the popularisation of kilts, tartan, bagpipes etc amongst Lowland Scots around 200 years ago. These things were only ever part of the minority celtic Highland culture until they suddenly became hugely fashionable in the anglic Lowlands, mainly thanks to the romantic writings of Sir Walter Scott. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.211.113 ( talk) 15:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I trimmed a lot of the criticism section because it relied too heavily on a single opinion piece in The Daily Beast (and, elsewhere, another by Cathy Young); we can mention those opinions, and I left some in, but building an entire section around them is tricky, especially if we end up placing WP:UNDUE weight on one or two opinion pieces. It would be better to find secondary sources describing opposition to the concept, rather than citing a bunch of op-eds. (Or, worse, just one or two op-eds - if we must cite opinion pieces, it's important to avoid putting too much weight on just one.) It's also important to avoid using them for statements of fact (which is another reason why we'd be better off finding reliable non-opinion secondary sources on criticism, which we can use for statements of fact.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 06:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
An editor listed "cultural apartheid" as a possible synonym for "cultural appropriation", citing the Urbandictionary website. A quick Web search found a number of citations of "cultural apartheid", but all were the opposite of "cultural appropriation"; they were all about maintaining cultural purism. Urbandictionary is hardly an authoritative source, especially in the face of etymology and usage. So I deleted the reference to "cultural apartheid". If anything, it seems that those who are extremely eager to denounce things as "cultural appropriation" are practioners of "cultural apartheid". That is, opponents of cultural borrowings are the ones practicing cultural apartheid. Pete unseth ( talk) 13:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
There was a recent Finnish Suomen Kuvalehti article on the origins of the term [1]. I'm not attempting to add any of this to the article, but I think the current wording of the article requires some back-up.
They asked two professors who failed to answer how the term was born and what scientific background it has. The third, Laura Huttunen, professor of social anthropology at the University of Tampere replied:
The term is not based on science. Cultural appropriation has no basis in the social sciences or science at all. It is an American term, used in describing struggle between cultural groups. It is quite contradictory and in many ways a bad concept. [It implies] that the world would be divided into cultures with clear boundaries with every one of them having own ancient contents. But the world does not work this way, our culture has borrowing, variation and combination. Cultural appropriation has been used to describe different and unsymmetric things, and because of that, it's from a researcher's point of view, a really difficult term - not an analytical tool.
Currently the lead states that "Cultural appropriation is a concept in sociology" based on a 2010 book by a philosopher, a 1996 text on aboriginal intellectual property rights which do not mention the term and a 2012 The Guardian column. This is inadequate for the the claim. The article also really needs a chapter on the origin of the term because it seems to be unclear. -- Pudeo ( talk) 12:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Just to make clear: what I'm talking about is the distinction with actual academic use vs. the use by social media bloggers like Yassmin Abdel-Magied, the Guardian columnists and MTV News writing about the outfits of celebrities. Too many of the references are about the latter, and some of the scholarly references are from 2007 and do not mention cultural appropriation, just intellectual property rights. -- Pudeo ( talk) 12:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
There are so many statements made in general, especially so within the intro section, that are not corroborated in enough sources in my opinion. Again this seems more appropriate for the academic section and here it would give the article more leeway in presenting some differing opinions on the subject. Cultural appropriation is a very recent concept, there is bound to be some unavoidable wordiness if an inclusive perspective is given in this article, it would be good to keep it limited to specific sections to make the page more readable. Llamageddon ( talk) 11:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The section on "gender and sexuality" does not seem to fit in this article. It is only about people in acting roles, which is not the same thing as cultural appropriation. If an actress plays the part of a royal/prostitute/computer genius/accountant/medium -- then nobody complains that she is doing cultural appropriation. People may object to such casting as the section refers to, but they should create another article for that. It could include such things as people playing roles they do not fit ethnically/racially, such as Marlon Brando when he played a Japanese character in The Teahouse of the August Moon or a Mexican in Viva Zapata!; or David Carradine as a Chinese character in the Kung Fu American television program. Acting issues are not really the same as cultural appropriation. This section should be removed and a new article created on casting issues. Hope this is seen as constructive, not an attack. Pete unseth ( talk) 01:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'm going to NOT put this in citation templates, since I would have to do all that by hand--plus I have a day job, and my lifespan is limited. I'll do minimal formatting though it breaks my heart to drop junk here.
Have fun. Hope someone will use this. Drmies ( talk) 16:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. I was recently reverted for an edit that tried to tone down the extent to which the article promoted the validity of 'cultural appropriation' as a concept to be frowned up. There will always be a preponderance of sources for a modern coinage explaining what is intended by said coinage, but I think the tone of article needs to elevated above either endorsing the theory/construct or decrying it as baloney. I think this will require some changes alike those in my original edit, and I'd like to see what other editors have to say. Zythe ( talk) 13:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The edits on August 1 have enlarged some topics under Whitewashing in some films even larger than the article Whitewashing in film. This part of the Cultural appropriation is now disproportinately large. Let's at least stop adding more example. What about removing any? Pete unseth ( talk) 00:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. Part of "Whitewashing" in these cases is also cultural appropriation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKGWIKI ( talk • contribs)
I removed a statement from the article about Fox News and Bill O'Reilly and their views on Cultural appropriation
Fox News and host Bill O’Reilly have argued that cultural appropriation is an example of political correctness. [1] [2]
Neither of the sources support the statements. The first source while published on Fox News website is an article written by Jane Ridley of the New York Post. In the article she does not argue that cultural appropriation is an example of political correctness. She reports that a mother worries about the possibility that Halloween costumes are politically incorrect because of cultural appropriation. The second source is a Facebook post by Bill O'OReilly promoting an episode of No Spin News. He isn't arguing anything just promoting the show. we would need to watch the show to see what his views actually were. ~ GB fan 10:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
References
The Article is about "Cutural Appropriation," but it actually describes "Cultural MISappropriation." See the Metcalfe reference. Metcalfe is clear that the two are distinct, and that it's MISappropriation that is inappropriate (the bulk of this article), while Appropriation is not an issue.
Even if Metcalfe's thesis is rejected, the McDonald reference and Cambridge Dictionary [1] do not require the appropriation to be by a member of a dominant culture from an oppressed or minority culture. This is born out in the Avril Lavigne example, where she is accused of appropriating from the Japanese culture. The American and Japanese cultures are peers, with neither dominant over the other.
Examples and references contradict with the majority of the article. I do not want to edit the entire article to change "appropriation" to "misappropriation" without other input. 2Sal ( talk) 01:35, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Work out the problems in the lede or one of us is going to wholesale revert/cleanup. We had a stable lede for quite awhile. Please fix it so we don't have to. We decided to go with the understanding that the sources were using "Cultural Appropriation" to basically mean "misappropriation", even if they weren't phrasing it that way; the colonial element was/is assumed, unless they state otherwise. Really, if you read the sources it's always clear from context. @
2Sal:, I sympathize with what you're trying to do here, but I don't think the way you're going about it is helping. Please read what we're saying here and work in collaboration with other editors and what we have to deal with re - these issues with the phrasings in the sourcing. Trying to turn this article into something about equal cultural exchange, or trying to rewrite it as Cultural Misappropriation and drawing a hard distinction with Appropriation as equal exchange is not going to work here, due to how the sources use the two interchangeably. -
CorbieV
☊
☼
19:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Actually, never mind. I'm reverting to the stable version. We have several sources cited in the lede that use "misappropriation" or "(mis)appropriation" in their titles or body text. We had the article this way for a while in the past. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 19:42, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
References
The second statement of the article claims "It is distinguished from equal cultural exchange due to the presence of a colonial element and imbalance of power". In both of the references cited I can only find one mention of colonizing and one of colnialism. I can find no reference that would support such a narrow definition. I think this needs to be rephrased at the least. I'm not sure "...colonial element 'or' imbalance of power." would really cut it. If we are claiming a colonial element is intrisical to all examples of cultural appropriation we should definitely have a more difinitive reference. Llamageddon ( talk) 16:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Go review WP:5P. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the legal arena, IP rights amount to a legal right to exclude others from using a concept or invention. Intellectual Property rights are not collective: It is utterly specious to claim that the people of one culture cannot adopt elements from another culture. This practice has been going on for as long as history itself, and probably far longer than that. It is certainly not true that such "rights" can only be defended by one culture, but not by another culture, simply based on an invented concept that one culture is somehow subservient to another. You'd be laughed out of court to even make this argument. 2601:1C2:4E02:3020:1:D1AE:8321:EDB7 ( talk) 19:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
|
Is it useful for editors continually add new cases, complaining that they are additional examples of cultural appropriation? Inevitably there will be a new example at least once a month. The article should define cultrual appropriation and give some examples, but this is turning into a list of celebrity complaints. That is not what I think this article should be. What do otheres think? Pete unseth ( talk) 01:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the statement "Because of the presence of power imbalances that are a byproduct of colonialism and oppression, cultural appropriation is distinct from equal cultural exchange" as none of the cited sources support this statement. Two of the sources do not mention cultural exchange, two do not mention colonialism, and none of them mention both colonialism and cultural exchange, so it would require WP:SYNTH to phrase the statement in the way it is. Furthermore, the sources, even if we were to allow SYNTH, still do not support the statement. One of the sources simply describes Cultural Appropriation as "the loose idea of borrowing, sharing and being inspired by other cultures. Cultural appropriation in this sense is an awesome thing." The only source directly comparing cultural appropriation to cultural exchange does not frame the difference as being colonialism (which it does not mention) and actually says "cultural exchange suggests you give something in return for having taken something. If it’s culture that’s taken, then presumably what’s given back is the art. In which case the difference between appropriation and exchange, to be (maybe absurdly) logical about it, would have to lie with an assessment of the value of the art itself." The closest it comes to saying that the difference stems from a power imbalance is "So I find it less likely that a person can make art borrowing from a culture less empowered than his own. But again, that’s just the cold eye of the bookie. It doesn’t seem impossible for someone in the more powerful position to be able to have some insight in the other direction; it just seems difficult, and unlikely." This is hardly the same thing as what it is being used as a citation for, and is stated in a much less concrete way. Also, it is a bit of an issue that the sources, aside from not saying what it is claimed they say, are blogs and book reviews, and statements from them should therefore be attributed to the authors and not used for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. UnequivocalAmbivalence ( talk) 08:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem with this statement is that it's a fringe movement. While it's supported by the UN ( the UN is known for supporting some REALLY kooky things), it's not supported by law. Leaving this out gives the impression that there is some law against it when, in fact, there is no legal precedent, so legally speaking it isn't a violation of anyone's rights nor do most countries recognize such rights as legally enforceable/binding. Failing to mention that anywhere in the article and with the statement in the lead gives a LARGE amount of WP:UNDUE weight to one opinion on the subject. The only other close instance was the Washington Redskins name/logo trademark retraction which was later thrown out by the courts as an abuse of power by the Trademark/Patent office. Buffs ( talk) 16:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Buffs, we cannot tell if you are simply not reading the sources and edit summaries, or are consciously choosing to misrepresent them. The effect is the same: disruptive and deceptive. Due to these chronic misrepresentations and disruptions on your part, no one is required to keep going in circles with you on talk. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 17:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)