• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A liberal's view on cultural appropriation.

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This thread was tangentially inspired by this one: Bill Maher's instructions for keeping the fun in Halloween.

Note: These opinions are entirely my own, there's no liberal or leftist monolith on appropriation so expect a large degree of variation.

Cultural appropriation is defined by wiki (here) as
Cultural appropriation, at times also phrased cultural misappropriation, is the adoption of elements of one culture by members of another culture. This can be controversial when members of a dominant culture appropriate from disadvantaged minority cultures.
I both agree and disagree with this definition. Like Lindsay Ellis, (go see her video about what makes Moana a better film than Pochahontas.) my framing for cultural appropriation is as a neutral phenomenon. It can be harmless or harmful, additive or deleterious depending on the circumstances. To me thinking that all cultural appropriation is offensive or abusive is like when some creationists think gene mutations can only be deleterious. Neverminding that what construes positive or negative traits is largely established by the environmental contexts, the vast majority of mutations are neutral. Neither hindering nor helping. So too is cultural appropriation usually harmless.

And without getting into cultural celebration/dissemination vs culture homogeny, participating in cross cultural activities is something most liberals enjoy.
I throw a Japanese new years party every year because I grew up with exchange students and teachers and never lost my love for it. It includes wearing a type of traditional dress (a happi in my case.)

However, there's a big difference between this, where I'm participating in a specific cultural festivity giving it the respect and understanding of deserves, and something like sexy 'Indian' costume which is both degrading and a charachiturization of an exploited people by the exploited. Worse, opposition is dismissed either with 'you're being too sensitive' or 'who cares, it's fun' which is a big ethical yikes. Creating and maintaining ethnic stereotypes 'for fun' is bad enough but when accidentally or intentionally using propagandic iconography then it really can't be called benign or neutral.

Now, my response to how to react to cultural appropriation will be just as varied. I'm not big on cancel culture so it has to be a pretty extremely demeaning example for me to want to end it full stop (blackface and 'sexy Indian' costumes being one of few examples). Mostly I just want to talk about things without productive dialogue being shut down. Either by apathy, 'special snowflake' edgelording or dropping the 'r' word with every hat.

So, with that said, tell me why you think I'm an over-sensitive SJW. You know you want to.
 
Last edited:

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
This reminds me of when Speedy Gonzales was censored for being offensive toward mexicans. Do you know who wasn't offended and campaigned for his return? Actual mexicans.
Unless it's something blatantly hateful/hurtful, it seems like being offended on other people's behalf is presumpuous and patronizing.
Of course there were (mostly American Hispanics) who were offended. There was no monolithic thought on it. The original complaint filed to cartoon network was a Hispanic woman. However, there is a huge age gap in feelings about Speedy. To those Mexican-Americans growing up in the 50's, Speedy was a charicture meant to poke fun at Mexicans at the time. (1950's) However, it ended up backfiring and the character was reclaimed by Mexican culture. And it's not hard to see why. The format copying of Tom and Jerry made some hilarious connotations. Sylvester is 'the man' guarding the border/mouse hole and is incredibly inept at it compared to the jovial and intelligent mouse and Speedy generally becomes the hero of the story. So, like has happened dozens of times in history, something meant to degrade was reclaimed by the culture. Problem was, young Mexican-Americans did not have the framework to see the cartoon this way.

It's worth noting that after the complaint, it was the network that censored and cancelled speedy, because capitalism is going to capitalism. But after it was cancelled it struck up all sorts of interesting dialogue that was worth having, and it did eventually come back (though not to CN, who claimed the cancellation was due to low ratings. Whether that's true or not, we'll never know.)

So overall I'd call it a win scenario.
 

MikeDwight

Well-Known Member
Thanks to ADigital Artist for all the work they do on this forum, in my case, and everyone else's. This is the most straightforward nicest place to be.

I totally respect and will read more ADigitalArtist's opinion and then I have my own thing to add. 99.999% of Americans are so addicted to our own imperialistic Nationalism. Its not Christian. It is so obviously not traditionally Christian. Other Nations who are Not inferior or Superior , are Orthodox from their own Nationalities churches, to other Nations, in the Orthodox world anyway for 2000 years. This happened in West Europe too obviously. Can you let live other nationalities in this Country as Americans speaking their language in separate Churches and communities? Really? That is the only Christian thing to do. It is Not Christian the Patriotic and Spiritual normal that we pushed late 50's into the 60's, and it says speaking English, everyone holding hands together, and going to all the same things, is a lockstep American.

Well labourwave, I am interested in Actual scotsmen that perform the Bonnie Blue Flag , Bonnie being from their native language, which isn't appropriation with actual people using their culture, then returned after the Civil war, Ulster Scotland. That's an obvious theme in remembrance Woodrow Wilson the Ulster-Scotsman leading America. Its very hard for other cultures to promote their Own cultures And gain political prominence.
 
Last edited:

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
This thread was tangentially inspired by this one: Bill Maher's instructions for keeping the fun in Halloween.

Note: These opinions are entirely my own, there's no liberal or leftist monolith on appropriation so expect a large degree of variation.

Cultural appropriation is defined by wiki (here) as
I both agree and disagree with this definition. Like Lindsay Ellis, (go see her video about what makes Moana a better film than Pochahontas.) my framing for cultural appropriation is as a neutral phenomenon. It can be harmless or harmful, additive or deleterious depending on the circumstances. To me thinking that all cultural appropriation is offensive or abusive is like when some creationists think gene mutations can only be deleterious. Neverminding that what construes positive or negative traits is largely established by the environmental contexts, the vast majority of mutations are neutral. Neither hindering nor helping. So too is cultural appropriation usually harmless.

And without getting into cultural celebration/dissemination vs culture homogeny, participating in cross cultural activities is something most liberals enjoy.
I throw a Japanese new years party every year because I grew up with exchange students and teachers and never lost my love for it. It includes wearing a type of traditional dress (a happi in my case.)

However, there's a big difference between this, where I'm participating in a specific cultural festivity giving it the respect and understanding of deserves, and something like sexy 'Indian' costume which is both degrading and a charachiturization of an exploited people by the exploited. Worse, opposition is dismissed either with 'you're being too sensitive' or 'who cares, it's fun' which is a big ethical yikes. Creating and maintaining ethnic stereotypes 'for fun' is bad enough but when accidentally or intentionally using propagandic iconography then it really can't be called benign or neutral.

Now, my response to how to react to cultural appropriation will be just as varied. I'm not big on cancel culture so it has to be a pretty extremely demeaning example for me to want to end it full stop (blackface and 'sexy Indian' costumes being one of few examples). Mostly I just want to talk about things without productive dialogue being shut down. Either by apathy, 'special snowflake' edgelording or dropping the 'r' word with every hat.

So, with that said, tell me why you think I'm an over-sensitive SJW. You know you want to.
Damned triggered snowflake SJW!!!

Only kidding.

I used to be very against the opposition to cultural appropriation. But I realise now that that was my ignorance and getting most of my information from antis. I think the concept is more of an American phenomenon. I mean it exists other places, but only as random extreme examples.
So not being American it was a confusing concept for me.
Like Golliwogs are still sold where I live. I don’t think maliciously, it doesn’t look like a negative stereotype. And really it’s just a doll to us here. But I don’t know how African Americans would feel about them.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
To those Mexican-Americans growing up in the 50's, Speedy was a charicture meant to poke fun at Mexicans at the time. (

See you are wrong there.

Speedy Gonzalez was a hero type. Just as was Tweety the Bird. Both of them are enemies of the "villain" Sylvester the Cat - Wikipedia.

That's one of the problems with viewing things from an identity politics pov. It is only focusing on the stereotyped "identity", then deeming it racist or problematic based solely on that and totally ignoring the actual lore of the series.

You created an issue that didn't exist to begin with. Just to have a problem to tackle and virtue signal at how virtuous and good you are whilst branding its creators and any fans of the cartoon as villainous racist.

This is why people are sick of identity politics and have begun to reject its nonsese and false allegations.

However, it ended up backfiring and the character was reclaimed by Mexican culture.

It didn't backfire because Speedy was a HERO type from the beginning! Him being liked was hoped for and INTENDED from the start!
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Of course there were (mostly American Hispanics) who were offended. There was no monolithic thought on it. The original complaint filed to cartoon network was a Hispanic woman. However, there is a huge age gap in feelings about Speedy. To those Mexican-Americans growing up in the 50's, Speedy was a charicture meant to poke fun at Mexicans at the time. (1950's) However, it ended up backfiring and the character was reclaimed by Mexican culture. And it's not hard to see why. The format copying of Tom and Jerry made some hilarious connotations. Sylvester is 'the man' guarding the border/mouse hole and is incredibly inept at it compared to the jovial and intelligent mouse and Speedy generally becomes the hero of the story. So, like has happened dozens of times in history, something meant to degrade was reclaimed by the culture. Problem was, young Mexican-Americans did not have the framework to see the cartoon this way.

It's worth noting that after the complaint, it was the network that censored and cancelled speedy, because capitalism is going to capitalism. But after it was cancelled it struck up all sorts of interesting dialogue that was worth having, and it did eventually come back (though not to CN, who claimed the cancellation was due to low ratings. Whether that's true or not, we'll never know.)

So overall I'd call it a win scenario.
See, I don't see how it's possible to make a character "the hero," and at the same time call that an attempt to degrade the culture from which that character is depicted as coming. And Speedy was definitely the hero. The same goes for Quick Draw McGraw, or rather his sidekick, the Mexican burro named Baba Looey, who was a very "good guy" by any definition of the word.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I tend to think of cultural appropriation as not very easy to tell apart from simply learning from others.

Of course there are such things as disrespect and satire, but I don't think they should be assumed.
 

Enoch07

It's all a sick freaking joke.
Premium Member
Here is a racist cartoon. It is banned from broadcast in the U.S.

Notice how it is only degrading. There is no positive light to the characters/lore/story.
 

Erebus

Well-Known Member
So, I'll start off by saying that I'm firmly left-wing liberal and that cultural appropriation as a concept doesn't sit right with me. I'll do my best to express why.

First of all, it's the way it's very often used. I can only go by my own experiences here but the general use of the term "cultural appropriation" has overwhelmingly been presented as "this belongs to one group and only they can use it." It becomes outright cultural segregation with firm lines drawn between different groups. There are of course people (such as yourself) who will differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate uses of another culture but it's been the minority stance.
Again, that's based on my own experience and it's possible I've just been unfortunate in who I've come across.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly, if we're going to talk about cultural appropriation, we need to decide who does or doesn't belong to a particular group.That becomes incredibly sticky, particularly when we're talking about ethnic groups. It remains sticky even if we make allowances for respectful use of another culture. I'll use dreadlocks on white people as an example to try to explain this, since it's a subject that did the rounds a while back. You can substitute dreadlocks for something else if you don't personally find that to be cultural appropriation:

If it would be disrespectful for a white person to wear dreadlocks as a fashion statement and they had a child with a black person, can the child have dreadlocks? If that child then marries and has children with a white person, could they have dreadlocks? And if they had children with a white person?
At what point are you not considered "black enough" to have dreadlocks?

For me, that was a major point that soured me to cultural appropriation as a concept. Defining culture, race and who belongs where is a road I personally don't want to go down.
 
Last edited:

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
This thread was tangentially inspired by this one: Bill Maher's instructions for keeping the fun in Halloween.

Note: These opinions are entirely my own, there's no liberal or leftist monolith on appropriation so expect a large degree of variation.

Cultural appropriation is defined by wiki (here) as
I both agree and disagree with this definition. Like Lindsay Ellis, (go see her video about what makes Moana a better film than Pochahontas.) my framing for cultural appropriation is as a neutral phenomenon. It can be harmless or harmful, additive or deleterious depending on the circumstances. To me thinking that all cultural appropriation is offensive or abusive is like when some creationists think gene mutations can only be deleterious. Neverminding that what construes positive or negative traits is largely established by the environmental contexts, the vast majority of mutations are neutral. Neither hindering nor helping. So too is cultural appropriation usually harmless.

And without getting into cultural celebration/dissemination vs culture homogeny, participating in cross cultural activities is something most liberals enjoy.
I throw a Japanese new years party every year because I grew up with exchange students and teachers and never lost my love for it. It includes wearing a type of traditional dress (a happi in my case.)

However, there's a big difference between this, where I'm participating in a specific cultural festivity giving it the respect and understanding of deserves, and something like sexy 'Indian' costume which is both degrading and a charachiturization of an exploited people by the exploited. Worse, opposition is dismissed either with 'you're being too sensitive' or 'who cares, it's fun' which is a big ethical yikes. Creating and maintaining ethnic stereotypes 'for fun' is bad enough but when accidentally or intentionally using propagandic iconography then it really can't be called benign or neutral.

Now, my response to how to react to cultural appropriation will be just as varied. I'm not big on cancel culture so it has to be a pretty extremely demeaning example for me to want to end it full stop (blackface and 'sexy Indian' costumes being one of few examples). Mostly I just want to talk about things without productive dialogue being shut down. Either by apathy, 'special snowflake' edgelording or dropping the 'r' word with every hat.

So, with that said, tell me why you think I'm an over-sensitive SJW. You know you want to.

I don't understand why it is a bad thing for one culture to adopt facets of another culture if they find them useful. How is that a bad thing? Why is it necessary to have such a tribal way of thinking?
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't understand why it is a bad thing for one culture to adopt facets of another culture if they find them useful. How is that a bad thing? Why is it necessary to have such a tribal way of thinking?
It's not a bad thing. That's what the thread was about.
What's bad is not cultural dissemination, but cultural stereotyping in ways that hurt minorities. Or using the adoption of culture in a way that takes advantage of the minority. Such as working at oversimplified and twisted 'tiki luau' for wealthy non-natives the only way many polynesian get to experience their culture. Because the tourism industry has made it too expensive to live as they had within their own home.

Things like that cause deleterious effects on the minority culture.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
It's not a bad thing. That's what the thread was about.
What's bad is not cultural dissemination, but cultural stereotyping in ways that hurt minorities. Or using the adoption of culture in a way that takes advantage of the minority. Such as working at oversimplified and twisted 'tiki luau' for wealthy non-natives the only way many polynesian get to experience their culture. Because the tourism industry has made it too expensive to live as they had within their own home.

Things like that cause deleterious effects on the minority culture.
I agree about the tourism thing,

But I feel like “stereotyping in ways that hurt minorities” might be a little subjective.
You mentioned Speedy earlier. But as others have pointed out and I will join them, Speedy is the protagonist. You’re supposed to react to him positively. I’m not sure why you insinuated that his being embraced was a sign of the character “backfiring.” Perhaps because you associated his character traits as negative? But he is quick witted, clearly intelligent, happy go lucky and generally good natured. So why would that be hurting anyone? Perhaps one could argue the representation is not the most enlightened. But the character has been around since like the 40s or whatever. It’s pretty damn liberal in context.

In animation, the art form relies on exaggerated features as it’s bread and butter, stereotypes are inevitable in the medium. Some are arguably organic, others are so negative they may as well be propaganda for white supremacy groups.

I’m not against interpreting media through a feminist lens. But I feel like sometimes that fails to take into account other nuances that may exist as well.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This thread was tangentially inspired by this one: Bill Maher's instructions for keeping the fun in Halloween.

Note: These opinions are entirely my own, there's no liberal or leftist monolith on appropriation so expect a large degree of variation.

Cultural appropriation is defined by wiki (here) as
I both agree and disagree with this definition. Like Lindsay Ellis, (go see her video about what makes Moana a better film than Pochahontas.) my framing for cultural appropriation is as a neutral phenomenon. It can be harmless or harmful, additive or deleterious depending on the circumstances. To me thinking that all cultural appropriation is offensive or abusive is like when some creationists think gene mutations can only be deleterious. Neverminding that what construes positive or negative traits is largely established by the environmental contexts, the vast majority of mutations are neutral. Neither hindering nor helping. So too is cultural appropriation usually harmless.

And without getting into cultural celebration/dissemination vs culture homogeny, participating in cross cultural activities is something most liberals enjoy.
I throw a Japanese new years party every year because I grew up with exchange students and teachers and never lost my love for it. It includes wearing a type of traditional dress (a happi in my case.)

However, there's a big difference between this, where I'm participating in a specific cultural festivity giving it the respect and understanding of deserves, and something like sexy 'Indian' costume which is both degrading and a charachiturization of an exploited people by the exploited. Worse, opposition is dismissed either with 'you're being too sensitive' or 'who cares, it's fun' which is a big ethical yikes. Creating and maintaining ethnic stereotypes 'for fun' is bad enough but when accidentally or intentionally using propagandic iconography then it really can't be called benign or neutral.

Now, my response to how to react to cultural appropriation will be just as varied. I'm not big on cancel culture so it has to be a pretty extremely demeaning example for me to want to end it full stop (blackface and 'sexy Indian' costumes being one of few examples). Mostly I just want to talk about things without productive dialogue being shut down. Either by apathy, 'special snowflake' edgelording or dropping the 'r' word with every hat.

So, with that said, tell me why you think I'm an over-sensitive SJW. You know you want to.
I’m liberal and I think you are stereotyping all Indian women as conservatives, if liberal Indian women can wear sexy Bollywood dresses I think it would be racist to say that Western women can’t
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I’m liberal and I think you are stereotyping all Indian women as conservatives, if liberal Indian women can wear sexy Bollywood dresses I think it would be racist to say that Western women can’t
Perhaps I’m wrong, but the OP may be referring to American Indians, as in the folk native to the Americas before colonisation.
But if I’m wrong, the OP can inform me.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Speedy Gonzalez was a hero type. Just as was Tweety
I'm going to respond to this part because the rest is the same sort of oversensitive reactionary that tells me you only skimmed what I wrote.

The difference between tweety and speedy is, of course, one was an ethnic stereotype in a political environment which was turning on Mexicans leading up to "Operation Wetback." Having a protagonist or positive qualities despite the stereotype doesn't mitigate the damage any more than when we talk about the the crows in dumbo, or the or the 'Indian chief' in Peter Pan, who both were 'good guys' and aided the hero.

But anyway, you miss my point entirely. While it's perfectly acceptable to discuss the problematic aspects of the stereotype, I clearly stated that speedy's case was clearly a win. And I find it quite amusing that Speedy became a 'eff you border control' hero to Mexicans and Mexican Americans, even when that was never intended.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I’m liberal and I think you are stereotyping all Indian women as conservatives, if liberal Indian women can wear sexy Bollywood dresses I think it would be racist to say that Western women can’t
I'm taking about this:
51htL1OdwrL._UY445_.jpg

The original thread was about costume stereotypes.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree about the tourism thing,

But I feel like “stereotyping in ways that hurt minorities” might be a little subjective.
You mentioned Speedy earlier. But as others have pointed out and I will join them, Speedy is the protagonist. You’re supposed to react to him positively. I’m not sure why you insinuated that his being embraced was a sign of the character “backfiring.” Perhaps because you associated his character traits as negative? But he is quick witted, clearly intelligent, happy go lucky and generally good natured. So why would that be hurting anyone? Perhaps one could argue the representation is not the most enlightened. But the character has been around since like the 40s or whatever. It’s pretty damn liberal in context.

In animation, the art form relies on exaggerated features as it’s bread and butter, stereotypes are inevitable in the medium. Some are arguably organic, others are so negative they may as well be propaganda for white supremacy groups.

I’m not against interpreting media through a feminist lens. But I feel like sometimes that fails to take into account other nuances that may exist as well.
The backfiring I'm talking about is that Speedy became an 'eff you border control' hero to Mexican American viewers, that was never intended.
But consider for a moment this:
mcdpepa_ec105_h.jpg

This is a protagonist good guy character being portrayed using not just simplified cartoon signifiers but outright propagandic depiction. Whether or not it was intentional. Good intentions and all that.

I agree that nuance matters, I love nuance. There's a lot of interesting history surrounding many a problematic subject worth discussing.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
So, I'll start off by saying that I'm firmly left-wing liberal and that cultural appropriation as a concept doesn't sit right with me. I'll do my best to express why.

First of all, it's the way it's very often used. I can only go by my own experiences here but the general use of the term "cultural appropriation" has overwhelmingly been presented as "this belongs to one group and only they can use it." It becomes outright cultural segregation with firm lines drawn between different groups. There are of course people (such as yourself) who will differentiate between appropriate and inappropriate uses of another culture but it's been the minority stance.
Again, that's based on my own experience and it's possible I've just been unfortunate in who I've come across.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly, if we're going to talk about cultural appropriation, we need to decide who does or doesn't belong to a particular group.That becomes incredibly sticky, particularly when we're talking about ethnic groups. It remains sticky even if we make allowances for respectful use of another culture. I'll use dreadlocks on white people as an example to try to explain this, since it's a subject that did the rounds a while back. You can substitute dreadlocks for something else if you don't personally find that to be cultural appropriation:

If it would be disrespectful for a white person to wear dreadlocks as a fashion statement and they had a child with a black person, can the child have dreadlocks? If that child then marries and has children with a white person, could they have dreadlocks? And if they had children with a white person?
At what point are you not considered "black enough" to have dreadlocks?

For me, that was a major point that soured me to cultural appropriation as a concept. Defining culture, race and who belongs where is a road I personally don't want to go down.
I might be fortunate in that the people who I get to talk about cultural appropriation with are largely literature and social studies type people rather than the tumblr/reddit/blog/other social media sources people are used to hearing it through. Though I suspect some of that noise is being filtered through memetics. 'A Jewish mother complains about school nativity play. PC culture is going crazy!'

But I can safely say that my considerationwith cultural appropriation is NOT about preventing cultural dissemination and preserving 'all cultures must be seperate.' That's a white nationalist right wing thing. I *like* cultural mixing. But I understand that colonialization left an impact that makes oversimplifying, reductionism or misuse of cultural artifacts by a minority culture which was exploited by colonialism to be way more harmful than, for example, mexican-asian fusion restaraunts.

Here's the video I was talking about earlier, btw, if anyone is interested.

 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I'm taking about this:
51htL1OdwrL._UY445_.jpg

The original thread was about costume stereotypes.
Ok so we are talking about indigenous Americans here, but what is the background to that picture that makes you claim she is stereotyping? I honestly don’t know much about the range of different cultures that made up Native American peoples, but I do know that some who live in the Amazon wear less than that, so unless she is somehow claiming that is what they all look like i’m not really seeing the stereotype, but perhaps that is just my ignorance of the range of cultures?
 
Top