Hoʻoponopono, Hawaii’s trendy word that’s misunderstood

My sense is the general argument goes: if you, as a member of the dominant race/class do something (adopt a style of dress, way of wearing your hair, style of music, etc.) which, when it is done by its originators leads to discrimination against them (for example people of African descent wearing their hair in dreads) but becomes cool and even profitable for you (think Elvis playing R&B), that's appropriation. I agree it's tricky because I don't think we want to advance essentialist arguments in general, but the focus is more on the unfairness than the "only X can do Y".

It's absurd.

It's the idea that ideas/customs/intentions "belong" to members of a culture, and that constitutes a justifiable monopoly.

"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness."

Cultures have appropriated each other since the dawn of humanity. I understand how some can feel irritated that "their" concepts, whatever they are, have been "stolen" and stripped of their essence by others, but what's the alternative?

It's not like the other cultures are forcing the originators to change theirs (or, they might, but that's not cultural appropriation) so it kind of feels like the same fallacy as claiming something was stolen from you if someone made a copy of something you own.

Your culture is your own, no one else can debase that, only your own feelings can. It's the Stoic saying of "it is not outside events that affect us, but our opinions about them."

One big problem with appropriation occurs when the native culture has been forcefully damaged via colonization. Many people in the minority have only tenuous connections to their culture, because it deliberately wasn't taught.

If, in that situation, the dominant culture appropriates (and muddies) a concept, it becomes very hard to discern what items in your culture even mean.

This element of power imbalance or colonisation is what makes cultural appropriation harmful. It's also, at least the way I see it, what makes it appropriation - otherwise it's an exchange, and that's vital for cultures to grow.

So what you defend when you protest cultural appropriation is specifically the transfer with an existing power imbalance. It's not "what you're born into defines you", but "people have already taken so much, let us keep what little we have"

There are a couple important things to understand here. One of the most important is that there is a different between cultural interchange and cultural appropriation, but more on that later. Another important thing to understand is that context matters. There's a tendency to believe that behaviors divorced of context should have an intrinsic morality or be associated with other intrinsic qualities such as whether the behaviors should or should not be engaged in, whether they help or hurt people, etc. But this is a fantasy, and one born of privilege as well (the privilege to ignore the oppressed, ignore context, etc.) We cannot ignore the context of centuries of exploitative and racist colonization and empire. A straightforward classic example is the swastika, an ancient religious symbol that has been forever tainted due to history.

We cannot pretend that we live in a world where everyone is on an equal playing field and where all of the crimes and iniquities of colonialism and empire have been erased and smoothed away. For that reason those who belong to cultures on the higher end of the privilege spectrum need to tread much more carefully when they "borrow" and "explore" elements from other cultures. Because the pre-existing power imbalances at play can cause cultural exchanges to magnify the power imbalances. For example, someone from a wealthy culture can more easily market and merchandise cultural elements from a poorer culture, funneling money to themselves by selling the culture of others.

Another thing that's worth pointing out here is that a legacy of trauma and tragedy can preclude even otherwise benign or even beneficial activities from having benign or beneficial effects. Bad acts hurt people, they hurt relationships, they hurt societies. Think about someone with PTSD who has a hard time accepting love from others. The act itself (expression of compassion from a friend, for example) may be perfectly benign in the abstract, but within a context of surviving trauma it may even have a harmful effect. People coming from a background of privilege may be unfamiliar with the notion of having things in their life that have been ruined by actions of previous generations creating ongoing systemic problems, but it is nevertheless a very real phenomenon that billions of people are familiar with. Yes, it's a bit tragic that we have to be more careful with cultural interchange than we really ought to be but that tragedy has been imposed by a legacy that has included not just exploitation, theft, and slavery but also genocide. So tread lightly and thoughtfully.

Now, as to cultural appreciation, the natural (and beneficial) aspect of cultural "borrowing" and mixing vs. cultural appropriation. There is a difference and it is possible to navigate cultural exchange without falling into the trap of appropriation. For one, ask yourself whether there is anything monetary going on, are you packaging up cultural works to sell outside of that culture? Are you financially benefiting from appealing to interest in a culture that is not your own? That's more likely to be appropriation. Is your "borrowing" or enjoyment of a culture heartfelt, authentic, and respectful? That's more likely to be simple cultural appreciation and interchange. Is your representation of aspects of a culture a caricature, does it draw on narratives of "exoticism" or "savagery"? That's likely to be appropriation. Does it encourage people to find out more about the culture in question, does it seem like a celebration of the culture? That's less likely to be appropriation.

And so on. There's no rule book, all of this requires understanding why cultural appropriation is problematic, it requires understanding the history at play and it requires being thoughtful and understanding when exploring other cultures. A simple first order test is just to consider whether or not there is a power or wealth imbalance between the cultures in question and whether or not the particular activity amplifies or enforces that imbalance or not.

In an increasingly globalised world, the boundaries between cultures will blur.

Cultural appropriation, to me, the impression that the wider world takes something from them, their customs, appearance or whatever else.

I think the more accurate description would be that the wider world simply mixes their own customs with others, integrating the new ones, adopting or changing them.

There are plenty of examples where a culture adopts and integrates something from a minority culture (Döner Kebap in Germany for example) and I don't think it's ultimately harmful.

Ultimately, I would also agree that it's somewhat of a familiar concept to nationalism but with race or culture (though racism and nationalism have rather different meanings so I can't reuse racism in the same context I guess, cultural-nationalism maybe?) and maybe even other human concepts (I can totally imagine at some point people will yell about cultural appropriation from Tumblr or Twitter communities :) )

> In essence, you take 100% responsibility for all problems that you experience. By taking responsibility, we can become free of them.

This was one of my biggest take aways from working up the ladder of starcraft 2. If you don't take responsibility for a loss then you don't have the power to prevent it in the future.

> All problems are nothing but memories stored in our subconscious.

I suppose so

> With ho'oponopono, we appeal to the divinity (god/universe) to transmute those stored memories into void, and then void becomes filled with love.

Wait, what?

> In essence, you take 100% responsibility for all problems that you experience. ... So if you have a problem with someone, by taking 100% responsibility, and by doing the cleaning processes, you and that person becomes "free".

I discovered something similar from another direction, by choosing to believe in karma, whether or not it is real.

i.e., if someone makes me upset and I can't do anything about it, it's because I upset someone else in the past and didn't make up for it.

It may not work for everyone but seeing things that way sometimes helps me absolve myself of guilt and bitterness.

Same.

>What's it like for [remote] tech work?

Hawaii probably isn't the best place for most HN'ers, culturally.

Also, tech work locally in Hawaii is pretty much non-existent unless for the military, NSA, or associated government organizations.

I've lived there and worked remotely. It's expensive, but the internet works fine. If you need to be online with most of the mainland though, you better be ready to get up early.

Have worked there remotely. It's ok, the time difference is a pain especially for clients on the east coast. Internet was fine. Pretty expensive cost of living, probably wouldn't rush back there. If you're going to deal with the time difference anyway, might as well go all the way to SE Asia and save a lot of cash.

I've worked remotely from the Big Island for 5 years. (I brought the job with me when I moved here.) The local tech work scene here is pretty nonexistent, possibly with the exception of the observatories.

If you have east asian clients, the time difference is beneficial, but don't even think about interacting with Europe. The only thing city-like in Hawaii is on Oahu, so that's where you need to be if you want city life. It's also extremely humid at all times.

wow. I can't even imagine the amount of confidence you must need to think to even do that AND think it's a good idea. It must have been incredibly painful to do himself too (I'm guessing he pulled them out before his leg was even ready for such a procedure). Having had a few pins in my wrist I can not discourage this enough. wow.

Reiki is the most popular psudoscience around behind acupuncture and chiro. It is amazing it, nor the abusive phenomenon of 'psychics' has not been regulated in some way.