Hacker News Reader

Comment by drumhead | Hacker News Reader

Adele, the singer, was photographed at the Nottinghill Carnival (a massive Carribean street festival over the August bank holiday in London) with her hair in Bantu Knots and wearing a bikini top in the colours of the Jamaican flag. As soon as it was on twitter the you started getting tweets from Black Americans about cultural appropriation, but this was met in turn by fierce opposition from African and Carribean posters from the Uk and Africa who thought she looked great and were incredibly pissed off at the Americans for appointing themselves the global arbiters of what parts of African or Carribean culture were allowed or not allowed to be used by non-Africans or Carribeans. They found the proscriptions to be silly or highanded behaviour. Cultural appropriation doesnt seem to be a problem anywhere else but the USA.

View on HN

As a British person with Caribbean family background, I found the reaction to this from the internet so strange. In Britain it's normal that the different cultures here mix. Shops selling Baltic bread, next to shops selling jerk chicken, across the road from a traditional English pub. People of all colours and backgrounds frequenting all of them.

From an outside perspective, people in the USA seem very pre-occupied with continuing a culture of segregation, where black and white people live different lives and mixing is frowned upon. I see this attitude on both sides.

Exactly, compare the prison systems:

America’s is segregated by race. You can’t mix with the other race or borrow something from them, or even sit on their table.

In Britain the races mix, there’s no strict segregation, if there is any, it’s more segregated by town and county and areas.

In US prisons, the prisoners segregate themselves, btw - the prison itself doesn't do this.

I know. It was a comment about the culture comparisons.

> America’s is segregated by race.

That was not true in any of the prisons I was in in Texas. There were four that I lived in over ten years and several others that I traveled through. I've heard about it being the case in some prisons, but to present it as a universal truth is wrong. The most strictly segregated prison system I've heard of is California's, but it's based on alliance rather than race alone. The AB-aligned whites are allied with Sureños (a Hispanic group) while blacks are allied with Norteños, and fraternization is fine within the alliance but not outside of it.

Your perception that in the US "black and white people live different lives and mixing is frowned upon" seems like it's been heavily influenced by some less-than-honest talking points. The idea that the UK is an oasis of racial harmony versus a segregationist USA is pretty far from the truth.

Not that far I'd say. While the British have their nazis and everything in moderation, at least they're not generally 24/7 preoccupied with race. (They are however preoccupied with class a lot).

at least they're not generally 24/7 preoccupied with race

1. Not true of Americans, and

2. Probably a newsflash to all the British people who are subject to discrimination on the basis of race.

British views and issues around race are different from American ones. The article has value, because this point is important and often missed – even if it's not new.

But too many people in the UK use this idea as a "harrumph here in good old Blighty we're above all this American racism nonsense" and give themselves a good pat on the back while ignoring our entirely different and still serious problems.

Good thing this article came along so we can point at actual race related problems British people face, but not people from the states.

In an attempt to lighten the mood a little, I would just like to relate a quick story about a restaurant I saw while visiting Liverpool many years ago. It was called, "Jamaican me Hungry". :)

And... how was the food?

It was closed, damnit!

Maybe you can go backee and try it another day?

Was it a Jamaican and Hungarian restaurant, because that would be awesome! I would try a Jerk Chicken Goulash in a heartbeat.

Carribbean, and it appears to be a Raggas franchise now.

* https://www.raggas.co.uk/

Lark Lane, Liverpool seems quite apposite here. Two Turkish restaurants, an Italian-American one, a Mediterranean one, a Thai one, three Chinese takeaways, a burger place, an Indian restaurant, a Tandoori house, a pizza place, a middle-eastern restaurant, a Greek restaurant, and two bistros.

One of the takeaways is a vegan "Chinese chippy" named Woo Tan Scran.

* https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/scran#English

The issue is people being offended on behalf of others (which is itself not a bad thing: we should be conscious of where we might be using culturally significant signals inappropriately, or otherwise causing offence) but being hyper-sensitive and seeing offence where it doesn't really exist in the groups that they think they are standing up for.

> pre-occupied with continuing a culture of segregation

I think were "cultural appropriation" is being called hyper-sensitively, it is more an over-active sense of guilt-by-association[†] than any desire to segregate. This very much exists in the UK as well, though it isn't as pronounced as it seems to be in the US.

Finding the right balance point can be difficult. The dividing lines between cultural appreciation, cultural mixing, cultural appropriation, and cultural subjugation, while sometimes obvious & clear are often much more subjective.

[†] association with the past racist history of the nation and/or the many still current problems

> Finding the right balance point can be difficult. The dividing lines between cultural appreciation, cultural mixing, cultural appropriation, and cultural subjugation, while sometimes obvious & clear are often much more subjective

In my opinion, this hypersensitivity was turned into a weapon to shame people who have no ill-will. Compounded with Twitter bandwagoning, it’s downright dangerous, and now people are self-censoring anything to avoid censure

It is sometimes weaponised, often as a distraction method in political discussions, or as a defensive come-back ("yeah, I X, but you Y"), but from what I've seen it is more often people being overly sensitive and/or with too much time on their hands and looking for something to discus.

The problem is being hyper sensitive is subjective. What is hyper sensitive to you is absolutely normal to someone else. I don’t ever find it wrong to “culturally appropriate” and I don’t even know how it became a thing. I can’t actually think of any reason why it would be bad to start sharing aspects of culture whether it is clothes, music, or language. It brings people together with commonality. People enjoy copying things they like. I wouldn’t ever say someone can’t wear my outfit because my outfit is important to me. The way I see this term used in America is use by racists as a way to be racist against whites who they perceive don’t deserve the freedom to dress any way they want.

The "hyper sensitivity" also cuts both ways. There do exist hyper-sensitive people seeking out reason to be offended... and other hyper-sensitive people seeking out evidence of others' hyper-sensitivity and getting offended about that.

Both are further stirred by major media trawling through minor media and social media for something to declare as "controversial". I had never heard of the Adele thing, and a quick Google turned up a CNN article which said[1]:

> The singer was quickly accused of cultural appropriation by some users for the hairstyle and top.

How many users is "some"? A dozen? A hundred? Does it really merit "controversy"?

Much of the time, I've found, one hypersensitive person is piled on by a thousand people who have found yet more evidence that there is an enormous social effort to repress them. They rarely or never encounter anybody who actually puts them down, but they hear about somebody else, and that's repeated so often that it sounds massive.

I've even seen it here on HN an awful lot: "I can't even say X anymore without being told how bad I am by a bunch of snowflakes", blithely ignoring how much of a snowflake that makes them. All they want is to be able to say whatever they want without anybody disagreeing -- is that so wrong?

[1] https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/31/entertainment/adele-bantu-kno...

To be clear there were plenty of Black British people who were annoyed at the Bantu knots, as well as people who didn't care.

> I found the reaction to this from the internet so strange

That's because "the internet"'s voice isn't the prevailing opinion of the general population. It is the fad-driven prevailing opinion of socially dysfunctional people aged 14-27.

Social media addiction is a disease, and en masse it has cast a shadow over all of political discourse.

<27 seems generous :)

The cultures here mix too. It’s a preoccupation of a loud minority.

what happens in the U.S. is that white people take everyone's culture and continue to marginalize and disrespect minorities. It happened with the bible. It happened with karate. It happened with rock music. So people kind of have their guard up. Misinformation is so rampant here that adele very well could become the inventor of dred locks if people don't make enough noise about it.

So people still react like this because it wasn't too long ago that back to the future was implying that Chuck Berry stole the idea for Johnny B Good from a white person. That's an example right there straight from my parents' childhood.

It's normal in the USA as well, only the vocal micro minority on twitter get enraged at everything. I really hope it's just a decade long trend that will go away. Social justice warriors get mocked for a reason.

I'm from the Caribbean and I can attest to this. We're always baffled at the neuroticism of America's obsession with identity politics and tribalism, especially as it relates to race and culture.

In my country for example we have six distinct races/ethnicities, from indigenous to post-colonial. When either has a celebration or period of cultural remembrance, we openly dress, cook, and celebrate in the same manner. The concept of "cultural appropriation" is nothing but hubris in our minds.

Perhaps we're more fundamentally bonded due to our shared "fragmented" heritage, as V.S. Naipaul frequently expounded upon. Perhaps we're just not victims of inept ideological monoliths that are perpetrated by a radical left and radical right as it is in the US (along with the forced illusion of binary if not zero-sum choices).

Either way, we understand that racism is inescapable in some small measure but we try our best not to elevate it above reason and certainly not above national unity (or pride for that matter). Caribbean people are both welcoming of foreign cultures and curious in our exploration of the same. We wouldn't, couldn't, have it any other way.

My spouse grew up in Botswana. Despite living a few miles from the site of the first known location of a religious ceremony of our species —- in other words a place of transcendent human history, of Black history —- it was always the colonizer centered in her formal schooling. An anecdote that in my experience in the Caribbean and in Africa ( I am most familiar with southern Africa) the process of decolonization still has so very far to go.

You do realise that your wife's Bantu-speaking ancestors displaced the Khoi and San (also known as bushmen) when they invaded the area which is now known as Botswana I hope? If you insist on decolonising Botswana it is not the western coloniser (who gave up its colonies in 1966) who bears the brunt of shame but the Bantu-speaking Kalanga since they displaced the original population - the Khoi and San go back a long time, back to the dawn of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. If your wife descends from Tswana-speaking people she doesn't escape guilt since the Bakgalagadi moved into the southern Kalahari which was, again, previously inhabited by the San and Khoi. Or did she maybe descend from the Toutswe who came out of the east and invaded parts of the territory now known as Botswana? Or maybe she descends from the Bakwena who moved into the southern Kalahari and displaced the Bakgalagadi (who earlier on had displaced the San and Khoi)? Should she descend from the Bangwaketse she has ancestors who occupied parts of western Botswana, if instead she has her ancestry with the Bangwato she'll be sad to learn that her ancestors occupied parts of Botswana which were formerly held by the Kalanga. Eventually the Batawana moved into the Okavango delta, one of the last refuges for the Khoi and San in Botswana so if she descends from them the memory of her ancestors' guilt is still fresh - the late 1700's.

Maybe it is better to take history as it is, learn lessons from where things went wrong so those mistakes are not repeated and look forward instead of back?

I’m sorry if you interpreted my comments in this way. My point was precisely the one that you seem to make, that in that in the English medium schools, this nuanced history was not conveyed, and that is the problem.

In fact, my wife’s family is among the “colonized colonizer”. My wife’s family moved to Botswana in the 1970s. They were originally from Tanzania, and had originally come from India, fleeing their own particular discrimination. They left Tanzania in the 1980s, because, in short, the country was trying to find a path in which Black Tanzanians could find a way to realize a full self determination. Their family did not want be a continued part of the problem.

Before my father in law was the thought that it was better to “un-settle” a place rather than be a continued part of its settler legacy. For many reasons, he was welcomed by the Batswana. I think it was a persistent asking of permission to enter, to join the table humbly and with respect for the people, a respect that they have the resourcefulness and brilliance to know what course is best for them. Humility.

The point being that even as another of the wave of “colonized colonizers” —- people who derive privilege by proximity to a ideal of what is presumed to be “better”, more western —- there was no mention of the rich history and the erasure of the indigenous people in the education she received.

I have been to the Three Dikgosi monument a few times, and felt it strange that for all this ancient, immeasurable history, the millenia of stories of the San an Khoi is condensed to a small mention.

The archaeological site a few hours from Gaborone, the site of a religious ceremony whose significance is lost to time. I just pieced together, but I know it predates the 1700s by tens of thousands of years.

So yes, there are layers of colonization and each prevents an accounting, a true embodiment of truth and reconciliation. There is a need to “un-settle”, to question the orthodox histories.

> So yes, there are layers of colonization and each prevents an accounting, a true embodiment of truth and reconciliation.

True

> There is a need to “un-settle”, to question the orthodox histories.

That is where things go wrong. As you stated yourself, colonisers are often colonised themselves by later colonisers. The success of mankind as the dominant species on the planet literally depends on groups being displaced by other groups, otherwise everyone would have stayed in Eden - being the fertile parts of Africa where Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved. Some groups got displaced, moved into neighbouring territory and displaced or enslaved whatever group of people happened to live there. Fast-forward a few decades or centuries and the process was repeated, the former colonisers now get 'colonised' themselves. At this moment in time it gets hard to decide who is the 'oppressed' and who is the 'oppressor' since both groups will have done their share of 'oppressing' and both will have undergone 'oppression'. If you only look at one specific groups as being the 'oppressors' the way people like Ibram X. Kendi and Robin diAngelo do you end up with a distorted view of history where you assign 'victim' status to oppressors and ignore potential 'victimisation' of the designated oppressor, a good example here being the many African tribes who partook in the capture, transport and sales of slaves to Arab and western slave traders being assigned 'oppressed' status versus the Irish who were enslaved themselves being assigned 'oppressor' status. Since the 'oppressed' status has been turned into a form of social currency lending speaking rights and preferential treatment to those who carry it while those who carry 'oppressor' status have to stand back in line and provide for those with 'oppressed' status this system often leads to more injustice and with that an increase in social tension and a decrease in social cohesion. In other words, it breaks up society.

We do not want to break up society. Those who do want this should state their goal honestly and go to the elections with this stated purpose, if enough people vote for them they can get their way. Those who want to break up society by means of force have to accept that the majority of the population opposes their intentions and that the force of law can and should be used against them, just like it should be used against any other group which commits violence.

And that, in a nutshell, is why the need to "un-settle", to question the orthodox histories - in other words why deconstruction according to Critical Theory - does not work. The cake is too thick, too much mixed up to say which layer is the most tasty. Better have the cake as it is and make a note to tweak the recipe so it comes out better next time.

Exactly, Americans seem to have this weird view that no-one's culture should mix. I think in the UK the view of most people is that mixing cultures is fine as long as it's respectful

I grew up in a multicultural town in the UK (also home to a lot of racism unfortunately) but we had a yearly (carribean I think) carnival with music and floats and costumes and food.

People would turn out in the thousands and it didn't matter your skin colour because you were there to join in the fun. It doesn't matter if you wore something that wasn't traditionally part of your culture, because you were doing so to join in the fun, not to belittle people

> Americans seem to have this weird view

Some Americans, anyway. Growing up in the US, I was always taught the US was "the great melting pot." But I agree, it doesn't seem like it lately.

You're right. I should've said the most vocal americans

The melting pot metaphor was replaced by a salad bowl, wasn't it? Assimilation (which is the melting pot) is now considered a crime against humanity and the whole "separate but equal" is the new hotness.

And you can't argue with salad because its healthy, and we are too fat, and we aught to be trying to live longer lives even though there's no incentive for most of us to prolong our misery.

I hope you don't mean that!

It was, and that's not altogether bad. A melting pot implies homogeneity and the loss of one's identity and history. A salad bowl is a pleasant mixing of everything, with each component still retaining its identity - a carrot is still a carrot, a radish is still a radish, and so forth. The irony is if I want to celebrate the zest of a radish then I'm told I'm being insensitive and appropriating the radish culture. As is so often the case we end up moving neither forward nor backward but sideways.

In the end I like the salad bowl metaphor because it scales well globally. We're a single human race, all different, yet all the same. It's appropriate to celebrate one another's histories so long as we're mindful of our collective future.

>A melting pot implies homogeneity and the loss of one's identity and history.

That's the contemporary narrative, yes. In another light it's just saying "E pluribus unum."

Before it became uncouth to express a spirit of national unity or civic pride, the melting pot was a way of expressing that who we are is defined by our coming together to participate in the great project we call our nation. And as part of that, we're sharing in the uniqueness each of us bring and hard boundaries start "melting" together as we form a shared history and culture. A very chunky concoction constantly getting new pieces added, not a smooth uniform mixture left to simmer.

We now live in an age where "identity" often means participating in a stereotype that's actively gatekept. So the melting pot metaphor had to fall out of favor.

E pluribus unum is a bit reminiscent of the fascis. I'm currently searching for a word for the rods, all trimmed to the same length à la Procrustes, that constituted fasces, and will report back here if I manage to find it.

(a different motto, unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno, not only mentions the relation of the parts to the whole, but also that of whole to its parts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24661326 )

Edit: so far I've learned only that the axe was the securis and that holders of high office would have their servants put the fascis on the ground, instead of holding them aloft, when they wished to emphasise they were on the people's side of an issue. Still no word for the individual rods, however.

E pluribus unum also comes from a time when we mandated that Native American schoolchildren cut their hair and not speak their native tongue. The melting pot ended up having a very WASPy complexion in the end and harmed those who were different from that ideal.

The salad bowl allows the individual to maintain and celebrate their heritage while coming together in a spirit of national unity and civic pride. Coming to America doesn't mean you lose your heritage or your history, it means you're part of something new - you've come to a part of the world where the entire world has come together, an example of what the world could be. People living in peace where elsewhere in the world they live at war.

The problem with salad is that there are people who don't care much for some ingredients and won't touch them. There's no such issue with strained soup: you either take it or leave it, there's no picking and choosing, the differences between the ingredients literally melt away (well, or they get chopped up!).

Like all metaphors, "the melting pot" has its limits. I've always thought it's for the best that, even though I'm mostly of English and Irish descent that I enjoy Indian, Italian and middle eastern food, and while maintaining my Catholic faith I have Jewish and Muslim coworkers whom I admire and look to examples.

While my identity is still "Irish Catholic," I've been enriched (and yes, changed) through exposure to others.

>Exactly, Americans seem to have this weird view that no-one's culture should mix.

Unless you replace "Americans" with "a small group of obnoxious loudmouths from the US on social media" in your statement, you don't reflect reality.

I heartily encourage you (once it's safe to do so) to come and visit New York City.

Have some pizza at a place run by Greeks.

Have a delicious bagel (I recommend an everything bagel with brie and tomatoes, yum!) at a bagelry[0] owned and run by a Thai family.

Have some ropa vieja with shrimp fried rice at one of many Chinese/Latin restaurants.

And a place near me has wonderful Callaloo and delicious curry goat.

And there are at least half a dozen places near me where I can get a tasty mofongo[1].

Or one of many Caribbean, Malaysian, Korean, Japanese, Brazilian, African and European restaurants, bars, music venues, festivals and all manner of other culture from six continents.

I was really sad when the French bakery near me closed. The croissant were nearly as good as the ones I had in Paris.

And that's just the food. Cultures, languages and customs mix freely here. While there certainly are distinct cultures, they are welcomed and often incorporated into the broader culture.

I think that you'd find that to be true in most urban areas (and many suburban ones).

That said, there are many places in the US which are not culturally or ethnically diverse at all.

Which isn't surprising. The US is big. It has ~75% of the population of the EU in an area more than twice the size of the EU.

Consider how homogeneous some areas of the EU are. Why is that? Is it because they're all bigots and 'limeys' don't want 'frogs' around, etc?

[0] https://www.thrillist.com/venue/eat/new-york/restaurants/abs...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mofongo

> Exactly, Americans seem to have this weird view that no-one's culture should mix.

90%+ of the people who think that are liberals. Moderates and conservatives can mix cultures pretty freely.

>90%+ of the people who think that are liberals. Moderates and conservatives can mix cultures pretty freely.

That hasn't been my experience at all. And I'm center-left myself. You know, somewhat to the left of Bernie Sanders.

It seems you don't know many of your brother and sister Americans that you call "liberals."

Here in NYC we have about a 5:1 D/R ratio and you won't find many places on the planet, let alone in the US, that are more welcoming of different cultures, practices and individual choice.

I suggest you engage with your fellow Americans. I think you'll find that the vast majority of us have much more in common than we do differences.

There are those (like the ones telling you that ~200 million of your fellow Americans are evil, twisted communists who want to destroy our economy and Constitution) who want you to hate and fear your neighbors and fellow citizens.

Those people (regardless of political bent or affiliation) are the ones who threaten to destroy our democracy and Constitution.

As a general rule, folks like that are only interested in personal benefit and self-aggrandizement. And they're a very small group.

Would it surprise you to know that most of the folks you call "liberals" just want a decent job/career so they can live decently and raise their kids to be happy, healthy and fulfilled?

Would you be shocked to hear that those you deride believe in the ideals of our democratic republic, or that we believe in the rule of law, equal protection under the law and freedom of expression?

If you believe that a majority of Americans are communists and hateful people who want to destroy their own country, then you're not seeing the world as it is.

I'd welcome the opportunity to discuss the importance of tolerance, liberty and the ideals which fomented the founding and second founding[0] of our nation with you.

As I mentioned above, I think you'll find we agree about much, much more than we disagree.

If that sounds like a good idea to you, feel free to email me (no spaces or commas): En,,,cyclic al 17,76 at pro,,,ton mail dot co, , ,m

I don't normally do this sort of thing, but I'm so sick of the negativity and lies that make us suspicious and fearful of our fellow Americans.

I want my country to be a great place with liberty and opportunity for everyone. But we can't have that if we the people let those with the desire and motivation to create conflict divide us.

Even if you don't talk to me, please open yourself to the possibility that what you read on Twitter and Facebook doesn't reflect the values of most of your fellow Americans.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Founding

As a Greek, I agree. Ancient Greek culture influences a lot of things, but I've never heard of any Greek being offended by any of it, we consider it homage/remixing.

Except the Parthenon marbles, we want those back.

The world would be much poorer without Greek culture. Would life be worth living without gyros?

As a Brit who visited Greece it shocked me how much of a political issue it is there. I kind of came to the conclusion that any slippery slope or historical argument is less relevant than "If they want them so badly and we don't really care, just hand them over"

I agree.

The British Museum would be pretty empty if we had to give everyone their stuff back. I can see why they resist so much.

Museums constantly have borrowed items on display - borrowed as in not stolen. I'm aware this is a more common practice the more modern arts you're displaying but still. I'm sure an institution of such prestige as the British Museum could find ways to arrange temporary exhibitions of like everything (I'm tempted to make silly parallels to the handling of Brexit negotiations but I will better stop here)

Don't they usually arrange these as "swaps" though? (I'm no expert on this). I mean with other museums - I know there's the thing where rich people buy impressive shit and then lend it to museums so they don't have to worry about security.

>it shocked me how much of a political issue it is there

Not that much at all. Perhaps you encoutered it at all because you're a Brit and so got into related discussions. It's not like people talk about it that much there.

I’ve never heard of this being an issue and I’ve visited Greece several times and have Greek coworkers.

I saw it in (I think, it wa sa while ago):

Posters in the airport Museums Tour Guides Random conversations

So some touristic and some just random like airport and people

Basically the marbles were stolen decades ago, and the argument was that Greece was in no shape to hold them, so England was protecting them. Now we have the Acropolis museum, that argument doesn't hold so well any more.

Just to make the history clearer, they were taken centuries ago -- they were taken to Britain between 1801 and 1812.

A lot of Brits would like the British Museum to give the marbles back too! <3

Not me

Damn you

I don't really care who owns it, I'd just like it to be in a place where I can easily enjoy it.

Well the effort is to move them from the British Museum to the Acropolis museum, so I guess "easily" depends on where you're located.

Well, that's not "cultural appropreation" though (the marbles thing) it's downright stealing...

This is true.

We'll swap them for the magic sphere: https://labrujulaverde.com/en/2019/05/the-intriguing-magic-s...

North Macedonia/FYROM claiming ancient Greek/Macedonian heritage was (and still is I think, even after the recent events) a big issue though, no?

I think that has died down after the agreement (where they agree not to claim that any more). Their claim to ancient Greek heritage was an overreaction to a Greek overreaction to drive them out of south Macedonia (the Greek part) around 100 years ago. Before then, both races were coexisting pretty happily, as far as I know, but the Greek government decided to launch a propaganda against North Macedonians (slavs) in the early 1900s.

There is some reaction within Greece after the agreement, about how it's a betrayal etc, but I expect that to die down pretty quickly now that the matter is settled.

> Cultural appropriation doesnt seem to be a problem anywhere else but the USA.

It is not a problem anywhere, actually. Some people just want to make it into one.

I think it can be and it's something to at least consider. But yes there are many examples where the criticism feels inconsidered and knee-jerk

I mean it sometimes is, and your categorical rejection of it is just weird.

No, it really isn't. American I presume? You have full rights to use elements of our culture from this here part of Europe (not that you ever asked our permission, you use them anyway. But it's not like we care either...).

No, your presumption is wrong and I'm Scottish.

Everybody has the absolute right to use elements of others' cultures – and using them in a disrespectful or exploitative manner is something that I find distasteful and think its reasonable to object to.

Alright. And people have the right of being distasteful, it's an essential part of freedom of speech.

How many elements of other cultures do the Scots use everyday?

Do the other cultures get a say in whether the Scots use them in a "disrespectful or exploitative manner"?

Yours is the original idea of cultural appropriation criticism but the way the word is used is to gatekeep “Traditional American Lifestyle” from non-white cultures. The word’s dead.

Define disrespectful and exploitative.

There are some obvious cases that I think no one on HN would argue. But to use an example from above, Adele had a Caribbean-style look, and definitely got press and clicks because of it -- indirect, but definitely profiting. Is that exploitative?

> I mean it sometimes is

Trying to think of an example of it being a problem, but am drawing a blank. Any ideas?

A common example would be profiting from cultural developments or ideas from cultures that had been historically looked down upon or disadvantaged by your own, particularly when doing so in a disrespectful manner.

For example – a white European artist designing fabrics and prints with traditionally African patterns, without acknowledging the contribution or involving members of that community, would sit uneasily with me. Using one's inherent advantages to profit from the culture of others who don't have access to the same opportunities is something I object to people doing.

This idea in no way prevents people from mixing and incorporating cultural ideas and concepts themselves, or participating in those cultures.

> A common example would be profiting from cultural developments or ideas from cultures that had been historically looked down upon or disadvantaged by your own, particularly when doing so in a disrespectful manner.

I have two problems with your constraint "from cultures that had been historically looked down upon". How far back do we have to look? This might seem obvious between Europe and African countries. But if you look far enough you will find African invaders (Hannibal of Carthago) passing the Alps. I am convinced if you look far enough you will find instances where every culture frowned upon another. So, this criteria is open for interpretation. What is serious enough? How war back do we look? Therefor your constraint "from cultures that had been historically looked down upon" is far from trivial to apply.

Secondly, does that mean that I am responsible for the wrong doing of my ancestors? Does the question whether something is morally right if I do it depend on the behavior my ancestors? How far back do we go? Should we send children to prison for the crimes of their parents? Obviously, I am playing devil's advocate, here. But I am strongly against inconsistent standards.

On top of that, what is the proper way to acknowledge contribution? "CC-BY-SA Africa and Finland"?

lol, are you african? Why are you getting offended on behalf of people? Laughable!

I'm Bolivian, when I see someone selling clothing with indigena designs I love it because it reminds me of home.

It would seem very strange to stop and question who made the design before you can enjoy it.

Yeah “cultural appropriation” criticism is often cultural purism.

In some cases the way “appropriated” culture is represented look embarrassing to those native in said culture, like people are wearing ethnic clothing without the trousers that go with it, or cooking food not in the way it should be done and ending up with horrible slurry, but that’s rare in recent years.

This. If some idiot wants to put chorizo on their paella and eat the result, valencians will not really be offended, they will be slightly amused, if anything. Next thing, americans will want to forbid any kind of "fusion" cooking.

Here in Britan, as I walk on my way to work I pass by my favorite Indian restaurant, a Polish supermarket with Eastern European products, a Romanian bakery with delicious Transylvanian meat pies and a great German sausage/cheese shop. Each one of them has their respective country flag at the door next to the UK one. I'm not even living in a big city and it is already a cocktail of cultures.

In the 90s multiculturalism gained traction as a concept in the UK. Notting Hill Carnival is pretty much the definition of what that represented - a cultural celebration of one community being opened up to and enjoyed by others. I grew up close enough to hear the bass vibrating my windows and went almost every year despite not having any links to its origin communities. Despite this, it played an important part in my life and I feel these experiences informed my political/social outlook.

Cultural appropriation is a genuine phenomenon, but the difference between attending carnival and culturally appropriating it is a subtle one. For me, it comes down to intent and this is very hard to prove.

Am I doing it in solidarity - sharing a celebration with people who's neighbourhood I share and supporting their cultural expression? Or am I impersonating other communities for my own enjoyment? To a third party, it's can be difficult to tell the difference.

> Cultural appropriation doesnt seem to be a problem anywhere else but the USA.

I feel that the countries which have historically dealt with the realities of a multicultural society better have less issues with cultural appropriation - cultural segregation leads to ownership and identity issues. But that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist outside the USA. There is a context in which what Adele did is fine, and one in which it isn't - one photo won't tell you which it is.

Or am I impersonating other communities for my own enjoyment

Why would it be wrong to impersonate other communities for my own benefit?

If someone wants to wear a sombrero for a costume party or cook a Chinese dish because they enjoy it or have Chinese characters as a tattoo even though they aren't Chinese, I really don't see the problem.

That was in the context of attending an event primarily by and for that community. For example, a straight person dressing as a LBGT person (however you would do that) to attend a Pride event.

Your second and third are examples of the blending of cultures, which tends to be associated with multiculturalism which I would argue is generally a positive thing.

However, assuming that in your first example someone is trying to impersonate a Mexican person by wearing a sombrero, that could well be insensitive. My main point is that it does depend on intent and context, but at face value that is stereotyping, and not really very far from blackface. Hopefully we can all agree than we don't really want to go there.

Wearing a sombrero is not far from blackface?

Wow, we really have opposite views on this.

Also, in Amsterdam pride LOTS of straight people attend.

You're ignoring all the subtlety in what I've said and jumped to a conclusion which I was not making.

> My main point is that it does depend on intent and context

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

As an Italian, stop eating pizza, Americans. You are culturally appropriating our food.

Jokes aside, this happening on Twitter and so it must be somewhat important is the most depressing and disheartening aspect of this event. Stop listening to what ignorants want to say on social media.

"Cultural appropriation doesnt seem to be a problem anywhere else but the USA."

This is usually referred to as cultural exchange or sharing of culture.

The fact that cultures shouldn't be shared is indeed a new phenomenon, one that I personally don't agree with.

I think context is really key here. A friend (who is a descendant of slaves) once told me that one reason hairstyles in particular are are such a sensitive subject, they were literally the only piece of culture/heritage people were able to bring with them on slave ships.

When families were ripped apart it it was a connection/ritual they could hold onto no matter what. Fast forward to the recent past and black people are still discriminated against because of their hairstyles. Some progress has been made in the past decade[0] but black women are still told their natural hair is unprofessional or unattractive and they are required to spend large amounts of $$, time and pain (styling techniques often require high heat/caustic chemicals) in order to be acceptable to corporate America.

Can you imagine the frustration of then watching wealthy white women be celebrated/complimented for adopting these hairstyles? One of the only cultural links you have to your ancestors, hairstyles you've been discriminated against, punished, and harassed for wearing?

[0] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/09/19/more-stat...

I don't see consistency in logic. If the hairstyles were not accepted then 'wealthy white women' wouldn't be celebrated/complimented for adopting them. If anything having them become more celebrated by all would have those hairstyles more accepted than ever.

Yes, racism is fundamentally illogical.

>A friend (who is a descendant of slaves) once told me that one reason hairstyles in particular are are such a sensitive subject, they were literally the only piece of culture/heritage people were able to bring with them on slave ships.

Music, culinary practices, agricultural practices, etc. are all pieces of culture that African slaves brought over from Africa.

The way it was explained to me, those are cultural practices that require specific items (instruments, spices, tools, specific plants) that they may not have had access to. Or those require time/opportunity to teach. Hair was something that was consistently there. I may be mistaken, this is just one person's opinion, but I thought it was a really interesting explanation for the importance given to hair and the protectiveness some people feel over those styles. It was also a perspective that never occurred to me until my friend brought it up.

What is appropriate to adapt from a particular culture is itself a cultural issue. The reason this is an issue here in America is because of the problematic ways that we adopted elements of other cultures in racist and demeaning ways, without understanding the deeper meaning behind them.

Some examples:

- Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben. Black Americans were historically referred to as "Boy" "Girl", or "little" as a demeaning statement of class. "Auntie" and "Uncle" were reserved for older Blacks for the same reason. Use of Black figures as mascots for these brands is a form of cultural appropriation. [1]

- Cleveland Indians logo (other sports teams as well).

- People wearing Sioux (Lakotan) headdresses as fashion statements, which is offensive because that was a thing you had to earn in that culture.

Americans (and literally every culture) appropriates everything from food to clothes to language. Thats not inherently bad. It gets bad when you commercialize and propagate negative stereotypes about cultures that you have historically subjugated.

However, nuance is hard. So on twitter we have people who have embraced the mantra "Cultural Appropriation is bad" and go about shaming every little example of it without understanding the deeper meaning behind them (see what I did there? We're not that different than what we hate). This culture of shaming is itself a form of cultural imperialism.

[1]: https://www.blackvoicenews.com/2008/01/24/boy-uncle-and-aunt...

Cultural appropriation doesnt seem to be a problem anywhere else but the USA.

The US tends to monetize everything. This seems to be less true elsewhere.

We make a stink about "cultural appropriation" here because too much ends up being about the almighty dollar and those dollars far too often go into the pockets of White males, regardless of whose culture, creativity, labor, etc. created the thing.

I wish the idea would go die. I think it helps keep the problem alive rather than resolving it. But I think that's basically the crux of the issue.

Yeah, because cultural appropriation is not a thing. It doesn't make any sense.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com