# Sensitivity Writers.  AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing



## Sacrosanct (Sep 19, 2019)

Admittedly, this isn't really something I'd worry so much about 20 years ago.  I guess we always keep learning to be more self aware.  

When writing (either stories or RPGs), often we write about things that are influenced by real world cultures.  I'd say in the past half dozen years or so, there's been a real increase in identifying cultural appropriation.  As a cis white guy from European descent, I understand if I start writing an RPG where one of the cultures is heavily influenced by African culture, it may raise some eyebrows.  Doesn't matter how much research I've done, or how much I've tried to be objective.

That said, I don't think it's really feasible to say "Well, then you can only write about European cultures and that's it."  I brought this up in a FB forum the other day, and it was mentioned to me how what I'm looking for is called a sensitivity writer.  Kind of like an editor, but instead of grammar and format, they review for any potential red flags.

My question is, in the context of RPGs, where do you really find someone like that?  Has anyone else used a resource like that, or what other ways have you tried to keep from engaging in cultural appropriation?


----------



## Xethreau (Sep 19, 2019)

A few years ago, EN5ider produced an article called "Dia de las Dinosaurios Muertos." (Or however you spell dinosaurs in Spanish.) There was some concern about how the author did a lot of research on the subject matter, but seemed to over-mystify certain elements, and I think they also used the names of real-world mythological figures. I would find the origional posting of that article and read the comments.

As far as my own concerns, one of my active concerns is the portrayal and encouragement of sexist and racist violence. When all orcs are ontologically evil, and their culture resembles that of indigenous people, and there otherwise no other indigenous peoples in your campaign world, a player is basically encouraged to do violence against the indigenous. The same thing goes for killing "evil" women, who are frequently scantily clad to demonstrate how evil they are...

All that to say, the prevalence of ontological evil, commonplace violence, medieval gender roles, and "race"-as-a-stand-in-for-race are structural problems of the fantasy genre altogether.

... Uh, but to answer your question, I do not know. I go to seminary and I think I might be able to investigate though. I'll check back in later.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 19, 2019)

It's something I think about.

If I only write according to my own background that leads to its own problems, but when crafting fantasy cultures how do I not appropriate?

The only thing I think I've figures out right now is "avoid tropes about real world cultures".


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 19, 2019)

Is this for a published product?  Or are you worried about offending your table?  Or just worried about breaking some taboo?  Just curious.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 19, 2019)

I sat in on a seminar by Ben Dobyns, of Zombie Orpheus Entertainment, on their newest series "Strowlers." It's an open world, modern fantasy series and they're working with people in Denmark, Mongolia, and Australia/New Zealand so far. Their pilot, shot in Seattle, involves LGBT community elements. Also being a cis white guy he stressed getting the stories from the people who know them. Co-operative story telling. Getting advisors from the groups you wish to represent, if not having them dictate the story, outright.

I'd say you don't need a specialist writer. You need to keep your ears and mind open, while talking to the people who are represented.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Admittedly, this isn't really something I'd worry so much about 20 years ago.  I guess we always keep learning to be more self aware.
> 
> When writing (either stories or RPGs), often we write about things that are influenced by real world cultures.  I'd say in the past half dozen years or so, there's been a real increase in identifying cultural appropriation.  As a cis white guy from European descent, I understand if I start writing an RPG where one of the cultures is heavily influenced by African culture, it may raise some eyebrows.  Doesn't matter how much research I've done, or how much I've tried to be objective.
> 
> ...



1) what you you mean write only European?  You can't write about anything outside your home town!  Everywhere has differences.! :->

You can't culturally appropriate a fictional culture.  There's no one to take it from.; no one can say you are doing it wrong and that your insensitivity can bring harm  That doesn't mean you should parody a real cultural aspect, but a fictional culture with only modest parallels is just fictional.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 19, 2019)

I'll give you an example for context.  I'm working on a 5e campaign setting (futurist world where PC races are synthetic, rather than organic creatures).  However, each "race" has it's own identity, and some of them pull from real world cultures.  Look at some of the images.  You can see where one race/clan is medieval European, another steampunk, another alien, another Japanese, and another African.  

My feeling is that no matter how much research I do, I may miss things and fall into incorrect stereotypes.  Thus the need for a sensitivity writer for review.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 19, 2019)

Personally, I think there's a lot of confusion on common use of cultural appropriation. If you can't write about a culture to which you do not belong, you can't really write about any historical cultures either. If you're Italian-American, you're no more likely to be an authority on 1st century Imperial Roman culture than 16th century Yoruba culture or 10th century Pandya culture. Yet people seem to assume that someone from or with an ancestral connection to the same region/culture no matter what the history in between has been has some kind of natural authority to use the culture. 

So as far as I'm concerned, the main remedy isn't to limit your writing based on your culture. *Limit it based on your research*. Show your work. Refer to your sources. Include a sidebar explaining why you may have mysticized some point of the culture to fit in with a fantasy setting rather than a historical one. *Show your work.* Establish the fact that you've treated the material seriously and with a good faith effort. And if you still receive criticism, analyze that criticism - do they have a better interpretation? Acknowledge it and revise. If they're just nay-sayers, ignore them.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 19, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Personally, I think there's a lot of confusion on common use of cultural appropriation. If you can't write about a culture to which you do not belong, you can't really write about any historical cultures either. If you're Italian-American, you're no more likely to be an authority on 1st century Imperial Roman culture than 16th century Yoruba culture or 10th century Pandya culture. Yet people seem to assume that someone from or with an ancestral connection to the same region/culture no matter what the history in between has been has some kind of natural authority to use the culture.
> 
> So as far as I'm concerned, the main remedy isn't to limit your writing based on your culture. *Limit it based on your research*. Show your work. Refer to your sources. Include a sidebar explaining why you may have mysticized some point of the culture to fit in with a fantasy setting rather than a historical one. *Show your work.* Establish the fact that you've treated the material seriously and with a good faith effort. And if you still receive criticism, analyze that criticism - do they have a better interpretation? Acknowledge it and revise. If they're just nay-sayers, ignore them.




In a historical sense sure, but when you start crafting fantasy cultures based on real world cultures what you choose to include from history and what you choose to exclude comes under more scrutiny.

Also it's harder to *show your work* on said fantasy culture when you can't even say what percent came from research and what percent came from imagination.


----------



## Nagol (Sep 19, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I'll give you an example for context.  I'm working on a 5e campaign setting (futurist world where PC races are synthetic, rather than organic creatures).  However, each "race" has it's own identity, and some of them pull from real world cultures.  Look at some of the images.  You can see where one race/clan is medieval European, another steampunk, another alien, another Japanese, and another African.
> 
> My feeling is that no matter how much research I do, I may miss things and fall into incorrect stereotypes.  Thus the need for a sensitivity writer for review.




I like Bild91's answer in general, but your case has another layer of indirection:

How will you differentiate you using a stereotype and the fictional group adopting that stereotype either purposefully or unwittingly inside the fiction?

Your writing about a fictional group that is adopting some traits from a group or groups that may have a real world origin.  You're not writing about those real world groups.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 19, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> In a historical sense sure, but when you start crafting fantasy cultures based on real world cultures what you choose to include from history and what you choose to exclude comes under more scrutiny.
> 
> Also it's harder to *show you work* on said fantasy culture when you can't even say what percent came form research and what percent came from imagination.




That's where the sidebar or designer note comes in. Be explicit in your use of real world cultural information and how you are interpreting it. This is a place where designer notes that you see in a lot of historical war games have rocked over the years. I was just reading some for a game called *Pavlov's House* and the developer explained how he had decided to incorporate the broader environment of the Stalingrad battlefield within the micro-environment of the single apartment block. Paizo used to incorporate some awesome design sidebars in their modules - I wish it was a more widespread practice in RPG and adventure design.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 20, 2019)

You can’t eliminate the possibility of accusations of cultural appropriation or insensitivity.  But you can take steps to minimize it.  I would suggest:

1) Do your research
2) Avoid stereotypes 
3) Be respectful
4) Get feedback from neutral/varied sources
4a) If you can’t get _that_, at least try to analyze your work by “stepping not the shoes” of those you are writing about
5) Be open to honest feedback & constructive criticism


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 20, 2019)

Okay, so step one is to listen to those affected _about this topic_. that means listening to marginalized  folks, especially genre fans and creators, about the right course of action. 

While I can only speak for LGBT folks, and even then only to the extent that I have direct experiences (I'm not a trans person, or a woman, so I can't speak to lesbian or trans folks' experiences or POV), I am friends with many people of various backgrounds on social media and IRL, and the consensus seems to be;

*If you are going to make money, you should pay marginalized people to help make the product. Never ever demand of someone that they work for free, especially when you're a white dude and they aren't. 


*If you aren't going to make money, cast a wide net, make connections among marginalized creators and genre fans, and ask for volunteers to help you make the thing.

*No amount of research you can ever do will replace the POV of an actual person related to that culture or other identity. In the digital age, there is little excuse for not seeking out that expertise in some form. 

*Yes, sensitivity readers are folks doing work for you, and thus folks that should be paid if you can reasonably afford to do so, just like artists and editors. 

*An artist or editor may well be willing to add sensitivity reading to their work for you, so _seek out marginalized artists and editors_ when you go looking for those services. 

*Diversify your "follows". There are a wealth of marginalized creators, critics, etc, out there, and they tend to support eachother. Find a few you like, and be open to following the people they signal boost as well. 

*Don't give up on diversifying the perspective of your work, and don't give up on creating stuff just because people expect more from us than they used to in this regard. It's worth it. It is a challenge that not only can you rise to, it is worth rising to. Not only as a goal in itself, but also because it will make you a better writer.


----------



## Derren (Sep 20, 2019)

Just ignore it. If someone wants to be offended they will find something and no amount of research or "sensitivity writer aprovals" can protect you from that.

The entire cultural appropation discussion is aribtrary, starting with which cultures can be "appropiated" and which not and what stereotypes are good and which bad (and in which parts of the world).
And no person can speak for an entire culture, so the only thing a sensitivity writer does is to give you a stamp which you can point to and say you did your duty.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 20, 2019)

I would say you need to decide what kind of game you are making and do the best you can to make that game. I don't personally know how useful the sensitivity reader thing is because you are relying on one person to stand in for a whole group of people, and I find it gets very difficult to find any kind of consensus once you start talking to people. Plus, there are a lot of debates surrounding cultural appropriation. I don't find them particularly persuasive. But I do think a much better approach than worrying about appropriation is to avoid being offensive to the culture you are using. Be respectful of that, and don't walk in thinking you know everything. That is a pretty reachable goal. Worrying about appropriation, can just make you freeze creatively. I think it can lead to a stifling of cultural exchange and exploration of new ideas off of old ones. Not offending people form the culture you are dealing with, that is very easy to understand. Also with the appropriation thing, I think there is a lot of places where you can go wrong if you don't know what kind of game you are trying to make. For example in appropriation discussions people often times equate research and accuracy as issues. But I think sometimes being less accurate is actually more interesting. And there are times when you are not necessarily trying to model the original culture. For example if you are basing a game on historical romances rather than on straight history, you are going to have elements that are anachronistic and possibly culturally inaccurate. European countries have historical romances, but so to other cultures. 

But to answer your question you can find lots of sensitivity readers on twitter (specifically for roleplaying as well). If you are worried about appropriation, you can check out different podcasts and discussions on these topics. I do think you will find there is a wide range of viewpoints.


----------



## Janx (Sep 20, 2019)

Sensitivity Readers are a good idea if you can afford one.  Next best thing is join a diverse writing community and seek out feedback from people who aren't like yourself.

Read the Writing With Color blog for tips on describing and handling characters of color.








						Writing With Color
					

Welcome to Writing with Color. We are dedicated to writing and resources centered on racial, ethnic,...




					writingwithcolor.tumblr.com
				




Join large enough writing groups on Facebook like Writers Helping Writers and just listen when people of color or LGBT+ talk about what they like or dislike in writing they find.  Not every person of color agrees on certain things, heck, not all of them know that being described in terms of food is fetishizing.  That's OK.  The goal is to learn what to watch out for and avoid needless drama on some detail you could have said differently.

---
Now to switch from advice to opinions

I heard an interview with the guy who invents languages for shows and movies (ex. Dothraki from GoT).  He was asked if he used real world languages to make new fictional ones.  He said, no, because that would be cultural appropriation.  I'm not sure where the line is for him on making a fictional culture based on a real world one, but the more it seems like you copied instead of saying this came from XYZ, you're over the line.  For the OP, it's a future world, with our cultures projected forward, not the same risk, except of stereotyping or other issues found today.

A writer I know of, Milton Davis (creator of the SteamFunk genre), recently said "Diversity in speculative fiction should not only be diverse people. It should also include diverse cultures and diverse settings. Using diverse people in a Eurocentric world is still a Eurocentric story."  Now he clarified that a modern story set in the USA is basically a Eurocentric story, that ship has sailed.  But if you're making a new world, that's an opportunity.  Case in point, my wife got a new video game, Greedfall.  Fictional world, with all sorts of races mixed in. But it's largely a french-like culture, so those people of color, they're all french too.  The game tackles the subject of colonization, so it tried.  But a sensitivity reader or some such might have advised doing a bit more.

This has gotten rather long, definitely check out Writing With Color and get into some writing groups where they'll be in touch with the kind of issues you're trying to watch out for.

Also, remember this.  Parents who bought child-rearing books tended to be better parents.  But it wasn't because of the books, but because they were parents who were concerned about being better parents. You are thinking about how you treat cultures.  That's going to help you do better.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 20, 2019)

Derren said:


> Just ignore it. If someone wants to be offended they will find something and no amount of research or "sensitivity writer aprovals" can protect you from that.
> 
> The entire cultural appropation discussion is aribtrary, starting with which cultures can be "appropiated" and which not and what stereotypes are good and which bad (and in which parts of the world).
> And no person can speak for an entire culture, so the only thing a sensitivity writer does is to give you a stamp which you can point to and say you did your duty.



That’s pretty...cynical.

I would retort that the discussion is NOT arbitrary, but rather evidence that people are starting to finally hear and understand long-standing complaints.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 20, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That’s pretty...cynical.
> 
> I would retort that the discussion is NOT arbitrary, but rather evidence that people are starting to finally hear and understand long-standing complaints.




I think the conversation is actually a lot more complicated than either of these positions (not singling you out Danny just leaping off this post since it was the most recent). It is a very difficult topic, one where there is going to be disagreement. It is also one where it isn't easy to parse through all the different points of view and all the different lines of argument. At the end of the day, I come to the conclusion that cultural sensitivity is good but cultural appropriation (as a concept) stifles creativity and art. I don't want to see games coming out that are trying to ridicule a culture or engage in blatant negative stereotypes. At the same time I do think people should freely borrow, reshape and explore other cultures without having to apologize for it. That said, I am not blind to the strong arguments on the other side, and I don't think people who disagree with me are reaching anything but an honest conclusions themselves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 20, 2019)

> At the end of the day, I come to the conclusion that cultural sensitivity is good but cultural appropriation (as a concept) stifles creativity and art.




This is true if and only if the creators & providers of intellectual property actually agree to restrain themselves in the light of criticism. 

Living in the USA, you can find all kinds of creative endeavors that are offensive to _someone._  Some, deeply and profoundly so.  But they still exist, because the people who made them soldiered on.

Likewise, we all probably engage in some kind of appropriation.  What matters are the nature and respectfulness of appropriation.  I have a gumbo-like ancestry, but even so, I can’t claim a common heritage with all of the ethnic jewelry I own.  But so far, no one has said that what I wear is disrespectful.

But like any form of expression, freedom to express yourself does not free you from the consequences thereof.  In this context, we’re talking about criticism, maybe protests and boycotts.  Not death threats.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 20, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> This is true if and only if the creators & providers of intellectual property actually agree to restrain themselves in the light of criticism.




I am not 100% sure what you mean by restrain themselves, but I think it would depend on the criticism. Not all critiques have the same value or merit.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 20, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But like any form of expression, freedom to express yourself does not free you from the consequences thereof.  In this context, we’re talking about criticism, maybe protests and boycotts.  Not death threats.




This is true, but again not all consequences are reasonable or well thought out. And some are more divisive. Being respectful and sensitive is one thing. I think that makes sense and most people understand what that entails. But cultural appropriation is a much bigger concept that makes it very hard to cross cultural lines and play with ideas from other cultures. Now I get there are strong arguments in its favor. I think most of us have seen the pro and con bullets of each side at this point. At the end of the day for me though, I think it is too dangerous to empathy, cultural exchange, art and free expression. And I don't know that fretting over cultural appropriation really solves anything in the end either. Just on a personal creative level, I found as concern about cultural appropriation increase I found myself a lot less comfortable as a designer (and not in a good way). 

What I would say is creative people should obviously not try to be offensive to anyone and should be sensitive to cultural issues (provided they are reasonable). But I think they should be free to explore ideas from cultures outside their own, in ways that they want otherwise. And I think audiences and consumers should be somewhat charitable in their assessment. We shouldn't limit ourselves to working only with cultures in our creative efforts that match our background and skin tone. That seems like very dangerous territory to me. I know in my own experience, the only way I've learned more about other cultures is through experiencing their different elements directly. 

I also think there is this notion in this debate that the best way to handle other cultures is to bring them in 100% accurately, with a perspective grounded in the culture you are borrowing from. But some of the most delightful movies and books are a product of people misunderstanding the culture they are handling. It creates something new and interesting (and this is something I see in my own culture but also from cultures borrowing from my culture). 

One major concern I have about the appropriation debate, is it is a lot easier for people with masters degrees and PhDs (and to a lesser extent BAs) to navigate. And I do think it makes it harder to be creative if you are not versed in liberal arts disciplines at a high level. So I think there is a class and elite issue that arises from it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 20, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is a very difficult topic, one where there is going to be disagreement. It is also one where it isn't easy to parse through all the different points of view and all the different lines of argument.




While there are a lot of gray areas in the topic of cultural appropriation, I would also like to point out that there are also some pretty clear areas of black and white (no pun intended).  For example, pretty much everyone agrees that casting white actors in blackface isn't okay anymore.  And while some historical cases of "savage Indian" mascots stick around (like the famous case of the Washington Redskins), its easy to say that a new team wouldn't get away with a similar name.

As a writer, it may be difficult to figure out every instance of cultural misappropriation in your work.  But it shouldn't be so hard to look at the overall picture and make sure you're not being outright offensive.  If you use influences from African/Native American/whatever culture, do you only use it for the bad guys, or do the good guys have it too?  And remember to flip it the other way. Are European/Christian/whatever influences visible in only the good guys, or do the bad guys have it as well?  While having a full blown sensitivity editor may not be practical, having at least a couple diverse test-readers familiar with the cultures you pull from will go a long way.

TLDR: You don't have to be the most culturally aware to not be evil.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 20, 2019)

Deset Gled said:


> While there are a lot of gray areas in the topic of cultural appropriation, I would also like to point out that there are also some pretty clear areas of black and white (no pun intended).  For example, pretty much everyone agrees that casting white actors in blackface isn't okay anymore.




But that isn't appropriation. That is a taboo in US culture because of our history and because it comes from a style of entertainment that mocked black people. It is simply considered offensive. It isn't the cultural borrowing that is at issue. It is about wearing makeup that is a racist caricature of black people. 

So again, I think the issue you can focus on rather than oppriation is simply: is this offensive? It handles most of the major concerns without getting into the 'stay in your lane' territory that, at least in my view, makes it harder for people to interact across cultural lines. We should be able to enjoy one another's cultures and not be so afraid of exploring cultures outside our own that a we have to hire sensitivity writers and walk around doing surveys with each step.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 20, 2019)

For clarification, stereotypes are not the same as cultural appropriation.  Cultural appropriate is basically taking an aspect of a minority culture (dress, symbols, religion, etc) and adopting it yourself.  Like sports mascots, or when white people say they have a spirit animal, or tribal tattoos.  Etc.

In regards to how this relates to my OP, I'm not too worried about stereotypes (I can avoid those pretty easily).  What I do want to avoid are the "another white game designer writing about African/Asian/etc culture and profiting from it by appropriating aspects of those cultures"


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 20, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> For clarification, stereotypes are not the same as cultural appropriation.  Cultural appropriate is basically taking an aspect of a minority culture (dress, symbols, religion, etc) and adopting it yourself.  Like sports mascots, or when white people say they have a spirit animal, or tribal tattoos.  Etc.
> 
> In regards to how this relates to my OP, I'm not too worried about stereotypes (I can avoid those pretty easily).  What I do want to avoid are the "another white game designer writing about African/Asian/etc culture and profiting from it by appropriating aspects of those cultures"




I think twitter is going to be your best bet in terms of finding a gauge for that because there are a lot of creative communities where this is discussed and commented on. If you are active there, I would be happy to send you some suggestions by PM.


----------



## Derren (Sep 20, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That’s pretty...cynical.
> 
> I would retort that the discussion is NOT arbitrary, but rather evidence that people are starting to finally hear and understand long-standing complaints.



Sure it is.
The first arbitrary selection is which cultures can be appropriated and which not. No one complains when German culture is appropriated (Oktoberfest, Lederhosen, etc.). The general response is that it is ok to appropriate "white" cultures because they are "in power" or something like that. But for example the Greek were not "in power" for a long time, but are still fair game.
Entirely arbitrary.
The second arbitrary selection is which culture "owns" what. Are dreadlocks part of "black culture" and no whites are allowed to have them as it was claimed? What about Vikings (ignoring for now that as white people no one cares if they are appropriated), who owns them? The Swedes? Norwegians? Danish? British? French? Ukrainian?
And it was already mentioned that the selection who is allowed to use which culture is arbitrary, too. Can an african american safely use things from an central african culture even though he never visited it just because of his skin color? What about cultures that have been gone for centuries? Why does an ancestry make someone qualified to use a culture?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not 100% sure what you mean by restrain themselves, but I think it would depend on the criticism. Not all critiques have the same value or merit.



What I mean is, mere criticism will not prevent you from making something.  Barring actual use of tactics like denial of resources, only your own self-restraint will.

So if A&F wanted to do something Native Americans themed that, for sake of this discussion, used sacred imagery in a way considered to be disrespectful or profane, mere accusations of cultural appropriation wouldn’t stop them from doing so.  Ditto protests or boycotts.  They could still release said product and let the chips fall where they may.  And there are no guarantees as to how that could turn out.

There was a guitar pedal released last year that had a name that some women considered offensive.  Certain outlets refused to sell it, including some used gear resale sites.  They released it anyway, and not only did it sell well, a certain portion of the market bought it precisely because there were protests.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

> And I don't know that fretting over cultural appropriation really solves anything in the end either. Just on a personal creative level, I found as concern about cultural appropriation increase I found myself a lot less comfortable as a designer (and not in a good way).




Has your empathy and awareness that some people might find X, Y, or Z increased?  Are you more conscious of the impact of relying on negative stereotypes?  Are you less likely do rely on such?

If “yes” is your answer to any of those, I would assert that’s a good thing.

What about being more culturally aware has harmed you?  Has diminished the quality of your output?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Has your empathy and awareness that some people might find X, Y, or Z increased?  Are you more conscious of the impact of relying on negative stereotypes?  Are you less likely do rely on such?




No, I think if anything the fretting has made me more skeptical of peoples complaints and I have had to remind myself to hit the reset button and take every argument and criticism I hear seriously. But after a while the constant criticisms on these grounds start to water down other, more legitimate complaints, because I think it gets easier for people to dismiss it as an overreaction (even if it isn't). I think the things that have increased my awareness and my empathy have nothing to do with people saying this or that is cultural appropriation, and everything to do with knowing people from other places, reading about other cultures, and generally having an open mind. I've always been very open to other cultures and points of view. And I think if anything the increase in this kind of concern about appropriation has made me feel more reluctant to engage with other cultures (an impulse I resist, but you can feel it when you try to explore things). In my experience it has just made people incredibly self conscious and hesitant. 



> If “yes” is your answer to any of those,mI would assert that’s a good thing.




I think my answer to the above is no. 



> What about being more culturally aware has harmed you?  Has diminished the quality of your output?




Being culturally aware hasn't harmed me at all. But that isn't the same thing as the dialogue about cultural appropriation. Being culturally aware is good. But adhering to the dogma surrounding cultural appropariton concerns isn't the same thing as that. In fact, I've found talking to people in cultures outside the US and Europe that appropriation is even less of a concern. Like I said, cultural sensitivity matters. I not denying the importance of avoiding being offensive and of respecting people. But I think cultural appropriation offers a very simplified solution to that problem, and I think it is a solution that actually separates people, makes movement between cultures more difficult and creates resentment.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Has your empathy and awareness that some people might find X, Y, or Z increased?




My main point about this is that I think empathy comes from engaging with other cultures. Getting to know people. Playing with cultural concepts outside your own. I think that is hard to do when battle lines are drawn around appropriation concerns and when people are postured for negative reactions rather than open to one another. I think openness is the most important quality here. But what I get from the cultural appropriation discussion isn't openness. It is more of "don't go there", "don't do it that way", etc. It is like if you have ever had a boss at work where every little detail was criticized and you ended up freezing anytime you sat down to work on something. It is just a very paralyzing phenomenon in my experience. And I think that makes openness and crossing boundaries hard.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

Derren said:


> Sure it is.
> The first arbitrary selection is which cultures can be appropriated and which not. No one complains when German culture is appropriated (Oktoberfest, Lederhosen, etc.). The general response is that it is ok to appropriate "white" cultures because they are "in power" or something like that. But for example the Greek were not "in power" for a long time, but are still fair game.




All of those mentioned are considered a part of the dominant European/Western culture, to which most of the people in the USA or Europe can lay some kind of claim to.  There are literally hundreds of millions of Caucasians who could- but do not- complain about the use and depiction of their culture.



> The second arbitrary selection is which culture "owns" what. Are dreadlocks part of "black culture" and no whites are allowed to have them as it was claimed?




Dreadlocks, while not unique to any one culture, are strongly linked to the religious beliefs of a particular subset of blacks.  It is understandable that they complain about outsiders adopting the style.  And, F.Y.I., some are not only displeased with the *Caucasians* who so, but anyone.



> What about Vikings (ignoring for now that as white people no one cares if they are appropriated), who owns them? The Swedes? Norwegians? Danish? British? French? Ukrainian?




They are free to complain.  No one is stopping them.

And, for the record, some _do._  Especially some of the neopagans I’ve met.



> Can an african american safely use things from an central african culture even though he never visited it just because of his skin color? What about cultures that have been gone for centuries?



How many Irish Americans go nuts on St. Patrick’s Day without having ever left the USA?  How many Italian Americans strongly embrace their roots without having visited Italy?

Considering that many of _us_ have absolutely no way of determining which African cultures we can genuinely claim as part of our ancestry because that knowledge was *forcefully* and *deliberately* eradicated whenever possible, you might want to reconsider your articulation of a double standard.

There are Africans who are just as prickly about the use of kente or batik patterns as there are Scots who bristle at non traditional plaids.

Personally, _because _I know my non-African heritage far better than I can _ever_ know my African roots, I minimize my use of symbology from that continent.  So I have an eye of Horus pendant, an ankh or two, but that’s it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dreadlocks, while not unique to any one culture, are strongly linked to the religious beliefs of a particular subset of blacks. It is understandable that they complain about outsiders adopting the style. And, F.Y.I., some are not only displeased with the Caucasians who so, but anyone.
> 
> How many Irish Americans go nuts on St. Patrick’s Day without having ever left the USA? How many Italian Americans strongly embrace their roots without having visited Italy?
> 
> ...




But this kind of thinking keeps people locked inside their own cultures. It feels like a form of ethno-nationalism.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> No, I think if anything the fretting has made me more skeptical of peoples complaints and I have had to remind myself to hit the reset button and take every argument and criticism I hear seriously. But after a while the constant criticisms on these grounds start to water down other, more legitimate complaints, because I think it gets easier for people to dismiss it as an overreaction (even if it isn't). I think the things that have increased my awareness and my empathy have nothing to do with people saying this or that is cultural appropriation, and everything to do with knowing people from other places, reading about other cultures, and generally having an open mind. I've always been very open to other cultures and points of view. And I think if anything the increase in this kind of concern about appropriation has made me feel more reluctant to engage with other cultures (an impulse I resist, but you can feel it when you try to explore things). In my experience it has just made people incredibly self conscious and hesitant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Methinks you’re overthinking.

Why would the existence of complaints make you more skeptical that people might have a point?

Why would criticism of cultural appropriation make one less likely to experience another culture?  I got to travel the world as an army brat, and go to cultural events of all kinds.  Almost no one has given me the hairy eyeball for being the black guy at* the Polish fest, the local Irish-Native American festival, Oktoberfests, the annual Native American convention, Lebanese cultural & culinary fairs, etc.  No, they’re all happy to see someone dipping their toes in.

So go looking for a local African, Hispanic or Asian cultural event and forget your worries.  Go looking for a good time, and you’re probably going to find one.





* heavy metal shows are a _little_ different in that regard, though.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 21, 2019)

Derren said:


> Sure it is.
> The first arbitrary selection is which cultures can be appropriated and which not. No one complains when German culture is appropriated (Oktoberfest, Lederhosen, etc.). The general response is that it is ok to appropriate "white" cultures because they are "in power" or something like that. But for example the Greek were not "in power" for a long time, but are still fair game.
> Entirely arbitrary.




I don't think it's arbitrary at all, and here's why.  A few weeks ago I actually had a conversation with two of my Native American friends.  They were talking about how they were sick and tired of white people using terms like "spirit animal", since that was a Native belief  that held a sacredness to them.  I mentioned how I am of Germanic and Celtic heritage, and that my heritage also has something like a spirit animal (the fylgjur), so couldn't I also lay claim to that?

Here's how the conversation landed.  We both agreed that pretty much in both cases, white Christian colonialism subjugated and assimilated both of our cultures into theirs (white colonialism of the United States, and what the Romans did to the pagans).  The difference?  And a big one?  In my case, that was 1500 years ago.  In their case?  It was recent, and still going on today.  There are Native Americans alive today who have had to experience this blatant attempt of eradication of their beliefs and heritage through assimilation.  I don't think that should be lost in the context of this conversation.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But this kind of thinking keeps people locked inside their own cultures. It feels like a form of ethno-nationalism.



How?  It isn’t like growing dreads suddenly gives you insight into Rastafarianism.  

As Al Roker pointed out, you don’t have to put on blackface to dress up in a costume honoring Ray Charles.*  Likewise, Al doesn’t put on white makeup to Don Caucasian themed costumes.

You can experience a culture without emulating it.  In fact, doing so _first _greatly reduces (but does not eliminate) the possibility of giving offense.





* not that he’d notice.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I don't think it's arbitrary at all, and here's why.  A few weeks ago I actually had a conversation with two of my Native American friends.  They were talking about how they were sick and tired of white people using terms like "spirit animal", since that was a Native belief  that held a sacredness to them.  I mentioned how I am of Germanic and Celtic heritage, and that my heritage also has something like a spirit animal (the fylgjur), so couldn't I also lay claim to that?
> 
> Here's how the conversation landed.  We both agreed that pretty much in both cases, white Christian colonialism subjugated and assimilated both of our cultures into theirs (white colonialism of the United States, and what the Romans did to the pagans).  The difference?  And a big one?  In my case, that was 1500 years ago.  In their case?  It was recent, and still going on today.  There are Native Americans alive today who have had to experience this blatant attempt of eradication of their beliefs and heritage through assimilation.  I don't think that should be lost in the context of this conversation.



And I bet, given that, they’d have less of a problem with YOU rocking your totemic animal than, say, a Caucasian from Sidney.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> How?  It isn’t like growing dreads suddenly gives you insight into Rastafarianism.




No there isn't any instant pathway. 


Dannyalcatraz said:


> Why would the existence of complaints make you more skeptical that people might have a point?




It isn't the existence of complaints. It is the proliferation of complaints under the banner of cultural appropriation, which often seem like frivolous complaints compared to more serious conners about offensive material. I think what happens is people start to file any concern under the same grouping as that, and they start taking concerns overall less seriously. There is a big difference between using the N word for example and a Kate Perry video. But the more people hear complaints about a celebrity borrowing from Egyptian culture, the more the dismissive they become overall.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As Al Roker pointed out, you don’t have to put on blackface to dress up in a costume honoring Ray Charles.*  Likewise, Al doesn’t put on white makeup to Don Caucasian themed costumes.




But you would need to play his music, listen to his music and emulate his music if you were a musician who wanted to understand and honor him. I think regardless of whether your a kid in Japan, the Midwest or Africa, and no matter what your skin tone, it is a good thing to do that. And I think the whole cultural appropriation thing puts that under so much scrutiny it makes people not even want to try.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And I bet, given that, they’d have less of a problem with YOU rocking your totemic animal than, say, a Caucasian from Sidney.




As long as I don't call it a spirit animal, apparently.  The terminology matters


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You can experience a culture without emulating it.  In fact, doing so _first _greatly reduces (but does not eliminate) the possibility of giving offense.
> * not that he’d notice.




But there is nothing wrong with emulating culture. If you see something in a culture you like and want to incorporate into a work, I do not understand this new mentality that you somehow shouldn't do that. That is how new ideas come about. What you are advocating is keeping cultural ideas locked in their original context. Or at the very least gate kept by people within that culture so they only evolve at a rate set locally. I look back on the history of the world and think what an awful place we'd live in today if that is how things were done. Ideas need to spread, and people need to absorb them, rework them, and turn them into new things. Otherwise ideas decay.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But there is nothing wrong with emulating culture.




Actually, there is.  And it's a big reason.  That's how minority cultures die out.  And more often than not, it's intentional by the majority to do so.  Native Americans adopted and given "white" names and dress.  Taking pagan holidays like Winter Solstice and making it the celebration of Jesus's birthday (despite him being born in August), and things like christmas trees, and presents, and dressing up for Halloween.

Really, the list is pretty exhaustive of how cultures in history have hijacked other minority cultures as a way to eliminate their influence and culture.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Actually, there is.  And it's a big reason.  That's how minority cultures die out.  And more often than not, it's intentional by the majority to do so.  Native Americans adopted and given "white" names and dress.  Taking pagan holidays like Winter Solstice and making it the celebration of Jesus's birthday (despite him being born in August), and things like christmas trees, and presents, and dressing up for Halloween.
> 
> Really, the list is pretty exhaustive of how cultures in history have hijacked other minority cultures as a way to eliminate their influence and culture.




Wait a second. Your mixing up all kinds of things here. You are talking about the Christianization of Europe which relied on adopting pagan elements to make Christianity more appealing (it also relied other things as well like force). That is way more complicated than borrowing headgear and slacks. And it was a conversion effort. Minority cultures die out because they get displaced, people take their land, they are the victims of genocide, they are pressured to assimilate, etc. I don't think people appreciate the kind of conspiracy minded thinking going into this narrative you are building. If you examine the history of the Christianization of Europe, I don't think this is the lesson you take from it. I would say more often than not, an unwillingness to engage with outside cultures, rather than a willingness to engage, is to blame for bloodshed, genocide and cultural destruction. You are cherry picking aspects of history to make a case for people not borrowing musical scales or visual patterns that come from cultures outside their own. I don't think you can compare the spread of Christianity or the spread of Islam to someone borrowing a bit of music, or wearing their hair in a certain style. Christianity and Islam were massive cultural shifts. 

Also very important here: without that kind of approbation we wouldn't have our own vibrant culture that includes things like celebrating halloween, decorating Christmas trees, etc. Everything comes from somewhere. The pagans got those ideas from other people too. This drive to distill cutlural elements to some kind of mythical pure form, I think is deeply misguided.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Wait a second. Your mixing up all kinds of things here. You are talking about the Christianization of Europe which relied on adopting pagan elements to make Christianity more appealing (it also relied other things as well like force). That is way more complicated than borrowing headgear and slacks. Minority cultures die out because they get displaced, people take their land, they are the victims of genocide, they are pressured to assimilate, etc. I don't think people appreciate the kind of conspiracy minded thinking going into this narrative you are building. If you examine the history of the Christianization of Europe, I don't think this is the lesson you take from it. I would say more often than not, an unwillingness to engage with outside cultures, rather than a willingness to engage, is to blame for bloodshed, genocide and cultural destruction. You are cherry picking aspects of history to make a case for people not borrowing musical scales or visual patterns that come from cultures outside their own.
> 
> Also very important here: without that kind of approbation we wouldn't have our own vibrant culture that includes things like celebrating halloween, decorating Christmas trees, etc. Everything comes from somewhere. The pagans got those ideas from other people too. This drive to distill cutlural elements to some kind of mythical pure form, I think is deeply misguided.




No, I'm not mixing up things.  It's all part of the same thing.  It cheapens, lessens, and bastardizes genuine culture when others take bits and pieces of it to hijack it for their own.  See the above spirit animal reference.  So many white people go around using it, that our culture now not only doesn't have the proper respect for people who that is actually sacred to, but it's been jumbled so much that most people don't even realize that most Native Americans don't believe in the concept of a spirit animal that is being used by non natives.  Rather most people treat Native American cultures as some sort of homogenized culture now.  And that is how actual cultures get lost.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

I would recommend (trying to) bypass the issue by reframing your intention as being _inspired by _certain real world cultures, rather than whether or not you are in danger of appropriating, because in today's volatile context you're going to offend someone. Just be aware, respectful, and think in terms of being inspired by. You are not "appropriating" anything - you are being creatively inspired by cultures and incorporating those elements into your work. Being inspired by is inherently a place of respecting what you're inspired by.

If you are ever actually confronted, you can say "I was inspired by X culture," and really only extremists will be offended - and there is always going to be someone that gets offended. 

Here's a very interesting article on fantasy fiction and this issue: Writers blocked: even fantasy fiction is now offensive.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> No, I'm not mixing up things.  It's all part of the same thing.  It cheapens, lessens, and bastardizes genuine culture when others take bits and pieces of it to hijack it for their own.  See the above spirit animal reference.  So many white people go around using it, that our culture now not only doesn't have the proper respect for people who that is actually sacred to, but it's been jumbled so much that most people don't even realize that most Native Americans don't believe in that concept.  Rather most people treat Native American cultures as some sort of homogenized culture now.  And that is how actual cultures get lost.




That seems like a very weak argument to me. I am not saying people should go around using Totem animals. But you see this sort of cultural adoption of things all the time. The Buddha has become a cartoon in certain deceptions, and you see similar things with Jesus. That doesn't automatically weaken faith in Buddhism or Christianity. Other things have to be going on. And I don't think people adopting these cultural elements make them more hostile toward the culture they are borrowing from. I feel like this is a very simple answer people are reaching for that isn't actually the source of the problem.

And the second part of your paragraph makes this even more confusing. How is people believing something false about a culture, going to contribute to that culture dying?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> That seems like a very weak argument to me.




Probably because you're not a Native American who has had, and is having, their sacred culture being hijacked.  But believe me, it is a very real and solid argument.  Ironically, you're proving why I posted this in the first place.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> It isn't the existence of complaints. It is the proliferation of complaints under the banner of cultural appropriation, which often seem like frivolous complaints compared to more serious conners about offensive material. I think what happens is people start to file any concern under the same grouping as that, and they start taking concerns overall less seriously. There is a big difference between using the N word for example and a Kate Perry video. But the more people hear complaints about a celebrity borrowing from Egyptian culture, the more the dismissive they become overall.




Just because _you_ think something is frivolous doesn’t mean everyone else feels likewise.

Sometimes, a complaint about cultural appropriation isn’t about a single particular example, but an accumulation of similar transgressions.

Can a bunch of complaints lead to fatigue?  Certainly!  But just like a parent might nag a kid about picking up his toys, perhaps the constant drumbeat of criticisms about cultural appropriation exists because the prior complaints have been dismissed and ignored.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But there is nothing wrong with emulating culture. If you see something in a culture you like and want to incorporate into a work, I do not understand this new mentality that you somehow shouldn't do that. That is how new ideas come about. What you are advocating is keeping cultural ideas locked in their original context. Or at the very least gate kept by people within that culture so they only evolve at a rate set locally. I look back on the history of the world and think what an awful place we'd live in today if that is how things were done. Ideas need to spread, and people need to absorb them, rework them, and turn them into new things. Otherwise ideas decay.



I am not saying you cannot use elements of another culture within your own creative works.  Synthesis is crucial to both culture and science.  That’s why Soil & Pimp Sessions plays killer jazz in Japan, why rap is a worldwide phenomenon, why the Beatles & Led Zeppelin’s dabbling in eastern musical modes is celebrated, how Blues became rock & roll.

I’m saying that doing so without understanding & respecting what you’re using is problematic, and THAT is the core of criticisms of cultural appropriation.

That’s literally the gist of my initial post in this thread.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

But where does it end? And who is the final arbiter? This is the problem - there is no end, or rather the end is dystopian authoritarianism which George Orwell described beautifully in the 1940s.

Furthermore, the "constant drumbeat of complaints" don't in and of themselves prove their own validity just because they're constant. There are a wide range of complaints, and my concern is when no differentiation is made. This is happening in a number of different contexts, from cultural appropriation, the metoo movement, free speech, etc etc. 

There's quite a difference between Harvey Weinstein and Louis CK, just as there's a huge difference between wearing blackface and being inspired by African mythology in a roleplaying game. 

The problem with the "constant drumbeat of complaints" is that it tends to drown out any difference or nuance.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I’m saying that doing so without understanding & respecting what you’re using is problematic, and THAT is the core of criticisms of cultural appropriation.




I can agree on the respecting part, which is pretty easy to do. But the understanding part is more problematic and creates an impossible bind: claiming you understand could be deemed as a form of appropriation.

It doesn't need to be that complex: just be respectful, be sensitive, but if you end up doing everything possible to not offend anyone, you're going to handcuff yourself creativity and chances are there's someone out there who will be offended.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 21, 2019)

I think people should read this article.  The problem isn't solved by just "being respectful and avoid stereotypes."  A lot of people are unaware of just how many microaggressions are being perpetrated, and just how harmful those are. 









						This Halloween, Remember Native People Are Watching
					

Racism is normalized, but it's not normal.




					www.teenvogue.com


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> I can agree on the respecting part, which is pretty easy to do. But the understanding part is more problematic and creates an impossible bind: claiming you understand could be deemed as a form of appropriation.
> 
> It doesn't need to be that complex: just be respectful, be sensitive, but if you end up doing everything possible to not offend anyone, you're going to handcuff yourself creativity and chances are there's someone out there who will be offended.




If you don’t claim to understand EVERYTHING about what you’re borrowing and are open to learning from mistakes, you’re probably good.  _Nobody _has a perfect understanding of any culture.  Just know and admit your limitations.

If, however, your claims of understanding are at odds with your actions, that will put the lie to your claims.  Ditto if your claims are patently false- for example, I don’t claim to understand the finer points of parenting because I have no kids.  _At best_, I can claim empathy, not understanding.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I think people should read this article.  The problem isn't solved by just "being respectful and avoid stereotypes."  A lot of people are unaware of just how many microaggressions are being perpetrated, and just how harmful those are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




OK, but part of the problem is you're framing the discussion as if everyone agrees that "microaggressions" are a thing. The term itself is jargon coming from a specific ideological framework. If you don't subscribe to that framework, they aren't really a thing, or at least not as much of a thing than if you subscribe to the framework within  which they are a thing.

All that said, I agree that Native Americans are one of the most marginalized, under-respected groups in North America. I'm not sure that worrying about Halloween costumes is the way to rectify that, however. I'd rather see that energy put into transforming and empowering Native peoples, reservations, etc.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I’m saying that doing so without understanding & respecting what you’re using is problematic, and THAT is the core of criticisms of cultural appropriation.
> 
> That’s literally the gist of my initial post in this thread.




But why? What if I am a very simple and not particularly worldly musician and I walk by a monastery and hear Gregorian Chant. I instantly start emulating it without understanding its original context but I create something new and vibrant. Why is that problematic. The same would be true if I walked by and heard Buddhist chants in Sanskrit or walked by a house playing salsa music and decided to emulate the scales played on the keyboard. We can like things and borrow them without necessarily understanding them. Borrowing aesthetics isn’t a sacred act that has to be officiated by a priest class (which is what I think is going on and why I pointed to how social class plays a role in navigating this issue)


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you don’t claim to understand EVERYTHING about what you’re borrowing and are open to learning from mistakes, you’re probably good.  _Nobody _has a perfect understanding of any culture.  Just know and admit your limitations.
> 
> If, however, your claims of understanding are at odds with your actions, that will put the lie to your claims.  Ditto if your claims are patently false- for example, I don’t claim to understand the finer points of parenting because I have no kids.  _At best_, I can claim empathy, not understanding.




I think that's the most important point: Understanding that one cannot understanding the Other, not fully - whether that is your spouse, a friend, a colleague, or a group of people. That starts us off in a place of mutual respect, or at least the possibility of mutual respect.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 21, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> OK, but part of the problem is you're framing the discussion as if everyone agrees that "microaggressions" are a thing. The term itself is jargon coming from a specific ideological framework. If you don't subscribe to that framework, they aren't really a thing, or at least not as much of a thing than if you subscribe to the framework within  which they are a thing.




Clearly you didn't bother to read that article.  If you don't think microaggressions are a thing (they are objectively provable), then we are so far off that I don't know why you're in this thread when I was asking for other opinions and advice on how to avoid pitfalls of cultural appropriation.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> I think that's the most important point: Understanding that one cannot understanding the Other, not fully - whether that is your spouse, a friend, a colleague, or a group of people. That starts us off in a place of mutual respect, or at least the possibility of mutual respect.




I don’t think we ever have perfect understanding of anyone, but doesn't this attitude just turn people into more of an other? Essentially it starts from ‘this person is so different from me, they are ultimately unknowable’. That doesn’t seem like it is healthy or likely to produce empathy. My wife is from another country, from another culture and a different language. Somehow we have managed to bridge that. I think if we viewed one another as do alien neither of us could understand the other truly, we’d have no real human connection.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But why? What if I am a very simple and not particularly worldly musician and I walk by a monastery and hear Gregorian Chant. I instantly start emulating it without understanding its original context but I create something new and vibrant. Why is that problematic. The same would be true if I walked by and heard Buddhist chants in Sanskrit or walked by a house playing salsa music and decided to emulate the scales played on the keyboard. We can like things and borrow them without necessarily understanding them. Borrowing aesthetics isn’t a sacred act that has to be officiated by a priest class (which is what I think is going on and why I pointed to how social class plays a role in navigating this issue)




I personally dont see anything wrong with that, but obviously some people do. You can't please everyone. But then again, I'm not really all that sensitive or concerned about being appropriated, mostly because I don't strongly identify with specific groups, ideologies, tribes, etc (largely due to my general adherence to my algammation of various strains of nondual philosophy - Buddhism, Vedanta, Sufism, etc...hey, I'm appropriating!).

I suppose the only time I get triggered is when people say some variation of "All X are" or "You're such a Y" in a pejorative manner. But that isn't cultural appropriation - that's stereotyping. And I would never try to censor or punish or de-platform someone from speaking their truth, even if I disagree with it or find it ugly.

But here's the thing: From one perspective, concerns about cultural appropriation are the flipside of stereotyping: they are separating, tribal, and divide people from each other. In my view, the big task of the 21st century is to find our underlying unity as one species (among other species), as inhabitants of the same home. If we don't, we're doomed. Stereotyping _and _complaining about cultural appropriation only serve to further separate us.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Clearly you didn't bother to read that article.  If you don't think microaggressions are a thing (they are objectively provable), then we are so far off that I don't know why you're in this thread when I was asking for other opinions and advice on how to avoid pitfalls of cultural appropriation.




Did you read the article I posted in reference to your OP? Probably not, so no need to get upset.

But your attitude just furthers the point I'm trying to make: "Either you agree or get out." Either you agree with the basic ideological framework I'm coming from or you don't belong in the conversation. How well does that work?

Oh yeah, I didn't say microaggressions aren't a thing. I said some people don't think they're a thing, and many people disagree on to what degree they are a thing. And by "a thing," I don't really mean whether they exist or not, but how important they are. That is not objectively measurable.

EDIT: I skimmed through the article and agree and empathize with the gist of it. I have had arguments with sports fans about the usage of "Redskins" and "Chief Wahoo" before and frankly find it unfortunate (to say the least) that the NFL and MLB haven't changed them.  

But my concern is on the monolithic approach to this issue, as if there's only one way to understand this and that is through "microaggressions" and "cultural appropriation" and other such jargon. Adherents to this underlying ideology tend be antagonistic and dismissive of anyone who holds a different view.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I am not saying you cannot use elements of another culture within your own creative works.  Synthesis is crucial to both culture and science.  That’s why Soil & Pimp Sessions plays killer jazz in Japan, why rap is a worldwide phenomenon, why the Beatles & Led Zeppelin’s dabbling in eastern musical modes is celebrated, how Blues became rock & roll.




But a lot of those things wouldn’t have happened if the concept of cultural appropriation had currency when they were developed.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t think we ever have perfect understanding of anyone, but doesn't this attitude just turn people into more of an other? Essentially it starts from ‘this person is so different from me, they are ultimately unknowable’. That doesn’t seem like it is healthy or likely to produce empathy. My wife is from another country, from another culture and a different language. Somehow we have managed to bridge that. I think if we viewed one another as do alien neither of us could understand the other truly, we’d have no real human connection.




I hear your point and that's not really what I meant. I mean, I think we all experience the same basic emotions: your experience of jealousy or rage or wonder isn't all that different from mine. How they differ is mostly in terms of what triggers them, or to what degree we experience them.

But you cannot know my own biography, all the things that led to me being me (and vice versa). The beginning of true empathy is to grok that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> But where does it end?




It doesn’t.  It’s a continuous process of listening and learning.



> And who is the final arbiter?




Nobody.  Eventually, if people listen honestly and react ethically and morally, incidents will be reduced to a point where it’s just noise in the system.  That’s when the remaining concerns will generally be so trivial as to not be addressable at a broad level.

There’s a concept in economics that there is an optimum level of crime in any society.  IOW, there is a point beyond which it is too expensive for society to expend more resources to _prevent_ a given kind of crime, that the expenditures to do so outweigh the costs of the crime committed.  It sucks for the individual, but it’s a good for society as a whole.  (At least in terms of economic efficiency.)



> This is the problem - there is no end, or rather the end is dystopian authoritarianism which George Orwell described beautifully in the 1940s.



No.  No it doesn’t.



> Furthermore, the "constant drumbeat of complaints" don't in and of themselves prove their own validity just because they're constant. There are a wide range of complaints, and my concern is when no differentiation is made. This is happening in a number of different contexts, from cultural appropriation, the metoo movement, free speech, etc etc.




You can’t spoon-feed understanding.

Differentiation requires exerting some effort on the part of the listener.  Even the most condescending explanation of distinctions between Situation One and Situation Two will demand the audience using a couple brain cells to comprehend.



> There's quite a difference between Harvey Weinstein and Louis CK, just as there's a huge difference between wearing blackface and being inspired by African mythology in a roleplaying game.




That’s a _terrible_ analogy.  Weinstein & CK *both* did things that were legally wrong.  Being inspired by African mythology has NOTHING in common with wearing blackface.



> The problem with the "constant drumbeat of complaints" is that it tends to drown out any difference or nuance.



Only if you stop listening with a critical ear.  

If you turn your attention away from it, a drum solo from a song- even one as complex as found in Frank Zappa’s “The Black Page”- can sound random.  But I f you pay attention to it, you can pick it out of a bunch of randomized rhythmic sounds.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

But Danny that process you describe also creates complexity around the process of cultural borrowing that has buybin and weight.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But why? What if I am a very simple and not particularly worldly musician and I walk by a monastery and hear Gregorian Chant. I instantly start emulating it without understanding its original context but I create something new and vibrant. Why is that problematic. The same would be true if I walked by and heard Buddhist chants in Sanskrit or walked by a house playing salsa music and decided to emulate the scales played on the keyboard. We can like things and borrow them without necessarily understanding them. Borrowing aesthetics isn’t a sacred act that has to be officiated by a priest class (which is what I think is going on and why I pointed to how social class plays a role in navigating this issue)



Lack of understanding doesn’t guarantee offense, just increases the odds that it will happen.

If- like many modern musicians- you routinely carry some kind of recording device and use it record the music you hear as you pass, then use it as a sample in your own, not realizing that the words in the sample are part of a ceremony not for public dissemination, you can and should be called on it.  How you react to that could determine a lot about your future.

If someone let you know about the nature of your sample before you released your tune, you're in deeper trouble.  (As always, what you know nd when you knew it matters.)


----------



## MGibster (Sep 21, 2019)

I'm typing this with a Phoenician alphabet, I use Roman numerals when computing numbers, and despite having no solid cultural connections to Mexico I have tacos for dinner at least once a week.  Cultural appropriation isn't always a bad thing which is what makes it such a complicated issue.  And, yes, sometimes the lines between good and bad cultural appropriation isn't very obvious.  Other times it seems obvious.  

The best thing an author can do is listen to constructive criticism.  That doesn't necessarily mean they need to make any changes.  But at least be aware of the criticism and decide what you want to do from there.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> How you react to that could determine a lot about your future.




This is the mindset that I think is very harmful coming out of this. It doesn't really seem like it is coming from a desire to spread good, empathy and understanding. It seems very focused on the punitive, and bordering on the inquisitorial. And in my example, I am talking about a person with no understanding of the context. So whatever the end result they do is, it is without knowledge. And that gets to my point about the increase in complexity and the classism/elitism going on here with this. There are all these little rules, protocols and expectations of understanding of complex topics. But the person in my example is just a simple musician emulating sounds he or she heard. I think this is where cultural appropriation as a concept tips us into much darker territory than if we are simply concerned about whether we are doing things that are visibly offensive. And does a Catholic or a Buddhist have the moral authority to tell a non-Catholic or a non-Buddhist to abide by their taboos when handling their music? I am not sure they do have that authority.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

MGibster said:


> I'm typing this with a Phoenician alphabet, I use Roman numerals when computing numbers, and despite having no solid cultural connections to Mexico I have tacos for dinner at least once a week.  Cultural appropriation isn't always a bad thing which is what makes it such a complicated issue.  And, yes, sometimes the lines between good and bad cultural appropriation isn't very obvious.  Other times it seems obvious.




But I think the point I am trying to make is when this concept spread, people had a really hard time finding that line (which is why you now do see people protesting things like appropriation of food). I don't know that it is obvious. I think a lot of people have  hard time understanding where the lines and boundaries around appropriation are, what appropriation is, and why it is so significant. I think when you look at the pros and cons of it, it just ends up being a concept that causes more harm than good.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

MGibster said:


> The best thing an author can do is listen to constructive criticism.  That doesn't necessarily mean they need to make any changes.  But at least be aware of the criticism and decide what you want to do from there.




Obviously writers should listen to criticism. You don't improve as a writer if you don't. But there are bad critiques. There are bad trends in criticism. There are times when we get too neurotic about certain things. It is one thing to find problems when they present themselves. But it is also possible to be overly vigilant and see problems in every shadow. And when I hear complaints about cultural appropriation most of the time they seem to be just that. The rest of the time, people are really just talking about something being offensive.


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 21, 2019)

I avoid it for the most part and just use extinct cultures best as I can. 

 Exceptions are if it's in a published adventure.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It doesn’t.  It’s a continuous process of listening and learning.




That's one way of looking at it. There is a shadow side, though, which is a continuous process of smothering any disagreement or diversity of ideas and approaches, as if there is "one true way" to look at and understand this and related issues.

That said, I do agree that ideally there's a continuous process of listening and learning, but I think we disagree on how to go about that, and what may or may not be conducive to deepening understanding.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nobody.  Eventually, if people listen honestly and react ethically and morally, incidents will be reduced to a point where it’s just noise in the system.  That’s when the remaining concerns will generally be so trivial as to not be addressable at a broad level.




But there's always going to be--at least for the foreseeable future--a gap between a person's intention and how another person interprets their actions. What you say implies that either that isn't the case, or that there is a one-sized fits all formula to ethical action, one morality that we're all aspiring to.

Now maybe there is - but at this point it is an imagination, it is the "best possible world we can dream of." In my view it is based in interconnectedness, underlying oneness, deep compassion and love. It is _not _about the proper way to act appropriately in every situation that won't offend anyone, and it allows for a wide diversity of not only expression but ways of thinking and seeing.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> There’s a concept in economics that there is an optimum level of crime in any society.  IOW, there is a point beyond which it is too expensive for society to expend more resources to _prevent_ a given kind of crime, that the expenditures to do so outweigh the costs of the crime committed.  It sucks for the individual, but it’s a good for society as a whole.  (At least in terms of economic efficiency.)




Not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but what this brings up for me is gun control. On one hand, I don't like the idea of limiting anyone's freedom because of people who misuse guns...the vast majority of gun owners are responsible (or responsible _enough_). But on the other hand, if stricter gun laws will noticeably reduce deaths, I think that the price of slightly diminished personal liberty for some is worth it.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> No.  No it doesn’t.




We'll have to disagree on that one as I see that tendency very strongly in that ideological framework.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> You can’t spoon-feed understanding.
> 
> Differentiation requires exerting some effort on the part of the listener.  Even the most condescending explanation of distinctions between Situation One and Situation Two will demand the audience using a couple brain cells to comprehend.




Yes, but what about the listening capacity of the "drumbeater?" As far as I can see, those of that framework are so instistent on their rightness that they tend to disavow the kind of listening that they insist upon from the people they're trying to teach. It has to go both ways. If you want people to listen to you, you have to listen to them as well.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> That’s a _terrible_ analogy.  Weinstein & CK *both* did things that were legally wrong.  Being inspired by African mythology has NOTHING in common with wearing blackface.




Afaik Louis CK didn't do anything illegal. Furthermore, there is room for interpretation about the morality of what he did. Weinstein is more clear-cut to what degree he abused power. Even if you don't see as large a gap as I do, there is a gap, now? Or maybe if you want something more obvious, how about Bill Cosby and Aziz Ansari? Cosby was possibly the worst serial rapist in modern history, while it is now widely agreed upon that Ansari simply had a bad date that he was unfairly blamed for. But the point is, both received the scrutiny of the Ethical Police - one rightly so, the other not so much.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Only if you stop listening with a critical ear.




Many of the "drumbeat" do very much stop listening. They just want to bang their drum and point their fingers out there.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you turn your attention away from it, a drum solo from a song- even one as complex as found in Frank Zappa’s “The Black Page”- can sound random.  But I f you pay attention to it, you can pick it out of a bunch of randomized rhythmic sounds.




We are getting lost in analogies but what he is talking about though is millions of drummers playing different beats at the same time. You can't really compare the difficulty of discerning a pattern in a single complex drum beat, to the difficulty of discerning a pattern from thousands upon thousands of differing critiques. 

I really think the complexity issue around this is a lot more major than people realize. It is essentially creating a whole new system of etiquette to be adhered to when creating things or handling anything to do with culture and cultural exchange. And agin, it is something requires in depth knowledge and understanding of the principles and ideas around appropriation (as well as in depth knowledge of the world and the world's cultures). This is the sort of thing priest classes handle in society. It is beyond the scope of most regular people (I know it is for me, I don't think I would be able to create things if I were trying to truly avoid appropriation---because the rules shift, the conversation shifts, and the process keeps getting more complicated).


----------



## Zardnaar (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But a lot of those things wouldn’t have happened if the concept of cultural appropriation had currency when they were developed.




It's evolution, each successful culture has usually been influenced by other cultures. 
 The ones that didn't adapt went bye bye. 

 This alphabet, we got it from the Romans, they were influenced by the Greeks who were influenced by the Phoenicians. 

 Like the concept of 0? India-Arabs-Europe. 
Cultural appropriation right there. Things were different 50 years ago, in 50 years time it will be different, 50 years after that......

Just don't mock other cultures.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is the mindset that I think is very harmful coming out of this. It doesn't really seem like it is coming from a desire to spread good, empathy and understanding. It seems very focused on the punitive, and bordering on the inquisitorial.






To quote Col. Potter:









If someone tells you that you hurt them in some way, and you blow off their complaints, you’re probably going to be a target for blowback, and deservedly so.



OTOH, even if you ultimately disagree with the aggrieved, if you approach the discussion of the complaint with an open mind and good faith, you’re not going to get the same backlash.





> And in my example, I am talking about a person with no understanding of the context. So whatever the end result they do is, it is without knowledge.






Ignorance is no defense.





> And that gets to my point about the increase in complexity and the classism/elitism going on here with this. There are all these little rules, protocols and expectations of understanding of complex topics. But the person in my example is just a simple musician emulating sounds he or she heard.






So he knows nothing.  You know what he should do?  Ask questions.  Educate himself.



Novel concept, I know.





> I think this is where cultural appropriation as a concept tips us into much darker territory than if we are simply concerned about whether we are doing things that are visibly offensive.






When in doubt, don’t assume, ASK!





> And does a Catholic or a Buddhist have the moral authority to tell a non-Catholic or a non-Buddhist to abide by their taboos when handling their music? I am not sure they do have that authority.






They most certainly do.  Would you tell a Native American that they don’t have the moral authority to tell you not to drop a deuce on sacred land?  

You don’t have to listen, of course, but that’s on you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

> Afaik Louis CK didn't do anything illegal. Furthermore, there is room for interpretation about the morality of what he did.




Aaaaaand at this point, you and I are done for the foreseeable future.  I find it hard to believe you’re discussing things in good faith.

Louis CK was accused of-_ and admitted_- that he exposed himself to and masturbated in front of at least 5 different women, only one of whom (Sarah Silverman) expressed any notion that it was in any way consensual.  And even she stated that he abused his power and celebrity.  This isn’t obscure stuff, this was widely reported in industry outlets like Variety, news outlets like The Guardian & CNN, tabloid press like TMZ, and even soft news like People.









						Louis C.K. Admits Sexual Misconduct Allegations 'Are True'
					

"The power I had over these women is that they admired me. And I wielded that power irresponsibly. I have been remorseful of my actions. And I've tried to learn from them. And run from them," a portion of Louis C.K.'s statement reads




					people.com
				




That isn’t ethical/moral shades of gray stuff, that behavior is black letter law illegal. In all likelihood, only the statute of limitations has kept him out of jail.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Aaaaaand at this point, you and I are done for the foreseeable future.  I find it hard to believe you’re discussing things in good faith.
> 
> Louis CK was accused of-_ and admitted_- that he exposed himself to and masturbated in front of at least 5 different women, only one of whom (Sarah Silverman) expressed any notion that it was in any way consensual.  And even she stated that he abused his power and celebrity.  This isn’t obscure stuff, this was widely reported in industry outlets like Variety, news outlets like The Guardian & CNN, tabloid press like TMZ, and even soft news like People.
> 
> ...



Sacred bloody Night! the idea that there is room for interpretation as to the morality of CK’s actions!? 

DA, you’re approaching sainthood for your participation in this thread. 

@Sacrosanct , message me if you want some twitter recommendations for people who anyone interested in learning more on this, and people that may well signal boost or give recommendations for sensitivity readers.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 21, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> The problem with the "constant drumbeat of complaints" is that it tends to drown out any difference or nuance.




I think a bigger problem is, being a relatively “new” big thing, people aren’t paying attention to nuance when they use it and I see what I suspect is a lot of misapplication. To use the dreadlock example - dreadlocks have been around for thousands of years, Rastafarianism since about the 1930s. Is a Rastafarian chiding someone else in dreads himself engaging in cultural appropriation by claiming an exclusivity that isn’t backed by history? 

And honestly, you see a lot of things like that with internet denunciation culture - uninformed criticism. So no wonder there’s a lot of cynicism. But I also believe too many people use the fact that there is misapplication as an excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. Claims of cultural appropriation deserve to be investigated, interrogated, and accepted or rejected based on their merit, not dismissed or accepted because they’re currently one of the IN-things for people of a particular ideological bent.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 21, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sacred bloody Night! the idea that there is room for interpretation as to the morality of CK’s actions!?
> 
> DA, you’re approaching sainthood for your participation in this thread.
> 
> @Sacrosanct , message me if you want some twitter recommendations for people who anyone interested in learning more on this, and people that may well signal boost or give recommendations for sensitivity readers.




Well, the point of this thread was to get info like that lol. So no need to PM, I’m sure others could probably find it useful as well


----------



## S'mon (Sep 21, 2019)

I think there's a big difference between "this is real/historical" and "this is a fantasy". People can legitimately take offence at a fantasy too, but the bar is a lot higher than for something presented as a genuine/accurate portrayal of a particular culture.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ignorance is no defense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




But this again brings me back to my earlier point, where a lack of knowledge, and a lack of education are being treated as the crime. There are times when a person's ignorance would most certainly soften our reactions to different perceived transgressions. You are put this mountain of expectation on the person transgressing, where you expect them to behave with complete and total empathy and understanding (and empathy and understanding are not bad things) but you place no such expectation on the side castigating him. You are giving one side a narrow band of territory to pass through, where you are unforgiving of missteps, and its like you are justifying any reaction to that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They most certainly do.  Would you tell a Native American that they don’t have the moral authority to tell you not to drop a deuce on sacred land?
> 
> You don’t have to listen, of course, but that’s on you.




Sacred land is a physical thing. That is like digging up someone's grave or knocking down the door of a church. Obviously if you are inside a church or at a Native American ceremony, they would both have moral authority in those cases. What I am saying is, people can't hold you to their taboos outside of their 'jurisdiction' if you don't share their foundational beliefs. If you are a guest participating in a ceremony, that is one thing. But when you move outside that venue, especially in the realm of imagination and art, why would you be beholden to peoples' taboos? I mean a non-Christian playing with Christian themes doesn't have to be bound by the same taboos as an actual Christian would be. We shouldn't be able to impose our religious taboos on other people who don't believe.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Aaaaaand at this point, you and I are done for the foreseeable future.  I find it hard to believe you’re discussing things in good faith.
> 
> Louis CK was accused of-_ and admitted_- that he exposed himself to and masturbated in front of at least 5 different women, only one of whom (Sarah Silverman) expressed any notion that it was in any way consensual.  And even she stated that he abused his power and celebrity.  This isn’t obscure stuff, this was widely reported in industry outlets like Variety, news outlets like The Guardian & CNN, tabloid press like TMZ, and even soft news like People.
> 
> ...




We'll have to just agree to disagree on shades of gray--both because I just don't see the world in a black and white manner and feel that every situation is different, that there are degrees of misconduct, abuse of power, etc; but also because I think it will take us into territory that neither of us really wants to go, and probably doesn't serve the discourse. 

For me the more important point is that we allow for a divergence in opinion, that it isn't always veering towards "either you're with us, or against us." "Either you think the way we think, or you are bad/wrong/evil/ignorant/some form of ist that don't like." 

I'd rather us start from a place in which different ways of seeing the world are not only tolerated but explored and honored as valid, even if they differ from our own. Or in the context of the original post, that there are different ways to approach the question of "cultural appropriation" that don't have to be framed within the usual language and ideas of the ideology from which such terminology arises.

The problem I have with this general ideology, which I'm very familiar with as it is prevalent in the left-liberal circles that I mostly inhabit (being mostlly a left-liberal myself), is that it is becoming a new kind of secular religion that is ultimately authoritarian in that it requires everyone to agree on an ethical code, on specific tenets, and if you diverge at all than you're "one of them" (the bad guys, aka those who won't get with the program). It is ultimately, as I see it, a closed system that sees anything that differs from it as a threat.

If we shut down conversation and all views that differ from our own as inherently bad or wrong, then we narrow the range of thinking and we limit our own potentiality as human beings. If our ideological immune system is activated, we refuse to entertain different ideologies and ways of seeing, we end up calcifying our own view and seeing everything else as a threat, and thereby miss opportunities for our own growth and to meet others beyond the limitations of our respective ideologies.

Ultimately we're all just human beings, wearing the clothes of ideologies and identities, none of which are truly "us." The more we buy into those ideologies and identities, the more we separate ourselves into tribes that are opposed to each other, which is not the direction we need to go. IMO.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Sacred land is a physical thing. That is like digging up someone's grave or knocking down the door of a church. Obviously if you are inside a church or at a Native American ceremony, they would both have moral authority in those cases. What I am saying is, people can't hold you to their taboos outside of their 'jurisdiction' if you don't share their foundational beliefs. If you are a guest participating in a ceremony, that is one thing. But when you move outside that venue, especially in the realm of imagination and art, why would you be beholden to peoples' taboos? I mean a non-Christian playing with Christian themes doesn't have to be bound by the same taboos as an actual Christian would be. We shouldn't be able to impose our religious taboos on other people who don't believe.




This is well said and one of the points I was trying to get at in my more long-winded post just above this one (I read yours after writing mine, otherwise I might have just abbreviated it and pointed to your post).

My issue is with the insistence that everyone play by the same rules, that is, have the same ideology and way of seeing - and approach everything from the same ideological assumptions. Obviously as a community--on whatever scale--we have to share certain things, but hopefully one of those things is an openness and acceptance of a diversity of perspectives and ways of seeing and thinking.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 21, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> Obviously as a community--on whatever scale--we have to share certain things, but hopefully one of those things is an openness and acceptance of a diversity of perspectives and ways of seeing and thinking.




Now that's just crazy talk!


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 21, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Now that's just crazy talk!




I know, right?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 21, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, the point of this thread was to get info like that lol. So no need to PM, I’m sure others could probably find it useful as well




Eh I don’t know that all of them would appreciate having their handle posted in a thread where some folks are arguing vociferously that cultural appropriation isn’t a real thing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2019)

> We'll have to just agree to disagree on shades of gray--both because I just don't see the world in a black and white manner and feel that every situation is different, that there are degrees of misconduct, abuse of power, etc; but also because I think it will take us into territory that neither of us really wants to go, and probably doesn't serve the discourse.




Nope.  No grey here.  A man who intentionally exposes himself and performs a sexual act in front of unwilling people is pretty much committing a crime In any country with a modern judicial system.

Done with you as well.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 21, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Lack of understanding doesn’t guarantee offense, just increases the odds that it will happen.
> 
> If- like many modern musicians- you routinely carry some kind of recording device and use it record the music you hear as you pass, then use it as a sample in your own, not realizing that the words in the sample are part of a ceremony not for public dissemination, you can and should be called on it.  How you react to that could determine a lot about your future.
> 
> If someone let you know about the nature of your sample before you released your tune, you're in deeper trouble.  (As always, what you know nd when you knew it matters.)





Just want to clarify my example wasn't about sampling. I think sampling is a deeper topic on its own because you are taking another person's performance of something. I was talking about a musician who uses his or her ear to emulate the sounds on instruments or by voice. But not someone who just records it and releases it as an album. Very, very different things.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> And in my example, I am talking about a person with no understanding of the context.




Does this person actually exist?  Because, if they don't, it is a hypothetical that distracts us from the real issue.  And... such hypotheticals are really quite common in online argument today.

For example, someone who makes music with significant skill, but who has _zero_ understanding of the cultural context and history of music?  A person like this who enters into the markeplace of art, and is actually successful enough for their intellectual borrowing to be noticed, but doesn't understand that you can't just take any old snippets, phrasings, themes, or styles that you want without issue?  A person who gets into the marketplace of ideas, but doesn't have any concept of ownership of ideas?  

I question whether this person is common enough to be a relevant case in our discussion.  

And no, our general approaches to things do not need to be iron-clad.  Nobody here is smart enough to come up with an _absolutely perfect_ scheme.  If we make perfect the enemy of good, we make no advancement ever.  We can afford to leave some edges rough as we move forward, and work them out with time.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 22, 2019)

Umbran said:


> If we make perfect the enemy of good...




I would  argue that this is what the concept of cultural appropriation does and why it is such a flawed idea.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 22, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Does this person actually exist?  Because, if they don't, it is a hypothetical that distracts us from the real issue.  And... such hypotheticals are really quite common in online argument today.
> 
> For example, someone who makes music with significant skill, but who has _zero_ understanding of the cultural context and history of music?  A person like this who enters into the markeplace of art, and is actually successful enough for their intellectual borrowing to be noticed, but doesn't understand that you can't just take any old snippets, phrasings, themes, or styles that you want without issue?  A person who gets into the marketplace of ideas, but doesn't have any concept of ownership of ideas?
> 
> ...




Good post.

Even aside from issues of cultural appropriation--although related to it, if in a more general sense--there's the concern every artist has, in whatever genre or medium, which is: "Has this been done before?" For example, if you're a budding science fiction writer and you have this great idea that you're certain no one has ever thunked before, chances are you're wrong - or at least that someone has thought of and probably published a very similar idea.

This is why I feel that originality has more to do with authenticity than it does novelty. A new author should be more concerned with being true to their own voice, their own vision, than they should with making sure that everything they write hasn't been done before in any shape or form. Of course being well-read in the genre, or at least spending hours and hours browsing The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction helps a good deal. While I'm loathe to suggest any rules or "Thou Shalts" to creative practices, I do think being a student of whatever form you're engaging in is a very good idea. And a true student is a lifelong learner. 

Of course this does relate to cultural appropriation in that just as a new science fiction author is well-served by educating themselves in the genre, so too might it be a good idea for someone incorporating cultural ideas into their project to have a sense of that culture and any issues that may exist, and to be respectful of those issues. But if a person wants to entirely avoid any inkling of "cultural appropriation," then the end result is writing from one's own experience - as this article posits - which ends up greatly limiting, if not outright killing, creative imagination. To quote:

_"But it’s not just writers who ought to be worried. The logical apogee of a prohibition on cultural intercourse is a future in which each person is allowed to document only his or her precise subjective experience. A future, in other words, where fiction is history. And that sounds like a very dreary prospect for us all."_


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I would  argue that this is what the concept of cultural appropriation does and why it is such a flawed idea.




Right.  So, you think we are already _good_ at respecting the creative forces of minority cultures, then?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 22, 2019)

Umbran said:


> A person like this who enters into the markeplace of art, and is actually successful enough for their intellectual borrowing to be noticed, but doesn't understand that you can't just take any old snippets, phrasings, themes, or styles that you want without issue?  A person who gets into the marketplace of ideas, but doesn't have any concept of ownership of ideas?




My example was about emulating a style though, not about taking a snippet (which is why I said sampling would be another topic entirely). It is also why I talked about musical scales.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 22, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Right.  So, you think we are already _good_ at respecting the creative forces of minority cultures, then?




What I am saying is, the concept of cultural approbation is chasing an ideal, a perfect end state, at the expense of art and creativity. Further, I think it actually makes respecting the creative forces of minority cultures worse, for the reasons I laid out previously (it leads to less real cultural interaction and dampens our ability to empathize). Instead it puts people into cultural boxes and makes it very difficult for people to cross cultural lines. So I think this idea of the perfect way to handle creative elements from cultures outside your own is an example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

I think the idea of cultural appropropriation is one of these things that is appealing if you are versed in a certain level of academic discussion. But once it gets into the real world, you start seeing plentiful examples of how it leads to a breakdown in creativity. And how it becomes a bludgeon for people to go after one another (like in the YA Twitter talked about in the article linked above). And that we are at the level where we have to hire consultants just to vet for cultural appropriation issues, then I think that shows just how impractical the concept really is (especially for an industry like RPGs where the money really isn't there for those kinds of things in the vast majority of cases).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 22, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Does this person actually exist?  Because, if they don't, it is a hypothetical that distracts us from the real issue.  And... such hypotheticals are really quite common in online argument today.




Yes, people like this actually exist. I think it is quite common.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 22, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I would  argue that this is what the concept of cultural appropriation does and why it is such a flawed idea.




This is not unique to cultural appropriation. It's common to just about anything wielded by some whose zeal isn't leavened by experience with nuance. You see it everywhere, particularly with recent converts to religion, diets, analytical frameworks, and political ideologies.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 22, 2019)

billd91 said:


> This is not unique to cultural appropriation. It's common to just about anything wielded by some whose zeal isn't leavened by experience with nuance. You see it everywhere, particularly with recent converts to religion, diets, analytical frameworks, and political ideologies.




Except the concept itself kind of demands perfect. I think there is something religious about it. And the way it gets used for the most part is very aggressively as a way to attack people (often folks who didn't set out to hurt anybody at all, but just didn't follow the latest etiquette on the subject). Maybe I am wrong, but genuinely think that in 10 or 20 years people will look back on this concept as see it as deeply misguided. It has led to a lot of problems in creative communities. You don't have to agree with me, but I do think it is worth looking at the article Mercurius linked, and consider our points, and think about the possibility that we are right. I have definitely contemplated the possibility I am wrong on this. I don't take this issue lightly. But I think a lot of people who have picked up cultural appropriation as a rallying cry, are doing so with an amount of certainty and a sense of moral authority that makes me very uneasy.

And I think the class/education divide issue I bring up around it is also very real, and very overlooked


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 22, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> Good post.
> 
> Even aside from issues of cultural appropriation--although related to it, if in a more general sense--there's the concern every artist has, in whatever genre or medium, which is: "Has this been done before?" For example, if you're a budding science fiction writer and you have this great idea that you're certain no one has ever thunked before, chances are you're wrong - or at least that someone has thought of and probably published a very similar idea.
> 
> ...




The one thing I would add to this is there is a big difference to this and other 'though shalt' practices in writing. Knowing the genre you are writing for is important and people place a lot of emphasis on it, but it isn't viewed as a moral transgression if your writing shows a lack of awareness of a given trope being handled in a particular way another writer in the 1970s. And even then there are writers operating at different levels of awareness on this stuff because there is room for 'high' and 'low' in most genres. Some writers are adept at writing engaging and exciting stories, but might not have the literary grounding of some of their peers.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 22, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> just as a new science fiction author is well-served by educating themselves in the genre




Why's that?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Why's that?




There was a time when I wanted to be a horror writer and this same advice was pretty common. I ended up building myself a syllabus and reading through key books in the genre that I hadn't read before. I think it is basically so you don't cover the same ground as other writers, so you can build on what came before, and kind of treat the genre as a living conversation. I am not sure how I feel about the advice. I sometimes thought this advice made the genre too self aware, and too meta. But I also think the better writers do tend to read a lot in their genre and in other genres.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Except the concept itself kind of demands perfect. I think there is something religious about it.




This pretty much just tells me you are as bad with the nuance as the zealots who use it unwisely because you’re ascribing some kind of monolithic absolutism to it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

billd91 said:


> This pretty much just tells me you are as bad with the nuance as the zealots who use it unwisely because you’re ascribing some kind of monolithic absolutism to it.




I am basing it off my experience with conversations around cultural appropriation. I realize there are more measured ways to talk about it. And I said earlier in the thread that I thought the arguments coming from proponents of the concept were challenging. I think there is nuance in my position. But what I am giving you is the conclusion I've reached after watching the debate unfold for several years (and also felt its impact on my own writing).

Are all people talking about cultural appropriation zealots? No absolutely not. I have a lot of people I respect who buy into the idea and do so because they are empathetic, caring people. But it is also this thing that tends to get twisted on people just like that (as you see in the YA Twitter article). I say it demands perfection because its a concept that, in order to avoid, you have to regularly police your own ideas, regularly check with others to see if you are crossing any lines, etc. That to me lends itself to seeking perfection. I think when you add the moral imperative that fuels it, it starts to feel a bit religious. And zealotry can naturally follow (and I see ample evidence for zealotry). Especially when it becomes clear there is emerging a class of educated people who understand how to navigate it, and people increasingly have to seek their input. I can tell you honestly, even if I 100% bought into the concept of Cultural Appropriation, I would have a very, very hard time adhering to its requirements without seeking the assistance of much more educated and worldly people. To me, having to do that, really runs counter to the creative process. Yes there should be a certain amount of research to any project. But this is more like the kind of research I used to do for my history classes. I loved history. But it is the opposite of creative writing. For every sentence you write in history, there is mounds of research supporting it. And that makes history writing very slow, very methodical, not very spontaneous. I don't know that we want that kind of rigor applied to all creative acts. Especially something like music that is supposed to connect people.

Also, I would add, there is more to me, or any poster here, than my responses to an intense online debate. Online debates, especially in forums, create a very limited view of a person. Often times you are painted into a corner, or you paint yourself into a corner, because you are dealing with the cold logic of text (and very little of your real personality is able to shine through your posts). So if I am failing to demonstrate that I handle nuance well here, please consider the possibility that I am a fully rounded human being and not a two-dimensional caricature of a position you disagree with. I don't consider myself a particularly adept debater. And I find it very difficult to discuss topics like this well. I am just trying to do my best. But I think if you encountered me in real life, or had extended discussions with me on other topics you would see your above post isn't true. And I extend this courtesy anyone I disagree with on the internet. I think it gets to the heart of the matter here to an extent. We are forming massive judgements about people, based on how they react to one thing. I think most people in this discussion are trying to come from a good place and just disagree on some of the key ideas. But we all get passionate about it because it deals with things we value.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> There was a time when I wanted to be a horror writer and this same advice was pretty common. I ended up building myself a syllabus and reading through key books in the genre that I hadn't read before. I think it is basically so you don't cover the same ground as other writers, so you can build on what came before, and kind of treat the genre as a living conversation. I am not sure how I feel about the advice. I sometimes thought this advice made the genre too self aware, and too meta. But I also think the better writers do tend to read a lot in their genre and in other genres.




As an academic, it feels like something an academic would say - "Include your Literature Review!" 
It doesn't seem necessary or desirable to me, and is likely to create a self-aware and sterile material. I'd suggest reading related topics (eg science & futurism for SF, mythology for fantasy) for research, and read the genre for pleasure.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

S'mon said:


> As an academic, it feels like something an academic would say - "Include your Literature Review!"
> It doesn't seem necessary or desirable to me, and is likely to create a self-aware and sterile material. I'd suggest reading related topics (eg science & futurism for SF, mythology for fantasy) for research, and read the genre for pleasure.




I think you are right. I think it creates very self aware material. But the advice was pretty ubiquitous so it is something any aspiring writer is going to encounter and, if they disagree, need to contend with.


----------



## Wiseblood (Sep 23, 2019)

Cultural appropriation does not exist. It is junk science adopted by people with an axe to grind. No proofs are required, people will just believe because it explains why they are unhappy. ( even if they weren’t ) They now have a bogeyman that they can persecute. 

Write what you want, some will like it some will hate it. Write for you.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 23, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Why's that?





Bedrockgames said:


> There was a time when I wanted to be a horror writer and this same advice was pretty common. I ended up building myself a syllabus and reading through key books in the genre that I hadn't read before. I think it is basically so you don't cover the same ground as other writers, so you can build on what came before, and kind of treat the genre as a living conversation. I am not sure how I feel about the advice. I sometimes thought this advice made the genre too self aware, and too meta. But I also think the better writers do tend to read a lot in their genre and in other genres.





S'mon said:


> As an academic, it feels like something an academic would say - "Include your Literature Review!"
> It doesn't seem necessary or desirable to me, and is likely to create a self-aware and sterile material. I'd suggest reading related topics (eg science & futurism for SF, mythology for fantasy) for research, and read the genre for pleasure.




That's a good point, S'mon, but by being educated in the genre, I'm not saying read everything. I'm saying have a sense of the lay of the land - what's been done, how its been done, etc. And yes, I agree on your advice--read related topics and read within the genre for pleasure--but I also think its a good idea to have a general sense of the scope of whatever genre you're writing in, especially the sub-genre (e.g. post-apocalyptic sf) and/or type of book you're writing. 

For example, let's say you have an idea about a derelict alien space ship passing through the solar system, and the team of people who explore it. Its probably a good idea to at least know about the existence of _Rendezvous with Rama. _

Which is why I love Clute's SF Encyclopedia. You can look up a topic and get an overview of books, and find both books to read but also a sense of what has been done.

But your point about becoming overly self-aware and sterile is a good one, and I would add to the mix the problem of being derivative of later layers of the human literary endeavor, with no sense of the roots from which it all sprang - not only earlier literature, and not just myths, but the depths of imagination itself.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 23, 2019)

Wiseblood said:


> Cultural appropriation does not exist. It is junk science adopted by people with an axe to grind. No proofs are required, people will just believe because it explains why they are unhappy. ( even if they weren’t ) They now have a bogeyman that they can persecute.




Well, this is categorically untrue. I posted an article earlier that is a clear example of what it is, but it’s certainly not limited to Native Americans


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> That's a good point, S'mon, but by being educated in the genre, I'm not saying read everything. I'm saying have a sense of the lay of the land - what's been done, how its been done, etc. And yes, I agree on your advice--read related topics and read within the genre for pleasure--but I also think its a good idea to have a general sense of the scope of whatever genre you're writing in, especially the sub-genre (e.g. post-apocalyptic sf) and/or type of book you're writing.
> 
> For example, let's say you have an idea about a derelict alien space ship passing through the solar system, and the team of people who explore it. Its probably a good idea to at least know about the existence of _Rendezvous with Rama. _
> 
> ...




I think if you are writing a 'serious' work it may be best to be like Margaret Attwood and not think of yourself as writing 'genre fiction' at all. If you are writing purely for entertainment I'm not sure it matters. But it seems to me that being consciously derivative is a risk, while repeating tropes while not knowing about them seems likely to give a fresh twist.

The academic approach seems to me to make more sense for literary criticism and for some other academic endeavours than for actual creation of literature.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> For example, let's say you have an idea about a derelict alien space ship passing through the solar system, and the team of people who explore it. Its probably a good idea to at least know about the existence of _Rendezvous with Rama. _




Just taking this example - I think reading (or even Youtubing) up on all the speculation around Oumuamua, which includes serious proposals that it might just maybe be an alien artifact (eg a light sail remnant), would be vastly more useful than reading RwR.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> I would add to the mix the problem of being derivative of later layers of the human literary endeavor, with no sense of the roots from which it all sprang - not only earlier literature, and not just myths, but the depths of imagination itself.




I was just thinking about how Michael Moorcock made conscious use of Freudian psychology in his Elric series (& other Eternal Champion stuff to a lesser extent) - I think for fantasy especially a lot of general reading, travelling and general experience is helpful. I know my D&D GMing benefits from some time out in the country, walking the forest trails!


----------



## Wiseblood (Sep 23, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, this is categorically untrue. I posted an article earlier that is a clear example of what it is, but it’s certainly not limited to Native Americans




I tried to find the article you mentioned. Is it in this thread?

I still disagree about Cultural Appropriation. Here’s why. Culture is always changing. Traditions that define culture are abandoned. They are not static and they are discarded when their purpose is no longer relevant. Sometimes they are discarded because their cost is too high or outcome undesirable. In some groups it was the presence of one powerful individual within the group that sparked a change.

Deciding what is or is not Cultural appropriation then becomes the domain of individuals that believe it exists or believe they can benefit from leveraging it. Since few outsiders bothered to learn their culture and those that did would invariably contaminate it, their claims are allowed to stand. Unless all contact with other cultures stops there will be this same process and without contact the culture will still change over time. All that can be said in that case is that it was still purely their culture.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

S'mon said:


> Just taking this example - I think reading (or even Youtubing) up on all the speculation around Oumuamua, which includes serious proposals that it might just maybe be an alien artifact (eg a light sail remnant), would be vastly more useful than reading RwR.




While I think familiarizing yourself with a whole genre leads to everyone sounding the same and too much self-referential material, as a life long fan of Science Fiction, I think most writers who are passionate about the genre are going to encounter RwR. And Clarke is one of those guys whose themes it can be helpful to know if you are trying to do science fiction. If someone were interested in Oumuamua, and wanted to write a story inspired by it, I think it would most likely be beneficial to know how one of the greats handled that kind of topic. It is also not particularly obscure so if you inadvertently cover similar ground, people are likely to notice. He left a pretty big footprint on the genre. That said, I don't think referencing something that came before, or demonstrating awareness of it, automatically makes something better. I don't mind references, but sometimes I think they become stand ins for good writing. To me the most important thing is whether the  story is engaging, interesting and moves me in some way. Having the realization that "ooh the writer is putting a spin on Rama" doesn't really add anything to the experience for me (unless it is something particularly insightful--and even then it is still more of a conversational curiosity than something that adds to the story for me).

Just to clarify what I mean by how it can be useful. I think it can elevate your writing if you read something like Rama, and understood what parts of it worked for you as a reader, what parts maybe didn't, and try to make something that builds on that a bit. It isn't terribly important to me if I am reading a book about Oumuamua to know the authors read Rendezvous with Rama. But if it reading it inspires them to make a better story than they would have otherwise, I think that is good.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I say it demands perfection because its a concept that, in order to avoid, you have to regularly police your own ideas, regularly check with others to see if you are crossing any lines, etc. That to me lends itself to seeking perfection. I think when you add the moral imperative that fuels it, it starts to feel a bit religious. And zealotry can naturally follow (and I see ample evidence for zealotry). Especially when it becomes clear there is emerging a class of educated people who understand how to navigate it, and people increasingly have to seek their input. I can tell you honestly, even if I 100% bought into the concept of Cultural Appropriation, I would have a very, very hard time adhering to its requirements without seeking the assistance of much more educated and worldly people.




As I see it, you claim to not believe in this issue 100%, yet it seems you are arguing for the strictest adherence and pushing against more moderate views.

I think you might have just appropriated zealotry.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Deset Gled said:


> As I see it, you claim to not believe in this issue 100%, yet it seems you are arguing for the strictest adherence and pushing against more moderate views.




I am not 100% sure I understand the meaning of your post, so if I fail to, please feel free to correct me and restate what you intended. What I am saying is, when you encounter arguments about cultural appropriation, they tend to adhere to pretty extreme positions. I am not denying that there are more moderate points of view surrounding it (I still disagree with the core assumptions of those views, but I recognize they are different than some of the more extreme advocates of the concept). If you can show me where you think I am being zealot specifically, I am happy to consider and respond. I don't think I am being one. I think I am observing a rise in a religious like mindset that has been steadily growing in certain quarters of the gaming community, and I think my assessment of it is fair. I can definitely feel the difference talking about it now, versus a year ago or two years ago (or three). It feels like a willingness to entertain disagreement on the topic has dramatically fallen. 

I don't know. I see the concept as pretty harmful to art, games, music, etc. I don't see it as especially helpful to the people it claims to want to help. And I think the core assumptions behind it are flawed. I don't think there is anything extreme about rejecting an idea you don't agree with. But I think if you do look at my overall argument, it is a lot more nuanced than you and some others are giving it credit for.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> My example was about emulating a style though, not about taking a snippet (which is why I said sampling would be another topic entirely). It is also why I talked about musical scales.




I think the issue is still covered under "phrasings, themes, and styles."  Dismissing one does not get rid of the other three.



Bedrockgames said:


> Yes, people like this actually exist. I think it is quite common.




To be clear: you think it is quite common that there are artists who don't know about the issue of cultural appropriation, and get popular enough to get noticed, and therefore get "punished" for it?

Can you find any examples? Or is this just your gut feeling?  That you _THINK_ it is quite common doesn't make it so.  There's folks who think many things that aren't true.  So, please cite examples.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Umbran said:


> I think the issue is still covered under "phrasings, themes, and styles."  Dismissing one does not get rid of the other three.




Those are not the same as taking snippets of things though. Again, I point to scales. You are not ripping a persons actual melody, you are finding an overall pattern of intervals that allows for that melody. It is more about style than specific content. Phrasings in this case refers to musical phrasings. Theme are also not specific things you can take ownership of. I am just not seeing the logic in the point you make here.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2019)

Wiseblood said:


> Cultural appropriation does not exist. It is junk science...




We are talking about a cultural phenomenon, not a scientific model.

Pretty much everyone not of Native American descent claiming to have a "spirit animal" is engaging in cultural appropriation.  Every drunk non-latino fratboy on Cinco de Mayo is doing so.  There's some millions of folks engaging it it right there.

And, in RPG relevance - the folks who wrote about the Romani for White Wolf, and Monte Cook's first pass at a Native American content for _The Strange_, both engaged in it.  Monte Cook did some work to correct his fault, thankfully.

Denial doesn't make it not happening.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Can you find any examples? Or is this just your gut feeling?  That you _THINK_ it is quite common doesn't make it so.  There's folks who think many things that aren't true.  So, please cite examples.




Plenty of artists have been called out for cultural appropriation and been suprisd because they clearly didn't have familiarity with the concept (from Kate Perry to Nicki Minaj). Plenty of people have been blindsided by the concept of cultural appropriation. It has happened dozens of times. But that wasn't the point I was making. My point was there are definitely people who don't understand the original context of the art they are emulating, and there are people who are not particularly worldly who just want to make art, and are not super educated like you. I am saying you are taking an elitist position that makes being creative more easy for people with advanced degrees like yourself, and harder for people who don't have that kind of advanced education. And I think anyone who observes these discussions knows exactly what i am talking about because it always seems like the people with master degrees, the lawyers and the PhD holders dominate the discussion. 

And obviously I am not going to site game designers as examples of people who are not worldly. I am not going to put that label publicly on people I respect. But I definitely have seen people who are not as steeped in these kinds of concepts end up on the receiving end of anger in forums, on twitter and elsewhere. If you don't want to believe it happens fine. But it definitely happens. I don't take notes. And I don't want to call attention to people who have already been hit with this hammer in the industry. But it is real. And I think if anyone goods the YA Twitter story, they will see how unbelievably nightmarish it can be for people to get attacked for this sort of thing. You are basically turning not being worldy, not being boned up on a very complicated academic concept, into a huge moral transgression. That is why there is so much popular resentment against concepts like cultural appropriation.

And I can just tell you from my own experience, I find it incredibly hard to navigate myself. I can't imagine having to operate in the current climate. And I have a degree in history. But even with that, and even with trying to follow discussions on it, to me it just feels crippling to think about when you are designing something. And it drains the creative process of all its enjoyment. I've met plenty of other people who feel the same way (most refuse to comment publicly because they know what kind of reaction they'll get, but there are lots of people who feel this way).


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Those are not the same as taking snippets of things though.




Dude.  

I said, "snippets, phrasings, themes, and styles"

You said, "I didn't talk about snippets."

I said, "Fine, I still noted phrasings, themes, and styles as issues"

And you are back on snippets.  I have already allowed you snippets - those are covered by copyright law, and we don't need to discuss them, fine.  Consider the snippet issue settled.

If an artist with higher cultural power makes money off of the phrasings, themes, forms and styles of a culture who are significantly under-powered by comparison, that's an ethical problem.  It isn't illegal, but it is a pretty crummy thing to do to human beings who are already lower in status than you are, and yeah, you will be judged for being crummy to those weaker than you.  It is a "pick on someone your own size," thing.   

This is by no means limited to music - it applies to any art - but music seems to be the example we are focusing on at the moment.

It is less of a problem if the artist does their homework, learns the meanings and associations of the forms from the people of their culture, uses other artists from that culture to help, and gives due credit to the sources.  It is more of a problem when the artist works from a position of ignorance, and does not care about the source or its people, and uses demeaning, petty or venal representations.

And, to be blunt - if there's an adult in the Western World who at this point doesn't understand the basic issue of differing cultural power... they are not paying due attention to the issues around them, and that is itself a fault.  There is a point where one becomes responsible for understanding the world, and behaving appropriately.  Such people are failing in that responsibility.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 23, 2019)

Some examples, because apparently it’s needed


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

I don’t think you understand what you are asking here. Telling musicians or artists to avoid styles that originate from ‘weaker’ cultures is not only going to limit them to dealing with styles from cultures closer to their own, it will lead to locking the weaker culture in place as well. You will stifle cultural exchange. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with taking something as basic as a color pattern, scales, themed, chord progressions  etc and using those to make something. Even if you make money off it, it isn’t like you are preventing people from the originating culture from doing so as well. I understand you feel very certain about this. But I have to be honest, to be you sound like you are delivering a sermon and you haven’t really considered the possibility you are wrong


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 23, 2019)

"The Lone Ranger" might be a bit of an outlier in that group. IIRC Depp actually sought people out with respect to his portrayal and it seems to have been fairly well received, on balance. A different and reasonable question would be, "Would it have made more sense to use an actual indigenous actor in that role, as they did in the others within the movie?"









						Johnny Depp as Tonto: 'The Lone Ranger' and Racism
					

Just how problematic is the actor's depiction of the Native American character?



					entertainment.time.com


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Umbran said:


> And, to be blunt - if there's an adult in the Western World who at this point doesn't understand the basic issue of differing cultural power... they are not paying due attention to the issues around them, and that is itself a fault.  There is a point where one becomes responsible for understanding the world, and behaving appropriately.  Such people are failing in that responsibility.




I think you are underestimating how much knowledge and power your own natural intelligence and education gives you. And I think equating ignorance (which easily be due to a lack of education, opportunity, intellectual ability, and resources) with being morally flawed is a much more serious problem than someone seeing s piece of clothing they like and incorporating it into an aesthetic for a play, movie, painting etc.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t think you understand what you are asking here. Telling musicians or artists to avoid styles that originate from ‘weaker’ cultures is not only going to limit them to dealing with styles from cultures closer to their own, it will lead to locking the weaker culture in place as well. You will stifle cultural exchange. I see nothing wrong whatsoever with taking something as basic as a color pattern, scales, themed, chord progressions  etc and using those to make something. Even if you make money off it, it isn’t like you are preventing people from the originating culture from doing so as well. I understand you feel very certain about this. But I have to be honest, to be you sound like you are delivering a sermon and you haven’t really considered the possibility you are wrong




It's less a question of avoidance and more a question of thoughtful participation and working with well-placed informants. Musicians like Peter Gabriel, Paul Simon, and David Byrne incorporated various elements of world music not by doing it on their own - they worked *with* musicians from Africa and the Middle East. Elvis attended services in African-American churches and preferred performing in segregated "coloreds-only" clubs because he liked to participate and appreciate the music with the most-involved and enthusiastic crowds.

But you do have a point - a zealous guarding against cultural appropriation runs right up against cultural exchange - something that can be valuable for everyone. There's no point in jealously, zealously guarding everything, particularly when the significance or the bar for understanding the cultural element is low.


----------



## Wiseblood (Sep 23, 2019)

Umbran said:


> We are talking about a cultural phenomenon, not a scientific model.
> 
> Pretty much everyone not of Native American descent claiming to have a "spirit animal" is engaging in cultural appropriation.  Every drunk non-latino fratboy on Cinco de Mayo is doing so.  There's some millions of folks engaging it it right there.
> 
> ...



The term itself is nonsensical. It’s exactly what I stated. You cite two examples of something you think is disrespectful to the originating culture. You proceeded to expose bias as Cinco De Mayo is a Mexican holiday last time I checked Mexican does not mean Latino. While spirit animals exist in Non-Native American cultures you simply assumed that this is the one because of pop culture.

It’s own Incoherence is why I say it does not exist.  

I can’t prove a negative. 

I equate it to ghosts. Some people believe in ghosts. What is a a ghost? It depends on who you ask.

“I know it when I see it.”  Argument is simply not good enough for me. ( as this is just another obscenity censoring movement with brand new clothes )


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

billd91 said:


> It's less a question of avoidance and more a question of thoughtful participation and working with well-placed informants. Musicians like Peter Gabriel, Paul Simon, and David Byrne incorporated various elements of world music not by doing it on their own - they worked *with* musicians from Africa and the Middle East. Elvis attended services in African-American churches and preferred performing in segregated "coloreds-only" clubs because he liked to participate and appreciate the music with the most-involved and enthusiastic crowds.
> 
> .




Thanks for taking my points seriously and responding to them. I think you raise a lot of good examples. And when I read this I had a lot of thoughts. Hopefully I can remember them all here. 

Elvis is probably the best one to start with because it is easy to see how that ties to cultural appropriation. But when he did what he did, cultural appropriation wasn't a concept (I am pretty sure it wasn't even coined till like the mid-70s or 80s---and it didn't take off until quite recently). It is great that he did what he did. But I think that was a product of his natural curiosity and a respect for black culture. I don't think you need cultural appropriation as a concept to do what he did. And lets keep in mind he often is invoked as the example of cultural appropriation. I am no Elvis Scholar, so I will let other people debate how well he conducted himself handling black music. My understanding is he did in fact try to give credit to the artists who inspired him. And what you say about him reflects what I have heard and read. But I don' think it would have improved anything if cultural appropriation had been a concept back then and he had strived to avoid it. If anything it might have resulted in him not popularizing black music. I think the real problem here isn't cultural borrowing or cultural appropriation. It is racism. If you focus on the racism, you are much more likely to defeat the problem than if you focus on something as amorphous and vague as cultural appropriation. I can think of many times where focus on racism as a problem has lead to real tangible advances in society. I am not seeing any tangible strides resulting from focusing on cultural appropriation. I am just seeing a tightening of cultural boundaries. 

Peter Gabriel, Paul Simon, and David Byrne are all fairly highbrow. I would argue what they did was great if your aim is to accurately capture a musical aesthetic from another culture. But accurately capturing the aesthetic isn't the same as being morally good. I think there is something to be said for someone who just captures traces of a sound, because they have less exposure or maybe just because they don't have the deep dive mindsets of these three examples. I think there is room for people like Paul Simon but also for people who borrow an an interval they heard in Arabic music for example (without understanding that a lot of middle eastern music is built on a 24 tone system rather than a 12 tone system people in most English Speaking countries would be more familiar with). If you understand that 24 tone system you can much more accurately capture the sound of Arabic Music. But you can also emulate it using the 12 tone system. It doesn't make the latter morally worse, and it may even be more interesting sonically. Heck I didn't even realize there were possibilities beyond the 12 tone system until I was well into my twenties. 

I took guitar lessons as a kid, and one of the things my teacher did was have me go to the original sources of the music. So that meant listening to a lot of the original blues and jazz musicians. But not everyone gets to take guitar lessons. And even though I took guitar lessons, I never went to Berklee or attended college for music. One of the things you see play out in these kinds of debates about music and appropriation, is people who have that Berklee level education know how to navigate the pitfalls of cultural appropriation much better than those of us who just took guitar lessons. And those had no formal musical training might have even more difficulty. Because music is complicated. And someone from Berklee has deep knowledge of music theory (which is all about emulating aesthetics). You see this for example in youtube channels about music. So again, I think some guy who grew up in poverty, doesn't have access to the resources as a kid from the suburbs, is going to have a much harder time engaging in the diligent levels of research and understanding people like Umbran are asking for. And I don't think those levels of diligence make the music all that much better to be honest. I think a lot of people just have natural talent and can communicate musically. Someone doing that level of diligence would just make for more accurate emulation. To some it might seem more wholesome and ethical. I am not sure at all that it is. 



> But you do have a point - a zealous guarding against cultural appropriation runs right up against cultural exchange - something that can be valuable for everyone. There's no point in jealously, zealously guarding everything, particularly when the significance or the bar for understanding the cultural element is low




And I think this is how cultural appropriation plays out when it leaves the university. You see this all the time on twitter, on other social media platforms, and whenever someone gets called out for cultural appropriation. Frankly my impression is almost never that the people doing the call out are really worried about the cultural group in question. It just looks like people are happy to have a viable target for their anger.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 23, 2019)

Arguing that cultural appropriation doesn’t exist is like arguing racism doesn’t exist: it’s a silly argument that relies on intentionally ignoring actual definitions and large swaths of evidence. 

Some folks also seem to be confusing appropriation with exchange, and they are different things. I’d suggest reading this, as it explains it well.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 23, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Some folks also seem to be confusing appropriation with exchange, and they are different things. I’d suggest reading this, as it explains it well.




We understand the difference. The arguments have been on the internet long enough for people to grasp that there is an argument about power and how the material is handled. But it still sniffles cultural exchange because it places new parameters on it, and it treats certain forms of cultural exchange as worse than others. People can read an article like that one, understand with it, and not agree with it or reject its arguments.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> We understand the difference. The arguments have been on the internet long enough for people to grasp that there is an argument about power and how the material is handled. But it still sniffles cultural exchange because it places new parameters on it, and it treats certain forms of cultural exchange as worse than others. People can read an article like that one, understand with it, and not agree with it or reject its arguments.




Looking at some of the posts in this thread, and no. I don’t think everyone does know the difference. 

Also, it’s not up to the person belonging to the majority who has a history or oppressing the minority to tell the minority what they can or can’t find offensive, or what is or isn’t cultural appropriation.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Also, it’s not up to the person belonging to the majority who has a history or oppressing the minority to tell the minority what they can or can’t find offensive, or what is or isn’t cultural appropriation.




It is up to everyone to use their mind and think. Obviously the opinions of the people in the minority matter, but not everything said by someone from a minority group is going to be accurate or reasonable. People can still be wrong, can still be upset when they should not be. And I think as the concept of cultural appropriation spreads, where it is embraced it starts predisposing people to taking offense. 

You can't abandon your own responsibility to make a judgement about whether a given criticism is sound. And I think focusing on power relationships, in such a simplified way, doesn't really help at all. If anything it is like you are infantilizing cultures. And in some cases you are putting cultures in that box that don't belong there (you included reference to Japanese imagery, but Japan isn't a developing country or insignificant cultural force. Japan is very influential as a culture, and they conquered and colonized huge sections of asia in the first half of the last century. 

Further when I actually talk to people from marginalized cultures, I get a much more diverse range of views than is being expressed here. When I talk to people from other countries about things like people wearing their clothing, more often than not, the response is joy at seeing people take an interest in their culture. There often are still lines, but they are not usually the lines that I see being spoken about in this kind of discussion. I have been crossing cultural lines my whole life, and becoming friends with people from other cultures my whole life. I am a lot interested in what those people have to say, than the massive list of rules being promulgated on this thread.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Looking at some of the posts in this thread, and no. I don’t think everyone does know the difference.
> 
> Also, it’s not up to the person belonging to the majority who has a history or oppressing the minority to tell the minority what they can or can’t find offensive, or what is or isn’t cultural appropriation.



Yup.  

In post #66, Bedrockgames actually questioned _the authority _of religious groups to declare what uses were permissible for things sacred within their faiths.  If not them, then who?

And did somwhile complaining of “elitism”.

Outsiders in a free society can choose not to follow such an edict, but to question their *right* to make such a declaration is a complete denial of of their cultural validity, and an imposition of outsider’ wills over theirs.  That’s pure elitism right there.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In post #66, Bedrockgames actually questioned _the authority _of religious groups to declare what uses were permissible for things sacred within their faiths.  If not them, then who?




No, I didn't. I said they had the moral authority to decide what was permissible within their faiths, but not outside their faiths. A Christian doesn't have any moral authority to ask a non-Christian to stop using the melody from a Hymm with a new secular based song. If we start giving religions moral authority to export their taboos I think that is a huge problem.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And did somwhile complaining of “elitism”.




Why are you so dismissive of this. People who criticize cultural appropriation bring it up a lot for a reason. There is a huge disparity between people with high levels of education and those without. You can dismiss the concern but I think it is a valid one. And it is one that, if you can have this much empathy over culturally approaption, surely you should be able to extend that empathy toward people being less educated and less well off (because that is what elitism is about).

Also, I think it is worth pointing out, you are what, a lawyer? Umbran's a physicist. Would it really hurt you guys to consider that you are coming from a place where your life and education make it much easier for you to understand these concepts and use them than a lot of other people. I have told you guys myself countless times, even if I agreed with the concept, I would frankly find it incredibly hard to navigate. I don't think this side of the debate is getting attention it deserves


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Outsiders in a free society can choose not to follow such an edict, but to question their *right* to make such a declaration is a complete denial of of their cultural validity, and an imposition of outsider’ wills over theirs.  That’s pure elitism right there.




Okay, I never said people didn't have  aright to say things. People can say whatever they want. What I said was, people don't have the moral authority to impose their religious beliefs on people outside their religion. Especially things like sacred taboos (which are often completely normal and mundane to folks in other cultures).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> but to question their *right* to make such a declaration is a complete denial of of their cultural validity




This wasn't what I meant and I think it is very clear this isn't what I meant. I was speaking very conversationally. People can say whatever they want. The question is, if what their saying should have moral weight to it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That’s pure elitism right there.




No, elitism is setting up a complex system of ettiquette around the otherwise very natural exchange of cultural information. All you have to do is look at the list of requirements people have expressed in their posts to see how elitist it is. It even goes beyond that because now there is the added expectation that people will hire consultants to help them navigate the waters of the marginalized culture. There is both an educational hurdle and a financial hurdle to the simple act of trying to explore outside ideas in the creative arts. And again, there is no strong evidence at all that even if they do all of this, it improves the world.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2019)

Taking a break from my non-engagement with you:


Bedrockgames said:


> No, I didn't. I said they had the moral authority to decide what was permissible within their faiths, but not outside their faiths. A Christian doesn't have any moral authority to ask a non-Christian to stop using the melody from a Hymm with a new secular based song. If we start giving religions moral authority to export their taboos I think that is a huge problem.




Making that declaration?  It’s called free speech.  And, as I pointed out both then and now, I *explicitly* said you have the right to ignore such declarations in a free society.

But you posted this:


Bedrockgames said:


> And does a Catholic or a Buddhist have the moral authority to tell a non-Catholic or a non-Buddhist to abide by their taboos when handling their music? I am not sure they do have that authority.




You questioned their *authority* to even speak to the issue, imposing your view over theirs.  That is a negation of their rights to free speech and agency. 

Would you tell someone who complained about theft of property that they don’t have the authority to ask for its return?  Or to swear out a police report?

What you’re saying is: _my right to engage in creative pursuits completely negates and overrides your right to even complain about my using your creations to do so.  Not only can’t you complain, you don’t have any right to complain._

*That *is textbook elitism.  That infantalizes those other cultures.

If that isn’t what you intended to post as your position, you might want to reconsider your choice of words.

Let’s start with “elitism”


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Taking a break from my non-engagement with you:
> 
> 
> Making that declaration?  It’s called free speech.  And, as I pointed out both then and now, I *explicitly* said you have the right to ignore such declarations in a free society.




I have explicitly stated they have the right to say that. My point is there is no moral authority behind it when it is said across religious lines. If someone from a belief systems says something to me from another belief system, it isn't going to have weight with me. I am not saying they cannot declare that. Or at least that isn't what I am intending here.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You questioned their *authority* to even speak to the issue, imposing your view over theirs.  That is a negation of their rights to free speech and agency.




No I am not. I have said over and over again, they have the right say that. In my original post I was speaking very conversationally and what I intended to mean was their statement has no moral weight. But you are choosing to take my use of the word 'tell' literally when I've made clear it was a figure of speech.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> What you’re saying is: _my right to engage in creative pursuits completely negates and overrides your right to even complain about my using your creations to do so.  Not only can’t you complain, you don’t have any right to complain._




Except that isn't what I am saying, and I keep telling you that isn't what I am saying, yet you persist in declaring this is what I am saying. I don't honestly know how to respond except that, this doesn't reflect what I believe. What I believe is people can say whatever they want. I don't believe that automatically means what they say has any moral authority behind it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> *That *is textbook elitism.  That infantalizes those other cultures.
> 
> If that isn’t what you intended to post as your position, you might want to reconsider your choice of words.




This is just so not the case. Granted it is a bit of a subjective call, but I think I am being very far from elitist. And I think I am also very far from infantilizing other cultures. 

I am glad you are willing to engage with me again, even if it is briefly. But I would ask you to hear what I am trying to say. You just kept declaring I was saying X when I told you I was saying Y (and that I didn't believe X at all).


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2019)

Deset Gled said:


> As I see it, you claim to not believe in this issue 100%, yet it seems you are arguing for the strictest adherence and pushing against more moderate views.
> 
> I think you might have just appropriated zealotry.




Yeah, Brendan is an infamous Zealot!


----------



## Wiseblood (Sep 23, 2019)

Racism is real and so far all of the arguments for cultural appropriation have leaned so heavily on it that it should be obvious why. 

Culture is a side effect of humans with shared experiences. 

I blame academic delinquency for cultural mores like this. The same kind of thinking that spawned cultural appropriation netted such things as anti-miscegenation laws and eugenics.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Let’s start with “elitism”
> View attachment 114284




This is admittedly a deep topic. I am not going to claim I don't ever use words incorrectly. But words are flexible things and what I was talking about was educational and intellectual elitism. A funny meme is a funny meme. But I don't think it mitigates the point I am making: that so much of this discussion benefits people with high levels of education and financial resources, and puts more strain on people who don't have those things or have them in less abundance. To me that seems elitist. At the very least snobbish.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is admittedly a deep topic. I am not going to claim I don't ever use words incorrectly. But words are flexible things and what I was talking about was educational and intellectual elitism. A funny meme is a funny meme. But I don't think it mitigates the point I am making: that so much of this discussion benefits people with high levels of education and financial resources, and puts more strain on people who don't have those things or have them in less abundance. To me that seems elitist. At the very least snobbish.




I think you're quoting someone else!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I think you're quoting someone else!




Sorry about that. Not sure how that happened.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Taking a break from my non-engagement with you:




For what it is worth Danny, I like engaging with you. If anything I say here makes you not want to engage with me, I do feel bad about that outcome, but I also want to be completely honest here about my views (I made a point a couple of years ago to be as honest as I am in real life online). And so sometimes that leads into thorny conversations like this one. But when I've been in these kinds of threads, I've always respected you as a poster and mod even when I disagree. If I am coming off too intense, I can try to lower the intensity of my argument style.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> This is admittedly a deep topic. I am not going to claim I don't ever use words incorrectly. But words are flexible things and what I was talking about was educational and intellectual elitism. A funny meme is a funny meme. But I don't think it mitigates the point I am making: that so much of this discussion benefits people with high levels of education and financial resources, and puts more strain on people who don't have those things or have them in less abundance. To me that seems elitist. At the very least snobbish.



You are saying that your right to be creative (free speech) trumps even the right to criticize your product (free speech).  That’s elitism.

And your claims that “this requires educational and intellectual” sophistication beyond the average person's ability to comprehend is also elitist.  Go back to my initial post.  The rules are simple- they’re not even rules, but suggestions- and could generally be encapsulated by The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  This _simple_ admonition is a core teaching to all of the world’s major faiths, and as such could be articulated and understood- even if not actually adhered to- by most of the adults on the planet.  Most kids, too.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 23, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Wiseblood (Sep 23, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> (looks left)
> 
> (looks right)
> 
> ...




That’s heavy.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 23, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You are saying that your right to be creative (free speech) trumps even the right to criticize your product (free speech).  That’s elitism.




No I am not saying that. I have the right to be creative. They have the right to criticize. I am just saying if someone is going to be critical of something I do, I don't think it is reasonable, if I don't share their religious views, for people to expect me to be persuaded by arguments grounded in their own religious taboos. That was my only point because you had raised the issue of a ceremony not being permitted to the outside world. I was saying while it makes perfect sense for them to be able to impose that on people within their faith, it wouldn't make much sense for people outside their faith to have to adhere to it. I don't think this is that unreasonable a position. 



> And your claims that “this requires educational and intellectual” sophistication beyond the average person's ability to comprehend is also elitist.  Go back to my initial post.




I think we disagree on the level of complexity involved, and I think if you look at most of the posts, you will see there is a lot of burden placed on people trying to explore the culture to get it right through extensive research, knowledge and other methods. And I don't think it is elitist to say that, because I am basing it on my own difficulty navigating the whole cultural appropriation thing. 




> The rules are simple- they’re not even rules, but suggestions- and could generally be encapsulated by The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  This _simple_ admonition is a core teaching to all of the world’s major faiths, and as such could be articulated and understood- even if not actually adhered to- by most of the adults on the planet. Most kids, too.




A few thoughts come to mind here. First, like I said earlier if something like the golden rule is what you really have in mind, then just advocate for the golden rule, don't bundle it in a concept so easily misunderstood and so challenging as cultural appropriation. Second, I did say very early on here, I think avoiding being offensive is good. If I borrow a cultural feature, the last thing I am hoping to do is be offensive. But Third, I also have to use my judgement when people voice a criticism or take offense. Sometimes people have good reason for being offended by something. Sometimes they don't. I believe in the golden rule, but I also believe we have to have freedom and fun to exchange ideas here. If someone is maliciously using a culture to depict them as savages or some vile stereotype, sure, I get people reacting to that. But if someone just likes a culture, but their exposure to it is limited so it is based on pop references and a variety of other things, I think people are prone to overreact, while using cultural appropriation as an excuse. The golden rule can be flipped on the critique here as well: would you really want to be on the receiving end of that kind of reaction when all you are trying to do is borrow an idea you fell in love with? 

Also I want there to be room for all kinds of approaches. Not every writer, musician or director should speak in the voice of Jesus. Right? I mean sometimes you want things to have a bit of punch, to get a bit wild or outside the box. I worry when I see these kinds of arguments that people have become so obsessed with consuming purity, they leave us with a much less interesting landscape of art and entertainment. To me it comes down to intentions. I think that matters a lot. 

Again, I think the way a lot of people here are approaching this issue is to sermonize on it, because they have so much certainty. I don't think the morality of it is as cut and dry or as simple as people are making it out to be.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> (looks left)
> 
> (looks right)
> 
> ...




I am not a sea lion lowkey. There are actually people who disagree with this idea, and they are not all sea lions. I am a real person on the other side of this keyboard. And I realize you are also a real person (which is one of the reasons I periodically check myself in these conversations, because my aim isn't to hurt anyone----though I can admittedly get punchy when I get butthurt).


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 23, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Wiseblood (Sep 23, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I am he as you are he as you are me, and we are all together.
> I am the walrus.



 Almost made me say it.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2019)

Wiseblood said:


> The term itself is nonsensical. It’s exactly what I stated. You cite two examples of something you think is disrespectful to the originating culture. You proceeded to expose bias




I am a human being.  We do not live on the planet Vulcan.  We all have biases.  Having a bias does not itself prove someone is wrong.  It is merely something that must be considered to see fi it is leading astray of the point.  



> as Cinco De Mayo is a Mexican holiday last time I checked Mexican does not mean Latino.




Ah, the nitpicking begins.  So be it. 

I was handed a posit to the effect of, "cultural appropriation does not exist".  To dispel that notion, I must simply show that it does happen in fairly large populations.  It is logically similar to disproving an absolute statement - I only really need a couple of examples to make the point.

So, "every drunk non-Latino fratboy on Cinco de Mayo" is sufficient.  I don't need to deal with drunk sorority sisters, drunk latino fratboys, or any other drunkards on that day.  I called out one specific group, because it was large enough for the point.

By the way, there could be drunk Latino fratboys on that day - but as other Latinos, within the US (where the "fratboy" population resides) they _aren't in a notably superior cultural position_ over those of Mexican descent. They are borrowing a piece of culture, but aren't abusing their position in the process. The power-dynamic difference is a major point in the ethical issue.



> While spirit animals exist in Non-Native American cultures you simply assumed that this is the one because of pop culture.




I said, "*pretty much* everyone not of Native American descent". There are two other peoples who have similar spiritual forms - the Torres Straight Islanders number 4500 or so, and the Aboriginal Australians who number under one million.  Other groups have animal spirits, but don't apply them in the same way as to make "my spirit animal" a meaningful statement.

Compared to the 300+ million population of the US, it looks to me that the "pretty much" holds nicely.  Thank you.



> It’s own Incoherence is why I say it does not exist.




Nothing I've said here is incoherent, as I've demonstrated.  You are (perhaps unintentionally) passing over important phrases to get to that conclusion. 

I am well aware that when things get heated, or people feel threatened in some way, they will tend to elide over segments, misread, or get impressions of text that align more with fears than with what is actually said.   In this discussion, we all need to be conscious of this, because it leads to arguing against strawmen, as if that's meaningful.  If you aren't discussing what was really said, there's no point in having the discussion.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> No I am not saying that. I have the right to be creative. They have the right to criticize. I am just saying if someone is going to be critical of something I do, I don't think it is reasonable, if I don't share their religious views, for people to expect me to be persuaded by arguments grounded in their own religious taboos. That was my only point because you had raised the issue of a ceremony not being permitted to the outside world. I was saying while it makes perfect sense for them to be able to impose that on people within their faith, it wouldn't make much sense for people outside their faith to have to adhere to it. I don't think this is that unreasonable a position.



So, you feel like you have a right to the cultural artifacts of others, regardless how they feel about it? 

No. 

That is an incredibly unreasonable position.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, you feel like you have a right to the cultural artifacts of others, regardless how they feel about it?
> 
> No.
> 
> That is an incredibly unreasonable position.



In a free society, you kinda do.  Elitism isn’t illegal.

What you DON’T have is immunity from criticism for that use; from people reacting negatively to said use; from people boycotting you for that use; from possibly ruining your business over that use.

See also Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” re: capitalism for further clarification.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In a free society, you kinda do.
> 
> What you DON’T have is immunity from criticism for that use, from people reacting negatively to said use, from people boycotting you for that use, from possibly ruining your business over that use.
> 
> See also Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” re: capitalism for further clarification.



You have a legal right, not necessarily a moral right.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> You have a legal right, not necessarily a moral right.



“Just because you can doesn't mean you should.”

Again, The Golden Rule.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> You are saying that your right to be creative (free speech) trumps even the right to criticize your product (free speech).  That’s elitism.
> 
> And your claims that “this requires educational and intellectual” sophistication beyond the average person's ability to comprehend is also elitist.  Go back to my initial post.  The rules are simple- they’re not even rules, but suggestions- and could generally be encapsulated by The Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  This _simple_ admonition is a core teaching to all of the world’s major faiths, and as such could be articulated and understood- even if not actually adhered to- by most of the adults on the planet.  Most kids, too.




So, in fairness, I would say that the arguments against cultural appropriation go a little bit beyond the Golden Rule, in a way that I think really betrays how woefully inadequate the Golden Rule actually is. The problem with the Golden Rule is that it universalizes the particular; one could argue "well, this wouldn't bother _me" _and be fully covered under it. I'm sure that a certain comedian that's come up in this thread wouldn't particularly mind having done unto him what he did unto others. That doesn't make it anything reasonably close to OK.

Understanding and avoiding cultural appropriation is actually a matter of following the _Platinum Rule_: do unto others as they'd have done unto them. In some ways, it's actually a lot simpler to follow to the Golden Rule, as it doesn't even require any measure of self-awareness. You just need to listen to people. And take them in good faith.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> “Just because you can doesn't mean you should.”
> 
> Again, The Golden Rule.



Eh, the golden rule isn’t that great. Listen to people, not your own sense of what would bother you. 

And yes, moral good has little to do with legality. All manner of terrible behavior is legal. 
I was genuinely confused as to why legality came into the discussion at all. 


Gradine said:


> So, in fairness, I would say that the arguments against cultural appropriation go a little bit beyond the Golden Rule, in a way that I think really betrays how woefully inadequate the Golden Rule actually is. The problem with the Golden Rule is that it universalizes the particular; one could argue "well, this wouldn't bother _me" _and be fully covered under it. I'm sure that a certain comedian that's come up in this thread wouldn't particularly mind having done unto him what he did unto others. That doesn't make it anything reasonably close to OK.
> 
> Understanding and avoiding cultural appropriation is actually a matter of following the _Platinum Rule_: do unto others as they've had done unto them. In some ways, it's actually a lot simpler to follow to the Golden Rule, as it doesn't even require any measure of self-awareness. You just need to listen to people. And take them in good faith.




Is it “as they’ve had done” or “as they’d have done”? Is the idea to listen to people about what constitutes doing right by them, or to repeat what has been done to them?


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 23, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Gradine (Sep 23, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Is it “as they’ve had done” or “as they’d have done”? Is the idea to listen to people about what constitutes doing right by them, or to repeat what has been done to them?




Poor phrasing on my part; definitely "as they'd have done". Fixed it in my post


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Poor phrasing on my part; definitely "as they'd have done". Fixed it in my post



Okay! That makes the most sense but I thought I’d ask to be sure.


----------



## Wiseblood (Sep 23, 2019)

Umbran said:


> I am a human being.  We do not live on the planet Vulcan.  We all have biases.  Having a bias does not itself prove someone is wrong.  It is merely something that must be considered to see fi it is leading astray of the point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I didn’t mean to imply that your bias invalidated your argument. Only that your argument formed from that bias served to group people by race not culture. Or specifically leading away from the point.

I thought the nit picking that I did was relevant to my statement. The people mainly cited were a racial demographic. I recognize now that you said _pretty much everyone_. I did not mean to put words into your mouth. I am sorry.

I never said you were incoherent. I thought you were clear. I only meant that the concept was incoherent. (Cultural appropriation.)

I find cultural appropriation a noxious concept it is true. In reviewing it, I still hold to that.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 23, 2019)

billd91 said:


> That's where the sidebar or designer note comes in. Be explicit in your use of real world cultural information and how you are interpreting it. This is a place where designer notes that you see in a lot of historical war games have rocked over the years. I was just reading some for a game called *Pavlov's House* and the developer explained how he had decided to incorporate the broader environment of the Stalingrad battlefield within the micro-environment of the single apartment block. Paizo used to incorporate some awesome design sidebars in their modules - I wish it was a more widespread practice in RPG and adventure design.




Solid use for adventure design. My mind was more going towards fantasy fiction. Probably because I've read a lot more fiction than played in a variety of adventures or RPGs.



Zardnaar said:


> I avoid it for the most part and just use extinct cultures best as I can.
> 
> Exceptions are if it's in a published adventure.




This is one think I've noticed about the Malazan books. Realistic-ish ancient cultures abound.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> So, you feel like you have a right to the cultural artifacts of others, regardless how they feel about it?




I feel that everybody has the right to use ideas, music, and other cultural elements. I think what you are doing is treating these cultures like museum pieces rather than living breathing people that we interact with and get to exchange things with. But this is the foundation of cultural exchange. I don't see how you can say for example that Americans own the cultural artifact of apple pie and get to dictate how others make use of it. Or that Egyptians have control of the iconography of the pyramids, or that the Italians (or perhaps the spanish) get to determine who gets to copy the Roman gladius and how. If you limit music and art to local cultural boundaries, or place these kinds of strange restrictions on them (i.e. you somehow need to get permission from an entire culture), you are not going to see the kind of devlopment and evolution of culture that is natural to the world. You will just see stagnation. To me it is almost like a form of cultural nationalism. Or a weird way of treating cultural artifacts as IP (our IP laws are already restrictive enough, do we need to now have further restrictions on the flow of ideas?). 

That said I am not out to hurt people, and I don't think it is fair to assume that you can read the minds of an entire culture. You say 'regardless of how they feel about it', but then 1) what if their feelings are misguided and 2) how do you gauge their feelings? People are not monolithic. Like I said, I've talked to people from other cultures about this stuff and the reaction I usually get is very different from the reaction in this thread.

And like I said, there are problems in the world. But fretting over cultural appropriation doesn't fix them. They are much more easily addressed by directly dealing with more concrete problems themselves like racism (or materially helping people who need help).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Understanding and avoiding cultural appropriation is actually a matter of following the _Platinum Rule_: do unto others as they'd have done unto them. In some ways, it's actually a lot simpler to follow to the Golden Rule, as it doesn't even require any measure of self-awareness. You just need to listen to people. And take them in good faith.




Except the reality is always going to be a lot more complicated then this. Say you listen to people; do you think you will get one universal response from them? Most people just end up getting anecdotal feedback from people they happen to know or follow who belong to that group (but they don't speak for the entire group). And even then there is always the possibility their reaction isn't a reasonable one. Just because people feel something, it doesn't automatically make their reaction right or true. Especially if that reaction has a negative effect on our ability to have a free exchange of ideas and a free expression of creativity. 

I think where you are coming from is a good place. I think you are coming from a place of compassion. But like with the other controversial we just had, I think what is occurring is it is leading to an excess where the result is a place that isn't terribly reasonable or realistic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2019)

Gradine said:


> So, in fairness, I would say that the arguments against cultural appropriation go a little bit beyond the Golden Rule, in a way that I think really betrays how woefully inadequate the Golden Rule actually is. The problem with the Golden Rule is that it universalizes the particular; one could argue "well, this wouldn't bother _me" _and be fully covered under it. I'm sure that a certain comedian that's come up in this thread wouldn't particularly mind having done unto him what he did unto others. That doesn't make it anything reasonably close to OK.
> 
> Understanding and avoiding cultural appropriation is actually a matter of following the _Platinum Rule_: do unto others as they'd have done unto them. In some ways, it's actually a lot simpler to follow to the Golden Rule, as it doesn't even require any measure of self-awareness. You just need to listen to people. And take them in good faith.



IME, those who counter “it wouldn’t bother me” in such discussions are usually being intellectually dishonest in some way OR don’t have an analogous potential grievance to give them the proper perspective.  

Illustrating the second: It’s hard to apply the golden rule to a plea that “X is sacred to me, please don’t use X like you’re intending” if you don’t have a genuine understanding of what sacred means; that it is more than just “really important”.  There’s no basis for a mutual understanding of what that violation would feel like.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Illustrating the second: It’s hard to apply the golden rule to a plea that “X is sacred to me, please don’t use X like you’re intending” if you don’t have a genuine understanding of what sacred means; that it is more than just “really important”.  There’s no basis for a mutual understanding of what that violation would feel like.




You are assuming a lot here. A lot of us grew up with very real sense of the sacred and what it means. That doesn't mean we have to think it is reasonable for people to be able to extend that sense of the sacred outside their own cultural boundaries. A lot of people were bothered by Piss Christ. I'd much rather exist in a world where that sort of artwork is viable, than one where it it isn't (or where the artist gets chased out). For a lot of Christians that imagery was very painful to have to see. But I also think the artist was making a profound statement. I think what you are advocating treats people from these cultures like children (i.e. they can't handle this the way I might be able to handle piss christ). Yes they can. You are just making people weaker when you tell them they can't handle this stuff, or when you act like someone playing a melodic scale is going to vanquish their culture. Their stronger than that and so is their culture. What threatens cultures isn't appropriation. It is much more concrete things (like war, conquest, etc). Again, people are not museum pieces.


----------



## Wiseblood (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IME, those who counter “it wouldn’t bother me” in such discussions are usually being intellectually dishonest in some way OR don’t have an analogous potential grievance to give them the proper perspective.
> 
> Illustrating the second: It’s hard to apply the golden rule to a plea that “X is sacred to me, please don’t use X like you’re intending” if you don’t have a genuine understanding of what sacred means; that it is more than just “really important”.  There’s no basis for a mutual understanding of what that violation would feel like.




Alternatively they do understand and have such a grievance but do not feel the  need to give it air.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> You are assuming a lot here. A lot of us grew up with very real sense of the sacred and what it means. That doesn't mean we have to think it is reasonable for people to be able to extend that sense of the sacred outside their own cultural boundaries. A lot of people were bothered by Piss Christ. I'd much rather exist in a world where that sort of artwork is viable, than one where it it isn't (or where the artist gets chased out). For a lot of Christians that imagery was very painful to have to see. But I also think the artist was making a profound statement. I think what you are advocating treats people from these cultures like children (i.e. they can't handle this the way I might be able to handle piss christ). Yes they can. You are just making people weaker when you tell them they can't handle this stuff, or when you act like someone playing a melodic scale is going to vanquish their culture. Their stronger than that and so is their culture. What threatens cultures isn't appropriation. It is much more concrete things (like war, conquest, etc). Again, people are not museum pieces.



I assumed nothing.  I was illustrating how problematic it is for someone who has a void or shallow understanding of sacredness to even begin to comprehend what sacredness means to someone for whom it is a deep element of life itself.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I assumed nothing.  I was illustrating how problematic it is for someone who has a void or shallow understanding of sacredness to even begin to comprehend what sacredness means to someone for whom it is a deep element of life itself.




I don't have a shallow understanding of sacredness.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't have a shallow understanding of sacredness.



He didn’t say that you do?


----------



## billd91 (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't have a shallow understanding of sacredness.




Of all forms of sacredness? Or just the ones you know?


----------



## billd91 (Sep 23, 2019)

Gradine said:


> So, in fairness, I would say that the arguments against cultural appropriation go a little bit beyond the Golden Rule, in a way that I think really betrays how woefully inadequate the Golden Rule actually is. The problem with the Golden Rule is that it universalizes the particular; one could argue "well, this wouldn't bother _me" _and be fully covered under it. I'm sure that a certain comedian that's come up in this thread wouldn't particularly mind having done unto him what he did unto others. That doesn't make it anything reasonably close to OK.
> 
> Understanding and avoiding cultural appropriation is actually a matter of following the _Platinum Rule_: do unto others as they'd have done unto them. In some ways, it's actually a lot simpler to follow to the Golden Rule, as it doesn't even require any measure of self-awareness. You just need to listen to people. And take them in good faith.




The platinum rule is also challenging - who actually has the authority to make that judgment, particularly when something being written about/used is generations in the past? Current descendants are, by necessity, going to have a different perspective from their ancestors a century or more in the past and that's going to mean they will have a somewhat different understanding. People today can be shockingly ignorant of the context in which their grandparents or even parents lived.

It is, however, at least a place to start...


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 23, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I feel that everybody has the right to use ideas, music, and other cultural elements.




I mean, sure, that's terribly convenient.

But, as is usual when someone invokes rights... the fact that _every right comes with responsibility_ kind of gets forgotten.  Try this - this isn't an argument over whether you have the right to do a thing.  Imagine, for the moment, that we stipulate that you have the right.  

Then, the argument is over whether (and how) as an outsider to a culture, you have the understanding to exercise this right responsibly.  This puts it in the realm of ethics.  Whether you _can_ do it isn't the functional bit.  We are talking about whether (and/or how) you _should_ do it.

Alternatively - let us say you have the right to use ideas, music, and other cultural elements.  Every right we have ever recognized in the world has limits!  Where are the limits?

Speaking broadly, you don't have the right to harm people, and you admit that you have no desire to harm people.

So, here's the ticket - cultural appropriation is very often harmful to the people you take from.  As a very simple item - it often leads to trivialization and formation and perpetuation of stereotypes, as the majority view of the culture becomes dominated with the elements that have been appropriated, rather than the reality and fullness of the culture you borrow from.

Thus, again, we come around to the same basic point - just because you _can_ do a thing, doesn't mean you _should_.  Repeated assertion of your rights, without attendant acceptance of the responsibilities.. is not a good look.  Exercise of rights without attending to responsibilities has a name - "abuse".


----------



## Kaodi (Sep 23, 2019)

I want to say upfront that I think cultural appropriation is a useful concept and captures something meaningful about the the world. I think it could stand to use some refinement though.

Back at the beginning of the thread it was mentioned that Europeans do not tend to complain much about their cultures being "appropriated" . That is true to an extent, but I have seen more than once that in these conversations a particular kind of appropriation fundamentalist that I have an intense dislike for: the kind that insists using white culture can never count as appropriation. I think this notion probably morphed from the idea that you cannot be racist to white people (which I do not want to debate the validity of). But it seems noxious to me because it posits that to be white is to be uniquely deficient in the ability to have some kind of ownership of your own culture (or cultures, more specifically, because "white culture" mostly just inheres in European cultures). Since the keystone of human rights is the idea that we are all fundamentally equal I think that this fundamentalist version of the cultural appropriation must necessarily be wrong. Especially as it bears a resemblance to one of histories worst idea: terra nullius, which I think should be counted as a misnomer. The land was never empty - what the Pope decreed was that as far as he was concerned the people that lived their did not get to count as having possession of it: Homo nullius.

Beyond that general point I think it is "debatable" whether "spirit animal" should count as a prime example of cultural appropriation. I do not think the way people tend to use it bears much resemblance to the notion of a spiritual guide. People use it purely for spiritual resemblance, which is hardly a unique idea, Richard the Lionheart being one of the most obvious examples. Families used all manner of creatures on their heraldry though. That said, I would not say those examples are quite enough to prove my case. What it comes down to for me is that "spirit animal" is just the most elegant way of describing any number of related but still separate concepts. And language matters too: "spirit" and "animal" are not indigenous words. An indigenous spirit animal has other names in other tongues. Like how we are moving towards differentiating between the Holocaust and the Shoah, depending on whether we are referring specifically to what the Nazis did to the Jews or not, we could just come to adopt the indigenous words for when we mean what they mean by spirit animal. And if, having done that, people start appropriating _those_ words, then those people can definitely die in a fire.

On a final note I am kind of surprised this thread was not locked a long time ago. This is very "religion or politics" adjacent. Which reminds me - I think there is an argument that can be made that it is impossible to appropriate certain aspects of religion to do with at least the existence of at creator deities: If someone says you are "appropriating" who they claim is your creator then either 1) they are wrong about the appropriation or 2) they are wrong about their religion, and I think we can safely assume that most religious people would rather be wrong about appropriation.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Yes, a lot of very fine people bring up Piss Christ as their go-to example for everything, which is weird only in that this was a controversy over THIRTY YEARS ago and it is likely that many people reading this were not even alive when it happened.
> 
> What is the NEA equivalent of get off my lawn?
> 
> Anyway, it should probably be mentioned that a Catholic artist making a commentary about Christian iconography in popular culture should probably not be the go-to example for everything, let alone cultural appropriation.




I realize it is an imperfect example. I used it because everyone knows it, and most people understand how offensive it could be. Also, I realize people younger than me are on here, but understand I am in my forties, my cultural reference points are going to be slightly out of date. 

I did think about the issue of him being Catholic makes the example not perfect. But I also think it doesn't matter if he is Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Atheist. I think any artist from any culture should feel free to explore that kind of artist concept. 




Umbran said:


> I mean, sure, that's terribly convenient.
> 
> But, as is usual when someone invokes rights... the fact that _every right comes with responsibility_ kind of gets forgotten.  Try this - this isn't an argument over whether you have the right to do a thing.  Imagine, for the moment, that we stipulate that you have the right.
> 
> ...




I think you are inflating the idea of harm here though. You are treating a persons right to express themselves using things they see in their environment (including culture) with the same degree of caution and concern as you would treat the right to carry arms. Equating someone who freely borrows to 'abuse' to me just doesn't pass the smell test. Again, it feels like you are sermonizing because you are so sure these moral principles are true. I don't believe they are. I think this concept causes more harm than good.


----------



## Kaodi (Sep 23, 2019)

I think I forgot to clarify: what counts as appropriation is obviously different for different peoples. Historically powerful cultures like those in Europe and many in Asia are kinda just more in the "international sphere" than others. But there are nevertheless ways in which you can go wrong: a lot of the lesser known aspects of regional cultures, for instance. Fairies are ubiquitous, but Celtic mythology not that much better known to the world than was Slavic folklore before the Witcher series. Historical fiction can also easily go wrong even when set amongst history's great powers.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Thus, again, we come around to the same basic point - just because you _can_ do a thing, doesn't mean you _should_.  Repeated assertion of your rights, without attendant acceptance of the responsibilities.. is not a good look.  Exercise of rights without attending to responsibilities has a name - "abuse".




You keep saying this. I don't think it is true. I don't accept your premise. I think you are laying out a flawed foundation, that asserts this causes harm and therefore we have a multitude of responsibilities when we cross cultural boundaries. I don't think that is how real human connections are formed with people from other cultures. You don't get their by assuming they are this fragile, or by assuming they are so different from you cannot even touch their culture without ruining it. I am not advocating spreading negative stereotypes. But I don't need cultural appropriation as a concept to avoid that. I just need to not be a jerk. And I do not think it is a bad look or makes me a bad person. I can have a different point of view than you on this topic. I accept you think you have good reasons for believing what you believe about cultural appropriation. I believe you when you say that. I also think I have very good reasons for being critical of it. And I do genuinely think it is a harmful concept.


----------



## billd91 (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I did think about the issue of him being Catholic makes the example not perfect. But I also think it doesn't matter if he is Catholic, Jewish, Muslim or Atheist. I think any artist from any culture should feel free to explore that kind of artist concept.




I don't think I would call criticism from outside cultural appropriation. It isn't cultural appropriation if I tell the NFL that the term "Redskins" is racist. It isn't cultural appropriation to make a political cartoon of Mohammed despite Islam's restrictions from depicting their prophet.

Cultural appropriation would be wearing a stereotypical war headdress at a Redskins game as a white dude - claiming to have the right to use something as mine without understanding it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Kaodi said:


> I think I forgot to clarify: what counts as appropriation is obviously different for different peoples. Historically powerful cultures like those in Europe and many in Asia are kinda just more in the "international sphere" than others. But there are nevertheless ways in which you can go wrong: a lot of the lesser known aspects of regional cultures, for instance. Fairies are ubiquitous, but Celtic mythology not that much better known to the world than was Slavic folklore before the Witcher series. Historical fiction can also easily go wrong even when set amongst history's great powers.




But there is a difference between historical fiction and historical romance. Historical fiction demands much greater fidelity to the true history, and to avoid things like anachronisms or mixing up cultures. Historical Romance is much more free, and allows for things like anachronisms and mixing cultural details. The former is great, but it is also a lot more work, a lot less open to creative freedom. The later is also a lot of fun, but less rigorous and allows for more inventiveness and creativity with the facts on the part of the writer.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Of all forms of sacredness? Or just the ones you know?




I think like most people, I have a good understanding of the sacredness I grew up with, but I've also been fortunate enough to be exposed to the sacredness of other cultures. I am not saying I am some great scholar or have this deep knowledge of things, but I do think I know a fair amount. My wife was born in another culture so I've learned a lot about her cultural taboos and what is sacred to her. But I was also visiting a lot of different kinds of temples to learn when I was younger and that taught me a great deal (I almost converted to Buddhism at one point for example). I also grew up in a multi-religious household and had a Jewish side of the family (and grew up with lots of Jewish friends and worked in a Jewish bakery). My dad had things like Mezuzahs and a menorah in the house. So I had plenty of exposure to that. When I was in college I learned Arabic for two years. And as a language it has a lot of things like pious utterances, so you need to learn quite a bit about Islam as well. 

But I don't know that any of this is all that important to be honest. I think people understand what sacredness is. And they can still make a judgement call themselves about when someone is being reasonable or not.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 23, 2019)

billd91 said:


> Cultural appropriation would be wearing a stereotypical war headdress at a Redskins game as a white dude - claiming to have the right to use something as mine without understanding it.




On a basic level, that's what it comes down to.  Using something of another culture other than yours for a personal gain (whether that be profit, the feeling you get from doing it, etc).  And as explained in the articles I presented earlier, it is more harmful than just "I may have hurt someone's feelings about it." including but not limited to perpetuation of negative stereotypes, profiteering, and elimination of said culture.

I suspect a few folks here never bothered to read the articles I posted because they are arguing points that are directly rebuked within the articles.  Cultural appropriation is not cultural exchange.  It does in fact exist as a thing.  Most of the push back I'm seeing is basically from a position "I want to keep doing what I've always done and don't care about how it negatively impacts others because that makes it inconvenient to me."  I.e., arguments against cultural appropriate sure seem to be coming from a position of privilege.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 23, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> I suspect a few folks here never bothered to read the articles I posted because they are arguing points that are directly rebuked within the articles.  Cultural appropriation is not cultural exchange.  It does in fact exist as a thing.  Most of the push back I'm seeing is basically from a position "I want to keep doing what I've always done and don't care about how it negatively impacts others because that makes it inconvenient to me."  I.e., arguments against cultural appropriate sure seem to be coming from a position of privilege.




We read the article, we've seen the arguments before as well. We just don't find the arguments convincing. And we are making the case that while cultural appropriation isn't a synonym for cultural exchange it does in fact limit it. Again, I would point to the level of certainty you are expression. Consider the possibility you are wrong. Consider the possibility that cultural appropriation isn't really the problem. That it isn't what perpetuates negative stereotypes or that it doesn't lead to the elimination of a culture (this really is an astounding claim that hasn't been supported by any substantial evidence at all). You make it sound like someone borrowing an aesthetic is going into a local village and stealing an artifact then selling it. Ideas are infinite. Creative expression isn't zero sum game. Things can move beyond the culture they are in, and take on new meaning in the context of another culture. And that is fine. And in many ways it is the first step for people understanding a culture. What you guys are doing is making it harder for people to interact with and empathize with the cultures you want to protect. Again, consider the possibility you are wrong.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 23, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> We read the article, we've seen the arguments before as well. We just don't find the arguments convincing.




Cultural appropriation has an actual definition.  When something meets the literal definition of what that is, it's not up for debate any more than what is defined as gravity is up for debate.  You can't just ignore or disagree with how things are defined just because you don't like them.  That second article I linked to explains it in very clear terms.  I honestly don't know how one _could _disagree with it on any basis of logic. 



> Again, consider the possibility you are wrong.




Yeah, maybe you should.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Cultural appropriation has an actual definition.  When something meets the literal definition of what that is, it's not up for debate any more than what is defined as gravity is up for debate.  You can't just ignore or disagree with how things are defined just because you don't like them.  That second article I linked to explains it in very clear terms.  I honestly don't know how one _could _disagree with it on any basis of logic.




It is definitely up for debate because it is a concept not a physical law like gravity. If you don't know how someone would agree, then I think you are not seriously entertaining the arguments advanced by the other side. I can understand how you would agree with it. I get the arguments. You should be able to understand the appeal the arguments of the opposing side as well. 




> Yeah, maybe you should.




I ask myself this all the time.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 24, 2019)

If I may, what I hear Sacrosanct saying is that the _definition_ itself is not up for debate. What I hear BedrockGames saying is that the _concept_ is up for debate. The two are not the same thing, and it may be that the lack of distinction between the two is muddying the waters a bit.

Now maybe Sacrosanct doesn't think the concept is up for debate, and maybe BG thinks the definition itself is up for debate - I don't know. But it is important to differentiate between _definition_ and _concept._

As I see it, it does seem logical that the definition of "cultural appropriation" has to be relatively defined by its very nature. There is a definition and that's what it means. But the validity and utility of the concept is debateable. In other words, to what degree the phenomena it refers to exists, and more so how valid and useful the concept itself is--both to describe said phenomena and as a praxis for transformation--must be debateable, otherwise we fall prey to a kind of fundamentalism. _Thou Shalt Not Question the Hallowed Tenets of Academic Multiculturalism!_

Here's what Google Dictionary offers as a definition:

_The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society. _

So if we go with the assumption that this is a valid definition (there are others), what becomes a matter of discussion is parsing out the different elements of the definition, and whether the total concept is useful for transforming the problem it points at. 

For instance, "unacknowledged" is pretty straigtht-forward, but what about "inappropriate?" That seems far more fuzzy. And who is the arbiter of what is and is not appropriate? If you're tapping into Japanese culture (e.g. katanas), will any Japanese person do? And won't there be a great deal of variance of how people of the "appropriated culture" might view what is and is not appropriate or offensive?

{As an aside, when I lived in India for about a year, I was struck by how tourists were more likely to use the Indian names for cities (e.g. Mumbai), while most Indians used the colonial English names (e.g. Bombay). Similarly, I have found that it is generally white liberals who prefer the term "Native American" while many Native Americans/American Indians call themselves "Indians." Similarly with "African American" vs. "Black." The point being, everyone is different. There's no one-sized fits all way to refer to anyone, whether as a group or as an individual. Sometimes--often, even--the most offended parties are not even those who are being appropriated or refered to}

Or do we need to consult a certain sub-set of academics who specialize in such things? Who major in social systems, intersectionality, multiculturalism, etc? But doesn't that become circular? Meaning, we refer back to the folks that come up with the concept to begin with?

There are other things to parse out: What does "more dominant people" mean and how useful is that framing? Is a poor white person more dominant than a rich black person? Was Rabbit appropriating Papa Doc? Etc.

Further: how do we draw the lines between cultures? Who "owns" customs, practices, and ideas, and at what point do they become essentially "public domain?"

Another line of questioning: If "cultural appropriation" is deemed to be more trouble than its worth as a concept, what are some other possible ways of approaching the same issue? In other words, how can we approach the exchange and usage of different cultural ideas in a way that is respectful and non-harmful?

The bottom line is that there are a lot of complexities and subtleties at play. I think it would be terribly reductionistic, and even harmful, to simmer everything down to a one-size fits all approach: this is how you do it, this is what must be done, this is the one and only proper and true way to view such things. In the end I find entrenchment in any specific way of seeing as being a major part of the problem - so maybe we are better served approaching such a discussion with a healthy dose of openness and cognitive flexibility.

Or as the great Zen teacher DT Suzuki said, "Right view means no particular view."


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> If I may, what I hear Sacrosanct saying is that the _definition_ itself is not up for debate. What I hear BedrockGames saying is that the _concept_ is up for debate. The two are not the same thing.




I am was saying the concept is up for debate, and that the arguments behind it were up for debate. I was rejecting sacrosanct's notion that linking an article means we have to accept the underlying assumptions. It would be like someone dropping a bible on the table and saying "its the word of god, you can't disagree"


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am was saying the concept is up for debate, and that the arguments behind it were up for debate. I was rejecting sacrosanct's notion that linking an article means we have to accept the underlying assumptions. It would be like someone dropping a bible on the table and saying "its the word of god, you can't disagree"




Yes, that's what I thought - and I agree with you on this point, as I said in the next couple (now further edited) paragraphs.

But the proponents of what I called "Academic Multiculturalism" generally don't.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> You keep saying this. I don't think it is true. I don't accept your premise. I think you are laying out a flawed foundation, that asserts this causes harm and therefore we have a multitude of responsibilities when we cross cultural boundaries.




Which premise are you challenging as false?

That all rights have corresponding duties?  It’s been a while since I got my Phi Sigma Tau key, but I can’t at this time come up with any major ethical system that decouples rights from duties.

That rational people cannot accurately assess that they have been harmed and how deeply?  I’m thinking that’s a key component of rationality.  And the right to ask someone to stop hurting you- physically or emotionally- would seem a fundamental element of any functional society.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Which premise are you challenging as false?
> 
> That all rights have corresponding duties?  It’s been a while since I got my Phi Sigma Tau key, but I can’t at this time come up with any major ethical system that decouples rights from duties.
> 
> That rational people cannot accurately assess that they have been harmed and how deeply?  I’m thinking that’s a key component of rationality.  And the right to ask someone to stop hurting you- physically or emotionally- would seem a fundamental element of any functional society.




Now you are just putting words in my mouth. Look, I am not as smart nor as educated as you or Umbran. I am not going to win on a legalistic or philosophical debate. But what I know is, and what I reject is, this idea that borrowing cultural elements for creative purposes is potentially as harmful as he asserts. And sure we all have rights and responsibilities. But there is a debate over what they are here. And of course people can accurately assess how they've been harmed. They can also assess it inaccurately because humans are flawed and often driven by emotions, even selfishness. It is very possible for a person to overreact for example. And it is perfectly acceptable, if you think someone is overreacting, to say so. 

Of course people have a right not to be physically harmed or emotionally abused. And we have laws protecting people from those things. But this goes around existing laws and uses other forces in the culture to enforce arbitrary and shifting notions of harm. I am sorry but someone playing a song from your culture isn't abuse in the way that equals physical or emotional harm where society needs to step in and protect them. That, in my view, isn't a reasonable expectation or position. And like I have said many times, the end result of it is it harms art, it harms entertainment, it harms human communication, and it creates cultures that are segregated from one another. I do not buy this concept. And I don't have to. And I am not a bad person for thinking differently than you about it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> Yes, that's what I thought - and I agree with you on this point, as I said in the next couple (now further edited) paragraphs.
> 
> But the proponents of what I called "Academic Multiculturalism" generally don't.




I am not quite sure what that means, but I am not against multiculturalism. I like being around people from other cultures.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not quite sure what that means, but I am not against multiculturalism. I like being around people from other cultures.




Of course! Not sure why you'd think I implied otherwise?

What I mean by "Academic Multiculturalism" is a particular school of thought promulgated in universities that gives rise to such concepts as "cultural appropriation." A lot of important, good stuff - but the problem is that there isn't a lot of openness or flexibility of thinking; they thump your proverbial bible on the table. They tend not to take too kindly to any kind of questioning, or diversity of thinking -- which, of course, is counter to the whole point of higher education.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> What I mean by "Academic Multiculturalism" is a particular school of thought promulgated in universities that gives rise to such concepts as "cultural appropriation." A lot of important, good stuff - but the problem is that there isn't a lot of openness or flexibility of thinking; they thump your proverbial bible on the table. They tend not to take too kindly to any kind of questioning, or diversity of thinking -- which, of course, is counter to the whole point of higher education.




The last time I was on a college campus was around 2007 or 2008, so I don't really know that world anymore.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> The last time I was on a college campus was around 2007 or 2008, so I don't really know that world anymore.




Its been awhile for me as well, but what I'm talking about is rather ubiquitous in Western culture - at least in the domains of public discourse. And it is my take on it, for what its worth.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Now you are just putting words in my mouth.




No.  I’m not putting words in your mouth.  You quoted a snippet of Umbran’s post, a section dealing with _only two things:_

1) Rights having corresponding duties, and
2) asserting rights without accepting the attendant duties is abuse

And you said: “You keep saying this. I don't think it is true. I don't accept your premise.”

I responded, asking you which part of Umbran’s post you find false, with attendant commentary as to what potential justifications I’m unlikely to buy at all.

So, again, what part of that snippet of Umbran’s post you find false?



> I am sorry but someone playing a song from your culture isn't abuse in the way that equals physical or emotional harm where society needs to step in and protect them. That, in my view, isn't a reasonable expectation or position. And like I have said many times, the end result of it is it harms art, it harms entertainment, it harms human communication, and it creates cultures that are segregated from one another. I do not buy this concept. And I don't have to. And I am not a bad person for thinking differently than you about it.




Merely playing a song from someone else’s culture is not misappropriation.  Playing a song from someone else’s culture in a disrespectful context may be...or may not be.

To make myself as clear as possible: I _am_ an artist.  I write fiction; I create physical arts in sculpture, acrylics, pastels, inks, and pencils; I compose and sing and play music in three different instruments.  So I understand the issues intimately.

That said, the rights of an artist to create something *do not automatically trump the other rights of human beings.*  As in ALL cases where rights are in conflict, it is a question of balancing relative harms and benefits on all sides.

Nobody said it was easy, but it is a daily task in a functioning society.  Sometimes, majority rules stand.  Sometimes, the minority’s view gets protected in preference over the majority’s.

So, artist to artist, when someone tells you they have a problem with an element in your creative output/process, that is _not_ the time to simply fall back on your rights as an artist and plow ahead.  That is the time to do your duty- pause and consider what you’ve been told.

Like I said in my first post, that won’t immunize you from cultural criticism, but _most_ will understand and respect that you made the effort.


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

Do you really think errecting arbitrary walls around "culture" which no one is allowed to breach unless he fulfills arbitrary criteria is a human right?


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Yes, a lot of very fine people bring up Piss Christ as their go-to example for everything, which is weird only in that this was a controversy over THIRTY YEARS ago and it is likely that many people reading this were not even alive when it happened.
> 
> What is the NEA equivalent of get off my lawn?
> 
> Anyway, it should probably be mentioned that a Catholic artist making a commentary about Christian iconography in popular culture should probably not be the go-to example for everything, let alone cultural appropriation.



It’s almost like a group making provocative and even offensive commentary about the thing their group together for is inherently different from a person outside the group doin the same. 

As if...indeed, context is a major factor in determining what is right and wrong!


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No.  I’m not putting words in your mouth.  You quoted a snippet of Umbran’s post, a section dealing with _only two things:_
> 
> 1) Rights having corresponding duties, and
> 2) asserting rights without accepting the attendant duties is abuse




I disagreed with him that cultural appropriation constituted abuse. And looking at 2, I would disagree with that. How is not accepting responsibility a form of abuse? I don’t think that makes sense


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2019)

Pick any major ethical system, religious or secular.  Point at one where ignoring a right’s corresponding duty isn’t considered abusive.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To make myself as clear as possible: I _am_ an artist.  I write fiction; I create physical arts in sculpture, acrylics, pastels, inks, and pencils; I compose and sing and play music in three different instruments.  So I understand the issues intimately.
> 
> That said, the rights of an artist to create something *do not automatically trump the other rights of human beings.*  As in ALL cases where rights are in conflict, it is a question of balancing relative harms and benefits on all sides.




But what rights are you arguing for here? Are you arguing that people have s right to not be appropriated? Or are you arguing everyone has a right to free expression, and I have s duty to allow for that right? If the latter I don’t disagree. We have a right to free expression. And that means I have a right to handle cultural elements and other people have a right to voice their opinion on that. I have never said they don’t have that right. All I have stared is just because someone voices a criticism that doesn’t mean their criticism has moral weight. If you are arguing people have a right not to be appropriated, I would disagree. I don’t think this is a right in the way that freedom of speech is a right.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Cultural appropriation is not a concept. It’s a real thing. Not something in the ether that some people think is a thing without any objective evidence. We have the definition. We have LOTS of objective examples of that very thing happening which proves it’s a real thing and not just a concept.  

It’s like arguing that racism isn’t a thing, but just a concept, and if you say you disagree with it, then it doesn’t exist. 

That’s flat out dangerous. And real people are getting harmed by it. You simply cannot deny the existence of something that is concrete and objective. It’s denying facts and the evidence before you, and needless to say, if your position is dependent on the denial of facts, then you might want to reconsider your position.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Pick any major ethical system, religious or secular.  Point at one where ignoring a right’s corresponding duty isn’t considered abusive.




I don’t understand your use of abuse in this context I think. Either way, if I understand your point, I am not neglecting my duty. We are talking about free speech right? I don’t have a duty to obey other people’s criticism of my speech or expression. I just have a duty not to infringe on their free speech and to support their right to free speech.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So, artist to artist, when someone tells you they have a problem with an element in your creative output/process, that is _not_ the time to simply fall back on your rights as an artist and plow ahead.  That is the time to do your duty- pause and consider what you’ve been told.




I reject that you have this duty. I do think a good artist listens to criticism. I don’t think they have a social obligation to do so (and certainly not a legal one). I don’t see that an artist who ignores critics or a single critic is failing in a duty. It might be discourteius. It might be closed minded. But it isn’t something people are bound by duty


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Cultural appropriation is not a concept. It’s a real thing. Not something in the ether that some people think is a thing without any objective evidence. We have the definition. We have LOTS of objective examples of that very thing happening which proves it’s a real thing and not just a concept.
> 
> It’s like arguing that racism isn’t a thing, but just a concept, and if you say you disagree with it, then it doesn’t exist.
> 
> That’s flat out dangerous. And real people are getting harmed by it. You simply cannot deny the existence of something that is concrete and objective. It’s denying facts and the evidence before you, and needless to say, if your position is dependent on the denial of facts, then you might want to reconsider your position.




Now it gets silly.
You are doing a disservice to all people actually suffering by claiming people are harmed because they arbitrarily decide some things are part of their culture which they somehow own and someone else who does not fulfill some arbitrary criteria and using it in a way this person thinks is inappropriate.
No one owns a culture.

But when you feel so strongly about it, there is only one solution. Don't use non-european cultures in your games.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Cultural appropriation is not a concept. It’s a real thing. Not something in the ether that some people think is a thing without any objective evidence. We have the definition. We have LOTS of objective examples of that very thing happening which proves it’s a real thing and not just a concept.
> 
> It’s like arguing that racism isn’t a thing, but just a concept, and if you say you disagree with it, then it doesn’t exist.
> 
> That’s flat out dangerous. And real people are getting harmed by it. You simply cannot deny the existence of something that is concrete and objective. It’s denying facts and the evidence before you, and needless to say, if your position is dependent on the denial of facts, then you might want to reconsider your position.




"Cultural appropriation" _is _a concept that refers to phenomena. I don't think anyone is denying that there is a real phenomena occuring that you label as cultural appropriation. But that is an interpretation of what is going on. 

And yes, racism is a thing - it is real - although don't think it is a great analogy for cultural appropriation, due the fact that racism is more general and cultural appropriation more specific. But what constitutes racism is debatable, with a wide range of definitions. And how we handle the issue of racism is another matter, with a range of possibilities. There is no one true way to understand what racism is or how to solve it.

Let me ask you: what is the underlying goal of using a conceptual term like "cultural appropriation?" And can that goal be accomplished in different ways? Does it have to be adopting that interpretive framework? Or are there "other roads to Rome?"


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Derren said:


> Now it gets silly.
> You are doing a disservice to all people actually suffering by claiming people are harmed because they arbitrarily decide some things are part of their culture which they somehow own and someone else who does not fulfill some arbitrary criteria and using it in a way this person thinks is inappropriate.
> No one owns a culture.
> 
> But when you feel so strongly about it, there is only one solution. Don't use non-european cultures in your games.





The only thing silly, is that despite the overwhelming evidence, and the clear definitions and articles explaining in detail why cultural appropriation is a bad, you and others are trying to act like it's all a made up thing.  Real, actual damage includes but is not limited to:

It perpetuates white colonialism
it distracts from how much communities borrow and steal from marginalized people
it prevents learning about true cultural exchange
it confuses people about which traditions come from what cultures
it propagates pejorative racist stereotypes

If you want to know why in greater detail, I suggest reading the articles I listed above.  Needless to say, all of the above can and has resulted in actual harm, from loss of identity, discrimination, profiteering, and racial violence.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To make myself as clear as possible: I _am_ an artist. I write fiction; I create physical arts in sculpture, acrylics, pastels, inks, and pencils; I compose and sing and play music in three different instruments. So I understand the issues intimately.




I do to. I am a writer. I used to be a very active musician (played several instruments as well). But there are different points of view on this among artists. I don't think the debate over the validity of this concept of cultural approbation is at all settled. And I think there are very, very good reasons to push back against it (which I have mentioned in previous posts).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> The only thing silly, is that despite the overwhelming evidence, and the clear definitions and articles explaining in detail why cultural appropriation is a bad, you and others are trying to act like it's all a made up thing.  Real, actual damage includes but is not limited to:
> 
> It perpetuates white colonialism
> it distracts from how much communities borrow and steal from marginalized people
> ...




The article asserts it does those things. It doesn't prove it does those things


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> If you want to know why in greater detail, I suggest reading the articles I listed above.  Needless to say, all of the above can and has resulted in actual harm, from loss of identity, discrimination, profiteering, and racial violence.




There is a very simple solution here. If you are worried about discrimination, then fight discrimination. If you are worried about racial violence, then work to fight racial violence. But I think when you start trying to attribute it to something as vague as cultural appropriation, and believe that if you just fix the problem of cultural approbation, you'll somehow fix these other problems in society, you've stepped into utopian territory.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> ... you and others are trying to act like it's all a made up thing.




I'm not sure anyone is saying that. I'm certainly not.

It isn't either/or, Sacrosanct: either it is 100% as you describe it to be, objectively true, or it is "all a made up thing." I'm guessing that everyone participating in this discussion realizes that there is a real phenomena that the term refers to. But it seems that there is a range of different views on how well it describes the territory, and if there might not be other ways to look at the same phenomena that have utility.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I do to. I am a writer. I used to be a very active musician (played several instruments as well). But there are different points of view on this among artists. I don't think the debate over the validity of this concept of cultural approbation is at all settled. And I think there are very, very good reasons to push back against it (which I have mentioned in previous posts).



I’m gonna interject here as an observer. 

DA isn’t suggesting anything that merits this particular sort of response. He isn’t claiming that him being an artist makes him more expert, or anything of the sort. He is identifying to you that he is also an artist, and as such is not speaking in theory or as an outsider telling artists what to do, but rather from the perspective of a fellow artist.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> There is a very simple solution here. If you are worried about discrimination, then fight discrimination. If you are worried about racial violence, then work to fight racial violence. But I think when you start trying to attribute it to something as vague as cultural appropriation, and believe that if you just fix the problem of cultural approbation, you'll somehow fix these other problems in society, you've stepped into utopian territory.



Here you are making rather wild leaps from what Sacrosanct said to some other thing that they didn’t say. 

Who claimed that “fixing” cultural appropriation (whatever that would even mean) would fix other cultural/social issues?


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> The only thing silly, is that despite the overwhelming evidence, and the clear definitions and articles explaining in detail why cultural appropriation is a bad, you and others are trying to act like it's all a made up thing.  Real, actual damage includes but is not limited to:
> 
> It perpetuates white colonialism
> it distracts from how much communities borrow and steal from marginalized people
> ...



That is simply false.
1. "White colonialism" is a combat term without meaning.
2. All cultures borrow and "steal" from surrounding cultures, even marginalized ones from big cultures. That is a natural process which has been going on for centuries. Globalization just increased the range cultures can borrow from others. Cultures are not static and never have been, that is another reason why you can't say "X belongs to culture Y and no one else can use it without my approval"
3. It can also encourage cultural exchange by increasing interest in a culture. Errecting barriers and attacking people with things like "you are white and thus not allowed to do X" does not encourage exchange at all.
4. So does errecting barriers and claiming cultural ownership over something. A few posts above Spirit Animals was used as example of something being owned by native americans (which ones?). But what about slavic cultures where spirit animals also were a big thing? Who is confusing whom now?
5. No it doesn't in itself. If anything, claiming that only certain people are allowed to use something based on their skin color or heritage is racist.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Here you are making rather wild leaps from what Sacrosanct said to some other thing that they didn’t say.
> 
> Who claimed that “fixing” cultural appropriation (whatever that would even mean) would fix other cultural/social issues?




then why list those issues unless addressing cultural appropriation will somehow improve on them?His position seems to be that cultural appropriation contributes to these problems (and they are the reasons he points to fir why we should take CA so seriously. So I am just saying, well if those are the concerns it would be more productive to focus on them directly


----------



## Calithorne (Sep 24, 2019)

The Education Chair of my writing group set up a "diversity workshop" to teach us straight white males how to write with "compassion" when we include diverse characters.

I took a stand on our Facebook page, telling the group I was not going to seek approval from a censorship committee to write what I want to write.

Ultimately, I resigned the group and joined another group led by a writer who believes as I do that writers can't worry about people who go out of their way to be offended by a work of art.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2019)

Calithorne said:


> The Education Chair of my writing group set up a "diversity workshop" to teach us straight white males how to write with "compassion" when we include diverse characters.
> 
> I took a stand on our Facebook page, telling the group I was not going to seek approval from a censorship committee to write what I want to write.
> 
> Ultimately, I resigned the group and joined another group led by a writer who believes as I do that writers can't worry about people who go out of their way to be offended by a work of art.



Ah yes, the horrible censorship of asking someone to give a damn about other people.


----------



## Calithorne (Sep 24, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Ah yes, the horrible censorship of asking someone to give a damn about other people.



It's not my job as a writer to give a damn about offending people.

Much of the greatest pieces of literature are very offensive, on purpose.

For example, Mark Twain went out of his way to offend his fellow Southerners in his books.

My father, who is a devout Catholic, would be very offended by many aspects of my story.

If I'm willing to offend him, I'm not going to worry about offending people I don't know.

I note that a person who demands we don't culturally appropriate from other cultures, however, is going out of his way to be offended.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2019)

Calithorne said:


> It's not my job as a writer to give a damn about offending people.
> 
> Much of the greatest pieces of literature are very offensive, on purpose.
> 
> ...



Only person here getting bent outta shape is you, bud.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Derren said:


> That is simply false.
> .




No it’s not. It’s pretty well established. I mean, I get why you’d say it’s false, because your argument and position depend on it being false. But it’s not. You’re unwilling to confront your biases and privileges, so you’re taking a position that all those things that prove your position incorrect just don’t exist. Hate to break itmto you, but they do, and it’s pretty well settled. Might as well be arguing that climate change isn’t real, because that’s the level of data you’re arguing against.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2019)

Being inconsiderate and rude is definitely a virtue, you guys.


----------



## Calithorne (Sep 24, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Being inconsiderate and rude is definitely a virtue, you guys.



Tell that to Mark Twain bud, or just about any great writer who challenged people's assumptions about the world.


----------



## Calithorne (Sep 24, 2019)

I've heard of people going out of their way to be offended by a fraternity that had a party where people wore sombreros.

I would like to remind people that if that is your worst problem you're dealing with, then you have no real problems.

Some people are hungry every day for instance, or don't have a home to live in, or clean water to drink.

Those are real problems.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 24, 2019)

I'm guessing that some here wouldn't take too kindly to Dave Chappelle's latest Netflix special.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 24, 2019)

I wonder if there's a bit of a real-world version of D&D's alignments going on in this thread.

The "Lawful Good" people abide by such concepts as cultural appropriation - to them they are the letter of the law, and the way towards being kinder and helping others.

The "Chaotic Good" people dislike such rules and regulations, and prefer a more free-wheeling approach to kindness and community.

The "Neutral Good" people try to find a balance. The see the usefulness of the rules and concepts, but also the limitations. 

The problem is that the LG people think anyone who disagree is either Chaotic Neutral (anarchic, bad faith actors) or Chaotic Evil (down-right awful). The CG people think the LG people are controlling LN folks, or even domineering an authoritarian LE folks. Both confuse the NG people for being the other extreme.

My guess is that there aren't any true Evil folks in this thread.

And then there are the true Neutrals, who see any and all perspectives as just thought bubbles arising and falling, all of them illusory. To them such squabbles are laughable, just tiny mental farts in an infinite cosmos that transcends such notions as chaos and order.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2019)

Calithorne said:


> Tell that to Mark Twain bud, or just about any great writer who challenged people's assumptions about the world.




 Oh my dude, you’re a delight. 

You know there’s a difference between challenging people and being offensive because enough just don’t care how your work affects people, right? 

What Twain did could not be further to the opposite end from what Sacrosanct is trying to avoid doing. 

Twain considered the impact of every written word, and chose what to say based on a desire to challenge his neighbors to _be better people_ by examining their own BS notions. 

You’re advocating not giving a damn, and just writing what you feel like writing. Literally the direct opposite. 

“Write for yourself” is self-indulgent nonsense, that Twain would despise with vociferous and eloquent spite. 

It is the very height of comedic absurdity that you would come into this thread, performative indignation on your sleeve, to pronounce to the gathered participants your anecdote of the time you rallied against the terrible oppression of being invited to learn about the perspective that perhaps artists should have compassion of all things. All while behaving as though you were providing a novel perspective or argument, no less! 

To simultaneously thread-crap, rail against “seeking offense”, _and dive headlong into the thread for seemingly the sole purpose of being offended that anyone expects anything of other people, behaviorally_, is genuinely the funniest thing I’ve witnessed in days.


----------



## Calithorne (Sep 24, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Oh my dude, you’re a delight.
> 
> You know there’s a difference between challenging people and being offensive because enough just don’t care how your work affects people, right?
> 
> ...



You write a lot of big words, but it comes down to just a few: You support the notion that artistic works should be reviewed by political correctness committees and censored if they don't meet political correctness standards. 

To make it even shorter: you are a Stalinist.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2019)

Calithorne said:


> You write a lot of big words, but it comes down to just a few: You support the notion that artistic works should be reviewed by political correctness committees and censored if they don't meet political correctness standards.
> 
> To make it even shorter: you are a Stalinist.



Ah, man, I appreciate a good laugh but that one just caused me to wake up my wife and my dog! 

Yep, definitely no daylight between “try to be considerate of others” and “literal authoritarian regime”. Foooor sure. 

Are you the guy who was yelling at Morrus on Twitter the other day? Same energy. 

Anyway, I’m glad you’re out there standing up against “censorship” in the form of...literally people asking other people to listen to the people of cultures they want to make art inspired by before making the art, so that they don’t make clueless art that rides on lazy ignorance of that culture. 

On a brief non-sarcastic note, you do understand that folks don’t lose the right to make whatever they want when their neighbors ask them to be compassionate when making art, right? You can still make whatever edgy “I’m offensive for it’s own sake” “art” you want. 

Folks aren’t obligated to support you, have any respect for you as an artist or person, or refrain from harsh criticism of what you end up making, though. 

It’s extremely silly to characterize any of this in the melodramatic way that you have, and when you flounce into a thread to rant about it like you have, you’re gonna get criticized for that, too.

Turns out speech is a two way street.


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> No it’s not. It’s pretty well established.



Its established by a very specific circle of people who demand that it is true as otherwise no one would pay attention to them.
Too bad that just because you demand that something is true doesn't make it so. Notice how you didn't respond to any to the points in my last post? Or how your last post started with a combat term "white colonialism" in an effort to silence everyone who thinks differently as this term leaves no room for any debate or discussion? And here you are continuing to use racist combat terms with "white privilege".

My points still stand. Feel free to respond to them constructively. Just don't bother with combat terms and "whites are bad" rethoric.
As for your "problem", I have written the solution in my last posts. Ignore cultural appropation as its only a concern for a small circle of people who want it to be a problem. And if those are your target group don't use non european cultures (and probably be accused of not being inclusive enough by the same people who errect barriers around cultures so that no one can use foreign ones, but that is a different can of worms).


----------



## pming (Sep 24, 2019)

Hiya!

_shrug_ Go ahead and pay a "sensitivity writer" if you want. Won't make any difference to the vast majority of RPG'ers who just want a cool thing to play or add to their campaign. I've used stuff from all manner of writers, some are even considered "white supremacists" or even "sexual predators". Don't care. I have no horse in the race, so to speak. I bought and use their stuff because I find the IMAGINARY INFORMATION cool or useful in making my game more fun. Do I think the person behind the writing is "good" or "a fine, upstanding individual"? Hell no! But then again, I'm not paying him/her to be a better person or try and bring some sort of "social recognition of [insert minority anything]". I'm paying them to write cool, fun and interesting IMAGINARY INFORMATION that I can use in my IMAGINARY GAME OF MAKE BELIEVE in the privacy of my own home with my own friends/family.

YMMV.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## Kaodi (Sep 24, 2019)

Derren said:


> Its established by a very specific circle of people who demand that it is true as otherwise no one would pay attention to them.
> Too bad that just because you demand that something is true doesn't make it so. Notice how you didn't respond to any to the points in my last post? Or how your last post started with a combat term "white colonialism" in an effort to silence everyone who thinks differently as this term leaves no room for any debate or discussion? And here you are continuing to use racist combat terms with "white privilege".
> 
> My points still stand. Feel free to respond to them constructively. Just don't bother with combat terms and "whites are bad" rethoric.




I do think Sacrosanct was in error to single out "white colonialism" . Either you object to colonialism or you just object to white people. But* all of this other stuff you are saying is... not good. The concept of "white privilege" is not racist. Race is merely the object which is describes. There are certainly even knowledgeable people who debate the utility of the concept. Those people, however, do not frame its mere existence as an affront to white people.

*You know what they say about ignoring everything before the "but" . 



Derren said:


> As for your "problem", I have written the solution in my last posts. Ignore cultural appropation as its only a concern for a small circle of people who want it to be a problem.




I suppose you do not see the intense irony here. Cultural appropriation is a "problem" only for a small group of people? Perhaps that has something to do with the peoples being appropriated from often being, get this, small. In the United States and Canada indigenous peoples, for instance, are only a fraction of the total population. Half the problem is precisely that the ability of the rest of us to capitalize on their cultural products outstrips their ability to get them to market themselves. Being small and marginalized is precisely what makes the appropriation threatening. 

I may object to the extremes of rhetoric coming from those who object to cultural appropriation. But I am not here for this pretending it does not describe a meaningful problem.


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

Kaodi said:


> I do think Sacrosanct was in error to single out "white colonialism" . Either you object to colonialism or you just object to white people. But* all of this other stuff you are saying is... not good. The concept of "white privilege" is not racist. Race is merely the object which is describes. There are certainly even knowledgeable people who debate the utility of the concept. Those people, however, do not frame its mere existence as an affront to white people.
> 
> *You know what they say about ignoring everything before the "but" .
> 
> ...



Color privilege certainly exist, but which one is privileged depends on the region. It is not a global concept. And what is racist is to use alleged global privilege of one color or the other as excuse to discriminate against people of the color which is what usual happens when someone cites white privelege.

Also, while there certainly is some overlap, the circle of people who claim that cultural appropation is a problem are not always the ones affected by it (at least in a way it is considered problematic).

See Sacrosanct himself. He describes himself as white and of european descent, but is very concerned about cultural appropation of native american cultures and somehow thinks he is qualified to speak for native americans and how their culture shall be handled.
That doesn't mean that european cultures are not subjected to cultural appropation as he defines it and some are also on their way to extinction. But as I said before that is usually not seen as a problem for people who otherwise claim to be very concerned about this. This just shows the hypocrisy and arbitrary drawn lines.


----------



## Ryujin (Sep 24, 2019)

Calithorne said:


> It's not my job as a writer to give a damn about offending people.
> 
> Much of the greatest pieces of literature are very offensive, on purpose.
> 
> ...




A good measure for such things is whether you're "punching up" or "punching down", in who you're offending. Twain was "punching up."


----------



## billd91 (Sep 24, 2019)

Derren said:


> See Sacrosanct himself. He describes himself as white and of european descent, but is very concerned about cultural appropation of native american cultures and somehow thinks he is qualified to speak for native americans and how their culture shall be handled.




That's where, in the fundamentals, you are wrong. He's not trying to speak from within their culture but from within his and how members of his community should respect how other cultures would like their cultures to be handled.


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

billd91 said:


> That's where, in the fundamentals, you are wrong. He's not trying to speak from within their culture but from within his and how members of his community should respect how other cultures would like their cultures to be handled.



And who decides "how other cultures would like their cultures to be handled"?
He seems pretty certain to know the answer. Is he really qualified to decide that? Is anyone? Who owns a culture?


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 24, 2019)

Derren said:


> And who decides "how other cultures would like their cultures to be handled"?




The original purpose of this thread was an attempt to discuss this exact question as reasonable, rational adults.  If you don't want to have that discussion, why are you here?


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

Deset Gled said:


> The original purpose of this thread was an attempt to discuss this exact question as reasonable, rational adults.  If you don't want to have that discussion, why are you here?



And my answer to that is "no one".


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2019)

Calithorne said:


> To make it even shorter: you are a Stalinist.




*Mod Note:*

I don't know what the thought process behind this was, but let us be clear - this is not acceptable here.  

Calithorne will not be returning to this thread.  Anyone else stooping to this kind of rhetoric will find themselves spending a week on vacation reconsidering how they engage with people here.

Do not expect discussion or warning on that - inflammatory language will not be tolerated.

If you have questions about this, please take it to PM.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Deset Gled said:


> The original purpose of this thread was an attempt to discuss this exact question as reasonable, rational adults.  If you don't want to have that discussion, why are you here?




I think the reason people are getting frustrated with it is because it feels like sacrosanct is just insisting that his view of Cultural Appropriation is correct, and objectively reflects reality. But some people don't agree with his arguments. It is a little frustrating in these discussion when people act like a controversial idea is true, even when it is really more of an academic concept that is subject to debate. This is a concept that only filtered into the mainstream within the past two to three years or so. And it hasn't even been in academia all that long. It is fair for people to be skeptical about claims surrounding it, especially when the solution is a fairly radical change to how people normally engage in the creative arts.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2019)

*Mod Note 2:*
Ladies and gentlemen,

Some of you seem to be discussing this topic as if the fate of the world is at stake, and there would be no ground given in defense of that.  

It is that very stance that led to someone getting booted from the thread - putting a stake in the ground that there is no compromise is pretty much a discussion-ending stance.  You fundamentally cannot _discuss_ if you have no intention of learning from, or taking to heart, anything from the opposing side.  You can, at best, rant and pontificate.

This is an internet discussion board, not a voting body or group of combat units.  There will never be a point at which you can be said to have won the conflict.  The human psyche, however, doesn't do a good job of allowing for that - and so people escalate in an effort to win, and that leads to what we have seen.

Consider that before you write another word in this thread.  If you are in it to prove the other guy is wrongity-wrong, with wrong sauce, that is apt to go a place that you will be fundamentally unhappy with.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 24, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think the reason people are getting frustrated with it is because it feels like sacrosanct is just insisting that his view of Cultural Appropriation is correct, and objectively reflects reality. But some people don't agree with his arguments. It is a little frustrating in these discussion when people act like a controversial idea is true, even when it is really more of an academic concept that is subject to debate.




Someone starts a thread that says "How can I learn to be a better DM at 4e?" and someone responds with "You shouldn't DM 4e.  It's got the smallest fan base and is objectively the worst edition.  Here's why...".  It doesn't matter how logical their reasons for disliking 4e are.  They're still threadcrapping and edition waring, preventing the discussion from happening by those who actually want to answer it.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Derren said:


> Its established by a very specific circle of people who demand that it is true as otherwise no one would pay attention to them.




That very specific circle of people are subject matter experts who are professionals in this sort of topic, as opposed to some random person on the internet who doesn't want it to be true because it goes against their narrative.  I.e., one "side" has a lot more credibility here.  It's also interesting that you're describing the people who claim it to be true as people with bad motives and are just doing so for the attention.  That's telling.  I guess those Native Americans who have the gall to say how they are upset that a group of white people profiting over the misrepresentation of Native American culture(s) are just doing so for attention...



> Too bad that just because you demand that something is true doesn't make it so. Notice how you didn't respond to any to the points in my last post? Or how your last post started with a combat term "white colonialism" in an effort to silence everyone who thinks differently as this term leaves no room for any debate or discussion? And here you are continuing to use racist combat terms with "white privilege".




I didn't respond point by point because your very first paragraph was fundamentally flawed as I explained, which subsequently implied all of your other points were also fundamentally flawed.  But if you want a break down: I said cultural appropriation continues to reinforce white colonialism.  That's a real thing too.  When the British Empire took certain aspects of the Indian culture they liked (dress, art) that was cultural appropriation.  And white colonialism when they forbade Indians from speaking their language or worshiping how they wanted.  The white American government did the exact same thing to the Native Americans.  That's not a combat term.  That's the actual, official, term.  What other term am I supposed to used besides the proper one?  Cultural appropriation does exactly what I said it does in that context of White colonialism because it's still going on in the US, to this very day.

As far as my use of white privilege, that's not a racist term either.  I've actually given corporate presentations on this topic; it's something I feel I'm pretty well researched on.  It's not a racist term, but also an actual thing we can observe.  It's not just the big things, but also the little things like:


being assured that whenever you turn on the TV or open a paper, you're going to see people who look just like you
no one ever telling you you're a credit to your race/gender just because you did something good
not being the only person of your race in a college classroom
being assured that no matter what town you go in, you're going to find a place of worship that fits your religious beliefs
not having the police called because you're having a BBQ in a public place, or just hanging out at your own apartment
not having people stare at you the entire time you're in a store

Etc, etc.

So...when you deny that white colonialism, or white privilege is a thing, or is only a "buzzword" meant to attack, do you deny those things I listed existed?  If you agree they exist, then why are you arguing?  Because then you agree that white colonialism, and white privilege are very real things. And they are the proper terms to use.





Derren said:


> Color privilege certainly exist, but which one is privileged depends on the region. It is not a global concept. And what is racist is to use alleged global privilege of one color or the other as excuse to discriminate against people of the color which is what usual happens when someone cites white privelege.
> 
> Also, while there certainly is some overlap, the circle of people who claim that cultural appropation is a problem are not always the ones affected by it (at least in a way it is considered problematic).
> 
> ...




Not every black person is offended by every racist image or term.  But that in no way means that the image or term isn't racist.  People of minority cultures aren't some hive mind.  If your line drawn before you accept something is "everyone impacted has to agree", then that's an awfully convenient way to justify your position of denying it's a thing.  But to use your argument, it seems almost everyone denying that cultural appropriation is a thing are members of the majority who benefit from cultural appropriation.  Awfully convenient, that.




Bedrockgames said:


> I think the reason people are getting frustrated with it is because it feels like sacrosanct is just insisting that his view of Cultural Appropriation is correct, and objectively reflects reality.




I think this is your key mistake, if this is your assumption.  I'm not arguing "my way", or "my view".  I'm arguing the accepted view among professionals and experts, citing my argument with resources to back it up.  So far, none of you arguing otherwise have provided solid citations that refute my own citations.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But some people don't agree with his arguments. It is a little frustrating in these discussion when people act like a controversial idea is true, even when it is really more of an academic concept that is subject to debate.




Ah, but is not the assertion that it is "an academic concept that is subject to debate"... similarly claiming a truth?  

(Hint - yes, it is)  

You are acting like the idea that this is academic is true!  And, you apparently don't see that it is equally frustrating to others when you do that, and not recognize that there are real, non-academic, people impacted by the issue. 

In order for this to go anywhere, we likely need two things:

1) Those who are asking for authors to care about appropriation have to understand that they are asking for people to do significant work they haven't had to do in the past.   It is also work that says, in effect, that in the past... they were doing something wrong, were acting unethically.  That is a hard pill to swallow, and most folks push back on the implied accusation.

2) Those who are pushing back on the idea of appropriation have to understand that real (non-academic) people get harmed by insensitive use, and just letting that happen is hard to swallow.

Lacking these two points, there is little sense to continuing.  I daresay that explicit statements recognizing these might go a long way in helping us recognize that this is difficult for both sides.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

Umbran said:


> Ah, but is not the assertion that it is "an academic concept that is subject to debate"... similarly claiming a truth?
> 
> (Hint - yes, it is)
> 
> ...




I don’t think this is going to happen. Essentially this is still demanding people accept the ideas behind cultural appropriation, while just acknowledging it isn’t easy. But the end result is still the same. The problems people see with the CA position still present. It is a problem of people not agreeing on key assumptions, but also finding the development of this trend morally bad.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t think this is going to happen. Essentially this is still demanding people accept the ideas behind cultural appropriation, while just acknowledging it isn’t easy. But the end result is still the same. The problems people see with the CA position still present. It is a problem of people not agreeing on key assumptions, but also finding the development of this trend morally bad.




Of course accepting cultural appropriation isn't easy, especially if you (general you) have been the beneficiary of it and/or have never been harmed by it.  But I reject this continued notion from you (and a few others) that it's just a concept up for debate where people can't agree on assumptions.  here is the definition:

"...cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or equal cultural exchange in that this appropriation is a form of colonialism: cultural elements are *copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture*, and these elements are *used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture* "

What assumptions are there that are up for disagreement?  Can you think of any examples that have happened in the past or are happening today that fit that definition?  If so, then congratulations!  We all agree that it's a thing, and what that thing is.

If not, then what are you disagreeing with?  That that's not the definition of what cultural appropriation is? (and if so, what IS the definition then, if not that?).  Or are you disagreeing that the actions described in that definition have occurred?

Because remember, the argument over the past couple days isn't on where a specific line of what is or isn't cultural appropriation is, it's been on whether cultural appropriation is even a thing or not, with some arguing that it isn't.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 24, 2019)

The argument is over whether the term is useful and whether or not it describes something that is bad or not.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> So going back to the OP!
> 
> _My question is, in the context of RPGs, where do you really find someone like that? Has anyone else used a resource like that, or what other ways have you tried to keep from engaging in cultural appropriation? _
> 
> ...




This is good advice, and what I’d like to add is that, it is much easier to avoid the hurt feelings and difficulty post publication, if you expose the work to potentially affected people who volunteer to read it and see if their relevant perspective finds points of offense that will cause that backlash..._before _publishing. 

The point of sensitivity readers is to put the work through that process before it is finished, so that you can iterate and finally put out a work that doesn’t bring that backlash onto you.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> The argument is over whether the term is useful and whether or not it describes something that is bad or not.




You think this:

"cultural elements are *copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture*, and these elements are *used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture"*

is even up for debate on whether or not it's bad?  Wow...


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 24, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Umbran (Sep 24, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don’t think this is going to happen.




Then, I suggest you just stop.  Not as a punitive, moderator-order thing, but as a, "there is no practical benefit to banging your head against a wall," thing.  

I then ask you, and others who deny that cultural appropriation is a thing, to stop, because, to be honest, the OP asked a basic question - how to be more sensitive to the needs of others.  Yours... is a non-answer to that question.  

If you have that much of an issue with the idea of cultural appropriation... that's an issue for another website.  We are here to talk about games - in this thread, how to write game material in ways that are inclusive, but not appropriative.  If you aren't down for that discussion, go find a discussion that you're actually interested in engaging with.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2019)

I had to step back for a day to compose some responses to a series of replies Bedrockgames made to some of my replies, yada, yada, yada...

At this point, not gonna post them.  There’s enough warm water in the Gulf of Mexico to feed this particular storm for a while.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 24, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> You think this:
> 
> "cultural elements are *copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture*, and these elements are *used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture"*
> 
> is even up for debate on whether or not it's harmful?  Wow...



Small hint, it isn't. Its a natural process that happens when different cultures interact with each other and has been going on since millenia.
And for many people who are affected by this it is not a problem.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Derren said:


> Small hint, it isn't. Its a natural process that happens when different cultures interact with each other and has been going on since millenia.
> And for many people who are affected by this it is not a problem.




Indians, Africans, Islanders, etc who fell under the rule of colonial Britain, and Native Americans who suffered genocide under the American government might disagree with your argument that that was a "natural process"... 

Do you know what else has been going on for millennia when cultures interact and one take control over the other?  Slavery.  Does that mean that slavery isn't a bad thing?  Or it's no big deal because it's been a "natural process over millennia"?

Also, I don't know why you're sticking to this logic of "I can find a Native American who doesn't have a problem with the Washington Redskins, so therefore it's not racist to Native Americans."  It's not a good look, man.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I think that's a great idea for larger companies, WoTC, for example.
> 
> But it's harder for most TTRPGs, where the margins are small, there's a lot of DIY and indie and smaller publishers and self-publishers (DMs Guild, etc.).
> 
> But that's why we have the internet, right? Everyone has a platform that allows them, if they want, to send out early and pre-publication versions of their material and get some feedback.



Well that’s exactly it, we all have the internet. And there are people who will be happy to volunteer for this work, or work for very small pay, because they know that the indie creator has little resource to work with. 

That’s also why I said in my own earlier advice drawn from conversations with various creators and critics of color that if you hire artists or an editor, try to prioritize artists and editors that can give a very different base perspective from your own on the work itself. 

Being indie doesn’t mean you can’t get a sensitivity reader before publication. Even 10 years ago it probably did, but not anymore. 

It’s worthwhile to try.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

FWIW, I do appreciate the feedback in this thread that was helpful.  Especially the person who offered the Writing with Color blog; that was super helpful and I'll have a lot of value from that.


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Indians, Africans, Islanders, etc who fell under the rule of colonial Britain, and Native Americans who suffered genocide under the American government might disagree with your argument that that was a "natural process"...
> 
> Do you know what else has been going on for millennia when cultures interact and one take control over the other?  Slavery.  Does that mean that slavery isn't a bad thing?  Or it's no big deal because it's been a "natural process over millennia"?
> 
> Also, I don't know why you're sticking to this logic of "I can find a Native American who doesn't have a problem with the Washington Redskins, so therefore it's not racist to Native Americans."  It's not a good look, man.



You really need to broaden your horizon.
What you call appropation happens everywhere. There are several cultures in Europe which get appropiated and will likely die out in the next few decades or become some mangled mascot culture like what you complain about (bavarian comes to mind).
It happens in Europe, in Asia, Africa and also America no matter the skin colours involved. But most of the time no one complains because it is a natural process. Cultures have taken over things from others for millenia. Sometimes that was because of war and conquest including all the misery that causes, sometimes it was because of extensive trade which brought over new ideas which were then appropriated and sometimes just living close together resulted in a new culture being created by combining two or more existing ones.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> As far as my use of white privilege, that's not a racist term either.  I've actually given corporate presentations on this topic; it's something I feel I'm pretty well researched on.  It's not a racist term, but also an actual thing we can observe.  It's not just the big things, but also the little things like:
> 
> 
> being assured that whenever you turn on the TV or open a paper, you're going to see people who look just like you
> ...



Ugh, so much etc. etc.

Anyway...a thought popped up in my head.  It occurred to me that some game books printed in the late 1980s & early 1990s had disclaimers in them that directly addressed the issues that had been raised during the Satanic Panic.

In addition to the proactive measures discussed at various points in this thread, a similar disclaimer or note from the author could be used to defuse some of the potential negative backlash.  Like those disclaimers of last century, remind the reader that this is a work of fiction, note some of the steps you took to avoid offense, and say that any errors and offenses were unintentional.  

As noted before, this won’t stop someone whose antenna on such matters is boosted to the max, but the average reader will know you at least tried to be respectful.  And that means that- even if you did still manage to step in it- most people contacting you about it will initiate said discussion with a different mindset.


----------



## Superbeast20 (Sep 24, 2019)

I know this is a bit of a hot thread but I thought I would offer a different perspective on it.

I once heard someone say that historically cultural appropriation is the first step toward peace between two different groups.

They were saying that when two different groups met they would almost always go to war with each other, each trying to gain advantage over the other.  But as time passed each group is exposed to the culture of the other and eventually they notice all the cool cultural stuff the other one has and starts to desire it.  This eventually leads to people not wanting to wage war on the other because then how would they get the cool stuff?

For example:  Not long ago America and Japan had a hardcore antagonistic relationship.  Both sides did some absolutely awful stuff to each other.  But now and days the idea of fighting with Japan is absurd to Americans. They make all of our anime.  Anime, an idea they got from watching animations produced from America like Walt Disney.  (The WW2 Emperor of Japan is rumored to have been buried with a Mickey Mouse watch)


----------



## Gradine (Sep 24, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> Of course! Not sure why you'd think I implied otherwise?
> 
> What I mean by "Academic Multiculturalism" is a particular school of thought promulgated in universities that gives rise to such concepts as "cultural appropriation." A lot of important, good stuff - but the problem is that there isn't a lot of openness or flexibility of thinking; they thump your proverbial bible on the table. They tend not to take too kindly to any kind of questioning, or diversity of thinking -- which, of course, is counter to the whole point of higher education.




That's a rather biased and uncharitable view of what is actually a fairly diverse field in both theory and practice. The fact that it impacts already marginalized folks can lead some people to dig in to their prescribed ideologies, but for the most part the field is engaged in very healthy debate along any number of issues. 

What academics in the field don't tend to take too kindly to is folks who question the underlying basis of the field itself, of which there is plenty and of whose opinions on the subject are demonstrably not valid.



Mercurius said:


> I'm guessing that some here wouldn't take too kindly to Dave Chappelle's latest Netflix special.




Well, I'm trans, so you can probably guess where I stand on that.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Superbeast20 said:


> I know this is a bit of a hot thread but I thought I would offer a different perspective on it.
> 
> I once heard someone say that historically cultural appropriation is the first step toward peace between two different groups.
> 
> ...




that's the difference between cultural exchange, and cultural appropriation.  The latter is taking someone else's culture typically against the desires of the minority culture.


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> that's the difference between cultural exchange, and cultural appropriation.  The latter is taking someone else's culture typically against the desires of the minority culture.



And you know the will of the minority culture how?


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Gradine said:


> Well, I'm trans, so you can probably guess where I stand on that.




I'm a cis whtie guy, but my son is interracial (black) and I have many close friends who are LGBTQ, and I'm pretty active in equal rights (a member of my local PRIDE, active in parades and demonstrations, etc).  So I will be the first to admit my biases and why I may have reacted like I have.  Why?  Because many of the arguments presented here ring almost exactly word for word of those used who are anti-trans (not accusing anyone here of being that, only pointing out the parallels of the arguments).  I.e., "trans/gender fluidity is only a made up concept no one agrees on" despite the actual overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  Or the unaffected majority denying the experiences of the impacted minority.  Or "calling someone 'they' is just a recent thing that a tiny minority wants to impose on the majority and isn't a real thing, so I should be able to call someone what I want".  I'm sure I'm probably preaching to the choir here.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2019)

Derren said:


> And you know the will of the minority culture how?



No culture- majority or minority- is monolith.

But you can be sure that if _someone_ is raising an issue, someone else is silently nodding in agreement.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Derren said:


> And you know the will of the minority culture how?



Because I listen to their objections.  Seriously, it's not that hard.  You should try it sometime.

Either way, are you don't threadcapping in my thread?  Or no?


----------



## Superbeast20 (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> that's the difference between cultural exchange, and cultural appropriation.  The latter is taking someone else's culture typically against the desires of the minority culture.




I see what you mean, but how can anyone tell those apart?

Like in the example, no one gave the Japanese approval to get interested in animation.  And America didn't get approval to like anime.

I suppose it could be said that its an exchange as neither of them complained about the other liking it.  But what if one of them had?  Should the other have stopped?  Or tried to interpret the art in a way the other deemed appropriate?  It really seems a murky issue when it gets down to intentions and interpretations.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Superbeast20 said:


> I see what you mean, but how can anyone tell those apart?
> 
> Like in the example, no one gave the Japanese approval to get interested in animation.  And America didn't get approval to like anime.
> 
> I suppose it could be said that its an exchange as neither of them complained about the other liking it.  But what if one of them had?  Should the other have stopped?  Or tried to interpret the art in a way the other deemed appropriate?  It really seems a murky issue when it gets down to intentions and interpretations.




The key is to see the reactions of the people being affected by it.  It's their culture.  If you're getting a substantive feedback that is negative, chances are it's appropriation as opposed to exchange.  Also, this requires actually listening to them and giving them a platform.  For Native Americans, we (as a society) didn't give them a platform, so no one heard them complain.  It wasn't in the news, it wasn't reported, their complaints fell on deaf ears from the government, the government actively suppressed them, etc.  So many people assumed that because they didn't see it or hear their protests against it, that it wasn't a big deal to appropriate Native traditions.


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> The key is to see the reactions of the people being affected by it.  It's their culture.  If you're getting a substantive feedback that is negative, chances are it's appropriation as opposed to exchange.  Also, this requires actually listening to them and giving them a platform.  For Native Americans, we (as a society) didn't give them a platform, so no one heard them complain.  It wasn't in the news, it wasn't reported, their complaints fell on deaf ears from the government, the government actively suppressed them, etc.  So many people assumed that because they didn't see it or hear their protests against it, that they were OK with it.



And again you pretend that you speak for or at least with a whole culture. But in truth you only speak to a small circle of like minded people and confuse their opinion with the opinion of everyone. You probably can't even define who belongs to the culture you claim to protect, let alone have an accurate idea what the majority of those people want.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

It takes a special kind of "logic" to interpret this:

"Listen to the people being affected."

as

"You act like you're speaking for an entire culture."


I mean, it's _literally _the opposite of what I'm advocating.  I'm not saying listen _me_, I'm saying listen to _them_.


----------



## Derren (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> It takes a special kind of "logic" to interpret this:
> 
> "Listen to the people being affected."
> 
> ...



It would help your understanding if you quoted the whole post. Of course then you would have to answer to things I actually said and don't get to choose.


----------



## Superbeast20 (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> The key is to see the reactions of the people being affected by it.  It's their culture.  If you're getting a substantive feedback that is negative, chances are it's appropriation as opposed to exchange.  Also, this requires actually listening to them and giving them a platform.  For Native Americans, we (as a society) didn't give them a platform, so no one heard them complain.  It wasn't in the news, it wasn't reported, their complaints fell on deaf ears from the government, the government actively suppressed them, etc.  So many people assumed that because they didn't see it or hear their protests against it, that it wasn't a big deal to appropriate Native traditions.




I can see what you mean by that.  But like you said its a point of *substantive *negative feedback.

Like you mention sometimes those voices are ignored, but the opposite can also be true.  And a few voices can be amplified (especially with the internet ).

How can an individual know the truth of it?

Does the one complaining represent a _substantive _majority or are they just an individual that is upset?

Especially now and days when the only voices that keep speaking about such things are usually the extreme views that out last everyone one else.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 24, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> In addition to the proactive measures discussed at various points in this thread, a similar disclaimer or note from the author could be used to defuse some of the potential negative backlash.  Like those disclaimers of last century, remind the reader that this is a work of fiction, note some of the steps you took to avoid offense, and say that any errors and offenses were unintentional.




I've seen this done before, and I think it's effective.

The Assassins Creed games had a disclaimer like you are advocating for.  Considering the content of those games, I think it worked pretty well. YMMV.  Turner Classic Movies has also made similar notes about racial issues before showing old movies, and the context that the content is being viewed in.  I think I also have a DVD of old Looney Tunes cartoons that has a similar disclaimer (some of the early ones were pretty racist).  And I have a vague memory of something like this popping up in the credits or commercials for the The Real Adventures of Johnny Quest, which would have to date back to the late 90s for me to see it on TV.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Superbeast20 said:


> I can see what you mean by that.  But like you said its a point of *substantive *negative feedback.
> 
> Like you mention sometimes those voices are ignored, but the opposite can also be true.  And a few voices can be amplified (especially with the internet ).
> 
> How can an individual know the truth of it?




This is true.  Which is why, IMO, the onus is on the potential offender to do due diligence and be proactive to see if it's just one voice being amplified, or a bigger issue that you (general you) might not be aware of.  It's why me (writer/designer who is the potential offender) creates a thread like this in the first place.  To do additional due diligence


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 24, 2019)

Why do some keep acting like we're arguing about whether to write up anti-appropriation laws, or something? 

We are literally just asking folks to seek out and listen to marginalised voices before using elements of their culture as a prop, costume, or "muse" for creative endeavors. At no point is the "don't appropriate" side of the "debate" saying, "never use stuff from other cultures". That is 100% something made up by people who don't want to be asked to think about appropriation.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 24, 2019)

Gradine said:


> That's a rather biased and uncharitable view of what is actually a fairly diverse field in both theory and practice. The fact that it impacts already marginalized folks can lead some people to dig in to their prescribed ideologies, but for the most part the field is engaged in very healthy debate along any number of issues.
> 
> What academics in the field don't tend to take too kindly to is folks who question the underlying basis of the field itself, of which there is plenty and of whose opinions on the subject are demonstrably not valid.




I think I said that there are good things happening, but I also see a lot of bad - particularly in its divisiveness and finger-pointing at certain demographics, as well as insularity and inability to be self-critical. I feel that, as a general rule, anything that tribalizes and separates often does more harm than good. We should be looking for ways to bring us together to recognize our shared humanity, not further divide.

I think also you diminish the degree of entrenchment, and how the rigidity of a certain ideological outlook has spread outward...as evinced by some of the participants in this thread, who are--as one poster put it--thumping the bible down and saying, "this is how it is - no questions or variances in perspective allowed." When a movement or ideology doesn't question itself, isn't self-critical, it risks becoming cultish.

I don't see why it is a problem to question underlying assumptions. Certainly there are certain phenomena that are unquestionable. But the way we interpret that phenomena? The frameworks and concepts? Certainly those shouldn't be inviolable. 



Gradine said:


> Well, I'm trans, so you can probably guess where I stand on that.




Not necessarily. I wouldn't assume you reacted a certain way just because you're trans. This is part of the problem, I think: the assumption that everyone of a certain demographic must or will have the same reaction, that there is a "proper amount of offense" one should take, depending upon one's intersectional profile. We're all much more variable and diverse than that.

If you didn't already, you might want to watch the "hidden" epilogue at the end of the special. He shares an interaction he had with a trans person who actually loved his standup and thanked him for normalizing transgender people by telling jokes about them. I'm not saying this is the right way to look at it, or that you should look at it this way, but it is the way that at least one transgender looked at his standup.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> FWIW, I do appreciate the feedback in this thread that was helpful.  Especially the person who offered the Writing with Color blog; that was super helpful and I'll have a lot of value from that.




I've bookmarked that one as I think I'll be going back to it again and again.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 24, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why do some keep acting like we're arguing about whether to write up anti-appropriation laws, or something?
> 
> We are literally just asking folks to seek out and listen to marginalised voices before using elements of their culture as a prop, costume, or "muse" for creative endeavors. At no point is the "don't appropriate" side of the "debate" saying, "never use stuff from other cultures". That is 100% something made up by people who don't want to be asked to think about appropriation.




My point has mostly been that there are different ways to approach this issue, that it doesn't have to be (solely) through the lens of "cultural appropriation." That there are ways to be sensitive and respectful without, say, hiring a "sensitivity consultant," or whatever it is called. 

In other words, if the underlying goal is to not negatively impact others in a significant way, there are different ways to accomplish this. And further, that there are some real problems around such concepts as cultural appropriation that should be discussed, that shouldn't be swept under the carpet - such as the possible censoring and limitation of artistic expression.

I also do feel that we've veered into rather tricky waters in which the power of public opinion has become so great, that one single person yells "fire!" and everyone looks and assumes its a fire. Maybe there's no fire? Or maybe it is good to recognize that there's a difference between a match and a flamethrower? 

What concerns me is the almost fundamentalist attitude that often arises around such conceptual frameworks, that often leads to punitive action, without any sense of nuance or distinction. I have no problem with people being offended (even if I sometimes might question why or the degree to which they are offended), but what concerns me is when offense leads to punitive or harmful action. It seems that quite frequently things go overboard, whether it is a relatively mild "I don't like or understand your thoughts, so will put you on ignore," to "you're de-platformed" to "we're going to destroy your career." Sometimes the punishment far outweighs the crime....and sometimes the crime isn't really a crime, just a different way of thinking.


----------



## Gradine (Sep 24, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> I think I said that there are good things happening, but I also see a lot of bad - particularly in its divisiveness and finger-pointing at certain demographics, as well as insularity and inability to be self-critical. I feel that, as a general rule, anything that tribalizes and separates often does more harm than good. We should be looking for ways to bring us together to recognize our shared humanity, not further divide.




That's one opinion. For many, culture and "tribe" are sources of healing, inspiration, strength. This tends to be much more common in marginalized and oppressed groups. Culture can provide a useful refuge from such marginalization and oppression.



> I think also you diminish the degree of entrenchment, and how the rigidity of a certain ideological outlook has spread outward...as evinced by some of the participants in this thread, who are--as one poster put it--thumping the bible down and saying, "this is how it is - no questions or variances in perspective allowed." When a movement or ideology doesn't question itself, isn't self-critical, it risks becoming cultish.




In fairness, not every poster in this thread is an academic in a field related or adjacent to race, gender, sexuality, etc. Some perspectives are born out of personal experiences (either their own or those who are close enough to them to have shared their own perspectives). I'll make the point: these perspectives are no less valid, just less likely to be self-critical. As human beings we are cursed with a mind that seeks answers, and that drives us to universalize our own personal perspectives. We're all, in certain ways, guilty of this.



> I don't see why it is a problem to question underlying assumptions. Certainly there are certain phenomena that are unquestionable. But the way we interpret that phenomena? The frameworks and concepts? Certainly those shouldn't be inviolable.




Of course not. I'm not talking about questioning the way we engage in theory or practice; these conversations happen all of the time within the field. I'm talking about the people who argue that the field should not exist at all. The people who cheer when politicians make a big show of removing cultural curriculum from schools or taking away funding to universities that study culture, gender, and/or sexuality. You'll see the greatest entrenchment there, and not without good reason, in my not so humble opinion.




> If you didn't already, you might want to watch the "hidden" epilogue at the end of the special. He shares an interaction he had with a trans person who actually loved his standup and thanked him for normalizing transgender people by telling jokes about them. I'm not saying this is the right way to look at it, or that you should look at it this way, but it is the way that at least one transgender looked at his standup.




Hey, that's great for that person. There's also a lot of internalized transphobia within the community; I'm not saying that's the reason this individual had this perspective; that's not a terribly unusual perspective to take on comedy and particularly "punching down", as it were. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't happen to like "jokes" that deny my identity or ridicule my existence. I get enough of that crap from people who don't use "comedy" as a shield to pretend that they're actually doing me a favor.


----------



## Kaodi (Sep 24, 2019)

Over and over I get the sense that some people suffer from myopia based on their own circumstances. The world is bigger than the context you find yourself in, and any good argument must be applicable outside of that context. Like when someone says "minority cultures"  - that is not doing half as much work as you think. It works for indigenous peoples but it is nearly useless when applied to Desi or Chinese cultures whose overarching ethnic grouping is as bigger or bigger than white people. And you can still appropriate from those latter, extremely populous peoples.

People never talk about "American privilege" but I would say it definitely exists, and follows similar patterns to some things ascribed to "white privilege" - assuming you are the default, assuming that your experience is universal, et cetera, et cetera. Universal arguments are possible, and desirable, but you will not happen upon them if you never think about whether your premises hold true outside of your own context.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 24, 2019)

Kaodi said:


> Over and over I get the sense that some people suffer from myopia based on their own circumstances. The world is bigger than the context you find yourself in, and any good argument must be applicable outside of that context. Like when someone says "minority cultures"  - that is not doing half as much work as you think. It works for indigenous peoples but it is nearly useless when applied to Desi or Chinese cultures whose overarching ethnic grouping is as bigger or bigger than white people. And you can still appropriate from those latter, extremely populous peoples.
> 
> People never talk about "American privilege" but I would say it definitely exists, and follows similar patterns to some things ascribed to "white privilege" - assuming you are the default, assuming that your experience is universal, et cetera, et cetera. Universal arguments are possible, and desirable, but you will not happen upon them if you never think about whether your premises hold true outside of your own context.




As someone who has spent years living in various countries overseas, I totally get how American privilege is a thing.  For example, whenever an American goes to a different country for vacation or whatever, we expect at least some people there to speak English to communicate with us.  We hardly ever try to learn their language.  However, when a foreign visitor comes to the US, we also expect them to speak English.


----------



## Superbeast20 (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> This is true.  Which is why, IMO, the onus is on the potential offender to do due diligence and be proactive to see if it's just one voice being amplified, or a bigger issue that you (general you) might not be aware of.  It's why me (writer/designer who is the potential offender) creates a thread like this in the first place.  To do additional due diligence




That is a fair point, and is the reason for this thread in the first place.

I fear that the intensity of the accusation against potential offenders is having an undesired effect.

I myself love to write as well, and there is a lot of work that you have to do and balance.  Adding onto that the risk of being accused of cultural appropriation?  Despite whatever your intentions?  Have to say that is not something I am interested in adding to my workload all while I am trying to learn to write.

Take this thread as an example of that.  You wanted to write and examine a culture not your own so you posted about it.  And this thread blew up.  Been going for 3-4 days right?  How much effort and time have you put into just reading and responding to this forum?  Not to mention the emotional drain that such debates and arguments cause.

Writers can see that and many will just say its not worth trying to write about other cultures if all they seem to get out of it is work and trouble.  Far easier to just write about the world you know about.  Therefore ignoring the cultures that are already under represented.


----------



## lowkey13 (Sep 24, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> As someone who has spent years living in various countries overseas, I totally get how American privilege is a thing.  For example, whenever an American goes to a different country for vacation or whatever, we expect at least some people there to speak English to communicate with us.  We hardly ever try to learn their language.  However, when a foreign visitor comes to the US, we also expect them to speak English.




In my mind I've started using the terms Majority Privilege and In-Power Privilege. This is the first time I've actually used them in a conversation with another human being.

Likewise travelling highlighted the effects of both to me.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Sep 24, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> You know how Americans are, Sacrosanct. They all love to travel abroad, and then they only want to meet other Americans and talk about how hard it is to get a decent hamburger.




The eternal quest to drive cheeseburgers into my gut does not recognize political borders.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 24, 2019)

@Gradine , first of all, thanks for the respectful interaction. I'm glad that we can discuss these things without it having a nasty edge - thus far, at least! 

I have to run off to work, so this response will be brief.



Gradine said:


> That's one opinion. For many, culture and "tribe" are sources of healing, inspiration, strength. This tends to be much more common in marginalized and oppressed groups. Culture can provide a useful refuge from such marginalization and oppression.




I totally get that. I'm talking "both/and." Sure, embrace your tribe, family, group, etc - but we _must _move towards a wider embrace. I rarely use words like "must," but I think it really is that important. We live in a global, multicultural environment. The problem, in my view, isn't being part of and loving your group, it is building walls around it and seeing other groups as the problem. We must find humanity in each other - even when we find the views of another objectionable. I always think of this guy for inspiration. I'm not saying we can all be like that, but certainly a source of inspiration?



Gradine said:


> In fairness, not every poster in this thread is an academic in a field related or adjacent to race, gender, sexuality, etc. Some perspectives are born out of personal experiences (either their own or those who are close enough to them to have shared their own perspectives). I'll make the point: these perspectives are no less valid, just less likely to be self-critical. As human beings we are cursed with a mind that seeks answers, and that drives us to universalize our own personal perspectives. We're all, in certain ways, guilty of this.




Fair enough, and well said. So I'll keep hammering on being more self-critical - questioning one's own assumptions and beliefs, always. Or maybe that is me universalizing my own personal perspective, what I value? Haha.

But the danger is implicit in any ideology. We don't have to look further than major religions, which are almost always founded on a message of peace and love, and the mystical unitive experience of the founder, but then lead to religious wars, persecution, witch-hunting, etc. In other words, maybe most professors at universities have a nuanced, self-critical approach and follow the scientific method, but certainly many of their students and followers don't, as they take these ideas out into the world.



Gradine said:


> Of course not. I'm not talking about questioning the way we engage in theory or practice; these conversations happen all of the time within the field. I'm talking about the people who argue that the field should not exist at all. The people who cheer when politicians make a big show of removing cultural curriculum from schools or taking away funding to universities that study culture, gender, and/or sexuality. You'll see the greatest entrenchment there, and not without good reason, in my not so humble opinion.




You'll find no disagreement with me on this.



Gradine said:


> Hey, that's great for that person. There's also a lot of internalized transphobia within the community; I'm not saying that's the reason this individual had this perspective; that's not a terribly unusual perspective to take on comedy and particularly "punching down", as it were. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't happen to like "jokes" that deny my identity or ridicule my existence. I get enough of that crap from people who don't use "comedy" as a shield to pretend that they're actually doing me a favor.




I hear you (to the degree that I can, not being transgender or having experienced that).

One way of seeing that came to mind in response to the Chappelle thing is that when you're made fun of, you're part of the gang. That's what I think Daphne, the transgender aspiring comedian that Chappelle had that conversation with, was getting at by saying he was normalizing it. I mean, Chappelle makes fun of all kinds of people - including (and perhaps especially) his own demographics. Again, not saying this is the right or only way to look at it, or that Chappelle is justified in his routine, but just pointing out that different perspectives yield different reactions.


----------



## Janx (Sep 24, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> FWIW, I do appreciate the feedback in this thread that was helpful.  Especially the person who offered the Writing with Color blog; that was super helpful and I'll have a lot of value from that.



Glad I could help. Sorry the topic took a sideways turn.  It happens on the writing channels I'm in as well. But if you're patient, you'll see  a nugget of info (like that link) that'll help you.

Which, in reading your posts in here, I can  see you are the parent buying child-rearing books.  You're gonna be fine.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 25, 2019)

So what it all boils down to  is this: if you're going to offend people - which in many forms of creativity can be and sometimes is an intentional goal - make sure you spread the offensiveness around fairly, such that everyone gets an equal share.

Hell, it worked out OK for punk rock...


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Sep 25, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> So what it all boils down to  is this: if you're going to offend people - which in many forms of creativity can be and sometimes is an intentional goal - make sure you spread the offensiveness around fairly, such that everyone gets an equal share.
> 
> Hell, it worked out OK for punk rock...



Or, punch up, which really did work out well for punk rock while punk was still punk.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 25, 2019)

Yeah.

There is definitely a time and place for artists (of any discipline) to offend...and when not to.  The best not only understand this, but also have a refined sense of how to do so constructively.*


* even when being destructive.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 25, 2019)

Or maybe the point of art is not to be confined by any specific set of rules. Art is creative expression - it is constant exploring new territory, and often beyond boundaries.

Further, not all art needs to appeal to everyone. What offends one person won't offend another. Every artist shouldn't need to try to dillute their form of expression to suit every possible person. Maybe the beauty of art is that it exists in diverse forms, and we all get to enjoy what we like. Why bother with stuff you don't like, whether because you don't find it aesthetically pleasing or find it offensive for whatever reason?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> /snip
> 
> {As an aside, when I lived in India for about a year, I was struck by how tourists were more likely to use the Indian names for cities (e.g. Mumbai), while most Indians used the colonial English names (e.g. Bombay). Similarly, I have found that it is generally white liberals who prefer the term "Native American" while many Native Americans/American Indians call themselves "Indians." Similarly with "African American" vs. "Black." The point being, everyone is different. There's no one-sized fits all way to refer to anyone, whether as a group or as an individual. Sometimes--often, even--the most offended parties are not even those who are being appropriated or refered to}
> /snip"




Wow. Just wow.  That's unbelievably offensive, as well as dismissive all wrapped up in one neat package.  There just aren't any words.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 25, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Wow. Just wow.  That's unbelievably offensive, as well as dismissive all wrapped up in one neat package.  There just aren't any words.




Huh? How so?


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2019)

Derren said:


> Its established by a very specific circle of people who demand that it is true as otherwise no one would pay attention to them.
> Too bad that just because you demand that something is true doesn't make it so. Notice how you didn't respond to any to the points in my last post? Or how your last post started with a combat term "white colonialism" in an effort to silence everyone who thinks differently as this term leaves no room for any debate or discussion? And here you are continuing to use racist combat terms with "white privilege".
> 
> My points still stand. Feel free to respond to them constructively. Just don't bother with combat terms and "whites are bad" rethoric.
> As for your "problem", I have written the solution in my last posts. Ignore cultural appropation as its only a concern for a small circle of people who want it to be a problem. And if those are your target group don't use non european cultures (and probably be accused of not being inclusive enough by the same people who errect barriers around cultures so that no one can use foreign ones, but that is a different can of worms).




I stand corrected.  I thought that the other post was dismissive, but this?  This right here takes the cake.  Apparently not only is cultural appropriation not important enough to merit any attention, but, it's only getting attention because of "a specific circle of people" (must make your blood boil that you have to dance around certain epithets there @Derren) are pushing an agenda.  Good grief.  

Yes, this is the reason that climate change got ignored for forty years.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2019)

Mercurius said:


> Huh? How so?




Seriously?

You're basically saying that it's the "white liberals" who are pushing this and that it's a made up issue.  Completely dismissing the harm and history of the issue and then pretending that it's only some ivory tower "liberal agenda" thing.  That "many" First Nations people insist on calling themselves "Indian" (love to see some actual facts backing that one up rather than whatever notion you pulled out of your sphincter) instead of First Nations or Native American.  So on and so forth.  

Good grief, it's the standard "this is a non-issue" conservative talking point brief.  Same ludicrous crap that's been spouted off on EVERY SINGLE SOCIAL ISSUE for the past century.

Replace "Native American" with ANY other minority in American history on any issue, and you can see your words repeated verbatim.  It wasn't true when they wanted to prevent women from voting.  It wasn't true when they wanted to stop blacks from going to schools with whites.  It's NEVER been true.

Doesn't stop folks from repeating it every single time though.

You'd think people would get tired of being on the wrong side of history EVERY SINGLE TIME.


----------



## Mercurius (Sep 25, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Seriously?
> 
> You're basically saying that it's the "white liberals" who are pushing this and that it's a made up issue.  Completely dismissing the harm and history of the issue and then pretending that it's only some ivory tower "liberal agenda" thing.  That "many" First Nations people insist on calling themselves "Indian" (love to see some actual facts backing that one up rather than whatever notion you pulled out of your sphincter) instead of First Nations or Native American.  So on and so forth.
> 
> ...




OK, I see now. You twisted just about everything I said, that I don't know where to start, or if I should even bother. I could literally go through every single sentence and try to re-clarify what I actually said and meant, but maybe it is easier to just say that your outrage is based upon projection, misunderstanding, and mischaracterization. You consistently took a partially true version of what I actually said, then twisted it into the worst possible caricature to feed your outrage.

Know that what you're upset about is not what I actually said or meant. Feel better?

EDIT: A bit more. I'll tease out the Native American thing, because that seemed to especially get you riled. I didn't pull that out of my sphincter - a Native American acquaintance said that to me some years ago. Maybe he lied, who knows, but I've heard similar things multiple times. I can't remember the exact word phrasing, but I specifically said "many" because it doesn't give a sense of how many, although he might have said "most." If you want to take this up with him, I can see if I can find his contact info.

But I think you're missing the crucial point that I made, that you either bypassed or didn't see: There is no one-sized fits all. Everyone is different - including members of marginalized groups. If anything, it might be a tad offensive to assume that all members of X group are in agreement about such things. Some really don't care, at least not about the more trivial stuff. 

In some cases, yes, it is white liberals and academics who care more about specific words than the actual people they are referring to. I tend to ask if I'm not sure.  As a general rule, people care more about being treated as actual human beings, than the exact right word for the group you categorize them as.


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2019)

Mercurious said:
			
		

> Sometimes--often, even--the most offended parties are not even those who are being appropriated or refered to




There's another way to understand this sentence?  There's some hidden meaning here that I'm missing?  That "often" the most offended parties aren't even those who are being appropriated?  

Yeah, I don't think so.  This is pretty much the standard party line when talking about any social issue.  

Like I said, don't you get tired of being on the wrong side of every social issue for the past century?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Or, punch up, which really did work out well for punk rock while punk was still punk.




Was going against disco really punching up? 

I think people have to be free to critique and ridicule the ridiculous, wherever it comes from (and artists especially need to preserve this right). I think generally there is going to be more of a need to 'punch up' (really don't like that phrase myself), but 'punching down' is also going to be necessary from time to time.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Lanefan said:


> So what it all boils down to  is this: if you're going to offend people - which in many forms of creativity can be and sometimes is an intentional goal - make sure you spread the offensiveness around fairly, such that everyone gets an equal share.




I don't think that is the point of criticisms of the cultural appropriation concept. I am not interested in offending people. I am just interested in continuing to allow for a free exchange of culture and increased empathy and traffic between culture. My impression of what CA has achieved in the past three or so years, is it has hardened lines and created a 'stay in your lane' mentality. I think what positive effect it has is minimal compared to the damage it is doing. And I think there are much more tangible ways to help the groups that proponents of CA say they want to help. And often time it treats very powerful and influential cultures, like China and Japan for example, as somehow being weak cultures who need protecting (if you talk to people from these places you usually hear a very different response to cultural appropriation concerns than you would hear from people in the states). Heck, Japan was a colonialist power itself.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Hussar said:


> There's another way to understand this sentence?  There's some hidden meaning here that I'm missing?  That "often" the most offended parties aren't even those who are being appropriated?
> 
> Yeah, I don't think so.  This is pretty much the standard party line when talking about any social issue.
> 
> Like I said, don't you get tired of being on the wrong side of every social issue for the past century?




I don't see how this is the same as being on the wrong side of history. Who and what people actually feel about the idea of cultural appropriation is an important question in this. It would matter if say 90% of Native Americans cared about it, versus if only 10% cared about it. I don't know the answer to that. I've looked up polls and haven't been able to find much that is useful. I have seen a lot of anecdotal reporting. But that isn't as reliable as a poll (maybe there are polls out there and I just don't know what they are). But I think Mercurius is reporting something a lot of people experience: they see a lot more handwringing about cultural appropriation from educated people who live in suburban communities and are often white, but don't experience nearly as much when they go into the communities in question. This is an experience I've had. I don't have as much direct experience with native americans because of where I live, but I have experience with other groups and live in a neighborhood that is quite diverse with a lot of people from other countries who speak different languages. Again, I don't know what the actual numbers are going to be if we poll everyone on the topics in this thread and break it down by different demographic groups, but I suspect what you would see is a lot more concern about CA among: the highly educated, the young, and the upper middle class. My experience has also been a lot of this is generational. I find people my age do tend to roll their eyes at the notion of cultural appropriation (whether they are white, black, asian, etc). But people in the generation or so below me, tend to take the concept a lot more seriously. Again, this is just my experience. I won't pretend to know the answers. But I do think the answers to these questions would shed a lot of light on the topic. 

Keep in mind, just because someone cares about the history of things like slavery, Jim Crow and other forms of oppression that minorities have been subjected to, that doesn't automatically mean they will also consider cultural appropriation a valid concern. I think you are drawing a straight line between the two, assuming that someone being skeptical of CA and being skeptical of where it is really coming from, is also going to bee dismissive of these other concerns. Which just isn't the case. I think people are also assuming if you don't buy into CA, you are a conservative, which is also not true (I am definitely not a conservative). I have watched over the past years as the extremes have become more extreme. But I haven't changed my position on any political issue. I still vote for democrats, still believe in social programs, still believe in racial equality, and want to see more economic equality in the country. I just don't think fretting over cultural appropriation gets us to any of that. If anything I think it makes it harder because it hardens the lines between different groups of people. It is going to be very hard to get everyday people to empathize more with people outside their own culture, if they are afraid of crossing the boundary because they might get labeled an appropriator (and being labeled that can have a very negative impact on a person's life and even their livelihood).


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> Keep in mind, just because someone cares about the history of things like slavery, Jim Crow and other forms of oppression that minorities have been subjected to, that doesn't automatically mean they will also consider cultural appropriation a valid concern. I think you are drawing a straight line between the two, assuming that someone being skeptical of CA and being skeptical of where it is really coming from, is also going to bee dismissive of these other concerns. Which just isn't the case. I think people are also assuming if you don't buy into CA, you are a conservative, which is also not true (I am definitely not a conservative). I have watched over the past years as the extremes have become more extreme. But I haven't changed my position on any political issue. I still vote for democrats, still believe in social programs, still believe in racial equality, and want to see more economic equality in the country. I just don't think fretting over cultural appropriation gets us to any of that. If anything I think it makes it harder because it hardens the lines between different groups of people. It is going to be very hard to get everyday people to empathize more with people outside their own culture, if they are afraid of crossing the boundary because they might get labeled an appropriator (and being labeled that can have a very negative impact on a person's life and even their livelihood).




No, the straight line is not quite what you are looking at.

The straight line is that there are folks who were on the wrong side of history in virtually every single social issue for the past 100 years or so.  Might be different folks on different issues, true, but, there was always someone on the wrong side of every single one of those issues.  And, well, cultural appropriation is no different.  Years from now, when people look back on this, and other social issues, they will see the same thing that we see when we look back at Jim Crow or women's rights or whatever - a segment of the population who was very much on the wrong side of history.

Me, I'm fairly confident that those who deny cultural appropriation exists or that it's limited to ivory tower academics are going to be on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Gradine said:


> That's one opinion. For many, culture and "tribe" are sources of healing, inspiration, strength. This tends to be much more common in marginalized and oppressed groups. Culture can provide a useful refuge from such marginalization and oppression.




My grandfather was Italian and he and his brothers all bought a cluster of four house next to each other after the war. I currently still live in what is left of it surrounded by relatives (one of the houses has been sold). So I totally understand what you are saying here. There is definitely comfort in having a tribe (and where I live in Boston, things can be pretty tribal sometimes). But there is also a dark side to the tribe, and I've seen it here as well in that people don't venture out as much and develop limited views of groups beyond their own at times (and in the worse cases you see it in the form of racial violence). We also have gangs here. And the gangs are usually drawn on racial/ethnic/linguistic lines. That latter one is particularly scary for everyone I think. So I think there is value in having a group that makes you feel more protected. But at a certain point, it can start tilting towards myopathy and even dehumanizing people outside that group. This is why I keep saying CA reminds me a bit of ethnonationalism, because I think it can lead to that kind of thinking. I think a much more free and open line of communication and cultural exchange is important for preventing that. And I think if we start to put too many rules on how that needs to be handled, people freeze up and stop exchanging. My background was more mixed so I crossed those lines a lot. And I think I benefited from it, and I think it made me a more compassionate and empathetic person (even though I am sure many people here, because I've been so adamant in my position, would think otherwise).


----------



## Hussar (Sep 25, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't think that is the point of criticisms of the cultural appropriation concept. I am not interested in offending people. I am just interested in continuing to allow for a free exchange of culture and increased empathy and traffic between culture. My impression of what CA has achieved in the past three or so years, is it has hardened lines and created a 'stay in your lane' mentality. I think what positive effect it has is minimal compared to the damage it is doing. And I think there are much more tangible ways to help the groups that proponents of CA say they want to help. And often time it treats very powerful and influential cultures, like China and Japan for example, as somehow being weak cultures who need protecting (if you talk to people from these places you usually hear a very different response to cultural appropriation concerns than you would hear from people in the states). Heck, Japan was a colonialist power itself.




And, Japan is LOATHED by its neighbours who are currently in the middle of trade wars because of Japan's lack of acknowledgement of it's colonialist past.

I don't think I'd hold up Japan as a particularly good example of social awareness.  Japan's obliviousness has certainly done very, very little to endear itself to its neighbours.  
But, you're also missing the point.  China in particular has been on the short end of the colonial stick for centuries.  I can see why they'd be a bit prickly about it.  Japan, OTOH, appropriates white, western culture for the most part.  They certainly wouldn't be caught dead appropriating southern Asian or African culture due to the incredibly deeply ingrained racism and bigotry in this country.  White, European culture is seen as valuable.  Anything else is not.  

Again, using Japan as an example of social awareness is not really going to win you any points.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Me, I'm fairly confident that those who deny cultural appropriation exists or that it's limited to ivory tower academics are going to be on the wrong side of history.




Maybe you are wrong. We won't really know the answer to that for some time. But I do understand history. And I think people who say this are oversimplifying something that is a lot harder to gauge than they think. What if they look back and say something more like "the idea had a kernel of truth but became more of a moral panic"? I think that is a possibility. An even more likely possibility in my mind, is historians will observe that all this energy was put into protecting something that wasn't a finite resource, when it really could have been better spent tackling the direct issues facing the groups in question. I think another possibility is they look at the overall impact of trying to mitigate cultural appropriation and see it caused more harm than good. You can care about some of the issues that underly CA concerns, and still reject the utility of the concept. 

But not every issue is on the right or wrong side of history. I really think it is doubtful that the cultural appropriation will be viewed by future historians the way we view Slavery or the Holocaust. I think instead they will see it as a curious cultural development, and probably not even feel the need to determine who was on the right side (unless blood is spilled over it, or it ends up solving a major social issue).

I mean not every laudable idea in history ends up on 'the right side of history'. The temperance movement and prohibition at one time seemed laudable. It often invoked the same kind of language being invoked by advocates of stoping CA. But it was a disaster. There are plenty of examples of well intentioned efforts in the past that either missed the real issue or backfired. 

And it isn't always obvious what the right side is (and this situation is definitely not as stark as slavery or Jim Crow).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Hussar said:


> And, Japan is LOATHED by its neighbours who are currently in the middle of trade wars because of Japan's lack of acknowledgement of it's colonialist past.




My point wasn't to defend Japanese colonialism (I am very aware of its history). My point was simply that when people point to problematic things like someone wearing a kimono, it often doesn't make sense because a country like Japan was a colonial power and continues to be a very influential culture.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Hussar said:


> I don't think I'd hold up Japan as a particularly good example of social awareness.  Japan's obliviousness has certainly done very, very little to endear itself to its neighbours.
> But, you're also missing the point.  China in particular has been on the short end of the colonial stick for centuries.  I can see why they'd be a bit prickly about it.  Japan, OTOH, appropriates white, western culture for the most part.  They certainly wouldn't be caught dead appropriating southern Asian or African culture due to the incredibly deeply ingrained racism and bigotry in this country.  White, European culture is seen as valuable.  Anything else is not.




Wasn't holding up Japan as an example of social awareness at all. I was holding it up as an example of how people point to something being cultural appropriation, where it doesn't make sense because the country in question is economically quite powerful. 

My point about China is that it is presently very powerful. I realize it was on the receiving end of colonialism. But it doesn't make sense to treat China like a meek culture when it is growing so economically and politically powerful. And my experience with Chinese people is they don't worry about this sort of issue. In fact, when I have talked to Chinese people I get the sense that there is a lot of hostility there towards western progressives. 

But doesn't your point about Japan just show how CA is misguided? That they a devalue countries they don't appropriate from. People tend to be curious about and friendly towards cultures they appropriate from (in my experience).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Hussar said:


> And, Japan is LOATHED by its neighbours who are currently in the middle of trade wars because of Japan's lack of acknowledgement of it's colonialist past.




I am not even going to comment on trade wars and what the root is. Way above my pay grade.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I had to step back for a day to compose some responses to a series of replies Bedrockgames made to some of my replies, yada, yada, yada...




If my responses bothered you, I do apologize. My aim was to debate you, not upset you.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 25, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> My grandfather was Italian and he and his brothers all bought a cluster of four house next to each other after the war. I currently still live in what is left of it surrounded by relatives (one of the houses has been sold). So I totally understand what you are saying here. There is definitely comfort in having a tribe (and where I live in Boston, things can be pretty tribal sometimes). But there is also a dark side to the tribe, and I've seen it here as well in that people don't venture out as much and develop limited views of groups beyond their own at times (and in the worse cases you see it in the form of racial violence). We also have gangs here.




FYI, but you might want to avoid using terms like "my tribe" to define things that aren't.  Unless you're Jewish and part of the Tribes of Israel, or Native American, that's a term that has been...culturally appropriated.  Most Native Americans I know do not approve of that.  (along with terms like powwoww, or tipi, or 'going off the rez")




Hussar said:


> And, Japan is LOATHED by its neighbours who are currently in the middle of trade wars because of Japan's lack of acknowledgement of it's colonialist past.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, using Japan as an example of social awareness is not really going to win you any points.




I lived in Korea for 4 years.  Yeah, they aren't exactly thrilled with Japan's history of colonialism.




Bedrockgames said:


> My point wasn't to defend Japanese colonialism (I am very aware of its history). My point was simply that when people point to problematic things like someone wearing a kimono, it often doesn't make sense because a country like Japan was a colonial power and continues to be a very influential culture.




Yes, Japan is a  big culture (and so is China).  But they aren't the majority culture _here_, so when someone like Katie Perry dresses up in a kimono and traditional Japanese makeup to sell records, that's still very much cultural appropriation.



Also, re: terms.  There was a survey done in the mid 90s.  Half of Native Americans preferred the term "Native American" or "American Indian".  Half preferred "Indian", and smaller percentages preferred something else.  We generally use the term "Native American" or "American Indian" because "Indian" can cause confusion because you may be talking about people from India.

So no, you're not going to get every member of the community to agree with what they want to be called.  They aren't a hive mind just like white people aren't a hive mind.  That doesn't mean that as a community, that's what they don't want to be called.  Those arguments need to die in fire.   I'm not speaking for myself, I'm speaking for what they said they want. 

Additionally, this hostility towards academia needs to end as well.  Education is a good thing.  It's where experts and people who have studied the actual topic get together to have discussion.  It may not be perfect, but it's exponentially better than a small group of people from rural town X with no college education acting like they know better than people who actually studied the topic.  (I'm from rural town X surrounded by family who didn't go to college, so I know full well).  It's also a common tactic used by people like Rick Santorum to attack higher education as bad, because in order to keep having people vote for him, they need to be kept ignorant of factual information and only spoon fed propaganda.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> FYI, but you might want to avoid using terms like "my tribe" to define things that aren't.  Unless you're Jewish and part of the Tribes of Israel, or Native American, that's a term that has been...culturally appropriated.  Most Native Americans I know do not approve of that.  (along with terms like powwoww, or tipi, or 'going off the rez")




This term was used by a number of other posters before me, and I was responding to its use to refer to people being tribal. I think it was fair. I really don't think using it caused anyone harm.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 25, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> This term was used by a number of other posters before me, and I was responding to its use to refer to people being tribal. I think it was fair. I really don't think using it caused anyone harm.




Well, that's the crux of the whole issue isn't it?  You (general you) not thinking there was any harm in using an aspect of someone else's culture against their wishes and/or even offending them.  And it does cause harm, as I've explained several times upthread as to how and why, and cited articles that also explain why.


----------



## Derren (Sep 25, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, that's the crux of the whole issue isn't it?  You (general you) not thinking there was any harm in using an aspect of someone else's culture against their wishes and/or even offending them.  And it does cause harm, as I've explained several times upthread as to how and why, and cited articles that also explain why.



Rather you claiming that there is harm without any proof of it while pretending that you speak for a culture while ignoring with your limited horizon that the term tribe is a lot more universal and not owned by native americans (african tribes, slavic tribes, etc.)


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 25, 2019)

Derren said:


> Rather you claiming that there is harm without any proof of it while pretending that you speak for a culture while ignoring with your limited horizon that the term tribe is a lot more universal and not owned by native americans (african tribes, slavic tribes, etc.)




How many times do I have to say I'm not speaking for an entire culture, but I'm referencing what _they _are saying themselves before  you stop accusing me of the same lie?  I haven't used my words.  I've been citing _their _words.  I've given proof.  I've cited the direct sources.  More than once.

So why do you keep repeating the same lie?  Serious question?  Do you just not read what I've posted?  Do you have some other end goal?  Are you just intentionally lying?

Once again, these are the word from the actual cultures impacted (articles like these are all over the place, and super easy to find; they are not just one off opinions or anecdotal experiences):

"Native imagery is everywhere in the United States. Our images, symbols, and cultures are used as commodities and novelties. Natives are used as logos, from butter packaging to cigarettes to baking soda to clothing. Natives are used as Halloween costumes. Native tribe names are used by the U.S. military as names for weapons. Native tribe names are used as names for vehicles. Natives are used as mascots for sports teams.

*Racism toward Native people is normalized, so much so that many people do not see it as racism at all. Racist stereotypes of Native people are seemingly ingrained into the psyche of people starting in childhood, some subliminal, some direct*.

*Most of this Native imagery is constructed and controlled by non-Natives.* While there is a constant omnipresence of such imagery, it is severely lacking real Native representation. People see more Native depictions created by non-Natives in media than they do of real Native people. *This is how negative stereotypes and misconceptions are formed. This, whether consciously or not, embeds the notion that Native cultures are here for consumption.* It suggests it is perfectly normal and acceptable to use Natives for products and profit, and to most people, it is — except to the very people being exploited.

We’re told it’s not a big deal, we’re too sensitive, and that we should worry about bigger issues. *What many don’t comprehend is that all of these issues concerning Natives and Native identity actually connect, converge, and come full circle. When we are seen as fictional characters, it dehumanizes us; when we’re not seen as people, the potential for violence toward us increases.* "


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Well, that's the crux of the whole issue isn't it?  You (general you) not thinking there was any harm in using an aspect of someone else's culture against their wishes and/or even offending them.  And it does cause harm, as I've explained several times upthread as to how and why, and cited articles that also explain why.




But this wasn't using an aspect of one culture. Tribal divisions exist in all kinds of groups. Native American tribes are just one kind of tribe. It is a category. It wasn't like I invoked a specific tribe


----------



## Derren (Sep 25, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> How many times do I have to say I'm not speaking for an entire culture, but I'm referencing what _they _are saying themselves before  you stop accusing me of the same lie?  I haven't used my words.  I've been citing _their _words.  I've given proof.  I've cited the direct sources.  More than once.
> 
> So why do you keep repeating the same lie?  Serious question?  Do you just not read what I've posted?  Do you have some other end goal?  Are you just intentionally lying?
> 
> ...



No, you have not spoken with "a culture". That is a lie you repeat over and over again because your entire "Argument" (to be generous) depends on your ability to commune with a social construct. Even worse, you claim to speak with a group of constructs as there is no "native american culture". That is just a collective for several different cultures.

You have spoken with a few people who you consider to be part of a culture (which you likely selected because they support your way of thinking, ignoring all dissenters) and now claim that they speak for everyone and you are the herald of their will. But that is not the case.
If you really want to know what "a culture" thinks you have to define who is all part of that culture and then poll them (and i am sure a large part would vote "don't care"). Unless you do that don't pretend to know what a culture wants and speak for it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Sacrosanct said:


> Also, re: terms.  There was a survey done in the mid 90s.  Half of Native Americans preferred the term "Native American" or "American Indian".  Half preferred "Indian", and smaller percentages preferred something else.  We generally use the term "Native American" or "American Indian" because "Indian" can cause confusion because you may be talking about people from India.




Fair enough, and I have used Native American. I was actually thinking about cultural appropriation, not what people prefer Indian or Native American or Indian American. But if the division is half agree and half disagree with something, I think that shows these kinds of issues are maybe not as cut and dry as you are making them out to be.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Sep 25, 2019)

Bedrockgames said:


> But this wasn't using an aspect of one culture. Tribal divisions exist in all kinds of groups. Native American tribes are just one kind of tribe. It is a category. It wasn't like I invoked a specific tribe




I know there are different kinds of tribes (which is why I referenced the tribes of Israel).  But based on what you wrote, it didn't seem like you were referencing your inclusion of an African tribe.  Or Slavic tribe.  Context is important.  How people are using the terms.  It's like when when white people refer to their coffee as their spirit animal.  They aren't referencing the ancient Celtic ideal of animal totems, they are referencing native beliefs. 

Whereas almost every culture has had what we can call "tribes", those are old cultures that no longer exist.  Native (and African and some others) tribes are a _current _thing that exists now.  And they have a specific meaning, often with a spiritual meaning attached.  So when white people go around calling their friends/neighborhoods/family as "my tribe", that's the literal definition of cultural appropriation.  Again, not according to me, but to the people who actually _are _part of a tribe and are fed up with it.




Derren said:


> No, you have not spoken with "a culture". That is a lie you repeat over and over again because your entire "Argument" (to be generous) depends on your ability to commune with a social construct. Even worse, you claim to speak with a group of constructs as there is no "native american culture". That is just a collective for several different cultures.
> 
> You have spoken with a few people who you deam to be part of a culture (which you likely selected because they support your way of thinking, ignoring all dissenters) and now claim that they speak for everyone and you are the herald of their will. But that is not the case.
> If you really want to know what "a culture" things you have to define who is all part of that culture and then poll them (and i am sure a large part would vote "don't care"). Unless you do that don't pretend to know what a culture wants and speak for it.




I've intentionally left out references to the people I know personally (because that would anecdotal and only carries minimal weight in an academic discussion unless it's also supported by outside views), but all of my sources are from official citations of groups/people I have no association with.  You're lying again by accusing me of selectively choosing only people who support me.   Also threadcapping.  I'm not a mod, but clearly you have no honest agenda here so I'm going to respectively ask you to stop.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Sacrosanct, I used tribe because I was responding to a poster who used that term. It was about tribalism


----------



## Bedrockgames (Sep 25, 2019)

Sacrosanct, I would be curious how other posters on your side feel about that. I think people calling their neighborhood, family, etc, their tribe isn’t something most people would regard as CA or bad. But I do think it is an example of the kind of excess the concept leads to in discussions


----------



## Umbran (Sep 25, 2019)

Hussar said:


> Yes, this is the reason that climate change got ignored for forty years.




*Mod Note:*

And, with this, folks, we are done.  Not that Hussar here was the only offender, but the fact of the matter is that we are now talking politics - so we are done.


----------

