Talk:Cultural appropriation/Archive 1

2005 July 26 thread

Perhaps the minority subcultures in question could lighten up and realize that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Don't hit me :).

--David Battle 19:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some majority cultures could stop pimping/exploiting/cheapening/kitschifying (it ain't a word; but, hey, it works for me)/taking credit for things which are not their own. Don't hit me, 'cuz I'll stomp ya back. :p deeceevoice 07:09, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean like presenting a white guy with dreads as "trustafarian", which I hardly think is NPOV when factually designating him (what other side, you only mention the hardline Rastafarian one), when Rastafarians didn't invent a style that was already present among other peoples, barbarians and civilized alike, for centuries (if not millenia) before (although you might argue that it was never intentional in barbarian classical Europe). Seriously, he could just be a young anarchist; you could be are aware that among a subset of younger anarchists, dreadlocks are fairly common, partially as emulation of rastafarian ideology maybe, but also partially as an intent to be more natural Snapdragonfly

Agree. I have dreadlocks. I didn't _make_ them, they made themselves (I haven't brushed my hair for 5 years). I particularly hate reggae and ska but equally I hate hippies and all that new age mysticism. I don't want to be more natural, but I like the style, beats brushing your hair everyday. You're racist if you think only black people should have dreadlocks or that anyone who has dreadlocks must automatically be "copying" "black" "culture". - FrancisTyers 12:00, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Some forms of cultural appropriation are made by corporations. Companies steal names for products, such as Jeep Grand Cherokee and Pontiac. When someone says Cherokee, or Pontiac, do you think of the Native American nation? Or do you think about the car? The word loses its original reference.p.s. hua 03:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, this article isn't about this guy, or his political beliefs. He is a perfect example of "cultural appropriation." The fact is this business of torturing one's hair into locks using crochet hooks, wool, etc. is about mimicking the volume, texture and form of nappy locks. That's not about trying to look like an Indian holy man or someone outta "Braveheart." The rise in popularity of locks is directly related to Rastafari, Bob Marley and the popularity of reggae music. And, again, read the article. It is about an admittedly "value-laden" term, but the article itself is completely NPOV. It fully states the other position, as well. This term has nothing to do with what a member of the majority, or appropriating, culture thinks about an act of "cultural appropriation"; this is about the view of members of the subject culture who take a proprietary view of the practice or artifact being copied or mimicked -- in this case, dreadlocks. You may disagree with the term and its use, but that doesn't make it disappear. You don't have to like it; I'm not in the business of pleasing people and stroking their feelings. It still is what it is. deeceevoice 10:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I only disagreed with the pic, for which the subject culture you presented, i.e. Rastafarians, never ever had any sort of the beginnings of concept ownership. Why go for this when there are literally thousands of pictures which can without bad faith be claimed as cultural appropriation? What I see as POV is the caption with your attaching of the etiquette to someone whose motivations for such a thing you probably know little about.

This isn't personal. I don't know the man or anything about his motivations. It is so not the point. Those who would charge him with cultural appropriation likely wouldn't give a damn about his politics, either. The central point is that this image has been made available for use on this website. and it is absolutely appropriate to use it in such a fashion. deeceevoice 12:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation can be defined fairly objectively and there are cases that are clear cut. When a bunch of New Age writers distort a particular culture to make a quick buck, this is a perfectly objective case of appropriation (Feng Shui's popularity outside of Chinese cultural proper, sensationalist accounts of Vodun, misrepresentations of the Celts, Native Americans, etc.) but it is because it comes with the distortion of said cultural elements. Limiting this impression on a hairstyle that was certainly not first used by the culture claiming appropriation seems to me to be far less objective. Snapdragonfly

Is it really fair to make that particular guy the symbol of cultural appropriation? Remember, he is a real person, from the image description an Italian student and apparently a friend of User:Chamaeleon.--Pharos 07:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, the image is in the wiki database, and he's an example of a white person with dreadlocks. So, yes, it's fair. The article explains the term and also presents the other perspective, as well -- and, in fact, mentions that the term is a value-laden one from the git-go. If the image is in the database, it can be used for whatever legitimate purpose it is deemed appropriate, and the example the photo illustrates is perfectly appropriate for this piece. deeceevoice 08:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's not legal to put his photo up; of course it is, the file's public domain. I'm just wondering if it's fair. Labeling someone as a "trustafarian" is pretty negative; I just don't agree with taking some random person's photo and using it to iillustrate something negative. What if we took some random Wikipedian's user photo to illustrate obesity?--Pharos 12:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Another photo

What about using this photo to illustrate the point about consumerist cultural appropriation? Perhaps along with the photo already on the page.--Fluxaviator 20:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Cultural appropriation by Mickey Mouse at the Disney store Orlando, Florida.

Uh-huh, right. deeceevoice 22:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not a replacement for the other (which is more iconic), but an amazing artifact. A Disney Black Power symbol… worn by a white person with a black hairstyle? I can only hope that the irony was conscious somewhere along the way. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

This looks like a spoof. The hat isn't a "black power symbol." The colors of the African Nationalist flag are red, black and green; there is no yellow. The hat looks like one of those stupid things with fake braids attached. And someone's put on mouse ears. Further, you can't tell anything about the person's ethnicity from the rear. Silly. deeceevoice 15:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I took this photograph in the Disney store in Orlando Florida. I swear to you that this is a real item on sale in Disney stores. I couldn’t believe it, I watched in horror and amazement as vacationing white family after vacationing white family tried it on and pretended to talk in an offensive fake Jamaican accent. I have known Disney to be less than culturally sensitive in the past but this hat is ridiculous. I still can’t believe they are selling an afro-Caribbean style knit hat with fake hair brads attached to it and Mickey Mouse ears on top also in kite. Talk about consumerist cultural appropriation, this is a very blatant example. And the person in the photo is my brother who is white and who very begrudgingly put it on so I could photograph it to get this evidence. This is the link to my pbotoblog where you can read a little about me and see some other social critique photos I have taken so you can hopefully see that I am not making this up. [1] --Fluxaviator 18:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. It's what I thought it was -- a hat w/fake braids. I see Disney is up to its old tricks, except it didn't get it right. Cornrows/individual braids aren't even associated w/Jamaica -- at least not in the way locks are. Disney's skullcap should have been more like this: http://www.halloweencostumes4u.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?store_code=hal&screen=PROD&product_code=rub51178 -- with fake locks. But I guess someone thought that would have been too over-the-top? (Like this isn't?) Still, though, the ethnicity of the guy isn't obvious. There are plenty of pale black folks around these days. Your photo blog sounds interesting. Will visit when I have an opportunity. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 21:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the colors are of the Flag of Ethiopia, which is popular with Rastatas. Historically, the red, black and green flag is probably derived from the Ethiopian flag, but Marcus Garvey may have seen it in an upside-down black-and-white photo or something.--Pharos 23:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I know -- hence the association with Jamaica/Rastas and my comment that it would have been more accurate if there had been fake dreads appended to the cap. But my comments were direct to an earlier post which characterized the item as a "black power" cap, which isn't the same thing. Peace. deeceevoice 23:35, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, color dyslexia (or something like), which is why I almost never work in color aside from photos. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Kanji / Chinese character

Bletch recently changed "Kanji" to "Chinese character" with the comment, "it is quite ironic to refer to them as Kanji in an article on this subject". Just trying for a clarification here: I'm not sure I see the irony. Are you referring to the fact that Japanese adoption of the Chinese ideographs itself amounted to cultural appropriation, or do you mean something else? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've seen a few cases where Westerners have referred to Chinese characters as Kanji regardless of whether the context was Japanese or not. Thats not technically "Cultural appropriation" as much as "Cultural misattributation" (if I may be excused for inventing a term), but it was close enough to strike me as ironic. It was probably a bad idea for me to make a quip that could lend itself to misinterpretation; sorry about that. --Bletch 21:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

English Language

Isn't the most prevalent form of cultural appropriation today the use of the English language by people not of English origin. Discuss.

No, not a hope, it's not even worth honourable mention in the article; in many cases, this is a question of assimilation or prestige. Snapdragonfly 20:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Hip-hop lingo is certainly a prestige dialect or accent among young, white, urban Americans. An upper middle class Hindi-speaker who mixes some butchered American or British slang in with their ordinary speech as a form of trendy code switching is probably "guilty" of the same sort of appropriation as the white kid in Beverly Hills who mixes some ersatz AAVE into their speech for the same reasons.

On another note: anybody read the new Thomas Sowell book in which he argues that much of African-American culture is coopted from lower class white "crackers"? His argument could be characterized as claiming that African Americans have appropriated the culture of poor whites. Didn't see that argument coming. Babajobu 19:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No. Haven't read it, but I've heard about it. Sounds ridiculous -- because so much of AA culture has clearly African roots. I certainly wouldn't waste my time reading it and damn sho' wouldn't buy it. deeceevoice 21:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Question: isn't Kanye West a better example of cultural appropriation than Eminem? Eminem grew up in working class "urban" culture. Kanye West grew up as the pampered suburban child of affluent, university-based academics...who is appropriating the culture of working class African Americans? Is it Eminem or Kanye? Seems to me its Kanye. Babajobu 21:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Black culture is black culture. You can be black and happy and sing the blues, too. You don't have to be down-and-out, choppin' cotton or shinin' shoes. Virtually every black child in this country, regardless of socioeconomic status, grows up speaking AAVE in some form or fashion; it's part of being black. There are some elements of AA culture which cross class lines, which on a very real level, are mutable/immaterial in America vis-a-vis black folks. Kanye West on the road is as susceptible to a DWB jack as any other blackman. Eminem is a white bwoi pimpin' black culture for $ -- part of a grand, ole American tradition. He's today's minstrel artist minus the burnt cork. He's just earnest about it. :p Again, cultural appropriation is a value laden term, and as such, it is subjective in some respects. Black folks traditionally have used the term in an "us versus them" context. Kanye West with money is one of us, just as Kanye West without money is. Eminem will never be one of us; his white skin makes him an outsider. deeceevoice 03:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

But how can Eminem appropriate the culture within which he was raised. He has no other culture... Babajobu 06:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, Kanye West may be susceptible to a "Dumb White Boy"(?) jack, but that alone doesn't make him black. Sikh people have been shot and killed for "looking Muslim", but that doesn't them Muslim. Babajobu 06:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"DWB" is "driving while black" -- racial profiling (duh). That speaks for itself. Eminem is an outsider and always will be; he's white. Kanye West is a blackman and is subject to racism, discrimination and police brutality as any other blackman. That makes him part of the "club." Eminem can put on a suit and tie, wash his mouth out with soap and get into virtually any white-boy club he wants. Anyway you slice it, Eminem is an outsider. Further, like I said, the label is subjective. No member of a majority culture can tell the minority culture how to define its own terminology. It's anothe one of those "you can't tell us what we should call ourselves" kinda thing. You don't have to agree with it; that's just the way it b. deeceevoice 10:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm...how about wealthy African-Americans appropriating the culture of real Africans? Kente cloth, and so on. Same could go for German-Americans who've been in North America for four-hundred years and speak no German running around in lederhosen twice a year. In general, I'd say the "in touch with my roots" industry so well-funded by wealthy, bored North Americans is as good an example of cultural appropriation as any. Babajobu 11:11, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I also think the Sowell argument should go in as a minority viewpoint. At some point I'll do it. Babajobu 11:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Elements of particularly West African culture are roots-culture for African Americans and are no more "cultural appropriation" than, say, the guy/caricature from "My Big, Fat, Greek Wedding" is appropriating the culture of Greek-Americans, or Italian-Americans and their various Columbus organizations and myriad references to Italian culture. That's simply about ethnic pride. I've also included the other viewpoint vis-a-vis Sowell. Clearly, African-American culture is not limited to certain limited elements of speech (much of which is clearly evident in West African language patterns and other diasporic Africa pidgins) and eating collard greens and cornbread. If that were the case, Swaggert and his ilk would have invented jazz, blues and hip-hop, and Elvis would have copied his musical stylings from Gene Autry. Sowell's argument is shallow and speaks to a very few, isolated aspects of AA culture, much of which has more to do with the economics of plantation economy than "cultural appropriation." He's either writing to make a splash/be controversial, or he has an extremely limited knowledge/comprehension of the depth and breadth of African influence on African-American culture. It's the sort of crap white folks love -- like white folks charging blacks with "racism." It's one of those silly nanny, nanny boo-boo "and you're another one" kinda things. deeceevoice 12:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Further, in re-reading Sowell (I'd seen this piece before), I see no evidence that he uses the term "cultural appropriation" at all. Why? Because, regardless of how miserable the plight of southern PWT, conditions for African slaves were far worse. As the article states, the notion/phenomenon of cultural appropriation is dependent on a more powerful/empowered entity usurping/stealing/borrowing -- however you care to characterize it -- from a less powerful/empowered entity. And such certainly was not the case vis-a-vis poor southern crackers and African slaves. So, unless Sowell specifically (and incorrectly) charges cultural appropriation -- and I don't believe he does -- then I'd say the material is utterly irrelevant here. deeceevoice 12:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Presumably, Sowell has better sense than to use the term "cultural appropriation" in such a fashion. So, unless you can provide evidence otherwise, I've removed the term from the passage, as it is simply untrue. deeceevoice 12:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

So only whites (or maybe non-blacks) can be racist? - FrancisTyers 12:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I will not debate it with you -- but, generally speaking, blacks are not/cannot be racist. Yep. Ya damn straight! deeceevoice 12:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. So, a bunch of black Ugandans lynching an Indian Ugandan are not racist? That's the sort of thing black folks love to say, but it's absurd. Babajobu 13:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that. Note that I used the words "generally speaking." In situations -- particularly in foreign nations where blacks are in control of institutions of power and wealth -- that can ben another matter entirely, as racism is about institutions and their power to impact others, rather than attitudes. And that's all I'll say about that. I'm not getting sucked into that tired old debate. Been there and done that too many times. It's not going to change what you or I think. deeceevoice 13:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Uganda is not a "foreign nation" any more than the United States is a "foreign nation". Wikipedia is not the United States. Babajobu 07:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, if we are going to draw a distinction between behavior "having origins" in another culture, and just being a rip off that culture, then we need to define the difference better. Is the Sowell comment the only thing in the article that needs citation? I'd say just about the entire article needs citation. Babajobu 13:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, then go for it. But you specifically said Sowell charged "cultural appropriation," when as near as I can figure, he did not. Unless you can prove otherwise, it's clearly an inaccurate statement. It doesn't make sense to me that he would -- because it's not cultural appropriation as it is commonly used/understood. Again, it's all about power relationships. deeceevoice 13:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, thought about it a little and I agree that it's probably not a good example. You can take out the Sowell ref if you want. Babajobu 18:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

reverse appropriation

unfortunately, many men from my race have lost their african ways and behave like westerners through the adoption of western government, laws, language and other stuff. Perhaps cultural appropriation is not the best way to describe it since all these institutions and customs were forced upon them. Maybe cultural domination or new imperialism should suffice. Blackpower 00:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

deeceevoice, you better give me a goddman good reason for reverting my edit, if you can't, then you are a racist Blackpower 07:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't confuse the issue. There is no such thing as "reverse appropriation" as it is commonly understood. The nature of cultural appropriation is dependent on a top-down process. It is not bottom-up. If you insist on inserting this example, then you must introduce appropriate language to support it. deeceevoice 12:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

do you have a book or some other source that decides it's top-down only? It seems that you're the one making up rules as you go Blackpower 16:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Blackpower is somebody's anti-Deecee sockpuppet.Babajobu 18:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you, I am not anti-Deecee, we just have some disagreements, if I am so anti-her, I would have do whole article edits instead of adding minor additions. BTW, I don't believe there's anything about top-down, because we should treat African and European cultures at least equally, so top-down would imply the otherwise. I think cultural imperialism definitely exists, and should I open up another article or what? Blackpower 20:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a few examples which treat the subject -- and in a "West (whites) appropriating minority cultures" context:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]

Yours is a question that is answered easily enough with a little initiative on your part -- assuming it's answers you're really interested in.

It's got nothing to do with treating African and European cultures equally. You don't have to agree with it, but the term is what it is. A lesser power/entity does not engage in cultural appropriation as the term is commonly understood/used. Appropriation implies usurpation; a weaker entity cannot usurp or appropriate anything from a more powerful entity. FYI, there already is an article on Cultural imperialism. Check it out. deeceevoice 23:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

U.S.-centric

Deeceevoice, like many of her fellow American Wikipedians, writes in a very U.S.-centric way. To some extent that's okay, because they're writing what they know. But this article still relects a somewhat parochial American set of emphases, and those of us writing from outside the U.S. should try to mitigate that. English Wikipedia has loads of readers and editors from all over the world, there's no reason for relatively high-profile articles such as this one to be so Red, White, and Blue. Cultural appropriation does not begin and end with African-Americans and Native Americans. Babajobu 14:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding a few examples, although I'm not sure if they'd be classed as "cultural appropriation" or not, its quite a difficult one to get down.

• Non-Irish families giving their children traditional Irish names (this applies also for Welsh), e.g. kids with no celtic heritage being called 'aoife', 'siobhan', 'eamon' or 'eimear'.
• People in the west wearing Palestinian headscarves (keffiah).
• Western girls wearing henna or bindi dots.

What do you reckon, "cultural appropriation" or not? Does it only count as "cultural appropriation" if the culture being "appropriated" makes a vocal complaint? I can't think of any complaints referring to the above, but I've not exactly done a lot of research into it. - FrancisTyers 15:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

That's African-American, Baba -- and red, black and green, dammit! :p Additions are certainly welcome. And I think the names are pretty mild, Francis; but the henna transfers and the wearing of bindi are definitely, I'd say, forms of cultural appropriation worth mention. deeceevoice 19:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, added a couple. The grammar sucks and you might want to remove the English-ism. Yes, "whilst" is a valid form of "while", although feel free to call me pretentious and old-fashioned :). It's difficult (at least for me) to find a way of phrasing these things well. - FrancisTyers 20:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think all your examples are good. I also think picking names out of Celtic mythology (Aoife was an Irish princess supposedly forced to marry the Norman conquerer Strongbow, and as such she's a symbol of Irish nationhood and desire for freedom) without knowing the first thing about the meaning of the names because the parents think they sound cool is a fine example of cultural appropriation. The keffiyahs are perhaps complicated because the affectation is seen as an expression of "solidarity", even though the wearer is probably just aiming for "revolutionary chic". Anyway, I think your additions are good. Babajobu 06:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I also think the emphasis on dredlocks is an example of U.S.-centrism and problematic on several levels. Will elaborate later today. Babajobu 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'll leave the dredlock stuff alone for right now. My argument was basically going to be that in North America dredlocks on whites may usually be a form of CA of a rastafarian custom, but that this is not always the case outside the U.S. Deecee dismisses the idea that dreds on whites would be in imitation/honor of "someone outta Braveheart". But for many people of Celtic ancestry, particularly those of the anti-England bent, William Wallace and Brian Boru loom much larger in the cultural consciousness than any Jamaican. One of the people who recently smashed up an American F-16 at Ireland's Shannon Airport is a seven-foot Irish anarchist with the biggest head of natural dreads you've ever seen. The guy would laugh at the notion that he's imitating some American custom...for him, as for many others, it's all about the anti-imperialism of people like Boru and Wallace, and the "natural" appeal of pre-historic, tribal Europe. Claims that he is appropriating a reggae custom are equivalent to the notion that Bob Marley was appropriating a Celtic custom; both claims can only be made in ignorance of the other group's tradition. Of course that doesn't mean people on either side won't feel that way. But the notion that "it's true because that's how they feel" is a pretty American POV, typical of the identity politics that are so prominent in that country. In opposition to that, I would claim that the perception of CA is not equivalent to a genuine instance of CA. If it were, that would mean that the Celtic person aggrieved that black Americans have falsely claimed dreds as "theirs", and the black American who is aggrieved that a Scottish nationalist is wearing dreds, are both correct that the dreds have been culturally appropriated. So, too, would be the Jamaican who claims that wealthy black American dilettantes are stealing his tradition, or the Scottish highlander who gets nauseated at the thought of some posh Edinburgh kid wearing a kilt and sporting dreds. Can all four really be right? Babajobu 09:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Disney films (and othe Hollywood productions) appropriating folk stories or characters, and often either grossly simplifying, fabricating or changing completely the original story/character? Disney animated feature Think Pocahontas would have spoken perfect SAE ? I won't even go into Robin Hood ;) I'll add the names thing later when I've got time (unless you guys want to). - FrancisTyers 08:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Good additions, both of you. Francis, I'm aware that "whilst" is a legitimate form; but I just find it irksome. (Sorry. The word just seems so affected; I simply can't stand it. For me, it's the written equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard. *cringing*) I generally leave Brit English be, but I had to change it. I'm glad you don't mind. deeceevoice 08:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is also home to some interesting examples, I'll expound on this further when I'm home and can show the wonderful "dolls" they sell in "aborigine" theme parks. Until then Taiwanese aborigine, Taiwan First Nations Formosan Aborigine Theme Park - FrancisTyers 09:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here are the pics:

• Taiwanese "golliwog" for sale in an "aborigine amusement park"
• Again, but closeup
• Taiwanese "aboriginal" "traditional" dance
• Statues of two Taiwanese "natives" on a bench

I don't think this counts as cultural appropriation, because the [Chinese] Taiwanese aren't actually "appropriating" the culture, they're just stereotyping it, cheapening it and selling it on. According to the documentary I screen-shotted these from, the aborigines (Taiwanese First Nations) had been discriminated against for many years and essentially forced to become parodies/stereotypes of themselves. Although now there is a need for nation building to make Taiwan seem more independant from the mainland, their traditions are being appropriated more and more. This is a bit op-ed, so I'm not going to put it in right now, but I thought it was interesting and worth a mention at least on the Talk page. - FrancisTyers 20:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for spewing everything that comes into my head on here, but do you think that the basketball mascot for the "Boston Celtics", or the "Fighting Irish" from UND would be classified as cultural appropriation, or at least worth a mention? Casting Celtic or Irish people as drunken fighters or leprechauns could be construed by some as pretty insulting, let alone the "Lucky Charms" mascot. From Leprechaun:

Many Irish people find the popularized image of a leprechaun to be little more than a series of offensive Irish stereotypes and a trivialisation of Ireland's rich and ancient mythology.

- FrancisTyers 09:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

As long as we emphasize that it's the appropriation of something valuable that is offensive, and not just the stereotype. The leprechaun is offensive on both grounds, but only the former is relevant to the article. The latter is not. More important than what we think is that we find sources that make or discuss the allegation. Babajobu 10:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Greece/Macedonia

I'll leave this at the end for now, but I think it deserves more prominent treatment closer to the front of the article. All the other examples in this article relate to appropriations that have caused bruised feelings and wounded egos. Greece and FYROM have almost gone to war over who is heir to ancient Macedonia (See Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia#Naming dispute with Greece). Babajobu 10:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Photo

I'm reinstating the photo until I can provide a substitute. Chamaeleon need not worry, it will be provided sooner rather than later. - FrancisTyers 19:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

For the reasons stated in my earlier comments about dreadlocks, I don't think the picture is a great one for this article, anyway. The Disney photo, however, is, I think, objectively an instance of CA. Babajobu 20:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

This photo is entirely appropriate -- and it's better than nothing. Unless and until a better one is located, it is restored. deeceevoice 10:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I have a photo that might be suitable, check it out before I upload it as I don't want to waste wikiresources unless its going to be used. Its pretty blurry, the lighting is bad and the dreads aren't very well defined, but then taking a photo of yourself with the camera at arms length in the bathroom rarely comes out well ;) If it isn't up to it, I'll see if I can so a better. - FrancisTyers 13:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about it. I still have a problem with the idea that dreads on a white person are ipso facto an example of cultural appropriation. Any pic of a white person with dreads should include in the caption a mention that this might be "considered" cultural appropration by people who regard dreads as the property of Rasta culture. Also, to be honest, I think the other pic is just plain a better picture than this one. Babajobu 13:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I concur that dreads on a white person aren't necessarily an example of cultural appropriation... if so, wtf culture am i appropriating ;) I was trying to make it possible to get rid of the pic of Chamaeleons mate as I don't think he wants that pic here. I realise we _can_ use it, but if he's requested removal I'd prefer to honour his wishes. Agree on the wording of the following: this might be "considered" cultural appropration by people who regard dreads as the property of Rasta culture. Also agree that the Disney photo is better, but deeceevoice seems to want a pic of a white guy with dreads so I was trying to provide a possible replacement so we could remove Chamaeleons pic. I'll try and make a better one when I've got a spare moment. - FrancisTyers 14:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The picture of Disney braids is great because it shows commercialization in a clearly CA way. Unfortunately that pic is not of dreads. If we could get a comparable one of dreads, that would be ideal. Babajobu 14:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

A white guy with dreads is considered cultural appropriation in many quarters. Certainly, most of the black folks I know would think so. In fact, a white dreadlocks-wearing editor commented in the dreadlocks discussion thread about his experiences with blacks in London (or somewhere in England) who were offended by his locks -- and were openly hostile to him.

You can disagree with the opinion about locks and cultural appropriation, but when white people start snachin' hair off a sheeps' back to mimic the volume and texture of black hair, that's goin' some. :p (This particular editor, though, says his are all natural.) But even if the hair is all original equiment, so to speak, with no lamb's wool or crochet hooks involved, keep in mind that the appropriating culture often doesn't recognize or agree that what they're doing is appropriating something from another culture. The term is not only value-laden, as the article clearly states; it is subjective.

The dreadlocks photo is perfectly legitimate and should stay. It is, in fact, a perfect illustration of the phenomenon and useful, perhaps, to nonblacks who seek to understand the black response to whites with locks. If someone wants to add a photo of another example -- hey, I have no problem with that at all. But this photo is legitimate and dead on point. deeceevoice 16:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Good piece

The additions have rounded out the article nicely. I think it's a good 'un. :p deeceevoice 09:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Deecee, the added info on Egyptian architecture is fine, but I think it needs to be rewritten for clarity. I think that sentence is carrying too much information in discussing both the claims regarding Ottoman architecture and those regarding Egyptian architecture. The sentence is a little hard to make sense of, as written. Babajobu 10:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah *grinning sheepishly*. I know. You caught me. I got lazy. I knew I'd have to go back to it and fix it -- but I'm pressed for time. For the next couple of days, I'm only visiting the site as a brief, two- or three-minute destressor/break. Today, I'm trying to clear my desk so I can pay my respects to Rosa Parks. Have at it, if you want. Peace. deeceevoice 13:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

No problem, condolences on Ms. Parks, maybe I'll give the sentence a go later. Babajobu 13:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The sentence was a quickie -- but now that I've returned to it and read it, it makes perfect sense. I don't see a problem. But if you feel moved to change it, I certainly won't mind. deeceevoice 22:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

"trustafarian"

"trustafarian," a portmanteau derived from "trust fund" and "Rastafarian." The term implies someone in a position of relative wealth or privilege who imitates or "appropriates" Rastafarian culture while being completely divorced from Rasta culture, which originated among the Jamaican poor."

Perfect example: Eric Benet [6] [7] [8]

Ha. Funny. But you pointed out a flaw in the caption, now corrected. The term is generally reserved for whites -- not blacks.[9] deeceevoice 22:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The important thing is not that we have a good picture of trustafarian, but that we have a good picture of cultural appropriation. A white person dressing up as a Rastafarian for Halloween or whatever seems a good example of the latter; unfortunately I have no idea what that girl is dressed as, or even what she has on her head. But if we could find a comparable picture in which white people were having fun dressed up clearly as Rastafarians, that'd be perfect. Or non-Arabs dressed up as Arabs, or especially a non-Muslim women dressed up as a seductive, veiled-but-scantily-clad temptress. Those would be better than our picture of little Gabrielle. Babajobu 15:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

No. Halloween and costumes don't count. That's like saying someone who wears, say, a sari, for Halloween is somehow involved in cultural appropriation. Impersonating someone, portraying a character, or pPlaying dress-up on an occasion specifically set aside for people in drag is not the same as adopting/co-opting a cultural practice or expression as one's own. deeceevoice 16:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. Okay. Babajobu 16:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Chameleon, stop the personal attacks, and stop vandalizing the page

Cut it out. This may come as a surprise to you, but your opinion about dreadlocks being included in an article on cultural appropriation is completely irrelevant. Stop vandalizing the page, and stop the ad hominem attacks. deeceevoice 13:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ad hominem doesn't mean name calling, you subhuman racist slime. — Chameleon 13:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read ad hominem, and get some common sense and self-respect. deeceevoice 14:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What random comments! Argumentum ad hominem is a logical fallacy, not a fancy term for an insult. I think you may have got confused by all that Latin. I presume you consider it crackers' talk. Don't bother reading the article; you won't understand it.

Self-respect? You seem to have problems with the English language there too; you mean "respect". I'm fine; it's you and all other racist scum that I don't respect. You are the main reason excellent editors leave. — Chameleon 17:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

No. The reason some excellent editors leave is when reasoned and fully explained, perfectly valid edits are opposed by pigheaded people with personal motives -- as in this case. Your response to my inclusion of both photos has been purely ad hominem -- no reasonable explanation given, only puerile, and boringly repetitive name calling. Curious. I see another, white editor has weighed in and supported the inclusion of the photograph of the white woman. What? You gonna call him "racist scum," too? It seems to me that shrill, incivil criticism of an edit based solely on the ethnic identity of the contributor is the only racism here. *x* deeceevoice 12:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Things restored

First of all, inclusion of the picture of a white woman with dreadlocks is not "racist". It's a perfectly acceptable example of cultural appropriation. Secondly, inclusion of the paragraph about appropriation of gay culture by straights is not trivializing or distorting the phenomenon: straights appropriating gay culture for fashion is no different from white appropriating black culture for fashion. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 20:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Replaced picture again:

1. To assume or to imply that all whites with dreadlocks imitate or "appropriates" Rastafarian culture is simply factual inaccurate

2. Wearing dreadlocks was/is part of almost all cultures and the picture I removed illustrates that @ dreadlocks

3. Only Rastafarian culture and the term "Rasta"-locks originated in Jamaica and not Dreadlocks per se

4. Rastafarian culture is not limited to Jamaicans or blacks, most Rastafari sects welcome all ethnicities

5. The term "Trustafari" itself is a racist and derogatory term CoYep 20:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the picture you just added, but I don't see why you think that picture is better than the previous one. Doesn't the new picture have the same five problems listed above as the previous one did? What's the difference between the two? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I have a problem with the inclusion of any picture because of the reasons mentioned above. Since people insist that a picture has to be included, I offer this one because it shows at least some connection to jamaican culture (clothes, hat). The picture I removed implied that all whites wearing dreadlocks appropriate rasta culture which is inaccurate. CoYep 21:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, to assume that all Rastafari wear dreadlocks, and that all black persons with dreadlocks are rastafari is a misconception as well. CoYep 23:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the new image is actually better: the previous person was merely dreadlocked, the new one is wearing clothing that also strongly suggest cultural appropriation. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Responses 1. No one made such a statement -- though, in many cases, such an assumption is dead on target. The caption clearly stated the case and, as the article clearly states, cultural appropriation is a value-laden, subjective term. You don't have to agree with it. You don't have to like it. It's not about currying favor, engendering agreement with members of the majority, opressing culture -- or even any outside culture; it is what it is. And I don't think the new photo is an improvement -- for reasons I'll state later.

2. No. It's a gross over generalization to say that dreadlocks are almost a part of all cultures, but the style is a cross-cultural phenomenon.

3. It would seem to me that "Rasta" locks would be an outside term. I've never heard of anyone else calling their locks "dreadlocks" but the Rastafari.

4. Yes, many Rastafari welcome other ethnicities.

5. Many would argue that it is not "racist." Differences between "bigotry" and "racism" aside, the recent rise in popularity of dreads is in most cases directly traceable to Bob Marley, reggae music and Rasta culture. When white people start using unnatural means like crochet hooks and sheep's wool to mimic the form, volume and texture of nappy hair, then, as far as most black people are concerned, that's cultural appropriation. I think most whites underestimate/completely misunderstand the degree to which nappy/natural hair in its various forms is considered a defining characteristic of African people and African beauty. For many of us, nappy/natural hair is personal, spiritual and political. Is a strong, defining element of group identity. We see locks as being connected not only with black Jamaican anti-establishmentarianism, but with ancient, BLACK dynastic Egypt, as well. I would direct the editor to the discussion of cultural appropriation in dreadlocks, but I believe he (she?) already has read it. Besides, this response is more for other readers, who may be more open-minded to understanding, rather than judging, that particular perspective.

6. Further, I've been smiling throughout this discussion about India. What many people don't know about Indian locks is that many scholars who extensively have studied studied ancient dynastic Egypt and the Indus Valley civilzations will tell you there is a very high probability that dreadlocks came to India via Africa (Egypt/Nubia). It is no accident that the peoples who wear/wore locks in India are the Dravidians/Tamils, who are Africoid peoples who are believed to have originated in the Nile Valley and some of whom migrated to the Indus Valley. Others, according to the recent work of renowned geneticist Spencer Wells, migrated up the coast of Africa, across land bridges when sea levels were low, to -- where? -- Tamil Province and southern India, then on to Australia. And, no. This is not a fantasy of afrocentrists. Many scholars, including Tamil/Dravidian scholars themselves, and political activists increasingly are studying old legends and, writing about and organizing around their cultural ties to black Africa and her people.[10], [11], [12], [13] and on and on and on.

Granted that the Dravidians were,originally Mediterraneans and that they passed through Mesopotamia, Iran, and Baluchistan, exactly from which Mediter-ranean region did they come?

Of particular significance is archeologist B. B. Lal's contention that the Dravidians probably came from Nubia, Upper Egypt. This theory would give them among other things their Mediterranean features and dark complexion. Lal writes: "At Timos the Indian team dug up several megalithic sites of ancient Nubians which bear an uncanny resemblance to the cemeteries of early Dravidians which are found all over Western India from Kathiawar to Cape Comorin. The intriguing similarity extends from the subterranean structure found near them. Even the earthenware ring-stands used by the Dravidians and Nubians to hold pots were identical." According to Lal, the Nubian megaliths date from around 1000 B.C.

The linguistic studies of scholars like S. K. Chatterji have discovered many cognate words in ancient Egyptian and Nubian languages and Tamil. Fur-ther, the new findings on the Indus heiroglyphics by M. V. N. Krishna Rao, Fateh Singn, H. S. Parpola, K. A. Parpola, S. J. Koskenniemi, and Yu. Knorozov claim to have deciphered the script in terms of Proto-Dravidian and thus confirm the findings of the venerable Indian historian Father Heras that the Harappan people spoke a Dravidian language in the third millennium B.C.

My own comparative analysis of the Dravidian myth of Kovalan and Kannaki celebrated in the ancient Tamil Shilappadikaram with the ancient Egyptian myth of Osiris and Isis confirms the Egyptian origin of the ancient Dravidians. These two myths are very similar in content and help explain each other and argue for a common ethnic origin. The long ships used by the Egyptians in the third millennium B.C. could have easily carried the Dravidians to the banks of the Indus River and/or all the way to South India. The sea-route-however, does not exclude the possibility of the early Dravidians taking a land route from the Phoenician shores through Iran and Baluchistan to India. No wonder, similar hieroglyphic writings are found both in Egypt and India.[14]

The image of a blond Shiva is curious/bizarre, indeed -- and sad. It is emblematic of just how negrophobic, Aryan- (and now Western-)influenced Indian culture is and the extent to which the virulent hatred of the Africoid phenotype has pervaded it. My friends from India and Bangladesh readily acknowledge that they are black (African peoples). It is always curious/amusing how so few in the West still haven't caught on -- and still tragic the degree to which so many Africoid East Indians are simply Caucasoid wannabes, to the point that even extremely dark-skinned Indians think they are "white". Yes, it's sick and totally off-the-wall, but so very common -- pale-skinned, blond-haired deities and all. :p deeceevoice 00:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I assume you would object the notion that icecream is part of Italian culture because they call it gelato? And to turn Hindu color symbolic into races is simplistic and incorrect. Human migration doesn't change the fact that Jamaican Dreadlock culture is only appr. 50 years old, while there are records of dreadlocks in other cultures dated appr. 5,000 years ago. CoYep 13:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

And about the new photo

Well, Jmabel, I don't know that the new pic is better. It's really hard to imagine it's of a real person -- real in the sense that it's not been staged. I mean this guys is positively tragic/cartoonish. And the so-called "daishiki" isn't Jamaican at all. It ignores the subtleties of the notion of cultural appropriation and takes the phenomenon to an extreme as if only some bong-smokin', rainbow-clad white bwoi can be a credible example of it. It's, frankly, stupid in that it treats readers like idiots who have to be hit over the head with an idea in order to comprehend it. deeceevoice 00:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the new pic is infinitely better. I accept the notion that CA is subjective, but then think that a picture of a (black) American in dreads would be just as good an example of CA as a picture of a white person. The black American may be regarded as an appropriator by either a Jamaican Rastafarian who resents the encroachments of (black) American dilettantes, or a person of Celtic ancestry who resents what they view as a silly New World cooptation of a vigorous pre-Germanic European custom. But the great thing about the new pic is that "I am coopting this culture for its hipness" just jumps off the page, whereas in the other pics it was unclear what the meaning of the locks were. So this pic offers some objective reasons why this may represent nearly objective cultural appropriation, rather than just giving us a random picture and telling us that someone somewhere feels this is an act of CA. Babajobu 01:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Boston Celtics leprechaun

One other point: I don't understand the inclusion of the leprechaun mascot of the Boston Celtics at all. While some Irish-Americans may find the image offensive, there was no appropriation of Irish culture "by an external group, who often ignore the underlying purpose and intent of the expression". (If anything, the leprechaun of Notre Dame's Fighting Irish[15] is more offensive, as it reinforces the stereotype of the drunken, pugnacious Irishman, but that's not cultural appropriation either.) --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Irish-Americans whatever... We're not talking about Irish-Americans. You might not find anything about it, that doesn't mean its not offensive. The whole point of CA is subjective. - FrancisTyers 01:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

CA does not mean the use of offensive stereotypes anyway. The majority of this article is about the appropriation of black culture by whites--yet there's no mention of Aunt Jemima, which is the closest parallel to the Celtics' leprechaun. If you want to discuss the appropriation of Irish culture by non-Irish people, discuss the Old English, not the Boston Celtics' mascot. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 01:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The article on Aunt Jemima considers the image to be based on the "mammy" stereotype of the 19th century that arguably did not originate with black culture. The leprechaun does have its origins in Irish tradition. Though to be honest I fail to see much of a connection to the Tuatha Dé Danann in their current depiction. User:Dimadick

Agree that Irish people may regard the Celtics logo as CA. The fact that Irish-Americans may regard the logo and the team as symbols of Irishness doesn't matter to those Irish who regard Irish-Americans as faux Irish poseurs. Babajobu 02:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

US-centric Term?

Part of the problem when discussing cultural appropriation with people outside the US is that generally they don't understand the term. They understand the act, and often agree, but many haven't heard the specific term before. I've made a note of this in the introduction, if anyone disagrees, please discuss below. I've done some brief google searches but can't find any record of where the term first originated. - FrancisTyers 03:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the passage, because I think the contributor is speaking from his own personal experience. Just because he may unfamiliar with the term does not mean it the concept is not readily recognized/understood elsewhere. I googled it in Spanish, and the search returned only 252 results. However, as expected, the French translation yielded 38,500 results. Clearly, it is hardly an term unknown outside of North America. I myself have been familiar with the term since the 1970s. deeceevoice 04:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What translation are you using for French? I get only 18 hits for "appropriation culturel". I also get the feeling that this is a predominantly North American term. Even most of the claims made on behalf of non-American ethnic groups seem to be made by academics working in the U.S. Babajobu 04:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Appropriation culturelle (feminine). Right now, the count is: 38,600. deeceevoice 08:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, its not surprising for non-English languages, but take into account the UK, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and it does seem to be quite a US/North American centric term. Having been aware of the term for so long, do you know some history of it? Where and when it first came about, who first coined it etc? - FrancisTyers 12:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

English-language: 202,000; Italian: Italian 5,160.... You're misguided, I think. There's nothing particularly American about the term. It's well-recognized by people of many cultures -- and certainly by minority cultures. Just a quick browse uncovered New Zealand articles on appropriation of Maori and African American culture; Australian articles on appropriation of Aboriginal culture (or attempts to prevent it); various articles in Scotland about cultural appropriation involving kilts, clan tartans, etc.; a raft of articles in UK publicatoins on the subject related to just about anything and everything. Sorry, but you really just don't know what you're talking about and are merely extrapolating your ignorance of the subject to others to whom it does not apply. deeceevoice 14:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

And sorry again. The term/concept isn't anything special at all. Certainly, among college-educated black people here in the States, it's just one of those everyday concepts -- particularly given the aggressive cultural appropriation worldwide that has targeted African American culture for centuries. But one doesn't have to be particularly highly educated or even particularly well-read to be familiar with the term. I have no idea who coined it. It's like, IMO, trying to figure out who first used the phrase "free enterprise"; it just is. deeceevoice 14:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take your word for it. In the first 3 pages of google results I looked at (when searching for "cultural appropriation"), there wasn't one use of it outside of North America. Even articles which looked like they might be being used outside of North America (e.g. talking about appropriation of Hindu culture) were in fact based in the US. The Kilt example might be a good one to include actually. Thanks for the pointers, there's some good stuff out there actually, I'll add some in later...

• http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/viewpdf.asp?j=eerj&vol=2&issue=3&year=2003&article=6_Polydorides_EERJ_2_3_web&id=139.222.193.152
• http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/changing.media/Paper-Kroes.htm
• http://www.ccir.ed.ac.uk/~jad/vantil-list/archive-May-1998/msg00150.html
• http://www.soas.ac.uk/SED/Issue2-2/philippe.html
• http://www.palestinecostumearchive.org/contemporary.htm

- FrancisTyers 14:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

When I rewrote this piece, it was basically a quick, virtual complete rewrite of a first draft by someone else that needed a lot of help. While searching for the number of articles by language and then by nation under "cultural appropriation" and then the name of the culture likely to be the target (e.g., "cultural appropriation New Zealand Maori," or "cultural appropriation Australia Aborigine"), I came across some interesting articles -- one or two which look like they were used by the intial framer of this piece. Because I wrote strictly from what I know of the subject just as a means of correcting some of the problems with the initial draft, I'm sure there's a lot of good stuff that could be added -- like, for example, the multiculutural focus of the article as it now stands. I'm sure some of the material could help refine my basic definition, as well.

One request, though: You're relatively young. In the future, when you come across an unfamiliar subject and assume it is somehow culture (or continent-) simply because you haven't heard of it, do a little homework before adding your unfounded assumptions/commentary as misinformation to the article. This is one of the primary problems I encounter with Wikipedia -- unfounded assumptions appended to articles as fact. Your notation in the discussion was a good move -- but you should have stopped there. Peace. deeceevoice 15:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Deecee, one of the problems is that the article still comprises mostly a bunch of different people's personal impressions, including yours. The article is abysmally sourced. And in Francis's defense, though the term exists and is used outside North America, it is predominantly a U.S./North American term. American academia pioneered the concept of "ethnic studies", and American political culture is the homeland of "identity politics": ideas like "cultural appropriation" therefore strike a lot of people as very Yankee doodle dandy. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Babajobu 15:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The notion that cultural appropriation belongs to any one cultural is completely absurd and stems from, IMO, an abject ignorance of the subject. Francis clearly was unfamiliar with the term and just simply assumed it was specific to the U.S. And he's clearly in error. I'm certain that educated members of minority, and particularly non-white, non-Western cultures internationally are likely quite familiar with the term. That's like charging cultural imperialism is, likewise, the bailiwick/concern of only North Americans. "Yankee Doodle Dandy" my ass -- another ridiculous and completely groundless charge. Quite the contrary. Those of us on the receiving end of cultural appropriation, colonialism, neocolonialsim, imperialism, racism, etc., at the hands of "Yankee Doodle Dandy" types tend to be well-acquainted with these terms. It's frankly not surprising some white kid isn't. And, no. While the article is largely written from what I know of the subject, it has absolutely nothing to do with my "personal impressions." It is POV and substantial. I've explained the lack of citation. It was either leave the article a mess or fix it -- which I did. If you (or anyone else) want sources, then go for it. But the core of the article won't change much. It's extremely sound. deeceevoice 18:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The phenomenon of cultural appropriation is in no way the "possession" of the United States, but American academics (of a range of subnational identities) have always taken the lead in identifying and naming these sorts of phenomena. I assure you that loads of well-educated people outside U.S. roll their eyes at mention of phrases like "cultural appropriation" and think "there go those PC Yanks again!" I am not one of those people, but I certainly am aware that concepts like CA tend to diffuse outward from the U.S., rather then emerge simultaneously everywhere. Anyway, "Yankee Doodle Dandy" is not a "charge", and I didn't mean to get your cockles up, but if you're offended and feel I'm being anti-American, I'll not use the term again. Your assertion that the article is NPOV doesn't mean much, though, that's not how Wikipedia works. An individual's arbitrary assessment of what is NPOV is just another POV...the proof is in the citations, which this article has very few of. It's not uncommon for unsourced articles to just have all their assertions moved to the talk page until someone produces citations. I won't do that here, because I don't personally think it's horribly POV. But someone needs to produce citations, and soon. Babajobu 18:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

There are lots of Americans who roll their eyes at the term, too -- mostly, in my experience, self-absorbed, ignorant whites with a sense of entitlement and right wingers. That's got nothing to do with nationality, but with the nature of the term itself. We've seen some of that reaction here in discussions of the subject and in dreadlocks. Ha! Me offended because your comments are "anti-American"? Quite the contrary. I'm far from a "Yankee Doodle", red-white-and-blue (more red-black-and-green), flag-waving patriot. If I were to have a visceral reaction (and I don't) it would be to be insulted/put off to be lumped with that crowd. :p Where I'm coming from is certainly counter to the colorful, though somewhat, IMO, misguided adjective, given the fact that leftist, anti-establishment, progressive types and those sensitive to and involved in Third World affairs—who certainly tend not to wrap themselves in the flag— tend to recognize, understand and use the term with no problem. So, I don't know where you're getting all that Yankee Doodle Dandy crap from. Such whining and complaining about the term sounds like something from Rush Limbaugh or some other such ass-backwards neocon. Further, there is no proof whatsoever of the term/concept's American pedigree, so all this is bullshyt speculation, to begin with.

And "not horribly POV"? Hell, this piece is not POV at all. It never was. The article is balanced and articulate. What some people cannot seem to comprehend is that it's the subject matter that is value-laden and subjective—a point which the article acknowledges up front— not the article. Discernment. What a concept. deeceevoice 21:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Deecee, read a little more carefully before jumping into strident mode. You are welcome to wax on about how American bigots roll their eyes at notion of CA, but I was not referring to that phenomenon, so write it in your diary rather than on this talkpage. I was talking specifically about how many non-Americans roll their eyes at a concept that they believe is typical of American academia. The American-ness of U.S. leftists is often very apparent to non-Americans in ways it would not be to the American lefties themselves. That's just how it is. And that's why such things can strike non-Americans as "Yankee Doodle Dandy". It's not complaining, it's just an observation. Also, I have a hard time believing that Rush Limbaugh would try to discredit anything by describing it as "Yankee Doodle Dandy.

If it's not POV or OR, then you should have no trouble at all providing citations. Excellent. Wikipedia covers all sorts of value-laden and subjective topics in an NPOV manner because the involved fields use citations just as copiously as do the natural sciences. Wikipedia's articles on such topics do not involve subjective offerings from wikipedia editors, but from the publications of people who work in those fields. Discernment, DC. Citing from published sources is how your produce NPOV articles on subjective topics. Babajobu 22:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Read my comments again. When I wrote of leftists, those are the Americans. When I wrote of people sensitive to and involved in Third World affairs, I am writing of people with leftist inclinations in this nation, but certainly the same can be said of the many members of the international community, as well, which tends to be a great deal more sensitive than "ugly Americans" about certain matters. Again, much of what you wrote is predicated on the assumption that the concept is U.S. in origin -- when there is no evidence whatsoever that such is even the case. Certainly, anthropologists and individuals with a respect for indigenous culture and the intellectual capability and inclination to identify, examine and name the phenomenon are not confined to a single culture, continent -- or even political persuasion. The very idea is absurd. Further, the American left is far from monolithic. I, for instance, am a hell of a lot different in many respects from a young, white youth who fancies himself a rebel, but is clueless about such things as, say, cultural appropriation. It is mind-numbingly simplistic and utterly naive to smugly lump the left in this increasingly diverse nation into a single category. The "Rush Limbaugh" comment is an allusion to this idiotic mind-set and what often comes with it.

Further, it is completely illogical to automatically assume that an article is POV or "subjective" simply because there are no citations. The POV/NPOV issue is about objectivity -- not verifiability. Does the article define the phenomenon? Yes. Does it also indicate there are other perspectives and state what they are? Yes. Balance. And, no. I'm not going to spend my time hunting down quotations. It's a well-known, widely accepted concept (except, apparently, here) and, obviously, much written -- inside and outside North America (duh). It's simply not a priority for me. It's not a big deal. Francis now has shown himself capable of doing research (I had my doubts) and seems interested in beefing up the article, I'm not concerned. It'll happen. It should be an easy enough task for anyone so inclined. I dashed off the article because what was there pretty awful, and I couldn't stand to see it stay as it was. My rewrite was a major improvement. If someone wants to spend the time and do that, hey, be my guest. That's what Wikipedia is about -- collaboration -- which has already improved the piece. The piece is largely unsourced, but POV? Not as I wrote it. Ridiculous. deeceevoice 00:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The piece is much improved; I didn't say it wasn't. But your dogged faith in the objectivity of your own mind-dumps, while moving, is too common in Wikipedia. None of us have POVs, we just tell it like it is, it's the other guy with the POV. Terrific. But nonsense. When you insist, "yeah, but my point of view REALLY is the true, objective one", this assertion is not worth the bytes it takes up on the wikiservers. Anyway, clearly you're unable/unwilling to provide evidence that your personal views on CA are accepted by any published workers in the social sciences, so others will simply have to remove them, or verify/refute them. Babajobu 02:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

My so-called "mind-dump" is what made the article what it is -- substantive and factual. (At least as I left it. I haven't read it in its entirety for some time.) I don't see anywhere where there has been a challenge to any of the information I inserted in the piece. I'm satisfied the information will stand. If I am in error, fine. My ego isn't invested in any of this ish. If, however, changes or additions are made -- as in the case of Francis's presumptuous addition -- that is POV and inaccurate, then I'll make the necessary revisions -- just as I did with the piece when I came to it. And, no. I didn't say I didn't have a POV -- just that it is not expressed in the article. Like it or not, agree or not, cultural appropriation is what it is. deeceevoice 04:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Some questions about this article

I have some questions about this topic, and do not wish to start a flame war, but to try to improve it so it's clear to people who are not very familiar with the concept.

1. The article states that "In the U.S., rock music has been assumed to be a white, middle American cultural invention, even though its roots are traceable to African American musical expressions." Isn't it common knowledge in America that r'n'r is in huge part rooted in blues, jazz, etc.?
2. The illustration depicts a "trustafarian". Do we know who that person is? If I am not mistaken, Selassie was not a racist (i.e. a black supremacist), and the person pictured may as well have rather close connections to Ethiopia for all we know. Isn't it POV to assume that people are divided in ideology and religion by race, location, etc.?
3. An example of Greece and Macedonia is given. I think the only real issue there is that Republic of Macedonia is using a name that's same as the name of a Greek region. Of course, some Macedonians (citizens of the Republic of Macedonia) may see Alexander the Great as a part of their history, but disputing that would be like saying that history in America did not exist prior to European colonization.
4. The article fails to define where cultural appropriation stops and simple adaptation, or fashion, begins. Is it saying that you "own" something (like rock music) while other ethnic or racial group claims the same ownership? Or is it simply trivializing some other culture for the sake of improving one's appearence? Or is it adopting cultural aspects from a culture that's in some way segregated from one's own? I mean, when I have blue jeans and a t-shirt on, I am surely not trying to look like American men... --Dejan Čabrilo 00:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

A Response 1. I didn't write the section, and didn't notice it. The wording isn't quite what I would have done. Certainly, there are plenty examples of cultural appropriation in African American music and clearer ways of stating those examples than this one. But perhaps the person who contributed that passage will weigh in. 2. It doesn't matter. Of course the reader doesn't know jack about the individual in the photo -- no more than someone would know anything about a white passerby in locks. But, then, there are black folks who will still look at any white person with dreads and be annoyed, seeing it as cultural appropriation -- just as there are some Rastas who take Rastafari as it originally was promulgated and do not accept whites and definitely not in dreads. Again, cultural appropriation is subjective, and the proprietary group sentiments about certain cultural affectations needn't be justified outside the group. The purpose of the article is to present the phenomenon and explain what it is -- not debunk or support notions of this or that. After all, it's futile to tell someone what to feel about something. It's like non-blacks trying to tell black people the term "African American" makes no sense, or non-Latinos telling Latinos that particular label is silly. We/they don't care what others think. It is what it is. So, yes, cultural appropriation is POV -- as the article (and the caption last I checked) verly clearly states at the outset. 3. I don't care enough about Macedonia, frankly, to read your comment. I'll let the person who added that information respond. 4. As near as I can see, the article answers these questions. Perhaps you should read it again? deeceevoice 04:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Deeceevoice, since there are several subject involved, I'll divide up my response again:

1. I have lived in the USA for some years, and have great interest in, what academia calls, American studies. I have yet to read or hear that r'n'r is a white middle class product. I will alter that paragraph to give a better example.
2. It does matter. As you do know, Wikipedia is about information that comes from no specific point of view. I completely understand that if some people see a person who decides that culture, ideology, fashion, religion etc. are not race-specific they will condemn it (after all, that's one of the reasons for racism around the globe), but that doesn't make it so and we should at least attempt to describe all points of view. I will alter the description of the image to reflect this. I'm a member of a minority group myself (although I do have little ethnic affiliation), but that doesn't mean I will write about majority group in the way I percieve them, not on Wikipedia.
3. Fair enough, but do keep in mind that Wikipedia is not US centric, and this article is very much so.
4. I, of course, wouldn't have asked if it did answer the question. The term "cultural appropriation" per se does not exist in Serbian academia. In case this article is about an American academic concept, it should clearly state so. I read on this talk page that it in fact is a global concept, so I will try to give some examples and distinguish different takes on this issue.

I'm a minority myself and often heard how I should feel about myself, but I don't see why I should not question my own views of the majority. --Dejan Čabrilo 09:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

About some of the recent changes

The caption change: "Some Rastafrians may percieve Rasta and its symbols, such as pan-African colors and dreadlocks. as reserved for people of sub-Saharan origin, and label a caucasian person showing them as Trustafarian, a portmanteau derived from "trust fund" and "Rastafarian."]]

It's awful. For any number of reasons. First of all, AGAIN, the article clearly states that the term "CA" is subjective. Further, in the previous version, "appropriation" is in quotes -- for a reason. Quotations are a commonly accepted means of differentiating between a statement in the form of an opinion as it would be spoken by those who hold it -- and a judgment rendered by the text itself.

The new version specifically refers to "Rastafarians" (a discredited term) holding the view -- which is far less likely the case, generally, than with everyday black people. And your mention of "sub-Saharan" origin is also problematic for any number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that there are lots of black Africans in North Africa, as well. (And ever hear of Sudan?) Let me refer the contributor to sub-Saharan Africa for a more complete understanding of why the term is wholly inappropriate. I'm not wedded to the precise verbiage of the caption. A lot of people have played with it and changed it. A tweak here or there of the rather stilted language (wholly understandable, since English is not likely the contributor's native tongue) won't do the trick, because the substantive changes are, IMO, terrible.

And about "pan-African colors" -- there's no such thing, and they are not in evidence in the photo. There are African nationalist colors, and they happen to be red, black and green -- not red, green and yellow.

Inferior writing

The article as now revised is choppy and just awful. It reads better when the term is defined and then examples are given, rather than interrupting every other declarative sentence about the nature of the phenomenon with an example. It's simply horrid editorially; it reads like a short-attention-span, video-game-addicted sixth grader with ADHD wrote it -- or, worse, the way a sixth grader might think/speak in casual conversation. It's a series of one-sentence paragraphs -- a cardinal sin in any kind of decent expository writing. It's disjointed and seems the product of a distracted and disorganized mind.

And, no. "Cultural appropriation" is a widely used term -- as is evidenced by the information I provided about the number of articles on the Internet emanating from other sources. The notion that it is an American intellectual/academic construct came first from someone who clearly was unfamiliar with the term and simply erroneously assumed that because he was unfamiliar with it, it had to be a North American concept. This misconception was further amplified by another contributor, who piggybacked on the original, utterly groundless assumption. It's simply another layer of crap that clouds the issues and, frankly, shouldn't ever have been entertained seriously in the first place -- except that the contributor's speculations about the nature and origin of the term were written into the article as fact. That text has been deleted. So, let's not repeat that nonsense again. Shall we? deeceevoice 10:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Because the subtleties of punctuation {quotation marks) seem to be lost on people, I've reworded the caption to make the POV of the term clearer. But the recent revert to the awful revision by same contributor had to be changed. deeceevoice 11:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please do not to patronize me. I do take interest in the world, especially the non-aligned movement countries, such as Sudan. I have also taken a lot of interest in Haile Selassie and I think I reviewed his every visit to my home-city and also have taken great interest in the relations between Ethiopia and the country in which spent most of my life. That's why I am concerned about the American bias. Perhaps if you took some interest in Macedonia (or some other country), you would get my drift. I have also had a chance to have long discussions with Ethiopian Orthodox Christians as well as Ethiopian followers of Rastafari.

Of course the term (Cultural appropriation) is subjective, essentially everything is subjective. That's why Wikipedia does not try to present any of the subjective views. Why should one view be emphasized?

Do forgive me if "Rastafarians" is a discredited term. I am afraid my English knowledge is not profound enough to make such a distinction. I'm not sure what you mean by "everyday black people"? Are black people who believe that worship Selassie any less important? This article surely cannot discredit them, especially concerning that Selassie was not a racist himself. The "sub-Saharan Africa" will have to be ascribed to my education, of course. I just tried to use a PC term.

Pan-African colors of course do exist. They are on the person's hat.

The article was very choppy before. I had a rather hard time reading it. It's still choppy as I edited the content, not the layout, which you are more than welcome to do.

"Cultural appropriation" does exist as a term in regions outside of North America, but it does not have the same meaning. I gave the example of Pankrti there. Also, I doubt any Greeks would find Ethiopean Orthodox Christian Church to conform to such a classification, while I am sure they have a similar concept.

You are rather affirmative of the concept, and seem to claim that you know all about it. Do you mind providing us information of who came up with it? --Dejan Čabrilo 11:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Patronize" you? Because I don't give a shyt about Macedonia, I'm somehow provincial. That's funny. :p

• Please. Spare me the personal information. It's wholly irrelevant to this discussion. I mention Sudan, clearly, because of your use of "sub-Saharan Africa" as though it's a valid term in the context of who is and who is not black. It's clearly inappropriate for the use you intended here, because (among many reasons, again, see sub-Saharan Africa) -- again -- Sudan is a North African nation of probably the blackest human beings on the planet. Hell, they're almost freakin' purple! :p

• "Why should one view be emphasized?" "Are black people who worship Selassie any less important?" WTF? I mention "everyday black people," because they're the ones who would look at this white bwoi in Rasta drag and think "cultural appropriation," get an attitude and say somethin' ugly. Everyday black people are far more likely to do so than many Rastas. It is everyday black people who are far more likely to resent whites running around with sheep's wool crocheted into their hair and look at them like they're some kinda crazy. THAT'S why I used the term. Stop trippin'.

• African nationalist colors are -- AGAIN -- red, black and green. NOT red, yellow and green.

• The choppiness of the article isn't a matter of layout. It's about the flow of information. I don't know who's responsible for it as it now reads, but it's incredibly crappy -- a worse than sixth-grade level presentation.

• "Cultural appropriation" means the same thing wherever it's used. It's only the interpretation, the POV, that is different. Who came up with it? Read my earlier comments. deeceevoice 11:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"Cultural appropriation", when used in the English language, by American scholars, usually does mean the same thing. This is not an American encyclopedia. It's an encyclopedia in the English language, and that's all. "Otudjivanje kulture" does not mean what you claim it means. "Prisvajanje kulture" is a completely different thing, but still a direct translation of "cultural appropriation".

I gave you the personal information because you asked me in a rather condenscending way if I "heard of Sudan". I am trying to give bona fide arguments, and you keep telling us about your personal experience denouncing everything else. You are also bordering personal attacks here.

I still don't know what you mean by "everyday black people". All black people are everyday people, just like all white, yellow, green, blue people are everyday. If you think that Rasta is reserved for black people, it's your own opinion, and it's POV. Many Orthodox Christians are racist, but that doesn't make it a racist religion and Ethiopians are of course welcome to practise it. What makes non-Rastas even relevant to this discussion? Yeah, they can make comments about such cultural appropriation, they can publish books about it, but it's yet another view, as valid as the one held in Macedonia, or England, or Russia, or Ethiopia...

The article, before and after I edited it, was very choppy and very hard to follow. In every way.

I completely understand where you are coming from, but do keep in mind that the world does not revolve around the US. --Dejan Čabrilo 12:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Some basic, fundamental, logical thinking would aid in this exchange. What I write about and what I believe are sometimes two, different things. I don't give a ratz ass who is Rasta and who is not. I'm not one, so I couldn't care less. If you need "everyday black people" spelled out for you, I mean the drylongso, the salt of the earth. The universe of black people who would object to white folks in locks goes far beyond (and, as a matter of fact, is far less likely to include) Rastafari. Describing an opinion and holding/expressing that opinion is not necessarily the same thing. Again: discernment. Try some. deeceevoice 12:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have no idea who mutilated the article to its present state, but it's a mess. A series of one-sentence paragraphs strung together does not a decent article make. If editors are not prepared to make, or are incapable of making, some effort at producing a quality article, but they have information they wish to add, then perhaps that information is best placed on the discussion page for others to incorporate. As it stands, the article is in a vastly inferior state compared to where it was two days ago. And that's a pity. deeceevoice 12:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying that people who have nothing to do with Rasta are saying that people who claim to be Rasta in fact have no right to do so? I find your opinion on this rather insulting. Well, drylongso Hungarian Rasta followers think that white people should have every right to believe that Selassie is God. If American scholars think that if Hungarians do so, they are "appropriating", say so in the article.

Also, let me ask you something: when you studied about cultural appropriation in countries which are not USA (and I assume you must have, as you are so certain about the meaning of the term outside of the States), what was the definition given or deducted?

Hey, the easiest thing we can do is arrange the article so it looks and reads good. I think the content is way more important at this point. And yes, if editors have no wish to think outside of their American educational dogma, they should not edit anything but the discussion page. In fact, they should, but should be expecting that somebody will correct their bias. --Dejan Čabrilo 12:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• And, again, you are off point. The article is about "cultural appropriation" -- not who can and who cannot be a Rasta. The example is about how the seemingly superficial adoption of the trappings of a culture -- e.g., wearing dreadlocks -- is perceived/regarded. Period. I don't think most African-Americans care who becomes a Rasta and who doesn't. Dif'rent strokes for dif'rent folks. Lastly, I'm calling attention to the obvious shortcomings of the piece, so that they can be corrected. The way it's been deconstructed and fragmented, substantial portions of it require a complete rewrite. I'll leave that to someone with some decent editorial skills to fix and more time and patience than I for this ridiculous, endless, pointless back-and-forth with people who seem tragically incapable of distinguishing between explication of a point of view and its espousal.

• As far as thinking beyond their "American educational dogma," IMO, that's just more bull based on an earlier discussion. And about some little, DEAD, short black guy being God -- hey, people can believe he's gonna come back in a spaceship, treat them all to free ganja and hashhish brownies and take them to the planet Vulcan for all I care. Right-on-be-free. :p deeceevoice 12:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The image is very much about who can be Rasta. I have no idea what Christians and similar folks personally imagine God to look like and what they expect from it, but that's besides the point. If you put up a photo of a white person giving a racist caption to it, and not disclaiming it as a POV, it's not suitable for Wikipedia.

This article is about "cultural appropriation", not the American view of it. Many people around this globe do not consider a white person following Rasta to be an example of it. As such, you cannot define "cultural appropriation" the way you do on Wikipedia. --Dejan Čabrilo 12:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Again, the original caption indicated that the label was an opinion by the use of quotation marks, something which you apparently didn't -- and still can't/don't/won't -- comprehend. Further, the article as I wrote it very clearly indicates that CA is subjective and that the issue has other perspectives. Your attempt at improving the caption presented all kinds of other problems, which I corrected. And I made the language clearer -- for those of you to whom quotation marks don't seem to convey the POV sufficiently. You should be satisfied on that score.

• If you're expecting universal agreement on an example of cultural appriation, don't hold your breath. There are simply some topics that are contentious by their very nature. This is one of them. You're a white Rasta. Of course you'd have a problem with the example! :p But it's a valid example -- and it's one that white folks with dreads often encounter. This piece explains the reaction they get. Again, it doesn't valid it; it explains it. If you have a problem with that, hey, I'm not gonna lose any sleep over it -- and I'm certainly not going to apologize for it. Gee, life is full of disappointments. Deal with it.

• Now, perhaps someone will deal with the incredibly sucky crappitude of the article's present state. deeceevoice 13:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I am not a Rasta by any means :) How did you come to that conclusion???

The original caption indicated that there is only one view of cultural appropriation, disregarding the fact that world exists outside of the USA. Many people, when talking about cultural appropriation will not see that as an example of it. If you can source that all (or even most) of the planet considers it so, please do include it.

I don't have dreadlocks. Many white people I have do, and the only ones that ever experienced any "problems" about it were in the USA.

Wake up. USA is not the world. Other continets have multitude of cultures (compare EU to US), and "cultural appropriation" certainly holds no merit in the way you describe it. You seem very certain of your opinion, but do consider that Wikipedia recognizes no experts. --Dejan Čabrilo 13:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Off-point and inaccurate again. Too bad the meaning of the quotation marks was lost on you. Tsk, tsk, tsk. deeceevoice 13:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Rasta colors

The caption has been chaged from "pan-African colors" -- which is absolutely incorrect, because there is no black, for the black skin of African epople and the soil, but gold -- which is not included in the African/black nationalist flag. It's been changed from "Jamaican colors," because some think that's an allusion to the Jamaican flag (which it isn't intended to be). A search of various Rasta sites identifies red, yellow (or gold) and green as the colors of Rastafari:

Rasta “Colors”- These are seen to be the colors of Africa itself: red for the blood of the freedom fighters who died resisting colonial rule, gold for the mineral wealth of the continent and green for the fertile lands and natural abundance.

deeceevoice 13:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. Recommended reading: Pan-African colours and Rastafari movement CoYep 14:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks, CoYep. But I prefer an outside source -- because, obviously, Wikipedia is not authoritative. I learned something. I searched (again -- I did a search before changing the caption, but apparently not using a targeted enough sequence of words) for "pan-African colors". And after I got past Wikipedia and its mirror sites, I quickly found two sources, one highly authoritative (at least in this sense, the CIA World Factbook). I accept the change without reservation. deeceevoice 14:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The colors are the colors of the Ethiopian flag. Obviously the man accused of "being completely divorced from the Rastafari movement" knows more about the Rastafari movement and it's connnection to Ethiopia than the "every day Blacks". CoYep 13:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No. I did not contest the colors' connection to Rasta culture and to Ethiopia. What I contested was the term used to characterize them. Oddly enough, I've been a pan-Africanist for more than 30 years. Hell, I even studied the subject in university under C.L.R. James. But I've always considered the red, black and green of the black/African nationalist flag also a symbol of pan-Africanism. I never considered the notion of "pan-African colors" separate and apart from the RB&G. The colors are most commonly paired with Jamaica and Rastafari culture. And when I did a search and turned up nothing useful, I assumed the information I added was incorrect. Certainly, the term "Rasta colors" is also in use by the Rastafari, because I found the term on various websites in my earlier searc h-- with no mention whatsoever of "pan-African colors." But I have no problem with being corrected -- and being gracious about it. It is, after all, a good thing. deeceevoice 14:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Pan-African colours and Rasta colours are both good descriptions. The only reason I used Pan African was because I wasn't sure of correct way to say Rasta colours, which is the more informative and appropriate term to use in this context. The Ethiopian Pan African colours seem to be more used in Africa itself whereas the RBG is more American, but that is a(n interesting) sidetrack, as is the fact that even Jamaicans tend to use black green and gold to indicate nationality, and green, yellow and red for pan-Africanism and/or Rastfarianism. JPD (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia vs. Greece, U.S. vs. world

While Deeceevoice had much improved the article, she had made it very U.S.-centric and totally unsourced. The Greece/Macedonia issue had the advantage of having both clear citations describing the matter as an issue of cultural appropriation, and also helping to mitigate the U.S.-centrism Deecee had written into the article. But FWIW, the conflict between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece goes beyond just happening to share a regional name: the interminable, ridiculously nasty pissing contest revolves around each side's belief that the other is attempting to appropriate the legacy of Alexander the Great and classical Macedonia. It's also an interesting case because each side accuses the other of appropriating the same cultural "property".

Although Deecee believes strongly that "cultural appropriation is what it is", and she has simply transmitted the beautiful truth onto the screen, Francis and I have both run into the same problem, specifically that sources outside the U.S. do not consistently use "cultural appropriation" in the sense that it is used in this article. Many non-US sources use it to mean any adoption of a different culture, regardless of motive or the nature of the power differential. So a persecuted minority, say Australian aboriginals or a Russian living as a minority in a newly independent non-Russian republic, will be described as using "cultural appropriation" as a means of survival or advancement. The specific power dynamics that Deecee believes are intrinsic to the concept are in fact only taken for granted in Deecee's American milieu. So in attempting to make this article suitable for a transnational encyclopedia, we will somehow need to take the varying definitions into account in the article. Babajobu 16:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, as regards the discussion between Dejan and Deecee, I agree with both of them: Deecee is right that the article is now choppy, but Dejan is right that we need to get quality, universal content down before worrying too much about "flow of information", et cetera. Babajobu 16:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I made a quick effort to split the article into two earlier, with definition at the top and examples underneth. I have been thinking of ways in which it can be further structured, haven't come up with anything yet. - FrancisTyers 18:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

An example of what Babajobu describes can be found in:

In the Vietnamese context at the beginning of the century, the criteria for cultural appropriation appeared rather basic. It was, in effect, by the acceptance and required internalisation of the superiority of the West model of civilisation that all efforts at redefinition were undertaken. At first, it was effected above all by identification with this model. Thus, the national cause was first perceived in accordance with the appropriation - even if superficial - of a liberating West modernity, with a break from practises of "traditional" nationalism. [16]

This comes from an academic essay in the UK. Here, the "cultural appropriation" of "Western modernity" seems to be seen as empowering/liberating the appropriating culture to struggle against colonial oppression. I suppose this might be also seen in Ho Chi Minh quoting from the American Constitution in his independance address in 1945. Of course this is original research so I'm not going to include it in the piece, but this seems to be what the author in [1] is saying.

So when DC says A lesser power/entity does not engage in cultural appropriation as the term is commonly understood/used., this may not be strictly correct in all uses of the term. I'm making this point to start a discussion more than anything else, its possible that the guy who wrote that essay has no idea what cultural appropriation is, but equally if that is a common use outside of the US then it should be included. - FrancisTyers 18:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Swastika

Is Swastika an example of cultural appropriation by the Nazis? deeptrivia (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)