Talk:Cultural appropriation

vs. Cultural Diffusion

Right now there seems to be a very strong element of confusion in this article, namely how it relates to cultural diffusion. Diffusion is extremely common and in fact generally the rule rather than the exception throughout history. A section comparing the two concepts—reliably sourced, of course—is necessary when handling this concept. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I also think it would be interesting to talk about cultural diffusion and how it's different from cultural appropriation. It's for sure a difficult topic to touch on since there is a fine line between the two. However, having understanding of the differences between both terms would be helpful for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hist204student (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Declaring solidarity with a group by wearing their clothing

The article as written is overwhelmingly negative about "cultural appropriation". But there are certainly times when people do/wear something that is not normally from their culture to show solidarity with another group. For example, the article on Palestinian keffiyeh reports of people in Europe and the USA wearing keffiyehs to show solidarity with Palestinians. I presume some hardliners about cultural appreciation will object to this, but others will see it as a positive gesture. Casper ten Boom, a Gentile in Holland during WWII, tried to wear a yellow star to identify with Jews and frustrate the Nazis. There are likely other examples and contexts where people have done what is here pejoratively called "cultural appropriation", but done it for positive reasons. How does the theory of cultural appropriation handle such cases?

Wikipedia has recently become known as a hostile environment. Let's edit and discuss in friendly ways that nurture discussion, even with people with whom we may disagree, even strongly disagree. Pete unseth (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a section in the article, now named "Designers doing Cultural Appropriation the right way". Seems like we should consider whether this is a case of POV. This editor assumes both that other forms of CA listed above are wrong, and that the way listed in this section is "the right way". Seems to be a POV violation to me. What do others say? Pete unseth (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be interesting to differentiate between cultural appropriation and when an article of clothing, like the keffiyeh, is worn to show solidarity with a group of individuals. There are differences in wearing something solely as a fashion statement without crediting or even belittling the group it is taken from, or actually crediting the group and supporting them while wearing it. Again, like the case is for people who wear the keffiyah to show their support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hist204student (talk • contribs) 19:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Wikipedia has recently become known as a hostile environment." This is an understatement. We have users quitting after the latest edit wars and/or rejection of their work, and others getting banned over well-meaning edits. Then we wonder why we do not attract more editors.

Anyway, back to the topic. To reflect the adoption of elements from other cultures for reasons of solidarity, we need reliable sources covering the topic and connecting it to cultural appropriation. Anecdotal evidence are often interesting, but their significance and interpretation is not up to editors to decide.

And I am not even certain that the infamous yellow badge (Jews' star) counts as an element of Jewish culture. It was a practice of Medieval Islamic and Christian states to force their Jewish population to wear badges and distinctive clothing which set them apart from the rest of the population. It made Jews stand out at all times, prevented them from blending in or hiding, served as their badge of shame, and defined them as the Other. And the motive was rather clear. To quote the Canon of the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215): "it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress."

So the Jews looked like everyone else and someone had to stop them from having sexual relationships with Christians. Heaven forbid that people should be free to choose their sexual partners. The Jews did not choose to be singled out for punishment, nor was their culture expressed by a symbol chosen by their enemies.

This is not the equivalent of displaying religious symbols without understanding their significance. I doubt anyone considers the yellow badge to be sacred. Dimadick (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Perception

I'm going to change "Cultural appropriation is seen as controversial, even harmful..." to "Cultural appropriation may be perceived as controversial, even harmful..." Certainly, no source can speak for a universal perception in all contexts. In modern Japan men wear western-style suits and ties, but I don't know that anyone much cares. Further, the perception in even some of the more iconic cases is not universal. Many native Americans support the use of Native American symbols and names. Of course, a balanced article would discuss in detail neutral perceptions of, and support for, cultural appropriation. John2510 (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Jazz/ Music in General

Claims that whites have stolen from blacks in the realm of music are ignorant. Do we accuse blacks of cultural theft for use of the orchestral and harmonic advances of white europeans or the melodies of mostly white songwriters? Of course not. This is because music goes in the ear, not the eye, and has nothing to do with melanin content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.215.149 (talk) 12:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing how ignorant or enlightened particular claims of cultural appropriation are. Dyrnych (talk) 00:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

But sometimes it's good to do a little reflection on what kind of bullshit we are bringing in from so-called reliable sources every once in a while. --Pudeo (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Celtic indigeneity

It is of the opinion of many scholars and Gaels themselves that Celtic people are indigenous, having experienced centuries of colonization (see Conquest of Ireland, Acts of Proscription, Irish Land War and Highland Clearances for details, not to mention the British response to the Great Hunger/Highland Potato Famine). This and this are reliable sources that discusses the issue. As a result, I've removed the references to Celtic people being non-indigenous in the article. Thanks! Alázhlis (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well... They might be indigenous (although that's controversial), but they are not indigenous to Boston or Indiana (or Minnesota for the Vikings). The paragraph should be rephrased, but since that was the point being made, the history of Ireland doesn't seem particularly relevant, and appears to be original research. Grayfell (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I will note that it's still unsourced. My sources (which directly discuss Celtic indigeneity) would seem to contradict any claim of original research. I merely offered the rest for reference. Alázhlis (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to rephrase it to be more neutral, let me know if you think that will work. Sourced or not, Celtic indigeneity is not a simple issue, but that's not important to the paragraph. I don't see where those sources discuss U.S. teams or mascots, or much about cultural appropriate as this article defines it, which would makes this OR or WP:SYNTH, but again, the paragraph was about something else. Some team names are based on large or historically prominent populations which are not indigenous to the team's region. That's all. I don't think that particular point, at least, is controversial, but I could be wrong. It seems like a point that might be worth mentioning, but to what extent this qualifies as cultural appropriation depends on sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree that describing them as immigrants seems appropriate here, but I would like to see more sources as to the exact source of those names. Please note also that all of the Goidelic languages are widely recognized as endangered--see here, here, and elsewhere, although Irish is not described as such on Wikipedia. Alázhlis (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I stand corrected. Strangely, neither is Scottish Gaelic, although Category:Scottish Gaelic language is under Category:Endangered Celtic languages. The source used for categorization is down (for me at least), otherwise I would fix this.

I'm still reluctant to use the term endangered language in this context, however, as it's implying that being endangered is connected to appropriation. That's interesting, but it should be explained with sources, rather than simply implied. Grayfell (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Sweat lodges

"Fraudulent sweat lodge ceremonies performed by non-Natives have led to injuries and some deaths." - may give the false impression that the fraudulent nature of the ceremonies are what led to the injuries and deaths. Kortoso (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ideology

Why is this term not presented as the ideologically-based term it is? In my edit recognizing this fact, one of my references was the term "regressive left", whose Wikipedia entry acknowledges the ideological slant inherent in the term. A term that otherwise describes something that occurs in the world, but then appends an ideological slant to it. Like the term "cultural appropriation". Thumbells (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)Thumbells

Issues with other articles should be resolved on their talk pages. This is an academic term with an accepted meaning. If reliable sources (other Wikipedia articles are not sources) describe this as being used by "activists" of whatever stripe, those sources should be evaluated and only included in a neutral, proportional way. Your edits were clearly not intended to reflect such sources, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for making loaded political points. Grayfell (talk) 03:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing and content

This article continues to be poorly sourced and to make poor use of those low-quality sources, often by using multiple low-quality sources making normative claims as sources for claims of fact. See, for example, this sentence: "Cultural elements which may have deep meaning to the original culture may be reduced to "exotic" fashion by those from the dominant culture." For that factual proposition in Wiki-voice, we cite three sources: a tribal activist's prescriptive opinion piece, another prescriptive opinion piece, this time by members of something called the "Autonomous Collective Against Racism", and, finally, a third prescriptive opinion piece (this one of particularly low quality). This is not an isolated case, as a cursory glance through the article reveals.

I propose we eliminate the following sources:

• Don't Mess Up When You Dress Up: Cultural Appropriation and Costumes - Never used as the sole source for a claim, low quality, moralizing.
• Open Letter to the PocaHotties and Indian Warriors this Halloween - Low quality, moralizing, unnecessary when we have other sources that make similar claims.
• But Why Can’t I Wear a Hipster Headdress? - Same.
• 13 Racist College Parties That Prove Dear White People Isn’t Exaggerating At All - Are we citing this for the proposition that people wear offensive Halloween costumes? Other, higher-quality sources make the same claim.

That's certainly not all the sources that could go, but it's a start.

It's not just the sources, though. The bulk of the article is devoted to examples and (often trivial) celebrity controversies. The examples practically swallow the article and desperately need to be pruned. The celebrity controversy section should probably go in its entirety; to the extent the incidents are notable, they can be reflected on the celebrity's page. I'd be interested to see which examples other editors feel are overkill, superfluous, non-notable, or otherwise in need of removal. Dyrnych (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You've completely mangled the lede again. It was finally readable, sourced and made sense and you put undue weight on the minority view, reversed what weight needs to be put where based on sourcing, and now want to gut sources based on your POV. The changes rendered it unreadable. I've reverted back to the last readable version. Propose changes more incrementally if you want them to work. Why do you keep insisting on changing this article into something the opposite of what it is? I realize you don't agree with the concept, but we're documenting it whether we agree with it or not. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

As usual, you are missing the point, pointing to straw men, and commenting on my motives rather than what I've actually proposed. Also, you've mischaracterized my edits. I didn't change the order of the minority view, as you can easily see for yourself, and the article is not "unreadable" with my edits—a charge that, notably, you don't substantiate by identifying anything specific. To the point, though: the sources I've identified are terrible for the reasons I've stated. Rather than defend them on the merits, you've accused me of pushing a POV and not "agree[ing] with the concept," whatever that means. Come on. Dyrnych (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Dyrnych, you are very clearly pushing a POV, as in this version, which you are now reverting to, you are specifically removing longstanding content that states Indigenous positions on Cultural Appropriation. This is a pretty serious systemic bias issue. You may call an old website put together by people without a lot of money "terrible" visually, but it's merit and validity still stands based on who the people are who wrote the documents. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 00:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

State, specifically, which indigenous viewpoints I removed from the article itself, or retract that assertion. Also, you're making some hefty assumptions—completely shorn of policy—to excuse your shoddy sources. Dyrnych (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, let's be clear: "stat[ing] Indigenous positions on Cultural Appropriation" is descriptive of those positions, not the concept itself. Whenever we do that, we are obligated to attribute the positions to their proponents rather than stating them as factual propositions (or, worse, admonishments to readers). Dyrnych (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I think Dyrnych's version is far more neutral. CorbieV obviously has an axe to grind in regards to this article and has not shown the ability to edit in a neutral manner. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Spacecowboy and his 420, and Dyrnych, you both have a history of pushing to have this article say "Cultural Appropriation" means "Equal Cultural Exchange", and trying to remove sources and content that say otherwise. You both waited till we finally had a stable, readable version of this and now you're back to trash it again. I haven't found your efforts helpful at all. We've been over and over the fact that contemporary sources keep phrasing it "cultural appropriation" when they really mean "misappropriation" and we are stuck with taking that into account. Your disagreement with the sources and trying to remove them doesn't mean another editor is biased. The creepy bias here is Dyrnych's targeting of Indigenous content. Look at the removal you did and then reverted to after I replaced the content:[1]. You removed a handful of links to Indigenous articles about Cultural Appropriation. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

As is your repeated practice, you are not actually engaging in a discussion. Rather, you state with precisely no evidence I am displaying "creepy bias" by "targeting Indigenous content"—a frankly absurd and insulting suggestion, which, despite my request above, you have refused to substantiate by pointing to anything I've removed from the article. I removed external links due to the fact that they do not satisfy our policy on external links. Again, you have made no effort to justify their inclusion by pointing to a policy-based reason for retaining them. You are not in any sense engaging in a good faith discussion of the actual issues I've raised or the actual content of my edits, and you've offered no reason for reverting that actually withstands scrutiny. The version isn't "stable" merely because you like it. Dyrnych (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, listen to yourself for a minute:

We've been over and over the fact that contemporary sources keep phrasing it 'cultural appropriation' when they really mean 'misappropriation' and we are stuck with taking that into account.

You are not the arbiter of what sources "really mean." That is an egregious example of WP:OR. Dyrnych (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This article does not need right-wing cultural revisionism added in. Enough. Montanabw^(talk) 06:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Is this even a meaningful attempt to engage in discussion? Dyrnych (talk) 06:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

No need to engage in an exercise in futility. See WP:TENDENTIOUS. You are clearly raising assorted red herrings that need not be discussed further. I have no interest in feeding the issue further. Montanabw^(talk) 07:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I hope you can appreciate the stunning absurdity of your simultaneous "take it to talk" and "I refuse to talk" positions. You have contributed precisely nothing to the article or conversation. Dyrnych (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: do you plan on actually discussing the content of my edits? If you don't, I'm just going to assume you have no interested in the "discussion" portion of WP:BRD and reinstate my the majority of my edits. Without some indication of what you find objectionable about them—based on Wikipedia policy—we're left with two editors supporting the changes on the merits, you opposing the changes on whatever mysterious grounds you oppose them, and another editor who swooped in with a bizarre series of insults and an explicit refusal to engage in discussion. Under those circumstances, the edits should be reinstated. I will grant you've expressed specific opposition to removing the external links (although your opposition does not appear to be based on policy and caricatures my edits), so those should be discussed before reinstating, to the extent you're willing to actually discuss them. Note that "stability" is not a justification for reinstating your preferred version when the "instability" involves your actions. Also note that we're far afield from my original request above, which is to identify low-quality sources and clean up the very, very long series of examples. Dyrnych (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

CorbieV seems to have ownership issues in regards to this article and an axe to grind. Perhaps this article should be left to editors who have no personal attachments or COI. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You repeat the same baseless attacks in efforts to wear other editors down. None of that is dialogue. All of this has been discussed before. You wait for us to have a stable version then you come back and retread the same exact arguments. It's tedious and tendentious and not productive. Your refactoring of the page is a personal attack on the other editors here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

CorbieV, do you have any personal connection with this article? I'm not an Indian (or other ethnic minority) and neither do I wear native costumes for fun, so I have zero personal connection to the article and no reason for bias. How about you? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420 and CorbieVreccan, you both need to back off of the ridiculous accusations. It's absurd to suggest an editor has a conflict of interest due to perceived ethnicity, and editing a page in a way someone doesn't like is not a "personal attack" on anyone. Discuss the edits or take it to some other talk page.

Also, to the extent that you're conflating me with other editors, CorbieVreccan, that needs to stop immediately. It leads down these strange rabbit holes where it's not clear to whom you're responding or what wild accusations you're leveling at which editor. It's unhelpful and at least as tedious as my habit of broaching the same arguments that you have yet, at any point, to respond to in substance. Dyrnych (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, Spacecowboy420 has a history of making bizarre statements related to ethnicity when editors identified themselves as Indigenous. Spacecowboy420 is the one making the egregious suggestion that people of certain ethnicities or cultures should be prohibited from editing Wikipedia articles. What I am tired of from both of you is the rehashing of the same, identical arguments. Quit tagging me in them. Tagging me in these bizarre attacks is reaching the level of harassment, not engagement. Stop it. Dyrnych, this edit of yours: [2] where you reconfigured the talk page to hide @Montanabw:'s comments is beyond the pale. I strongly suggest you revert yourself, revert the article back to a version prior to your revert-warring (the stable version that had only the "everyday feminism" source removed, but not the content as it is sourced in about four more sources), and stop this tendentious disruption. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 16:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

If you or your buddy (who I will again note swooped onto this page with no prior edit history or connection, apparently for the sole purpose of making the same edit you'd previously made) have a problem with me refactoring comments that were little more than a personal attack on me and an explicit refusal to engage in discussion, I can live with that. That was in no way "beyond the pale," and I will not revert it. Nor can you abdicate your responsibility to ACTUALLY ENGAGE IN DISCUSSION simply by repeatedly accusing me of being tendentious. You have yet to engage on the merits with any of my points, and you literally never have done so. Dyrnych (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Spacecowboy420's comment about CorbieVreccan's ethnicity/nationality is utterly inappropriate and unacceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we all agree on that. Dyrnych (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

There are obvious ownership/COI issues on this article, due to personal attachments to the subject. When people manage to separate their own personal backgrounds from their edits, then their personal backgrounds will become irrelevant. But, it's not big deal - I can just as easily say that an edit shows a lack of neutrality, without going into the reasons for that lack of neutrality. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

That is an ad hominem attack and irrelevant to the discussion, please focus on content, not contributors. EvergreenFir is right to point out clear policy. Montanabw^(talk) 01:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you propose that people address possible COI issues without focus on the contributor? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

original research

I removed "It is arguable that it is still offensive as consumers are not being educated on the cultural backgrounds of the styles borrowed from other cultures and unless the retailer or designer take the time to provide information regarding the history of the trends used, the items are being worn as a new fashion statement in the public." as it seems very much like original research/an opinion piece. If someone actually has a source for the above, please include it with content stating who has this opinion and why they are relevant, thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not original research, it is a clear and longstanding scholarly position. Montanabw^(talk) 01:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

As I stated above "If someone actually has a source for the above, please include it with content stating who has this opinion and why they are relevant, thanks." I have no opinion if that content is correct or not, I just couldn't find a source to support it - however, I'm sure if it is such "a clear and longstanding scholarly position" then you will have no issues finding a source to support it. Thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Blackface

I object to the inclusion of blackface in this article. There can be arguments about the harm of cultural appropriation, but its meaning is clear: one person or group adopting part of the culture of a different group. What "culture" is blackface stolen from? Who are these people that would darken their faces as part of their culture, only to have ignorant white people "appropriate" this practice? The answer is nobody. Blackface was a highly offensive practice, but not because it was culturally appropriative, but because it was used to mock Africans and African-Americans. It makes no sense to include it in this article. Unschool 00:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This issue is what reliable sources say, not our personal analyses. While I agree with you, if sources include it, so should Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Where are the reliable sources saying that blackface is "cultural appropriation"? Sure, there are three "sources", but not one of them links to anything that anyone can read. I don't have those books, so I don't know what those books say. Even the titles do not provide a hint that they define "blackface" as cultural appropriation. I'm not going to revert at this time, because I don't edit war. But neither am I going to allow someone to provide non-traceable sources to support an illogical proposition. Unschool 05:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I now see an additional three sources claiming blackface is cultural appropriation, and two of them actually link to somewhere. But one of them is about hip-hop, not blackface. And the other is a book review, not a scholarly work. This is beginning to look more and more like someone's political agenda. Unschool 05:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to locate actual quotes tomorrow. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Unschool 07:29, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's been about four weeks, and nothing has been added to change my earlier expressed opinion. Blackface, while it is a highly offensive form of racial mockery, is not "cultural appropriation". Not everything bad is cultural appropriation, and blackface is bad in a different way. So I will restore my edit from last month. Unschool 02:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Example Cruft

In the last week, Osama57 has added about 7,000 words to the article, which look like about twelve purported additional examples of cultural appropriation. While I don't think that any of them are particularly objectionable edits (aside from the Jamiroquois edit, which was misplaced in the sports section and seems non-notable) and I'm not suggesting problematic editing by Osama57, this seems like a good time to reiterate that this article is a magnet for example cruft. The vast majority of the article is dedicated, it appears, to chronicling each and every example of something someone has perceived to be cultural appropriation—importantly, with no clear endgame or limiting principle. While examples are (to some extent) helpful for illustrating the concept, the article is way out of hand. There needs to be a serious conversation about which examples are helpful, trivial, superfluous, or disproportionately represented. Dyrnych (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Before I edited the page, there was nothing about the origins of cultural appropriation. Europeans have been copying other cultures' clothing and art for over 400 years.

Your edits don't discuss the origins of the practice, and certainly don't support the proposition that it originated in Europe in the last 400 years (which I suspect has no support in reliable sources). You've just added more, albeit older, examples. Dyrnych (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

independently created stuff

Indians and Mayans each came up with the concept of zero, Boomerangs#History came from other places, and this gentleman's music sounds like blues yet different enough to be independent. Were American/Canadian aboriginals the only people to wear feathers on their heads or braid their hair? How about the first to use flatbreads, use simple geometric figures in art, or sing in a capella?199.7.157.44 (talk) 05:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)