Talk:Cultural appropriation/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

This article seems to likely erroneously imply that none of the appropriations or alleged appropriations might have been invented or developed independently. 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. This man File:Kozacka piesn.jpg isn't wearing a mohawk. 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 a cappella?199.119.233.198 (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Where specifically do you see that implication being made? Can you point to any examples in this article that are the result of ‘parallel cultural evolution‘ rather than imitation? OTOH the article does mention diffusion &c., and if there are reliable sources contrasting accidental similarities with cultural appropriation, I think some content in that vein could be worth including. Most of the examples I’ve seen raised, however, are specific or stereotypical enough that they can scarcely be explained by coincidental similarity to the symbol, object, or practice at issue. ISTM the most difficult questions surround the intentions of the supposed appropriators, and finding a balance between freedom of expression and social duty to avoid causing offence, rather than whether or not an imitation or borrowing has taken place in a given instance.—Odysseus1479 17:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

No criticism section?

The actions of some very dedicated editors in this article appear to reflect an almost religious determination to prevent it from including a criticism section. However, summarily deleting the comments of other editors is not an appropriate way to counter an argument. Criticizing a subject is not negation in of itself, it actually adds to the legitimacy of an article if reasoned. Assume good faith - criticism is not akin to bigotry. This page is an unfortunate embarrassment to the mission of Wikipedia. 66.30.188.9 (talk) 08:25, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I have never been a big fan of the ubiquitous "Criticism" section in our articles, but I do like balance. Sometimes such sections are the easiest way to achieve it. Has there been such a section here before? Do you have some diffs which show when editors are trying to remove balance? I can certainly see how this is the type of article that could become very contentious. Unschool 07:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

There needs to be a critiscism section in this article.

The topic of cultural appropriation is rather controversial. However, I have noticed that the section about critiscism of it is included in the main introduction of the article. In order to reduce the length of the introduction it should be moved to a seperate section.

The introduction of this article is rather long. I suggest that some of its contents be moved into sub-sections of the article.

Also, I have noticed the inclusion of many low-quality, biased sources with clear agendas and socio-political motivations, such as this rather opinionated and clickbait-ey The Gloss article. I do not think that a women's fashion, beauty and make-up site is a reliable source for claims. Should I remove it? --Rainythunderstorm (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultural appropriation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160630090119/http://yalebooks.com/book/9780300080674/playing-indian to http://yalebooks.com/book/9780300080674/playing-indian

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:11, 15 August 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)

This is not an accademic term. LMAO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.215.236.146 (talk) 22:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Jamiroquai is not cultural appropiation.

First of all Jamiroquai is the band, the guy there is called Jay Kay. Secondly that isn't Cultural Appropiation, putting some feathers in the head? Are you f... kidding me? There are more obvious example of cultural appropriation than that. Wikpedia loves sources, show me one source that cites that photo or that costume as an example of cultural appropriation. That why I think the photo should go. Thank you, --190.215.236.146 (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

The IP user raises valid concerns, regardless of whether it's actually an example of cultural appropriation (which we're not here to debate). This is entirely unsourced and appears to be an editor's original research ("reminiscent?"). I'm removing the image; it's dubious, adds little to the article, and raises WP:BLP issues. Dyrnych (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Definition is incorrect

I intend to show that omission of a sufficient negative connotation in the opening sentence of the definition becomes a biased representation of this concept, not a neutral one. Widely defining it as literally the adoption or use of *any* element over-simplifies and even possibly misrepresents this concept in a strawman-like fashion.

Some definitions from Google: Here's the *best definition* I've come across which, and you'll notice in the first sentence the use of words like dominance and exploitation as well as the expected and more benign exchange. "Defined as the use of a culture’s symbols, artifacts, genres, rituals, or technologies by members of another culture, cultural appropriation can be placed into 4 categories: exchange, dominance, exploitation, and transculturation" -Richard Rogers, 2008, Communication Theory[3]

Please consider the following definitions for additional support: Oxford English Dictionary[4]: "The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society." <-- this is a definition we might use or draw from and Oxford Reference[5]: "A term used to describe the taking over of creative or artistic forms, themes, or practices by one cultural group from another. It is in general used to describe Western appropriations of non‐Western or non‐white forms, and carries connotations of exploitation and dominance. The concept has come into literary and visual art criticism by analogy with the acquisition of artefacts (the Elgin marbles, Benin bronzes, Lakota war shirts, etc.) by Western museums." versus our definition: "Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of the elements of one culture by members of another culture.[1]"

The closest supporting definition I found to the wikipedia version includes the clause "especially without showing you understand *or respect* this culture." [Cambridge Dictionary][]: "the act of taking or using things from a culture that is not your own, especially without showing that you understand or respect this culture"

Commentary: It's essential that an addition is either made to the first sentence so the concept cannot be misrepresented as simply eating Indian food at a restaurant. That is reducto ad absurdum if we're speaking about the colloquial usage of "cultural appropriation" imho. I'd like to make some edits to the definition but wanted to explain myself before doing so and get feedback. The other sentences in the Wiki definition attempt to qualify the first sentence as possibly negative but to not include the negative aspects of the colloquial and academic definitions in the first sentence makes it incomplete and with how relevant Wikipedia is, quite frankly a harmful misrepresentation that strawmans a useful academic term as what some might call through this strawman "regressive left wing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalmon (talk • contribs) 22:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum still requires that your endpoint fit the argument, which "eating Indian food at a restaurant" pretty clearly does not. Also, note that your attempt to graft an explicitly negative connotation onto the Wikipedia definition subordinates, in terms of your best definition, "exchange" and "transculturation" to "dominance" and "exploitation." I think it's pretty clear from the secondary sources in the article that there's a lively cultural dispute over the definition of cultural appropriation and propriety of alleged examples, so I'm not sure how the definition is more incomplete in covering neutral senses of the term. Dyrnych (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Vasalmon has a legitimate point: The term "cultural appropriation" is inherently pejorative, and the current vanilla definition belies this. The term cultural appropriation was created explicitly to denote a negative connection to the practices it describes, and we should acknowledge this.

However, we must also then provide balance, not by fabricating a milquetoast definition, but by countering with those sources that either deny that cultural appropriation exists or which state that its existence is an entirely natural and inevitable historical occurrence. While the article currently does hint at this, it might be better if it just states point blank that many authorities regard the new, negative characterization of "cultural appropriation" to simply be bovine fecal material. Unschool 06:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

You both raise good points. I agree that there is debate and that neutrality is key. I side with Unschool - that we should describe it as colloquially inherently negative and list criticisms that it doesn't exist or is historically inevitable to balance it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalmon (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The bizarre implication, in all of the groping for definition, is the underlying notion that something cultural was "taken", without some type of compensation or acknowledgement, as though there is a debt aspect. The entire concept of "owning" something culturally is defective. Is a regional recipe "owned"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.193.242 (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Ownership of ideas is rather strange but is the very basis of intellectual copyright law. Why should I own a song I write? If I can own a song, why not a recipe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalmon (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

'Permission' and 'representatives'

The introductory paragraph of this article contains two phrases that I don't think make sense:

1. "Often unavoidable when multiple cultures come together, cultural appropriation can include using other cultures' traditions, food, fashion, symbols, technology, language, and cultural songs without permission".

Whose permission is being spoken of here? Cultures are not individuals who can give or refuse permission, nor do they ever have official representatives who could give or refuse this permission.

2. "According to critics of the practice, cultural (mis)appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or cultural exchange in that the "appropriation" or "misappropriation" refers to the adoption of these cultural elements in a colonial manner: elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of representatives of the originating culture."

Again, cultures can inherently never have official representatives, as unlike states, for example, they do not have fixed memberships or indeed any official body, structure, institution or leadership. The only "representative" a culture could have would be a self-appointed one, and their wishes, expressly stated or otherwise, would hold no more weight in the matter than those of the average person on the street. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 19:57, 11 October 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)

Hi! Just wanted to add to the claim that blackface is cultural appropriation. Firstly, I completely agree skin colour is a racial trait and not the same as cultural clothing but that doesn't exonerate it from being appropriation. There are two cultural groups to consider: both the African-American culture, and the culture of those who have black skin. Any group that struggles with oppression develops its own culture. Blackface is a representation of another culture's visible or identifying trait. In addition, one could say it's part of cultural identity if a culture uses race as part of their formative identity like African-American and/or -->black<-- culture sometimes (if not always) does. Being black is part of black culture and therefore blackface is a parody of a cultural identity trait and therefore cultural appropriation. I read a couple of sources I got from googling "cultural appropriation and cultural identity." http://artmob.blog.yorku.ca/files/2011/03/Coombe_Properties_of_Culture.pdf and "cultural appropriation and black face" http://bust.com/feminism/14847-blackface-simplified-for-those-who-still-don-t-get-it.html which had an interesting poster that says "We're a culture not a costume. You wear the costume for one night. I wear the stigma for life." I argue it's a culture of those who deal with that stigma and that their identifying trait is being appropriated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalmon (talk • contribs) 21:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

In a definition that you yourself provided below, cultural appropriation is

"Defined as the use of a culture’s symbols, artifacts, genres, rituals, or technologies . . ."

Skin color is not a symbol of a culture. It is not an artifact. It is not a genre. It is not a ritual. It is not a technology. So blackface, which we can all agree is a disgusting and reprehensible practice, is not "cultural appropriation". Unschool 07:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The African American culture is a unique culture where country-of-origin has been stolen from many members' histories due to slavery. As a result, one of the elements of African American culture is skin colour. I would go as far as to suggest for that culture, skin colour is a symbol as evidenced by the use of skin colour in its colloquial name: black culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasalmon (talk • contribs) 03:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Although it might be difficult (or impossible) to work this into the text because the words “cultural appropriation “ are not used, I doubt the term had been coined when Gunnar Myrdal published his classic study, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy in 1944, what he makes clear (to me, pp.987-990) is that the appropriation taking place when someone performed in blackface was not the cork make-up but the material that being thusly made up allowed the performer to engage in. That was a form of song, dance and patter that developed when “every plantation had its talented band that could crack negro jokes and sing and dance to the accompaniment of the banjo and the bones.” That is what white performers stole when they went black face. Carptrash (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

NNPOV

RFC re: article is largely nnpov on what is an ideological matter, & persistent removal &/or truncation of "criticism" section (& now, persistent removal of the rfc by one user) Lx 121 (talk) 16:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

--

restored the "disappeared" criticism section; which was already SEVERELY TRUNCATED by "dedicated" editors.

re-added npov tag; this problem was never solved, & the "drift" has gotten worse in the 2 years since i was last 'here'.

this issue is NOT one-sided, no matter how much the advocates of the concept insist on it.

& wikipedia is not a platform for advocating causes or ideologies.

Lx 121 (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lx 121: I have removed the {{rfc}} template again. Please do not re-add it unless this is set out as a proper RFC, observing in particular WP:RFC#Statement should be neutral and brief and WP:WRFC. Also, when choosing parameters for the {{rfc}} template, make sure that they are valid - if you see "Unsorted", as shown no less than five times here - it's a clear indication that an invalid parameter was used. Finally, never add the |rfcid= parameter yourself - that is a value that must be set by Legobot (talk · contribs), otherwise the RfC system integrity is compromised. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

hello

1. the 2nd item you cited is an essay; this is not a valid rationale for removing somebody else's rfc. & if we are citing essays, i invite you to look up the "wheaton rule".

2. "not guessing the correct letter-code for the proper rfc subcategory" is not a valid rational for removing someone else's rfc request. if you wanted to be helpful, you could file it correctly. OR you could re-write the template to include this information someplave where it is convenient & easy to find. or, you could just leave it alone, & get on with your life.

Lx 121 (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lx 121: Are you going to fix this up, or shall I ask for independent review? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Lx 121::--The RFC, as it stood, made precisely zero sense to any fly-by observer--the intendened audience of any RFC.Please take a look at WP:WRFC and re-start one.Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Open Casket

Hi Pete unseth, my apologies if I've misunderstood the concept, but calls for the destruction of an artwork by a white artist of a lynched black teenager because "it is not acceptable for a white person to transmute Black suffering into profit and fun..." sounds like an accusation/example of cultural misappropriation to me? JezGrove (talk) 22:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds to me like a case of ‘cultural insensitivity’ perhaps, but not appropriation as such. What is common to both is that they‘re ascribed to members of a privileged group taking liberties with the experience of an underprivileged group, but the piece in question doesn’t apparently include any trappings of African culture, or any allusions to ‘blackness’ aside from the identity of the corpse. Had the artist tried to portray, say, African funerary customs, the story would be relevant to this article, but AFAICT the problem is framed as a white person presuming to speak for black victims, not as a white person adopting or imitating black culture (for that purpose or any other).—Odysseus1479 23:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Very many thanks for taking the time to clear that up Odysseus. Best wishes JezGrove (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

definition "drift"

since i was last here, the definition of "cultural appropriation" (as given in the article) seems to have been expanded to cover virtually ALL cultural borrowing.

& it has even gained redirects from other terms describing cultural borrowing of various types.

that is not what "cultural appropriation" is; the ideological concept deals specifically with "cultural borrowings from a minority/oppressed culture, by a dominant one".

AND, if this article IS meant to be about all cultural borrowing, then it should be re-titled; & it does not adequately address the concept of minority culture borrowings from majority/dominant cultures, etc.

Lx 121 (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Sources are clear that if there's no power imbalance, if it is equal exchange, it's not (mis)appropiration. It's only misappropriation if the power imbalance is present. I'm doing some cleanup to this effect. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The McWhorter piece is so brief and specific, I think it belongs in the section on music and Black views on appropriation of Black culture, but I'm not sure it's apt for the lede. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

sources

this cited source is pretty marginal

https://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/cultural-exchange-and-cultural-appropriation/

they're not "experts" on the subject with regards to academic credibility,

they are certainly not objective,

& they would barely qualify as a "notable" media outlet.

i'm not calling for removal (although i've had much better sources rejected in other discussions, on other articles), but it should not be used to claim academic "credibility" for any matters in the article.

i do not begrudge them their existence; but they are not a scientific journal of sociology, nor are they an objective & reliable news & information resource. they are an "op-ed" website, presenting a particular worldview; & should be treated as such re: wp:sources.

Lx 121 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not crazy about that as a source, either. I think at one point I grudgingly agreed we could keep it as WP:V for discussing how this topic is seen/discussed in pop culture. It's probably a good example for that. But no, there's no way that site can be considered academic. At one point we were really lacking in good sources for this, just because not enough had been published yet. Most of what was out there was either pop culture, or out of date and many even had conflicting definitions. We definitely have better sources now. I think over time we can phase it out. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I cut this out

and am moving it here for discussion because those of us who don't hang out in conservative, right-wing, and libertarian circles would like to see a reference for this.

• "In conservative, right-wing, and libertarian circles, the concept of cultural appropriation is widely derided as nonsensical, opportunistically selective, hypocritical, an example of "liberal"/left-wing ideological extremism & political correctness, and for often mis-representing the actual origins and history of claimed items of cultural intellectual property."
  Carptrash (talk) 16:31, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It's probably true and demonstrable in things like Reddit, but yes, it requires a reliable source. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well they would change their tune if the JDL started wearing white robes with pointy hats and began burning Star of Davids on people's lawns. Suddenly then they would grasp the concept. Carptrash (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

"things like Reddit" I occasionally use [Reddit]] myself, and it seems to have users from all types of political backgrounds. Supposed criticism from "right-wing" sources would probably need to be sourced to print publications of that type, rather than online communities. Dimadick (talk) 11:52, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah of course we can't use Reddit as a source for something like this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

comment - respectfully, that seems like a perfect gaming-the-rules catch-22 wp:bs arguement for "why we can't include something in an article", even though it's a widely-known & easily demonstrable fact. BUT i'm still going to bury this duscussion under a tidal wave of refs now; & it is too late to complain :p Lx 121 (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

rather than individually posting what are going to be literally hundreds of links, here are the google-search results (for several obvious keywords-combinations); kindly pick the items you consider best?

cultural appropriation mentions @ fox news:

https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&newwindow=1&dcr=0&ei=ItsqWunRAdGnggea5L_ICQ&q=Cultural+appropriation+fox+news&oq=Cultural+appropriation+fox+news&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.47414.49744.0.50727.9.9.0.0.0.0.445.1282.2-4j0j1.5.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..4.5.1280...0i131i67k1j0i67k1.0.Ihe6axX5fZA

cultural appropriation @ breitbart:

https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&newwindow=1&dcr=0&nfpr=1&q=Cultural+appropriation+breitbart&spell=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwily5vUh_vXAhXE0hoKHdNfCqkQBQglKAA&biw=1280&bih=853

cultural appropriation @ 'the rebel media' (whom i particularly despise! ^__^ ):

https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&newwindow=1&dcr=0&biw=1280&bih=853&ei=HtwqWqPtI8O5abTZo9AM&q=Cultural+appropriation+rebel+media&oq=Cultural+appropriation+rebel+media&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0.36954.39267.0.40541.11.5.0.0.0.0.343.343.3-1.1.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..10.1.342....0.AedJirB-TmU

c.a. @ alex jones/infowars:

https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&newwindow=1&dcr=0&biw=1280&bih=853&ei=S9wqWpu1GsHWa5vPjqgP&q=Cultural+appropriation+alex+jones&oq=Cultural+appropriation+alex+jones&gs_l=psy-ab.3...61596.63525.0.64189.10.10.0.0.0.0.275.1654.2-7.7.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..3.5.1138...0j0i22i30k1j0i22i10i30k1j33i22i29i30k1.0.BfficooIkFc

c.a. & rush limbaugh (including a very good washington post op-ed by volokh, agreeing that the whole thing is ridiculous):

https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&newwindow=1&dcr=0&biw=1280&bih=853&ei=ldwqWp2YCc6ja5WwnqAD&q=Cultural+appropriation+rush+limbaugh&oq=Cultural+appropriation+rush+limbaugh&gs_l=psy-ab.3...23338.25804.0.26460.13.12.0.0.0.0.347.1766.0j4j3j1.8.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..5.7.1416...0j0i22i30k1j33i21k1.0.eTfXFJ5GB3o

that should be good for several hundred examples, & here, for good measure, is a solidly tory british paper commenting (negatively) on the concept of cultural appropriation:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-left-is-creating-a-new-kind-of-apartheid-wtvjqc676

let me know which particular refs you want to use, or just go ahead & add them, pls? i don't really have a lot of wiki-time just now (& i do not have the power-tools or deep mediawiki knowledge to do article annotations quickly)

best,

Lx 121 (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

comment - it has been a week? if nobody else has anything to say, i will re-add the text & put some selections into the references; if anybody wants to pretty it up into cites &/or make adjustments to the choice of references, feel free. will check back sometime in the new weel to see if anybody's posted. "going, going...? " :p Lx 121 (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• If you check the end of the Criticism of the concept section I think you will discover that a version of it is already there. Has been for a . . . ..few days? Look at it and decide if it is okay with you. Carptrash (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry!' did not see that. was only watching the talk page, not the article (since these kind of discussions are often grindingly slow... ). was not expecting it to be resolved so easily & painlessly. ty, vm! :) Lx 121 (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

@Lx 121: (in case you are now just watching the article) I am a "do it now" sort of editor which can on occasion lead to problems and I did want you to check and see if what I did was okay. This process of mine is especially true in instances such as this one where I was the editor who originally chopped the section out. Carptrash (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Bolo ties - another NOT

I just sacked this out:

• British Teddy Boys appropriated the bolo tie that had previously served as a folk costume in the Southwestern United States, and wore them with locally tailored imitations of the zoot suit.

Even the article points out that bolo ties were manufactured to be sold. Who buys them and what they do with them is their business. This is not an example of cultural appropriation. Carptrash (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Does this really belong in the article?

• "During their 2011 visit to Canada, Prince William and Kate Middleton appropriated cowboy hats and Western shirts, and posed for photographs which Charles, Prince of Wales criticized as tasteless.[64]"

"Criticized as tasteless" is a lot different from "cultural appropriation" and I am inclined to cut it out. And other stuff too but I will post here first. Carptrash (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you here. It seems... tacky, and in poor taste, but not appropriation. Technically, due to Canada's relationship with the Crown, I guess you could argue some degree of colonialism but, it's extremely thin. Ultimately, they're colonizers dressing up as other colonizers. The power balance is not extreme enough. It's just not on the same level as other incidents we document here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Also it is very likely that the hats were given to them by the very folks that they are supposedly appropriating them from. It goes. Carptrash (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be in the article—the source is garbage and the incident is extremely minor—but a Wikipedia user's original research about the power balance at issue is not a basis for excluding it. Nor are we the correct judges of who is and is not a "colonizer." Dyrnych (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead, redux

What is the justification for keeping the second and third paragraphs in the lead and not merging them into the body of the article? As it stands, the lead is clunky and repetitive; neither paragraph adds anything to broad overview of the topic. Dyrnych (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In an article this long, the lede needs to be substantial. Many readers seem to only read the lede, and the main points need be explained in a thorough enough manner that the concept is grasped. We finally reached consensus on this, and it's actually been stable for quite awhile now. I think this is quite a feat, given the history of this article. While I agree it's a tad repetitive, clarity in the lede is vitally important. I considered compressing it more, but decided against it because, in the past any lack of thoroughness has always led to misinterpretation. This has led to frequent, disruptive additions of confused and confusing content. I'll look at it again when I have a chance, but I'm inclined to leave it as-is. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

(Mis)appropriation deletion and reversion

I realize some do not like the look or partial ambiguity of the parenthetics, but in the places were they are used, we need them at this point. Usually because in that instance we have sources that use both "appropriation" and "misappropriation" to describe the same thing. It's formatted that way for a reason. Unless and until more standardization comes to the writing in the field, we will have to be careful and comprehensive with our phrasing. We can't force standardization on the terminology in this article, we can only document that the terminology in the field is not currently standardized. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@CorbieVreccan: I went through each of the 141 sources cited in this article, and - excluding some that were broken links or behind paywalls - could only find a single one that uses the term "cultural misappropriation", the Guardian article. "Cultural appropriation" is the WP:COMMONNAME and repeatedly writing "cultural (mis)appropriation" is distracting and unnecessary. Popcornduff (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for not seeing this discussion sooner. Regardless of what sources use, "(mis)appropriation" is not the way to write a formal encyclopedia. If they describe the same thing, we need to just pick one and use it – you wouldn't say "the building was (in)flammable" or "the statue is big (large/sizeable/gigantic/huge) for the era it was built in". Per Popcornduff's extensive searching, it looks like "cultural appropriation" is more common anyway. I would note that the first sentence, "Cultural appropriation, often framed as cultural misappropriation", could be changed to "Cultural appropriation, also known as cultural misappropriation", if the two terms are really describing the same thing. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 11:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yep. It also, apparently, is not "often" framed as "misappropriation". Popcornduff (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Since there's pretty clearly no consensus for continuing to use "(mis)appropriation," and the underlying rationale (that the sources use it) is wrong, I'm reinstating the reverted edit. Dyrnych (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bilorv: - sorry, just invited you to "join the talk page discussion" in my edit summary, having mixed up your name with another eidtor's. Of course you already know this discussion is happening. Popcornduff (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

(In response to this edit summary.) Okay, on second thoughts I'm convinced. The term is in usage, but maybe not common enough to need mention in the first sentence. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 14:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The body text of the first three sources in the previously-stable version of this article use "misappropriation": Metcalfe uses it in the title and sees a difference between the two, Fourmile uses "cultural (mis)appropriation" and Young uses it when talking about misappropriation of Indigenous land.[6] That's why those were the first three sources after "often framed as cultural misappropriation".

Going over this, I agree that a more appropriate phrasing would be either "also known as cultural misappropriation" or "in some cases framed as as cultural misappropriation". If you read up-page, I go into the reasons why this phrasing is relevant. While "misappropriation" is not the most common term, I really do think it helps with the comprehension issues we've had on this article that have led to the past edit-warring. (Also, some writers in the field do see a difference - though clearly they are not the majority among the sources currently in this article.) Since consensus seems to lean to avoiding "(mis)appropriation", I am OK with sticking with the phrase "cultural appropriation" unless the bit being sourced specifically says "misappropriation" or "(mis)appropriation" in the cited source. I don't think "misappropriation" necessarily needs to go in the first sentence, but I think it's relevant enough to be in the lede or at the top of the first section. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Some additional sources to consider, which use "cultural misappropriation". - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd be OK with "also known as cultural misappropriation", assuming it was appropriately sourced. "Commonly framed as" or whatever is overkill. It should be referred to as "cultural appropriation" for the rest of the article. Popcornduff (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Netta

An IP removed a paragraph about Netta under Art, iconography, and adornment in this edit. I agree with the removal; regardless of whether this is an instance of cultural appropriation, this coverage belongs somewhere like Netta Barzilai or Israel in the Eurovision Song Contest 2018. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 21:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I've personally brought this to the attention of Talk:Netta Barzilai. I think this makes more sense in Netta's own article, personally. 147.188.254.246 (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

History of the concept?

No History section? There are various specific examples given, but I'm not seeing the history of the concept of cultural appropriation. -- SEWilco (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

What history, the whole concept is ludicrous. Firstly culture like knowledge is shareable. Secondly cultures constantly evolve, change and borrow from each other. This happens with language, cuisine, fashion, music and dance etc. So please share the love, share the culture, one race the human race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.200.240.41 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)