Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 July 31
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 30 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | August 1 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives |
|---|
| The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
July 31 edit
Judo edit
Is Judo cultural appropriation?
- Judo itself is just a sport/martial art, so by itself it isn't cultural appropriation. If you're asking about when non-Japanese people practice Judo, that may indeed qualify as cultural appropriation, depending on which specific group does it. - Lindert (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Our article defines it as "a concept dealing with the adoption of the elements of a minority culture by members of the dominant culture". Japan has never been colonised, with the exception perhaps of the 1945-1952 Occupation of Japan during which, martial arts were banned, or at least, not allowed to be taught. The founder of Kodokan Judo, Kanō Jigorō, undertook numerous tours in order to promote Judo abroad; in 1889 "he visited Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Vienna, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam and London". [1] So the evidence is that Judo was deliberately propagated abroad by the Japanese, rather than being taken from them by some oppressing culture. Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying there's anything wrong with cultural appropriation. Japan was not colonised, but Japanese people are a minority in every country they inhabit, except Japan obviously. Thus, whether it be in India or the USA, Japanese people there are a minority, and are not part of the 'dominant culture'. Hence, it could be argued that Indians or Americans practicing Judo are appropriating something from the minority of Japanese immigrants. - Lindert (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Being in the lesser amount is not the defining factor of cultural appropriation, it's assymetric power relationships that are. White people in South Africa during apartheid were in the minority, but held power over the other cultural groups in the country. Cultural appropriation is not appreciation or exchange and not determined merely by being a cultural element for a population in lesser number, but rather by being a cultural element taken by an oppressing power from an oppressed people group, and doing so in a way which is ignorant of, disrespectful of, or harmful to, the culture from which it was taken. Power, not number, matters. A cultural group which has less people than another, but which is on an equal social footing with others, is probably not being appropriated from. --Jayron32 19:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that power and oppression are often hard to define. Arguably the predominant culture almost always has certain privileges/power, even if just because laws are written with that specific culture in mind, and because most people in power are ignorant of minority cultures. Also, people have widely different ideas over what is harmful or disrespectful. As an example (taken from the WP article), it is argued by some that the use of Chinese characters by non-Asians without knowing what they mean is cultural appropriation, even though it is far from clear how this would negatively impact any person or culture. If that is CA, why not Judo? I practiced Judo as a child, so I was taught certain Japanese words used in Judo (by a European instructor), and I never found out what they mean. I don't see any meaningful distinction between these things. - Lindert (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's not supposed to be easy. That doesn't mean we're not supposed to work at it. Being a good person requires hard work, and merely because it is subtle or nuanced or difficult to understand doesn't mean we aren't expected to try. Yes, it can be difficult to know beforehand what sorts of things are likely to be harmful. However, once we've established it is harmful, to then act as if it weren't is where we go astray. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good on this, and don't let the inability to give precise answers for edge cases allow us to ignore the obvious ones. --Jayron32 14:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I get that it's not supposed to be simple, but that's only if one thinks that the concept of CA has any merit, which I don't. I don't see any need to make it harder than necessary: don't deliberately mock people, but apart from that, use whatever you like from whatever culture, since nobody can claim ownership of culture. It's silly to get upset about other people adopting things they like from your culture. - Lindert (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's not silly to be insulted when someone is insulting you because of the culture you belong to, however. You're missing the distinction between "respectful use of the cultural elements of others" and "insulting or harmful use of the cultural elements of others". You'll note that the distinction is not in the word "use". --Jayron32 15:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I get that it's not supposed to be simple, but that's only if one thinks that the concept of CA has any merit, which I don't. I don't see any need to make it harder than necessary: don't deliberately mock people, but apart from that, use whatever you like from whatever culture, since nobody can claim ownership of culture. It's silly to get upset about other people adopting things they like from your culture. - Lindert (talk) 15:08, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's not supposed to be easy. That doesn't mean we're not supposed to work at it. Being a good person requires hard work, and merely because it is subtle or nuanced or difficult to understand doesn't mean we aren't expected to try. Yes, it can be difficult to know beforehand what sorts of things are likely to be harmful. However, once we've established it is harmful, to then act as if it weren't is where we go astray. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good on this, and don't let the inability to give precise answers for edge cases allow us to ignore the obvious ones. --Jayron32 14:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that power and oppression are often hard to define. Arguably the predominant culture almost always has certain privileges/power, even if just because laws are written with that specific culture in mind, and because most people in power are ignorant of minority cultures. Also, people have widely different ideas over what is harmful or disrespectful. As an example (taken from the WP article), it is argued by some that the use of Chinese characters by non-Asians without knowing what they mean is cultural appropriation, even though it is far from clear how this would negatively impact any person or culture. If that is CA, why not Judo? I practiced Judo as a child, so I was taught certain Japanese words used in Judo (by a European instructor), and I never found out what they mean. I don't see any meaningful distinction between these things. - Lindert (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Being in the lesser amount is not the defining factor of cultural appropriation, it's assymetric power relationships that are. White people in South Africa during apartheid were in the minority, but held power over the other cultural groups in the country. Cultural appropriation is not appreciation or exchange and not determined merely by being a cultural element for a population in lesser number, but rather by being a cultural element taken by an oppressing power from an oppressed people group, and doing so in a way which is ignorant of, disrespectful of, or harmful to, the culture from which it was taken. Power, not number, matters. A cultural group which has less people than another, but which is on an equal social footing with others, is probably not being appropriated from. --Jayron32 19:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying there's anything wrong with cultural appropriation. Japan was not colonised, but Japanese people are a minority in every country they inhabit, except Japan obviously. Thus, whether it be in India or the USA, Japanese people there are a minority, and are not part of the 'dominant culture'. Hence, it could be argued that Indians or Americans practicing Judo are appropriating something from the minority of Japanese immigrants. - Lindert (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Comment. Cultural appropriation involves adaption. I don't think culture is ever completely appropriated. It is adapted to a new set of circumstances. The new user of a designated cultural property is employing that cultural entity to serve purposes different from whatever purposes that cultural entity previously served. Therefore crediting one user as opposed to another user of culture is an area of consideration that can be murky because the cultural entity itself has changed to a greater or lesser degree as it has been put to a new purpose. Besides, "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Our article defines it as "a concept dealing with the adoption of the elements of a minority culture by members of the dominant culture". Japan has never been colonised, with the exception perhaps of the 1945-1952 Occupation of Japan during which, martial arts were banned, or at least, not allowed to be taught. The founder of Kodokan Judo, Kanō Jigorō, undertook numerous tours in order to promote Judo abroad; in 1889 "he visited Paris, Brussels, Berlin, Vienna, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Amsterdam and London". [1] So the evidence is that Judo was deliberately propagated abroad by the Japanese, rather than being taken from them by some oppressing culture. Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Cultural appropriation is a controversial subject, but the general consensus is that cultural appropriation is only a thing when the act harms members of the cultural group itself. For example, to use a cultural thing to mock the culture in question, to use it in a disrespectful manner, to use it in a way that denies members of that culture the benefits of it for themselves, or to use it in a way that is ignorant of the cultural context of it. A thing by itself cannot be cultural appropriation, it is an inappropriate, ignorant, disrespectful, or harmful use of that thing. There is also an element of power imbalance here: Whether the use of the cultural element results from a dominant group "taking" the element from a group they have oppressed, or whether the adoption of the element represents an exchange by people on equal footing. Intent is what mostly matters here. --Jayron32 14:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Possibly a questionable tangential question:
- Is Christianity - once appropriated by gentiles - an example of CA?
- Is Rock Music - once appropriated by Elvis Presley - an example of CA?
- Are not most processes of intercultural learning (agriculture, writing, quantum theory) CA?
- --194.96.130.122 (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC). Oops: --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- It is important to remember that “cultural appropriation” is not necessarily a bad thing... when one culture comes up with a good idea, it makes sense for other cultures to appropriate it. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well, don't get too caught up in the etymological fallacy here. It is clear from usage that cultural appropriation is universally used in the pejorative or negative sense. There are other terms used with a neutral tone, such as cultural exchange or something like that. It is true that the intermingling of cultural things is not always negative, but it's clear that cultural appropriation is the term that has been adopted to mean when that happens in a harmful way. Cultural appropriation is best defined by an operational definition, which means it is easier to define it by its properties than by other more formal means. Is an act of cultural exchange appropriation? Just answer it this way: 1) does the exchange harm, insult, or deprive the culture in question the benefits of that cultural thing or 2) does the exchange result from an imbalance of power, such that there is not an equal exchange of cultural value, or where the contacting cultures are not on equal power footing (i.e. the exchange by peasants from different nations living near the borders with each other is different from a colonizing power adopting cultural elements from the oppressed culture; or forcing its own cultural elements upon it). --Jayron32 15:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- It is important to remember that “cultural appropriation” is not necessarily a bad thing... when one culture comes up with a good idea, it makes sense for other cultures to appropriate it. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I appreciate the clarification, ie CA is detrimental to the original culture.
- Now: is the evolution of our species, homo sapiens, an example of CA?
- The precursors, homo Neanderthaliensis (and a few more) are extinct and dead. Some are fossilised and exhibited in museal freak shows to support the sapiential supremacy of the current dominant humans.
- Were I Neanderthalian I would classify this as being mildly detrimental to our culture and ethnicity. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Not nearly as detrimental as extinction. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Extinction is but a temporary discontinuity. I have been extinct between the Big Bang and 1946 and now I am the centre of the universe. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well, now we're getting into the realm of reductio ad absurdum. The distinction between natural evolutionary processes that cause extinction of certain species is quite distinct from white people dressing in like slutty Indians for Halloween. --Jayron32 18:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Then why not free the term from the fallacy trap and use something meaning "slutty Halloween dressing" in place ? I did not find your neutral samples convincing, or covering the whole possible scope for a version of the expression which would be neutral. --Askedonty (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is no term impervious to misinterpretation by the hearer. The words are just utterances, and all we can do is educate people as to their intended meaning. Cultural appropriation is as good of a term as any other random string of sounds. I can't make you learn what it means, I can only inform you what it does mean. --Jayron32 11:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- To my ears "cultural appropriation" sounds less a random string of sounds than Judo. Your logic (although it's object is justified) keeps accutely sometimes reminding me of the works of Maurits Escher. --Askedonty (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how "Things which are insulting or harmful are bad; things which are not insulting or harmful are fine" is illogical or confusing to you. I'm not sure how to make that more clear. If you could tell me which words or concepts there you find illogical, perhaps I could express it in a different manner. --Jayron32 16:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- To my ears "cultural appropriation" sounds less a random string of sounds than Judo. Your logic (although it's object is justified) keeps accutely sometimes reminding me of the works of Maurits Escher. --Askedonty (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- There is no term impervious to misinterpretation by the hearer. The words are just utterances, and all we can do is educate people as to their intended meaning. Cultural appropriation is as good of a term as any other random string of sounds. I can't make you learn what it means, I can only inform you what it does mean. --Jayron32 11:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- I was about to say, "forget it, I found it". Well it's quite a match: see cultural adaptation. The "slutty Halloween dressing" is not too far away if you're enough imaginative; frustrating, the order of the priorities the notion is applied on.. because we're afraid we would be both losing positive etymologies for "appropriation" and at the same time become doomed to get busy into... I'm not going to spoil the show, if someone will read that article! (Is it a joke, or what --??Askedonty (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC))
- Then why not free the term from the fallacy trap and use something meaning "slutty Halloween dressing" in place ? I did not find your neutral samples convincing, or covering the whole possible scope for a version of the expression which would be neutral. --Askedonty (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Well, now we're getting into the realm of reductio ad absurdum. The distinction between natural evolutionary processes that cause extinction of certain species is quite distinct from white people dressing in like slutty Indians for Halloween. --Jayron32 18:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- Extinction is but a temporary discontinuity. I have been extinct between the Big Bang and 1946 and now I am the centre of the universe. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
As stated in the page header: We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
--47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
struggling in Philosophy edit
Hello all, trying to define "feature" when discussing Generalization from sample, arguments from analogy, statistical syllogism. Can someone please help? I have finals in two days and I am struggling with this class...and my book, I swear, does not even mention "feature!"2605:A000:1112:C0B1:0:438C:537F:DD55 (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- You'll have to give some context for anybody to be able to answer you. The fact that your book doesn't mention the word suggests that it is not a technical term in the field. Our article generalization does not use the word. --ColinFine (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- This seems to be an XY problem type of question: the OP has not given enough information for us to understand the nature of their problem, and as such, we don't know how to answer it. If the OP ever returns, please expand on the problem: Can you give quotes from the text that use the term, so we can understand something of the context? --Jayron32 13:53, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The word "feature" doesn't, erm, feature in our article on statistical syllogism so maybe reading that will help you. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Feature (machine learning)? 98.210.48.122 (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)