[RD] Cultural Appropriation: The Solution?

[luiz]

Latin, at least to my native English-speaking ear, refers exclusively to the Latin language, and even then, solely the language itself - not a speaker of the language, who is referred to as a Latin-speaker or Latinist, but never "a Latin" (similarly to other denonyms/languages - Chinese, English, French, Spanish, etc.). Any association with Latin in terms of "someone from Latin America" would be considered archaic at this point, and largely unused due to an association with that person being an "old guy racist", which would get you back to reasons why "Hispanic" has largely fallen out of regular use (aside from it simply being a non-comprehensive term).

Latinx is simply an acknowledgement that operating on the assumption that "all are masculine until proven otherwise" is kinda sexist, in the same way that we've moved towards gender-neutral or gender-ambiguous terms in a lot of other things (e.g. fireman -> firefighter; waiter/ress -> server; steward/ess -> flight attendant, etc.). If it bothers you so much, you're also more than welcome to use latino/a, that's generally the terminology I use when I'm actually vocalizing the word.

Might be a regional thing in America, then, because when I lived there I often heard the expression "Latin guy", including in reference to my Latin self.

Historically, Latin was also often used to refer to peoples. Indeed, the ancient inhabitants of Latium were the Latins, and their language is Latin. Later, western Europeans were collectively known as latins to Greeks and Arabs, and sometimes northern Europeans would refer to romance speaking southern Europeans as latins. It looks like a totally fine term to differentiate people with roots in Latin America to those with roots in Anglo Saxon America.

 

[sophie]

Is that really analogous? English doesn't typically gender its nouns, so distinctions like "water/waitress" are deliberate, if not always conscious, attempts to draw a distinction on a basis of gender. It carries a baggage of expectations because the construct itself expresses those expectations, would not serve any semantic purpose if it didn't. I would tend to assume that there's less baggage attached to a basically grammatical construction like "Latino/Latina".

The value of going out of your way to write "Latino/a" or even defaulting to "Latina" seems to be in the action in itself, in making the point that the male is not a natural default, rather than a correction of a shortcoming in the language. If we were just looking for the most efficient route to parity, we'd simply delete the female gender altogether. (And doesn't that make me sound like some kind of linguistic incel.)

Generally speaking, more than a movement away from explicitly gendered Language monikers (though there are some holdovers that are being phased out currently, e.g. Englishman, Frenchman, Dutchman, etc.), the move is more part of a larger movement away from substantivizing descriptive adjectives. So rather than "he is a readhead/Jew/black/etc.", you keep the terms as adjectives: "he is redheaded", "he is black", "he is Jewish", or to hyphenate the adjective with an agent noun: "He is a French-speaker". I think this has to do with an increasing uncomfortability, at least on this side of the Atlantic, with the implication that the speaker is thereby reducing a whole individual to one singular characteristic or attribute.

One interesting thing that would undercut this observation vis-à-vis demonyms would be that there are some language/nationalities for which you absolutely can substantivize, e.g. Italian, German, American, Mexican, Argentinan, Brazilian, African, which would seem to suggest that it's more about phonotactics/declinability than it has to do with the trend I noted above - "an English" just doesn't sound right because it doesn't end in a way that allows us to either identify it as a demonym, or else decline the word into one. However, at least in America, you can definitely see the effects the above-noted uncomfortability has on certain of the demonyms, as even though they exist, you either see American English-speakers actively avoid using the terms, or else immediately furtively glance around upon using them to make sure nobody heard them/nobody heard them who would be offended by their use. The certain ones I have in mind specifically are "Jew" and "Mexican". I would say with "Jew" you feel this most viscerally; it's a term you will actively notice English-speakers tying themselves in knots trying to avoid saying. To the extent that you don't even really see it expressed in the plural anymore (unlike "black", which is, itself, invariably "blacks" if used this way, and never "the blacks"), it's almost invariably "Jewish people" rather than "Jews", to say nothing of "the Jews". "Mexican" gets this to a far lesser degree - usually the word gets dropped and then the speaker looks around awkwardly, unsure exactly "if we're allowed to say that anymore". Black (as in: "he is a black" or "look at that black") has been phased out so completely of American English that its use is followed not by furtive glances, but a full on bracing for a punch to the face.

Might be a regional thing in America, then, because when I lived there I often heard the expression "Latin guy", including in reference to my Latin self.

Historically, Latin was also often used to refer to peoples. Indeed, the ancient inhabitants of Latium were the Latins, and their language is Latin. Later, western Europeans were collectively known as latins to Greeks and Arabs, and sometimes northern Europeans would refer to romance speaking southern Europeans as latins. It looks like a totally fine term to differentiate people with roots in Latin America to those with roots in Anglo Saxon America.

That's certainly not how I've experienced them used, no. Latin = Latin language and nothing else in my experience (speakers of Latin = Latin-speakers or Latinists for later scholars/enthusiasts of the language; people from Latium are Latians or "inhabitants of Latium" or some variant of that).

I have heard "Latin guy", but two things:

1) Note that you aren't using the term substantively, but rather adjectivally, which is mostly what I was talking about. Even in the context of "Latin guy", I don't think you would hear it as "The Latin" or "The Latins".
2) I've only heard it in the context of like, movies from the 40s and 50s. As I noted in the post you quoted: if I heard someone use that today, I would think "old guy racist" in the same way as someone who uses "negro" or "chinaman" or something like that.

 

[Farm Boy]

I really like reading when you post these things. Legitimate question - why does the phrase, "old guy racist" need two different ways to say the same thing? Or am I overthinking. That's legit too.

 

[NovaKart]

I never thought of Latin to refer to someone from Latin America as racist. Maybe it's like using Oriental now.

 

[luiz]

That's certainly not how I've experienced them used, no. Latin = Latin language and nothing else in my experience (speakers of Latin = Latin-speakers or Latinists for later scholars/enthusiasts of the language; people from Latium are Latians or "inhabitants of Latium" or some variant of that).

I have heard "Latin guy", but two things:

1) Note that you aren't using the term substantively, but rather adjectivally.
2) I've only heard it in the context of like, movies from the 40s and 50s. As I noted in the post you quoted: if I heard someone use that today, I would think "old guy racist" in the same way as someone who uses "negro" or "chinaman" or something like that.

Again, we had very different experiences, then. Because I've heard the expression "Latin guy" often, including used by girls who were dating me, so I wouldn't classify them as "old guy racist"
Hygro also said in this thread that he uses the term as a gender neutral substantive, and I certainly don't think he fits the "old guy racist" bill either.

I do agree it tends to be used more as an adjective than substantive; I just propose that it is the natural gender neutral substantive for Latin people, as opposed to LatinX (which, let's face it, will never catch-up beyond militants).

 

[NovaKart]

I wonder if anyone would go as far to accuse Art Garfunkel or the guy from the Joy of Painting of cultural appropriation.

 

[Azem.Ocram]

LatinX was invented by English-speaking members of the LGBT community. It has spread throughout liberal/progressive media and has been “encouraged” on campuses where politically correct communication can be more “desired” than authentic, natural communication. I use Latino, Latina, Latinos, Latin Americans, and rarely Hispanic and Latin but do NOT use LatinX, despite it getting shoved down my throat by Buzzfeed et al.

I fear for the future of our civilization, incase SJW’s gain real political power beyond Internet “activism.”

 

[inthesomeday]

LatinX is a threat to civilization, then?

 

[innonimatu]

But LatinX is clearly the feminine form. The masculine would be LatinY.

 

[Evie]

Back on the Flamenco question from Thorgalaeg, I'm going to point back to the second part of the framework I posted earlier in the thread.

Borrowing from another culture (or cultural appropriation in the broad, neutral sense) is legitimate when it's done in a respectful, sensitive, non-exploitative manner.

Respectful means that you have to avoid using whatever you're appropriating for mockery, for stereotyping, or for exoticism. At a glance, a Japanese troupe performing Flamenco meets that requirement.

Sensitive means that any particular cultural meaning (notably, but not limited to, spiritual, religious or ceremonial) of whatever symbol or tradition you're borrowing is maintained. EG, if Flamenco were a dance performed in honor of the dead at funeral, it would have to be represented as such, not as a party dance. As far as I know, it has no particular deep meaning beyond that of being a performance art ; in which case putting on a flamenco performance is in theory respectful of what flamenco is.

Non-exploitative means that you can't be profiteering off the back of the other culture. Either keep what you're borrowing to a minimum role, of if not at least ensure that the culture in question benefits (more than their prospects are being hurt) from the work. In this case, given that Spain is a first-world nation, the economic prospects of the Spanish nation are unlikely to suffer any notable impact from a Japanese troupe dancing flamenco ; given the importance of Spain's tourism industry, they are likely outweighed by the benefits of displaying Japanese culture in Japan (=advertising). In contrast, many Native American (and similarly disadvantaged) group lack the tourism industry (or industry at all) to really benefit from advertising and exposure, and have little unique resource to sell except their culture ; if you start selling their culture, you're seriously hurting their prospects).

So in that case I'd say at a glance it appears to be a case of legitimate borrowing, eg "okay" appropriation.

 

[Akka]

I mean what do you think is going on in schools? Do you think I learned SJW math or something? If so, what do you think the source of that curriculum was? Did the Jews globalists draft it themselves at their annual meeting, or did they delegate it? What did they do with regular math? Your worldview is almost laughable.

What goes on in school is that you have youth who, by necessity, still lack experience, haven't yet developed their critical thinking and tend to easily get carried away by some grand cause, being exposed for the first time to politics. The results are predictable and repetitive.

Some years ago, it was the randroid plague, with a bunch of students who thought that they got it all figured about how the world worked because of Atlas Shrugged. Today it's the SJW who are on the ball, with a different set of value but the same sort of mental process.
In all case, it seems the USA tries very hard to export all over their world their homemade stupidities.

Thank you, but it was not a retoric question from me, i genuinely didnt know such thing could exist before reading this thread and still don't get it. I mean when i see Japanese women dancing flamenco or Americans running the bulls i feel flattered more than anything. I see this thing as some sort of politically correct apartheid.

You and me both.
I mean, I DO get how some use of cultural aspects can be improper/mocking and shouldn't be done. But not the whole crusading aspect, which just reeks of virtue signaling.

 

[luiz]

I wonder if anyone would go as far to accuse Art Garfunkel or the guy from the Joy of Painting of cultural appropriation.

I'm sure if two white guys started playing El Condor Pasa with Peruvian flutes on some us college campuses, all hell would break loose.

Ironically the same SJWs who would object to white people using the peruvian flutes would be fine with Mexicans doing the same, because in SJW-land Mexicans and Peruvians are of the same "race".

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I wonder if anyone would go as far to accuse Art Garfunkel or the guy from the Joy of Painting of cultural appropriation.

The happy little trees would be very unhappy if such a thing were to happen.

I read recently that Bob Ross once considered getting a haircut, but he realized that his hairstyle had become so much a part of his image that he decided to keep it.

Back on the Flamenco question from Thorgalaeg, I'm going to point back to the second part of the framework I posted earlier in the thread.

Borrowing from another culture (or cultural appropriation in the broad, neutral sense) is legitimate when it's done in a respectful, sensitive, non-exploitative manner.

One of the smileys on IALS is a Tribble wearing a sombrero. Another one is a Borg wearing a sombrero. Am I guilty of cultural appropriation for making these, since the motive was for humorous purposes? After all, a core tenet of Star Trek is IDIC - Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combination.

Respectful means that you have to avoid using whatever you're appropriating for mockery, for stereotyping, or for exoticism. At a glance, a Japanese troupe performing Flamenco meets that requirement.

Sensitive means that any particular cultural meaning (notably, but not limited to, spiritual, religious or ceremonial) of whatever symbol or tradition you're borrowing is maintained. EG, if Flamenco were a dance performed in honor of the dead at funeral, it would have to be represented as such, not as a party dance. As far as I know, it has no particular deep meaning beyond that of being a performance art ; in which case putting on a flamenco performance is in theory respectful of what flamenco is.

Non-exploitative means that you can't be profiteering off the back of the other culture. Either keep what you're borrowing to a minimum role, of if not at least ensure that the culture in question benefits (more than their prospects are being hurt) from the work. In this case, given that Spain is a first-world nation, the economic prospects of the Spanish nation are unlikely to suffer any notable impact from a Japanese troupe dancing flamenco ; given the importance of Spain's tourism industry, they are likely outweighed by the benefits of displaying Japanese culture in Japan (=advertising). In contrast, many Native American (and similarly disadvantaged) group lack the tourism industry (or industry at all) to really benefit from advertising and exposure, and have little unique resource to sell except their culture ; if you start selling their culture, you're seriously hurting their prospects).

I don't know if you're familiar with French-Canadian ice dancers Paul and Isabelle Duschenay, but their long program in the 1988 Winter Olympics was based on some sort of African tribal dancing. It was something so unlike most other programs there, that the audience was mesmerized. They didn't receive any medals, but the public did have to pay to watch their performance (in person; I saw it on TV). Were they guilty of cultural appropriation? What about the Russian ice dancers whose long program was based on a Beatles medley?

Figure skating and ice dancing is truly an international sport. Canadians doing Riverdance, Russians doing the Beatles, Elvis Stojko's medal-winning program based on the Bruce Lee martial arts movie... in later years skaters received money for winning medals and lucrative sponsorship contracts. Cultural appropriation?

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Back on the Flamenco question from Thorgalaeg, I'm going to point back to the second part of the framework I posted earlier in the thread.

Borrowing from another culture (or cultural appropriation in the broad, neutral sense) is legitimate when it's done in a respectful, sensitive, non-exploitative manner.

Respectful means that you have to avoid using whatever you're appropriating for mockery, for stereotyping, or for exoticism. At a glance, a Japanese troupe performing Flamenco meets that requirement.

Sensitive means that any particular cultural meaning (notably, but not limited to, spiritual, religious or ceremonial) of whatever symbol or tradition you're borrowing is maintained. EG, if Flamenco were a dance performed in honor of the dead at funeral, it would have to be represented as such, not as a party dance. As far as I know, it has no particular deep meaning beyond that of being a performance art ; in which case putting on a flamenco performance is in theory respectful of what flamenco is.

Non-exploitative means that you can't be profiteering off the back of the other culture. Either keep what you're borrowing to a minimum role, of if not at least ensure that the culture in question benefits (more than their prospects are being hurt) from the work. In this case, given that Spain is a first-world nation, the economic prospects of the Spanish nation are unlikely to suffer any notable impact from a Japanese troupe dancing flamenco ; given the importance of Spain's tourism industry, they are likely outweighed by the benefits of displaying Japanese culture in Japan (=advertising). In contrast, many Native American (and similarly disadvantaged) group lack the tourism industry (or industry at all) to really benefit from advertising and exposure, and have little unique resource to sell except their culture ; if you start selling their culture, you're seriously hurting their prospects).

So in that case I'd say at a glance it appears to be a case of legitimate borrowing, eg "okay" appropriation.

Ok, thank you very much. NOW i got it i think.

It is not about the two first points, which can be subsumed in the universal principle "dont be a dick" as someone already said in previous posts, which should apply to any aspect of life not only to the ancestral culture of some minoritarian groups.

Maybe i am totally wrong but it looks to me that the third point is the key here. So, it is not about dignity or respect but about bussiness. I think all this cultural appropriation thing comes from a very specifical north American issue which is the reason of us foreigners not getting it. It is all about natives in North America making money from his cultural heritage and about having the monopoly to do so. I wont go deeper in this specific topic since i know near to nothing about the current situation of natives in North America. Maybe overprotected? Do they really live of marketing his cultural heritage? I dont really know.

Anyway i find something just not adding up here. First two points frontally collides with the third one. I mean if you do bussiness with your most spiritual and most sacred cultural items i dont see why anyone else shouldnt. It is not about respect and such anymore, but about intellectual property of cultural heritage. Maybe the solution is paying a canon to the sioux every time somebody watch Dances with the wolves?

So, can a culture be a private property? Obviously individual intellectual works can, for a limited time at least, but a whole culture? In such case which ones? How could it be implemented? Arent cultures continuosly mixing and evolving? I find the idea absolutely ridiculous and nefarious.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think all this cultural appropriation thing comes from a very specifical north American issue which is the reason of us foreigners not getting it. It is all about natives in North America making money from his cultural heritage and about having the monopoly to do so.

This isn't entirely untrue, but I think it's worth stressing that for Native Americans, this stuff is about more than just enforcing an economic monopoly, it's about an assertion of sovereignty. Both in the nebulous sense on assertion of cultural autonomy, but also in the actual, legal, no-joke sense that they represent several hundred sovereign nations, for whom maintaining a strong and distinct identity is necessary to maintain that sovereignty, both in the sense that it is important to prevent the disintegration of the national group and the reduction of tribal institutions to a glorified land-trust, and also in the sense that maintaining this identity is a necessary part of legitimising themselves as sovereign nations against a predominantly white federal power structure which is fundamentally ill-disposed towards them. Getting fussy about who is or isn't allowed to market "Navajo blankets" is bound up with that concern, even if it has an economic dimension. (And given the protections lend to lillywhite ethnic products like, say, Scotch whisky, an often legitimate one.) It's not a coincidence that another group where issues of "cultural appropriation" frequently surface is Pacific Islanders, who similarly represent a set of indigenous populations which have struggled to maintain their distinct institutions.

Rather than trivialising "cultural appropriation" as a concern, pointing out the disproportionate presence of Native American issues in this discourse actually lends it some weight, because it gives actual political heft to the issue, as opposed to the sometimes more clickbait-worthy instances of, say, American millennials loudly rolling their eyes at other American millennial for eating foreign food the wrong way.

 

[Evie]

What traitorfish says also touch back on why the first two points are more than a "Don't be a jerk" rule.

Being sensitive is not just about not being a jerk ; it's about not taking control of their culture away from them. If you present something as their culture but warp that something into a completely different meaning, then you are in effect taking control of their culture (and, if you're successful, how it's understood by the world at large) away from them. Hence why you should either be careful to present their culture in a way that's acceptable to them - or, if you draw inspiration from their culture, then make the distinction between your stuff and their stuff clear.

(And there are forms of intellectual property that can be permanent, or collectively owned (or owned by the government on the behalf of a collective body), or both. "Florida Orange" is a trademark of the state of Florida which can only be used in certain circumstances. The European Unions (and others) recognize various forms of controlled appellations for unique and distinctive regional foods - only people in that region and following certain traditional process can use the appellation for their product. And of course there's the whole body of trademark law, which offers permanent protection to the unique, distinctive markings of a brand or product and prevent their misuse by others). The concept of something akin to "cultural trademark" for the unique and distinctive aspects of a culture is not inherently alien to the concept of intellectual property as it exists.

Note that "Don't misrepresent what the trademark stand for, and don't represent yourself by using the trademark" are very much rules that exist in the field of trademark. It's not just "don't exploit the trademark in a way that cause financial harm to the owner."

Valka - It's questionable, and I suppose depend on why you added the sombrero smilie. If you just thought it looked cool, then it probably falls more under cultural borrowing ; if you intended people to use it as a shorthand for Mexican people (or expected they would use it as such), then it's...more troublesome. One way or the other, guilty is overstating the case - we're not talking a crime here. At most (unless you were being deliberately offensive, which I consider unlikely), you *made a mistake*. Being human, well, yeah, you will make mistakes, that's a given. The important thing is how we deal with our mistakes, not avoiding mistakes in the first place.

 

[Farm Boy]

I wont go deeper in this specific topic since i know near to nothing about the current situation of natives in North America. Maybe overprotected? Do they really live of marketing his cultural heritage? I dont really know.

I find it hard to imagine they're a super hot market in the 48, at least. Gambling regulations are getting shuffled off so we can rediscover some old ills more easily, but that weakens a sort of revenue stream that had been sorta kinda steered towards the Nations. Hardly flattering to compete with the state and mob, it's sort of like saying you're worth the absolute worst company but ah well. They tend to get used as footballs by conservationists of shallow convenience, their most debatable protections probably have to do with very stiff protections revolving around children containing small quantities of specific testicle juice.

 

[inthesomeday]

What goes on in school is that you have youth who, by necessity, still lack experience, haven't yet developed their critical thinking and tend to easily get carried away by some grand cause, being exposed for the first time to politics. The results are predictable and repetitive.

In my experience school actually served to influence me to the right— both my parents were and are anarchists themselves and going to school put me in an environment of homophobia and racism, which I rapidly internalized. It wasn’t until later that I grew up and realized my parents had been right all along.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Valka - It's questionable, and I suppose depend on why you added the sombrero smilie. If you just thought it looked cool, then it probably falls more under cultural borrowing ; if you intended people to use it as a shorthand for Mexican people (or expected they would use it as such), then it's...more troublesome. One way or the other, guilty is overstating the case - we're not talking a crime here. At most (unless you were being deliberately offensive, which I consider unlikely), you *made a mistake*. Being human, well, yeah, you will make mistakes, that's a given. The important thing is how we deal with our mistakes, not avoiding mistakes in the first place.

If I wanted a sombrero-clad smiley to represent humans celebrating as some do in Mexico, I'd have submitted this one: . Camilla Eriksson is a Swedish-American smiley artist who has a great many multicultural-themed smileys on her site (my subscription lapsed so this is the only relevant one I can find right now; most of her content is behind a paywall).

Is she guilty of cultural appropriation? To me this smiley conveys "fun" or "party." I don't see it as making fun of Mexican people.

And the fact is, I don't believe either of my smileys do, either. There was a time when some people at TrekBBS were discussing sombreros and the idea just popped into my mind to make these smileys. After all, why can't tribbles and the Borg have a little fun, too? It seems to me that if sombreros were some sacred and holy thing, the Mexican businesspeople wouldn't sell them to non-Mexican tourists.

So no, my smileys don't represent Mexicans. They represent aliens wearing sombreros who normally don't wear anything at all.

As long as people who wear them don't run around assuming that all Mexicans are spaghetti-western-type villains and the intent is just to have fun in a non-mocking way, I don't see a problem. I also don't see what I did with the smileys as a "mistake." I'm not profiting from them in any way.

 

[Evie]

Well, if you just thought it looked cool and aren't using them as a stereotype, unless there's some unique significance to sombrero (of which I'm not aware), then honestly, to me, I have no issue with what you're doing.

Others may disagree. I can't speak for them, one way or the other.