You're not as progressive as you think you are...

no fun girl

One of my irritations with this forum is that as much as we like to make fun or criticize Republicans, Gamergaters, and other fun elements of society, there can be a lot of blindness to other less-progressive attitudes here, usually those deeply rooted in male, "western", and white privilege. Not only is it hypocritical, but it's also micro-aggressive and repellent to people outside those spheres of privilege.

[Even when people are trying to be thoughtful about racism, for example, they still cross lines, like demanding my labor ("Help me with making this work less racist."; "Educate me on racial things I should be googling first."; "Why don't you want to talk about this?? I'm willing to learn!!") or relying heavily on stereotypes and propaganda without looking past a certain privileged bubble ("Independent cultures so much better than collective cultures, because USA #1! Freedom! Rights! Creativity!").]

I'm bringing this up because I came across this tidbit:
From the WTF of the day thread

Someone: Now, white people with dreadlocks is usually gross but calling it cultural appropriation kind of annoys me. Aren't cultures supposed to learn and borrow from each other? Isn't that part of the whole "melting pot" ? Really the racism issue is that sometimes when some white people do it its seen as some hot new style, but the same people will put down a black person for wearing dreads.

Someone else: Pretty much any claim of "cultural appropriation" is bullshit. My favorite recent example is against an Oberlin College eatery for serving inauthentic Asian food, including serving a Vietnamese dish "using ciabatta instead of traditional French bread".

Plus if the problem is people who don't like dreadlocks on black people, then white people with dreadlocks aren't the ones at fault.

Another person: The cultural appropriation thing always sounds like a cry from George Wallace or Strom Thurmond. Cultural appropriation was essential to ending segregation on the radio back in the 50s and 60s. White artists who recognized they could empower the black rhythm and blues music did covers to bring that music onto white radio, and bring down that separation. Bobby Womack would've died in obscurity if the Stones hadn't broken through covering him. It's not fair, but it's true, and necessary.

The legitimate issue of cultural appropriation has been addressed by people far more knowledgable and eloquent than I, so here is a basic 101 for people who don't Google. http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/05/defending-cultural-appropriation/

Greg

Yo I havent been "progressive" in years. Dont use my posts to prove a point about other people.

Nukerjsr

So if you call out someone for being racist or defending cultural appropriation, the accused in question shouldn't ask you the accuser for what's the right way to think or come up with a solution to the problem? That doesn't sound productive, that just sounds like a way to insult them without giving them any advice. They might have the power to "google it," but then you are asking them to interpret the data out there when they could come across the wrong source. Antagonizing a person that way isn't going to automatically make them want to change for the better, it can just bitter themselves to what you represent.

People are going to make mistakes. It's just the matter of how much you want to hold them responsible for that mistake and how much you'll choose to judge them over said mistake(s).

Rym

I generally judge anyone who doesn't:

1. Google for at least the basics of anything they want to argue about (e.g., Feminism 101)
2. Have a basic ability to recognize legitimate sources.

Nukerjsr said:

So if you call out someone for being racist or defending cultural appropriation, the accused in question shouldn't ask you the accuser for what's the right way to think or come up with a solution to the problem?

That almost never happens with good faith. In almost every case, the person asking so is looking for an argument, looking for ammunition for an argument, or baiting. While it's possible that this happens in good faith, this is rarely the case in the modern Internet.

More importantly, even IF it's done in good faith, it is a burden on the people already burdened. The more the onus is on the oppressed to educate the oppressor, the less likely the former is (rightly) willing and able to continue to dedicate that time and effort to doing it.

Basic research is trivial now. Failure to do it is grounds for dismissal rather than discourse.

no fun girl

Nukerjsr said:

Antagonizing a person that way isn't going to automatically make them want to change for the better, it can just bitter themselves to what you represent.

That is their failing that
1. they consider being called out antagonizing
2. they don't recognize the opportunity to be a better person.
3. they have to be coddled into being a better person

Nukerjsr said:

People are going to make mistakes. It's just the matter of how much you want to hold them responsible for that mistake and how much you'll choose to judge them over said mistake(s).

I don't judge people for making mistakes. I judge them for continuing to indulge in or rationalize bad behavior.

Rochelle

The fact that people expect to be coddled into understanding there is a problem with a behavior just shows their sense of privilege and entitlement.

Yes, you may more thank likely get a better outcome, but the butthurt and bitterness reactions are bullshit.

I'm honestly so annoyed with that shit being a female person of color.

Greg

There's a rhetorical device where you start by establishing a concrete event or phenomenon that both parties agree is abhorrent, and then work from there into abstraction. It gives the abstract portion more validity. It hasn't worked for my online debates, but then neither has anything else.

Apreche

I don't think people expect to be coddled into understanding there is a problem. I think they legitimately don't believe that there is a problem. If they start something, as Rym says, it's not in good faith. It's because they want to argue. You can try to engage, but nobody is going to change their mind. It's best to spread the message to people who aren't even thinking about it. Get those "undecided voters." They're not going to argue. They'll just learn slowly, and then you're the majority.

The issue of cultural appropriation specifically is an even more difficult one to deal with than others because it is so nuanced. The problem being, as that article and others point out, that it's not always wrong. The line is drawn when the appropriation causes harm, but harm is often very hard to see or even harder to prove. The worst part is that the harm is usually invisible to everyone other than the victims.

Despite knowing much more about this than the average person, though much less than people who actually study social justice for real, I still can't always determine what appropriations are OK. Of course it is often obvious, but is just as often not so obvious. It's difficult to call people out when you aren't sure yourself if what someone is doing just feels icky, or if it's actually harmful.

Native American Halloween costume? Sorry, you are not allowed into this party wearing that shit.

Non-Italian person making and eating pizza? Yeah! Pizza for everybody! Delicious.

Reggae band composed mostly (or entirely) of white people? That seems very icky, but is it harmful? They appropriated, but they are spreading joy and good music... If they dressed up as Rastafarians, I think that crosses the line for sure. But what if they are just jamming? I'm not entirely sure.

Andrew

Rick Bayless, a famous chef, was recently called out re: cultural appropriate about his Mexican cuisine on NPR http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/03/22/471309991/when-chefs-become-famous-cooking-other-cultures-food

I found both the article and his response pretty enlightening.

From time to time through my four decades of tirelessly exploring, cooking and promoting the complex and diverse cuisine of Mexico, a handful of people with Hispanic last names have attacked me for cooking Mexican food, saying I have no right to. I am, after all, unapologetically a white guy from Oklahoma City who was raised in a barbeque restaurant.

The attacks touch a whole host of different nerves on both sides.

Most of those who denounce my work come with the same couple of presuppositions. The first is that for select cultures, certain aspects of intangible cultural heritage are inherently the exclusive property of the culture that created them. Only people who’ve been raised in that culture (or descendants of people from that culture, no matter where they live in the world) can make a profession of those aspects of the intangible cultural heritage. Basically, what I’m saying is that there is a belief that only Mexicans (or their descendants) can make Mexican food.

Now, I say that this is only for certain cultures. Search as I might, I haven’t unearthed any examples of French, Italian or Japanese (three of the most respected cuisines in the world) alleging inappropriate appropriation toward any non-natives who’ve joined the ranks of those who call themselves French or Italian or Japanese chefs. They may (and often do) question those chefs’ depth of knowledge, the length of time they’ve emerged themselves in the cuisine and culture, their interpretation of traditions or their talent. But I’ve never heard them allege “highjacking” thievery.

Second, most of those who denounce my work have a very particular understanding of cuisine: Rather than an ever-evolving, ever-morphing approach to transforming raw ingredients into unique dishes that the culture recognizes as its own, these folks see cuisine as a finite number of recipes that can be captured, as if they were jewels, and sold in another market. For obvious reasons, that’s misguided. In Mexico, every region cooks differently, every town, every family. To truly understand a dish, you have to go to where they’re well known, visit the markets to understand the ingredients, then cook with a host of cooks to understand the essence of what ties all the individual examples together. (Basically, to work deeply in the culinary aspects of intangible cultural heritage, you need to have serious training in anthropology, which I do.) Now, whether you’re going to capture what you’ve learned in a cookbook or a restaurant menu, you’ll be translating it from the original expression into a new medium. That’s more of an art than a science in my opinion. But only if you have talent for that part (and a tremendous amount of vision and stamina)can you be successful. In four decades of working in this profession, I’ve never seen anyone “capture” and make millions on it.

Third, many of those who denounce my work focus on the simple fact that I’m white. All I’d have to do is claim that I had a Mexican great-grandmother, and I could be part of the club. Otherwise, all I seem to represent for these people—no matter how deep my knowledge, respect and love for the cuisine—is the oppressor, the usurper. Being told I can’t study, practice, share, celebrate the glories of Mexican cuisine simply because I’m white, simply because I don’t have a Mexican grandmother, is to be denied something that I identify with at the very core of my being. Isn’t that an example of racism, and aren’t we all trying to move past that in our modern society?

I will tell you the truth: I am not a person who looks at people through “race” eyes. I’d rather focus on the beauty that people all over the world are creating every day. Which means I’ve honestly never sat around wondering if I have gotten where I am because I’m white, wondering if I should feel angst-ridden guilt because I was born white. Honestly, what would that accomplish? Would it lead me to one day realize that my love for Mexico and it’s cuisine wasn’t true love, but mere appropriation. Would it lead me to repent, apologize to Mexico, and start cooking French food?

Instead, what keeps me up at night is wondering if Frontera’s Oaxacan black mole would satisfy my Oaxacan friends, if I’ve truly captured the soul of Yucatan on my latest series of Public Television shows, if any of our restaurant menus have strayed from Mexico’s true flavor balance, if we’ve packed our restaurant training manuals with enough cross-cultural information, if I’m equipping my staff adequately to leave the fold, open their own restaurants and improve what the world thinks of Mexican food.

So, please, I invite you to criticize me if you think I’m not talented at writing recipes, as a restaurant chef, or as a communicator on television. Criticize my work if you think it’s not well researched enough, or if you think all the years I’ve lived and traveled in Mexico isn’t enough to absorb the cuisine. But don’t criticize me for being white, for falling head over heels for Mexico and it’s incomparable cuisine, and for wanting to share it with the world.

no fun girl

Andrew said:

Being told I can’t study, practice, share, celebrate the glories of Mexican cuisine simply because I’m white, simply because I don’t have a Mexican grandmother, is to be denied something that I identify with at the very core of my being. Isn’t that an example of racism, and aren’t we all trying to move past that in our modern society?

I will tell you the truth: I am not a person who looks at people through “race” eyes. I’d rather focus on the beauty that people all over the world are creating every day. Which means I’ve honestly never sat around wondering if I have gotten where I am because I’m white, wondering if I should feel angst-ridden guilt because I was born white. Honestly, what would that accomplish?

That's some privilege right there. And a misguided idea that being aware of privilege had something to do with guilt as opposed to action. And a sense of entitlement about what should and should not be off limits, both in terms of culture and critique, to him, a white male.

He says he loves the culture, but apparently he desregards the people and their opinions. He frames criticisms against him as being racist, but reverse racism is not a thing because racism has to do with power and systemic disadvantage. He subscribes to the "color blind" ideology, which disregards racial and ethnic identity. To put it another way, it's easy to be color blind when your culture is the imperialist one and you are the default human whose access and entitlements are not questioned. Until they are, and you must find any excuse to be RIGHT, as opposed to acknowledging risks and doing ones' best to listen, acknowledge, and compensate.

The fact is, the culturally "superior" cuisines he mentioned don't have the same history of oppression. Even their cultural status is tied into imperialism. Meanwhile, a white guy getting famous making food when potentially equally innovative and talented chefs of Mexican heritage are less likely, at best "ethnic", is a striking symptom of privilege. Just as the author of that link mentioned, cultural exchange is good. But if he is refusing to consider his position, disregards and belittles the opinions of those from the culture he supposedly loves, and counters that they are not allowed to critique him on ground which he defines, well... That guy is a dick.

Axel

I think we can over-complicate discussion around a lot of these issues, but a good place to start is: Listen to marginalized folks and don't talk over them or make demands/requests. If someone says they are being harmed, take that at face value before you try and argue with them because you don't think it makes sense. It is antithetical to a lot of us to avoid what seems "logical" and just listen to something that someone else says that doesn't jive with us, but that's the problem with privilege: It blinds you to the pain of others.

I understand you can have interesting nuance vis a vis things like cultural appropriation, but it just seems easier to listen to marginalized people and help them out.

Andrew

no fun girl said:

That guy is a dick.

Yeah, I won't disagree there, in fact you aren't the first one to say so (http://www.ocweekly.com/restaurants/the-problem-isnt-rick-bayless-cooking-mexican-food-its-that-hes-a-thin-skinned-diva-7075113)

Cremlian

Most of the disagreements on this issue stem from most people on either side of it having no idea what they are talking about as your first article stated.

Axel

I mean, I assume that under-privileged/marginalized folks know what they're talking about on their side of the issue, since they're usually talking about the effect these things have on them.

Apreche

All you gentiles. No more gefilte fish for you! It's appropriation!

And the one non-jew who actually likes that shit shed a single tear.

Matt

No no, we can all still eat it. But the 1,000s of bagel stores not under Jewish ownership can't serve lox.

demoweasel

You can be non-Mexican and cook all the Mexican food you want, the only thing -I- want is for you to treat its origins with respect.

Don't be a dickhead about things and you're good to go.

no fun girl

demoweasel said:

You can be non-Mexican and cook all the Mexican food you want, the only thing -I- want is for you to treat its origins with respect.

Don't be a dickhead about things and you're good to go.

^
Anything else is reductio ad absurdum

ninjarabbi

Ohh a new thread calling me out too. I don't know if I really identify as "progressive" though as it's always kind of seemed like a nebulous term. For the most part I agree with the article and I don't think it completely goes against what I was saying.

"I’ve learned to take care of my hair, including using protective and natural styles like cornrows, Marley twists, and afros. It’s been a long process with many struggles – including having these same styles called “ugly” and “unprofessional....just part of why it’s not “just hair” for me when white folks get credit and positive attention for wearing traditionally Black hairstyles.”

Churba

Re: Title

Yeah, probably not. I still screw up a lot. And while it's an iterative process of becoming a better person, that doesn't excuse when I do screw it up.

Matt

I've never gotten mad for someone pointing out I was trampling on some sensitive issue that I didn't understand. I always want to learn.

For instance, reading all of the burkini debate stuff, I just raised my hands and slowly backed away, figuring I'm not even allowed to have an opinion here, as it would inevitably be wrong for lack of direct experience.

What I really want to know is who started this shit where you can't wear cargo shorts anymore. Sensitivities be damned: fuck those people.

no fun girl

ninjarabbi said:

For the most part I agree with the article and I don't think it completely goes against what I was saying

I disagree with your reading of the article. You said it isn't CA, she points it out as an example of CA. You also use the cultural exchange = appropriation argument. Also, partial agreement is partial disagreement: would you partially disagree if someone told you that you're stepping on their toes?

Here is the full article she links to regarding hair http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/white-people-black-hairstyles/. In it, she reiterates that it's less about individual behavior/opinions and more about how those behaviors fit into a greater context, and whether those choices are worth the harm they can invisibly provoke/perpetuate.

Matt said:

For instance, reading all of the burkini debate stuff, I just raised my hands and slowly backed away, figuring I'm not even allowed to have an opinion here, as it would inevitably be wrong for lack of direct experience.

Perhaps err on the side of personal autonomy, and not the false neutral of withdrawal that supports status quo.

In other news:

http://twitter.com/ajplus/status/769593805599158272

I knew there would be a semantic argument over "progressive", and I was intentionally ignoring it. Label your ideologies however you wish, the behavior remains hypocritical and imbued with privilege. You have every right to think it's annoying BS, but that says something about your ability to see past yourself.

Also, I'm not trying to single ppl out. Using ”you" is an annoying artifact of "one" being clumsy in English. Like churbs said, we all fuck up. The real litmus test is how we respond to being told we fucked up.

EDITS: I don't know why I hate myself and type these responses on my phone...

Matt

Oh, I'll correct myself. I *have* an opinion, I'm just not offering it. For one, I'm not convinced I know all there is to know about the situation. I don't want to sit idly by and not advocate for issues where I could easily claim "it doesn't affect me," but in cases where my smart people radar is murky, and it really doesn't directly relate to me, I'm sitting the fuck out.

Apreche

On the topic of Burkini

https://mobile.twitter.com/rosalarian/status/768837185336320001

Dromaro

The example in the AJ+ video happened to me 8 years ago at a former job of mine, only I mistook the woman as Guatamalen when she was actually Peruvian. Instead of freaking out as the white man did in the video, I apologized sincerely and asked what in her accent might have given that away since that is how I misidentified her. She gave me tips on the Peruvian accent since she didn't know any Guatamalens to tip me there. We ended up striking up a friendship and I was having dinner with her family within 2 weeks. ;-)

That said, I'd like to think I handled that well but perhaps you guys can shed light on a situation I could have better handled?

Anthony Heman

I'm an outsider to your "progressive" titles or your general arguments here on this topic, but I'm very inclined to ask if you can boil this "Cultural Appropriation" term down into something else more specific that is morally objectionable. Just the idea of using another culture's food, for example, doesn't seem inherently morally objectionable to me. If there's something else that makes it wrong, and it only applies to some subset of this term, then the problem is not cultural appropriation, but rather the individual morally objectionable things within it. I'm specifically thinking in terms of generalism vs particularism here. What fight are you all having, and has it confused the actual problem via correlation? Are you trying to create some universalist rule-set to live by because it's easier or something?

Rym

It's not a fight yet, just a merging of perspectives. I could very well become a fight, but that is rarely the intent here.

no fun girl

Dromaro said:

That said, I'd like to think I handled that well but perhaps you guys can shed light on a situation I could have better handled?

Sadly, that's usually all people are asking for. For others to listen, learn, and make more educated and empathic choices. Most times, people get defensive, make reduction to the absurd, and say "YOU'RE NOT MY SUPERVISOR". It's super mature.

Anthony Heman said:

I'm very inclined to ask if you can boil this "Cultural Appropriation" term down into something else more specific that is morally objectionable.

I would suggest you read the link, and the links in that link. It should answer your questions (& whether they are the right questions).

Matt

The first step is really understanding that people are discriminated against constantly, for myriad reasons, and most of it, you are probably oblivious to, having not been in their shoes. Rather than taking the "well, I will just make sure I am personally not racist" stance, attitudes are shifting to a more proactive stance, where you don't hijack what could have been the success of someone who comes along and does the same thing as you, maybe even better, but gets no recognition due to bias, unconscious or otherwise.

I understand the cooking thing. It frustrates me because I wish people could go to town remixing everything in the world, but deep down I totally get that we are not there yet.

It's OK to appreciate other cultures. For example, remix Mexican food in your own kitchen. Don't make a career out of it though.

no fun girl

Matt said:

It's OK to appreciate other cultures. For example, remix Mexican food in your own kitchen. Don't make a career out of it though.

Or maybe if you do, spend some of that fame and fortune promoting the people you learned from, other Mexican talent, or the people of the culture. Give back.

Nuri

Seems like the whole reason it's this big of a deal is because white people think they're being told "YOU CAN'T DO THAT EVER!"

When they're actually being told "Consider the circumstances that allow you to do this thing, and try to learn about the thing you are doing in the context of the culture where it originated. That way you will be in a better position to know how to do things without causing unintended harm to the origin cultures."

Like, for instance, "Yes, I am a white guy who had resources and a network that allowed me to travel around and learn about Mexican cuisine so I could develop my own take on it and get famous for my cooking. There are probably people from that culture who are equally passionate and/or skilled about Mexican cuisine who do not have the resources and opportunities I do."

AND THEN, of course, the most important part: "Since my privilege and networks gave me the opportunity for my hard work to become renowned, I'm giving back to the culture I love so much by recognizing/sponsoring/etc. aspiring Mexican chefs from backgrounds without my advantages."

HOW HARD IS THAT? "Yup this is a thing that exists, and here's what I'm doing to help." BUT NO, instead they are all "WAAAAH YOU TOOK ALL THE FUN OUT OF MY TOYS I'M GOING HOME!"