Showing posts with label opinions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinions. Show all posts

Saturday, December 2, 2017

What is cultural appropriation?

This past Halloween, I read a comment on a celebrity’s Facebook page that accused the girlfriend of the celebrity of cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation is a term I have not heard before. After a quick search, I was intrigued to research it more due to the massive debate about whether or not it is wrong or not. This post will be longer than usual as there is so much information that I want to share to make sure this topic is covered. While I may not cover it all, I want to give enough of an overview that I do not leave anyone confused. I will discuss what it is, the arguments for and against and how we proceed.


First, what is cultural appropriation? The official definition is a term from Sociology which deals with the adopting of elements from one culture by members of another. It is often portrayed as harmful and is claimed to be a violation of the collective property rights of the originating culture. In most cases the adoption of the cultural elements are by a dominant culture from a minority culture. Many sociologists feel cultural appropriation is avoidable as multiple cultures live among each other the exchange of cultural elements will occur. These elements may be borrowed and applied by the dominant culture against the wishes of the minority culture and the original meaning of the cultural element is lost or distorted and seen as disrespectful. While some view it as inevitable and a contribution to diversity and free expression.
Examples of cultural elements:
  • Food
  • Fashion, hairstyles, makeup and body modifications
  • Art, iconography and adornment
  • Religion and spiritual symbols
  • Technology
  • Language, including slang

The debate about cultural appropriation is deep and greatly divides people who fight against it and those who feel it isn’t as big a deal as the social justice warriors (SJWs) believe. The proof is in how people define the term and the examples they use.


The opponents of cultural appropriation are deeply passionate about it and argue with which fervor will leave many feeling shame that they would use these cultural elements. Opponents believe it is wrong when the minority culture is subordinated in social, political, economic or military status to a dominant culture or a history of ethnic or racial conflict. The views of colonialism, context and the difference between appropriation and mutual exchange are a part of their main argument. According to many opponents, cultural appropriation is different from acculturation (the cultural modification by adopting or borrowing) and assimilation (the process of taking in and fully understanding information or ideas). The main argument is that the cultural element is taking out of context and is often misapplied. For example, Native American sweat lodges and vision quest ceremonies are being used and run by non-Native Americans who do not understand the significance or the dangers when someone doesn’t know who to perform the ceremonies properly. Another example is the bindi mark which appeared at Coachella in 2014. The bindi is a traditional Hindu head mark with religious significance. Many Hindus were highly offended by those who wore the bindi as they did not fully understand the meaning and it was more than a beauty mark. One strong argument against cultural appropriation is when someone can or will enjoy an aspect of a culture, like the food, but still be prejudice against the people who brought the food to this country. “Cultural appropriation shows that you don’t have to like a person or respect their identity to feel entitled to take from them” (Johnson, 2015). 


As much as there is passion against cultural appropriation, there is an equal fervor by those who think it is simply today’s oversensitivity. Take one definition posted by a user on Urban Dictionary, “The ridiculous notion that being of a different culture or race (especially white) means that you are not allowed to adopt things from other cultures. This does nothing but support segregation and hinder progress in the world. All it serves to do is to promote segregation and racism.” Another user posted: “The idiotic conflation of culture with racism. Essentially the absurd belief that the cultural exchange that has served to enriched humanity throughout all of human history is wrong because racists exist.” And lastly, “A pile of SJW bullshit stating that its racists to indulge in foreign cultures.” Of all the user definition posted, the majority were negative like the ones I’ve quoted. Proponents of cultural appropriation view it as benign or mutually beneficial. It is mutation, product diversity, technology diffusion and cultural empathy. For example, George Lucas borrowed elements for Star Wars from Akira Kurosawa’s The Hidden Fortress who borrowed from Shakespeare. John McWhorter, a professor at Columbia University and contributing editor at the New Republic, wrote “The idea that when we imitate something we are seeking to replace it rather than join it is weak.” The concept has morphed from the original idea to a parody. According to McWhorter, people get angry simply when whites happily imitate something minorities do as if imitation is a kind of dismissal rather than a sincerest form of flattery. Another article expressed concern over the fervor against cultural appropriation as “unchecked by reason, therefore unworried by hypocrisy, snowflakes creep closer to actual violence” (Wakefield, 2017). The fight against cultural appropriation is seen as simply anti-white sentiment.


So what do we do? I’m not sure where I read this but someone made the comment that social justice warriors and “snowflakes” (a term for an extremist liberal offended by every statement ot belief that doesn’t exactly match their own. I see this behavior with conservatives too but that’s another post), are trying to reinstate an apartheid, a complete separation of cultures, after decades of fighting to remove such separation. In a way, this statement is correct, however, in my opinion, I see both sides of the coin. In many terms, cultural appropriation is bad and even insulting while others are simply the passage of time that it has become a part of both cultures. For example, an element from a culture should never be a costume or the butt of a joke which perpetuates an ethnic stereotype, according to Jenni Avins of The Atlantic. Just as a sacred symbols should not be worn as accessories. For example, in the last decade, individuals started wearing the Catholic rosary like one would wear a necklace. A rosary is not jewelry, it is a tool of prayer. It is not a talisman for protection. In her final words of her article, Maisha Johnson said “I am encouraging you to be thoughtful about using things from other cultures, to consider the context and learn about the best practices to show respect.” This statement makes sense to me, when respect is shown, I see no problem when someone of one culture borrows from another culture; however, the problem is someone may think they are being respectful when they are not or you may have some who, no matter how respectful a person may be, is insulted when someone outside the culture uses an element. This is when I feel the fight against cultural appropriation goes too far.


In conclusion, we live in a society in which we must walk on eggshells especially when you are white. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “not bad for a white woman” when I’ve cooked a delicious meal of traditional Mexican food or other ethnic foods. As if the color of my skin hinders my ability to follow a recipe and cook. On the other side, there are other aspects of different cultures that I would never feel comfort wearing or participating in, simply because I am not a part of that culture. Bottom line, if you are going to borrow something from another culture, be respectful and give credit where credit is due. I would want the same consideration if someone wants to borrow from my culture. What are your thoughts?

Reference

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Are The Beatles overrated? The debate continues

The Beatles, a English rock band from Liverpool in 1960, came to America in 1963 and changed rock n’ roll as the music world had known it. At least that is what the consensus. The members, John Lennon (1940-1980), Paul McCartney (born 1942), George Harrison (1943-2001) and Ringo Starr (born 1940) are considered rock geniuses who influenced many bands who have come out generations after them. They are the best-selling band in history with estimates range from one billion discs and tapes (1982) to 600 million records, CDs, and tapes in 2004. Despite their influence, despite their sales and their records, could they be overrated? It was a question that came up in the conversation. So I searched on the internet and found many, many debates on this very question.


On Debate.org, 72% of respondents said yes, the Beatles are overrated. One user commented “It’s just ridiculous how much they’ve been worshipped in the last 50 years like none of the bands that came after them even mattered.” Many commenters called The Beatles the boy band of the 60s, putting them with boy bands like New Kids on the Block, NSYNC and the Backstreet Boys. One website I found called The Beatles a media creation of Brian Epstein. Beatlemania was a heavily produced marketing ploy by Epstein and the bosses at Vee-Jay Records. Another commented that how they are overrated since no member was the greatest at what he did. I was curious about this claim, so I searched. According to a 2011 Rolling Stone reader poll, the greatest bassist of all time is John Entwistle of The Who. Paul McCartney was number 3 and George Harrison wasn’t mentioned. In another Rolling Stone list, David Fricke listed Jimi Hendrix as the greatest guitarist of all time. Paul McCartney wasn’t even in his top 20. John Bonham of Led Zeppelin was named the greatest drummer of All Time by Rolling Stone in 2016. Ringo Starr was number 4, which is not bad but it’s not the top. And John Lennon wasn’t named the greatest vocalist by the Rolling Stone in 2015, Aretha Franklin got that honor. In a list of the greatest lyricists of all time, Bob Dylan received top honors. George Harrison was number 65, John Lennon number 3, and Paul McCartney number 2. But does not being at the top of these lists mean they are overrated?


On the other side, 28% of respondents on Debates.org said no, no way can the Beatles be overrated. The comments ranged from The Beatles being beyond comparison to pioneers can’t be overrated. Majority of commenters said that the Beatles cannot be overrated because they were too influential for the musicians who came after them. Many artists and bands from a variety of musical sounds credit the Beatles as a source of inspiration. Dave Grohl of Nirvana and The Foo Fighters, Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys, Nancy Wilson of Heart and Billy Joel are credit the Beatles as major influences. Robin Gibb (1949-2012) of the BeeGees credited the Beatles with their sound because they dared the break the rules. He claimed that the Beatles created artistic credibility in the pop music business where there wasn’t any before. Essentially pop music started with the Beatles. Joni Mitchell, one of the greatest songwriters of the 1960s and 70s credited the Beatles 1965 album Rubber Soul as her main influence. Someone commented that people were confusing overrated with hugely over-popular. The Beatles were overhyped, maybe but not overrated. When The Beatles hit in 1963, the music world was in a decline with singers and bands sounding alike. “They burst onto the scene with great new music, cheeky charisma and good looks,” essentially their timing was perfect. Right place, right time. Does this mean musical innovation, influential across genres and perfect timing are reasons they can’t be overrated?


In my opinion, you cannot deny The Beatles influence on the music world. Artists and bands who were never think would be influenced by them were heavily influenced. In my opinion, I feel The Beatles are an important part of rock and roll history but now are overrated. I grew up listening to them; however, I’m not a big Beatles fan. I like a few songs but I don’t own any of their albums. My favorite song by them is Yesterday from the Help! (1965) album. I also loved the film Across the Universe which features Beatles songs. Were they influential? Absolutely! Were they the only influence in music at the time? No way. Many influences named predate The Beatles, such as Robert Johnson who influenced many in rock and roll with his songs such Crossroad Blues (1936) and Hellhound on My Trail (1937). I asked this question on my Facebook page and the responses I got were mixed. Those were thought they were overrated gave reasons why they thought so and for the reasons I stated above. Those who didn’t think they were overrated really didn’t give a reason why just simply said no, they weren’t overrated. I realized that those who didn’t think they were overrated did so due to nostalgia and that’s fine. When you have an emotional connection to a band and their music, it would be hard to see or even fathom that they could be overrated. For instance, the band U2 has had a big influence on my husband and myself through the years. We’ve connected with their music and connected with each other. I’ve heard from people who are not fans that they think U2 is overrated. I feel it is the same situation with Beatles fans and non-Beatles fans.



In conclusion, no one can discount The Beatles influence on music. Whether or not they are overrated, is simply a matter of opinion. If you are a fan of them, you love everything about them and their influence on the rock and roll world and their music speaks to you. If you are not a fan, you aren’t going to have the connection and may have a negative opinion about them. The love of music is very subjective. It’s in the ear of the listener. What one person will find pleasant and a great song, others will not.  Therefore, The Beatles have a place in rock and roll history, and deservedly so, their music and legacy will live on. The question is will future generations of musicians find them influential?