Cultural Appropriation in role-playing games (draft)

[S'mon]

Well, if you are a Caucasian male in the United States, you've probably not had it done to you...

I'm not.

FWIW, when I see other cultures take bits of my culture I tend to find it quite flattering. I guess if I'd been repeatedly told I should feel insulted then I'd feel insulted.

(Surely US 'Caucasian male' culture gets 'appropriated' like crazy all over the planet. It wouldn't
occur to any American Caucasian males to object).

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

People did protest the Piss Christ in the Elephant Dung Virgin Mary. However, this being America and where the law works little came of that. Back to my point, this is about etiquette, about good manners. It is not something that would actually be covered or excluded by the law, it is not something that will ever be a prosecutor offense.

 

[Morrus]

(Surely US 'Caucasian male' culture gets 'appropriated' like crazy all over the planet. It wouldn't
occur to any American Caucasian males to object).

Not so much "appropriated" as "exported".

 

[Umbran]

I'm not.

Which is why so often in such discussions, I use the word "if"

FWIW, when I see other cultures take bits of my culture I tend to find it quite flattering.

You might not, if it was done poorly, such that it trivialized the actual meaning of the original element, or cast your people in a highly sterotyped light or perpetuated incorrect information about your people.

Let me try for an example, that steps away from the Bento Box to somethign a bit deeper...

Online, have you ever seen a "find your totem animal" quiz? You click through a few simple questions, and it spits out, "Your totem animal is Sloth, because you're lazy!" or the like.

These things make a Native American friend of mine cringe, because they are an utter trivialization of Native American Animism. He likened it to a devout Catholic seeing someone come to a costume party in a "Naughty Virgin Mary" costume. Moreover, it isn't in any way really like Native American Animism, so blatantly oversimplified that it shows a great deal of disrespect. And, while you might say, "Well, nobody would mistake that for their religion," you'd be largely *wrong*. In the real world, people get impressions, and if the example they see is trivial, they think the real thing is kind of trivial.

(Surely US 'Caucasian male' culture gets 'appropriated' like crazy all over the planet. It wouldn't occur to any American Caucasian males to object).

Depends on your definition. To many, "cultural appropriation" *requires* there to be a power imbalance, and that it is the powerful taking cultural aspects of the less powerful.

Not so much "appropriated" as "exported".

Well, some would argue that. Others would argue that there's a major problem with that view (As I believe got mentioned earlier, I think around the time I mentioned my bento box.)

Some would say that if I (as a white male American), take an element of Japanese culture (like my bento box), I am engaging in cultural appropriation. This same person may argue that any time a Japanese person takes an element of American culture, it is because I am exporting it (committing "cultural imperialism", forcing my culture upon others). Like you said above.

The problem is that this assumes that those in the less powerful culture *completely* lack agency. They cannot borrow from more powerful cultures by their own decision, it is always coerced. The person in the less powerful culture is *always* a victim. Which is nonsense.

 

[Morrus]

Well, some would argue that. Others would argue that there's a major problem with that view (As I believe got mentioned earlier, I think around the time I mentioned my bento box.)

Some would say that if I (as a white male American), take an element of Japanese culture (like my bento box), I am engaging in cultural appropriation. This same person may argue that any time a Japanese person takes an element of American culture, it is because I am exporting it (committing "cultural imperialism", forcing my culture upon others). Like you said above.

The problem is that this assumes that those in the less powerful culture *completely* lack agency. They cannot borrow from more powerful cultures by their own decision, it is always coerced. The person in the less powerful culture is *always* a victim. Which is nonsense.

I think that oversimplifies the situation.

Mainstream US culture is "exported" because its own creators (and in this case we're mainly talking corporations rather than individuals) deliberately export it worldwide *themselves* for profit. I think that if you're doing the exporting of your own content, you have a very weak argument when trying to claim that your customers are "appropriating" it.

I'm sure, say, Japanese media companies do the same thing. Watching a Japanese movie is not appropriation either.

Appropriation in this context needs to be an action conducted by the recipient, not the creator.

 

[Guest 85555]

I think that oversimplifies the situation.

Mainstream US culture is "exported" because its own creators (and in this case we're mainly talking corporations rather than individuals) deliberately export it worldwide *themselves* for profit. I think that if you're doing the exporting of your own content, you have a very weak argument when trying to claim that your customers are "appropriating" it.

I'm sure, say, Japanese media companies do the same thing. Watching a Japanese movie is not appropriation either.

Appropriation in this context needs to be an action conducted by the recipient, not the creator.

I just think we tread dangerous ground when we deal with a concept as amorphous as cultural appropriation, as evidenced by the fact that few in this thread can even seem to agree on what it means and what specific instances would be a violation of the moral principle: do not appropriate culture. The line between an artist being inspired by something created elsewhere and cultural appropriation seems so blurry. To me, it just makes more sense to focus on things like avoiding offensive stereotypes or uses that are clearly attacks on a culture. That is stuff anyone can wrap their head around. It is easily discernible. Cultural Appropriation is a very academic concept, I don't think it is particularly helpful in the real world.

Sometimes things, even deep and meaningful religious things, pass from one culture into another, take on new meaning and new form. I don't think that is bad. All of human history is riddled with these sorts of exchanges. In a way they are a requirement for making new things. Humans tend to link existing ideas, rather than create new ones whole cloth.

I also think treating cultural trends or developments as IP is a little bit crazy. There is small movement toward this in music and I think it is stifling personally (I am frankly glad I am not a musician anymore as I can't imagine operating creatively in that field in the present culture). When the Blurred Lines case came up, a lot of folks were piggybacking a cultural appropriation argument onto it (which is why the idea of being able to copyright a 'sound' rather than something objective like several measures of a specific melody was a big issue).

To me it feels like this builds more fences and separates people from each other more than anything else.

 

[Umbran]

I just think we tread dangerous ground when we deal with a concept as amorphous as cultural appropriation

Yes. But, what would you prefer? That we *ignore* that we might be hurting someone? That the subject is difficult or dangerous doesn't mean we don't need to go there, regardless.

Cultural Appropriation is a very academic concept, I don't think it is particularly helpful in the real world.

Yes, but you (we, choose your pronoun) don't get to just dismiss it at this point. The idea exists. Waving your hands and saying, 'Not helpful!' won't make it go away.

Sometimes things, even deep and meaningful religious things, pass from one culture into another, take on new meaning and new form.

I'd go beyond sometimes - often, things pass from one culture to another. I think most of the point being that we ought to be extremely thoughtful about that process, rather than stick our heads in the sand.

I also think treating cultural trends or developments as IP is a little bit crazy.

It is, at the moment, the best analogy we have. I don't think anyone here is advocating treatign it literally in that fashion. Merely that, if you can consider IP violation of an individual, why not from a group.

Heck, Apple (which, as a company, is a fair number of people) gets to defend it's "look at feel" in court! Why can't a culture reasonably at least ask for a bit of respect when you take their look and feel?

 

[Guest 85555]

Yes. But, what would you prefer? That we *ignore* that we might be hurting someone? That the subject is difficult or dangerous doesn't mean we don't need to go there, regardless.

I think we should respond but also with some amount of reason. Not every complaint is necessitates a response. Not every complaint is reasonable. Responding to people being offended or bothered though is, in my view, separate from the discussion of whether cultural appropriation is a workable concept. I just don't find cultural appropriation ever helpful in these sorts of discussions. Talking about offensiveness of the content due to things like being insensitive or stereotyping is a lot more productive than treating cultural borrowing itself as a kind of colonialism or hate speech.

Yes, but you (we, choose your pronoun) don't get to just dismiss it at this point. The idea exists. Waving your hands and saying, 'Not helpful!' won't make it go away.

It existing as a concept doesn't mean I have to accept it as having value. I am free to critique it when I think it is not terribly useful or even harmful. I see it as a concept that creates more division than unity and is too amorphous to have a lot of use. It isn't something I think about in my design. I think about whether I am being sensitive and how well I am portraying things. I don't wring my hands over concerns of appropriating.

I'd go beyond sometimes - often, things pass from one culture to another. I think most of the point being that we ought to be extremely thoughtful about that process, rather than stick our heads in the sand.

Sure but the concept of cultural appropriation does not help us do this. It makes the process more difficult and freezes dialogue. At least I don't find it helpful for myself and I've never seen it result in anything but argument and debate elsewhere.

Being thoughtful when dealing with other cultures is a good thing. Employing a concept like cultural appropriation toward that end, is in my view not very productive. I've just never really seen it help anything. It is either a bludgeon to bang people over the head with or this esoteric thing that nobody seems to truly understand.

It is, at the moment, the best analogy we have. I don't think anyone here is advocating treatign it literally in that fashion. Merely that, if you can consider IP violation of an individual, why not from a group.

But it is a terrible analogy. IP is meant to protect individual works of a creator, not a style, trend or vibe. If people want to go down this road they are opening a huge pandoras box of problems for artists. Apple Pie is a feature of american culture, no individual can claim to own it. Once things enter into the culture they are shared, they don't belong to a single person.

Heck, Apple (which, as a company, is a fair number of people) gets to defend it's "look at feel" in court! Why can't a culture reasonably at least ask for a bit of respect when you take their look and feel?

Traditionally Copyright doesn't cover feel or vibe. The reason I mentioned the blurred lines case was because it was decided on that basis, and for that reason, a horrible decision in my view. They didn't invoke cultural appropriation but it is a very similar argument (and a lot of the people pushing for 'look and vibe' in musicology do so on the grounds of cultural appropriation). If 'sound ad vibe' is covered people can only be 100% original with zero influence from others or stick entirely to the cannon of their respective folk traditions. It is simply too broad. A lot of people recognize that decision as bad, but it sets a very terrible precedent for musicians and composers. It won't empower anyone. It will just make it harder to earn a living making music.

This is going to stifle art, stifle cultural exchange and build walls. It makes cultures things you cannot cross. It makes us unknowable to each other. It is totally fair for cultures to want to be respected. I don't think it is fair to expect people will treat our cultural artifacts in the same way as us.

In my view American copyright law is already bad enough and favors companies way more than artists. I'd much rather we not protect apples look and feel and instead protect the works of individual creators.

But to answer: Because once something leaves one culture into another, you can't have control of where it leads. Thinking that my people have control of what shape a musical style, a religious concept, or chair design when other people think its cool and start adapting it to their own culture makes zero sense. It isn't a commentary on me. It is merely how they are coming to understand and use something. Now if they use it to make a commentary on my people or deliberately insult them, that is fair to discuss. Like I said, I am all for being sensitive. But I don't think its reasonable to take offense because someone uses something in a different way than you do or in a way that your people consider not suitable (even if in the first instance its a very sacred and meaningful idea and in the other becomes more mundane).

 

[Umbran]

I think we should respond but also with some amount of reason.

I don't think a single person here suggests otherwise. We simply disagree with what counts as "some amount".

Talking about offensiveness of the content due to things like being insensitive or stereotyping is a lot more productive than treating cultural borrowing itself as a kind of colonialism or hate speech.

Yes. Now, reread the thread, and note how that the only person who has suggested we take that idea flatly was Grumpy, and when we pointed out some of the problems, he changed it. Here you are seemingly trying to tell us we shouldn't discuss the topic, and here we are, using discussion of the topic to bring out some amount of moderation of an extreme position. Which of us is being more constructive?

There is a musical, "1776", in which one of the founding fathers (Stephen Hopkins, of Rhode Island) notes: "Well, in all my years I ain't never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn't be talked about. " While the historical man may not have said those words, the sentiment has value. We can't even *talk* about it?

It existing as a concept doesn't mean I have to accept it as having value.

Okay. Fine. You don't think it has value. We got that.

But, you live in a world where others do think it is valid, and has value. So, you're probably going to have to learn to live with it.

Sure but the concept of cultural appropriation does not help us do this. It makes the process more difficult and freezes dialogue.

The only freezing of the dialog I've seen has come from your attempt to reject the term. The rest of us seemed to be doing just fine. Grumpy came here looking for feedback, we gave it, and he actually took some of it. Not all, but some. That's not "frozen". That motion. You're the only one stuck in place.

I've just never really seen it help anything. It is either a bludgeon to bang people over the head with or this esoteric thing that nobody seems to truly understand.

Yeah, but dude, if they don't at least occasionally bludgeon those in the privileged classes over the head, nothing *happens*. If folks are gentle, kind, appeasing to your sensibilities, there's little motive to change. I think history will show you that advancement on issues of racism, sexism, and other civil rights and equality always come at the price of someone feeling pretty darned uncomfortable.

Monte Cook didn't find a good way to present his content until he was bludgeoned over the head with the error. Betcha he won't make that mistake again!

So, yes, we get bludgeoned with it. We are made to feel guilty, ashamed, put upon when we feel we are innocent. Guess what? If we are worth what we think we are, we can handle it. A bit of humble pie can be good for us.

Apple Pie is a feature of american culture, no individual can claim to own it.

Interestingly, apple pie and fried chicken are *not* American. You can find them in Italian 15th century cookbooks, among other European sources, with virtually the same recipes. What we think of apple pie today is really... German, brought by the Pennsylvania Dutch.

Traditionally Copyright doesn't cover feel or vibe.

Tell that to Apple. They have active look and feel suits going over cellphone design as we speak.

Mind you, I must say (again, and so I put it in big letters so that I'm clear): I WAS NOT SUGGESTING WE LITERALLY USE COPYRIGHT LAW FOR THIS.

It was merely the handy example of, "someone else created it, and you took it, and we already accept that can be problematic". That's all. That's as far as it goes. You have spent many paragraphs (stalling the conversation, btw) on a strawman.

I don't actually expect that point to get through, though. One of the major issues with such discussions is that, if someone is confronted with that which they don't believe, they usually dig in and double-down on their commitment. So, I don't actually expect you, personally, will accept a single thing I've said here. With this post, I'm no longer trying to convince you, and I owe it to you to be honest about that.

Some other reader, however, who isn't invested in the position, might see the point, and take it to heart.

 

[Guest 85555]

People are absolutely free to discuss any concept they want. I Would never suggest otherwise but others are free to comment and critique the concept.