Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bagpuss" data-source="post: 6725878" data-attributes="member: 3987">But you hardly reference them are all? Why is that? Wouldn't they make more relevant sources?It's one definition and certainly one you can work from, but you seem to be taking it as gospel. Even if we accept...“A deep understanding of cultural appropriation refers to a particular power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group.” ...as the definition we will work with for our discussion, you list things likeThe Giovanni as cultural appropriation, at what point did the Western Culture (USA where most of these writers are from) systematically oppress Italy (also Western Culture), or ancient Egypt, or a number of other of the examples you give later on? Buy this definition Katy Perry dancing in Egyptian costume can't be cultural appropriation as the culture she is taking from is long gone.Also that definition doesn't place any moral judgement on cultural appropriation, it just defines what it is, as yet I've not seen anything to say if it is a good or a bad thing.Are you being deliberately obtuse? Surely you can't mean because he's dead what he did wasn't cultural appropriation, because in that case Katy Perry's actions become fine after her death. If you aren't saying that then Elvis, Paul Simon, any musical artist is just as appropriate to the discussion as Katy Perry. If what she did was wrong, then what they did was, then Rock 'n' Roll, and everything that came after it is cultural appropriation. Are you willing to accept that?You haven't even defined what they are responsible for, or if cultural appropriation is a bad thing. Why deny it when you've not provide any evidence that it is even wrong?So they are pretty much identical.Here's what I said again.Hate speech "is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group." The legal definition has used disparages instead of insults, intimidates instead of threatens. They have clarified that speech includes gestures, conduct and writing. They have also used "protected group" rather than spelling them all out, but basically it reads the same.It doesn't alter anything I said, so why deflect?Of course they can be, so can fancy dress, if you black-up like a minstrel, but most of the time it isn't. Would it not be better to call out the occasions when it does go too far than to make some generalised statement that playing outside your own culture "may lead to some variant of blackface play".We don't say dressing up at Halloween may lead to blackface play, because for the vast majority of people it is harmless fun. We just call out those people that do blackface.By making a blanket statement, using emotive phrases like "blackface", like an accusation, you will scare people off what is otherwise (more than 99%) of the time a harmless, enjoyable and sometimes educational hobby. You and others like you will put writers off looking outside western european fantasy, for fear of backlash from the constantly offended, and the public shaming they bring.You can talk about you consider problematic things, but do so carefully, try not to stir up emotions, talk rationally and reasonably. Point out where things have been done well, what works and what doesn't. What is enjoyable so long as we understand it is a fiction, and perhaps even based on an now out-dated and offensive stereotype.I'm still yet to be convinced cultural appropriation is a bad thing, and you've not really provided any strong evidence of where it is. All cultures borrow from each other when they meet, I don't think labelling one type of borrowing appropriation and another assimilation really helps.</blockquote>

Verification