NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7831208" data-attributes="member: 4937">To follow alongside what you are saying here, I think there is a bit of patronization involved in worrying about whether Japanese people are offended by the use of oni, samurai, ninja or whatever, and yet at the same time suggesting that Western influences on Japanese culture are not cultural appropriation by the Japanese, but rather cultural hegemony. The problem with that way of viewing things is that regardless of what happens, you are viewing the world as if Japanese people are the ones being acted on, and not the ones doing the acting.Are all the Western references in Japanese animation or manga problematic? If I make a Street Fighter II style video game, how authentic do I have to make all the stereotyped cartoonish fighters before I'm sufficiently respectful?No one has ever been able to give me some sort of consistent rules regarding when inclusion is good or when inclusion is bad. It all seems suspiciously subjective and often as not the self-appointed judges of what is good inclusion or bad inclusion aren't really even cultural experts or members of the culture. It's easy to get into a situation where if you don't publish things inspired by non-European cultures then they accuse you of not being inclusive and of white washing, and if you do then they say it's cultural appropriation.My personal opinion is that if it isn't plagiarism and it isn't mockery, then it probably isn't wrong. And even then, there are some gentle ribbings that I think ought to be allowed. For example, I think the portrayal of the Americans and English schools in 'Girls and Panzers' is hilarious. Fundamentally, I don't think anyone owns a 'culture'. If some Japanese or Chinese musician plays Mozart, and is inspired by Mozart, they are as much the heir of Mozart - or even more so - than an Austrian or German. I don't think you get to say, "You can't make Cajun food because you aren't from Louisiana." We might laugh at what you call jambalaya, but you know, what's 'authentic' is ultimately what your grandma made. I don't think people get to tell me I can't make rice and peas or jerk chicken, and I don't think there is someone out there with magisterial authority to police who can.  I don't think the uses of culture are licensed, and I'm skeptical of the idea that there is someone that can appoint themselves to that job.And why is it that someone can speak for the whole of a marginal group anyway? Do you really think that they have all the same opinions?  Isn't that marginalizing?  Why do they have to be represented by some single high priest?   You wouldn't put up with someone claiming to speak for you.Really, I think this comes down to people hearing a term like 'cultural appropriation', not understanding what it means, and then misapplying that term to mean things far broader than what was intended, by using the common sense meaning of the two words. Actual 'cultural appropriation' is plagiarism that occurs when members of a dominate group feel they don't have to obey rules regarding copyright if it is with respect to a marginalized group. And you can go back into the history of rock music (for example) and see examples of that practice, and it is damnable, just as any sort of plagiarism is damnable. I'm not suggesting someone can't own their own creative works. But actually taking ideas from other cultures and blending them with other ideas in a creative manner is not cultural appropriation, and it's a good thing and not a bad thing.The great achievements of humanity are the common heritage of all humanity.</blockquote>

Verification