Of dreadlocks and cultural appropriation

[sologdin]

though i love me some fine button shirts for the informal attire that my profession requires, the propriety of these sartorial effects is nevertheless called into question insofar as they were cruelly taken from the original egyptian design, originating over 5,000 years ago, in view of which continuing tort i am genuinely staggered--this has got to be one of the most valuable cases in search of a plaintiff ever.  any ancient egyptians with knowledge of clothing manufacture should contact me ASAP; you may be entitled to compensation.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

4 minutes ago, sologdin said:

though i love me some fine button shirts for the informal attire that my profession requires, the propriety of these sartorial effects is nevertheless called into question insofar as they were cruelly taken from the original egyptian design, originating over 5,000 years ago, in view of which continuing tort i am genuinely staggered--this has got to be one of the most valuable cases in search of a plaintiff ever.  any ancient egyptians with knowledge of clothing manufacture should contact me ASAP; you may be entitled to compensation.

Sounds like some sort of elaborate Pyramid Scheme. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

 

4 hours ago, sologdin said:

you almost always piss me off, SV.  but not this time.  that last post kicks ass.

Many of our disagreements are really matters of aesthetics. Besides, every anarchist left-libertarian (even a potentially reformed one) is, at their core, some subspecies of Marxist.   

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

I don't live in Germany but I have read a great deal about how popular North American native culture is in that country, and I suspect there are in fact letter writing campaigns in Germany to governments here about those issues, because Germans would do that.  I don't think you can demand that other peoples on the planet not admire your culture and try to emulate it.  And you know what, if someone buys something called a dream catcher and hangs it up in their house, the fact is it doesn't become a dream catcher just because someone calls it a dream catcher.  Someone can decorate their house or their body with crosses, that doesn't mean they are sacred crosses.  That's what I have come to see.  It doesn't help that a lot of native people sell dream catchers to tourists as well.  I occasionally go to the native-run casino north of Toronto and their gift shop sells things made by natives, like moccasins and dream catchers.  The label on the dream catchers explains the sacredness of the dream catcher, but I don't think they believe they are selling sacred artifacts, just a copy.

Ayup! Material representations of the sacred are fundamentally profane. They are representational and only have meaning because we impose that meaning on them. Otherwise, they're just tchockies and trinkets. Crosses are just cheap pieces of metal or wood, rosaries are cheap ceramics, and dream catchers are just wooden hoops and feathers. I appreciate that some people think they have the market cornered on religious trinkets of a certain type and that it's a Real Bad Thing if others use or appreciate them in some other way, but unfortunately those people kind of have to just get over themselves. 

[Kelli Fury]

This is, again, another example of how your privilege keeps you from understanding. And not understanding is fine, there are many many things I do not understand because they are too far outside my own experience. But you guys are nearly all jumping from "I don't understand it" to "since I don't understand it, it is not correct." And that is a huge, huge roadblock in race relations. That a great many well meaning people refuse to take the personal experience of another group as more relevant than their own, and that their own well meaning actions may be contributing to hardship for others in way they may be unable to understand. 

[Kelli Fury]

I asked another person of color from this board if they wanted to jump in and comment in this thread, because I do think it lacks much minority perspective or awareness. This person said they had strong opinions on the matter but was certain they would be met by people whose mission it was not to understand, and that I shouldn't bother either. Just a thought, this isn't an uncommon stance about race and appropriation from people of color. It might be helpful to think on why that may be.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

4 hours ago, mormont said:

I would have a slightly different take, in that I think 'cultural appropriation' is what happens when someone from culture A adopts a surface-level aspect of culture B for superficial reasons, without regard for the deeper cultural significance that this surface-level marker actually denotes. It's what Kay was complaining about upthread, really.

There's an interesting discussion to be had about whether modern Western culture in particular has become addicted to these superficial signifiers as a shorthand and whether that reflects a shallow culture in the way (and for the reasons) that you suggest, though.

One of the other aspects that I think is amusing to think about is that people within cultures utilize cultural symbolism in different ways, and often without much regard for how others in their culture view the same objects. These objects often have no truly set meaning. The Crucifix is one example. The Star of David is another. For a devout Jew, the Star of David might be a symbol of true religious belief. For a non-religious Jew, it might be a symbol of cultural identity. It wasn't always either of those, and used to be known as the Seal of Solomon and was an occult symbol of medieval Judaism. How many "cultural" Native Americans have dreamcatchers in their house but don't actually believe they trap bad dreams? I'm sure there's more than a few. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

21 minutes ago, Kay Fury said:

This is, again, another example of how your privilege keeps you from understanding. And not understanding is fine, there are many many things I do not understand because they are too far outside my own experience. But you guys are nearly all jumping from "I don't understand it" to "since I don't understand it, it is not correct." And that is a huge, huge roadblock in race relations. That a great many well meaning people refuse to take the personal experience of another group as more relevant than their own, and that their own well meaning actions may be contributing to hardship for others in way they may be unable to understand. 

This is one of those examples where throwing around the word "privilege" - whatever it's supposed to actually mean in this context - is a real impediment to conversation and understanding. 

I have an imagination. I have intellect. I have empathy. I'm capable of understanding things outside of the realm of my personal experience. If you think I'm not understanding something - you should explain what you think I am failing to understand and why you think I am failing to understand it. 

Simply throwing up your hands and pretending that "privilege" is some kind of impervious barrier to people explaining things to each other - which it's not - is not helpful to anyone. I can guarantee you that if I'm wrong about something, it's because of a failure of some other quality I have, not an overabundance of privilege. 

It's also worth considering that sometimes people can just disagree. In fact, many times, people completely understand what the other person is saying - they just think it's wrong. That's not a failure of communication, or a failure of understanding. That's just a disagreement. It's really important to try to figure out where there's actually some breakdown in communication, and where we just disagree, because those are two entirely different things. 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I understand (to some degree) why you feel the way you do, Kay, and I'm not suggesting you're wrong to feel that way. Given the atrocities that Native Americans have faced, I can see why a dreamcatcher hung from a rear-view mirror might offend you. Just put in the context of the original post and the video that sparked this thread, I'm not sure that a similarly confrontational stance is particularly constructive regarding this sort of thing. I'm not sure how you would personally express your distaste for say the hanging of a dreamcatcher from a rear-view mirror, but I'd assume that you wouldn't come at the offender in the same manner as the woman in the video did.

[Tywin et al.]

2 hours ago, Kay Fury said:

I asked another person of color from this board if they wanted to jump in and comment in this thread, because I do think it lacks much minority perspective or awareness. This person said they had strong opinions on the matter but was certain they would be met by people whose mission it was not to understand, and that I shouldn't bother either. Just a thought, this isn't an uncommon stance about race and appropriation from people of color. It might be helpful to think on why that may be.

Kay,

It's not that there isn't a legitimate discussion to be had on cultural appropriation. It's that in the example from the OP the young woman in question acted poorly at every step of her interaction with the white kid with dreadlocks. 

[Underfoot]

While the woman in the video did not handle that situation well at all, this discussion has also seemed a little dismissive of cultural appropriation re: dreadlocks, because I think there is more to consider here. 

I want to preface this by saying that I am white and do not want to be stepping on any PoC's toes here, but... isn't the current culture in the U.S. around dreadlocks pretty well rooted in music, specifically rap/hip-hop culture? Music that African Americans developed as a way to to affirm their identity? I don't know a lot about Rastafarianism, but isn't it also heavily tied to black identity in the face of racism? (i.e., dreads in modern western culture have a lot more to do with black identity than with viking/Jewish/ancient egyptian/Indian/whatever other cultures and religions have used dreadlocks in the past)

More practically speaking, dreadlocks are something that are functional for anyone with that kind of a hair texture, so it's something more like a necessity than a choice. But when black people actually wear dreads or cornrows or similar hairstyles, they are seen as dirty/dangerous/unemployable. 

Recently it seems, dreads have become popular among white people, and while the line between cultural appropriation and appreciation can be really fuzzy, I think in many cases at least, it has become appropriation, because a hairstyle that is seen as an intrinsic part of black culture and identity in the U.S. in modern times BUT that black people are often derided for having, has been taken by white people who can turn it into a a fashion statement (being edgy, rebellious, urban) and then discard the style whenever they want.

There are lots of great articles and videos discussing this from the perspectives of PoC, but Amandla Stenberg has a really great take on this issue (which I borrowed from heavily here). 

I guess to sum up, my understanding of cultural appropriation in relation specifically to dreads is that it's more of a U.S. thing (not only, but maybe more relevant here), and it has little to do with what ancient white or other religious cultures were doing with their hair, and more what it means now, in modern western culture, from the perspective of the black community. 

There are a lot of black people who feel strongly about this, so maybe there is something for non-black people to consider here? Just some thoughts, I'm really tired. 

[sologdin]

there really isn't anything further for anyone to consider.  there's no valid intellectual property in a hair style that has existed around the world for thousands of years to be defended from infringement, and even if there were, there is no proper rights holder with standing to bring the enforcement action.  

those who object to its general dissemination (as opposed to appropriation by specific evildoers) should be gently welcomed to the world market. the objection at this late date should be lodged against imperialism and all of the actual crimes committed thereunder, as usefully detailed by kay, supra.  we can certainly index genocidal acts as against this type of transformation of particular cultural artifacts into capitalist products, as it may well be that the crimes are constantly conjoined to the monetization of local religious symbolisms--but that process in itself is not criminal, and it's kinda gross to stand the tawdry hawking of kitschy crap next to murder, rape, internal deportation, kidnapping, reeducation, ghettoization, forced servitude, discrimination, and all of the indicia of imperialism.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Someone needs to take back tattoos, so they don't get culturally appropriated by literally everyone who thinks they are David Beckham, and leave them to rockers and bikers.. or something.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Someone needs to take back tattoos, so they don't get culturally appropriated by literally everyone who thinks they are David Beckham, and leave them to rockers and bikers.. or something.

Channel4s-JonSnow,

This is my favorite take on the popularity of tattoos now:

http://theoatmeal.com/pl/minor_differences5/tattoos

[aceluby]

I'm white.  I had dreads for like 5 years.  I put my hair in a ponytail for a 2 week vacation and couldn't brush through it afterwards.  A few months later I had full dreadlocks because that's what my long hair naturally wants to do if I don't brush and keep it up on a daily basis.  To suggest that letting my hair doing its natural thing is appropriating someone else's culture is pretty ridiculous.  It's a hairstyle, that's it.

[Ormond]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Channel4s-JonSnow,

This is my favorite take on the popularity of tattoos now:

http://theoatmeal.com/pl/minor_differences5/tattoos

I actually think that's a pretty dumb cartoon because I really doubt if many tattoo wearers who regularly shop at WalMart are the same ones who are wearing tattoos to proclaim they are living an "edgy urban lifestyle."

[mormont]

14 minutes ago, aceluby said:

ITo suggest that letting my hair doing its natural thing is appropriating someone else's culture is pretty ridiculous. 

But... nobody has actually suggested that.

[aceluby]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

But... nobody has actually suggested that.

??? Is this not what the topic is about???

Now I'm utterly confused.

[mormont]

No. It's about consciously choosing to adopt particular fashions or symbols. The kid in the OP was, so far as we know, making a conscious choice for cultural reasons. (Certainly, he's never denied that.) Whereas you're talking about 'letting your hair do its natural thing'.

[S John]

1 hour ago, mormont said:

No. It's about consciously choosing to adopt particular fashions or symbols. The kid in the OP was, so far as we know, making a conscious choice for cultural reasons. (Certainly, he's never denied that.) Whereas you're talking about 'letting your hair do its natural thing'.

Isn't this splitting dreads, though?