What Is This Cultural Appropriation Stuff?

Okay, in the last month we have had two high profile cases where this whole concept of cultural appropriation has busted loose. First, it was that African-American student at San Francisco State University that accused a white kid with dreads of cultural appropriation. Today, Justin Bieber was being ripped apart because he decided to sport dread-locks.

Now, here is what I can get behind. I know the whole black face thing is bad...and I get it. It has always had negative connotations. It's history is routed in insult. I can see why we steer clear of it. Got it. I'm on board. I understand why the Washington Redskin's logo is problematic, using a stereotyped depiction of a Native American as a logo is an understandable bad thing to do. I can even somewhat understand the uproar over those Native headdress knock off's that aren't really anything like traditional headdresses, just influenced by it, but I can see how they feed into stereotypes and can be problematic depending on how they are used, although don't see it as universally terrible.

But then comes the issue of dreadlocks. And that's where I stop and say no. That's my personal boundary on where I am NOT going to support people being upset.

In my 42 years on this planet, I've seen white people wearing dreads. It's not exactly some new thing white folks picked up. It's been around for a long time. In fact, it seems to me the word dreadlocks is about the only thing that has really been appropriated because seemingly any type of matted hair is called dreadlocks.

But, looking into the history of this varied hairstyle, there does not seem to be one clear, distinct culture it comes from. Love it or hate it, in this case Wikipedia does an interesting job of breaking down the assortment of cultures the "style" has been found in.

So, the question arises: When someone says that dreads are cultural appropriation, what culture is it exactly that is being appropriated?

It seem some folks say that the answer is "black culture" or "African culture". Wha? That's a pretty generic, all encompassing "culture". What even is that? I mean, African culture? How many countries are in Africa? How many cultures within Africa are there? How many cultures of people who originated in Africa but are now outside of Africa for a variety of reasons are there? Is the argument that there is one, giant, uniform African culture that has a copyright on this particular way of wearing ones hair? So, I don't really understand what this culture is. It doesn't account for the many, many, many cultures, sub-cultures, sub-sub-subcultures, etc that exist within any ethnic group. For that matter, all "blacks" aren't from one homogeneous culture anymore than all whites are.

So I object to these generic cultural claims that seem so wide sweeping, where blacks, or even crazier, the all encompassing POC (people of colour) and white seem to be the only two cultures that exist. And somehow, dreadlocks, or whatever you want to call hair that is twisted, matted, clumped together, or meticulously, artistically manipulated, depending on what the wearer is doing with them, are reserved exclusively for POC.  Does this mean ANYONE who is deemed POC is free to do something that appears like dreadlocks with their hair, but those deemed white aren't? I'm confused.

I've been seeing a lot of kids on twitter who are talking about cultural appropriation bringing up celebrities like Kylie Jenner, the Kardashians and some other people I don't know as examples. Apparently, they feel that when white people wear dreads, it's celebrated and seen as cool, but when black people do it, they are seen as thugs and hoodlums. Again, this is something I see as a pretty generalized view of things. I think it's far more complicated than that. But one problem I see is that way too many of these kids are watching really crappy TV and listening to terrible, terrible music.

Here is what I don't get. The Kardashians are olive/darker skinned Armenians. I would think they would fall under the category of POC. BUT, apparently, they are deemed to be white. Huh? How is this determined exactly? Who is judging? Who makes these calls? Apparently, because olive/darker skin Kardashians are seen as white, them wearing dreads is bad....very bad. Okay, well, here is one way to solve the problem...quit making stupid people famous! If they piss you off, don't watch them. When people don't watch them, they go away. Real simple.

Next thing that drives me nuts is when some say "White people can't judge what is and isn't cultural appropriation, only those who are from the culture being appropriated". Okay. Well, here is my problem with that. Does this mean that automatically, because someone says that something is appropriated from them, even though evidence suggests that this is just not true, they must be believed because they are perceived as a victim in this case? And as a result their view is above scrutiny and must be taken at face value and is the final word? There is no room for any criticism of their claims? As that Wikipedia article clearly points out, this wide range of styles melted down under one name has existed across many cultures for thousands of years. So, given that, yes, there is ample reason to challenge claims of appropriation. And it is legit. So, no, the accuser does NOT always get the final say and their view is not above being challenged.

Furthermore, what I don't understand is what exactly the problem with wearing the hairstyle is. We live in a world where cultures have mixed, blended, and influenced eachother since, well, culture started to develop in the human species. We learn from eachother, influence eachother, pick up ideas, etc, etc, you get the picture. There is going to be cross over in cultural practices. That's the way the world works. And right now, we live in a globalized world where cultures are colliding, mixing, influencing, and changing like never before. Ya, cultural practices will alter and blend. It's going to happen. It doesn't have to be seen as bad as accusers seem to imply it is.

I fail to see the damage that a kid wearing dreads is doing in the slightest. I have yet to have anyone explain how it is damaging. I don't understand how it can even be seen as insulting, although I have yet to actually see someone say that it is insulting...they just say it's cultural appropriation and therefore bad and white kids shouldn't do it.

When I was younger, I went to a ton of music festivals. And it was great. And at that time, dreads were quite popular with the damn kids. I would go to see bands and the bands would all have at least one person with dreads, and half the crowd would be sporting them. And it was black kids, white kids, hispanic kids, native kids, whoever, all wearing them, all experiencing these festivals together. No one was running around telling anyone they were appropriating anything, and everyone seemed to get along. What the hell happened? How did it suddenly become "This hairstyle for us, that hairstyle for you...NO MIXING!" When did the kids get so darn crazy. Why can't we go back to that getting along, sharing cultural practices, enjoying life stuff again? Why did it all go so off the rails? How are we getting divided when it seemed like we were united? Is the crime of a white kid wearing dreads so important that we must now divide people into who can wear and who can't wear this hair?

Furthermore, where does it end? How far is this going to go. Is everything we wear and do going to start being scrutinized and analysed and ultimately policed? Is the goal of the people who seem so mad about white kids wearing dreads to ultimately end the practice? Is the goal to compartmentalize everything based on the perceived or real influence of the practice or style? Are we requiring people to stay within a prescribed list of choices that conform to their particular "culture"?

There has to be a line. There must be a limit. Personally, I declare that this vendetta against white kids wearing "dreads" crosses a line, and no I will not feel guilty for that, and no I don't believe for a second it is because I am minimizing the voice of anyone and I am a racist jerk. I feel that I am basing this on well thought out analysis, common sense and logic.

GCC Dress Codes: Part Deux

Yesterday, I wrote a post about the current campaign going on in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) encouraging locals and foreigners to wear more clothing in public areas. I feel that I only managed to make half the points that I wanted to make in that post, hence a second part to my contribution on the debate.

I won't pretend that I know Islam well. I have been trying to learn, as it is a fascinating religion, although I must confess, I am not what I would call a religious person (agnostic with heavy leanings towards atheism). But, from my understanding, part of Islam is living a life that does not get wrapped up in material items. Living modestly is more than just clothing...it's about everything around you. At least, this is my understanding/interpretation. Okay, fine. So, now we have this campaign, with religious undertones, trying to tell people that they should dress modestly....in megalithic, lavish, overpriced, materialistic malls!!! Does anyone else see the irony here?? I mean, Dubai is hardly what I would call an Islamic city in any way, shape or form. It's known as a glitzy center of overindulgence and extreme material wealth, and a party, tourist destination. I don't believe Dubai fits into what Islam is asking for in the slightest. So, why, with all of this extreme, insane material wealth, is the focus firmly put on what people are wearing? Where are the calls for less elaborate buildings or a more modest skyline?? This seems overly selective to me. Obviously, if one of the main focuses of this campaign targets people in malls, these "modest" individuals are shopping in these materialistic Mecca's (pun intended). Is this not hypocritical?? Yes, I believe it is. I believe this is called Cherry Picking your cultural battles. And, of course, when this issue is raised, I have repeatedly been told that I am envious of the wealth and success of the UAE. I am going to be completely honest here: No, I am not. I have been wearing the same t-shirts for the past three years, and I like it that way. I am not exactly a fancy dresser. In Canada, I own a 1999 Saturn, and am thrilled with it. Sure, I like the looks of a Ferrari, but I see no practical use in owning one, or owning an item of clothing that would cost me the price of a vacation. No, I am not jealous. I hate malls. I try to avoid them like the plague. They are filled with piles of useless stuff that I don't want, in generic, bland stores, playing generic, bland autotuned pop music!! No jealousy here at all. In fact, most of the time, I feel more Muslim than most of these folks who claim to be Muslim.

The next big issue to me are the moral judgments that have been going on with this campaign. The underlying message, by many supporters, ranges from "Dressing immodestly shows that you have little class and think poorly of yourself", to out and out implying that people are sluts and whores asking to be raped by wearing the wrong clothes. Yes, this bothers me. Look, if you, individually feel it is important to dress a certain way based on YOUR moral ideas, that is fine. But judging others character and morals on what they choose to wear is just wrong, in many ways. It's cruel, it's mean, it's uncalled for, and it makes a complete mockery of the campaign and instantly loses my support. If someone is not dressed the way you like, covering up for sensitivity reasons is one thing, while covering up because people are implying that you are of poor moral character is a complete other ball of wax. And sadly, over and over, supporters have stated that women who wear provocative clothing are asking for sexual harassment or worse. This really pisses me off to no end, and I really wish someone would start a Slut Walk campaign or something to challenge these ridiculously misogynistic, and outright dangerous ideas! And, again, I must ask, is THIS what their religion is teaching these folks?? If so, it makes Islam look very unappealing from my perspective. So, once again, we have a specific campaign calling for people to be respectful, while showing absolutely little respect for others.

Finally, there is the issue of culture. I am in no way against the idea of preserving culture, but why are clothes the main focus here? Much of the culture has been decimated by fast food restaurants, giant SUVs, attempts to constantly build the world's tallest buildings, bars, malls, you name it. And, then there is the fact, as mentioned in my previous post that the overwhelming vast majority of the population aren't even from the country! That helps to kill culture pretty quick, regardless of what dress codes some wish to implement by law. Clothes really are superficial in this equation. Culture is far deeper than a few inches of cloth. And the frustrating thing is, Emiratis seem to like all of the fancy buildings and great stuff that gets built or comes with all of these foreigners, but there seems to be a general feeling of resentment and dislike towards the foreigners who are building all this stuff or bringing in things that are desired. Of course this doesn't apply to everyone; not all in the Emirates think this way, obviously. But, in the end, if the Gulf drastically decreased the number of foreigners coming in, stopped building like crazy, started making sure that jobs that foreigners are doing are being done by locals (including construction, taxi driving, menial labor, service jobs, etc.), regulated the number of chain stores and restaurants, and more, THEN, we are talking about preserving culture in a far more meaningful and effective way. Is that happening? No. Instead you have a group who feels that preserving culture is by telling people what to wear.

Again, I do not live in the UAE, or, thankfully, in the Gulf at all anymore. I am presenting my opinion. This opinion really doesn't matter. These are just my views on this subject, which strikes a chord with me because I have been, until just a few days ago, living in the Gulf. I am still rather absorbed in the issues and current events in the Gulf. This is why I have taken such an interest and have developed strong opinions. But, when all is said and done, that is all they are....opinions. 

South Park, SHIFT and Stupidity.

Alright, alright, alright. I finally have broken down to approach a topic that has been on my mind quite a bit. It is a topic that just won't seem to go away and it's one that has me frustrated and angry.

Remember when those two morons offered up a veiled threat online to the two morons who make South Park, one of the least funny television programs I can think of? It seems the animators put Mohamed who wasn't even Mohamed in a bear suit or something, I dunno. Well, that little incident keeps raising it's head. In my view, this whole thing has been blown completely out of proportion. It really wasn't even a threat that was issued, and the two punks that did it were just, well, punks. Yet, Comedy Central DID make a big deal of it and did some fancy censorship...and then the Western world went crazy! Ironic, isn't, that this surrounded the 200th-2001st show, a large milestone for the program? After all, South Park had portrayed Mohamed in a previous episode, and as far as I know, NOTHING happened. If it did, Comedy Central didn't let anyone know then. So, why they went all crazy over it now is rather suspicious if you ask me. That's just my little conspiracy theory.

The latest stupidity that I ran across in relation to this whole deal relates to the actions of a group called SHIFT (Secular Humanists for Inquiry and Free Thought) from Northwestern University in Chicago. Now, the idea behind the groups seems pretty okay, I can't argue with them based on their title. What does get me is a campaign they held recently where SHIFT members went around the campus and drew stick figures, in chalk, of the Prophet Mohamed. Now, as we all know by now, this can be a bit of sticky subject with people. There are Muslims who get very offended by portrayals of a man who they feel isn't supposed to be portrayed. Fair enough. I mean, there is no problem with that. People who are offended SHOULD stand up and say "Hey! I'm pissed off! You have offended me!". When it gets into violence, well, that's a different story.

Now, this campaign seems to have been inspired by the whole South Park incident. They seemed to have wanted to make a statement about the narrowing of taboos in relation to free speech. They wanted to get people talking, apparently. Well, lovely. Kicking someone's grandmother in the teeth would get people talking as well, but it's not a nice thing to do. Why keep pissing people off for no reason? Because you have the right to? Oh, lovely! That's a great way for the world to run. "I CAN piss you off, so I WILL and you better be okay with that!" seems to be the message here. Come on, why needlessly hurt people, or offend them, or be disrespectful to them. Ya, sure, I can understand speaking up against those who wish to use violence when they are pissed off. I can see standing up for free speech. But, come ON, just being a dick for the sake of being a dick? Really? Has it all come down to this? If so, then we have all lost.

The problem is, no thought appears to have been put into the idea that there is a reason for people to be hurt or offended by these portrayals. You may not understand it, but there is still a reason. Does anyone care about that? Every culture has it's taboos and sacred cows. If SHIFT had gone around campus and drawn swastikas, or put up pictures of dead American soldiers, or the letters "KKK", or hardcore porn, or something, how would that have gone over? Not well, I would hazard a guess. To ignore our "Western" taboos and go straight for taboos that pertain to a particular group that you don't seem to understand, one (being ME) has to ask...why?? It seems to be a case of "Get over it Muslims! We're drawing your man! We know it pisses you off, so what are you gonna do about it, eh??" which keeps cropping up after the blown out of proportion South Park insanity. Come on. It's so childish, and stupid. You have the right to make those drawings. You are protected by law in the US to do it. That doesn't mean you HAVE to do it. So, why do it? What point is being made that hasn't already been made? Let the other idiots who are going to threaten people be the idiots. Don't resort to being an idiot yourselves! Geez! If you are REALLY interested in having people talk, in opening dialogue, in tearing down walls to freedom, or whatever, then pick some other way, like, say, talking to people, you know, like actual discussions. If you want people to talk, talk to them, don't provoke them.