Ursula isn't even a human, and when she takes human form she becomes a skinny woman. While there COULD be a valid discussion of greater issues concerning appropriation and sensitivity in dress up or "cos" play, this person has taken an issue I'd be willing to hear more on and just created a black hole of idiocy which I refuse to approach for fear of being made as infinitely dense as them through proximity to the massive tidal forces of obliviousness emanating from the naked singularity of ignorance at the center of this horror show.
Cultural appropriation is a concept, with differing views on scope and validity. A myth is that which can be disproven. You can't disprove a persons feelings. While you may dislike Beets and feel no loss at a place being out of beet pie, another person may love beets and be disappointed. Your perspective is different but does not invalidate their feelings. You may never have been bullied yet you know bullying exists as those who have felt bullied have told of their experiences. Perhaps bullying doesn't exist and they are all just over sensitive or it's a huge lie? A person can only tell you what the world is like for them, at some point we must deem evidence statistically significant to merit investigation. There can be no discussion where one states opinion as fact. The aforementioned black hole increases its grip as another soul is sucked into the vortex.
It makes sense when someone wears something really sensitive or something meant to be respected. Getting dreadlocks when you're white, no matter how stupid it may look, shouldn't offend anyone.
I am not in a position to tell people what should offend them. Locks are sacred in some cultures. "Locks" belong to many cultures from ancient Minoans, through Egypt, Greece, Tibetan buhdists, Masai warriors and more. Many factors dictate wether or not you are potentially encroaching on another's culture. Were one to think the Star of David or the popes hat "looked cool" one would be taking an object sacred to another and reducing it to a fashion choice. It's up to an individual what respect they show others but one can't rightly hope to receive respect back if they don't give it as well. It's worse when something is symbolic of tragedy or oppression. An SS uniform or a marking used for slaves may "look cool" but is a heavy symbol to others. You can commingle cultures, and cultures that co exist often influence each other. There are respectful ways to do that, and one indicator is how that culture reacts to your integration of its elements. We have to listen to find out.
But there's difference between something being " sacred " and something just holding meaning or being part of the culture ( like fashion or architecture ). Taking actual Pantheon God's would be disrespectful, but things that many cultures have the same of ( like locks or certain symbols ) or things that exist purely for aesthetic ( again, fashion and architecture ) aren't things you can claim as appropriation because those things are what's meant to be shared and changed over time. So if a black person claims a white person wearing locks is appropriation that would be as dumb as a white person claiming the Japanese are appropriating with the whole Lolita subculture.
"But there's difference between something being " sacred " and something just holding meaning or being part of the culture"
What is that difference other than perceived magnitude?
"Taking actual Pantheon God's would be disrespectful"
Not at all, as someone's religion spreading is almost always viewed as being a good thing.
Sacred is perhaps too limiting, significant is better applied. That which a people strongly link to their identity or is linked to them by others. The Lolita example is perfect though. Western and cultures with an imperialist or conquest history encourage or force others to adopt their cultures. Western clothing is an example, where people were forced to wear it or were ostracized for not conforming. This is in contrast to cultures which specifically do not want outsiders using their culture. The Samurai is not sacred, merely noble but it is still a guarded cultural element. This is compounded in "conquered" people living amongst a conqueror. They have been stripped of many cultural legacies by that very class, so when they try to create new culture they are sensitive to having it taken from them again. The key is what is given versus what is taken, and as before wether the people who's culture is being absorbed are accepting. To each of us who we are can be considered sacred.
@garlog well I get what you're saying but it's like if someone took your wedding ring or a family portrait and destroyed it versus if they destroyed your couch or some of your clothes. Also I meant more how marvel took Thor and made him a " superhero " rather than religion spreading to other people.
@guest_ I'm not quite sure I'm understanding your point, do you think you could reword or explain another way ?
1/1 @diyrogue- the main points were: 1. Lolita is cultural exchange. Japan and France have had friendly relations for centuries. Lolita is French inspired but distinctly Japanese, and Japonist French art is French with Japanese influence. Both cultures exchanged things and were happy with it. Koreans however were forced to take on Japanese customs, foods, names, and language while Japan took what they liked from Korea. That's appropriation. In other words, when you belong to the conqueror and take what you want because you can, people will not likely be happy.
2. To you a family picture is an important reminder, and a couch is just furniture. To me a picture means nothing, I see them in my mind, the couch is the place where we all sat together. We could both destroy each other's most cherished possession and not think we did anything wrong or see "the big deal" unless the other told us we were wrong.
3. TL:DR continued...
2/2 @diyrogue TL:DR
3. The over all point is that you may have a friend/teacher/boss who is fine with certain things that another would get upset with. People will let you know. Since we can't judge what is important to another person, only what we value, we must rely on others to tell us when we have crossed their boundaries. Culture is a part of many people's self identities, even if it isn't for you or makes no sense, so it is with religion or many things. It doesn't matter that we don't "get it" but that it matters to them. If we want people to respect that which is important to us we must respect them too.
But the thing is MANY people make up a single culture. One black person may loathe white people wearing dreads while another may not care. A lot of Japanese people don't care about foreigners wearing kimonos but many westerners who only know about Japan through anime decide THEY get to be pissed off about " appropriation ". And okay, I understand the " cultural exchange " part but there's also a Japanese greaser subculture. Japan hasn't been buddy buddy with America for centuries and certainly wasn't at that time that greasers we're popular, and no one gives a single fuck about the " appropriation ".
Yeah I understand others telling us when their line is crossed but there's a lot of people with a lot of different lines. Should I never eat Mexican food again because someone on the internet claims it's appropriation even though the place I live has a Mexican restaurant on every corner and are fine with me eating there ?
If you had locks in a context in which locks were considered sacred, then yes, it would be inappropriate. In a casual context, it would be fine. Many cultures braid haie, nearly all of them do.
@diyrogue
I don't really get your analogy, that still just seems like a matter of magnitude. It would also be more like someone copying your wedding ring/couch, as cultural exchange doesn't (normally) involve someone losing their culture.
Also, I'm not aware of any large number of pagans who don't like Thor being a superhero.
As you say society at large and any culture is made up of many people, but we are individuals. Once we are aware our actions may be hurtful to another human being it is our choice wether our justification for doing so has more significance than their reason for taking offense. In cases of offense the people who "aren't offended" aren't an indicator. Jill and Jane are both at Amy's house. Amy tells a joke about a miscarriage. Amy and Jill laugh, Jane who has lost a baby cries. Amy and Jill are both women and both think it's funny, so Jane must either think it's funny too, or she's being dramatic right? maybe Jill had miscarried too but to her it was just a bummer, but to Jane it really got to her. People are all effected differently even by the same things. If people want to be insensitive that's their right, but to turn around and blame someone else or get upset when people call them out is rubish. Trying to excuse a lack of sensitivity on other people being too sensitive... continued.
is like breaking someone's window and then saying it's their fault for having weak glass. As for the "greaser" sub cultures etc around the world the key is still to listen to that group. If you haven't heard or seen anyone make an outcry over it, it's likely not bothering very many or any people. To your point I agree that people often get offended for others. Sometimes we need that. Sometimes you see wrong and you're the only one around or in a position to stand up and stop it, or keep an idea from gaining steam. Many times well meaning people simply go too far trying to be sensitive in areas sensitivity isn't desired. Most things start with a few voices in the dark. If there really is a problem more voices join in, and so in until it's everywhere. So you don't have to necessarily stop wearing powdered wigs because one rando British guy said it was offensive, but if you start hearing it more and more and suddenly it's all over, it might not just be that one guy. Then it's up to you.
What happened to, just let people have fun and live life because when you die no body is going to care whether you were skinny or fat when you cosplayed as Ursula?
What is that difference other than perceived magnitude?
"Taking actual Pantheon God's would be disrespectful"
Not at all, as someone's religion spreading is almost always viewed as being a good thing.
@guest_ I'm not quite sure I'm understanding your point, do you think you could reword or explain another way ?
2. To you a family picture is an important reminder, and a couch is just furniture. To me a picture means nothing, I see them in my mind, the couch is the place where we all sat together. We could both destroy each other's most cherished possession and not think we did anything wrong or see "the big deal" unless the other told us we were wrong.
3. TL:DR continued...
3. The over all point is that you may have a friend/teacher/boss who is fine with certain things that another would get upset with. People will let you know. Since we can't judge what is important to another person, only what we value, we must rely on others to tell us when we have crossed their boundaries. Culture is a part of many people's self identities, even if it isn't for you or makes no sense, so it is with religion or many things. It doesn't matter that we don't "get it" but that it matters to them. If we want people to respect that which is important to us we must respect them too.
Yeah I understand others telling us when their line is crossed but there's a lot of people with a lot of different lines. Should I never eat Mexican food again because someone on the internet claims it's appropriation even though the place I live has a Mexican restaurant on every corner and are fine with me eating there ?
I don't really get your analogy, that still just seems like a matter of magnitude. It would also be more like someone copying your wedding ring/couch, as cultural exchange doesn't (normally) involve someone losing their culture.
Also, I'm not aware of any large number of pagans who don't like Thor being a superhero.