Best sentence in this thread.
Calicash, this is going to sound snotty, but so be it.
I want you to think of the stereotypical average girl in your high school. Not really bright. Pays a lot of attention to pop culture and could tell you everything about the Kardashians but couldn’t name a Supreme Court justice if her life depended on it. Spends a lot of time looking just right and spends a disproportionate amount of money on grooming, clothing etc and “doesn’t understand” why she has no savings. College for her is 4 years of frat parties and hooking up with hot guys, punctuated by the occasional visit to a classroom. It was chosen for quality of the football team and whether her BFFs would all be there, not the quality of the academics. There’s a lot of gum-slapping and a lot of faux-drama over silliness. She probably has a kind heart (cat and dog videos!!!) but there’s just not a lot of substance to her. Lots of squee! We’re going to call her Girl A. (She could be of any ethnic background, btw.)
Now, you’re not that kind of young woman. You’re a person of substance. You saw a world well beyond that and you worked hard and got into an elite university renowned for academics precisely because you wanted to participate in a world that was beyond the world of Girl A. A world that Girl A’s barely even know exist, or certainly can’t fathom wanting to be part of (“you have to study so much! Ugh!”). But you don’t really care, because you’re stepping into a world that’s just so much larger, on every dimension. We’ll call you and young women like you Girl B.
When you, a full fledged member of the Girl B contingent, “worry” that Jezebel has decreed this and Kylie Jenner is now wearing that and isn’t it awful, you’re failing to see that Jezebel and Kylie and the rest are the “tastemakers” for the Girl A’s of the world and that’s about it. You Girl B’s don’t need to degrade yourself by worrying what the tacky Girl A’s think about anything. You’ve deliberately chosen to move above that. Let the Girl A’s breathlessly “worry” about each pronouncement and let them live in their little crass, tacky world of finding all those pronouncements meaningful. You’re above it. You can see that Jezebel and Kylie are just meaningless pop culture tidbits that will be trivia answers in 20 years.
Now, I’m not saying you can’t or shouldn’t care about fashion. I do and fashion is fun. But do you think if Jezebel announced that child beauty pageants were the hot new trend I should feel bad I didn’t put my 5 yo daughter in them?
The markers that you are erroneously saying are “important” are social markers for the Girl A’s. Trivial girls of no consequence. Do you think Hillary Clinton is worried that her lips don’t meet Kylie Jenner’s standards? Was Condoleeza Rice hampered by her body shape?
What Hunt said bears repeating:
"To me, the difference is that Pat Boone (and other cover artists in the late 50s) were able to make big money performing sanitized versions of songs previously performed by black artists only because the race attitudes at the time made it difficult for those black artists to break through to a mass audience. I don’t think that is what the Beatles were doing–they weren’t making cheezy, whitified versions of those songs. Their version of “Twist and Shout” is very similar to the Isely Brothers’ version (which wasn’t the first recorded, either). Also, I believe (I can be corrected) that by the early sixties, more black artists were selling records to wider audiences, as opposed to the concept of “race” records that prevailed in the fifties.
Line-drawing here isn’t easy. My instinct is not to put the Beatles on the wrong side of it.
Not that it matters, but “Twist and Shout” was written by a white guy, while Little Richard himself wrote “Tutti Frutti” and co-wrote “Long Tall Sally.”
Hunt, your typically sober and thoughtful observations and objective grasp of history and the facts are always appreciated.
The female in the video is rightly being investigated by the university re her actions, as she should be because any white person would be investigated and probably charged/suspended if the roles were reversed.
Plus, there would be a rally by black students looking for a safe space from aggressive white students with dreadlocks.
https://www.yahoo.com/music/san-francisco-state-university-begins-165500700.html
Same with the ridiculous claim that only white people can be racist. That is so stupid, as to be laughable. No free pass on that behavior either.
Good Lord, is there someone out there named Jezebel?
Jezebel is a site.
“I think any over-privileged…” 
Jezebel is generally on the SJW side of things, not on the Girl A side.
Other than that, I think @Pizzagirl is correct.
Never knew there was some understood limit on whatever privilege you mean that one can go over. Just like I never understood the “they have too much money.” I rather be in their shoes than behind them. That strikes me as a good thing. Oh well, I missed the “over-priviilege” memo which is all well and good.
^^^For some people nowadays, having money is seen as having done something wrong. Even if it’s honestly gained. Certainly not everyone sees it that way, but it seems to be a more common sentiment.
I think that sometimes we have trouble discussing concepts when we focus on weak examples. No matter how you slice it, dreadlocks are a pretty weak example of cultural appropriation (or misappropriation). It’s not clear what they mean, they aren’t really connected clearly to oppression, they’ve been used by various cultures in the past, many white people can have dreadlocks without artificial means (sorry, Adam Durwitz), etc. Also, they aren’t that widespread among white people, and they’re not exactly being adopted by, say, white investment bankers.
So, folks, what’s an example of an obviously bad example of cultural misappropriation that’s happening now, something that most of us would be likely to agree on? Personally, I think the current name and symbols of the Washington NFL team is a good example. But what are others? The challenge here is to identify the worst possible examples in current culture.
If we can’t come up with many, that may be a sign of progress. For example, what happened to Little Richard isn’t really happening now, as far as I know.
@awcntdb : On over-privilege: surely the term as juxtaposition or direct opposition to ‘under-privilege’ carries some type of meaning for you. Really.
As Pizza has helped me out when I was struggling recently, so shall I you.
There is a common structure pattern in the speech of Rastafarians to explore commonly used words and terms in the inverse, exposing a tendency to accept that which has become understood to be the “understood,” or the normal order of things. In doing so, the newly constructed term is one which is in direct juxtaposition to the familiar and oft-times unexamined and unchallenged.
Thus: ‘under-privileged’ has its counterpart in the ‘over-privileged’; ‘undertood’ can be ‘overstood,’ etc.
Good q.
A few nights ago I was at Buca di Beppo and thought of this thread. For those who haven’t been there, it is a nationwide sit-down Italian restaurant chain. I’d put it above an Olive Garden. In any case, the whole schtick of the restaurant is based on a lot of stereotypes about Italian-Americans - a lot of kitschy decor, obeisance paid to the Pope, and posters / pictures of Italian-American stars - Sylvester Stallone, Gina Lollabrigida, Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, etc. Pictures and sayings meant to represent, essentially, urban working class Italian-American lifestyles, with the 1950s and 1960s as their true north. A couple of hints about the Mob, and stereotypical vacations “down the shore.” Very stereotypical - but frankly a stereotype based on the reality of what people who grew up in that milieu experienced. it struck me that you couldn’t do this with other nationalities / ethnicities without raising charges of offense and outrage and it made me wonder why.
[quote] readlocks are a pretty weak example of cultural appropriation (or misappropriation). It's not clear what they mean, they aren't really connected clearly to oppression
So, folks, what’s an example of an obviously bad example of cultural misappropriation that’s happening now, something that most of us would be likely to agree on?
[/quote]
Dreadlocks in Jamaica did historically have the significance of identifying a group that was regularly oppressed, harassed, jailed, etc. It might annoy them that lots of people wear them for fashion reasons now, but I don’t think they give it much mind. It may also be that they take white dreaded people who are truly interested in rasta tenets and culture somewhat differently than the fashionable dread people.
Anyway, probably the worst current ones are “sexy Indian”-type Halloween costumes.
Just in general, i think it’s bad when someone takes something that is important to an ethnic or religious group (say, a bindi) and uses it in a commercial or mocking or clueless way (say, a music video).
Yeah, got it.
In other words, overprivileged means, “I am jealous of you and what you have so I will make up a new word that transfers the issue and makes you the bad guy and puts you under the microscope for your success and freedom, even though I am the one who really is having the issue of jealousy.”
Have you really never heard that term before? Rastafarians are not the only people in the world to use it.
and
Do any of you realize how limited a scope of the world you are living in?
This concept that a culture owns deadlocks and is situated on an island in the Caribbean may be news to several other cultures which have been around a whole lot longer than the peoples of Jamaica.
If the white guy in the video were smarter he would have thrown it right back at her. He would have told the black female that one of his great-grandparents was Hindu with family roots in Nepal and are followers of the lord Shiva. And inform her that for two thousand years, it has been common practice for them to wear dreadlocks. Specifically, he would have said.“My dreadlocks are my way to get in touch with my Naga Baba roots and are worn in respect for my great-grandfather who was a Hindu holyman.”
Bottom line, silly to think the Rastafarians own a hairstyle or that whoever wears that hairstyle is trying to be Rastafarian. No, they could well be Hindu and even American Indian, who also wore dreadlocks as well. And I put money that none of the Naga baga people or other Hindus on the Indian Subcontinent or American Indians ever met a Rastafarian.
If one wants to say Rastafarians made dreadlocks part of pop culture, then sure, but they do not own squat, as far as the hairstyle and what the hairstyle means or even represents.
https://tilakneupane.■■■■■■■■■■■■■
{Emphases mine)
Is it cultural reappropriation for white people to listen to rap music? How about to perform it and get paid for it? (A la Eminem, Macklemore)
On the other hand, listen to Bob Dylan’s It’s Alright Ma dating from 1963 or so, or some early Beastie Boys. Maybe the black community reappropriated rap from them.
Cultures do not own anything; they practice and incorporate what works for each to maintain each’s definition of a working society/community.
What is going on here is an erroneous equating of feeling/being empowered and proud and actually having power and control over other people. They are not the same conceptual things and empowerment is now coming off as rather delusional in the scheme of things.
It is all fine and healthy for a person or people of a certain culture to feel empowered about “something” that their culture practices and has made standard in usage. However, that empowerment does not give an individual/people some special power and control to tell others of different backgrounds that they cannot use or benefit from that “something.”
Until cultures can get a copyright or patent on on their language and activities, what any culture creates and does belongs to all of humanity and other humans can benefit as needed. Anything else is flat-out selfish, inhumane and smacks of being a segregationist in the purest sense.
A great disservice is being done to young people if they are being taught they own something that even they never had a hand in creating, and more importantly, do not even own in any way, shape, or form. Think about it - that young female in the video had zilch, nada, nothing to do with dreadlocks, but thinks she has the power to tell someone else not to wear dreads - absolutely nonsensical. A similar erroneous construct made a black female at Princeton think she owned the school - another nonsensical position.
Simply, in the guise of empowerment, there are adults making these young students look rather clueless to the real world. Great, be empowered and proud, but please learn the limits of that empowerment, as it is does not bestow some magical power that allows someone to control another’s use of something.