Cultural appropriation: Make it illegal worldwide, Indigenous advocates say - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE]Indigenous advocates from around the world are calling on a UN committee to ban the appropriation of Indigenous cultures — and to do it quickly. Delegates from 189 countries, including Canada, are in Geneva this week as part of a specialized international committee within the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a United Nations agency. Canadian law doesn't protect Indigenous culture, lawyers say Since it began in 2001, the committee has been working on creating and finishing three pieces of international law that would expand intellectual-property regulations to protect things like Indigenous designs, dances, words and traditional medicines. In this 2011 photo, purchased items from Urban Outfitters' Navajo line are shown in Tempe, Ariz. The Navajo Nation sued Urban Outfitters months after the tribe sent a cease and desist letter to the clothing retailer demanding it pull the 'Navajo' name from its products. (Matt York/Associated Press) The meeting takes place as concern grows worldwide about the rights of cultures to control their own materials. In the U.S. this week, designer Tory Burch agreed to change the description of one of her coats for women after Romanians protested that it had been described as African-inspired when it actually appropriated a traditional Romanian garment[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/cultural-appropriation-make-it-illegal-worldwide-indigenous-advocates-say-1.4157943"]http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/cultural-appropriation-make-it-illegal-worldwide-indigenous-advocates-say-1.4157943[/URL] :tableflip:

So they want to stagnate cultural development, huh We live in some crazy times, don't we

Well as much as people are going to balk due to it being called cultural appropriation, I think there's actually an argument to be made here from what the article is talking about. [I]Should[/I] you be able to throw the name 'Navajo' on whatever the fuck you want? Should indigenous races and tribes have a right to the designs and names they use, copyright style? On the one hand, it is kind of shitty to see some stereotypical if not racist, poorly thought out garbage get labeled 'NAVAJO CLOTHING' to make a buck, but on the other, it's completely fine to throw the stars and stripes on whatever you want too and call whatever you want 'American'.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52373093]Well as much as people are going to balk due to it being called cultural appropriation, I think there's actually an argument to be made here from what the article is talking about. [I]Should[/I] you be able to throw the name 'Navajo' on whatever the fuck you want? Do indigenous races and tribes have a right to the designs and names they use, copyright style? On the one hand, it is kind of shitty to see some stereotypical if not racist, poorly thought out garbage get labeled 'NAVAJO CLOTHING' to make a buck, but on the other, it's completely fine to throw the stars and stripes on whatever you want too and call whatever you want 'American'.[/QUOTE] What about Ingredients for medicine, or Archaeological digs?

This must be some the 'on res' tribal folks... they are the most vocal about this stuff.. and yea I can understand it, it's kind of played out and silly to see non-indegenous/whites/whatever and their fascination with dream catchers'n'shit, yea I can understand being annoyed by that. Most of us who have left the reservations don't really care if you wear a feather in your hair at coachella or put a dream catcher over your rear-view like every other white girl out there. Shit my mom and grandmother are both redskins(american football team) fans and their from the [i]blackfeet[/i] tribe(left the res, obviously..dads white, making me mestizo). I'm sure this is just the more political reservation Indians getting bored. I can understand it, but I disagree with it...

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52373097]What about Ingredients for medicine, or Archaeological digs?[/QUOTE] Unless I'm missing something, the article doesn't mention anything about archeological digs, and only mentions medications as 'traditional medicines'. Which I would assume qualify as products that one could copyright like any other. IDK, going off this article this seems more to do with copyright law than it does with the more general meaning of 'cultural appropriation'. This wouldn't ban you from wearing some native american crap, but it would ban you from making some product that looks vaguely native american, slapping the name 'Navajo' on it and selling it. But y'know, copyright law is more boring.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52373093]Should indigenous races and tribes have a right to the designs and names they use, copyright style?[/QUOTE] No 1) Because they are still part of a larger entity, a country. Why people with the same citizenship should be restricted from using these designs and names? After all, indigenous culture is [I]still[/I] part a much larger and richer national culture. 2) Because copyright law needs a lot of changes, and as it currently stands it only paves the way for more trouble

[QUOTE=T553412;52373116]No 1) Because they are still part of a larger entity, a country. Why people with the same citizenship should be restricted from using these designs and names? After all, indigenous culture is [I]still[/I] part a much larger and richer national culture.[/QUOTE] in many ways they don't exactly identify with the people that came along and invaded and conquered them. they consider them outsiders who invaded them. although this whole cultural appropriation ban for things like "traditional medicine" is truly insane - does that mean if applied fairly they wouldn't be allowed to use medicines invented in the west?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52373130]although this whole cultural appropriation ban for things like "traditional medicine" is truly insane - does that mean if applied fairly they wouldn't be allowed to use medicines invented in the west?[/QUOTE] I think the idea is more that you could not take the same exact medication, that they 'designed', and then sell it. Like, I can take aspirin, but I can't sell my own aspirin. Presumably. Maybe you can? I'm not familiar with how copyright laws apply to medications. Anyway I'm assuming this means if you wanted to use their medications, you'd have to buy it from them because they'd hold the rights to it.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52373145]Anyway I'm assuming this means if you wanted to use their medications, you'd have to buy it from them because they'd hold the rights to it.[/QUOTE] We already have enough problems with people holding exclusive licenses over certain medications, why should be make this hole any deeper?

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52373097]What about Ingredients for medicine, or Archaeological digs?[/QUOTE] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that falls under "Cultural Appropriation". Using the word "Navajo" on a clothing line created by a non-indigenous company to make it sound indigenous when it kinda has nothing really to do with the culture the word is derived from makes it appropriation. Using a dress that is historically used for aboriginal weddings or ceremonies as an every-day kinda dress is appropriation. Using indigenous ingredients known to make medicines isn't appropriation. Archaeological digs aren't appropriation since you aren't really taking a spin on indigenous culture either, but depending on the site can be a bad thing because sacred burial grounds or some shit and would fall under a different category. ...in that sense, isn't Taco Bell cultural appropriation?

[QUOTE=Daemon White;52373200] ...in that sense, isn't Taco Bell cultural appropriation?[/QUOTE] Not really. Mexican food in the States has little resemblance to actual Mexican food.

fast times and thought crimes

I just want to eat tacos and watch my Japanese supernatural horror films, so could you fuck off please.

[QUOTE=megafat;52373286]I just want to eat tacos and watch my Japanese supernatural horror films, so could you fuck off please.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure this would prevent neither. For the record I'm not saying they're right I just think it's a more debatable topic and not so much about the idea of cultural appropriation in general

I won't even rationalize I'm just going to laugh.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52373145]I think the idea is more that you could not take the same exact medication, that they 'designed', and then sell it. Like, I can take aspirin, but I can't sell my own aspirin. Presumably. Maybe you can? I'm not familiar with how copyright laws apply to medications. Anyway I'm assuming this means if you wanted to use their medications, you'd have to buy it from them because they'd hold the rights to it.[/QUOTE] wouldn't it be in the public domain since it's been around for centuri- ah fuck it this is ludricous that's an utterly stupid idea this is stupid

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52373093]Well as much as people are going to balk due to it being called cultural appropriation, I think there's actually an argument to be made here from what the article is talking about. [I]Should[/I] you be able to throw the name 'Navajo' on whatever the fuck you want? Should indigenous races and tribes have a right to the designs and names they use, copyright style? On the one hand, it is kind of shitty to see some stereotypical if not racist, poorly thought out garbage get labeled 'NAVAJO CLOTHING' to make a buck, but on the other, it's completely fine to throw the stars and stripes on whatever you want too and call whatever you want 'American'.[/QUOTE] By that same logic does everyone then need to stop referring to countries and their demonyms in any terms other than those used by the peoples of those countries themselves? Would you consider it an example of cultural appropriation (or some other, analogous thing) to refer to the country "Germany", or to the people from there as "Germans"? Should we not refer to it as Deutschland, and to the people as Deutsche?

You can not privatize aspects of a culture.

Whats next, segregation? This sounds like someone that is racist would want.

[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;52373080]Speaking to the committee Monday, James Anaya, dean of law at the University of Colorado, said the UN's negotiated document should "obligate states to create effective criminal and civil enforcement procedures to recognize and prevent the non-consensual taking and illegitimate possession, sale and export of traditional cultural expressions." Anaya said the document should also look at products that are falsely advertised as Indigenous-made or endorsed by Indigenous groups. That would mean products like those in U.S.-based retailer Urban Outfitters "Navajo" line, Anaya said, including "Navajo hipster panties," a "peace treaty feather necklace" and a "Navajo print flask."[/QUOTE] Aside from the phrase "non-consensual taking," this sounds entirely reasonable to me.

[QUOTE=sltungle;52373348]By that same logic does everyone then need to stop referring to countries and their demonyms in any terms other than those used by the peoples of those countries themselves? Would you consider it an example of cultural appropriation (or some other, analogous thing) to refer to the country "Germany", or to the people from there as "Germans"? Should we not refer to it as Deutschland, and to the people as Deutsche?[/QUOTE] I don't think that really fits what I'm talking about. I think a better example would be to start selling something that looks vaguely like a Lederhosen, or maybe it's patterned with German symbols, and call it "German Shorts" or something. [QUOTE=Zombinie;52373356]You can not privatize aspects of a culture.[/QUOTE] This is a very interesting idea though. I'm curious to what extent you believe this should be the case. Could it not be argued that movies, books, and the like are part of a culture?

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52373394]Could it not be argued that movies, books, and the like are part of a culture?[/QUOTE] They are indeed a part of culture, but they also have specific creators that wanted to keep such things privately owned. Aspects of culture such as vocabulary (including the Navajo name as others were discussing), food, and tradition is a communally owned cultural aspect, and communally owned cultural aspects are not something that you should be privatizing like that. (imo)

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52373394]I don't think that really fits what I'm talking about. I think a better example would be to start selling something that looks vaguely like a Lederhosen, or maybe it's patterned with German symbols, and call it "German Shorts" or something. This is a very interesting idea though. I'm curious to what extent you believe this should be the case. Could it not be argued that movies, books, and the like are part of a culture?[/QUOTE] I misread the first sentence of your second paragraph. My bad.

[QUOTE=Mister Sandman;52373394]This is a very interesting idea though. I'm curious to what extent you believe this should be the case. Could it not be argued that movies, books, and the like are part of a culture?[/QUOTE] And how many times have we blatantly used movies, books and the like in different works, without the consent of the author? How many times have we used said materials for the purpose of mockery, often with little modifications? How many works can be used by anyone because they are in the public domain? An identified creator doesn't means that people will stop using your work anyway they want, rights to use it or not be damned. But OK, let's say that entertainment media is indeed part of a culture. [I]Which[/I] culture? Entertainment has gone global since entertainment was a thing. Books, plays, music, clothing...this is not a new phenomenon. Does the US holds more rights over the Star Wars franchise simply because it was first made in America? And you can't argue that Star Wars hasn't become part of a national and global culture. This line of thought has no foundation whatsoever. And you know it

I wonder how many of the people calling to end cultural appropriation are actually from the cultures they're saying need to stop being appropriated [editline]18th June 2017[/editline] They only directly mention a handful of people that are advocating for this in the article, one is a First Nation Chief and the other is an attorney of Apache descent

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;52373536]I wonder how many of the people calling to end cultural appropriation are actually from the cultures they're saying need to stop being appropriated [editline]18th June 2017[/editline] They only directly mention a handful of people that are advocating for this in the article, one is a First Nation Chief and the other is an attorney of Apache descent[/QUOTE] You don't really have to be a member of a minority group to care about the minority group. In a lot of cases, the minorities are being silenced, and it's up to members of some majority to speak up for them. [quote=Martin Niemöller]First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.[/quote] Not to pull a Godwin on it, just I think it's relevant because this argument comes up a lot and I don't like it.

they can't ask to make it illegal. law was invented by the greeks so they're appropriating greek culture.

Make a nebulous, poorly defined concept illegal, one that can't even substantiate why it is a problem to begin with or the conditions under which is actually occurs.

How do they intend on defining what goes into what culture? I've seen many fights over hummus.