LogFAQs > #906295120

nicklebro posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

I mean that they're not taking culture for their own. Rather, they're taking words. And the reason I make this distinction is because even those completely removed from the original culture would receive the same treatment if they also happened to use those words.

But those words are a massive part of the culture. I mean it doesn't get much more Hawaiian than Aloha and poke. They have tried to take ownership (appropriate) of the words "Aloha Poke" in order to make a profit. If that isn't cultural appropriation, then nothing is. It doesn't matter if someone who wasn't Hawaiian is also forced to not use those words, Idk why you think that'd matter. The point is that "aloha poke" is a ubiquitous phrase used in tons of Hawaiian businesses and was created by Hawaiian people and Hawaiian culture, and someone outside of that culture has tried to break off a piece of Hawaiian culture and laid ownership to it.

Idk how else to explain that that's the literal definition of cultural appropriation.

I think the distinction matters because those things within your culture are still firmly yours. The problem is not that you have an asshat trying to own your culture. The problem is you have an asshat trying to own generic words. It would be like trademarking the word football, or peanut butter, or vodka, or any other word that people just use. The effect is on the word itself, not on the culture from which the word originates.

And I should point out that I would definitely say "nothing is cultural appropriation" sooner than not.