LogFAQs > #906295541

nicklebro posted...

Oh ok so you just don't think cultural appropriation exists. That makes far more sense than anything else you've said so far. Cuz to call "Aloha" a "generic word" is extremely ignorant of exactly what that word means in Hawaiian culture, comparing it to the words football and vodka or peanut butter is frankly absurd. You seem to be saying that as long as the entire culture still belongs to the people, that no matter how much of it is stolen and legally appropriated by outside forces, it doesn't count as cultural appropriation. Idk how anyone could find that a logical stance to take but hey, we all have different points of view and that's ok. But one part you're wrong about is when you say those things in your culture are still "firmly yours" because that's clearly not the case when he legally owns them and uses the law against anyone who tries to use them. That means Hawaiian people are not allowed to part of their own culture, because it was legally appropriated by some white dude from Chicago.

What you're not getting is that Aloha is a Hawaiian word, part of its language, which is an inherent part of culture, as well as poke which has the added value of being one of the staple foods that we eat on Hawaii. So you have the most important word in the Hawaiian language, language being a massive part of culture, but you're saying that that has nothing to do with culture because... Well you don't seem to think any words have anything to do with any cultures. That's pretty silly to me.

It's not ignorant to call it a generic word if you understand what I mean when I call it a generic word. I mean that it's a word that people use as part of generic conversation. This is distinguished from something like, say, "pop-tarts" which is the name of a specific product/brand. And no, comparing it to those words that I mentioned is certainly not "absurd," and to suggest otherwise would be far more insulting than me referring to aloha as a "generic word."

And I say that it's still your culture. You still have it. That doesn't change. What's happened is that you can't use the specific words because someone is trying to trademark it. Your culture hasn't actually been taken from you, this company is trying to stop you and anyone else from using the words.I wouldn't say that's cultural appropriation, I would say that it's them trying to own generic words, which is an awful thing to do in its own right and shouldn't be allowed.

And I'm not saying language isn't tied to culture. I'm saying that culture isn't taken by someone trying to prevent others from using words. Culture can't be taken. It's abstract. It's constantly changing. An area's culture is that area's culture no matter what happens. The problem is that the company is trying to own a word that they should not reasonably expect to own, because it's a generic word in the language.