Current Events > Actual cultural appropriation example

(+) Yeah! (+)

LordMarshal posted...

Damn i camn in thinking tcs side would be stupid but its quite the contrary....

That's why I included the "actual" in the topic title, so you'd know my topic was one of the good ones. Lmao. But really, I'd known about this issue for a while before it dawned on me that this is actual cultural appropriation lol.
---

SauI_Goodman posted...

I heard if you go to Hawai'i and ask for a Hawai'ian pizza they will love you and treat you like a king for enjoying Hawai'ian food.

Hawaiian pizza was invented by a Greek-born Canadian immigrant in Ontario lol.
---

Bio1590 posted...

SauI_Goodman posted...

I heard if you go to Hawai'i and ask for a Hawai'ian pizza they will love you and treat you like a king for enjoying Hawai'ian food.

Hawaiian pizza was invented by a Greek-born Canadian immigrant in Ontario lol.

Spam musubi all the time
---

nicklebro posted...

I mean if you're gonna argue that isn't technically forcing then ok, but Idk why you're nitpicking semantics like that.

Because "forced to" means they were compelled with no other alternative. Using "forced" when there were actually options inaccurately describes the situation.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

Hawaii still has the Union Jack of Great Britain in the state flag.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Flag_of_Hawaii.svg

That same Great Britain that the United States told to fuck off in 1776.

Why?
---

Serious Cat posted...

nicklebro posted...

I mean if you're gonna argue that isn't technically forcing then ok, but Idk why you're nitpicking semantics like that.

Because "forced to" means they were compelled with no other alternative. Using "forced" when there were actually options inaccurately describes the situation.

Ok. Well thank you for your contribution to the topic.
---

BJ-blazkowics posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

Hawaii still has the Union Jack of Great Britain in the state flag.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Flag_of_Hawaii.svg

That same Great Britain that the United States told to fuck off in 1776.

Why?

Why not? Hawaii and Great Britain were friends and still are.

What does Hawaii's flag have to do with this topic anyways?
---

Bacon_Pancakes posted...

Not traitors, different beliefs. It was over state versus federal rights. You can't call half of a nation traitorous; it's a slippery slope.

Just because there were a lot of them doesn't mean we have to respect the dudes who in their own words sought to build a country on the idea that white people are superior to black people and thus rightfully their masters.
---

*didnt read the topic discusssion*

Getting a right to a name is not cultural appropriation. That's the name of their business. So other businesses must refrain from using it. It's not like you cant still use it in everyday conversation all of a sudden.
---

WaterLink posted...

*didnt read the topic discusssion*

Getting a right to a name is not cultural appropriation. That's the name of their business. So other businesses must refrain from using it. It's not like you cant still use it in everyday conversation all of a sudden.

The name of their business is Aloha Poke Co.

But they're trying to stop anyone from using "Aloha Poke" in their business name, of which there are dozens based in Hawaii which have had that name for decades. And yeah you're wrong, most likely because you don't know the cultural significance of Aloha or poke to the Hawaiian people.
---

nicklebro posted...

WaterLink posted...

*didnt read the topic discusssion*

Getting a right to a name is not cultural appropriation. That's the name of their business. So other businesses must refrain from using it. It's not like you cant still use it in everyday conversation all of a sudden.

The name of their business is Aloha Poke Co.

But they're trying to stop anyone from using "Aloha Poke" in their business name, of which there are dozens based in Hawaii which have had that name for decades. And yeah you're wrong, most likely because you don't know the cultural significance of Aloha or poke to the Hawaiian people.

I mean, I dont. You got me on that later half of your post. But if there are other businesses with that name then why didnt they have the right to it beforehand? And if that's the case, then shouldnt they be able to settle it in court? I'm still failing to find the issue here. If it's as cut and dry as you make it out to be then their copyright should get shut down. If not then one of these other businesses should have filed for that right long ago. You said it was decades right? *shrug*
---

WaterLink posted...

I mean, I dont. You got me on that later half of your post. But if there are other businesses with that name then why didnt they have the right to it beforehand? And if that's the case, then shouldnt they be able to settle it in court? I'm still failing to find the issue here. If it's as cut and dry as you make it out to be then their copyright should get shut down. If not then one of these other businesses should have filed for that right long ago. You said it was decades right? *shrug*

They didn't have a right to it because no one in Hawaii laid claim to something as culturally significant as Aloha poke. Its so ubiquitous throughout the culture that whomever tried to stop anyone else from using it would be ostracized as a pariah, much like is happening to this jerk off from Chicago. There are dozens and dozens of companies that use those words or something similar in their name and they've all coexisted peacefully because they're all actually part of the Hawaiian culture, it took an outsider doing some douche baggery to cause this drama.
---

nicklebro posted...

WaterLink posted...

I mean, I dont. You got me on that later half of your post. But if there are other businesses with that name then why didnt they have the right to it beforehand? And if that's the case, then shouldnt they be able to settle it in court? I'm still failing to find the issue here. If it's as cut and dry as you make it out to be then their copyright should get shut down. If not then one of these other businesses should have filed for that right long ago. You said it was decades right? *shrug*

They didn't have a right to it because no one in Hawaii laid claim to something as culturally significant as Aloha poke. Its so ubiquitous throughout the culture that whomever tried to stop anyone else from using it would be ostracized as a pariah, much like is happening to this jerk off from Chicago. There are dozens and dozens of companies that use those words or something similar in their name and they've all coexisted peacefully because they're all actually part of the Hawaiian culture, it took an outsider doing some douche baggery to cause this drama.

There are many japanese restaurants around here called "Hello Sushi" and "Hello Tokyo", stuff like that. Kinda the same thing. If this dude's being a dick about naming rights, then your people had, and I quote from you, DECADES, to lock this down. They didnt, from what you're telling me. So he did.
---

https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/920/049/c09.png
---

http://viralswarm.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/hjk.jpg
---

WaterLink posted...

There are many japanese restaurants around here called "Hello Sushi" and "Hello Tokyo", stuff like that. Kinda the same thing. If this dude's being a dick about naming rights, then your people had, and I quote from you, DECADES, to lock this down. They didnt, from what you're telling me. So he did.

Yeah, he appropriated part of their culture, hence the backlash. What don't you get bro?
---

I dont get why if it was such an important part of their culture they didnt lock the name down. Especially if they had decades to do such a thing.
---

WaterLink posted...

I dont get why if it was such an important part of their culture they didnt lock the name down. Especially if they had decades to do such a thing.

Because there was no need to. Everyone in the culture was using and sharing the name just fine because that's what Aloha is about. I thought I explained this. It took a complete outsider coming in to appropriate their culture for this to even become an issue.

But it seems as though your argument that this isn't cultural appropriation has fallen on its face, so you can question how they let this happen all you want, but at least you're not making the mistake of saying this isnt a perfect example of an outsider appropriating someone's culture for financial gain.
---

There was actually something just like this that happened on Kitchen Nightmares, some outsider came to I believe Baltimore and copyrighted the term "Hon" which is apparently some word that they use there and totally pissed off the entire city. Gordon Ramsay apparently got her to stop sending out cease and desist letters and made peace with the city, I'll see if I can find it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3VR6uuV3BU" data-time="

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cafe_Hon
---

In November 2010, Whiting trademarked the term "hon" for use on napkins, buttons, hats and other promotional material to promote Cafe Hon. The trademark, as stated by Whiting, doesn't prevent anyone from saying "hon"[12] or using it in general conversation.[12] The trademark issue was criticized by Dan Rodricks, columnist for The Baltimore Sun: "You can't own something that doesn't belong to you.... 'Hon' isn't unique to Denise Whiting, no matter how special she wants us to believe she is."[13] Because of Whiting's trademark many citizens of Baltimore were outraged and took to the streets in protest on December 19, 2010, to express their anger.[14]

On November 7, 2011, during the taping for Kitchen Nightmares, Whiting held a press conference with Gordon Ramsay present where she announced that she would be relinquishing the "Hon" trademark. Ramsay stated that, with Cafe Hon, "There was a level of hatred that was almost untouchable. I've never known a restaurant to have such a huge issue." The Cafe Hon episode of Kitchen Nightmares has been briefly described in a Baltimore Sun article, stating that while a typical episode features "slovenly kitchens and indolent staffs'" the Cafe Hon episode dealt with a "unique" public relations issue, "one woman vs. a city."[1] Whiting stated that the controversy over trademarking the word "Hon" had a huge toll on her business and her own health, she estimated that since it was first revealed in December 2010 that "Hon" was trademarked to her, she estimated a "20 to 25 percent drop off" in sales and that she needed to sell her IRAs just to meet payroll.[15]
Whiting filed to have the trademark canceled and announced it on Facebook on November 11, 2011.[16]

Lol wow, its like the exact same thing, except she was at least located in the city. Hope this as the same outcome.
---

nicklebro posted...

WaterLink posted...

I dont get why if it was such an important part of their culture they didnt lock the name down. Especially if they had decades to do such a thing.

Because there was no need to. Everyone in the culture was using and sharing the name just fine because that's what Aloha is about. I thought I explained this. It took a complete outsider coming in to appropriate their culture for this to even become an issue.

But it seems as though your argument that this isn't cultural appropriation has fallen on its face, so you can question how they let this happen all you want, but at least you're not making the mistake of saying this isnt a perfect example of an outsider appropriating someone's culture for financial gain.

I mean it is, but at the same time if it's as widespread as you claim, copyright laws say if consumers won't mistake something for something else then they'll win such a suit. This happened with Whataburger because most of those stores are in Texas and surrounding areas.

So him doing this, if it does go to court, hes not gonna put those other people out of business or make them change the name. So again....problem?
---

WaterLink posted...

I mean it is, but at the same time if it's as widespread as you claim, copyright laws say if consumers won't mistake something for something else then they'll win such a suit. This happened with Whataburger because most of those stores are in Texas and surrounding areas.

So him doing this, if it does go to court, hes not gonna put those other people out of business or make them change the name. So again....problem?

A company already had to change their name because he sent out cease and desist letters and they don't have the funds to fight a legal battle. So yeah, you're still wrong.
---

nicklebro posted...

WaterLink posted...

I mean it is, but at the same time if it's as widespread as you claim, copyright laws say if consumers won't mistake something for something else then they'll win such a suit. This happened with Whataburger because most of those stores are in Texas and surrounding areas.

So him doing this, if it does go to court, hes not gonna put those other people out of business or make them change the name. So again....problem?

A company already had to change their name because he sent out cease and desist letters and they don't have the funds to fight a legal battle. So yeah, you're still wrong.

So hes a dick. But once again, they had decades and had multiple institutions that could have laid claim to it. They didnt. It sounds heartless but they lost the game despite many opportunities and time to do so. Better luck next time.

Btw if they do take it to court the court would probably rule in the Hawaii establishments favor. You're even saying they dont feel like it, thus it's not a battle worth fighting. If it really was a battle worth fighting they'd probably win. Like I said theres been instances of this before and precedent has been set. Just sounds like those Hawaiians dont care that much, and kudos to them. They dont care, so why do you?
---

Lol you think they don't care? Take 5 seconds to go see if that's true. I'm done discussing this with you, you got proved wrong about everything so now you're resorting to "Well too bad so sad for them". Its like you're just trying to be annoying on purpose. Idk why anyone would do that.
---

Dude I'm even saying the dudes a dick. But hes well within his legal rights to do it. But you seem to be biased here. Look at it from an outsiders perspective with no dog in the fight. They had ample time to lock down the name. They didnt. He did. So he wins, ok? Name of the game. Wanna beat them? Get better at the game.
---

Ok man, thanks for your contribution to the topic.
---

No problem. I see we're not gonna see eye to eye on this issue. If theres any consolation, I do think the guys a dick for doing this, I'll agree with you there.
---

WaterLink posted...

Look at it from an outsiders perspective with no dog in the fight. They had ample time to lock down the name. They didnt. He did. So he wins, ok? Name of the game. Wanna beat them? Get better at the game.

The problem with locking down a name in this case is that it's already ubiquitous and not therefore not something you can lay exclusive claim to. If "aloha poke" is already in use as a generic term for a style of poke, the trademark should not have been granted in the first place.
---

I'm pretty sure we actually agree on almost everything, especially if you've come around to admitting that this is indeed cultural appropriation. But outside of that you're really just kinda acting rude. This whole "Cry more" attitude you're exuding makes no sense and seems to be a last ditch effort to save face, I really don't even understand what your point is anymore. Yeah he's legally allowed to do what he's doing, no one is arguing against that. It seems as though once you realized this is the exact definition of cultural appropriation you pivoted to just acting like a jerk would act. And I'm not trolling or even insulting you when I say that, that's literally what it seems like you did and Idk why. You don't seem to want to troll me, you don't seem like an actual jerk, so why are you giving off this attitude?

Well that was the question I had, I think were past it now and there's no more discussion on this topic to be had between us.
---

Serious Cat posted...

WaterLink posted...

Look at it from an outsiders perspective with no dog in the fight. They had ample time to lock down the name. They didnt. He did. So he wins, ok? Name of the game. Wanna beat them? Get better at the game.

The problem with locking down a name in this case is that it's already ubiquitous and not therefore not something you can lay exclusive claim to. If "aloha poke" is already in use as a generic term for a style of poke, the trademark should not have been granted in the first place.

Its not tho, aloha poke is not a type of poke like that. Because you're right, that trademark would not have been granted.
---

Still don't understand what is so egregious about a business being the first one to register a trademark on these two words put together. What does it matter if a white person is doing it? Should whites be forbidden from that? Should they even be forbidden from preparing that fish? Is that your ideal world, nickleback? People are still free to say aloha, they're still free to cook their fish, they simply don't want other businesses infringing on their trademark. The culture is still very much intact.

Thank goodness cultural appropriation isn't recognized by our laws. Can you imagine how disastrous that would be for entrepreneurs and businesses, let alone anything else imaginable? Chances are you'd be "culturally appropriating" one way or another determined by your race (racial discrimination) and you'd never be able to sue for copyright infringement... in this hypothetical world where cultural appropriation was taken seriously. Nightmarish.

The company's statement lays it all out. Here's the more important parts:

Perhaps the most important issue that needs to be set straight is the false assertion that Aloha Poke Co. has attempted to own either the word Aloha" or the word Poke. Neither is true and we would never attempt to do so. Not ever. We will explain more about this below.

Second, there is zero truth to the assertion that we have attempted to tell Hawaiian-owned businesses and Hawaiian natives that they cannot use the word Aloha or the word Poke. This simply has not happened, nor will it happen. We truly celebrate Hawaiian culture and what makes it so wonderful, which is very much the reason why we branded our business as we did.

Third, it is entirely false that we have either sued businesses for using the word Aloha or the word Poke or sought a gag order on anyone for using the words. We honestly do not know how either claim came to be, but this is simply not true. What we have done is attempted to stop trademark infringers in the restaurant industry from using the trademark Aloha Poke without permission. This is a very common practice used across industries, and in particular, in the restaurant industry to protect the use of a business name and brand.

To this point, the company holds two federal trademarks for its design logo and the words Aloha Poke for use in connection with restaurants, catering and take out services. This means that the company has the exclusive right to use those words together in connection with restaurant services within the US. This trademark does not prevent another person or entity from using the word Aloha alone or the word Poke alone in any instance.
---

nicklebro posted...

Yeah he's legally allowed to do what he's doing, no one is arguing against that.

I am. Prior use is a valid defense against claims of trademark infringement.
---

Funbazooka posted...

Still don't understand what is so egregious about a business being the first one to register a trademark on these two words put together. What does it matter if a white person is doing it? Should whites be forbidden from that? Should they even be forbidden from preparing that fish? Is that your ideal world, nickleback? People are still free to say aloha, they're still free to cook their fish, they simply don't want other businesses infringing on their trademark. The culture is still very much intact.

Thank goodness cultural appropriation isn't recognized by our laws. Can you imagine how disastrous that would be for entrepreneurs and businesses, let alone anything else imaginable? Chances are you'd be "culturally appropriating" one way or another determined by your race (racial discrimination) and you'd never be able to sue for copyright infringement... in this hypothetical world where cultural appropriation was taken seriously. Nightmarish.

The company's statement lays it all out. Here's the more important parts:

Perhaps the most important issue that needs to be set straight is the false assertion that Aloha Poke Co. has attempted to own either the word Aloha" or the word Poke. Neither is true and we would never attempt to do so. Not ever. We will explain more about this below.

Second, there is zero truth to the assertion that we have attempted to tell Hawaiian-owned businesses and Hawaiian natives that they cannot use the word Aloha or the word Poke. This simply has not happened, nor will it happen. We truly celebrate Hawaiian culture and what makes it so wonderful, which is very much the reason why we branded our business as we did.

Third, it is entirely false that we have either sued businesses for using the word Aloha or the word Poke or sought a gag order on anyone for using the words. We honestly do not know how either claim came to be, but this is simply not true. What we have done is attempted to stop trademark infringers in the restaurant industry from using the trademark Aloha Poke without permission. This is a very common practice used across industries, and in particular, in the restaurant industry to protect the use of a business name and brand.

To this point, the company holds two federal trademarks for its design logo and the words Aloha Poke for use in connection with restaurants, catering and take out services. This means that the company has the exclusive right to use those words together in connection with restaurant services within the US. This trademark does not prevent another person or entity from using the word Aloha alone or the word Poke alone in any instance.

Literally no one is saying that the laws should be affected in any way shape or form. If you aren't capable of understanding why this is an issue for so many people, then you just aren't capable of understanding it. Idk why, its a personal problem that you need to work out on your own, or not. But what you shouldn't do is just assume everyone else is wrong and you're right, cuz lol.

Serious Cat posted...

nicklebro posted...

Yeah he's legally allowed to do what he's doing, no one is arguing against that.

I am. Prior use is a valid defense against claims of trademark infringement.

Idk really anything about what you're referring to, can you expand on that?
---

nicklebro posted...

Literally no one is saying that the laws should be affected in any way shape or form. If you aren't capable of understanding why this is an issue for so many people, then you just aren't capable of understanding it. Idk why, its a personal problem that you need to work out on your own, or not. But what you shouldn't do is just assume everyone else is wrong and you're right, cuz lol.

Ok so you admit you can't explain it and you have no answers for anything I brought up. If you don't have anything cogent to say you don't have to respond. I'm certainly not gonna badger you. And you should cool it with the personal insults.
---

Funbazooka posted...

nicklebro posted...

Literally no one is saying that the laws should be affected in any way shape or form. If you aren't capable of understanding why this is an issue for so many people, then you just aren't capable of understanding it. Idk why, its a personal problem that you need to work out on your own, or not. But what you shouldn't do is just assume everyone else is wrong and you're right, cuz lol.

Ok so you admit you can't explain it and you have no answers for anything I brought up. If you don't have anything cogent to say you don't have to respond. I'm certainly not gonna badger you. And you should cool it with the personal insults.

Personal insults? No one insulted you. Tho you obviously deserve an insult after such a fucking stupid post. "oh so you admit a bunch of shit you never came close to saying" what an immature post. You didn't ask any actual legitimate questions and didn't bring up a single legitimate point so there's no reason to take your post seriously. Now you say you're not gonna badger me, so follow through with that and just don't even bother posting ITT again. Otherwise you admit you're a liar and an immature manchild no one should take seriously. How do you like it? Remember don't answer.
---

---

nicklebro posted...

Idk really anything about what you're referring to, can you expand on that?

Yep. If a business files for a trademark that another company is already using, registered trademark or not, the company that is already using it doesn't have to stop using it.
---

TC would this be justified if he was Hawaiian?
---

Serious Cat posted...

nicklebro posted...

Idk really anything about what you're referring to, can you expand on that?

Yep. If a business files for a trademark that another company is already using, registered trademark or not, the company that is already using it doesn't have to stop using it.

@Serious_Cat
Wow so no matter what, if they are already using that name, they can't be taken to court? That's huge news to me.

MacDaMurderer posted...

TC would this be justified if he was Hawaiian?

It would be a whole lot more acceptable, yes. It'd probably still be frowned upon simple because that's not how Hawaiian people do business or treat each other in general, but yes it'd be a different story if he was Hawaiian.
---

Why should Hawaiins get special treatment?
---

They shouldn't. And no one is saying they should.
---

Why should he be discriminated against for not being Hawaiian? Not to mention that plenty of Hawaaiins are white btw.
---

TC are you trying to say that people should only be able to trademark words that come from whatever culture their ancestors come from?
---

You mean why shouldn't he be able to claim Hawaiian culture despite not being Hawaiian? Cuz that's how the world works. He isn't being discriminated against, he's allowed to use any aspect of his own culture, just like everyone else is.

And duh plenty of Hawaiians are white, why would you bother saying that? He isn't one of them, so its a completely irrelevant thing to bring up. Not only is he not a white Hawaiian, he's not even a white person in Hawaii.
---

mustachedmystic posted...

TC are you trying to say that people should only be able to trademark words that come from whatever culture their ancestors come from?

Naw, that's far too broad of a statement. I'm saying people shouldn't lay claim to parts of cultures they have no connection to and make money off of them while threatening legal action against the people who's culture they appropriated.
---

He isn't claiming ownership to a culture he's claiming ownership to a trademark. The company put out a statement clarifying all this.

nicklebro posted...

And duh plenty of Hawaiians are white, why would you bother saying that?

Because him being white is a point of contention from your point of view.

Oh and this business is also based in Chicago by some fucking haole (aka white guy). This is actual cultural appropriation where a white man far from Hawaii is trying to

because it was legally appropriated by some white dude

---

nicklebro posted...

mustachedmystic posted...

TC are you trying to say that people should only be able to trademark words that come from whatever culture their ancestors come from?

Naw, that's far too broad of a statement. I'm saying people shouldn't lay claim to parts of cultures they have no connection to and make money off of them while threatening legal action against the people who's culture they appropriated.

But that's not happening here. All that is happening is someone is trying to trademark the name of his business.
---

Funbazooka posted...

He isn't claiming ownership to a culture he's claiming ownership to a trademark. The company put out a statement clarifying all this.

And that trademark is an integral part of Hawaiian culture. This is just going in circles man. Its been explained to you as clearly as possible, if you don't understand it by now, you're either choosing to not understand or you just don't have the capability to do so.

Funbazooka posted...

Because him being white is a point of contention from your point of view.

Its not that he's white, its that he's not Hawaiian and has no connection to the culture whatsoever. If he was black, I would have said some black man. If he was Chinese, I would have said some Chinese man.

Its almost as if you're trying as hard as you can to avoid understanding this simple concept. Why someone would put effort into being ignorant Idk, but that's what it appears like you're doing. Plus, you take forever to actually get to the point you're trying to make, which has turned out to be a completely bunk argument every time so far. So why don't we just agree to disagree. You can have the opinion that there's nothing wrong with what he did at all, and I'll have the correct opinion.
---

mustachedmystic posted...

But that's not happening here. All that is happening is someone is trying to trademark the name of his business.

Someone has already come into this topic and made this argument, so you can go read those posts if you want.
---

nicklebro posted...

And that trademark is an integral part of Hawaiian culture

Dude, it's just a word, one that has been a part of the American English lexicon for decades.
---