Talk:Reappropriation/Archive 1

Citations?

Are there any citations for the last paragraph of the intro, on cultural appropriation? Please add if so; this is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.170.35 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Merging with Re-claiming

I dont think this should be merged with re-claiming. Reppropriation is a sociological term used to describe (among other things) how subcultures and mainstream cultures appropriate and reappropriate cultural artefacts. It has an element of subversion involved in it. I will come back and try to add more to this article when I can find my notes on it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JenLouise (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006.

• Are you perhaps thinking of cultural appropriation and/or cultural diffusion? I still think that the material that is currently here belongs together with the material currently at reclaiming. We may need some disambiguation pages and/or hat text. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the terms are used differently in different subjects but in the sociology study that I have done at uni appropriation and reappropriation occur when sub-cultures appropriate something from mainstream culture and thereby subvert it, and reappropriation is when the mainstream culture takes the subverted practice and reintroduces it to mainstream culture. Therefore it doesn't really fit with cultural appropriation because it is appropriated as a form of resistance. Perhaps this page should not be merged with reclaiming but the content moved there and reappropriation defined as above with a little thing at the top saying "if you're after (whatever) see Reclaiming". JenLouise 06:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll post to the various talk pages and aim them at this discussion. I imagine we can work out appropriate (pun unintended, but inevitable) factoring and disambiguation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On the Reclaiming page it says To reclaim something is the political process and strategy consisting in re-evaluating and re-appropriating terms so therefore reclaiming is a small part of reappropriation, which as identified on the Reappropriation page is Linguistic Reappropriation. Therefore I think the best idea is to rewrite the introduction of Reappropriation to include all the various things that can be reappropriated and to merge Reclaiming into the Linguistic Reappropriation section with a redirect there. I don't think it has anything at all to do with Cultural appropriation or Cultural diffusion in the way they have been defined and treated on their pages. JenLouise 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

No-one has put forward an argument for merging the two pages since the tag was put on, so I think that the merging tag can be taken off. Unless someone disagrees, I'll go ahead and do it. I'm also happy to implement my suggestion above. If you feel strongly about this please respond soon. JenLouise 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have implemented the merging of Reclaimed word into the Linguistic reappropration section, as suggested by JenLouise above. --David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ (talk) 04:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Aren't the terms "reclaim" and "re-appropriate" misused in this context? To reclaim something implies it was taken. The "reclaiming" of an allegedly derogatory term isn't taking it back, but turning it from derogatory to positive. Is there an alternative expression? Is there an expression for the opposite process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 06:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, Mr/s. anonymous IP editor, the terms are not misused. Fact is, they're used quite accurately. It's your own biased point of view, as evidenced by your contrib history, that is out of alignment. Run along now—the grownups are working on an encyclopædia. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Too many examples?

Just trying to be constructive here. There seem to me to be way too many examples. Does anyone think this should be trimmed down a bit? I think it could still completely preserve the meaning and point of the article if there were only 5-10 examples. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.30.118 (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Geek and Nerd

These examples seem to claim that any person who participates in any hobby or interest can claim to be a geek or a nerd. This is clearly not consistent with the insulting/marginalizing usages of these terms. Isn't that about the same as a white middle class teenager claiming to be a 'nigga' (see the comments in the article on this word)? Or more generally claiming to be an "N-word." (Hard to write this, but you see my point I hope. This would hardly be an example of reappropriation. 68.54.3.56 (talk) 07:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

OP, Mathglot, I see what your seeing but really, the fact that there are white people word out there calling them-selfs "niggas" is a sign of how successfully black hip-hoppers reclaimed the word "nigga" and usage of "geek" and "nerd" by people who study hard outside of the classroom or are engaged in various hobbies is a sign of how successfully people who wore very much insulted and marginalized in the classroom reclaimed "geek" and "nerd". Icedog (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Not a Done Deal

Reappropriation is far more controversial than you make it out to be here. Not every LGBT person is OK with being called "queer", "dyke", etcetera. An argument against LGBT reappropriation can be found here: http://ignoranceisplentiful.blogspot.com/2011/01/truth-about-queer-studies.html and here: http://ignoranceisplentiful.blogspot.com/2011/01/impersonating-aunt-jemimah.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.160.163.99 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, however the scope of the phenomenon is not to brush everyone within a community with a broad stroke; it's to recognize that there is science to the concept and that this science as observed in social interaction is not limited to one particular group.

Within any group where a concept of appropriation is evident, there are discussions and disagreements as to who speaks on behalf of whom, or not; there is no shortage of discussion in the Black community as to the acceptability, if any, to use of the word "nigga" as a term of endearment among friends, or even just a pronoun synonymous with, say, "man, buddy, guy, sporto, dude..." Similarly, within the various groups and thought initiatives in the LGBT community, there is a wide spectrum of thought, leanings, biases, and assumptions that determine to what extent use of the terms "dyke, queer," etc. are appropriate. ~

Hermione

Somewhere in the article someone should add a mention of a fictional example, where, in Chapter 23 of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, where Hermoine Granger starts wearing the epithet "Mudblood" with pride. "Mudblood" is a highly offensive term for a Muggle-born wizard; Hermoine's parents are Muggles; Hermione has been called "Mudblood" by Draco Malfoy, Bellatrix Lestrange, and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solomonfromfinland (talk • contribs) 04:41, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Recontextualization of material objects slashed

With the exception of half of one sentence, everything in the #Recontextualization of material objects section was completely wrong, and I've cut it down to the bone. It's not even a matter of reliable sourcing, it's that the statements are miscast and fail to illustrate the reappropriation that is the topic of this article. It's very unfortunate that this section has stood unchallenged since rev 48672418 of 2006-04-05. Let's start with what's left, and see why it's correct, and then look at the removed portions, one by one to see what the objections are:

• use of the Confederate flag by African Americans... - Yes, this is a reappropriation. Why? Because among African-Americans, the Confederate flag is generally seen as a hated symbol of the pro-slavery U.S. South; to use this hated symbol in a positive or prideful way among African-Americans, would indeed be a reappropriation, if it is true. (That's a verifiability issue, not a failure to meet the definition. I stuck a {{dubious}} tag on it, because I don't believe it is true. Groups like "Virgina flaggers" are an extreme fringe and not representative.)

• use of lawn jockeys" and other "darky iconography by African Americans... - same as above; this does meet the definition, but there are no sources given; I flagged it as dubious. (This sentence was originally in the Summary at the top, but since not a summary of anything in the body, was moved to the section in question as part of this edit series.)

Every other statement originally in that section does not meet the definition of reappropriation, and I removed them:

• use of the Confederate flag by White Americans in a non-racial context - Not reappropriation; removed. It's not a question here of whether the statement is true or not—obviously it is, in the sense that some white Americans display the flag as a matter of pride, this isn't under dispute. However, it's not an illustration of reappropriation, so doesn't belong here. Why not? The Confederate flag always was, and still is a banner of pride when flown by some people of the southern white community, not a despised icon. There's nothing to "reappropriate" here.

• Jim Crow Museum [displaying] Jim Crow Era artifacts [such] as golliwog marbles or Sambo masks - Not reappropriation; removed. Including this example is a failure to understand the definition of reappropriation. A museum displaying artifacts seen as insulting or despised items from the past as a cautionary tale or educational opportunity about misdeeds of the past is not a reappropriation. If African Americans started wearing Sambo masks in some everyday context, that would be reappropriation. Likewise, an African American group putting on a play or making a movie about slave times is not a "reappropriation" it's a historical depiction. The items shown are still despised; they are shown for other reasons than pride.

• the display of an anti-Semitic poster in a Holocaust museum - Not reappropriation; removed. Same reason as above; these posters are not reclaimed, they are still despised and hated. They are shown for their historical and educational value in a museum context, not to affirm or reclaim the language in the poster, but to condemn it.

• removal of the Coat of Arms, featuring animals sacred to Australian Aborigines, from the Australian Federal Parliament building by Aboriginal elder Kevin Buzzacott - Not a reappropriation; removed. This is the exact opposite of reappropriation; they are continuing to fight against misuse of sacred images, not to adopt sacrilegious images as their own.

• Black African cinema, and Boulou Ebanda de B'béri['s] use [of] the term "rappropriation".. to explain the process of reclaiming and cleaning up the image of Africans on Western screen - Not a reappropriation; removed. He is fighting against stereotypical images of Africans, not reclaiming them.

That leaves very in the section, except the two statements currently flagged {{dubious}}. If those statements cannot be reliably sourced they should be removed as well. That would leave the section blank, except for the section header. The irony is, that reappropriation as Recontextualization of material objects does exist, and so this section should be filled out, it's just that the first attempt was a complete failure to do so, unfortunately. I'll leave the header in place, and hope someone else can come up with some (reliably sourced) content for this section. Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Edited by Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC) for clarification

Removed the statements marked {{dubious}}. The section Recontextualization of material objects now is a bare statement with no examples left, but it deserves to stay so left it there and tagged with {{Examples needed}} in hopes of futre expansion. Mathglot (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Original research

This article is shot through with original research and needs careful review to sort out what is true, from what is not.

I just removed the following statement, of which the bold part (added for emphasis) is pure fantasy, thus invalidating the rest of it:

In some cases, this reappropriation is so successful as to turn a previously disparaging word into the preferred term: for example, gay, previously an insult, is now strongly preferred to "homosexual", both as an adjective and a noun.

This is wrong on several counts. First of all, "gay" was never an insult so there was nothing to reclaim. Perhaps the author of that statement was thinking of "queer" which did go from being pejorative, to being accepted, by some, as a neutral or positive term, but it was by no means adopted by all.

Secondly, the term "gay", not previously insult, became an insult among some young people in the majority community to mean "stupid", lagging somewhat behind "gay" being used everywhere else as the standard, neutral cultural term for "homosexual". A cultural battle rages, especially in schools, to try to stamp out this relatively recent, insulting sense of the word (which however has nothing to do with being homosexual per se).

It's disturbing that this completely false assertion has been present in one guise or another in the article since the first version in 2006 without being sourced or challenged. I suspect that there is much more in this article that is completely false. It might not be an exaggeration to say the article needs to be scrapped and rewritten; this time sourced with reliable references. Mathglot (talk) 00:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Edited by Mathglot (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC) to add footnote about West Side Story lyric using 'gay'.

Reflist for OR