Hoʻoponopono, Hawaii’s trendy word that’s misunderstood(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Hoʻoponopono, Hawaii’s trendy word that’s misunderstood
http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20180916-hawaiis-trendy-word-thats-misunderstood
42 comments
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness."
Cultures have appropriated each other since the dawn of humanity. I understand how some can feel irritated that "their" concepts, whatever they are, have been "stolen" and stripped of their essence by others, but what's the alternative?
It's not like the other cultures are forcing the originators to change theirs (or, they might, but that's not cultural appropriation) so it kind of feels like the same fallacy as claiming something was stolen from you if someone made a copy of something you own.
Your culture is your own, no one else can debase that, only your own feelings can. It's the Stoic saying of "it is not outside events that affect us, but our opinions about them."
Cultures have appropriated each other since the dawn of humanity. I understand how some can feel irritated that "their" concepts, whatever they are, have been "stolen" and stripped of their essence by others, but what's the alternative?
It's not like the other cultures are forcing the originators to change theirs (or, they might, but that's not cultural appropriation) so it kind of feels like the same fallacy as claiming something was stolen from you if someone made a copy of something you own.
Your culture is your own, no one else can debase that, only your own feelings can. It's the Stoic saying of "it is not outside events that affect us, but our opinions about them."
I think the only time its fair to complain about it is when they’re doing it wrong, and particularly when they’re smug about it
Like yoga
But ofc its annoying when people do that for any subject, even something borne to their own cultures
Like smug vegans
Like yoga
But ofc its annoying when people do that for any subject, even something borne to their own cultures
Like smug vegans
My sense is the general argument goes: if you, as a member of the dominant race/class do something (adopt a style of dress, way of wearing your hair, style of music, etc.) which, when it is done by its originators leads to discrimination against them (for example people of African descent wearing their hair in dreads) but becomes cool and even profitable for you (think Elvis playing R&B), that's appropriation. I agree it's tricky because I don't think we want to advance essentialist arguments in general, but the focus is more on the unfairness than the "only X can do Y".
That's not how it works in practice, however. As of late, most of the cries of "cultural appropration" have come from people outside of the "appropriated" group, white-knighting for them, often in opposition to those actually part of the group.
It reeks more of siloing than anything. Certain people want everyone grouped up into nice little packages that we can't step outside of, and they've co-opted the most vocal (and often times extreme) advocates of social justice to do so.
It reeks more of siloing than anything. Certain people want everyone grouped up into nice little packages that we can't step outside of, and they've co-opted the most vocal (and often times extreme) advocates of social justice to do so.
If the majority starts doing something then they'll stop discriminating against everybody else for doing it, so that sounds like a net positive. Cultural appropriation is a good thing because it dissolves the boundary of unfamiliarity.
If formalwear of the future is to consist of multiple popular styles, and not just the western suit, then we shouldn't discourage people from trying clothing from other cultures.
But then there's one less thing for me to complain about to feel important and have my imagined moral superiority validated!
You seem to be implying that white people with dreadlocks are somehow committing cultural appropriation. I would refer you to European history to find several examples of Europeans with dreadlocks. https://www.reddit.com/r/Norse/comments/1f3yif/is_there_good... Otherwise I agree with your overall perspective.
It's a very common argument, so I can hardly claim it as my own, but a quick search on DDG or your favorite alternative will turn up thousands of hits[0]. Clearly it is true that human beings all over the world have braided/matted their hair for a very long time, but that doesn't seem to me to render arguments about its present-day significance moot, given that many students seem to be expelled for wearing them[1]. Similar results for dread-wearers being fired[2], again, nearly all of whom seem to be people of color.
0: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dreadlocks+cultural+appropriation
1: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dreadlocks+expelled
2: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dreadlocks+fired
0: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dreadlocks+cultural+appropriation
1: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dreadlocks+expelled
2: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dreadlocks+fired
I don't think a duckduckgo query is a fairly representative study of dreadlocks in cultural significance. A search engine will also turn up thousands of hits for "do vaccines cause autism", lots of which will say "yes".
> A search engine will also turn up thousands of hits for "do vaccines cause autism", lots of which will say "yes".
The fear that vaccines cause autism is culturally significant though. It's so culturally significant that it's causing real damage to society here and now.
The fear that vaccines cause autism is culturally significant though. It's so culturally significant that it's causing real damage to society here and now.
Yes but search engine results give you no validity or truth value of any statement. Quite the opposite really.
As a white person with dreads, I was pretty surprised I got hired at the place I'm working now. IT may be an exception, though.
While I would disagree with the specific example of dreads you provided(for reasons the other replier mentioned), I think you have provided the most charitable explanation of cultural appropriation. However, most of the time when I hear the phrase is around halloween, when a 5 year old girl who wants to be Mulan (or her parents) are accused of cultural appropriation.
One big problem with appropriation occurs when the native culture has been forcefully damaged via colonization. Many people in the minority have only tenuous connections to their culture, because it deliberately wasn't taught.
If, in that situation, the dominant culture appropriates (and muddies) a concept, it becomes very hard to discern what items in your culture even mean.
This element of power imbalance or colonisation is what makes cultural appropriation harmful. It's also, at least the way I see it, what makes it appropriation - otherwise it's an exchange, and that's vital for cultures to grow.
So what you defend when you protest cultural appropriation is specifically the transfer with an existing power imbalance. It's not "what you're born into defines you", but "people have already taken so much, let us keep what little we have"
If, in that situation, the dominant culture appropriates (and muddies) a concept, it becomes very hard to discern what items in your culture even mean.
This element of power imbalance or colonisation is what makes cultural appropriation harmful. It's also, at least the way I see it, what makes it appropriation - otherwise it's an exchange, and that's vital for cultures to grow.
So what you defend when you protest cultural appropriation is specifically the transfer with an existing power imbalance. It's not "what you're born into defines you", but "people have already taken so much, let us keep what little we have"
> "people have already taken so much, let us keep what little we have"
To clarify:
Does "keep what little we have" mean "let me practice this custom"?
Or does "keep what little we have" mean "let me practice this custom, but no one else"?
To clarify:
Does "keep what little we have" mean "let me practice this custom"?
Or does "keep what little we have" mean "let me practice this custom, but no one else"?
It means "do not water down the meaning of this custom". If you manage to practice it exactly according to meaning, I don't think there'd be a large debate.
But when you change meaning, you're exercising more of the power you already have over the minority. You're trampling over them to satisfy your own needs. (Which is pretty much colonialism in a nutshell)
But when you change meaning, you're exercising more of the power you already have over the minority. You're trampling over them to satisfy your own needs. (Which is pretty much colonialism in a nutshell)
> "do not water down the meaning of this custom"
I don't believe, for example, your practice of Protestantosm in any way affects or "waters down" my practice of Catholicism.
I understand this is a historically popular belief and many people still hold it. I personally do not.
I don't believe, for example, your practice of Protestantosm in any way affects or "waters down" my practice of Catholicism.
I understand this is a historically popular belief and many people still hold it. I personally do not.
> This element of power imbalance [...] makes cultural appropriation harmful
You're arguing something, but it sure isn't the point I made. There is no power imbalance between those two religions.
You're arguing something, but it sure isn't the point I made. There is no power imbalance between those two religions.
Maybe not right at least. Hmmm...
I don't think Quaker Oats branding harms the Society of Friends.
Though TBH I don't know how to evaluate the "power" of these two groups.
I don't think Quaker Oats branding harms the Society of Friends.
Though TBH I don't know how to evaluate the "power" of these two groups.
In an increasingly globalised world, the boundaries between cultures will blur.
Cultural appropriation, to me, the impression that the wider world takes something from them, their customs, appearance or whatever else.
I think the more accurate description would be that the wider world simply mixes their own customs with others, integrating the new ones, adopting or changing them.
There are plenty of examples where a culture adopts and integrates something from a minority culture (Döner Kebap in Germany for example) and I don't think it's ultimately harmful.
Ultimately, I would also agree that it's somewhat of a familiar concept to nationalism but with race or culture (though racism and nationalism have rather different meanings so I can't reuse racism in the same context I guess, cultural-nationalism maybe?) and maybe even other human concepts (I can totally imagine at some point people will yell about cultural appropriation from Tumblr or Twitter communities :) )
Cultural appropriation, to me, the impression that the wider world takes something from them, their customs, appearance or whatever else.
I think the more accurate description would be that the wider world simply mixes their own customs with others, integrating the new ones, adopting or changing them.
There are plenty of examples where a culture adopts and integrates something from a minority culture (Döner Kebap in Germany for example) and I don't think it's ultimately harmful.
Ultimately, I would also agree that it's somewhat of a familiar concept to nationalism but with race or culture (though racism and nationalism have rather different meanings so I can't reuse racism in the same context I guess, cultural-nationalism maybe?) and maybe even other human concepts (I can totally imagine at some point people will yell about cultural appropriation from Tumblr or Twitter communities :) )
There are a couple important things to understand here. One of the most important is that there is a different between cultural interchange and cultural appropriation, but more on that later. Another important thing to understand is that context matters. There's a tendency to believe that behaviors divorced of context should have an intrinsic morality or be associated with other intrinsic qualities such as whether the behaviors should or should not be engaged in, whether they help or hurt people, etc. But this is a fantasy, and one born of privilege as well (the privilege to ignore the oppressed, ignore context, etc.) We cannot ignore the context of centuries of exploitative and racist colonization and empire. A straightforward classic example is the swastika, an ancient religious symbol that has been forever tainted due to history.
We cannot pretend that we live in a world where everyone is on an equal playing field and where all of the crimes and iniquities of colonialism and empire have been erased and smoothed away. For that reason those who belong to cultures on the higher end of the privilege spectrum need to tread much more carefully when they "borrow" and "explore" elements from other cultures. Because the pre-existing power imbalances at play can cause cultural exchanges to magnify the power imbalances. For example, someone from a wealthy culture can more easily market and merchandise cultural elements from a poorer culture, funneling money to themselves by selling the culture of others.
Another thing that's worth pointing out here is that a legacy of trauma and tragedy can preclude even otherwise benign or even beneficial activities from having benign or beneficial effects. Bad acts hurt people, they hurt relationships, they hurt societies. Think about someone with PTSD who has a hard time accepting love from others. The act itself (expression of compassion from a friend, for example) may be perfectly benign in the abstract, but within a context of surviving trauma it may even have a harmful effect. People coming from a background of privilege may be unfamiliar with the notion of having things in their life that have been ruined by actions of previous generations creating ongoing systemic problems, but it is nevertheless a very real phenomenon that billions of people are familiar with. Yes, it's a bit tragic that we have to be more careful with cultural interchange than we really ought to be but that tragedy has been imposed by a legacy that has included not just exploitation, theft, and slavery but also genocide. So tread lightly and thoughtfully.
Now, as to cultural appreciation, the natural (and beneficial) aspect of cultural "borrowing" and mixing vs. cultural appropriation. There is a difference and it is possible to navigate cultural exchange without falling into the trap of appropriation. For one, ask yourself whether there is anything monetary going on, are you packaging up cultural works to sell outside of that culture? Are you financially benefiting from appealing to interest in a culture that is not your own? That's more likely to be appropriation. Is your "borrowing" or enjoyment of a culture heartfelt, authentic, and respectful? That's more likely to be simple cultural appreciation and interchange. Is your representation of aspects of a culture a caricature, does it draw on narratives of "exoticism" or "savagery"? That's likely to be appropriation. Does it encourage people to find out more about the culture in question, does it seem like a celebration of the culture? That's less likely to be appropriation.
And so on. There's no rule book, all of this requires understanding why cultural appropriation is problematic, it requires understanding the history at play and it requires being thoughtful and understanding when exploring other cultures. A simple first order test is just to consider whether or not there is a power or wealth imbalance between the cultures in question and whether or not the particular activity amplifies or enforces that imbalance or not.
We cannot pretend that we live in a world where everyone is on an equal playing field and where all of the crimes and iniquities of colonialism and empire have been erased and smoothed away. For that reason those who belong to cultures on the higher end of the privilege spectrum need to tread much more carefully when they "borrow" and "explore" elements from other cultures. Because the pre-existing power imbalances at play can cause cultural exchanges to magnify the power imbalances. For example, someone from a wealthy culture can more easily market and merchandise cultural elements from a poorer culture, funneling money to themselves by selling the culture of others.
Another thing that's worth pointing out here is that a legacy of trauma and tragedy can preclude even otherwise benign or even beneficial activities from having benign or beneficial effects. Bad acts hurt people, they hurt relationships, they hurt societies. Think about someone with PTSD who has a hard time accepting love from others. The act itself (expression of compassion from a friend, for example) may be perfectly benign in the abstract, but within a context of surviving trauma it may even have a harmful effect. People coming from a background of privilege may be unfamiliar with the notion of having things in their life that have been ruined by actions of previous generations creating ongoing systemic problems, but it is nevertheless a very real phenomenon that billions of people are familiar with. Yes, it's a bit tragic that we have to be more careful with cultural interchange than we really ought to be but that tragedy has been imposed by a legacy that has included not just exploitation, theft, and slavery but also genocide. So tread lightly and thoughtfully.
Now, as to cultural appreciation, the natural (and beneficial) aspect of cultural "borrowing" and mixing vs. cultural appropriation. There is a difference and it is possible to navigate cultural exchange without falling into the trap of appropriation. For one, ask yourself whether there is anything monetary going on, are you packaging up cultural works to sell outside of that culture? Are you financially benefiting from appealing to interest in a culture that is not your own? That's more likely to be appropriation. Is your "borrowing" or enjoyment of a culture heartfelt, authentic, and respectful? That's more likely to be simple cultural appreciation and interchange. Is your representation of aspects of a culture a caricature, does it draw on narratives of "exoticism" or "savagery"? That's likely to be appropriation. Does it encourage people to find out more about the culture in question, does it seem like a celebration of the culture? That's less likely to be appropriation.
And so on. There's no rule book, all of this requires understanding why cultural appropriation is problematic, it requires understanding the history at play and it requires being thoughtful and understanding when exploring other cultures. A simple first order test is just to consider whether or not there is a power or wealth imbalance between the cultures in question and whether or not the particular activity amplifies or enforces that imbalance or not.
Very clear, balanced and insightful, thanks!
It's absurd.
It's the idea that ideas/customs/intentions "belong" to members of a culture, and that constitutes a justifiable monopoly.
It's the idea that ideas/customs/intentions "belong" to members of a culture, and that constitutes a justifiable monopoly.
I practice self-identify throught ho'oponopono (sith) for almost 3 yeas now. This is an "updated version" of traditional ho'oponopono created by Morrnah Simeona, and it became popular with Dr. Hew Len with the help of Joe Vitale (a popular self-help book writer featured in "The Secret" movie). In essence, you take 100% responsibility for all problems that you experience. By taking responsibility, we can become free of them. All problems are nothing but memories stored in our subconscious. With ho'oponopono, we appeal to the divinity (god/universe) to transmute those stored memories into void, and then void becomes filled with love.
So if you have a problem with someone, by taking 100% responsibility, and by doing the cleaning processes, you and that person becomes "free".
I've studied a lot about modern ho'oponopono. I can see resemblances with other books and philosophies such as Eckhart Tolle's Power of Now books, A Course in Miracles, etc.
So if you have a problem with someone, by taking 100% responsibility, and by doing the cleaning processes, you and that person becomes "free".
I've studied a lot about modern ho'oponopono. I can see resemblances with other books and philosophies such as Eckhart Tolle's Power of Now books, A Course in Miracles, etc.
> In essence, you take 100% responsibility for all problems that you experience. By taking responsibility, we can become free of them.
This was one of my biggest take aways from working up the ladder of starcraft 2. If you don't take responsibility for a loss then you don't have the power to prevent it in the future.
> All problems are nothing but memories stored in our subconscious.
I suppose so
> With ho'oponopono, we appeal to the divinity (god/universe) to transmute those stored memories into void, and then void becomes filled with love.
Wait, what?
This was one of my biggest take aways from working up the ladder of starcraft 2. If you don't take responsibility for a loss then you don't have the power to prevent it in the future.
> All problems are nothing but memories stored in our subconscious.
I suppose so
> With ho'oponopono, we appeal to the divinity (god/universe) to transmute those stored memories into void, and then void becomes filled with love.
Wait, what?
> In essence, you take 100% responsibility for all problems that you experience. ... So if you have a problem with someone, by taking 100% responsibility, and by doing the cleaning processes, you and that person becomes "free".
I discovered something similar from another direction, by choosing to believe in karma, whether or not it is real.
i.e., if someone makes me upset and I can't do anything about it, it's because I upset someone else in the past and didn't make up for it.
It may not work for everyone but seeing things that way sometimes helps me absolve myself of guilt and bitterness.
I discovered something similar from another direction, by choosing to believe in karma, whether or not it is real.
i.e., if someone makes me upset and I can't do anything about it, it's because I upset someone else in the past and didn't make up for it.
It may not work for everyone but seeing things that way sometimes helps me absolve myself of guilt and bitterness.
Grew up in Hawaii, had no idea the word was trendy and don't think I've heard it since grade school. Really weird to me.
Same.
I love reading about anything related to Hawaii.
Any HN'ers who live there? What's it like for [remote] tech work?
Any HN'ers who live there? What's it like for [remote] tech work?
Have worked there remotely. It's ok, the time difference is a pain especially for clients on the east coast. Internet was fine. Pretty expensive cost of living, probably wouldn't rush back there. If you're going to deal with the time difference anyway, might as well go all the way to SE Asia and save a lot of cash.
I've lived there and worked remotely. It's expensive, but the internet works fine. If you need to be online with most of the mainland though, you better be ready to get up early.
If you have east asian clients, the time difference is beneficial, but don't even think about interacting with Europe. The only thing city-like in Hawaii is on Oahu, so that's where you need to be if you want city life. It's also extremely humid at all times.
>What's it like for [remote] tech work?
Hawaii probably isn't the best place for most HN'ers, culturally.
Also, tech work locally in Hawaii is pretty much non-existent unless for the military, NSA, or associated government organizations.
Hawaii probably isn't the best place for most HN'ers, culturally.
Also, tech work locally in Hawaii is pretty much non-existent unless for the military, NSA, or associated government organizations.
I've worked remotely from the Big Island for 5 years. (I brought the job with me when I moved here.) The local tech work scene here is pretty nonexistent, possibly with the exception of the observatories.
>Leslie Tuchman was visiting the Hawaiian Islands when she came across the concept of ‘hoʻoponopono’ in her Reiki class, introduced by her teacher as a word for self-forgiveness.
What is the world coming to when you can no longer trust the people with magic hands?
I knew a reiki master. He broke his leg and had pins put in it at the hospital. So, being a reiki master, he pulled the pins out himself with pliers and then used his reiki powers on his leg. He now only has one leg, after infection nearly killed him, but last I heard is still claiming to be a reiki master.
What is the world coming to when you can no longer trust the people with magic hands?
I knew a reiki master. He broke his leg and had pins put in it at the hospital. So, being a reiki master, he pulled the pins out himself with pliers and then used his reiki powers on his leg. He now only has one leg, after infection nearly killed him, but last I heard is still claiming to be a reiki master.
Reiki is the most popular psudoscience around behind acupuncture and chiro. It is amazing it, nor the abusive phenomenon of 'psychics' has not been regulated in some way.
I have found a good way of getting people to question chiropody more.
Explaining that I am not entirely sure that necromancy has a place in modern medicine, gets people to stop and ask me what I mean.
I then have their attention to point out that according to the founder of the practice, the methods of chiropody were discovered by summoning a spirit from beyond the grave who apparently claimed to be a doctor.
And therefore, either the founder is lying, or I am being expected to trust the motivations of some entity from the land of the dead that is capable of traveling between worlds and sees fit to present itself as a doctor, neither of which, on the face of it, looks like a good basis for trusting in a therapeutic technique.
Explaining that I am not entirely sure that necromancy has a place in modern medicine, gets people to stop and ask me what I mean.
I then have their attention to point out that according to the founder of the practice, the methods of chiropody were discovered by summoning a spirit from beyond the grave who apparently claimed to be a doctor.
And therefore, either the founder is lying, or I am being expected to trust the motivations of some entity from the land of the dead that is capable of traveling between worlds and sees fit to present itself as a doctor, neither of which, on the face of it, looks like a good basis for trusting in a therapeutic technique.
wow. I can't even imagine the amount of confidence you must need to think to even do that AND think it's a good idea. It must have been incredibly painful to do himself too (I'm guessing he pulled them out before his leg was even ready for such a procedure). Having had a few pins in my wrist I can not discourage this enough. wow.
He does also take a fair amount of heroin. That probably helped with the process.
The pins are permanent?
Can someone help me out with a dilemma? OTOH, I can see the point that minority cultures have been, and continue to be, horribly mistreated. I can see how cultural appropriation can be hurtful in that context.
At the same time, I can't get past how the whole concept reeks of stuffy nationalism. Can you defend the right of minorities to define and protect their cultures without supporting the idea that the nation or race you are born into defines who you are?