Current Events > The United Nations May Finally Make Cultural Appropriation Illegal

(+) Yeah! (+)

http://i-d.vice.com/en_us/article/the-united-nations-may-finally-make-cultural-appropriation-illegal
---

Except the UN is not a legislative body and has absolutely no real power ??
---

iosifsvoboda posted...

Except the UN is not a legislative body and has absolutely no real power ??

thats why we need Obama back to submit to forgien entities because we know trump wont
---

Stupidity knows no bounds...
---

lol
---

up
---

If the 90's and 00's were Brave New World, the 10's and 20's are surely 1984.
---

Fake news, the UN doesn't have legal power.
Why are you giving vice ad revenue anyways

The death rattles of the useless, dying UN.
---

*sigh*
---

The United Nations May Finally Make Cultural Appropriation Illegal

how?
they couldn't possibly enforce it in most of the countries the UN is associated with
they couldn't even enforce in the US lol

cultural appropriation is too vague of a concept anyway and won't seriously work until it's applied equally to all demographics
currently it's not, so most people say fuck it
---

Mal_Fet posted...

If the 90's and 00's were Brave New World, the 10's and 20's are surely 1984.

I miss Brave New World
---

The UN can't make laws and it can barely enforce human rights as it is.
---

Trump's calls to defund the U.N. seem more justified every week.
---

Meanwhile, NK released an obviously-brutalized , now-vegetative american captive without so much as a stern finger wagging from the UN.

More on how we're tackling the important issues at 11.
---

http://redpanels.com/130/

Mal_Fet posted...

If the 90's and 00's were Brave New World, the 10's and 20's are surely 1984.

Nah. The 20s are looking to be Harrison Bergeron.

George Soros will lose
---

RedWhiteBlue posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

http://redpanels.com/130/

Mal_Fet posted...

If the 90's and 00's were Brave New World, the 10's and 20's are surely 1984.

Nah. The 20s are looking to be Harrison Bergeron.

Lmfao, that's such a great short story. The future is just more BNW with a pinch of 1984, really.

Add in some 451, and you may be onto something.

Itachi157 posted...

Weren't they also trying to condemn Japan for "violence against women in games" despite the fact that Japan has one of the lowest *real* crime rates/crimes against women frequency?

While having Saudi Arabia, the place that whips preteen girls to death for getting raped, as a member of the gender rights committee.
---

Only whiny backwards ass grown children care about this stupid idea.
---

These dumbass Millennials can't tell the difference between Appreciation & Appropriation, bunch of fascist wannabes.

I'm getting sick of this self-victim complex.
---

RedWhiteBlue posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

RedWhiteBlue posted...

Questionmarktarius posted...

http://redpanels.com/130/

Mal_Fet posted...

If the 90's and 00's were Brave New World, the 10's and 20's are surely 1984.

Nah. The 20s are looking to be Harrison Bergeron.

Lmfao, that's such a great short story. The future is just more BNW with a pinch of 1984, really.

Add in some 451, and you may be onto something.

The thing about 451 is that society would not risk falling apart from a bunch of smart people grouping together and potentially fighting back. That society is not as feasible as the other two (both of which have/are actually happened/happening), it would need to eliminate any opposition like in 1984.

I am way too sober for this discussion.

he UN should "obligate states to create effective criminal and civil enforcement procedures to recognize and prevent the non-consensual taking and illegitimate possession, sale and export of traditional cultural expressions," James Anaya, dean of law at the University of Colorado, told the committee.

Wow.
---

Oh, for fuck's sake. No, the United Nations is not about to make "cultural appropriation" illegal. The UN has all kinds of committees that discuss all kinds of issues in all of its organizations; this particular committee's been working on three draft documents for 16 years.

And anyway, this issue isn't about bullshit such as whether or not white people should be allowed to wear dreadlocks; it's about whether companies have the right to copy traditional designs created by indigenous peoples and either pass them off as designs originated by the company, or falsely represent goods with such designs as having been produced by indigenous peoples (when they've been made in factories) or endorsed by them. I think there are some legitimate intellectual property issues to be discussed here, such as the extent to which designs can be trademarked.

This is a trivial bullshit reason to talk about shutting off funding to the UN, when organizations such as UNICEF are busy doing vital work in Syria -- like providing safe water and sanitation services for 1.2 million children living in camps, informal settlements and host communities; access to healthcare and essential nutrition treatments for almost 5.4 million children; cash assistance to families that helps keep nearly half a million children in school; and the distribution of clothes and blankets in winter months. And you want to shut down lifesaving projects because of some stupid bullshit rumour that "white people won't be allowed to eat pizza", or some such crap? Christ almighty.
---

Ancient Celts and used to have dreadlocks. I think every race on earth has used them before at one time. Black people don't own the copyright

Gen Z please save us
---

Zikten posted...

Ancient Celts and used to have dreadlocks. I think every race on earth has used them before at one time. Black people don't own the copyright

As a general statement, true. But again, the point: "should white people be allowed to wear dreadlocks?" isn't really the kind of issue that this particular committee has been discussing. It's about whether intellectual property protection can or should be extended to indigenous designs, dances, and traditional medicines, and whether companies who copy them should have to do so under licence.

Even if there was some obscure committee in Geneva that kicked around the eccentric idea that Mexican foods should be cooked and eaten only by Mexicans, it's still fucking stupid to blow it all out of proportion and talk about defunding UN projects that actually do help save lives or improve the quality of life for millions.
---

So it's asking if creators should be able to own the rights to and profit off their creations without fear of it being stolen, which is something every advocate of capitalism should be fighting for.
---

SGT_Conti posted...

So it's asking if creators should be able to own the rights to and profit off their creations without fear of it being stolen, which is something every advocate of capitalism should be fighting for.

unless the original owners are minorities, in which case they are whiners

SGT_Conti posted...

So it's asking if creators should be able to own the rights to and profit off their creations without fear of it being stolen, which is something every advocate of capitalism should be fighting for.

The creators of every aboriginal art style, for example, are long dead. What gives people who happen to be aboriginal a greater right to using that style of art than anyone else?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

SGT_Conti posted...

So it's asking if creators should be able to own the rights to and profit off their creations without fear of it being stolen, which is something every advocate of capitalism should be fighting for.

The creators of every aboriginal art style, for example, are long dead. What gives people who happen to be aboriginal a greater right to using that style of art than anyone else?

you could argue that their descendants are the closest to the originators. So if one thought it makes sense to give ownership, that makes sense more than anyone else. That's if you assume someone should have rights to the intellectual material.

What a joke

Fam_Fam posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

SGT_Conti posted...

So it's asking if creators should be able to own the rights to and profit off their creations without fear of it being stolen, which is something every advocate of capitalism should be fighting for.

The creators of every aboriginal art style, for example, are long dead. What gives people who happen to be aboriginal a greater right to using that style of art than anyone else?

you could argue that their descendants are the closest to the originators. So if one thought it makes sense to give ownership, that makes sense more than anyone else. That's if you assume someone should have rights to the intellectual material.

Will obviously not every aboriginal is a descendant of an aboriginal artist, so which aboriginals get to make their art and which don't?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

SGT_Conti posted...

So it's asking if creators should be able to own the rights to and profit off their creations without fear of it being stolen, which is something every advocate of capitalism should be fighting for.

The creators of every aboriginal art style, for example, are long dead. What gives people who happen to be aboriginal a greater right to using that style of art than anyone else?

If a company can trademark a unique design that they originated, why can't a remote mountain tribe in Guatemala do the same? Or are the fruits of capitalism reserved only for corporations run by rich white men who can afford armies of lawyers?
---

So does this mean I can't eat Taco Bell anymore?
---

Were_Wyrm posted...

So does this mean I can't eat Taco Bell anymore?

No. It doesn't.
---

DuranOfForcena posted...

Were_Wyrm posted...

So does this mean I can't eat Taco Bell anymore?

it means that all Taco Bells will have to be shut down because it's an American fast food company that is culturally appropriating Mexican food

You can joke, but some idiots who have trouble reading past clickbait headlines are going to believe exactly that.
---

Thank goodness, I need my authentic Mexican food.
---

@Funkdamental posted...

If a company can trademark a unique design that they originated, why can't a remote mountain tribe in Guatemala do the same? Or are the fruits of capitalism reserved only for corporations run by rich white men who can afford armies of lawyers?

Studying knotty legal questions over whether intellectual property protection could or should be extended to cover such cases is exactly the kind of work that committees like this are set up to do. But the very fact that someone has even dared to think it worth looking at the issue is enough to get the usual suspects seething and spluttering. I swear to God, some of you are more prone to hyperventilate over stuff like this than any so-called SJW.

You can't trademark an aesthetic or way of making art. It needs to be a specific identifying quality, like the Coca Cola label. Coca Cola can't just trademark all red cylindrical aluminum cans, for example. They certainly cannot trademark its use only for anglo-saxon white people. There has to be a specific controlling entity.

But here you are acting like it would be no major leap of law for a race to be granted legal ownership of any design that is composed by intermittent colorful dots that take the shape of an animal native to Australia. Have you thought this through at all, or did you just come down with a sudden case of SJW?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

You can't trademark an aesthetic or way of making art. It needs to be a specific identifying quality, like the Coca Cola label. Coca Cola can't just trademark all red cylindrical aluminum cans, for example. They certainly cannot trademark its use only for anglo-saxon white people. There has to be a specific controlling entity.

If the weavers of a remote mountain tribe in Guatemala have traditionally used a uniquely styled motif in the designs of their textiles, would it be possible for the tribe or village to trademark it in the same way that the Coca Cola label is trademarked -- so that if, say, a tourist who works for a fashion design agency takes away souvenirs from the village and a company copies and manufactures the design, a lawsuit could be brought against it?

That's the kind of question that's being deliberated, and I'm arguing there's nothing wrong with a WIPO committee examining the legal implications of such a hypothetical case. Whatever the outcome (unlike you, I'm not pre-judging it), it's surely part of their job -- not a "liberal conspiracy", and no reason for some paranoid bullshit panic about non-Hispanic whites being forbidden to make tortillas in future.
---

Funkdamental posted...

If the weavers of a remote mountain tribe in Guatemala have traditionally used a uniquely styled motif in the designs of their textiles, would it be possible for the tribe or village to trademark it in the same way that the Coca Cola label is trademarked

You cannot trademark a motif.

Funkdamental posted...

That's the kind of question that's being deliberated, and I'm arguing there's nothing wrong with a WIPO committee examining the legal implications of such a hypothetical case.

You don't want it to be possible to trademark motif.

You think the world is too litigious nowdays? Let's see what happens when companies can trademark art styles. Even in cases where specific colors are trademarked, no law prevents other people from using that color for their designs. This debate would make it possible to sue other people over using a color.

So like I said, you don't want this to happen. You just haven't thought hard enough to realize it.
---