UNconventional; Altering the Course of US Tactics

UNconventional

''It isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe in it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it.''  Eleanor Roosevelt

       It isn't hard for the world to recognize a diminishing US global presence, one that no longer controls and has a decreasing role in the economic, military, or cultural future of the world. Foreign Policy wrote a somewhat comprehensive piece on the issue, noting not only the data that supports such a view but also the percentage of people who believe it; nearly 60 percent of America consider US power waning. That may not be a bad thing; the US has dominated all three of the above categories for the past half century or more, meaning that it could certainly be time for replacements in the global order. But I don't think it necessarily needs to be that way, and based upon current political discourse on both sides of the spectrum, neither party thinks that diminishing US presence is a good idea. President Obama himself declared that it is not a question of "whether America will lead, but how we will lead," a positive tone in any otherwise bleak political climate. While accepting the inevitable is often prudent, it does not appear that the US wishes to do so. But with rising debt, decreases in planned military spending, and a great deal of animosity from abroad that is rooted heavily in how they conduct our foreign policy, it might be pragmatic to plan based around the thought that the US will soon lose control. But this is not a defeatist post; it is one that aims to solve the US's problem.

      The business world has a word for radical changes to a company that completely alter the focus, aim, and possibly even products or services offered by them. That word is pivot, a realization that their current model of business is antiquated or no longer commercially viable. If one treats states as corporations that are each trying to gain control in a chaotic world, the analogy serves it's purpose. The United States is losing options for how to continually maintain global power, and thus needs to radically alter how it approaches International Relations. While there may be many ways they can change their approach, my answer is limited to one; it desperately needs to engage the world as an arbiter of peace by dramatically altering it's current dealings with the United Nations.
   
      Susan Rice, the current National Security Advisor, commented in 2011 that

"There is no better alternative to sharing the costs and burdens of UN peace operations and humanitarian missions around the world. There is no doubt that we are more secure when the UN can foster nonproliferation and promote disarmament. It is we, along with others, who gain when the UN spurs sustainable development and democracy, improves global health, upholds women's rights, and broadens access to education."

      As if to agree with her, the United States contributed 22% of the United Nations' budget in 2013. In comparison, Japan, the next highest contributor, gave only 10% (Fifth committee). The United States was one of the founding members, and still is one of the five exclusive members of the Security Council. It's borders hold the official UN headquarters and it's National Security Strategy in 2010 included expansion of UN connections and support (White House). But the UN has always had somewhat of a cold shoulder from the US, a strange thing considering how invested the nation seems in its success. 

       For better or worse, the UN is a tool for uniting the world together (Tharoor). Whether it is the best tool or the most effective is debatable; some even say that it has been counter productive to the security of the world due to an unwillingness among nations to compromise. But that doesn't mean it needs to continue to be ineffective; if it had a strong leader interested in uniting together the diverse interests of nations, it might be able to do some significant good. That leader could be the United States, a country that needs a replacement function for its former militarism and economic prowess. But the United States has been negligent of trying to unify itself with the people of the world; case in point, any of the innumerable international treaties that the country has failed to ratify and sign. By last count, that was at least 37 (Vote.org), with many of them being one of the few holdouts among 193 possible parties who could sign. Some of these, like the Convention on the Rights of the Child, are unsigned by only the United States, South Sudan and Somalia, one of which didn't exist five years ago and the other which hasn't had a national government until about two years ago (Global Policy Forum). In whatever case, both have announced plans to sign the treaty, while the United States has remained silent.

      What does this say about the US? Ultimately, it shows that it loves sticking to the unilateralism that has dominated its foreign policy for the past half century. It shows that America prioritizes nationalism over globalization or that the political process of the country is disorganized and politically ineffective. It shows that attempts at cosmopolitanism are disdained and ridiculed at a national level. Admittedly there are reasons for refusing to sign some of these treaties; many of them relate to concerns over political sovereignty in a world dominated by groups above governments. In the case of the Rights of the Child convention, concerns about the right of the parent being abridged have prevented ratification. But these arguments ignore both that many of these treaties still allow plenty of national sovereignty (which is why so many nations have signed), and that the United States always signs with the intent of prioritizing domestic law over international standards. More importantly, the fact remains that the United States refuses to sign treaties that are completely in line with their current foreign policy standards. The Mine Ban treaty remains unsigned while the United States is one of the largest financial supporters of mine destruction each year, and the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is in compliance with all current United States laws (Human Rights Watch). But the country still ignores that they could very easily win goodwill and greater control of one of the most powerful institutions on the planet because of misplaced priorities and illogical fears. 

"There is no longer a clear, bright line dividing America's domestic concerns and America's foreign policy concerns...If we want America to stay on the right track, if we want other people to be on that track and have the chance to enjoy peace and prosperity, we have no choice but to try to lead the train." President Bill Clinton

      The next step is thus simple; the United States should move immediately towards signing and ratifying every convention currently in line with their own laws. This can only do good and lower the relative unease surrounding their current foreign policy tactics. Second, the country should seriously reconsider its position on treaties that just barely are incompatible, and remember that international standards are by no means restrictive. Third, since many of the conventions are too far removed from the current political climates beliefs and practices, the United States should shelve them and move forward by proposing norms that fit their practices or intended laws. Treaties that deal with education standards, environmental regulation, or immigration practices would be ideal and appeal to conservatives and liberals alike; the liberals would get their policies passed while the conservatives could make sure that the financial costs of such a decision would be felt by both this country and many others. The United Nations would benefit from having more US involvement; this would actually be ideal because it would force them to comply more heavily with multilateral standards. Finally, the world would benefit if every government started moving towards greater norms on the whole; things like rights to water and life could make way for greater equality pushes and human rights guarantees. 

      Will it happen soon? Probably not, but at least the possibility remains that United States prominence can continue while globalization increases. Yes, this is an unlikely scenario, but at least it's an optimistic one that takes into account the current geopolitical realities of this nation. Maybe I'm wrong and this is too simplified of an overview to actually mean anything. If that's the case, point out my post's flaws in a comment below and join the discussion.

Citations

Colby E., and Lettow, P. Have We Hit Peak America? Foreign Policy. 3 Jul, 2014. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/07/03/have_we_hit_peak_america

Fifth Committee. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 24 December 2012. United Nations' General Assembly. 24 Dec, 2012. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/238

Franklin, B. 'Join or Die' cartoon. Pennsylvania Gazette. 9 May, 1754. Photo. Retrieved from http://www.stevenlberg.info/today/tag/cartoons

Global Policy Forum. US Position on International Treaties. Jul, 2003. Digital. Retrieved from https://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/26665-us-position-on-international-treaties.html

Human Rights Watch, United States Ratification of International Human Rights Treaties, 24 Jul, 2009. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/07/24/united-states-ratification-international-human-rights-treaties#_Mine_Ban_Treaty

O'Neill, S. The U.N. Flickr.com. 8 Nov, 2008. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/sean_oneill/3030297665

San, A. United Nations. Flickr.com. 14 Aug, 2006. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/mononoke/225965762

Tharoor, S. Why America Still Needs The United Nations. Foreign Affairs. Sep/Oct, 2003. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59184/shashi-tharoor/why-america-still-needs-the-united-nations

United Nations Photo. United Nations Headquarters. Flickr.com. 9 Mar, 1987. Photo. Retrieved from https://www.flickr.com/photos/un_photo/3311540329

Watterson, B. Calvin and Hobbes War Sunday Strip. Calvin and Hobbes. Photo. Retrieved from http://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/calvin-and-hobbes-play-war-and-peace.jpg

White House. National Security Strategy. Executive Branch of the United States Federal Government. May, 2010. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf

The Case for a Comic Book Netflix

Intro

      The following is an idea that has been sitting with me awhile. Believe it or not, I think it is heavily related to sustainability; I'm answering the question of how the medium of comic books can survive the coming years, as currently publishing practices are fairly unsustainable. My answer? I think that there needs to be a Netflix for comic books. 'But wait,' the more astute of you counter. 'There already is one, so we don't need another.' I'll certainly agree that a site already exists for perusal of certain independent titles, but the whole form needs to go much farther, with both Marvel and DC bringing a majority if not the entirety of their past titles to an accessible digital form. The market that they've created is neither sustainable nor necessarily profitable, and the interests of all parties would be greatly benefited by the implementation of this market. 


Why?

      No one can easily deny that Marvel and DC are still incredibly profitable companies with extremely fervent fan-bases dedicated to consuming their work. 

      I think however that it might be fair to say that comic books are no longer the most important monetary focus for the two major publishers. Marvel and DC dropped 2% of their market share from 2012 to 2013, with a drop of over 7% since 2008 (Armitage). That isn't total profit (which would be expected given the financial crisis of 2008 onward), but rather their percentage of the total industry. For Marvel this is fairly bad; they dropped from a 40.9% share in 2008 to a 33.5% share in 2013. For DC, even though the trend is positive, it isn't good news either; they increased from 29.94% of the market in 2008 to 30.33% in 2013. Rather than stealing Marvel's market share, they were able to grab only a small fraction of what was presumably stolen by smaller publishing houses. Pairing this with stats from Comichron, a better profit trend can be seen; with increased estimated sales in 2013 to $780 million in the North American market, Marvel's profits dropped about as much as DC's rose (23 million to 28 million). That doesn't seem that bad for DC, but this isn't including inflation and increased comic prices; factoring in only the former, $57 million of the $85 million increase over those 5 years was purely due to inflation ($695 million in 2008 to $780 million in 2013 (inflation calculator)). Add in the new norm of 3.99 comics, and most of that price difference is just inflation in action. 

      Why is that? If other profit centers using the same characters are only increasing in value, why would comics not be increasing in popularity? After all, to quote Lang, 

"Marvel’s adaptations of its comic-books have been profitable for years, but following the $1.5 billion success of 2012’s “The Avengers,” their films have reached new heights. “Iron Man 3″ hit $1.2 billion, nearly doubling the previous film in the series; “Thor: The Dark World” reached $644.8 million, a 44% improvement on the first God of Thunder film; and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is finishing off with $713.2 million globally, a 92% hike from the patriotic warrior’s big screen debut."

      
       I think the answer has three main aspects, spelled out fairly neatly by one example. Final Crisis was one of DC comics' most ambitious events as of the past decade, combining nearly every single aspect of their mythology in a breathtaking story-line that redefined the very means of storytelling itself, simultaneously providing creator Grant Morrison the chance to metaphorically outline the failings of the industry. Not only was the story creative and nuanced, it had, in my opinion, the scope, breadth, and storytelling importance of classical mythology. 

      Unfortunately, to get to experience all of this, one would need to buy around 60 separate comic books (and according to Wikipedia, those were only the ones collected in trade paperback). Assuming each were priced at the now-moderate price of $2.99, one would need to pay $180 to experience the entire story-line, which is the first problem with modern comics. Compared to the past, they're far too expensive. Since most story-lines of the past were both cheaper and shorter, people would pay less to keep in touch with their favorite heroes. They were less of a specialized purchase and more of an impulse buy; there's a reason drug stores once kept them near the register. At the now routine price of $3.99 apiece, two comics which might take you an hour to read are now the same price as a month of Netflix which allows unlimited streaming; if a person wants a good entertainment value, they'll probably vie for the digital media over the physical. Even if comics can offer nuance and intrigue, they pale in comparison to film, which can do the same, is cheaper, and available in larger amounts.

      Second, as a side effect of the complexity of the medium, consumers need to read innumerable back issues to understand the story-line or even character of a given book. This isn't always true; certain story-lines simply say 'here's a superhero that you know nothing about, here are their powers, and now they're doing something cool,' (which I'm going to start calling the Guardians of the Galaxy storytelling method), but as a general rule you need to buy more comics once you've purchased one. Whether that's to complete a story line, figure out what was going on in your story, or understand more about the character, it serves to make comics more confusing and unapproachable to anyone but a die-hard fan. While it certainly can make each publishing house a great amount of money from these people, it excludes entire segments of the population who might be interested in starting to read about their favorite character.

      A side problem of this is the "relaunch issue," the thing that sunk the market in 1993 and potentially might do it again (Last). To counter consumer confusion and encourage new readers, publishers try to make their books more accessible by rewriting continuity every few years, erasing past stories and relaunching old tittles while maintaining the same familiar characters as before. This works about as well as people might think; empirically it leads to temporarily higher sales and then readership plummets (Johnston).

      Third, there's no real way to expand the market. I don't mean getting consumers to buy more issues about their favorite character, I mean getting them to either attract their friends or pick up new, experimental titles of less popular or wholly new characters. People recommend films, not comics, so expanding the sales figures to friends of customers is mostly out for various publishers. Besides attracting people to a new book by advertising well regarded artists and writers, publishers have barely any options. At the high price to commit to a new issue, people are less likely to buy, forcing publishers to rely on industry icons like Batman and Spiderman to support publishing more obscure characters like the Martian Manhunter. 

      Last argues that this is perfectly fine, noting that 

"...in 2009, Disney paid $4 billion to acquire Marvel (DC was already owned by Time-Warner). The reason for this gaudy valuation is that the comic books themselves are no longer important to the comic-book industry. They’re loss leaders. The real money is in the comic book properties, which power toy and merchandise sales, theme parks, and above all else movie franchises. Since 1997, 26 comic book adaptations have gone on to gross more than $100 million at the box office. Twelve of these grossed more than $200 million. More—many more—are coming soon to a theater near you."

      But while his logic makes sense and does a great job of explaining why comics still exist in a physical form, I think he misses the point. There may be an explanation for why the publishers operate in this manner, but this doesn't need to be the manner in which they operate.     
  

The Solution

      
      Now that I've explained the need for change and the problems that plague the industry, I can return to my original proposal; Marvel and DC need to start an online comic book Netflix for their older titles. 

      Both companies currently offer digital distribution of their works via their respective sites, and offer some dealers like Comixology. The problem is that this operate exactly like a normal comic book shop but with no physical copy and access across any mobile device a user owns. While sometimes slightly cheaper than physical editions, the same problem of price remains; these comics are took expensive to encourage routine buying.

      But what if each company set up their own distributor that offered the majority of their archive for a small monthly fee? $10 a month from even just their current fans would likely be a huge jump in revenue, and that guess of users is extremely low. It's not like they're losing money; dedicated fans would still pay full price to read monthlies on time, while everyone else might wait a year for it to be transferred to the site. Each comic would be from the past; after the first month they never expect to see any more money from it anyway so they would only be increasing revenue by rehashing old content they've already made. And most of them are already scanned and digitized on their online marketplace; slowly adding more would keep users paying month after month while the current offerings would more than justify the price. Since users aren't even paying for the comic any more, but rather access to it, DC and Marvel can completely cut out the resale market and keep profits within their publishing houses. Comic book stores might lose as well, but this could easily turn comics into a collectible again since they now will become a far rarer commodity.


      Why not smaller publishers? I mentioned earlier that DC and Marvel were losing market share and this is the biggest reason; smaller publishers are increasingly selling more of their books. Since there are more readers than there were a decade ago, diversity in interest has greatly risen, meaning more obscure titles might sell more copies to a specialized audience. Smaller publishers would only undermine themselves by putting their works out in the open for a small fee; they've been experiencing the best physical growth of the industry. 

       This neatly solves the problems I outlined earlier; comics would be cheaper, they would become a revenue stream again, consumers could be exposed to more story-lines, and would be more likely to read more obscure titles. I'm not saying it solves all of the current problems with the industry nor will I claim that the solution is perfect, but it definitely resolves some of the more immediate and pressing concerns of the industry. If you want to further the discussion, please feel free to post a comment; otherwise, thanks for reading.

Citations

Armitage, H. Marvel, DC Comics see declining market share. Digital Spy. 9 Jan, 2014. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1uYKPcl

Byrne et al. Best Shot Panel. Uncanny Xmen #132. Apr, 1980. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1xUxLkz

Comichron. Comic Book Sales by Year. Comichron.com. 2014. Chart. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1opaHcb

Ditko et al. Peter Parker Finances panel. Amazing Spiderman #24. May, 1965. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1o3i09Z

Gibbons et al. Rorschach 'Do It' panel. Watchmen #12. 1 Oct, 1987. Photo. Retrieved from http://on.mtv.com/1kgejgZ

Johnston, R. The War of Attrition in Comic Book Relaunches. Bleeding Cool. 15 Apr, 2014. Print. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1uZ4CIJ

Lang, B. Box Office: ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Astounds With $160.4 Mil Global Debut. Variety Magazine. 3 Aug, 2014. Print. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1xTYTzT
Last, J. The Crash of 1993. The Weekly Standard. 13 Jun, 2011. Print. Retrieved from http://tws.io/1tLdnVd
MacEntee, S. ideas. Flickr.com. 7 Mar, 2010. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1p30naB

Netflix. Netflix Logo. Netflix.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://onforb.es/1j3k3aR

Sharing Machine. great ideas. Toothpaste For Dinner. 26 Aug, 2010. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1pyqcyc

Wikipedia. Final Crisis Promo. Wikipedia.com. 17 Jul, 2007. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/UVmEuL

Popping the Filter Bubble

What is a Filter Bubble? 

"We're all you know. You're beginning to believe the illusions we're spinning here. You're beginning to think that the tube is reality, and that your own lives are unreal. You do whatever the tube tells you! You dress like the tube, you eat like the tube, you raise your children like the tube, you even *think* like the tube! This is mass madness, you maniacs! In God's name, you people are the real thing! *WE* are the illusion!"-Network

   
     Sustainability relies a great deal upon understanding world-views; to deal with the innumerable opinions and needs of people and affect actual change, one must understand why they do what they do. In the age of the internet there's no reason to think that this would be difficult; the networks that connect us all should do nothing but facilitate interactivity and discourse about all manner of things. But unfortunately that is slowly evolving into a distant fantasy, a byproduct of the fact that each person's internet experience is slowly being tailored to them. Political and internet activist Eli Pariser calls this phenomenon the "filter bubble," noting that all major browsers and websites are slowly shifting to adapt their information flow to the interests of each user, rather than let the user naturally receive information as it comes. By examining what links a user selects or what information they "upvote," websites are becoming increasingly good at identifying exactly what each person wants from them. 

      But while convenient and somewhat opportune, this phenomenon bodes poorly. Pariser's argument is that this will make our society increasingly divisive, drawing together groups of close-knit individuals that will reject alternative ways of thinking, preventing cooperation and understanding across the globe. A NRA proponent, for instance, might never encounter arguments against gun ownership if this continues, and never bother to approach the issue from both sides. It doesn't matter the issue; all sides need to be well informed to find middle grounds or they will constantly demonize the opposition unjustly.

      Funnily enough, this phenomenon closely resembles that which the 1976 movie Network explored, one in which the world outside of the news channel was becoming increasingly irrelevant. Much of the film was devoted to arguing against this phenomenon and for all people to spend more time ignoring the opinions of the "box," but the movie never truly arrives at a solution to the issue that still allows interaction with television. Since it is unlikely people will shun the internet, for sustainability to survive in the coming years it is imperative that a solution is found; thankfully unlike Network however, there are a myriad of possibilities on how to fix the issue. 

Solutions   

      Pariser's solution is for Google to both consider the public good when customizing searches and open their search algorithms so everyone can understand how their results are individually filtered. The first sounds reasonable from merely a business aspect, but the second is perhaps a little too farfetched; Google has declined to reveal such information because it is an integral part of the uniqueness of their product. Certainly Google could give some vague idea of how they rank, but the nonspecificity of such a revelation would likely make such information useless. Since everyone's results are customized distinctly, relevance would likely be factor constantly changing.
      
      The first is still not a perfect solution though; there are significant issues with allowing certain people to determine what is relevant or important to each person. Pariser thinks that there can be a good blend between important information and "fun" results that we may be more interested in, but there seems to be a fine line between delivering information and politicizing a news feed. Saying certain things need to appear may be just as bad as saying that they shouldn't. 
     
      As Levy notes, Google responded to Pariser by introducing Search plus Your World, a separate search engine that could tailor results based upon friends' searches and interests or just based off the available data. But while the first is better than nothing and the second is democratizing, both still fail. By having only friends' interests dictate data, you can still easily be stuck in filter bubbles of social life. After all, we're more likely to be friends with those who share our beliefs. The second is good, but relevant and crucial information could easily escape if people aren't careful. Plus, tailoring the internet has certain advantages; it would be good if they could be retained. Thaler and Sunstein argue that while it may be somewhat immoral trying to shape someone's worldview, offering them the option of other choices as long as the original options they wanted are present, is perfectly fine and arguably justified as a public good.
     
      Stray has several suggestions to fix these issues, and I think correctly identifies that this problem needs to be solved from several angles. From arguing that the web needs curation of high quality or socially relevant media to claiming that mapping web activity would identify biases, he touches upon the multi-dimensional aspect of the issue. His thoughts are that there should be settings available on websites to tailor information by categories like importance, relevance, popularity, and diversity from your one's viewpoint. While a nice idea and assuming that bias in selection in kept to a minimum, I think this works great in theory, but considering that most people operate in "straight-lines," rarely changing ho they do something unless it's an emergency, I think proactive change is for the best. I think his argument is strongest when he says:

"Another possibility is to analyze social networks to look for alternate perspectives on whatever you're reading. If people in our personal social network all hold similar opinions, our filters could trawl for what people are reading outside of our home cluster, retrieving items which match our interests but aren’t on our social horizon.\

      The benefits of search customization could be easily paired with the diversity of other opinions; 1 of every 5 results could be from differing opinions. Alternatively, they could be from the pages of people who vary mostly with your opinions but have a common interest in that one. Graells-Garrido et al seem to believe that option is acceptable; their research indicates that there is a statistically significant portion of people who are open to seeing diversity in their online access. 

      That's not to say that filter bubbling can be solved in one fell swoop, but I think that change can be slowly integrated into how we use the internet. For both our sake and the future of sustainability, it will remain important in the coming years to see how other sides view various arguments and meaningfully interact with them in the digital world. 

Citations

Ali T. Bubble 2. Flickr.com. 23 Aug, 2008. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1xBG2tt

Az, d-221 books. Flickr.com. 16 Oct, 2010. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1oNMpcr

Graells-Garrido et al. Data Portraits: Connecting People of Opposing Views. Cornell University Library. 19 Nov, 2013. Digital.

Internet Movie Database. Network. Photo. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/

Jairoagua. Networking. 5 July, 2005. Flickr.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1o5Rz2R

Levy, S. Has Google Popped the Filter Bubble? Wired.com. 10 Jan, 2012. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/2012/01/google-filter-bubble/

Pariser, E. "Beware online filter bubbles." Ted.com. Mar, 2011. Video. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles

Stray, J. Are we stuck in filter bubbles? Here are five paths out? Nieman Journalism Laboratory, Harvard University. 11 Jul, 2012. Digital. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1zxswdc

Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press, 8 Apr, 2008.

Is it culturally appropriate to culturally appropriate? (2)

Problems with problems with CA

      I previously overviewed why I was discussing cultural appropriation. To reiterate, I'm not trying to destroy the concept, nor do I think I can. Rather, I want to carefully examine the aspects of the issue to try and find a logical middle ground that appeals to all people. 

      There are a number of arguments available pertaining to why appropriation is bad; I'm going to try and address all of the most persuasive that I have found. It's completely possible that I've missed some; if you're concerned that they undermine my argument, send me a message and I'll try to edit this post to include them. 

Theft

     

      First and foremost is the argument that cultural appropriation constitutes theft from a culture. (Uwujaren, swanblood, Scafadi). After all, an individual using cultural elements is using them without permission and never pay for their usage, something most people construe as theft. 

      The first problem with this is with their conception of ownership. The argument acts as if there are owners for various cultural attributes, when in reality there are not. There's no one person you can ask for permission from or pay a fee to; there is a group that is somewhat cohesive in certain areas and divided in others. Maybe the act of appropriation is theft...but there's no way to truly ever tell if the group is opposed to it or not. 
      
      The second problem is that nothing is, strictly speaking, "stolen." There is no loss to the group, no physical theft, no one is harmed and may ever know that something was taken from them. Culture is not a "thing," but an idea, and ideas can be copied ad infinitum with no repercussions. On Philosophy makes a fascinating argument that ownership must be predicated in both the belief that one owns something and their ability to protect it; if a group cannot protect their ideas, they do not truly "own" them. 
     
      The third problem is that there is no logical endpoint for appropriation; cultures intermingle all the time and thousands of everyday objects, beliefs, and practices are from different regions of the world. Eating and enjoying hummus might be appropriation, as might be using a base 10 number system. Uwujaren admits this problem, noting there is a significant problem separating legitimate exchange from appropriation. If you can't even define the problem, then the likelihood theft is occurring is fairly low. 

Misrepresentation

      
      Second is the argument that cultural appropriation misrepresents other cultures, showing only partial representations of who they are and embodying stereotypes. Berlatsky notes that Miley Cyrus' VMA performance embodied this problem: "because of racist stereotypes, black women are seen as embodying sex [and] Cyrus wants to revamp her image so she appears more sexy and knowledgeable; therefore she has black female dancers on stage and indifferently imitates a style associated with black performers." Swanblood argues that the solution is to spend time learning about other cultures thoroughly when you want to use their imagery or rituals and study only original sources.       
      

      The first problem is that the problem is nonunique. Saying that Miley Cyrus is embodying stereotypes only logically makes sense if the stereotypes were there to begin with. Any representation of the culture using said imagery will perpetuate the problem; it is not uniquely non-natives that are doing the harm. The response to this would be that they're doing harm anyway and should stop that; my problem with that is that the culture then can't be represented at all and slowly ceases to exist outside of itself. Cultural survival, after all, is predicated on spread.      

      The second problem is that singular characteristics rarely make stereotypes. Twerking alone does not give people bad impressions about Africans; I doubt most people understand where it came from to begin with and thus aren't even stereotyping at all when they see someone use that dance style. It is numerous conceptions of a people's identity that combine to create images, good and bad, of who they are (I'm not saying that these images are accurate, just that they exist). Calling out use of one as stereotypical...only serves to build a stereotypical image.       
      

      The third problem is that cultural appropriation could equally serve to better a person's view of a given culture, making it a good thing. The Chinese and Japanese governments have been deeply opposed for centuries due to various stereotypes about each other and memories of historical atrocities. A Chinese person learning about the historical Japanese practice of seppuku might think of them as a honorable people, or learning about their similar tea ceremonies might think of them as common brethren. There's no reason to presume that "theft" of culture is necessarily bad.     
      

      The final problem is with the solution, one that is both impossible to achieve and potentially damaging. Again, since there is no logical endpoint for appropriation, people  trying to do this will spend impossible amounts of time judging each action. There doesn't seem to be a unique qualifier that would allow a separation between exchange and appropriation. But even if there was, research might be far worse for the people than whatever stereotypes people have now. If I'm exploring African tribal culture to see if twerking has some sort of deeper meaning and importance, I might stumble across a discussion of the Rwandan genocide, something I haven't been exposed to before. Even if I closely examine the event and find that it may have been rooted in white imperialism, my thoughts about African civility could be greatly affected by such a revelation, and my stereotypes radically worsened, only increasing the problem's scope.

Respect

      Third is the argument that cultural appropriation is occasionally disrespectful to other groups; materials like religious imagery can not be understood as significant by outsiders, taken, and used disrespectfully, undermining tolerance. Julious notes that part of the issue with Miley Cyrus' VMA performance was exactly this; black women were used as accessories to complement Cyrus's image as rebellious and angsty, rather than actual people. Mannie follows this by noting that black women face an assortment of social problems that thieves will never understand or experience. Taking from the group only the "best" elements undermines their problems by depicting their lives as relatively banal to outsiders, preventing effective social change. 

      While I really like this argument and think it bears a great deal of relevance, I also feel it isn't perfect. I think disrespect and intolerance are remarkably different things; borrowing a verse for clothing is far different than burning a Koran. One can be genuine admiration at the beauty of such words, the other, genuine hate. 

      It also seems that there are really two issues being discussed here; appropriation and issue ignorance. The assumption seems to be that anyone who does the research will suddenly realize that groups have been wrongfully denied rights. There's no reason that they suddenly will lobby for social change and ally themselves with the marginalized; after all, what they wanted to do in the first place was something like twerking or wearing dreadlocks. Real social change is achieved in part by breaking down stereotypes and raising awareness of issues, but there doesn't seem to be a clear link between that and prohibiting cultural use. Marginalized groups need representation by people who actually care about the issue, rather than those obligated under their schemata to learn about varying social issues they face. 

Exchange

      
      Fourth is the argument that cultural appropriation is inherently racist as it lacks any sort of exchange element; it allows white groups (receivers of privilege), to use other culture's materials, but prevents those cultures from giving anything back in return. Uwujaren argues that having Indians wear business suits to operate in a professional setting is wrong when other cultures aren't required (or similarly incentivized) to wear bindis and saris; the analogy extends elsewhere as well. 

      First, I think this argument ignores that society usually pushes for things that it deems "best" or "most suitable" for an action. A suit has been deemed proper attire for business as it places nearly everyone on equal footing, dress-wise. The counter to this is that a sari or bindi might be just as suitable to wear for business, and that suits were only chosen for their origins in privileged culture. This again brings up the problem of scope; how does one know that their clothing choice won't offend people? Where is one to learn that they can wear a bindi to the office without offending people, especially considering that it has such religious significance?

      Second, the previous problem of people inside of groups disagreeing about cultural iconography access occurs again; some might be perfectly willing to share their culture while others aren't. Who owns culture? I already discussed that it seems that if one can't defend their claim of ownership, their claim over a thing lacks validity; if someone gives me "permission" to wear dreadlocks or say the "N-word," do they have any less legitimacy than someone from the same group then banning me from use? Actor Samuel L Jackson asked an interviewer to use the "N-word" when discussing his involvement in Django Unchained; did the interviewer (who refused the opportunity) have the right to do so? If a single person voices discontent and discomfort with the extension of a cultural norm, should all stop doing it? In both instances, I don't know if there is a right answer.

      Third, outside of the French debate over the burqa, I have difficulty finding actual suppression of culture occurring anywhere. Moreover, the reason the French banned the burqa was for communal bond growth, with the government hoping middle eastern French would now commingle with people outside of their social circle. This wasn't an issue of them saying that the culture was "wrong," nor was it a religious restriction. I wonder if Uwujaren's argument that certain hairstyles and clothing are deemed "unprofessional" is even applicable here; things like business focus on reducing distractions and focusing on a company above the individual; brightly colored clothing serves to undermine both of those goals. I'm not saying this applies to all situations, but I think it's worth questioning if the use of certain "white-oriented" things is done to be demeaning or to promote some aspect of use that the other culture's objects can't offer. 

Closing Notes


      I think reasonable objections to cultural appropriation boil down to a few main categories. There's the objections that nothing is stolen, that there's no logical way to get permission for use, that there's no endpoint to determine what's racist or not, and that there are other reasons certain problems associated with appropriation are actually arising. I've spent far too long pointing out flaws in the logic of cultural appropriation; now I want to see if there's a valid solution to the issue. 

      From a cosmopolitan standpoint, sharing is crucial for the survival of the planet; relations are built on interactivity and dialogue. Misconceptions about a people serve to limit tolerance, while spreading as much of their culture as possible does the opposite. Cultural appropriation attempts to limit misconceptions, but as I've noted, I don't think it achieves that goal.

      The same problem again arises; what is offensive? Rephrased, where do offensiveness and appropriation lie on a continuum between something like hummus and the "N-word?" Do you need to acquiesce to the demands of some or the many? It seems silly to force guilt into discourse and force people to second-guess everything that they do, especially when quantifying. But I can also see the importance of a culture wanting to protect things that they consider important, at least until people recognize them as only the better aspects of their marginalization.

      My proposal is this. Every complaint about cultural appropriation should be evaluated upon a case by case basis, where the burden is on the "afflicted culture" to prove that they're being maligned. I think substantiating claims of abuse should be mandatory; proof that this is their culture (from a historical standpoint) being abused. Numerous individuals should voice their dissent on the use of said culture; it should never be done by a single disaffected person. If no one is willing to do those things, clearly the issue isn't that important to begin with.  

      The objection I can see to this is that white people have a burden to educate themselves on the privilege they're using. I've already argued why this is arguable, so I won't reiterate that; what I will say is that pushing the burden of proof to the affected culture gives them the ability to control the discourse and bring light to serious issues. Miley Cyrus' use of black imagery was controversial because blacks were offended, and it gave them the chance to comment on how this marginalized them. Letting privileged groups find that they've "transgressed," keeps the power of discourse in their hands; letting other groups point out the problems with abuse begins a gradual power shift and removes stereotypical representations. I anticipate that this will draw attention to the broader, more wide reaching issues rather than the small scale and unimportant ones.

      I think that it's also important for the "privileged" to think about how their actions impact others, but I pushing this to the side for the reasons listed above. I think Uwujaren agrees with me here; the real problem of cultural appropriation is power structure imbalance; consideration of that is really the first step to removing inequalities. 

      I've rambled for far too long on this, so it's time to wrap things up. If I haven't completely de-legitimized where I stand, I hope that I've at least promoted some thought about how people misuse the issue and how their can be improvements in the discussion of it. I'm sure I'm wrong about something that I've said and I'd love for the issue to continue to be considered, so please leave a comment and further the discussion.

Citations

Berlatsky, N. If Miley Cyrus's Twerking Is Racist, Isn't Janis Joplin's Singing Also Racist? Atlantic Magazine. 29 Aug, 2013. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/08/if-miley-cyruss-twerking-is-racist-isnt-janis-joplins-singing-also-racist/279162/

freshfeminism. Is it Cultural Appropriation? Tumblr.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://i.imgur.com/DrgKWSl.jpg

Julious, B. How Miley Cyrus’ Image Evolved Into Calculated Racism. Thought Catalog. 26 Jun, 2013. Digital. Retrievd from  http://thoughtcatalog.com/brittany-julious/2013/06/how-miley-cyrus-image-evolved-into-calculated-racism/

Makarechi, K. Miley Cyrus Brings Her Race Problem to the VMAs. Huffington Post. 26 Aug. 2013. Digital. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kia-makarechi/miley-cyrus-race-vmas_b_3817286.html

McWhorter, J. You Can't Steal a Culture: In Defense of Cultural Appropriation. The Daily Beast. 15 July, 2014. Digital.  Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/15/you-can-t-steal-a-culture-in-defense-of-cultural-appropriation.html

Minnesota Historical Society. Dr. Martin Luther King speaking against war in Vietnam, St. Paul Campus, University of Minnesota. Flickr.com. 14 Jan, 2011. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1xmALWq

On Philosophy. Ownership and Its Paradoxes. Wordpress.com. 21 Jan, 2009. Digital. Retrieved from http://onphilosophy.wordpress.com/2009/01/21/ownership-and-its-paradoxes. 

Scafadi, S. Who Owns Culture?: Appropriation and Authenticity in American Law. Rutgers University Press. 8 Jun, 2005. Print. 

swanblood. What is Cultural Appropriation and How to Avoid It. Tumblr.com. 21 Jan, 2014. Retrieved from http://swanblood.tumblr.com/post/16222547334/what-is-cultural-appropriation-and-how-to-avoid-it

stavos. Hold the thief! Flickr.com. 12 Jan, 2014. Photo. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1tfpwl3

stutler. Anonymous Question Answer. Tumblr.com. Photo. Retrieved from http://i.imgur.com/A5w9egC.png

transgenderpresident. TwerkingDave Follow Comment. Tumblr.com. 20 Feb, 2014. Photo. Retrieved from http://i.imgur.com/7roUgSQ.jpg

Uwujaren, J. The difference between cultural exchange and cultural appropriation. Everyday Feminism. 30 Sep, 2013. Print. Retrieved from http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/09/cultural-exchange-and-cultural-appropriation