Cultural Appropriation - Censorship vs Racism, or not?

[Eriol]

Cultural Appropriation is a term that has been thrown around lately, and there have been repercussions from it in various forms.

Specifically, here's a good "summary article" of a recent shitstorm that's happened in Canada: Walrus editor Jonathan Kay quits amid free speech uproar: ‘I have been censoring myself more and more’

Here's another more generic response that doesn't mention the current controversy: Forget ‘cultural appropriation’ -- it’s about censorship

A contrary view here: Cultural appropriation and the privilege of creative assumption

So what's the opinions here? Free speech? Horrible racism? Censorship? Preserving Identity? Melting Pot of culture? Mosaic? Eriol's full of shit? Opinions welcome on all of that!

 

[Dave]

Cultural appropriation is stupid. If I'm white and I want to wear traditional African garb then so be it.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Here's how I feel about it:

I have a black friend who likes to play Irish music. Should she be allowed?
Can only cowboys wear jeans?
As a white male with 99.96 of my genes coming from Britain/Ireland (according to 23andMe) am I allowed to cook Mexcian food? Or do I have to stick with colcannon?
If I see an outfit someone is wearing, and I like it, do I have to do intensive research into the cultural and political history of the clothing before I can buy some for myself?
If I told a black person "You can't wear that. Those are white people clothes," would that be racist?


Also:

A contrary view here: Cultural appropriation and the privilege of creative assumption

"We notice that you're using and ad-blocker, so we're going to hide the article so you can't read it." "That's nice. Did you also know I can adblock the javascript that you're using to do that? checkmate"

 

[Eriol]

"We notice that you're using and ad-blocker, so we're going to hid the article so you can't read it." "That's nice. Did you also know I can adblock the javascript that you're using to do that? checkmate"

I didn't even get that. I guess my combination of uBlock Origin and Ghostery took out the Javascript already.

 

[Ravenpoe]

Can cultural appropriation be racist? Yes, most anything can, especially if said by a racist. So for this exercise, let's focus on the racist form.

Is blocking racist speech censorship and a limitation of free speech? Yes.


Is backlash against racist speech censorship? No, you should have the freedom to say it, but people have the freedom to think you're racist.


None of this is to say that "cultural appropriation" is inherently racist. It isn't, cultures blend and influence each other all the time, and have for as long as humans have existed.

 

[Gared]

Any time someone tells me I shouldn't do something because it comes from another culture, I try to ask myself if the source* is really concerned about the culture that I'm supposedly appropriating, or if their main concern is keeping me from introducing more of a mixture into my own "white" culture. So far I'm mostly convinced that a lot of this "cultural appropriation" nonsense is actually white nationalists trying to prevent cultural mingling in order to keep America, Canada, and the UK "pure."


*since I've never actually had anyone tell me personally not to appropriate a culture - theirs or someone else's - the source always seems to be "someone on Twitter said," or "someone on Tumblr said," not really the most voraciously fact-checked sources.

 

[Denbrought]

I think cultural appropriation is only relevant when what is being remixed/taken/copied/adapted is something fundamental/sacred to another culture, and then only because being disrespectful/desecrating is unkind or ignorant at best. Outside of the social faux-pas aspect (and the ensuing ostracism), IDGAF.

Context matters, and there shouldn't be firm rules (such as "X act is always cultural appropriation", or "Y group cannot partake in X culture's customs").

I swear, though, if I see another American restaurant serving mayo+garlic powder as allioli I'm going on a rampage.

Edit: For Poe's sake... The last line is a joke, and the only foods I would classify as susceptible to cultural appropriation would be items such as altar bread.

 

[strawman]

Cultural appropriation feels like a single example of racism taken too far - perhaps to its logical extreme.

There are ways artists can use cultural notes/symbols/etc in a racist manner, intentionally or unintentionally. That could be labelled "bad", and I doubt you'd find many who disagree.

However these have to be evaluated in their context. The concept of analyzing for cultural appropriation in the absence of any other offense is problematic. You either find racism that isn't actually there, or you create racism merely by analyzing something looking for it. You've got people who incorrectly believe that wearing dreadlocks if you aren't black is cultural appropriation, but you find that they are hardly the first culture/race/people to wear them - if anything by denying that any other race or culture used them prior, or suggesting that they belong solely to one recent group/race/culture one could be considered culture destroying, worse in some minds than simple appropriation.

Those promoting cultural appropriation are on collision course with those who believe biologically determined identity is a cultural construct.

 

[Necronic]

This one is so hard because it exists on such an incredibly broad spectrum. Yes, it's totally unreasonable for me to censor myself for enjoying Ethiopian food or wearing a sarong, which I just find comfortable. But it would be foolish to pretend the other extreme doesn't exist:

http://www.thegloss.com/culture/dea...ollege-parties-blackface-mexican-stereotypes/

People who participate in stuff like this need to get called out and appropriate actions need to be taken. The issue is that people who are totally ok with blackface try to pretend they are in the same "halp I'm being censored crowd" as someone who is wearing a sarong to try and equivocate their blatantly racist acts.

Anyways. It's a complex issue at its face, but when you just judge each act on its merits I think it's easy to see what's really racist and what isn't.

 

[Eriol]

Anyways. It's a complex issue at its face, but when you just judge each act on its merits I think it's easy to see what's really racist and what isn't.

I think most people 100% agree with this statement Necronic, but IMO the problem is those who say, like @stienman mentions above, that anybody non-black wearing Dreadlocks is Cultural Appropriation. It's a decent example, as wearing them yourself (not a wig for a costume I mean) is clearly not done for making fun of another group, yet it has publicly been denounced as Appropriation. Another example (that I'm failing to find a link on) was somebody white re-tweeting parts of a Beyonce song (slightly altered), and getting called out on this... until people found out the song was written by somebody white. So where does that fall?

Because I think cultures mixing and changing one another is for the most part good, I think most of this is absolute crap. The main case where it's horrific is things like blackface, and other cases where people are clearly making fun of or trying to disparage another culture. Just wearing a sarong or dreadlocks doesn't qualify in the least, and is usually somebody liking aspects of other cultures, and wanting to celebrate them.

Another great realm is food. Fusion is delicious, but so is "genuine" food of another culture, prepared well by somebody not of that culture. I think one of the greatest examples of this is a Food Network judge named Marcus Samuelsson. Ethiopian, but adopted and raised by Swedes. Where does he fall? I'd argue, wherever he wants to.

Where it can get hazy is with things like art. Is a certain style (for art) ONLY for people descended from such? Well what "purity" do you need to be? What if you just like the style, shouldn't that be allowed to influence you? Should nobody who's not Dutch be allowed to paint like Van Gogh?

What about literature? If you write a story about a character who isn't of your race/sex/identity is that now invalid? Where does that go? What about your characters in something international where it's impossible to be everybody?

There may be some edge cases in a couple of the things I mentioned, but far and wide, I think that mixing and celebrating each other's cultures together to the point where we all take what we like from each into something new is the best way forward, not isolating each other into little camps where we're each "this" or "that" culture/identity.

 

[GasBandit]

99% of the things I read where the term "cultural appropriation" is used is just bullshit with some wackjob who has their panties in a twist.

It is possible to appropriate cultural aspects, but that accusation mostly gets used by would-be SJW types with their head up their ass, and the massive amounts of crying-wolf dilutes what little genuine use of the term is left.

 

[Necronic]

I think most of it is people from both sides making mountains out of molehills which just ends up hiding the real mountains.

Because there are real mountains. I had someone at work recently tell me that they didn't think there was anything wrong with blackface, and then when we started talking about Eddie Murphy's white face in White Like Me he got very offended.

There are real issues of racism here. But people are choosing to go after the unimportant stuff because it's all easy ammo for both sides. Don't get worked up on the little stuff in either direction.[DOUBLEPOST=1495130380,1495130190][/DOUBLEPOST]By that I mean that you have people on the "left" getting worked up over nonsense, and people on the "right" saying how it's just a bunch of SJW's getting triggered over nothing.

And then you have frats wearing blackface and throwing MLK parties with nooses. And when legitimate criticism comes out about those it's drowned out by all the bullshit.

Both sides have a choice to ignore the bullshit, but they go for it because it's easy stuff to bicker over.

 

[MindDetective]

I always struggle wit this concept. Like GB, it seems as if it is applied very broadly. Taken to an extreme, it requires every cultural group to be compartmentalized in perpetuity. That doesn't seem like the makings for a healthy society. I saw a pithy definition of it pop up on Facebook the other day that struck the right kind of chord in my wrestling to figure it out. I cannot for the life of me find it again, but this one is okay enough, I guess:

By this definition, making and enjoying my wholly inauthentic tacos at home does little to marginalize a group and their rich history. If I opened a restaurant to sell those tacos, called it Taco Juan's, and gave the entire staff sombreros to wear, then I'm marginalizing the group, no matter what my intent is. I am appropriating elements of another culture to benefit me, and in so doing reducing a rich history and culture to single note stereotype.

Cultural appropriation is like taking a shortcut through someone else's backyard without considering all the time, effort, and history that went into landscaping it.

At what point does appreciation turn into appropriation or vice versa? I don't know, but it must happen somewhere. I think we should be allowed the chance to learn about and appreciate a culture without it being appropriated. I think the danger comes in adopting a single aspect of a culture and eschewing everything else connected to it. The cultural artifact you've taken is stripped of its context and can become racist. But I'm not sure that is justification for censorship. Backlash is fine, but not outright censorship.

 

[Necronic]

Also I have to say I find this topic so interesting because it somewhat furthers my belief that white people these days are some of the most fragile folks around when it comes to racial oppression. Because that's what a lot of this stuff comes down to, being called racist because you are white and "appropriating" some cultural concept when really you just like the way some clothing or whatever looks. That's an (incredibly light) form of racism itself.

But listening to *how* white people react to stuff like this they think it's the harbinger of some kind of genocide. There are people that legitimately think that whites are the most oppressed race around, which is just hilarious.

White people are soft bitches on this stuff, and are more willing to accept blackface than consider running the risk of a little censorship. And I'm not saying that people here are ok with blackface, but you guys had a pretty substantial conversation about cultural appropriation without even mentioning the most glaring and awful forms of it.

Sure, in the back of your heads you know that's incredibly wrong, but what you're really interested in is "how does this effect me", and the truly racist stuff has no affect on you. So you don't really think about it.

But take a moment and really compare how the toothless censorship of shrill Tumblr SJW's really effects you, and then consider how the extreme forms of appropriation effect minorities.

Get over the completely ignorable "censorship", and pay attention to the fairly devastating appropriation that does actually exist. Because if the only thing we can talk about as White People is how racism effects us (the least racially oppressed group in the world), then maybe we really aren't as advanced as we think we are. We're just the shittiest participant in the oppression olympics.

 

[Eriol]

By this definition, making and enjoying my wholly inauthentic tacos at home does little to marginalize a group and their rich history. If I opened a restaurant to sell those tacos, called it Taco Juan's, and gave the entire staff sombreros to wear, then I'm marginalizing the group, no matter what my intent is. I am appropriating elements of another culture to benefit me, and in so doing reducing a rich history and culture to single note stereotype.

But can I open a restaurant called Taco Bill (yes I'm being punny) and just sell tacos, and maybe even tacos with marsalasauce? Or masala sauce? (Yes they're very different) Or with Hoi Sin? Or anything else that I think is tasty? Some would say THAT is still appropriating somebody's food/culture badly. I say it's putting nice stuff in my food that I sell to other people. But then how am I "allowed" to decorate the place? THAT would get interesting quickly.

At what point does appreciation turn into appropriation or vice versa? I don't know, but it must happen somewhere. I think we should be allowed the chance to learn about and appreciate a culture without it being appropriated. I think the danger comes in adopting a single aspect of a culture and eschewing everything else connected to it. The cultural artifact you've taken is stripped of its context and can become racist. But I'm not sure that is justification for censorship. Backlash is fine, but not outright censorship.

I have my objections on the idea that anything is justification for censorship, but that's a (slightly) different debate.

On-topic though, I think The Noob comic showed this very very well a while back: Direct Link

This is the "management" guy completely missing the point, and making fun of cultures as if they are only a stereotype. This is outright racism in pretty much every way.

But I disagree with taking one aspect and being "this is awesome" is a bad thing. The conditions that lead to Blues music are horrific life experiences in many ways. Does that mean that if I like playing (or dear God, even composing) such music that I'm "appropriating" it and not respecting it? That certain genetic tendencies in certain races caused hairstyles to go a certain way mean that using any said styles is also racist/appropriation? There are those who answer "yes" to both of those. MindDetective, you even linked an image more-than-implying such in your post. I don't hold to that, and honestly, I agree with @DarkAudit that a lot of this (from both sides) is just a smokescreen obscuring real and damaging cases of real racism and/or discrimination happening. And that's bad.

 

[GasBandit]

I'm not even really convinced that most modern uses of "blackface" is cultural appropriation. Just plain old racism, as it is generally meant as a mockery. The old "White folks be like this, black folks be like this" line of comedy. Compare this to, say, Ganguro Girls "culture" in Japan, which might come closer to it given that it's done unironically without intent to mock, because they think dark skin is "cool."

For something to be true cultural appropriation, that lack of ironic intent seems to be required. Frat boys coating themselves in shoe polish isn't done because they think it is cool, it's because they're specifically trying to lampoon.

Now, compare that to someone who claims native american heritage or black/minority status when they are clearly not applicable. Or suburban white boys affecting inner city dialects and mannerisms that society oh-so-charmingly lables "wiggers." Heck, even American Japanophile weeaboos with their broken japlish and obsessive adoption of half-understood aspects of Japanese culture.

Basically, there's a lot of genuine appropriation out there, but it's also rarely the stuff that people get most worked up about. Really, cultural appropriation is seldom a "big deal." Racism is. And it seems to me that the term "cultural appropriation" is just a fancy buzzword that sophists like to use instead because it sounds fancier.

 

[MindDetective]

But can I open a restaurant called Taco Bill (yes I'm being punny) and just sell tacos, and maybe even tacos with marsalasauce? Or masala sauce? (Yes they're very different) Or with Hoi Sin? Or anything else that I think is tasty? Some would say THAT is still appropriating somebody's food/culture badly. I say it's putting nice stuff in my food that I sell to other people. But then how am I "allowed" to decorate the place? THAT would get interesting quickly.

You are allowed to decorate it any way you want, but you might be appropriating culture to your gain and their detriment in doing so.

I have my objections on the idea that anything is justification for censorship, but that's a (slightly) different debate.

That was kind of my point as well.

But I disagree with taking one aspect and being "this is awesome" is a bad thing. The conditions that lead to Blues music are horrific life experiences in many ways. Does that mean that if I like playing (or dear God, even composing) such music that I'm "appropriating" it and not respecting it? That certain genetic tendencies in certain races caused hairstyles to go a certain way mean that using any said styles is also racist/appropriation? There are those who answer "yes" to both of those. MindDetective, you even linked an image more-than-implying such in your post. I don't hold to that, and honestly, I agree with @DarkAudit that a lot of this (from both sides) is just a smokescreen obscuring real and damaging cases of real racism and/or discrimination happening. And that's bad.

1.) Playing or liking it alone is not enough to answer the question. If you do so in the absence of understanding the context from which it came, then you are probably heading towards appropriation.
2.) If the hairstyle is culturally significant in some way, then yes, it is cultural appropriation. if it is not, then I'd argue it isn't appropriation. You bring of genetics here, which I think is a good place to differentiate cultural appropriation from racism. Blackface, as @Necronic mentioned, is incredibly racist, but it is also a racist act that is not always connected to culture, which means understanding or appreciating a cultural context doesn't make it any less racist.
3.) Cultural appropriation is not necessarily racist. I could appropriate Irish culture (I am white, with British heritage) without reflecting upon race. A black person could appropriate an African culture. I think it is important to differentiate cultural appropriation from racism. They often intersect but are not the same thing.[DOUBLEPOST=1495133873,1495133816][/DOUBLEPOST]

I'm not even really convinced that most modern uses of "blackface" is cultural appropriation. Just plain old racism, as it is generally meant as a mockery. The old "White folks be like this, black folks be like this" line of comedy. Compare this to, say, Ganguro Girls "culture" in Japan, which might come closer to it given that it's done unironically without intent to mock, because they think dark skin is "cool."

For something to be true cultural appropriation, that lack of ironic intent seems to be required. Frat boys coating themselves in shoe polish isn't done because they think it is cool, it's because they're specifically trying to lampoon.

Now, compare that to someone who claims native american heritage or black/minority status when they are clearly not applicable. Or suburban white boys affecting inner city dialects and mannerisms that society oh-so-charmingly lables "wiggers." Heck, even American Japanophile weeaboos with their broken japlish and obsessive adoption of half-understood aspects of Japanese culture.

Basically, there's a lot of genuine appropriation out there, but it's also rarely the stuff that people get most worked up about. Really, cultural appropriation is seldom a "big deal." Racism is. And it seems to me that the term "cultural appropriation" is just a fancy buzzword that sophists like to use instead because it sounds fancier.

Beat me by || that much.

 

[Necronic]

I'm not even really convinced that most modern uses of "blackface" is cultural appropriation. Just plain old racism, as it is generally meant as a mockery. The old "White folks be like this, black folks be like this" line of comedy. Compare this to, say, Ganguro Girls "culture" in Japan, which might come closer to it given that it's done unironically without intent to mock, because they think dark skin is "cool."

For something to be true cultural appropriation, that lack of ironic intent seems to be required. Frat boys coating themselves in shoe polish isn't done because they think it is cool, it's because they're specifically trying to lampoon.

Now, compare that to someone who claims native american heritage or black/minority status when they are clearly not applicable. Or suburban white boys affecting inner city dialects and mannerisms that society oh-so-charmingly lables "wiggers." Heck, even American Japanophile weeaboos with their broken japlish and obsessive adoption of half-understood aspects of Japanese culture.

Basically, there's a lot of genuine appropriation out there, but it's also rarely the stuff that people get most worked up about. Really, cultural appropriation is seldom a "big deal." Racism is. And it seems to me that the term "cultural appropriation" is just a fancy buzzword that sophists like to use instead because it sounds fancier.

I guess I disagree about the definition, but I can appreciate your perspective from that definition.[DOUBLEPOST=1495134249,1495134125][/DOUBLEPOST]What about how western otaku fetishize asians and asian culture (especially the women)? Is that appropriation? Because that shit is creepy and damaging as hell. Mostly to the otaku, but still.

 

[GasBandit]

I guess I disagree about the definition, but I can appreciate your perspective from that definition.[DOUBLEPOST=1495134249,1495134125][/DOUBLEPOST]What about how western otaku fetishize asians and asian culture (especially the women)? Is that appropriation? Because that shit is creepy and damaging as hell. Mostly to the otaku, but still.

I specifically mentioned weeaboos in my post

 

[Necronic]

Actually, I got a good one, especially for any Irish in here. How do you feel about Saint Patrick's day?

 

[Denbrought]

Actually, I got a good one, especially for any Irish in here. How do you feel about Saint Patrick's day?

For one perspective, you might look at The Boys #27.

Fucking septics.

 

[Necronic]

I really like The Boys.

Ok, so I'll give it to you that on its face blackface is not cultural appropriation, but in the context of the parties listed in the link o sent you have to see it as such. You know with people putting on blackface and dressing like Lil Jon for a rappers and ho's party or something like that. That still has to count right?

 

[Chad Sexington]

I'm not sure I believe in cultural appropriation at all. There's racism, and there's what we used to call "learning" and "sharing."

Blackface isn't 'cultural appropriation' - it's racist.

Wearing dreadlocks isn't cultural appropriation - it's learning from another culture.

Opening up an ethnic restaurant? Sharing.

 

[Gruebeard]

. . . putting on blackface and dressing like Lil Jon for a rappers and ho's party . . .

Man, all I can think is "racist for the blackface, sexist for the ho's, and antiestablishment for the Robin Hood cosplay."

 

[GasBandit]

I really like The Boys.

Ok, so I'll give it to you that on its face blackface is not cultural appropriation, but in the context of the parties listed in the link o sent you have to see it as such. You know with people putting on blackface and dressing like Lil Jon for a rappers and ho's party or something like that. That still has to count right?

I don't think so. It's racist, but not appropriation. When you appropriate something, you take it and make it your own. Much as I hate to bring up the old "It's a culture, not a costume" ads that were so laughable, I think it shows the difference. These people are not wanting to emulate Lil Jon - they don't dress like him because they want to BE him, any more than they'd dress up like a clown or a gorilla or a salt shaker because they want to be any of those things. They're intentionally becoming caricature, which gets back to what I said about intention to mock. They're wearing Lil' Jon "costumes" because they want to draw attention to his difference, not incorporate his difference into themselves.

This is different than, say, a white girl with corn rows (which is an example of harmless cultural appropriation which lacks racism) - she is wearing them to make them part of her personal identity, thus "appropriating" it from its original culture (if you ascribe to the argument that a hairstyle can "belong" to a culture and not another, which some seem to).

 

[MindDetective]

(if you ascribe to the argument that a hairstyle can "belong" to a culture and not another, which some seem to).

It can belong in the sense that it comes from some historical, cultural roots. Clothing, food, idioms, they all are rooted somewhere in one's culture and history. I honestly don't know the significance of cornrows in black culture. If it is significant, then it is a pretty insensitive thing to do to imitate it without sharing the rest of the cultural history that spawned it.

 

[PatrThom]

It can belong in the sense that it comes from some historical, cultural roots. Clothing, food, idioms, they all are rooted somewhere in one's culture and history. I honestly don't know the significance of cornrows in black culture. If it is significant, then it is a pretty insensitive thing to do to imitate it without sharing the rest of the cultural history that spawned it.

Pretty sure cornrows, specifically, can not seriously be considered "cultural appropriation." The style has been around for several thousand years (and yes, the earliest known depictions are in Africa...which also arguably birthed human civilization as a whole, so no surprise there), it would be like saying scarves or shoes are cultural appropriation. They may be "in" or "out," or they may make a resurgence as part of a statement, but no group can legitimately claim exclusivity any more than they could claim exclusivity on the wheel, or on bread.

There is no copyright on cornrows, and if there was, it expired a loooooooooooooong time ago.

--Patrick

 

[Gruebeard]

Pretty sure cornrows, specifically, can not seriously be considered "cultural appropriation." The style has been around for several thousand years (and yes, the earliest known depictions are in Africa...which also arguably birthed human civilization as a whole, so no surprise there), it would be like saying scarves or shoes are cultural appropriation. They may be "in" or "out," or they may make a resurgence as part of a statement, but no group can legitimately claim exclusivity any more than they could claim exclusivity on the wheel, or on bread.

There is no copyright on cornrows, and if there was, it expired a loooooooooooooong time ago.

--Patrick

Only if Disney didn't hold it.

 

[@Li3n]

Cultural appropriation is stupid. If I'm white and I want to wear traditional African garb then so be it.

Of course, if you want to wear a Disney owned costume, you can't.

And that's kind of what it's about, someone benefiting from using a culture's ideas while the actual people that culture belongs to wallows in poverty (apparently Chanel just put out a boomerang).

I mean think about it, a lot of american culture is copyrighted or trademarked.

Blackface isn't 'cultural appropriation' - it's racist.

You're just using that as an excuse to steal the Dutch culture, aren't you... YOU MONSTER!

 

[MindDetective]

Pretty sure cornrows, specifically, can not seriously be considered "cultural appropriation." The style has been around for several thousand years (and yes, the earliest known depictions are in Africa...which also arguably birthed human civilization as a whole, so no surprise there), it would be like saying scarves or shoes are cultural appropriation. They may be "in" or "out," or they may make a resurgence as part of a statement, but no group can legitimately claim exclusivity any more than they could claim exclusivity on the wheel, or on bread.

There is no copyright on cornrows, and if there was, it expired a loooooooooooooong time ago.

--Patrick

That is my suspicion too.

 

[GasBandit]

You're just using that as an excuse to steal the Dutch culture, aren't you... YOU MONSTER!

I gotta say, the little woman was from Holland, and she definitely never got what the big deal was about blackface. Zwarte Piet was just a thing.

 

[Denbrought]

I gotta say, the little woman was from Holland, and she definitely never got what the big deal was about blackface. Zwarte Piet was just a thing.

Yeah, I grew up with plenty of blackface, both in person (3 Wise Men parades) and on TV. I think the U.S.' minstrel show history, and the concept of a unified black identity, both make a big difference.

E.g.:

 

[blotsfan]

I gotta say, the little woman was from Holland, and she definitely never got what the big deal was about blackface. Zwarte Piet was just a thing.

Just like Chief Wahoo.

 

[GasBandit]

Just like Chief Wahoo.

Actually, Zwarte Piet is more culturally ingrained than an MLB logo... he's like... oh, I don't know, Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer. Imagine you spent your entire childhood singing that song, putting up those decorations, seeing the next generation do the same, and then you move across an ocean and any time you mention a red nose someone gasps and looks at you like you strangled a kitten.

 

[Gruebeard]

Actually, Zwarte Piet is more culturally ingrained than an MLB logo... he's like... oh, I don't know, Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer. Imagine you spent your entire childhood singing that song, putting up those decorations, seeing the next generation do the same, and then you move across an ocean and any time you mention a red nose someone gasps and looks at you like you strangled a kitten.

My uncle Clovis has a red nose. He got it from drinking whskey. He most definitely did not guide his car like Rudolph guiding a sleigh.

Also, kitten stranglers ought to be waterboarded.