Humanities desk
< October 14	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 15[edit]

Japanese salsa band Orquesta de la Luz: Good example of cultural appropriation or not?[edit]

I read this piece from the Huff Post about whether or not minority groups in the U.S can commit cultural appropriation with other minority groups. Then I read Wikipedia’s article on cultural appropriation. After reading them, Orquesta de la Luz came to mind and asked myself how this would apply to this group. Nora, the lead singer of this Japanese salsa band, sings mostly in Cuban-like, salsa-like Spanish even though the lead singer Nora didn’t know much Spanish in real life, was well-known and popular in many parts of Latin America in the 1990’s, and also received the United Nations Peace Prize and a letter of appreciation from Bill Clinton when he was president of the U.S. But salsa music has strong ethnic ties and meaning to Latin American people, especially for those from the Caribbean region. Pop, rock, and even hip hop and Argentine tango are treated differently, as if they have no ethnic ties nor meaning in the world, than Afro-Caribbean Latin genres of music like salsa. I have not read about any debates in English nor Spanish about whether Orquesta de la Luz committed cultural appropriation. Before I continue, let me say that I’m not trying to express an opinion on whether cultural appropriation is always bad since there are those who are opposed and not opposed to cultural appropriation nor that what the Japanese group Orquesta de la Luz did was a good or bad thing. In fact, this band is still actually one of my favorite salsa bands, but I’m interested in the question. I also came across this long technical article to me that talks about how this band is an example of Japan’s cultural practice of mimicking and simulating the foreign, which they view as domesticating or Japanifying it. Hopefully someone can simplify this better. Another point is that Japan never tried to colonize Latin America nor was Japan ever colonized by another country and cultural appropriation is often seen as a form of colonialism, which wouldn’t apply to Japan’s case. Final point is that none of Orquesta de la Luz’s members where born in nor grew up in the West.

So, what would be the best example of when it comes to Orquesta de La Luz in light of these factors: cultural appropriation, cultural appreciation, or neither? Willminator (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a history of the Japanese, as a group of people, systematically stealing land, enslaving people, oppressing, and otherwise mistreating Latin American people as a group? Is the cultural element being used in a way that mocks the original culture? Is it being used in a way that prevents the host culture themselves from profiting from it, by taking the place in the marketplace that the host culture would be using it, if it wasn't for the power culture already using their position as a power culture to take the cultural item to market and profit from it themselves? The context in which something is being used is how cultural appropriation is identified. --Jayron 32 12:20, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds to me like a request for a debate. Is it something that is likely to be answered by references? --ColinFine (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions, I would say no to all. 2 points regarding several of the questions: I would say that the Japanese salsa band did profit from their popularity in Latin America, but of course the band made salsa music and singing in the Spanish language more global of course, so both sides profited. Also, the biggest contact for Japan with Latin America was that there was a lot of immigration to Latin America from Japan after World War II, especially to Brazil and Peru, because Latin America was more welcoming to them than the U.S, Canada, and Europe during this time. Anyway, to the best of what I can understand, the motive according to what I’ve read would be the “Japanification” of the foreign object, that was imported and then liked by a niche, by simulating how they would imagine it to be. So Orquesta de la Luz would not be an accurate example of “cultural appreciation” then nor cultural appreciation? Again, I love the band, but have asked myself questions. I just want to know on what category or not would the actions of this unique band fall into. Willminator (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bering Strait[edit]

What stopped those imprisoned in the gulag from escaping to Alaska as this is only (by my estimation, mainland to mainland) 70km apart, with at least two islands in between. Further to this, common literature and mainstream thought on the subject says that the Native American populations came to the American via a now non-existent land bridge. Why is this needed in this hypothesis as the two main lands are so close to each other this is a rowable distance in the summers. (please see South Sea Islanders) Any additional information in relation to either of these questions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2000 miles of the most inhospitable land on the planet and the worst ocean conditions on earth. Most Gulags were not all that close to the Bering strait. There's a map at gulag. Also, even if they made it to the coast through barren taiga and tundra without a scrap of food they faced crossing the roughest seas on earth in a shoddily-constructed raft, they would have had to drag several hundred miles; because the land around the Bering Strait is mostly tundra, they would have had to find wood long before they got there. And even if you did, the seas are so rough that even professional fisherman who work those waters regularly in seaworthy boats have problems, Alaskan fishermen have one of the most dangerous jobs in America. You and your little raft you somehow dragged over the last hundred miles of your cold, foodless journey are going to brave marginally-above-freezing water for several hours in an open raft in rough seas? Good luck with that. --Jayron 32 13:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And to the other half of the question: the Bering land bridge is not a hypothesis but known to have existed based on geological and ecological evidence. Similarly, archaeological evidence tells us when human beings populated the Americas. At the moment, the best-dated early human sites in the Americas range from 22,000 years ago to 12,000 years ago. This coincides with the most recent presence of the land bridge, from about 30,000 to 11,000 years ago. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for primitive man migrating to the Americas, note that ocean-capable sailboats are a technology that didn't exist if you go back much further than the last ice age, as they needed to be able to survive big waves. (In the tropics at least they wouldn't have needed to worry about freezing to death from being constantly wet.) Also, since they didn't know there was a full continent or two for them to expand into, it would seem rather crazy to take such risks for no reason. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) Primitive man walked across, or more specifically, they expanded their settlements very incrementally over the region in small bits. The Bering Land Bridge meant no boats were necessary at all, and they didn't make the journey in one go, or even in one generation. 2) Like most large-scale, long-term migrations, it happened in little bits over many hundreds of years, with each successive year or so setting up a new camp or village a few miles further down the land until people ended up in the Americas. The image of a group of pioneers traveling thousands of miles from the nearest humans is not really correct. Think more like settling a few miles further along than the last camp, and then repeating that several hundred times. Primitive man was able to do so because they were an organized group of people camping and hunting and doing all of the things that organized groups of people can do together, not a single malnourished, poorly clothed individual. --Jayron 32 13:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In retort, in the gulag you're starving anyway, the gulag near Lavrentiya Лаврентия would have a population and there would definitely have been a boat to steel. I did not mention a rafts. Also, I have not labelled the land bridge a hypothesis but rather that this was needed for a crossing from one continent to another. The Eskimo people live beyond the arctic circle and could travel on permanent ice from one to the other. Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anton, I'm sorry for misreading what you said about a hypothesis. My answer is meant to show you that even if travel by boat was possible before c. 30,000 years ago, the archaeological evidence does not support the hypothesis that anyone did so. Instead, the evidence shows that people settled the Americas only after the landbridge had been in existence for millennia, and not when a sea or ice crossing was the only option. Hope that is clearer! Jayron32 has provided you with a good explanation of how it happened. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think both you and Jayron are still misreading the Q still. It's not "How did they cross ?" but "Why weren't they able to cross by boat before the land bridge formed ?". At least that's how I read it. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because they didn't exist the area. The earliest humans arrived in northeast Asia thousands years after the land bridge was in existence: "Around 20,000 years ago a small group of these Asian hunters headed into the face of the storm, entering the East Asian Arctic during the Last Glacial Maximum.". Before the Bering Land Bridge formed, there were no people around to build boats and cross said sea. --Jayron 32 17:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps worth noting that the mode of travel regarding the Bering migration is something that attracts multiple theories that go in and out of favour depending on recent findings and the reinterpretation of old ones. There's much more at Settlement of the Americas, but even that only summarizes the complexity. The exact placement and duration of the glaciation is often part of the conversation because the same glaciers that provide for the lower sea levels also act as physical barriers to some of the proposed routes. For example, back in the mid-90s when I got my archaeology degree, the purely land-based route was being supplanted by a model involving "land hopping" by small boat. (I'm not suggesting that's the current model, BTW; just pointing out that it's an area that attracts a lot of scrutiny, intense passions, and is also quite complicated by several factors). Matt Deres (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; there's likely some fuzziness in how the migration happened, however it happened,it was probably using many different methods in a rather haphazard manner over many generations. It wasn't, probably, a group of adventurous pioneers who made the trip in one go with the intent of discovering new lands, but rather part of the rather arbitrary and random wanderings of people chasing food sources and looking for advantageous places to live. --Jayron 32 12:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a random walk. They wouldn't likely have known when they reached a new continent, or even what a continent was, for that matter. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I see what you mean. Thank you. I think Jayron32 has answered that question now, so I'm glad we've got there! Useful Wikipedia link: Paleolithic and Early human migrations . 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also let me finish my comparison with migrations that did take place by boat. Those were in warmer waters, as I said, but this also means that developing boat technology was more important, as there it was possible to travel great distances without freezing to death, even if constantly wet. Also, less food is needed for the trip, if you don't need to burn large quantities to stay warm. When boats were used in arctic climates, like by the Vikings and Inuit, it was only much later, after a number of innovations that allowed them to be practical in that climate. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signatories of Stuttgart Declaration of Guilt[edit]

I’m trying to find some background information on the people that signed the declaration. They would all be German Protestant Clergy active in 1945.

The list is here - many are not using their full names:

http://marcuse.faculty.history.ucsb.edu/projects/niem/StuttgartDeclaration.htm

Theophil Wurm, Hans Asmussen, Hans Meiser, OK.

“Held” I can’t find.

Hans Lilje, OK.

“Hahn” I found a mention of his first name as Hugo but nothing else.

“Lic. Niesel” I can’t find.

“Smend D.” I can’t find.

Gustav Heinemann, F.K. Otto Dibelius, Martin Niemöller, OK.

Any idea on Held, Hahn, Niesel, or Smend? There are Wikipedia articles on the rest. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:72 (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the German wikipedia article links to articles on all four. Heinrich Held, a protestant pastor from Essen; Hugo Hahn of the Evangelical Luthern Church of Saxony; theology professor Wilhelm Niesel; and professor and lawyer Rudolf Smend. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. 2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:72 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stuttgart Declaration of Guilt Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]