Cultural appropriation ( or borrowing??)? Is it okay?

[EEEEEEP]

What is it?
Cultural appropriation is when one culture adopts something from a culture that is not his or her own. It may be a piece of clothing, a hairstyle, or exercise.

SOME sociological studies add another element to this description, “particular power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group."

What are some examples of it
-   Mixing food styles
-   Incorporating different culture’s fashion
-   Incorporating different cultures music

In the media + people’s reactions
-   Native American headdresses at festivals – Widely panned, people said it was bad and it was the desecration of native American’s culture
-   Commercialisation of yoga – People think that “White people” have stolen yoga.
-   Marc Jacobs fashion set – Criticism over using turbans and hijab
-   Kendrick Lamar – Criticised for appropriating Asian culture

Is it a new thing and what’s changed? In short No .. it’s not new.
 
Cultural appropriation is not a new thing at all, music genres have been borrowing each other. Asian music borrows western music concepts. Pop music has been borrowing some RnB.

Food has ALWAYS been appropriated, Chinese food being made “western”, western food being made “Chinese”.
Fashion has always borrowing from cultures. Braids, dresses, scarves etc.

In recent times, it has been seen as a very bad thing, as it is stealing or taking advantage of other cultures (OTHER cultures do the same soo).
**FASHION , music and food world in general**

Just some images..
- FUSION korean, western food…. “Western” Chinese food… 



Is it wrong, is it bad?
Some say it’s wrong bad, some say it’s bad. Some say it depends on if you are making money from it, the culture you are borrowing off and so forth…

Some say it’s not on the basis that it’s human nature! People are curious about new things and will even copy if they like it.

...
My opinion
I think that you can’t own a  culture, borrowing it is not taking it away from another culture. Additionally, borrowing it is paying homage and giving appreciation to another’s culture.
..
What are your thoughts?

[peterpiper]

This is probably the (very) few 'left-wing' things which I'm not a fan of tbh (if at all). I'm especially against it on the grounds of when it comes to writing fiction and literature in particular, because I just don't understand it. In censoring writing and writing only on your own 'experience' as a 'white suburban middle-aged lady' or 'a sudanese male in his late 50's' in the case of some writers for example - it's just a bit absurd, but I do understand the emphasis on understanding the historic origins and respecting cultures/ our privileges. I actually think this limits 'a lot' of what you can say, and it, as a consequence, can enforce some very unhelpful boundaries across communication and - well- people in general. It also underestimates people's critical-thinking faculties and the critics we have who will call out on racial/cultural miscommunication the author/writer has made etc. I think it's a bit unnecessary. That said, there are of course cultural sensitivities which we should all be made aware of, and it is our responsibility that we own our words and therefore take responsibility over it if it does come under harsh scrutiny/criticism.

[EEEEEEP]

I actually think this limits 'a lot' of what you can say, and it, as a consequence, can enforce some very unhelpful boundaries across communication and - well- people in general.

Agreed. It results in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

If we never pay attention to our cultures, some will say "Minorities culture never get noticed or shown in the media", if we do some say "racism or cultural appropriation". It's a place between two very hard rocks in many times.

[elysepopplewell]

I think your missing the point, or confusing what cultural appropriation is.

It's not just a matter of using another community's culture - there's a power play involved. So, a Chinese person wearing jeans isn't them culturally appropriating Western culture, because the dominant culture is the Western society, thus it would be more likely seen as assimilating and joining a dominant cultural structure. The problem with the inversion is the way it often glosses over traumatic aspects of history or parades/fetishises the effects of colonisation. Cultural assimilation is adopting the ways of a privileged culture in order to enjoy and survive in the privileged environment. For example: wearing jeans is not cultural appropriation.

So Katy Perry dressed in "yellow face" in the 2013 MTV awards. Here's some comments from Jeff Yang at the Wall Street Journal:
“The thing is, while a bucket of toner can strip the geisha makeup off of Perry’s face, nothing can remove the demeaning and harmful iconography of the lotus blossom from the West’s perception of Asian women — a stereotype that presents them as servile, passive,” Yang wrote, “and as Perry would have it, ‘unconditional’ worshippers of their men, willing to pay any price and weather any kind of abuse in order to keep him happy.”
“Perry’s performance was also a harsh reminder of how deeply anchored the archetype of the exotic, self-sacrificing, lotus-blossom, is in the Western imagination.”

The most problematic cultural appropriation is usually tied in with other misconceptions or stereotypes that are harmful - in this case it's playing into the notion that according to Western imagination, asian women are subservient, a fetish.

In a similar way, Suey Sins is a bar that opened in Surry Hills semi-recently. They've based their theme on 1920s Shanghai, with a topless asian woman as their logo. The problem with this is that in 1920s Shanghai - thousands of people were dying on the streets, there was extreme poverty amongst Chinese people, and it was the "Paris of Asia" in this period - British, American, and European men could live a life of sexual and material luxury at the hands of the many Chinese prostitutes - many (if not most - but I can't recall the stat from the assignment I did on this last semester) were forced into this by their families or "mammies" to keep the family out of poverty after the period of colonisation. So Suey Sins has created a theme that glorifies a period, with a fetishised image (google it), that completely glosses over the extreme pain caused by Westerners - and now this exact scene and era is being exploited as cool, by Westerners.

Cultural appropriation runs deeper than Irish people eating curry, or me enjoying Bollywood films.

[bowiemily]

I think your missing the point, or confusing what cultural appropriation is.

It's not just a matter of using another community's culture - there's a power play involved. So, a Chinese person wearing jeans isn't them culturally appropriating Western culture, because the dominant culture is the Western society, thus it would be more likely seen as assimilating and joining a dominant cultural structure. The problem with the inversion is the way it often glosses over traumatic aspects of history or parades/fetishises the effects of colonisation. Cultural assimilation is adopting the ways of a privileged culture in order to enjoy and survive in the privileged environment. For example: wearing jeans is not cultural appropriation.

So Katy Perry dressed in "yellow face" in the 2013 MTV awards. Here's some comments from Jeff Yang at the Wall Street Journal:
“The thing is, while a bucket of toner can strip the geisha makeup off of Perry’s face, nothing can remove the demeaning and harmful iconography of the lotus blossom from the West’s perception of Asian women — a stereotype that presents them as servile, passive,” Yang wrote, “and as Perry would have it, ‘unconditional’ worshippers of their men, willing to pay any price and weather any kind of abuse in order to keep him happy.”
“Perry’s performance was also a harsh reminder of how deeply anchored the archetype of the exotic, self-sacrificing, lotus-blossom, is in the Western imagination.”

The most problematic cultural appropriation is usually tied in with other misconceptions or stereotypes that are harmful - in this case it's playing into the notion that according to Western imagination, asian women are subservient, a fetish.

In a similar way, Suey Sins is a bar that opened in Surry Hills semi-recently. They've based their theme on 1920s Shanghai, with a topless asian woman as their logo. The problem with this is that in 1920s Shanghai - thousands of people were dying on the streets, there was extreme poverty amongst Chinese people, and it was the "Paris of Asia" in this period - British, American, and European men could live a life of sexual and material luxury at the hands of the many Chinese prostitutes - many (if not most - but I can't recall the stat from the assignment I did on this last semester) were forced into this by their families or "mammies" to keep the family out of poverty after the period of colonisation. So Suey Sins has created a theme that glorifies a period, with a fetishised image (google it), that completely glosses over the extreme pain caused by Westerners - and now this exact scene and era is being exploited as cool, by Westerners.

Cultural appropriation runs deeper than Irish people eating curry, or me enjoying Bollywood films.

Couldn't have said it better, this is brilliant

[EEEEEEP]

I think your missing the point, or confusing what cultural appropriation is.

It's not just a matter of using another community's culture - there's a power play involved. So, a Chinese person wearing jeans isn't them culturally appropriating Western culture, because the dominant culture is the Western society, thus it would be more likely seen as assimilating and joining a dominant cultural structure. The problem with the inversion is the way it often glosses over traumatic aspects of history or parades/fetishises the effects of colonisation. Cultural assimilation is adopting the ways of a privileged culture in order to enjoy and survive in the privileged environment. For example: wearing jeans is not cultural appropriation.

Ah... right. Dominant cultural structure.

IF Asians "borrowed" notions of western people or aspects of "western" culture, would that not be appropriation, as in ASIA, Asian values are dominant?
https://lanivcox.com/2016/06/10/whats-up-with-asians-obsession-with-white-skin/
Asian people LOVE white skin, yet white people are associated with people that have done terrible things.

ALso regarding the "glossing over traumatic aspects", I have seen British soldiers or Captain cook costumes for sale in Asian stores, would that not be glossing over the negative aspects?
https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=&SearchText=British+costume - Big chinese online store

[elysepopplewell]

Ah... right. Dominant cultural structure.

IF Asians "borrowed" notions of western people or aspects of "western" culture, would that not be appropriation, as in ASIA, Asian values are dominant?

ALso regarding the "glossing over traumatic aspects", I have seen British soldiers or Captain cook costumes for sale in Asian stores, would that not be glossing over the negative aspects?
https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=&SearchText=British+costume - Big chinese online store
(Image removed from quote.)

In my opinion wearing a Captain Cook costume is not cultural appropriation. If you're wearing it because it's fun or cool or whatever, I'd think you're insensitive to the issues and ensuing devastation caused since Captain Cook's arrival. If it was for like a Book Week or something, like, I guess that's fine but also not sure what person would dress up as Captain Cook (who am I to talk I came to book week in year 3 as Hillary Duff?) So I definitely think it's glossing over traumatic aspects of history.

To your first statement - no. That's not how power structures work on a global scale. It's not about domestic power structures, it's about the power structures in the world order.

[EEEEEEP]

I guess that's fine but also not sure what person would dress up as Captain Cook

To your first statement - no. That's not how power structures work on a global scale. It's not about domestic power structures, it's about the power structures in the world order.

This may be anecdotal, I once went to a "british" themed party in Shang Hai. Haha. (I guess some people?)

Elaborate on this ^^.  It sounds like something from sociology or the arts.

[elysepopplewell]

Elaborate on this ^^.  It sounds like something from sociology or the arts.

So we're talking about cultures from different parts of the world. The problem with cultural appropriation is not situated solely in the present time. The problem with appropriating cultures is that it comes from a historical place of subjugation, colonisation, exploitation, genocide even, etc. This is what creates world order - power structures. So the world order of the current time is really interesting, and it is easier to identify power structures in retrospect, but for the time being let's just make deductive statements that: North Korea is a rebel nation, Germany and Indonesia are growing economic superpowers, Britain's sovereignty is being reclaimed through brexit...etc. So it's talking about the way nations interact with each other to create a global landscape. When we look back at the 20th century especially - the world order was characterised deeply by colonisation, imperialism, slavery, etc. So the world order then and now is very different. Because of the global experience of world order (especially looking at the victors of 20th Century Wars), Western civilisation (which can be broken down further), has taken a place of privilege and dominance.

So, this is why it is more offensive for us to run a bar that profits from the glory of the Western people, and tragedy of the Chinese people, in Shanghai in the 1920s - because in that period, there was a very severe imbalance of power. The situation you proposed is that because in Asia, Asia is the dominant culture, then dressing British must be an inversion of cultural appropriation. It's not the case - it's really an incomparable situation. I'm struggling to draw comparisons because the situations are so different - but from the intention purpose we can see that the Asians who are benefitting from dressing in a British way are not beneficiaries of the colonisation that led to the complete alteration and/or destroyal of culture, nor forced sexual servitude.

[EEEEEEP]

It's not the case - it's really an incomparable situation. I'm struggling to draw comparisons because the situations are so different - but from the intention purpose we can see that the Asians who are benefitting from dressing in a British way are not beneficiaries of the colonisation that led to the complete alteration and/or destroyal of culture, nor forced sexual servitude.

What do you think about Spanish, Greeks, German cultures? The people from those nations have nothing to gain (absolutely nothing).. yet they claim cultural appropriation too. 
https://sojo.net/articles/despacito-and-whitewashing-latinx-culture
http://www.dailyuw.com/opinion/article_008a1a66-fe27-11e6-ab4c-4b6e4ab90120.html
https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/29333/

In those days, Germany and Spain were powerful nations. 

I'm still not 100% seeing the thing between cultural appropriation and powers. There are nations (which were powerful in the past), that current citizens now claim cultural appropriation is being happened to them. Funnily enough, it's western countries appreciating western nations.. so is that cultural appreciation?

[meganrobyn]

100% thanks to Elyse - great explanation.

Cultural appreciation is where you give a voice to people working/coming from within that culture (for example, by giving a platform to people from it - or, as a writer, by doing proper research if you want to include characters or belief systems etc from outside your own experience, and not just writing ignorant stereotypes); cultural appropriation is where you are the voice and you speak instead of other people, on their behalf, and without any proper research or insight or permission or respectful usage. Really, it's a question of respect, and not using your power when you already have more than the person or culture you're dealing with.

The reason power is relevant is because power determines whose voice is already heard the most, amplified the most, given the most weight. If you already have more voice, more power, than the person, culture or thing you want to use or speak on behalf of, the idea of 'cultural appropriation' is simply asking you to take a step back, look at what you're doing, and ask whether you're giving power or taking more power from it. Therefore, every case needs to be judged on its merits. To use your Greek question: a Greek person might be appropriating another culture if they treated aspects of Australian Indigenous culture like they owned them, but it's going to be difficult for them to do the same with Anglo American culture because of the power differences. Greece was at the top of the global tree about 2000 years ago, but they're not anymore and Greek culture doesn't have the biggest voice in the world. So, nowadays, someone with a bigger voice comes along and treats togas like they own them (flippant for the sake of example), showing no respect to their place in Greek culture and history etc - that's cultural appropriation. If you want to get really basic, it's the difference between you, with no real experience in Greece or connection to Greece, saying "I've tried to make a Greek pita as faithfully as I can from the recipes I've seen" or "this isn't an authentic Greek pita, but I've made my own bread that has some similarities" (ie generally fine) *versus* making your own bread without reading any traditional recipes and then saying "hey, try my amazing pita; this is the best pita around." No, it's not. You don't get to define pita. There are hundreds and hundreds of years and millions of other people who have already done that from within Greece and Greek culture, so get back in your box.

Another really really simplified example to communicate the basic point: older people and males are usually addressed first by waitstaff in restaurants, over younger people and females. 'Cultural appropriation' is like ordering on behalf of the woman or younger person you're with, without even asking them what they want to eat. Other options? Ask them; or let them order for themselves. It's really not that hard.

I think you misrepresented the issue in the OP, which made the survey slanted from the beginning.

[peterpiper]

I think your missing the point, or confusing what cultural appropriation is.

It's not just a matter of using another community's culture - there's a power play involved. So, a Chinese person wearing jeans isn't them culturally appropriating Western culture, because the dominant culture is the Western society, thus it would be more likely seen as assimilating and joining a dominant cultural structure. The problem with the inversion is the way it often glosses over traumatic aspects of history or parades/fetishises the effects of colonisation. Cultural assimilation is adopting the ways of a privileged culture in order to enjoy and survive in the privileged environment. For example: wearing jeans is not cultural appropriation.

So Katy Perry dressed in "yellow face" in the 2013 MTV awards. Here's some comments from Jeff Yang at the Wall Street Journal:
“The thing is, while a bucket of toner can strip the geisha makeup off of Perry’s face, nothing can remove the demeaning and harmful iconography of the lotus blossom from the West’s perception of Asian women — a stereotype that presents them as servile, passive,” Yang wrote, “and as Perry would have it, ‘unconditional’ worshippers of their men, willing to pay any price and weather any kind of abuse in order to keep him happy.”
“Perry’s performance was also a harsh reminder of how deeply anchored the archetype of the exotic, self-sacrificing, lotus-blossom, is in the Western imagination.”

The most problematic cultural appropriation is usually tied in with other misconceptions or stereotypes that are harmful - in this case it's playing into the notion that according to Western imagination, asian women are subservient, a fetish.

In a similar way, Suey Sins is a bar that opened in Surry Hills semi-recently. They've based their theme on 1920s Shanghai, with a topless asian woman as their logo. The problem with this is that in 1920s Shanghai - thousands of people were dying on the streets, there was extreme poverty amongst Chinese people, and it was the "Paris of Asia" in this period - British, American, and European men could live a life of sexual and material luxury at the hands of the many Chinese prostitutes - many (if not most - but I can't recall the stat from the assignment I did on this last semester) were forced into this by their families or "mammies" to keep the family out of poverty after the period of colonisation. So Suey Sins has created a theme that glorifies a period, with a fetishised image (google it), that completely glosses over the extreme pain caused by Westerners - and now this exact scene and era is being exploited as cool, by Westerners.

Cultural appropriation runs deeper than Irish people eating curry, or me enjoying Bollywood films.

So we're talking about cultures from different parts of the world. The problem with cultural appropriation is not situated solely in the present time. The problem with appropriating cultures is that it comes from a historical place of subjugation, colonisation, exploitation, genocide even, etc. This is what creates world order - power structures. So the world order of the current time is really interesting, and it is easier to identify power structures in retrospect, but for the time being let's just make deductive statements that: North Korea is a rebel nation, Germany and Indonesia are growing economic superpowers, Britain's sovereignty is being reclaimed through brexit...etc. So it's talking about the way nations interact with each other to create a global landscape. When we look back at the 20th century especially - the world order was characterised deeply by colonisation, imperialism, slavery, etc. So the world order then and now is very different. Because of the global experience of world order (especially looking at the victors of 20th Century Wars), Western civilisation (which can be broken down further), has taken a place of privilege and dominance.

So, this is why it is more offensive for us to run a bar that profits from the glory of the Western people, and tragedy of the Chinese people, in Shanghai in the 1920s - because in that period, there was a very severe imbalance of power. The situation you proposed is that because in Asia, Asia is the dominant culture, then dressing British must be an inversion of cultural appropriation. It's not the case - it's really an incomparable situation. I'm struggling to draw comparisons because the situations are so different - but from the intention purpose we can see that the Asians who are benefitting from dressing in a British way are not beneficiaries of the colonisation that led to the complete alteration and/or destroyal of culture, nor forced sexual servitude.

You're actually the first person to explain this to me in this kind of depth - so kudos for the excellent explanation there. It is definitely something worth thinking about - I change my mind on that - and it is really quite important for reasons you've outlined. I didn't really get it before and had a misconstrued idea of it. I'll be honest, the only reason why I didn't like it was it felt like people were telling me not to do things on arbitrary notions of not belonging to a said-cultural/ethnic group, which I didn't believe. But that isn't cultural appropriation; that is, if the activity didn't gloss/fetishise/glamorise/etc a cultural history/dominate a cultural/ethnic group. Cultural appropriation is more serious than that. Sorta ashamed I didn't know about that until now.

[vox nihili]

I think you're absolutely right, Elyse, talking about those occasions on which performers have tried to portray people of other cultures and the level of offence inherent in that. Where someone is deliberately trying to emulate a particular culture, which is often informed by the stereotypes around that culture, then it is clearly not OK.

However, in this debate there have been plenty of people who have been criticised for adopting certain practices or styles of dress from other cultures in a hotchpotch kind of way. For instance, I remember Justin Bieber was criticised at one point for braiding his hair, because this supposedly appropriated African-American culture. I've also read suggestions that white people using chopsticks is cultural appropriation and that enjoying music, such as hip-hop, is also cultural appropriation, because in doing so most white people fail to recognise the struggles of the artists that launched this genre. These arguments stem from the broad definition, not dissimilar to Elyse's, that cultural appropriation involves members of a dominant culture adopting cultural practices of a non-dominant culture.

These examples, which have obviously been cherry-picked to make a point, are the main source of people's frustration with the concept of cultural appropriation. They are grounded in the false assumption that culture is a constant. That it is something inherent to one group and absolutely resistant to change. This could not be further from the truth. Cultures are constantly exposed to change. They change on their own, without external influence; however, the biggest source of change is the exchange of cultural ideas between different cultures. Some of the core tenets of Western culture speak to this. For instance, we celebrate a Christian holiday with pagan rituals using a language that is an ugly combination of Germanic, Celtic and Romance antecedents.

This exchange of cultural ideas, when done without condescension or malice, should not be considered cultural appropriation. I think the view that what I've written above amounts to cultural appropriation is one that fails to appreciate the history of cultural development and one that unreasonably assumes that Westerners have gone around stealing people's cultures, when probably the bigger issue at play is our insistence that everyone else should bend to our own.

[meganrobyn]

However, in this debate there have been plenty of people who have been criticised for adopting certain practices or styles of dress from other cultures in a hotchpotch kind of way. For instance, I remember Justin Bieber was criticised at one point for braiding his hair, because this supposedly appropriated African-American culture. I've also read suggestions that white people using chopsticks is cultural appropriation and that enjoying music, such as hip-hop, is also cultural appropriation, because in doing so most white people fail to recognise the struggles of the artists that launched this genre. These arguments stem from the broad definition, not dissimilar to Elyse's, that cultural appropriation involves members of a dominant culture adopting cultural practices of a non-dominant culture.

These examples, which have obviously been cherry-picked to make a point, are the main source of people's frustration with the concept of cultural appropriation.

People not understanding something but still talking about it with authority happens every second of every day - people often misrepresent or misuse ideas. It doesn't mean the idea itself is illegitimate, so we need to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Similarly, someone making an excellent point can be misunderstood by people in the audience and derided/dismissed because *the audience* didn't understand. Again, not the fault of the concept (or, in this instance, of the person using it in their argument). Some of the criticisms I've read of Bieber have, for instance, been really legitimate and insightful... and then I've read people completely miss the point and get all riled up about "political correctness gone mad" (ugh). Doesn't mean the point wasn't actually excellent.

[EEEEEEP]

I think you're absolutely right, Elyse, talking about those occasions on which performers have tried to portray people of other cultures and the level of offence inherent in that. Where someone is deliberately trying to emulate a particular culture, which is often informed by the stereotypes around that culture, then it is clearly not OK.

However, in this debate there have been plenty of people who have been criticised for adopting certain practices or styles of dress from other cultures in a hotchpotch kind of way. For instance, I remember Justin Bieber was criticised at one point for braiding his hair, because this supposedly appropriated African-American culture. I've also read suggestions that white people using chopsticks is cultural appropriation and that enjoying music, such as hip-hop, is also cultural appropriation, because in doing so most white people fail to recognise the struggles of the artists that launched this genre. These arguments stem from the broad definition, not dissimilar to Elyse's, that cultural appropriation involves members of a dominant culture adopting cultural practices of a non-dominant culture.

These examples, which have obviously been cherry-picked to make a point, are the main source of people's frustration with the concept of cultural appropriation. They are grounded in the false assumption that culture is a constant. That it is something inherent to one group and absolutely resistant to change. This could not be further from the truth. Cultures are constantly exposed to change. They change on their own, without external influence; however, the biggest source of change is the exchange of cultural ideas between different cultures. Some of the core tenets of Western culture speak to this. For instance, we celebrate a Christian holiday with pagan rituals using a language that is an ugly combination of Germanic, Celtic and Romance antecedents.

This exchange of cultural ideas, when done without condescension or malice, should not be considered cultural appropriation. I think the view that what I've written above amounts to cultural appropriation is one that fails to appreciate the history of cultural development and one that unreasonably assumes that Westerners have gone around stealing people's cultures, when probably the bigger issue at play is our insistence that everyone else should bend to our own.

1. Agreed (partially ), people who "appropriate ", are not trying to steal others cultures. Or trying to hijack it (which many people assume that westerns are trying to do).

2. - so what is malice and what is appropriate? There's no clear black and white. That depends on partially the receiver and the sender. The receiver may or may not find it appropriate.

For example some people find issue with "western" Chinese food, while I find it a non issue. Additionally,  I'm a fairly chill person, so I find appropriation okay. In fact, I find it kinda cool.

My friend doesn't care if fashions models are wearing kimonos at all! She finds it cool and interesting, as a fusion.

3. I take issue the statement of "everyone else trying to bend to our own". This is not an western thing or concept. If you go to Asia or South Africa, people assume that you'll follow Asian or South African food and cultural respected social rules/ customs.

4. Everything , whether you like it or not is informed by stereotypes. Westerners are generalised as rude, lazy and disrespectful people. The Japanese are generalised as traditional, polite, hard working people who like to drink.

I'm not condoning stereotypes, but there is some basis to generalisations (even though not all people may fall under those generalisations). Partially it's the media (especially the gross exaggerations), and partially, its real life.

5. Regarding the power plays (as I mentioned in a precious post)
Is it cultural appropriation if westerns borrow other westerners cultures ?
Spanish, Portuguese, Greeks, Germans now do even take offence to things like copying accents, cultural events (Germans and Oktoberfest ).

There is definitely no powerplay between the Spanish and the Germans.