Cultural Diffusion vs. Cultural Appropriation: What’s the Difference and Why Should We Care?

by Rachel Dworkin, Archivist

Do you like Chinese food? How about Mexican or Italian or Thai?  Me too.  The spread of ethnic cuisine is a tasty example of the phenomenon known as cultural diffusion.  Cultural diffusion is the spread of a cultural aspect from one group to another.  Food is one example, but styles, technologies, ideas and languages can also be transferred between cultures.  The process has a well documented history going back to the spread of agriculture if not earlier.  It is generally considered an important part of how societies interact and evolve. 

Contrasted with that is cultural appropriation.  Cultural appropriation is when members of one group take a specific aspect of another group’s culture and use it in such a way as to radically alter the meaning of that aspect.  Here’s an example:

In the culture of many groups of Native Americans living on the Great Plains, the feathered war bonnet was worn on ceremonial occasions by warriors who had earned the right to do so through acts of valor in battle.  It was awarded to them by the leaders of the tribe and was not only a mark of honor but also was believed to have protective properties.  What do you suppose the chances are that these random white guys in face paint have earned the right to wear the Native American equivalent of the Medal of Honor?   Some other examples of cultural appropriation include Lady Gaga wearing a burqa because she thinks it looks cool and Disney attempting to trademark the Latin American holiday Día de los Muertos to go with their new movie. 

So, how is this different from cultural diffusion?  The main difference is how the originating culture feels about it.  No one cares that I love palak paneer (an Indian spinach dish), but most Hindus would be deeply offended if I wore a bindi (Hindu mark of wisdom and protection).  For many cultures, the context-less appropriation of their important religious and cultural symbols is deeply problematic.   I know from some earlier examples it may seem like all the cool kids are doing it, but as late as the 1940s people thought minstrel shows and blackface were okay too.  It took decades of effort by African Americans and their allies to teach people that it was actually offensive.  Now, is there anyone reading this blog post that doesn’t find this photo horribly racist and insensitive?

How Chewing Gum Corrupts Young Ladies

By Kelli Huggins, Education Coordinator

This is the story of how in 1890s Elmira, chewing gum almost led to the corruption and decline of an entire generation of young ladies.  Or at least this was the story according to one “Mrs. E.S.E,” a concerned crusader who was desperate to stave off an impending crisis and restore moral order to her city.

On February 16, 1890, the Elmira Telegram printed Mrs. E.S.E.’s open letter to the “young ladies of this fair city.”  In the letter, she describes a deeply troubling outing she and her husband had shopping on Water Street, Elmira.  She observed two teenage girls in a shoe store, one of whom was “industriously” chewing gum.  A disgusted Mrs. E.S.E. stated that the habit distorted the girl's otherwise pretty features and disrupted her speech.  She provided a snippet of the conversation for dramatic effect:

“Mother bought Agnes (chew, chew) a pair of shoes and they were too narrow, (chew, chew, chew).  She wants a wider pair (chew, chew).” 

Mrs. E.S.E also noted that upon the girls' departure, the attractive clerk had on his face “a look of disgust which could not be mistaken.”  Thus, the girl’s filthy habit was also ruining her chances of her finding a suitable husband.

As she left the shoe store and continued her errands, Mrs. E.S.E. found herself surrounded by a gum-chewing nightmare.  The shop girls, the Saturday promenaders… everyone was chewing gum.  Mrs. E.S.E. ended her letter with an impassioned plea to girls to stop their chewing.  Aside from the general facial ugliness it caused, she claimed it could cause lopsidedness of the jaw from favoring chewing on one side, and eye and stomach problems.

A gum box circa 1910.  Who knows how many young girls were disfigured by its contents.

Mrs. E.S.E. was not alone in her critique of the habit.  Elmira's Mrs. Helen Bullock, a member of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, was a leading anti-gum activist.  She was particularly concerned about gum containing opium.  In addition to arguments that gum chewing was a gateway habit to intemperance, others thought it could cause blindness.   So how could gum chewing possibly be thought to cause blindness, you ask?  In 1888, the Telegram published an interview with an optician explaining the “science” of the gum-blindness connection.  Apparently, over-exertion of the jaw muscles was dangerous because they were connected to the spine, which was in turn connected to the optic nerves.  Eventually the nerves become “enfeebled” and the eyes sunken and gray.    

Mrs. Helen Bullock.  "NO GUM FOR YOU!"

So ladies, before you pick up that next stick of gum, remember your Victorian morality.  As a chronic gum chewer myself, I never knew I could blame my poor eyesight on this “disgusting habit.”  Perhaps I should go find a mirror to see if my features have become grotesquely distorted as well.  Alas, as Mrs. E.S.E would have us know, you'll never get a husband with sunken, blind eyes and a lopsided face!          

The Hidden Dangers of Museum Work

by Erin Doane, Curator

A couple of weeks ago I spent the day at the Chemung County Fairground at the Safe Kids, Strong Kids event.  When I got home that night my right arm ached from my shoulder to my wrist.  It took me some time to figure out how I had strained my arm that day.  It finally came to me in a flash – the Jacob’s ladder!  If you don’t know what a Jacob’s ladder toy looks like in action check it out here.  I had spent almost six hours turning my hand back and forth to show kids how the toy worked.  That was why I was sore.  That got me thinking about the hidden dangers of working in a museum.  Being a curator may seem like a safe job but it can be very dangerous.  Here is a list of some of the biggest dangers.

1. Physical Injuries

Unusual repetitive stress injuries from historic toys are not the only physical dangers.  Sunburns, insect bites and bee stings are all looming threats whenever we participate in community events outdoors.  Working with historic objects can lead to pulled muscles from lifting and moving heavy objects and innumerable bruises that mysteriously appear during exhibit installation.  Not to mention the paper cuts and eyestrain from office work.

2. Toxins, Disease and Explosives

Taxidermy animals contain arsenic, glass thermometers are filled with mercury, old paint is made with lead and red Fiestaware is radioactive.  Historic medical kits are filled with various poisonous pills, powders and tinctures. I found a tube of glass pipettes containing smallpox vaccine at one museum where I worked.  I have been known to give new interns and volunteers a “do not lick” tour of collections so they can avoid these dangers.  Occasionally, one finds unexploded ordinance or live ammunition in a museum’s collection as well. 

3. Never Being Able to Enjoy a Costume Drama Again

I’m sure this is not a danger limited to those working in museums.  I know many history buffs that have trouble enjoying a movie because of anachronistic mistakes.  I have a fairly good background in historic fashion.  The wrong hat or dress can distract me so much that I cannot enjoy the rest of the movie. 

4. Being Ruin for “Real” Work

Being a curator at a small museum is by far the most fun job I have ever had.  There is always something new and different going on.  Just in my time here at CCHS I have designed exhibit graphics, researched topics from the history of American LaFrance to Hindu wedding traditions, done interviews for tv and newspapers, dealt with flooding caused by air conditioners four different times, given a lecture in my underwear, walked through a cemetery hunting for stories, knit a sweater for a tree, processed hundred of newly donated objects, and met and worked with a huge variety of wonderful and interesting people.  I can’t say that there’s never a dull moment in museum work because there are very many dull moments, but I could not imagine ever being happy working in a “real” 9 to 5 desk job.  I’ll stick to working in museums despite all the dangers.

All’s Fair in Love and at War

by Rachel Dworkin, Archivist

You’ve probably seen him.  In every war movie there’s always that guy, that genre-blind idiot who talks incessantly about his girl and their plans for after the war.  If he’s really dumb, he’ll flash her picture right before getting his head blown off.  Of course, in reality, it doesn’t work that way.  Soldiers rely on their loved ones back home to help them deal with the homesickness, the fear and the uncertainty. 

 

Richard Guion

Take, for example, Richard Guion.  During the Civil War Guion served with the 161^st New York Volunteers.  He was far from home, worried about the future and deeply in love with a girl named Nellie.  He wrote about his experiences and feelings in his diary.  He depended on her letters to help keep him going.  On November 27, 1862 he wrote I received Nellies letter No. 1 this PM I feel 50 per cent better since I read it.  It does me more good to read her letters than it does to eat.  Sometimes, just the idea of her was enough to sustain him.  I wish I could get alone somewhere & have a good cry, he wrote on December 3, 1862.   Oh, I would give a good deal to be with my dear little Nellie now. But I will not give up to bad feeling.  I shall try and keep up a good heart & I hope I shall soon find myself with my own dear little Nellie again and oh I cannot express the joy it will afford me to see & be with her again.  When I first read the diary I was worried Guion had fallen prey to the war movie cliché, but you’ll be happy to know he not only made it home, he married his beloved Nellie.

Seymour Dexter

Ellie Weaver

Then there’s Seymour Dexter and Ellenior “Ellie” Weaver.  Dexter dropped out of Alfred Academy in 1861 to join the 23^rd New York Volunteers.  In the 3 years he served in the army, Dexter wrote over 100 letters to his “Dear Friend” Ellie as he called her.  Many of his letters can be found in the Booth Library.  In his letters he complains about conditions, describes battles, shares his deep grief over fallen comrades and teases Ellie about the somewhat slow nature of their courtship.  Another week has passed but still no letter comes from my friend Ellie, he wrote on September 8, 1861.  If this silence was in one in whom I did not place the most perfect confidence I should hesitate to write but to thee I have no such hesitancy.  After the war, Dexter finished up his studies at Alfred Academy and became a lawyer.  It really shows in his writing.  More importantly, after seven long years of courtship, the couple married and, in rather short order, had 6 children.

A Tale of Adulteration and “So-Called” Extracts

By Kelli Huggins, Education Coordinator

The Kelley-Whitney Extract Co. was founded in 1901 by Enoch J. Kelley and Daniel Whitney in Elmira, N.Y.  Their first store was located on E. 2^nd and Union Street and by the 1910s had moved to 627-629 Lake Street.  The company spanned most of the early-twentieth century, eventually going out of business in 1938.  For most of their history, the company seemingly operated with very little controversy… except for their run-in with the USDA in 1912.  

The Kelley-Whitney Extract Co. Storefront

In 1912, the Kelley-Whitney Extract Co. was charged in violation of the Food and Drug Act for shipping impure lemon, orange, and vanilla extracts.  The Company’s bottles advertised that each of its extracts were “pure.”  One such label read:

“Kelley Whitney Extract Co. Pure Concentrated Extract Lemon.  For flavoring Ice Cream, Cake, Custards, etc., K.W.C.  Guaranteed Strictly Pure.  Caution.  Do not use too much.  One half teaspoonful to each quart will be sufficient.”

However, instead of being “Strictly Pure,” United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) chemists found the “so-called” lemon extract actually contained a mixture of lemon oil by precipitation, lemon oil by polarization, citral, and the coal-tar dye, Aurotine (used to artificially color the product).

Kelley-Whitney Co. Bottle for "Pure Extract of Nutmeg."  This was not one of the flavors in question, so there is no indication of how "pure" it actually was.

Further chemical tests found the orange and vanilla extracts were similarly adulterated.  The orange extract contained the coal-tar dye "Double Scarlet," and the vanilla extract was mixed with other substances and artificial coloring to reduce its strength and change its appearance. 

The Kelley-Whitney Extract Co. pleaded guilty to adulterating their products and using false and misleading labeling and the USDA delivered a three page judgment with all of their chemical findings.  Their sentence?  A $25 fine.

Kelley-Whitney Extract Co. Imitation Cinnamon Extract.  This bottle makes no claims of being pure extract.

The Kelley-Whitney Extract Co. case is an example of regulatory practices in the early decades of the Pure Food and Drug Act (first passed in 1906).  In fact, other local businesses also faced USDA fines, often for misrepresenting the weights of their products on packaging.  Still, this episode and modern-day food recalls serve as a reminder that what we’re all eating may not be as “pure” as we think.