History is a pyramid of skulls.

[Kidlicious]

Lori, I don't get you. "Cultural appropriation" is some horse**** term made up by the same people who brought us "manspreading." And you want to have a serious discussion about it?

[Kidlicious]

I mean this is race baiting. We used to call America a melting pot. That was before the alt'left took over the narrative with their authoritarian tactics.

[Kidlicious]

I think it's possible that cultural appropriation could legitimately be a bad thing, but also that it's no different (and sometimes way less terrible) than the ways in which cultural practices have spread throughout history. No culture that exists today is some pure, unadulterated form of some "original" culture that existed in prehistory. All cultures are Frankenstein monsters built up from past cultures through conquest, imperialism, "cultural exchange," etc.

We can talk very abstractly about how two civilizations engaged in trade and consequently shared cultural practices, but on the individual level that has to involve the same kinds of interactions we see today and think are problematic. The beginning of Europe's Enlightenment had its origins in reading Greek works preserved and translated by Arabs. From the standpoint of any one person, is there a real difference between that practice and our obsession with bits of Asian culture today?

As to why cultural appropriation might be bad, I do understand it. If those in power adopt the practices of those without power, we can convince ourselves we don't have to listen to or understand the powerless because we have contact with some version of their culture. This seems likely to play a role in perpetuating inequality.

And yet I think it's clear that culture as a phenomenon simply wouldn't exist without our historically terrible methods of transmitting culture. So the question is, is there a better way? Is there a respectful, thoughtful way of incorporating aspects of a different culture into your own life? From those who oppose cultural appropriation, I have never heard a way. They speak only of the need to listen to what persecuted minorities have to say. And yes, we absolutely should do that. But what happens next, if we don't want the cultures that exist today to ossify and decay?

I listen. The trick is to hear what they aren't trying to tell you.

[Lorizael]

If anything, the notion of cultural appropriation is harmful to the culture it "protects," because it teaches us that culture must be something static and unchanging in order to be authentic. This is not the case, has historically not been the case, and in all likelihood never will be. Cultures borrow from each other routinely, and are richer for it. A culture that doesn't slop over at the edges is dead.

I agree, and I think that's half of what I was saying in the OP. But the other half is that even if borrowing is critical to the spread of culture, it might still have harmful effects. Think about, I dunno, eating. You can criticize my eating habits (mostly Mountain Dew and frozen microwaveable meals) even though, if I were to not consume those products, I would die. There are healthier foods, and maybe better ways to ensure the survival and evolution of culture, too.

I make exceptions for the sacred or "sacred"--for things which are truly central to identity. That is, it is wrong for Christians to hold Passover Seders for funsies, or for non-Muslims to wear hijab as a fashion statement. The whole point of these things is that they do not change, and are explicitly intended to be exclusive to a group and a sign of membership in it. They are usually religious or quasi-religious in nature, but I'm open to the possibility that there are secular equivalents.

Hrm, but who decides what is sacred or even what is religious (a discussion we've had before)? The difficulty with this criterion is that I can very easily imagine it going down the route of calling something sacred, and a detractor saying, "Ah, but that doesn't count." Also, and this isn't a challenge, just me being curious--how do you feel about Christmas and Easter being celebrated as national/secular rather than religious holidays?

...

I don't think anyone should not be "allowed" to engage in cultural practices outside of their own culture. I just think it's reasonable that doing so is going to spark discussion about what a particular practice means, what the context is, why it's important, all that, and the person doing the borrowing should respect that process and be willing to listen.

[Dry]

I don't think anyone should not be "allowed" to engage in cultural practices outside of their own culture. I just think it's reasonable that doing so is going to spark discussion about what a particular practice means, what the context is, why it's important, all that, and the person doing the borrowing should respect that process and be willing to listen.

And what or who decides of what part of the culture is protected?
If religion is part of the culture, would you allow someone to convert to another religion? Deconvert?
Should only people of hispanic descent be allowed to practice bull fight?
Are westerners allowed to become martial art black belts? To engage in Japanese tea ceremony?
Should we allow non westerners to embrace western values?
Has the pope to be of European?
What about a black Santa?

[Lorizael]

(I think you misread my first sentence. Granted, I used a double negative.)

[Kidlicious]

I don't know how to convert the Jews without celebrating Passover for fun.

[BeBMan]

I didn't know the term cultural appropriation. From what I read here I'm sceptical about the concept.

If certain aspects/elements of minority cultures should not be adopted/taken over/used/practiced/whatever by members of the majority/privileged culture it seems a sure way towards more, not less segregation. On an individual level it's also a question how/why we would keep people away from doing any of that (depending on how far this would go - I mean how/why would we stop white ppl hearing jazz music etc.)

History-wise it seems also that the impulse to "take over" is not exclusively a top-down thing, it certainly goes the other way around too.

[Buster Crabbe's Uncle]

A foreign sailor once told my brother that the US was taking over the world "with Coke and Michael Jordan" - but that's Cultural Imperialism, a rather mirror concept, but one I find more meritorious...

[Kidlicious]

Maybe some people want to fight racism but they don't want to stop listening to decent music.

[Kidlicious]

White people suck at music

[Dinner]

I am currently culturally appropriating Filipino culture and having a great time. Highly recommend it

You can bring the lumpia to the next poly meet. I am going to culturally appropriate some of that stuff.

[Dinner]

A foreign sailor once told my brother that the US was taking over the world "with Coke and Michael Jordan" - but that's Cultural Imperialism, a rather mirror concept, but one I find more meritorious...

A more realistic view is that people around the world are buying these things because they find value in them and thus it is just people freely making use of their own agency to make decisions they feel are good decisions for themselves personally. Sure, you could try to claim it is all an imperialist plot because someone in Africa decides to buy a coke or a pair of shoes but I find that an exceptionally weak argument lacking in merit.

[Elok]

I agree, and I think that's half of what I was saying in the OP. But the other half is that even if borrowing is critical to the spread of culture, it might still have harmful effects. Think about, I dunno, eating. You can criticize my eating habits (mostly Mountain Dew and frozen microwaveable meals) even though, if I were to not consume those products, I would die. There are healthier foods, and maybe better ways to ensure the survival and evolution of culture, too.

I don't really get what you're getting at here. I don't think people borrowing culture contributes to people being complacent about racism, etc. I think people would be complacent about racism anyway, and admiration for the products of another culture if anything gives them the ghost of a reason to give a damn about its producers. A white boy who's really into rap will at least yell "this is BULL****" if his favorite rapper gets pulled over and harassed for being black. A white boy who doesn't like rap won't even hear about it, or if he does will shrug it off.

Hrm, but who decides what is sacred or even what is religious (a discussion we've had before)? The difficulty with this criterion is that I can very easily imagine it going down the route of calling something sacred, and a detractor saying, "Ah, but that doesn't count." Also, and this isn't a challenge, just me being curious--how do you feel about Christmas and Easter being celebrated as national/secular rather than religious holidays?

In general, really sacred things are fairly easy to distinguish. They're basically always associated with religions of some sort--I can't think of anything else that's intrinsically and exclusively tied to identity in the same way. Haka, for example. I can get why Maoris don't like non-Maoris doing the whole routine, because the act has some kind of spiritual significance to them. It's central to identity as Maoris. As opposed to a custom that just happens to be a way people in a specific community like to eat, dress, or amuse themselves. My lily-white wife used to own an ao dai (it doesn't fit anymore). Some Vietnamese friends gave it to her; nobody dreamed it meant she was trying to steal their culture from them. As I'm not proposing making a law of this, I'm comfortable with leaving it hazy.

As for Christmas and Easter, they diverged from actual Christian practice so long ago that they're essentially different practices that happen to go by the same name and get celebrated at the same time. I see nothing sacred about rabbits hiding eggs or magical fatties hopping down chimneys. If anything, I'm mildly grateful that Americans have not abandoned Christianity so utterly as to leave even the meaningless rituals behind. When a liberal Protestant used a famous Byzantine icon as the title image for her theologically vapid internet manifesto a few weeks back, now, that irked me. Because, if she wanted an impressive-looking picture of Jesus, and her own religious tradition was too artistically and imaginatively bankrupt to produce one anymore, that was her problem. She had no business swiping one of ours.

[Kidlicious]

Coke is poison.