I'm guessing some of the people who have commented have not been accused of cultural appropriation or are themselves accusers. I am an artist and a quilter and recently got into an IG discussion on this topic. In all sincerity, I asked where the lines get drawn in the quilting world. Isn't art a place where cultures can come together? Should a person of color be offended if I would like to purchase their quilt design? Conversely, should I be offended if a person of color wants to buy mine? I was viciously attacked by a white woman for not understanding the topic. Her response was the almost identical, line-for-line response given in the pod cast " Is it Racist for a White Man to Bounce a Brown Baby on His Lap". Obviously, she had read the same book. When I mentioned I'd speak with my friends of color on the issue she asked me to please not bother my friends of color with this. Instead, I was to read some books and search the internet to which my response was " So I should read what other white folks say about it rather than have an actual discussion with a person I could potentially offend? " I was blocked after that. Interestingly, she also eliminated a comment by a person of color who did not agree with what she was saying. We cant' have it both ways. We cant' have an all inclusive society and yet draw lines and make everyone stay in their lanes without stifling all sides. I agree with the issue of exploitation and I think that can be clearly defined, but how far do we take this thinking? The first know quilt was made in Italy – does that mean only Italians should be allowed to quilt? Fortunately, I'm part Italian but I wonder what my Amish neighbors would think about that. This topic is important because once you take this type of thinking further down the road, you see that it will eventually create the very thing the proponents of it are trying to eliminate.
Justin Smith makes two critical arguments in his article: First, that cultural appropriation is "simply a general law of culture" so widespread that to classify it as either good or bad makes little sense: Second, that individual cultures are simply "variations on a fairly limited range of patterns that are grounded in human nature." I regard this second point as a real contribution to a debate that all too often falls into predictable grooves. If, as Smith suggests, every culture ultimately reflects our common humanity, then what sense does it make to claim that one is taking something that doesn't belong to them. All culture is for all of us to use, enjoy, appreciate, and, yes, be inspired by. It seems to me that when an African-American girl does an Irish jig, she is doing precisely what Smith suggests: reflecting our common humanity. Also, being African-American, her own unique heritage, she can't just be copying an Irish jig but is inevitably putting her own unique stamp on it. In other words, even every "appropriation" is itself a contribution to our common culture.
True. When someone asked the famous Iranian film director Abbas Kiarostami why he used Western classical music in a film set in a small Iranian village - he asked the translator to say the following to the questioner "Tell him that classical music has long ceased to belong to the West, it belongs to the world now".
It used to be known as Homage, a great honor to the original work - it's the reason we study the work of our forbears and neighbors IF we acknowledge the value of the beloved community.
Its a leap to to assume denigrating the caricature of a culture at Halloween would scare away someone from learning the Seneca language. The problem is one of attribution and respect. That's why its called appropriation. Much like in writing, whether it is a direct quote or a paraphrase, you cite your sources. Appropriation is a form of plagiarism. If you're going to be inspired to use the products of another culture, the author(s) should acknowledge and respect that culture, or be open to criticism. Costumes, folk music, painting traditions, food traditions, religious rituals are not neutral products traded in a market place - they are symbols and tools of for a particular way of being in the world. For a dominant culture to use them without acknowledgement is not just theft, its an act of erasure. To cheapen them is an act of domination. So yes, we need cultural critics to help us along that fine line between bricolage, homage, and abuse. But just as few would argue that black face or red face at Halloween is insulting and wrong few would argue that learning another's language or cooking method is disrespectful. And I fail to see what economics has to do with Halloween. Dressing up like an Indian for fun, whether the costume is a cheap, expensive, or authentic, is just wrong.
No cultural tradition is "owned" by any culture. Cultures don't grow in isolation, they are fluid things which are constantly borrowing from others. (if they are dynamic). This whole debate is not about "respect" or "recognition". If that was all, then this article won't even need to be published. If you look at artists, writers or ordinary people who have been attacked and bullied for "cultural appropriation", it is not about respect. It is about the demand that what you call "dominant cultures" should not use any any dress or idea or food of another culture. People have descended on the accused in droves like an army of locusts hunting down their victim demanding an apology and then demanding deplatforming and boycott, sometimes even if a grovelling apology was offered by the victim. This "social justice mobbing" (and there are certainly many examples of this, including in this article) is certainly not about respect, saying that is a bad joke. (sorry!).
Besides this, the whole idea is questionable. What is a dominant culture? Is there such a thing irrespective of context? An upper middle class Indian professional in UK belongs to the "dominant culture" of successful professionals - he was able to achieve what he did because he was probably born into a family that emphasized human capital accumulation and other cultural habits associated with success -a working class white person is from a "subordinate culture" - he may have been born into a family that did not prepare him for achieving things in life. How do you know somebody is privileged or from a "dominant culture" just by looking at the color of their skin or their belonging to a cultural group?
This idea is problematic at another level. The rights of minorities should be respected. But nobody has the right in a democracy to determine what others are allowed to say or not to say. Just because a person is white doesn't mean they have to accept a demand from individuals belonging to a so called minority group to speak in a certain way. Such demands are typically not made by many members of the minority group in question, they are made by white progressives claiming to be offended on behalf of a minority group. Of course we should condemn hate speech, but a white person borrowing or celebrating another culture is not hate speech, it is called multiculturalism or simply enjoying life!
The demand for respect is unnecessary. Most people who use food, clothing or music or an idea from another culture do it because they respect it and cherish it, they don't do it because they want to mock it. In any case, criticizing or mocking or satirizing other cultures is very much part of the democratic process. This is true even for so called "subordinate cultures". All cultures can benefit from criticism and satire, they don't need to kept insulated in a "glass house" just because they belong to a "minority group".
Its not about what people can say or not say, its about what people should and shouldn't say and should and shouldn't do. Its about an ethical approach to culture. There is a difference between criticism and mocking. We are intelligent enough to know what satire is - but should we satirize a culture? I think that is very dangerous and cross the line into mocking. I'm arguing that we should take personal responsibility for acknowledging and understanding difference as much as universals. This essay argues that because humans all engage in similar modes of cultural production those products should be able to be used indiscriminately.
It is a hypothetical discussion to a certain extent - there are plenty of examples in which people have been attacked just for borrowing from another culture, without any mocking. We need to see this as a social phenomenon. What is happening here? It has a lot to do with Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality and how these simplistic and dangerous ideas taken to extremes have undermined (in USA) the basic principles of a free society.
PJC: "This essay argues that because humans all engage in similar modes of cultural production those products should be able to be used indiscriminately."
Not true. The article clearly states: "Many uses of other cultures’ productions truly are morally wrong. Some are even materially and politically harmful. But this is not in virtue of whatever element of appropriation they may involve. Rather, it is usually because someone else’s culture is being used in an exploitative way—and is thus wrong in the same way all forms of exploitation are wrong."
One of my chief criticisms of the broadly accepted use of the term "cultural appropriation" is the simple, seemingly willfully ignorant use of it in every possible instance rather than the word actually suited to describe what is occurring: Inspiration.
You are wrong that everyone on this website agrees about cultural appropriation, please see the discussion below. Left wing extremism is not just on college campuses, if it were, we won't even need to have this website.
There is a concerted ideological attack on freedom of speech and expression in American society coming from the Left. Trump's tweets did little damage to freedom in American society, the media is just as robust as ever. Did the Far Right come up with any serious ideological attack on freedom in American society? They are hardly capable of mounting such an attack and they don't have any idea beyond race baiting and white nationalism. The Left did and that ideology has been spreading through American society without much discussion or scrutiny. How many critical articles have you read about CRT or Intersectionality recently, considering how important these ideas have become for the Left in American society? Not just universities, but most elite cultural institutions in American society are controlled by the Left and they are governed according to norms which cannot be described as liberal by any stretch of the imagination. This is why this website exists. (I think). I have already seen 10,000 articles discussing Trump's remarks on Charlottesville, I don't want to read another one unless the writer has something totally new or interesting to say. Discussion of climate change or right wing extremism is very easy to find in dozens of liberal media publications. Can you name me a single website apart from this one that is discussing left wing extremism from a liberal perspective? (maybe Quillette).
I'm guessing some of the people who have commented have not been accused of cultural appropriation or are themselves accusers. I am an artist and a quilter and recently got into an IG discussion on this topic. In all sincerity, I asked where the lines get drawn in the quilting world. Isn't art a place where cultures can come together? Should a person of color be offended if I would like to purchase their quilt design? Conversely, should I be offended if a person of color wants to buy mine? I was viciously attacked by a white woman for not understanding the topic. Her response was the almost identical, line-for-line response given in the pod cast " Is it Racist for a White Man to Bounce a Brown Baby on His Lap". Obviously, she had read the same book. When I mentioned I'd speak with my friends of color on the issue she asked me to please not bother my friends of color with this. Instead, I was to read some books and search the internet to which my response was " So I should read what other white folks say about it rather than have an actual discussion with a person I could potentially offend? " I was blocked after that. Interestingly, she also eliminated a comment by a person of color who did not agree with what she was saying. We cant' have it both ways. We cant' have an all inclusive society and yet draw lines and make everyone stay in their lanes without stifling all sides. I agree with the issue of exploitation and I think that can be clearly defined, but how far do we take this thinking? The first know quilt was made in Italy – does that mean only Italians should be allowed to quilt? Fortunately, I'm part Italian but I wonder what my Amish neighbors would think about that. This topic is important because once you take this type of thinking further down the road, you see that it will eventually create the very thing the proponents of it are trying to eliminate.
Justin Smith makes two critical arguments in his article: First, that cultural appropriation is "simply a general law of culture" so widespread that to classify it as either good or bad makes little sense: Second, that individual cultures are simply "variations on a fairly limited range of patterns that are grounded in human nature." I regard this second point as a real contribution to a debate that all too often falls into predictable grooves. If, as Smith suggests, every culture ultimately reflects our common humanity, then what sense does it make to claim that one is taking something that doesn't belong to them. All culture is for all of us to use, enjoy, appreciate, and, yes, be inspired by. It seems to me that when an African-American girl does an Irish jig, she is doing precisely what Smith suggests: reflecting our common humanity. Also, being African-American, her own unique heritage, she can't just be copying an Irish jig but is inevitably putting her own unique stamp on it. In other words, even every "appropriation" is itself a contribution to our common culture.
True. When someone asked the famous Iranian film director Abbas Kiarostami why he used Western classical music in a film set in a small Iranian village - he asked the translator to say the following to the questioner "Tell him that classical music has long ceased to belong to the West, it belongs to the world now".
Sinchan, Thanks. A lovely illustration of my (really Justin Smith's) point.
You are welcome!
It used to be known as Homage, a great honor to the original work - it's the reason we study the work of our forbears and neighbors IF we acknowledge the value of the beloved community.
Its a leap to to assume denigrating the caricature of a culture at Halloween would scare away someone from learning the Seneca language. The problem is one of attribution and respect. That's why its called appropriation. Much like in writing, whether it is a direct quote or a paraphrase, you cite your sources. Appropriation is a form of plagiarism. If you're going to be inspired to use the products of another culture, the author(s) should acknowledge and respect that culture, or be open to criticism. Costumes, folk music, painting traditions, food traditions, religious rituals are not neutral products traded in a market place - they are symbols and tools of for a particular way of being in the world. For a dominant culture to use them without acknowledgement is not just theft, its an act of erasure. To cheapen them is an act of domination. So yes, we need cultural critics to help us along that fine line between bricolage, homage, and abuse. But just as few would argue that black face or red face at Halloween is insulting and wrong few would argue that learning another's language or cooking method is disrespectful. And I fail to see what economics has to do with Halloween. Dressing up like an Indian for fun, whether the costume is a cheap, expensive, or authentic, is just wrong.
This use of the word "erasure" is so hyperbolic as to be outright fantasy.
No cultural tradition is "owned" by any culture. Cultures don't grow in isolation, they are fluid things which are constantly borrowing from others. (if they are dynamic). This whole debate is not about "respect" or "recognition". If that was all, then this article won't even need to be published. If you look at artists, writers or ordinary people who have been attacked and bullied for "cultural appropriation", it is not about respect. It is about the demand that what you call "dominant cultures" should not use any any dress or idea or food of another culture. People have descended on the accused in droves like an army of locusts hunting down their victim demanding an apology and then demanding deplatforming and boycott, sometimes even if a grovelling apology was offered by the victim. This "social justice mobbing" (and there are certainly many examples of this, including in this article) is certainly not about respect, saying that is a bad joke. (sorry!).
Besides this, the whole idea is questionable. What is a dominant culture? Is there such a thing irrespective of context? An upper middle class Indian professional in UK belongs to the "dominant culture" of successful professionals - he was able to achieve what he did because he was probably born into a family that emphasized human capital accumulation and other cultural habits associated with success -a working class white person is from a "subordinate culture" - he may have been born into a family that did not prepare him for achieving things in life. How do you know somebody is privileged or from a "dominant culture" just by looking at the color of their skin or their belonging to a cultural group?
This idea is problematic at another level. The rights of minorities should be respected. But nobody has the right in a democracy to determine what others are allowed to say or not to say. Just because a person is white doesn't mean they have to accept a demand from individuals belonging to a so called minority group to speak in a certain way. Such demands are typically not made by many members of the minority group in question, they are made by white progressives claiming to be offended on behalf of a minority group. Of course we should condemn hate speech, but a white person borrowing or celebrating another culture is not hate speech, it is called multiculturalism or simply enjoying life!
The demand for respect is unnecessary. Most people who use food, clothing or music or an idea from another culture do it because they respect it and cherish it, they don't do it because they want to mock it. In any case, criticizing or mocking or satirizing other cultures is very much part of the democratic process. This is true even for so called "subordinate cultures". All cultures can benefit from criticism and satire, they don't need to kept insulated in a "glass house" just because they belong to a "minority group".
Its not about what people can say or not say, its about what people should and shouldn't say and should and shouldn't do. Its about an ethical approach to culture. There is a difference between criticism and mocking. We are intelligent enough to know what satire is - but should we satirize a culture? I think that is very dangerous and cross the line into mocking. I'm arguing that we should take personal responsibility for acknowledging and understanding difference as much as universals. This essay argues that because humans all engage in similar modes of cultural production those products should be able to be used indiscriminately.
It is a hypothetical discussion to a certain extent - there are plenty of examples in which people have been attacked just for borrowing from another culture, without any mocking. We need to see this as a social phenomenon. What is happening here? It has a lot to do with Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality and how these simplistic and dangerous ideas taken to extremes have undermined (in USA) the basic principles of a free society.
PJC: "This essay argues that because humans all engage in similar modes of cultural production those products should be able to be used indiscriminately."
Not true. The article clearly states: "Many uses of other cultures’ productions truly are morally wrong. Some are even materially and politically harmful. But this is not in virtue of whatever element of appropriation they may involve. Rather, it is usually because someone else’s culture is being used in an exploitative way—and is thus wrong in the same way all forms of exploitation are wrong."
One of my chief criticisms of the broadly accepted use of the term "cultural appropriation" is the simple, seemingly willfully ignorant use of it in every possible instance rather than the word actually suited to describe what is occurring: Inspiration.
I was with you until “Halloween is a stupid holiday.”
You are wrong that everyone on this website agrees about cultural appropriation, please see the discussion below. Left wing extremism is not just on college campuses, if it were, we won't even need to have this website.
There is a concerted ideological attack on freedom of speech and expression in American society coming from the Left. Trump's tweets did little damage to freedom in American society, the media is just as robust as ever. Did the Far Right come up with any serious ideological attack on freedom in American society? They are hardly capable of mounting such an attack and they don't have any idea beyond race baiting and white nationalism. The Left did and that ideology has been spreading through American society without much discussion or scrutiny. How many critical articles have you read about CRT or Intersectionality recently, considering how important these ideas have become for the Left in American society? Not just universities, but most elite cultural institutions in American society are controlled by the Left and they are governed according to norms which cannot be described as liberal by any stretch of the imagination. This is why this website exists. (I think). I have already seen 10,000 articles discussing Trump's remarks on Charlottesville, I don't want to read another one unless the writer has something totally new or interesting to say. Discussion of climate change or right wing extremism is very easy to find in dozens of liberal media publications. Can you name me a single website apart from this one that is discussing left wing extremism from a liberal perspective? (maybe Quillette).
I deleted my comments because I simply don’t want to have this conversation.
Sorry if I offended you.
You didn’t offend me I’m just exhausted.