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.
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.
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.
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.
I was with you until “Halloween is a stupid holiday.”