Somehow these arguments about cultural appropriation only ever go one way. I've never heard anyone claim that it's cultural appropriation when non-Westerners adopt -- and benefit from -- various Western schools of thought. I've never felt the urge to gate-keep, say, the germ theory of disease from non-Westerners. What right do I have to do that? What right does the author have to gate-keep Buddhism? Why do people do this? Is it insecurity?
The germ theory of disease is sprang up in many places of the world throughout history.
Setting that aside, cultural appropriation is something that just happens; it's not a moral good or bad, despite the way that it often gets talked about in culture war rants. It's an emergent phenomenon of different cultures mingling.
There are negative aspects of appropriation, such as decontextualizing something to the point of erasing its original meaning, or using it as window dressing to be "exotic," or to make fun of people. These things can feel especially crass to people when they're present in a system that denigrates or oppresses the people that they are appropriating those things from.
I can't speak for everyone, but to me it makes sense that the issue people have against appropriation of sacred customs or ornamentation of some cultures is that it seems disrespectful to the people who hold it sacred. I'm not even sure that's what the original article is saying, though.
An ironic one seen was a black person stopping and scolding a white person for wearing dreadlocks as some sort of cultural theft, but she herself was wearing a Scottish weave sweater and speaking English.
hmm...I was expecting a different context, but isn't it a bit tough to flag speaking English in a US university as appropriation ? Worse case scenario, her ancestry didn't chose to come to the US...
Was also expecting something way more Scottish from your description, when it's basically a uni-color classic cut orange sweater.
On going the other way, there is/was quite a reaction on China half-ripping off Disney (!) characters in regional parks or goods. I'd argue China making "knock-off"s or "stealing our IP" is pretty close to that as well.
Then, it's pretty hard to culturally appropriate Christianity when it's setup with a doctrine of expansion and push to fit everywhere it can. That was basically the premise of colonialism in the early days. Same way we wouldn't be crying rivers because Asians countries embraced Coca Cola.
> germ theory of disease
Hasn't that been a two-way street for basically the beginning of times ? The Silk Road was as much about exchanging theories and culture than exchanging goods. There's no discussion the very base of our own culture and science is heavily influenced by the early advancement of eastern countries.
> there is/was quite a reaction on China half-ripping off Disney (!) characters in regional parks or goods. I'd argue China making "knock-off"s or "stealing our IP" is pretty close to that as well.
Companies trying to make trademark, patent and copyright claims seems like an entirely different matter from people complaining about cultural appropriation. The former is typically by people who may have a legal basis for claiming ownership over an idea (the merits of which is a different conversation, in my opinion).
I don't get the sense that the article's author is attempting to make a copyright claim on Buddhism here. This is just ethnic turf staking.
The reaction we were seeing about China knocking off US IP wasn't all from corporations though. It was, and still is, a pretty popular sentiment I think.
On the article itself, I went through most of it, but have a very hard time being emotional about corporate culture getting crossed with institutional religious entities. I see both as kinda toxic, and if they can spend some time fighting each other we might actually get a break for once.
> White liberals prefer nonwhites to be quaint, uneducated, and poor.
I feel like this deserves a response. I am going to try to avoid veering into flame war territory, if I fail feel free to downvote/flag.
Also, I'm currently on mobile. I'll try my best on formatting and spelling, but no promises.
Ok, on to the response.
I am a white liberal. What you have listed is the last thing I want - what I want is to ensure we continue to maintain a functioning democracy, ensure that social mobility is possible for the largest number of people possible, help as many people as possible become educated, and ensure companies do not gain too much power.
Verbiage like you just used is very comparable to verbiage like ACAB and "All republicans are fascist".
> I've never heard anyone claim that it's cultural appropriation when non-Westerners adopt -- and benefit from -- various Western schools of thought.
To be fair, until very recently in history, failure to convert to Christianity and assimilate into the colonial culture was illegal and practicing one's native culture or even speaking the language could get one killed. On the other hand, one could only assimilate so far before the pitchforks came out. Contrast that to today where if you transgress a cultural boundary, somebody might exercise their free speech in your general direction. It is a pretty one-way thing, but us white westerners aren't being oppressed.
We are not being oppressed, but we are being irritated a lot. And a lot of us (not me) are voting for Trump, Le Pen, AfD etc. So the overall effect of “Race Grievance Theory” is quite counterproductive.
There's about 500 years of history that thoroughly explain why it is not considered appropriation when non-Western people adopt Western practices. Lots of things only "go one way" when we are dealing with massive power imbalances.
This is a really vague answer. Can you elaborate? What happened 500 years ago that explains why the authors are right in their attempt to ban certain ethnic groups from certain ideas?
What about all the other times a dominant force occupied lands that weren't theirs? That's like... all of history. So are we going to cancel Roman and ancient Mongolian influence too? Or what about the time natives of north america wiped out whoever occupied it before them?
Let's apply that same reasoning on a different scale.
Rome violently occupied most of Europe and forced its culture on to those peoples. Therefore, most Europeans may eat as much pizza as they like. But if an Italian so much as looks at a croissant or wears pants, they've done A Cultural Appropriation.
Your example would stand if Rome was the #1 economic power, was also the #1 producer of movies in the world, exported it's myths and culture all around the world all year long, forced their neighboring countries into trade partnerships to make sure Rome's products (including their music, movies, beverages etc.) weren't blocked from competing with local products.
Then yes, people could be pissed at Rome companies also producing "Rome croissant" that were to globally compete with French croissants and take their place on other countries' shelves.
This doesn't explain why I as an individual cannot adopt and adapt non-Western perspectives, values, and religious beliefs. Why should the actions of people long dead to whom I bear no relation other than shared skin color mean that I have to go to contortions to avoid adopting valuable ideas into my own life?
So, if I'm from a western country that was occupied, colonised and had a foreign culture forced upon it, it would not be considered appropriation if I were to adopt non-western schools of thought?
If that hypothetical makes you happy, sure. But I think most people can easily tell the difference between the widespread colonization that occurred for hundreds of years and whatever historical anomalies you have in mind with that leading question.
> But I think most people can easily tell the difference between the widespread colonization that occurred for hundreds of years and whatever historical anomalies you have in mind with that leading question.
I was referring to Ireland, whose colonisation[1][2] during the 16th and 17th centuries served almost as a prototype for future British expansion. Gaelic culture was nearly wiped out due to British policies, and even to this day, Irish is a severely endangered language. It remains the one of the few regions in Europe with a lower population in the present than it had in 1800.
No one ever said there wasn't West-on-West subjugation. There's a rich history of that, too. But that is not what we historically consider to be the multi-hundred year era of colonization than killed untold millions and impacted the lives of almost every non-Western person on the planet.
I'm sorry, but on what basis, other than geographical location, are you differentiating between the colonization of Ireland and other British colonies?
> But that is not what we historically consider to be the multi-hundred year era of colonization than killed untold millions and impacted the lives of almost every non-Western person on the planet.
Ok. So again, I ask: what's the difference? There was a seizure of lands, systematic eradication of culture and language over the course of several hundred years, mass discrimination, and millions killed in conflicts and famine. What part of that makes it distinct from other instances of colonization?
When you say non-Western, you really do mean non-White, correct? I feel as if there's a racial bush being beaten around here that one may as well go and point out.
The point I think you're trying to make is that different rules apply for cultural appropriation for white people than they do for people of color. Would you agree?
> I feel as if there's a racial bush being beaten around here that one may as well go and point out.
Aww, why'd you have to go and point that out? I was having fun beating around that bush...
But more seriously, I would have preferred to hear that from the poster. I specifically avoided putting those words in their mouth, despite being tempted to a few times; and also to avoid getting dragged down into a debate of whatever "white" means.
