Only if you can quote Dope Man or Fat Girl.
That’s a pretty loose definition of harm that you have chosen to use. Simply getting things that others do not is not harm, but taking them can be.
For instance, in your example of the office worker that got the promotion; if he got the promotion because his co-worker was late to the interview, and the reason that they were late to the interview is because the first worker slashed the other’s tires, that would be harm.
If you got a promotion based on that, would you feel proud of yourself? If not, then I am not in disagreement with you, but with the people who would be proud of themselves for that action, if you would be proud of those actions, then I would find great disagreement with that world view.
Considering that the harm that has bene done to minority cultures by the sucsefful ones is quite a bit more than just slashing tires and getting an undeserved promotion, it is not wrong to see what further damage we are doing to those who cannot protect themselves.
You lost me there. I am not sure that that has anything at all to do with cultural appropriation. Maybe cultural inertia is what you are describing here?
Yeah, that’s not what we are talking about here, not at all. It’s not about change, it’s about denigrating the culture of other people.
Imagine a frat party with a bunch of drunk white guys wearing cheap imitation Native American ceremonial head dress, beating their chest and whooping “war cries”.
How does this stop Native Americans from using a ceremonial head dress?
Not at all
Of course. You get 100 people together deciding where to hold a banquet, 98 of them say place a, 2 of them say place b, and the banquet is going to be held in place a. That is the consequence of majority rule, and while the 2 may not be happy about the decision of the 98, then that is tough noogies for them. That is just a matter of numeric majority.
But it is fighting the status quo of human nature to protect the status quo of a specific idea. You don’t want other people to have access to an idea because you want to keep it unchanged for yourself. Such as this recent article decrying people playing with the concept of the sasquach because the want to keep their children thinking of the sasquatch in a specific way. That is wanting to cling to a status quo. And complaints about J.K. Rowling playing with the concept of “skinwalkers” because some want to maintain the status quo of skinwalkers being thought of in only a specific way. (Even though I didn’t see Europeans complaining about their mythological beasts being played with.) It is all about wanting the world to stay the way it is when it insists on moving on.
It’s a little like what happened with Burberry ten years ago.
Twenty years ago, if you saw someone wearing Burberry you could pretty safely make some assumptions about what kind of school they went to, how much money they earned and how much money was in their trust fund, and how many people named Jolyon and Tamarin they knew. In other words, there were certain cultural signals of wealth and privilege that people broadcast by wearing Burberry.
Then the “chavs” got in on the act. Wanting to claim those cultural signals for themselves, they started wearing Burberry and Burberry knock offs. The cultural effect was astonishing. Within a very short space of time, the cultural signals given off by Burberry were very different. Now it meant: “cheap” “low-class” “brash” and even “thuggish”. Burberry’s sales to the rich upper classes plummeted, because who would want to associate themselves with that. A cultural symbol had been taken out of one context and put in another, and as a result had lost its value in the original context.
None of this is to make claims about which of the chavs or the trustafarians is the dominant culture. Just to show that what we think of a particular symbol depends entirely on the context we see it in, and if it starts appearing in a different context we think of it very differently - even when its in its original context. And as human beings are not robots it is in fact impossible for us to pretend that the ideas we associate with the original haven’t changed, even if we wish we could.
Of course they have–they’ve stared longingly at that vacant office, imagining how they would position their desk and the photos they would hang. They’ve planned on using the extra money to finally get that adoption paperwork rolling. They’ve imagined the look on their elderly mother’s face when they told her that she could move out of the dingy nursing home into the nicer assisted living home. And all those dreams come crashing down when they don’t get that promotion. Harm done. How dare you take their promotion! Feel bad!
Not saying that they took their place and not even sure I’d call Backstreet rap so much as it is a hybrid, rap, and dance hybrid. What I’m trying to say is that some of these suburban white acts have taken what was once ‘black’ and put it into the mainstream. That’s not necessarily bad as it has given African American musical genres more exposure. However, I can also see how it’s a sensitive issue if whites are making more money from traditionally black art than black people are, especially when they might not have the same level of appreciation for its history and meaning to the black population.
It reminds me now of something that I saw when I went to Laos a long time ago. European and North American travelers discovered the country sometime in the 1990s and it became suddenly very popular to go there. When they went, a few stayed and started opening up businesses like B&Bs, coffee shops, and so forth. On the one hand, it made some of these places seem more ‘comfortable’ to visit and thus attracted more travelers. It boosted the local economy. But I also saw examples in which tourists frequented the ‘Western’ style shops more than even the local ones. I can’t fault foreign entrepreneurs for taking advantage of an opportunity, presumably out of a fondness for the place. But I can also see how it might be a sensitive subject if you’re a local and not really adept at capitalistic competition and you’re watching outsiders make money in your own backyard. I know it’s not the best analogy but I’m guessing the feelings are similar.
Hence the concept of “the tyranny of the majority” that James Madison and John Adams in particular were so concerned about.
The attempted answer in the United States has often been in enshrining various protections for minority beliefs and perspectives but sometimes merely simple decency is called for. My group being bigger and stronger may allow me to ignore any consideration of others and to completely disrespect them, but that does not mean I am a decent human being to do so or that they should just shut up about my being a jerk.
I gotta get me one of those “Chocolate Fucking Jesus” T-Shirts!
I’ll try to be more clear, since you are having trouble following along.
It can have two effects:
- It may not stop the original people from using the practice and imagary, but it can result in the dominant culture devaluing the source of something they now have taken as their own, or make it more difficult for the original culture to practice.
I can still have a Passover seder, but I have to wade through pages of “Messianic Seder” paraphernalia to buy new Haggadas because Evangelical Christians have decided to start conducting full-blown Seders, that use our imagery to imply the foretelling of Christ in the Torah. There are people I have interacted with who do not realize that the Seder they practice is not the same thing we do, it’s meaning is quite different. As a result there are many people who view Judaism as “Christianity-light” as opposed to a religion that has an extremely different POV and values.
- It can alter the way the original culture is implemented in the context of the dominant culture. Hanukkah was a minor holiday and pretty meaningless. But Christian society decided to elevate Hanukkah celebration imagery because of it’s proximity to Christmas (so far as to see Hanukah based Christmas tree ornaments). As a result, over the last few generations Hanukah has become more important even in Jewish society, in order to assimilate and get along with our Christian neighbors. Foe example, work Christmas parties and school winter concerts have morphed into Holiday parties/concerts that feel obligated to include a menorah or Jewish Star. So now many Jewish families have ramped up gift giving etc, which is their own choice, but it was driven by Christian POV that Hanukah must be important because it’s near Christmas. This wasn’t our push- it was a result of the effect of the dominant culture incorporating our holiday for various purposes.
Very few realize that Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur are my holy days. Look at how Hanukah is celebrated in Israel or places where Christianity isn’t so dominant and you see a different picture.
Those are a couple personal examples. I don’t know w=if they’ll sway your opinion or not, but it’s very real effect in my world.
Argument from absurdity works better when your absurd argument is actually connected to or derives from what you’re trying to discredit. People feel legitimately miffed when people take their sacred bowls and start using them as ashtrays, or whatever, in the same way that you would feel legitimately miffed if people started using a photo of you as a universal symbol of idiocy and bedwetting. It’s not hard to understand, even if you are hellbent on refusing to care about the concerns and problems of minorities.
Just about everything you wrote about Rap and R&B is wrong. From Rappers Delight to the present, it has been mainstream music played on mainstream radio, for example. Someone needs to tell Diana Ross or Stevie Wonder or The Jackson 5 thst you cant get rich playing R&B.
Have we forgotten about New Edition? 
Neither of these examples is cultural appropriation and neither hurts you in any way. A better example of cultural appropriation would be this or dunkin donuts serving bagels.
Oh noes! You have just harmed me!
Well no, because I don’t accept your conclusion. Even if you consider disappointment to be harm it was still caused by that poor guy and his own expectations. Maybe that kind of thinking is why he didn’t get promoted in the first place.
(Why are we arguing about this?)
Here is a real world example–when the complaints about J.K. Rowling writing a (half-assed) story that included skinwalkers was breaking news, I was in a thread on a different forum where the topic was being discussed, and the conversation had drifted (as conversations do) to the fact that the concept of a person being cursed by committing cannibalism was not unique to the Navajo and had been independently invented by lots of cultures. In the midst of this conversation, someone (who was not a Navajo or a Native American at all) popped in to say that the subject of skinwalkers is sacred to the Navajo and isn’t to be talked about lightly, and that we should stop talking about it right now. Does the fact that I kept discussing (in an anthroplogical sense, not a mocking one) the concept of skinwalkers even if the Navajo wouldn’t have wanted me to make me a jerk? Am I not a decent human being because I don’t conciser myself to be beholden to someone else’s taboos?
Okay, let’s go with this–I’m in a public place and screw up in some way that generates a meme image that makes the rounds of the internet. I’d probably be miffed over it. But I have no right to not be miffed. If I’m miffed, then it is simply tough shit for me. I have (and should have) no legal recourse to fight miffery. And the same goes for people having “sacred bowls” used as ashtrays.
I don’t doubt that items can become associated with different groups but in what way does that* harm *the originators?
So the specific ways I’ve described being hurt by it are wrong. Thanks for explaining that to me.
I think the best way to describe the problem with cultural appropriation to white conservatives is to compare it to stolen valor. If purple heart nose rings and infantry badge head bands started being the next new thing among 20 something hipsters, I would imagine a number of veterans might be a bit miffed.