Where do you draw the line as to what is or is not cultural appropriation?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@MrDibble

I wonder who will be deciding what constitutes a “plausible case” and a “direct threat”?

Actually, no, I don’t wonder that. Past experience tells me who will be doing that, and it’s never the people actually experiencing the threat.

I agree–and honestly, this is what gives me the greatest pause about criminalizing hate speech. In a country like mine, rife with white supremacy, controlled by people with loathsome views, with a Supreme Court rubber-stamped by the Federalist Society, I’m not sure I want to give the government power to decide what constitutes a plausible case and a direct threat. I worry that they’d let the Proud Boys go and jail Antifa activists. I mean, hell, look at Florida and their moves toward persecuting teachers who talk about the Civil Rights movement or who mention same-sex relationships. We know which speech they’ll outlaw given half a chance.

[Miller]

Yeah, it’s important to remember that one of the most successful tools used by right wing bigots to dismantle LGBT protections in the US was a law passed to protect the religious practices of indigenous Americans. There’s also currently a push to get crimes committed against police officers treated as hate crimes. Those sort of things make me really leery of hate speech legislation. I can absolutely see that being used to quash pro-LGBT speech as “hate speech” against Christians.

[Acsenray]

@Kimstu

Yes, such people should be thoughtful and sensitive about using their traditional swastika symbols when in the presence of other people who may not be familiar with them, and who might mistakenly associate them with Nazi imagery. But that’s not the same as saying that they just shouldn’t ever use them at all.

Absolutely. A Hindu in Europe or North America, for example, should definitely reconsider any thought of putting a huge swastika on the outside of a building, which might be entirely benign if it were done in India.

[Acsenray]

@Kimstu

while traditional non-Nazi swastikas don’t need any “redemption”.

It depends on what you mean, I suppose. As noted above, a Hindu can’t freely use a swastika outside of India. Would you consider it possible or desirable that this situation be different? I don’t know, myself. I think it’s unfortunate that the symbol is itself so tainted. However, in the current state of politics I wonder whether “redeeming” the Hindu swastika might not have other, less desirable consequences.

[D_Anconia]

@MrDibble

I am eternally grateful I live in a country where hate speech is actually illegal.

I am eternally grateful that I live in a country where freedom of expression is protected.

[Mangetout]

@Acsenray

Would you consider it possible or desirable that this situation be different?

I think this is perhaps the most important question in the whole discussion. We’ve got people arguing as to what should happen now, but I feel like we probably all agree that in terms of what has already happened, it would have been better if it had not. (Not talking about an alternative universe where there were no nazis, just one where the swastika, or anything else, was not a prominent emblem)

A Hindu symbol of generally good things has been appropriated and associated with a very bad thing. Would it be better if this had never been the case? Not all evil regimes have memorable logos, so I don’t think it’s reasonable to argue that we’re better off knowing this specific evil regime has that one.

Assuming we do all (or mostly all) agree that it would have been better if this hadn’t been so, then we have an example of cultural appropriation that is bad.

[MrDibble]

I’ll notice you didn’t answer the post I actually addressed to you.

[MrDibble]

@Acsenray

which might be entirely benign if it were done in India.

Would it be “entirely benign” if it was purposefully placed opposite, say, a mosque? I mean, Hindutva exists and is not exactly just benign religious expression, it’s ethnic nationalism. Do you think the symbol is immune from being tainted by that kind of association?

[Acsenray]

@MrDibble

Would it be “entirely benign” if it was purposefully placed opposite, say, a mosque? I mean, Hindutva exists and is not exactly just benign religious expression, it’s ethnic nationalism. Do you think the symbol is immune from being tainted by that kind of association?

No symbol is immune from misuse. But this symbol has no special power in India. First of all it’s far from the only Hindu religious symbol. And it’s not even the most common or most important religious symbol. You could use the swastika as a symbol for Hinduism, but it doesn’t have the same iconic status as a crucifix for Christianity or a crescent for Islam. It’s a symbol for good things is a general sense. Religious imagery is everywhere in India. Putting a religious symbol opposite a mosque could be intentionally provocative, but it wouldn’t look any different than an unmotivated use of a religious symbol. It would be unusual if there weren’t already all kinds of Hindu symbols within sight of a mosque already. It would take more than the mere appearance of the symbol to be provocative or threatening.

[kayaker]

@MrDibble

I mean, Hindutva exists and is not exactly just benign religious expression, it’s ethnic nationalism.

Wow, TIL. I thank god for my atheism.

[MrDibble]

@Acsenray

It would be unusual if there weren’t already all kinds of Hindu symbols within sight of a mosque already.

That wasn’t my hypothetical. The hypothetical was a huge swastika being erected now on the outside of a building opposite a mosque. Or say, opposite a particular shrine. Let’s say the Ajmer Dargah. That would just be “entirely benign”, you think, in the current climate?

@Acsenray

No symbol is immune from misuse.

My point exactly.

@Acsenray

But this symbol has no special power in India.

Neither did the Hakenkreuz in Germany. Before.

@Acsenray

And it’s not even the most common or most important religious symbol.

I’m not saying it is the most important symbol. I’m saying it could be used for not “entirely benign” purposes. That being a “symbol of good things” isn’t a shield against appropriation by evil.

[Isamu]

The line of humanity has always been improved by cultural appropriation, and it will continue to be so. Any culture learns from what they see, and adopts those things or reject them, as they see fit.

If we take on a cultural tradition or emblem that we like, even if we don’t belong to that culture, it doesn’t make us assholes, it makes us fans.

If we either make fun of, or turn to evil purposes, a cultural tradition or emblem of another culture it makes us assholes.

[Acsenray]

@Acsenray

which might be entirely benign if it were done in India.

I think if you take my “might” seriously, you can understand that there’s nothing further for us to argue about.

@MrDibble

@Acsenray

No symbol is immune from misuse.

My point exactly.

And this too.

[Acsenray]

@Isamu

If we take on a cultural tradition or emblem that we like, even if we don’t belong to that culture, it doesn’t make us assholes, it makes us fans.

This is, in general, true, if all things are equal. However in our specific timeline we have a problem. And that problem is several centuries of white supremacy and imperialism whose consequences to this day are quite harsh. So all things are not equal. If we are talking about the United States, then members of the dominant majoritarian culture have an obligation to step much more carefully than anyone else does. White people don’t get to say the N-word, for example.

[Yookeroo]

@mbh

I am skeptical that one can turn on one’s friends quite so easily.
But, your intentions are good.

I’ve cut off close family members who are anti-vax and/or MAGAts. It was easy.

[iiandyiiii]

@Miller

Yeah, it’s important to remember that one of the most successful tools used by right wing bigots to dismantle LGBT protections in the US was a law passed to protect the religious practices of indigenous Americans.

What are you referring to here?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment states that Congress shall not pass laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. In the 1960s, the Supreme Court interpreted this as banning laws that burdened a person’s exercise of religion (e.g. Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)). But in the 1980s the Court began to allow legislation that incidentally prohibited religiously mandatory activities as long as the ban was “generally applicable” to all citizens.

But “generally applicable” bans frequently conflicted with Native American religious practice. Often, government projects required acquisition of sacred grounds necessary for Native American rituals.[8] Ritual peyote use infringed on the federal war on drugs. And the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which Congress had passed to protect tribal religious freedoms, lacked an enforcement mechanism.

These interests collided in Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association, 485 U.S. 439 (1988), and Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990).

In Lyng, members of the Yurok, Tolowa and Karok tribes argued that the First Amendment should prevent the U.S. Forest Service from constructing a road through sacred land used in ceremonies and prayer. The Supreme Court disagreed, arguing that only government coercion or punishment for religious beliefs would violate the First Amendment.[9]

In Smith, the Court upheld the state of Oregon’s refusal to grant unemployment benefits to two Native Americans fired from their jobs at a rehab clinic after testing positive for mescaline, the main psychoactive compound in the peyote cactus, which they had used in a religious ceremony.[10]

The Smith decision outraged the public. Groups representing all points on the political spectrum (from the liberal American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Traditional Values Coalition) and a wide variety of religions (i.e. the Christian Legal Society, the American Jewish Congress, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, and the National Association of Evangelicals) agreed that the law required reform, and recommended reinstating the Sherbert Test. In response, Congress passed the RFRA, unanimously in the House and 97-to-3 in the Senate. The bill was then signed by U.S. President Bill Clinton.[11]

[iiandyiiii]

Thanks.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Isamu

The line of humanity has always been improved by cultural appropriation, and it will continue to be so. Any culture learns from what they see, and adopts those things or reject them, as they see fit.

If we take on a cultural tradition or emblem that we like, even if we don’t belong to that culture, it doesn’t make us assholes, it makes us fans.

If we either make fun of, or turn to evil purposes, a cultural tradition or emblem of another culture it makes us assholes.

perfectly put

[Kimstu]

@Isamu

If we take on a cultural tradition or emblem that we like, even if we don’t belong to that culture, it doesn’t make us assholes, it makes us fans.

Sure, but there are ignorant thoughtless fans as well as knowledgeable respectful fans. See, for example, my remark in post #137 about non-Christians choosing to wear crucifix jewelry as a fashion statement, which many Christians not unreasonably find inappropriate.

You might be “taking on” a “cultural tradition or emblem”, albeit in an uninformed superficial way, because you sincerely like how it looks, or tastes, or whatever. In other words, you are honestly some sort of “fan” of the tradition or emblem in question, despite not really understanding its cultural significance.

But that doesn’t mean that your use of the tradition or emblem can’t still be somewhat inappropriate or disrespectful. Even though your faux pas is due to mere cultural ignorance and naivete rather than any deliberate assholish intention to take over or make fun of the tradition or emblem.