I am confused as to why it is good or bad or neither. Genuinely confused. Please and thank you.
In: 0
Disclaimer: different people mean different things by cultural appropriation, and like all big terms it encompasses many meanings. (See, for example, any -ism.)
That said, the gist is that there are features of certain human cultures (another vague word) that are identified with such cultures and are, in some sense, “theirs,” like a patent or copyright. Think of a food item: maybe tacos, or sushi, or haggis. Most people (in the US anyway) associate tacos with Mexican culture, sushi with Japan (or east Asia – not all cultural groups agree on what’s “theirs,” either), and haggis with Scotland.
Appropriation is a legal term that generally means “taking for yourself.” Cultural appopriation, then, under this theory, happens when members who are not from that culture engage in that cultural practice. So, if white ladies try to make tacos in Portland (real case), people who believe that the idea of tacos “belongs” to Mexicans, would get upset that someone not from the culture is trying to benefit or profit from the products of that culture. If you think of people primarily as members of groups, this makes sense: Mexicans, as a group, created this cultural good; its profits should accrue to Mexicans as a group; the rest of us should settle for getting to eat delicious tacos.
This applies to music, where one might object to a white musician becoming a celebrity making music that originated in the black American community, etc.
It gets more complicated, and you can fairly accuse people of being inconsistent in their application (as in, more people would get upset at a white person making tacos than a black person making haggis), but I don’t want the conversation on this thread to become even stupider than it’s bound to be.
And now I’m off for tacos.
Latest Answers