Cultural Appropriation

[TechWife]

This is spin off of Arctic Mama's thread "Argue me into or out of Uncle Remus." Check that one out if you want to chat about that compilation.

I'd like to have a broader discussion on something I'm trying to understand.

Please understand that these are honest questions on my part. Cultural appropriation is something I'm sincerely trying to grasp as I think it has far reaching implications.

Now, some random musings & questions on cultural appropriation:

I must admit cultural appropriation is something I have a hard time wrapping my mind around sometimes. Some examples I've seen I really understand and I have a "lightbulb moment"  while others leave me scratching my head.

For example, I have Dutch ancestry (my grandfather). If I make olie bollen at New Year's, I am celebrating my heritage. If I make them at Christmas instead, does it become cultural appropriation? Is it okay for me to make them if I am not in The Netherlands? What if I teach my sister in law how to make them (she has no Dutch heritage) and she makes them for New Years - is she culturally appropriating something or is she just making something she likes? What about if she makes them for Christmas? What about my grandmother, who was Hungarian and learned to make olie bollen from her Dutch mother-in-law? Was she culturally appropriating the tradition or was it okay because her husband (my grandfather) was Dutch and she was ensuring a Dutch tradition was passed down to her Dutch-Hungarian, born in the US, children?

Another example would be that I was once asked by someone who isn't a Christian what they could do to "celebrate Lent." I was flummoxed because there is no way, IMO for a non-Christian to "celebrate Lent" that I can come up with, because first & foremost, Lent isn't a celebration, and secondly, if you aren't a Christian and have a secular Easter, what is the point of observing Lent? Now, if you want to do a countdown to the Easter bunny, that's a different thing entirely & I certainly don't have an issue with that, but please don't call it Lent. Sort of like many people now see the season of Advent as a countdown to Santa, when it is intended to be an anticipation of the Incarnation and all that follows. Christmas count down calendars have been made and have been commercially available for years, but in the past ten years or so I've seen them labeled "Advent Calendars," yet the number of day they include are not the days of Advent. I don't have any issue with having a Christmas count down calendar, but if it only has 25 days, please don't call it an Advent Calendar. On the other hand, the word "advent" does mean "anticipation," so isn't it okay to call a Christmas calendar and "Advent Calendar" because they are anticipating Santa? Do Christians have a monopoly on the word Advent?

Then this doesn't even touch on the realization that "Christmas" and "Easter" don't actually have a Christian origin - so were they "adopted" "adapted" or "culturally appropriated?" When does something cross the line into cultural appropriation?

What about the Foxfire books? Is wanting to write down regional information in the form of stories, songs, instructions & recipes cultural appropriation? When does preserving information for the sake of maintaining a cultural history become "cultural appropriation?" Does it depend on who does the collecting & writing, how it is presented, both, something else?

What about food that is "Tex-Mex?" Is it okay as long as you don't make it and call it Mexican food?

It seems to me that just about everything in the US is or was culturally appropriated at one time or another.

What about technologies that change culture (like the automobile or the smart phone) that originate in one culture but are widely adopted by other cultures? Is that just the spread of technology? But the technology is a culture changer - is it because we all kind of created an industrial or technological sub-culture across multiple geographically based cultures?

I hear the term "cultural appropriation" used negatively, not positively. Is it ever appropriate to adopt/adapt something from another culture? How do we decide where the line is? Is it okay for me to appreciate another culture and take part in their celebrations or use aspects of their celebrations into a celebration that I am having that is a celebration of something completely unrelated? What is the difference between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation?

[Guest]

I cannot answer your questions, but they are similar questions I have on this subject. The US is very much a giant cultural appropriation from our “cookies” to our  condiments to our fashions to our holidays. (“Holidays,” in fact, stemming from “Holy days” which are now celebrated in a secular manner or, in many cases, have been secular in purpose since they begun.) 

I would only think it is wrong when it is done in a mocking way. If you’re just making pfeffernusse because your husband always had them as a boy and you want to bring his family’s tradition into your own, I cannot see what would be wrong with that. 

[Ausmumof3]

I wish Australia would stop culturally appropriating Halloween from the US!

also certain demographics can stop the cultural appropriation of us gun culture that would be great!

i know that’s not what you mean though!

I think it comes down to what the culture wants.  Christian culture and English language culture seem quite keen to spread and share their traditions whereas other cultures are more insular.  There’s often concern where one culture adopts another one too widely about their own loss of culture too.  This has been going on forever since Japan and China over 1000 years ago and even longer...

[SereneHome]

I really shouldn't be commenting bc 1) it might get me banned or 2) I will not be very liked around here and I like this board, but....what the heck

I think the whole thing is beyond ridiculous.  I think there are plenty of ways that people learn from different culture and if they want to incorporate various activities, traditions, foods or whatever else in their lives bc they like it - it's a good thing.  It's a great thing!

How something so wonderful has been turned into a any kind of wrong-doing  just boggles my mind. 

 

[bolt.]

Cultural appropriation, in the negative sense, is a bit more limited than you seem to think.

It is a problem mostly limited to situations where two cultures are “uneven” in power — particularly if there is a history of oppression or supremacy claims from one culture over the other.

In the case where a culture has “had or claimed superiority” you can consider it cultural appropriation if the “over culture” adopts and uses culturally significant things from the “under culture” — for their own purposes and benefit. It often includes misunderstanding, simplifying, romanticizing, or even mocking the symbols or practices. Often the genuine cultural significance of the symbols or practices is completely ignored.

Since history contains a great deal of white supremacy (both conceptually and in practice) it is most common to identify it as inappropriate for ‘white people’ to appropriate the practices of the cultures they have had a history of poor contact with. It is less common for “cultural transfers” between and among cultures that do not have a history of demeaning each other to be considered inappropriate “cultural appropriation”. (“Appropriation” implies an action involving power. If there is no power differential, sociologists are more likely to call it a cultural “transfer”.)

Edited to add: What I mean is that most of what you are discribing seem more like cultural transfers than like cultural appropriation. (I’m not familiar with foxfire books.) Most food is not a culturally significant symbol, and it is usually freely shared. Most of the other cultures you are dealing with don’t have a privilidge / subordinate power dynamic that I know of.

Edited October 17, 2018 by bolt.

[LMD]

I think it's more about power structures than individual culture specific items.

So, a person with cultural privilege using that privilege to take/use (without permission) or explain/represent something - especially if it covers over a voice from the minority/oppressed culture.

So the uncle remus issue as I understand it is someone from the privileged class taking stories from the oppressed class and therefore inserting a privileged voice into what was something special to that community. It's rather tone deaf. I wouldn't make and sell aboriginal art prints, because it's not my cultural history, I don't have the roots to understand the meaning on the same level, and I'd be taking up visible space in a community that is already pushed to the margins.

I don't think you can appropriate food really. Maybe if it's a specific recipe that has religious or historical significance. I'm thinking it would probably be rude if I, a white Christian, learned a recipe for a sacred Hindu dish used in temple ceremonies and opened a restaurant to profit from it - disregarding the cultural meaning. Iykwim.

Edited October 17, 2018 by LMD

[LMD]

Did you read the rest of my post? I'm thinking not...

[marbel]

I do think the notion of cultural appropriation related to food is mostly ridiculous.   And, fwiw, I spent the first 10 years of my life living near immigrant grandparents who cooked and ate food "from the old country" and loved sharing it with their neighbors who likely came from other "old countries."  Sharing of food has always been a great way to build bridges, not walls, right? Every year around here there are multiple festivals celebrating different cultures and they always include food.  Lots of and lots of food!  And then cookbooks so the visitors can cook the food. 

When I was in high school, I lived in a section of town that was largely Hispanic. I (who am pretty dang white) would go to the Mexican market in search of ingredients. The proprietors were always happy to help me find ingredients and explain what I could sub if they were out of something. This was over 25 years ago but I still remember perusing the bins of chiles and asking for jalapenos, and an employee coming over, laughing and saying "Me!  I'm a Jalapeno! I come from Jalapa!"  He kindly helped me find them, asked me what I was making, and gave other tips. I knew I wasn't making true "Mexican food" but I was trying to approximate it as best I could. He seemed happy enough to help me and sell me some produce. I will never forget him.

There are exceptions, I'm sure. But I think most people are happy to share their food traditions and it's only when the "appropriators" are arrogant about it that it becomes a problem. That's been my experience anyway.  For example, I've seen the looks (white/American) people get in the Asian market when they walk around and point at the "weird" food and say "eeew, who would eat that?"  

The other things, such as holidays... I don't know. I am a Christian but I separate out "cultural Christmas" (Santa and such) from "Christmas as a religious holiday."  I can enjoy both and I don't really care if  nonChristians are celebrating "Christmas" that has nothing to do with Christ.  

Not sure of the point of my ramblings, really.  Maybe I just don't get food as cultural appropriation because, like I said, people love to share food

 

Edited October 18, 2018 by marbel

[Ausmumof3]

I wonder if commercialisation is where it crosses a big line.  Like sure... cook Spanish food but don’t open a Spanish food restaurant with all the decor.  Enjoy and be inspired by the stories but don’t rewrite them with an English perspective and then sell them.

[LMD]

4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

I did, but honestly, wasn't commenting on your post specifically, just using the particular line I quoted as a jumping off point for my own thoughts.  I honestly don't have much to comment on Uncle Remus because actually, until Arctic Mama posted her thread....I have never heard of it.  In fact, my only experience with Brer Rabbit was a ride at Disney World.  And yet, in the general topic of Cultural Appropriation, I do have thoughts.  

Okay thanks. 

Look, I agree that certain online types love the idea of cultural appropriation as another way to show off their wokeness. Chinese prom dress guy for one. Sharing food and style, products and technology is not really the point. It's about not taking sacred traditions from marginalised people and using them for profit or otherwise disrespectfully.

But the theory of cultural appropriation as a power structure as explained previously is useful in discussing power, class, oppression and liberation ideas.

So, wearing styles from other cultures is fine. Being from an oppressor class and wearing items from the oppressed class with sacred significance is not. Moccasins Okay, headdress no no.

[Janeway]

This country is a melting pot. There is no dominant culture. I think you should stop worrying so much and make whatever food you like. I am not going to invest any time investigating the cultural history of any recipe and avoid anything on any day, holiday or otherwise, for fear of "cultural appropriation." Really, from my experience, the people who call out "cultural appropriation" the most are the ones not of the culture they claim is being offended. 

[LMD]

5 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

My Dh works for a company based in Japan.  The North American Headquarters are in the middle of nowhere Ohio, and yet, Japanese citizens are shipped there on work Visas, with their wives and kids, to work for multiple years at a time.  In fact, last week, DH attended the going away party of someone who's time in US operations was up.  

 

Every year, in December, the company holds a Christmas party.  Red and green balloons, Santa in a photo booth, gifts for all the kids.  

 

And booths where the names of kids attending are painted in Japanese calligraphy.  And Japanese paper folding and cutting is used to create cute and pretty paper crafts for kids.

 

Who is appropriating who in a situation like that?

No-one is appropriating anyone. Both cultures are sharing non sacred traditions in a equal power structure.

If the Americans decided a fun japanese themed craft for the white guests was gifting versions of the Imperial Regalia or something else culturally sacred then Yeah, that would be appropriation I think. Partly because an American company on American soil automatically has home ground advantage. Partly because non-japanese have decided to use traditional Japanese items in a disrespectful way, in ignorance, without advice from the Japanese community they are trying to join with, for frivolous fun.

Does that make sense?

[Janeway]

6 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Ok, so you are saying that cultural appropriation is specifically related religious and otherwise "sacred" traditions?

ETA  sorry I am not explaining myself well and am in the process of getting my kids to bed so I mean more than I posted.  

Not even then. What about people who have weddings in churches who are not even Christian or religious? I see people who never attend church do this all the time. 

 

But this does bring up a rabbit trail here. What about people who push their culture or religion? Like, someone stuck a crucifix in to my Lutheran mother's casket at the visitation. And another person claimed she was given "last rights." (found out she was not). Or someone who says they will be praying for someone who is not of that religion? I once had someone find out my husband was not of the right religion who informed me they were going to pray for him. That person actually grabbed my hands and said it and started praying. It was at a home school convention. THIS is offensive. (my husband was Catholic. I think my MIL put the crucifix in the casket, but not sure. If my husband wants to be Catholic, it is not the business of the other person to pray for him to convert and if my mother is Lutheran, it is not the business of my MIL to put a crucifix in her casket). Oh, and something came across my FB feed a few weeks ago. It is a big prayer request complete with a prayer warrior page. Apparently, some adult child went off to college, this adult child was raised Catholic and became LDS and the parents feel the devil got in to him and they are all praying for him. This is the only kind of "cultural appropriation" that is not ok..the one where people force their culture and religion on others.

[LMD]

9 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:

Ok, so you are saying that cultural appropriation is specifically related religious and otherwise "sacred" traditions?

ETA  sorry I am not explaining myself well and am in the process of getting my kids to bed so I mean more than I posted.  

Not necessarily sacred, but I'd say meaningful or culturally significant. So the clothes that were no big deal because they were just practical and everyone wore is just sharing. The specific leader items that are somehow earned is different.

Just be respectful about things that are important to other cultures and faiths and you'll be fine. 

[freesia]

Part of me wonders if the problem is actually more one of attitude--that I should be able to do anything I want and you shouldn't be offended.  I, a part of the dominant culture, can do anything that I want and if you share that you don't like it you are wrong. That's an extension of the oppression.   

For example, I grew up in a majority African American city (and am white). I spent two years in Africa wearing African style clothes regularly.  When I came back to my city, it felt wrong to wear my African clothes. African clothes were worn as a symbol of pride for being black--pride that could be hard to come by and hadn't been honored ever in US history--in my city.  I didn't share that background. To wear those clothes would be saying--you don't even have this symbol for your pride--I get to have that, too. In Africa it was fine bc it was just clothes. Does that make sense?

Even  now, I feel like I am "mansplaining "-so feel free to correct me if I am wrong. 

ETA: I realized I didn't quite finish my thought after I came back from Africa, I could have worn my African clothes and if anyone complained, gotten upset and said how I had worn them for two years and I certainly could and will wear them now .  But that is not honoring their voice. It's better to ask why and try to understand. ( you know--better to understand than to be understood)

Edited October 18, 2018 by freesia

[LMD]

1 minute ago, happysmileylady said:

So what if a devout Christian works there who celebrates Christmas as a purely religous hoilday is an employee there?  Are all the people present not appropriating his or her holiday?

 

FTR...what you say DOES make sense, but honestly, I think that sort of common sense gets lost in both the details and the larger details of a concept that many people take on as a larger offense.  

Just choosing to celebrate secular/cultural Christmas isn't appropriation.

If a secular group decided to serve a fun Eucharist theme along with their santa cookies then that's offensive. If this secular group has institutional power over Christians then that's also appropriation.

[freesia]

Actually, I do feel that church weddings for atheists fall under this category. 

[Ravin]

Christianity is one of those dominant cultural institutions that has done more to both oppress and appropriate other cultures than most anything else. Athiests who come from a Christian cultural background aren't appropriating anything by having a church wedding--especially if that church is happy to make monetary gains from it. I agree with Freesia, Marbel, and Bolt.

 

 

[SereneHome]

This whole thing reminds me of when non-Christians start feeling all upset when they are being wished Merry Christmas.  Like someone wishing you something good and happy is such a terrible thing. 

I don't know why people keep looking for ways to get offended and find more ways to separate themselves and other cultures.

I am no historian, but aren't most cultures and nations and religions were oppressed at one point or another?  Is there really a nation or country left that didn't fight with someone over something?

On one hand, it's popular to be all inclusive and all inviting and we are all in this together.....well, except - there is a list of rule a mile long about what is wrong and offensive and not appropriate, etc etc etc

[freesia]

3 minutes ago, Ravin said:

Christianity is one of those dominant cultural institutions that has done more to both oppress and appropriate other cultures than most anything else. Athiests who come from a Christian cultural background aren't appropriating anything by having a church wedding--especially if that church is happy to make monetary gains from it. I agree with Freesia, Marbel, and Bolt.

 

 

Well,except maybe this issue. Lol

i get what you mean about dominant culture. However, to me, an atheist who is open and clear about their rejection of Christianity is making a mockery of the whole affair if they have a religious ceremony.  To me that is wrong and taking what you think is pretty or nice from a culture without reference to its meaning within the culture. Many religions Christian do feel like they are a minority.

A secular service just using the church would be fine.

[Ausmumof3]

39 minutes ago, LMD said:

Not necessarily sacred, but I'd say meaningful or culturally significant. So the clothes that were no big deal because they were just practical and everyone wore is just sharing. The specific leader items that are somehow earned is different.

Just be respectful about things that are important to other cultures and faiths and you'll be fine. 

This makes sense to me.  It would be like a kid running round in a black belt costume that hadn’t done the training and earned the martial art degree.  

 

[Bluegoat]

I haven't read other responses, so this is fresh, so to speak:

I don't, in terms of principles, believe in intellectual property.  Ideas are not things that can be owned, except as a kind of legal or administrative construct. In and of themselves, they are infinitely shareable and transferable and dividable. I think it is really, really important to understand this about ideas.  Now, of course someone can say they originated an idea, or misrepresent some idea which they say came from someone else - that isn't theft though, it's a lie.  It's also possible to be discourteous with regard to living sacred symbols or ideas - the important part of the idea of the sacred is that something is set apart for special use, and it's rude to trample on such things.  But this has nothing to do with the transfer of ideas from mind to mind, which is impossible to contain.

I think the concept of cultural appropriation comes out of this idea of intellectual property - we are conditioned to the sense that we can own ideas, as in copyright or patents (though in fact these have limits in time.)  In fact we are under pressure to increase the scope of these laws in many cases.  This is because intellectual property is a result of capitalism, and particularly now where neoliberalism has become the dominant form of capitalism - it looks to capitalize everything, even things that previously were considered to be normally outside the realm of monetary value.  

Originally it the administrative, but limited, creation of intellectual property was seen as a way to help people keep the value of their labour which went into the creation of the idea (much as the privatization of land is a way to make sure the person working the land, though he didn't create it, benefits from the labour he has put into it.)  But along similar lines what we have seen happening as time goes on is that often intellectual property laws consolidate wealth and value to those who already have wealth and power.  Companies buy up patents or rights to artistic work, they make employees sign over the rights of what they create to themselves, and so on.  They buy out smaller idea-makers.  They take things from nature which they don't own and manipulate them so they can.  And so in the end whatever the monetary value that is collected is, it tends to flow upward and consolidate.

Anyway - while I don't necessary think all these laws should be abolished, I think they need to be limited, and we need to remember why.  Remembering that ideas are not owned, that culture flows and is shared, it's a form of relationship.  Culture will share, even if we try not to let it - though my observation has been that when we try and suppress this sort of thing it creates problems of one kind or another - it's like the pressures build up.  It's a fruitless endeavour.  And it's also pretty fruitless to try and assign ownership of these things based on who has what DNA - when in fact too much of it is shared, all ideas have gone around in history and people like a little molecule of water passing through all the creatures and people on the planet.  We all incoherent, our ideas incoherent, we are connected so intimately in the end.  I think this also is the root of human equality, and undermining will have nasty consequences.

Anyway - that's my two cents.

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, Bluegoat said:

I haven't read other responses, so this is fresh, so to speak:

I don't, in terms of principles, believe in intellectual property.  Ideas are not things that can be owned, except as a kind of legal or administrative construct. In and of themselves, they are infinitely shareable and transferable and dividable. I think it is really, really important to understand this about ideas.  Now, of course someone can say they originated an idea, or misrepresent some idea which they say came from someone else - that isn't theft though, it's a lie.  It's also possible to be discourteous with regard to living sacred symbols or ideas - the important part of the idea of the sacred is that something is set apart for special use, and it's rude to trample on such things.  But this has nothing to do with the transfer of ideas from mind to mind, which is impossible to contain.

I think the concept of cultural appropriation comes out of this idea of intellectual property - we are conditioned to the sense that we can own ideas, as in copyright or patents (though in fact these have limits in time.)  In fact we are under pressure to increase the scope of these laws in many cases.  This is because intellectual property is a result of capitalism, and particularly now where neoliberalism has become the dominant form of capitalism - it looks to capitalize everything, even things that previously were considered to be normally outside the realm of monetary value.  

Originally it the administrative, but limited, creation of intellectual property was seen as a way to help people keep the value of their labour which went into the creation of the idea (much as the privatization of land is a way to make sure the person working the land, though he didn't create it, benefits from the labour he has put into it.)  But along similar lines what we have seen happening as time goes on is that often intellectual property laws consolidate wealth and value to those who already have wealth and power.  Companies buy up patents or rights to artistic work, they make employees sign over the rights of what they create to themselves, and so on.  They buy out smaller idea-makers.  They take things from nature which they don't own and manipulate them so they can.  And so in the end whatever the monetary value that is collected is, it tends to flow upward and consolidate.

Anyway - while I don't necessary think all these laws should be abolished, I think they need to be limited, and we need to remember why.  Remembering that ideas are not owned, that culture flows and is shared, it's a form of relationship.  Culture will share, even if we try not to let it - though my observation has been that when we try and suppress this sort of thing it creates problems of one kind or another - it's like the pressures build up.  It's a fruitless endeavour.  And it's also pretty fruitless to try and assign ownership of these things based on who has what DNA - when in fact too much of it is shared, all ideas have gone around in history and people like a little molecule of water passing through all the creatures and people on the planet.  We all incoherent, our ideas incoherent, we are connected so intimately in the end.  I think this also is the root of human equality, and undermining will have nasty consequences.

Anyway - that's my two cents.

Hopefully no one gets any stabby feelings

[ocolateblip]

Did you ever see the Nightmare Before Christmas? I’ve seen it used as a simple way to explain appropriation. Basically, there wasn’t anything wrong with Jack being infatuated with the beauty and whimsy of Christmas. However, instead of appreciating Christmas as a beautiful, regional celebration, he treats it like something that’s been kept from him and with his very limited understanding of the intricacies of the tradition, declares that not only will he be hosting Christmas, but it will be even better than the original Christmas! So he takes it to Halloweentown and is praised for his cleverness while giving very minimal credit to Christmastown people, and Santa Claus is denounced and imprisoned for trying to celebrate it.

Things that fall under CA are objects or traditions with important meanings to a minority culture, cheapened and treated as novelties, especially if a profit is involved. Appreciating another culture’s art or dress or anything else isn’t CA, but treating a culture’s traditions as entertainment without regard for the meaning of them within that culture is CA.

None of this applies to majority traditions like modern Christmas or any other national holiday. While cultural, those are what I consider “public domain” holidays. Everyone is assaulted with them from all directions when it’s their time of year. They’re celebrated almost universally with people adding or subtracting whatever they want. 

[DesertBlossom]

I can understand the insensitivity of some examples of cultural appropriation like creating indigenous-style artwork and profiting from it. But some things labeled "cultural appropriation" IMO are ridiculous.  A while back there was an uproar over non-latina women wearing large hoop earrings because apparently that was exclusively a latina thing. 

And on the subject of culturally appropriating food, is there a culture anywhere whose current food traditions have not been influenced in some way by the availability of new ingredients from surrounding areas? Does anyone use ingredients that are exclusively indigenous to their area? Whether it was 20 or 50 or 400 years ago, we have borrowed and adopted ingredients and ideas from other cultures, and IMHO are probably much healthier thanks to an increase in a variety of foods available to us.

[Bluegoat]

8 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Hopefully no one gets any stabby feelings

 

Yes, I was thinking that as I wrote it...

[Ravin]

8 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

I haven't read other responses, so this is fresh, so to speak:

I don't, in terms of principles, believe in intellectual property.  Ideas are not things that can be owned, except as a kind of legal or administrative construct. In and of themselves, they are infinitely shareable and transferable and dividable. I think it is really, really important to understand this about ideas.  Now, of course someone can say they originated an idea, or misrepresent some idea which they say came from someone else - that isn't theft though, it's a lie.  It's also possible to be discourteous with regard to living sacred symbols or ideas - the important part of the idea of the sacred is that something is set apart for special use, and it's rude to trample on such things.  But this has nothing to do with the transfer of ideas from mind to mind, which is impossible to contain.

I think the concept of cultural appropriation comes out of this idea of intellectual property - we are conditioned to the sense that we can own ideas, as in copyright or patents (though in fact these have limits in time.)  In fact we are under pressure to increase the scope of these laws in many cases.  This is because intellectual property is a result of capitalism, and particularly now where neoliberalism has become the dominant form of capitalism - it looks to capitalize everything, even things that previously were considered to be normally outside the realm of monetary value.  

Originally it the administrative, but limited, creation of intellectual property was seen as a way to help people keep the value of their labour which went into the creation of the idea (much as the privatization of land is a way to make sure the person working the land, though he didn't create it, benefits from the labour he has put into it.)  But along similar lines what we have seen happening as time goes on is that often intellectual property laws consolidate wealth and value to those who already have wealth and power.  Companies buy up patents or rights to artistic work, they make employees sign over the rights of what they create to themselves, and so on.  They buy out smaller idea-makers.  They take things from nature which they don't own and manipulate them so they can.  And so in the end whatever the monetary value that is collected is, it tends to flow upward and consolidate.

Anyway - while I don't necessary think all these laws should be abolished, I think they need to be limited, and we need to remember why.  Remembering that ideas are not owned, that culture flows and is shared, it's a form of relationship.  Culture will share, even if we try not to let it - though my observation has been that when we try and suppress this sort of thing it creates problems of one kind or another - it's like the pressures build up.  It's a fruitless endeavour.  And it's also pretty fruitless to try and assign ownership of these things based on who has what DNA - when in fact too much of it is shared, all ideas have gone around in history and people like a little molecule of water passing through all the creatures and people on the planet.  We all incoherent, our ideas incoherent, we are connected so intimately in the end.  I think this also is the root of human equality, and undermining will have nasty consequences.

Anyway - that's my two cents.

I don't think the concept of cultural appropriation comes out of the idea of intellectual property. They could be seen as two sides of the same coin, though. Cultural appropriation is a phenomena that is a means of theft, control, and impoverishment of oppressed minority cultures, and intellectual property is, as you mentioned, a tool for hoarding knowledge and the wealth it brings. If knowledge is money, intellectual property law is a capitalist's effort to hold on to capital, while cultural appropriation is theft.

[Frances]

31 minutes ago, SereneHome said:

This whole thing reminds me of when non-Christians start feeling all upset when they are being wished Merry Christmas.  Like someone wishing you something good and happy is such a terrible thing. 

I don't know why people keep looking for ways to get offended and find more ways to separate themselves and other cultures.

I am no historian, but aren't most cultures and nations and religions were oppressed at one point or another?  Is there really a nation or country left that didn't fight with someone over something?

On one hand, it's popular to be all inclusive and all inviting and we are all in this together.....well, except - there is a list of rule a mile long about what is wrong and offensive and not appropriate, etc etc etc

I’ve actually heard primarily of the reverse, Christians being upset when they are wished Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas. I think both are completely ridiculous.

[Bluegoat]

4 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

I can understand the insensitivity of some examples of cultural appropriation like creating indigenous-style artwork and profiting from it. But some things labeled "cultural appropriation" IMO are ridiculous.  A while back there was an uproar over non-latina women wearing large hoop earrings because apparently that was exclusively a latina thing. 

And on the subject of culturally appropriating food, is there a culture anywhere whose current food traditions have not been influenced in some way by the availability of new ingredients from surrounding areas? Does anyone use ingredients that are exclusively indigenous to their area? Whether it was 20 or 50 or 400 years ago, we have borrowed and adopted ingredients and ideas from other cultures, and IMHO are probably much healthier thanks to an increase in a variety of foods available to us.

 

I think this is what some of the posts seem to be working around to me - being insensitive is common enough, and I think it can go well beyond things like taking someones sacred symbols, it can be a lot simpler than that.  But the term cultural appropriation seems to me to include way more than that, and for that matter I've seldom seen it used for only things like religious ideas or items.  And really, in terms of being insensitive, rude, or telling lies, I don't think it matters a hoot who is dominant and who isn't.  (Even then, I'd not say people can claim religious ideas - syncretization will occur where cultures meet - it's inevitable whether people like it or not.

[Annie G]

I’m not quite following how the Foxfire books are part of this puzzle. They wrote the books because the traditions and stories and recipes and such were disappearing. They wanted to get those interviews with the old timers documented before they were lost.  I grew up loving those books because their way of life was so different than mine. Documenting cultures is vital.  If the documenting is accurate and sensitive, I cannot imagine it being offensive.  (BUT I am willing to hear otherwise)

Food is the area that doesn’t click with me- I love all kinds of food and making recipes from different cultures doesn’t seem disrespectful-it seem quite the opposite. I am eager to read more about this- thanks for starting the topic, Tech Wife. 

[Frances]

33 minutes ago, freesia said:

Well,except maybe this issue. Lol

i get what you mean about dominant culture. However, to me, an atheist who is open and clear about their rejection of Christianity is making a mockery of the whole affair if they have a religious ceremony.  To me that is wrong and taking what you think is pretty or nice from a culture without reference to its meaning within the culture. Many religions Christian do feel like they are a minority.

A secular service just using the church would be fine.

But they couldn’t have a religious ceremony unless a religious clergy member was willing to marry them, so at least some Christian denominations mustn’t be bothered by this. And I can’t imagine it’s very common. Sure, people who hardly ever go to church get married in religious ceremonies all of the time. Lots of people consider themselves culturally Christian. But outright avowed atheists having religious weddings? Pretty rare I would think. 

[Bluegoat]

1 minute ago, Ravin said:

I don't think the concept of cultural appropriation comes out of the idea of intellectual property. They could be seen as two sides of the same coin, though. Cultural appropriation is a phenomena that is a means of theft, control, and impoverishment of oppressed minority cultures, and intellectual property is, as you mentioned, a tool for hoarding knowledge and the wealth it brings. If knowledge is money, intellectual property law is a capitalist's effort to hold on to capital, while cultural appropriation is theft.

 

I think we can think of this idea of a person or people ideas or cultural modes only because we have already accepted the idea that ideas are discrete things over which we can claim ownership.  You can't commit theft unless something can be owned.  You can only impoverish someone by "taking" something if they themselves then do not have it.  It's not in the nature of ideas to be owned though.  Oppression happens because people are being oppressed, not because it is in the nature of ideas to spread.

[freesia]

2 minutes ago, Frances said:

But they couldn’t have a religious ceremony unless a religious clergy member was willing to marry them, so at least some Christian denominations mustn’t be bothered by this. And I can’t imagine it’s very common. Sure, people who hardly ever go to church get married in religious ceremonies all of the time. Lots of people consider themselves culturally Christian. But outright avowed atheists having religious weddings? Pretty rare I would think. 

I agree that for someone who was culturally Christian or agnostic, it's not quite the same time. But for the outright avowed atheist to have a religious wedding would be wrong. Sure it is rare. But it is in the same category. 

[Bluegoat]

Just now, Annie G said:

I’m not quite following how the Foxfire books are part of this puzzle. They wrote the books because the traditions and stories and recipes and such were disappearing. They wanted to get those interviews with the old timers documented before they were lost.  I grew up loving those books because their way of life was so different than mine. Documenting cultures is vital.  If the documenting is accurate and sensitive, I cannot imagine it being offensive.  (BUT I am willing to hear otherwise)

Food is the area that doesn’t click with me- I love all kinds of food and making recipes from different cultures doesn’t seem disrespectful-it seem quite the opposite. I am eager to read more about this- thanks for starting the topic, Tech Wife. 

 

This isn't dissimilar though to how Europeans would collect stories from other groups of people, often because they themselves isn't have the ability to write them down or preserve them, Most of the eventual readers would never have heard those stories and songs had they not been collected in that way.  People saw something they thought should be written down, and so they wrote it.  

And it's not like there were only power differentials with people of other races or from other countries.  People in the Appalachians could pretty easily claim to have been an oppressed group, when you are talking about some guy from an Ivy League university who comes in to collect their songs and stories.  

[freesia]

1 minute ago, freesia said:

I agree that for someone who was culturally Christian or agnostic, it's not quite the same time. But for the outright avowed atheist to have a religious wedding would be wrong. Sure it is rare. But it is in the same category. 

Actually, I thought more about it and I think for anyone who declares openly that they don't believe in God or Christ to have a wedding which references them in a way where you are making vows before God is wrong. Because you are using saced words and promises as poetry or something. If you were raised going to church and aren't sure, I don't have a problem with it--but if you've declared it as something you don't believe, then it is taking something that isn't "yours" and using it-- the same way using a Hindu or aboriginal piece would be. 

 

[TechWife]

I think the oppression component is the piece that has been missing from the explanation for me.

[Annie G]

1 minute ago, Bluegoat said:

 

 

And it's not like there were only power differentials with people of other races or from other countries.  People in the Appalachians could pretty easily claim to have been an oppressed group, when you are talking about some guy from an Ivy League university who comes in to collect their songs and stories.  

I felt Eliot Wigington was trying to balance keeping the heritage alive while also improving the life/education/opportunities of the newer generations.  I didn’t see it as him seizing an opportunity to take advantage of them. 

[Bluegoat]

1 minute ago, Annie G said:

I felt Eliot Wigington was trying to balance keeping the heritage alive while also improving the life/education/opportunities of the newer generations.  I didn’t see it as him seizing an opportunity to take advantage of them. 

 

Well, no, I don't think he was either, but then I don't really believe in cultural appropriation.  

[Bluegoat]

10 minutes ago, freesia said:

Actually, I thought more about it and I think for anyone who declares openly that they don't believe in God or Christ to have a wedding which references them in a way where you are making vows before God is wrong. Because you are using saced words and promises as poetry or something. If you were raised going to church and aren't sure, I don't have a problem with it--but if you've declared it as something you don't believe, then it is taking something that isn't "yours" and using it-- the same way using a Hindu or aboriginal piece would be. 

 

 

I think making vows and using Scripture as poetry would be rather different things.

Making a vow you don't mean can be a lie.  To whom, I guess would be the question, though also people might have other elements that mitigate that.

But from a Christian perspective, Scripture doesn't have one meaning, it has many layers of true meaning, many levels really. It is poetry in the most complete sense of the word. It's not necessarily going to be offensive to use it as a metaphorical or poetic truth, and that would apply to everyone, not just people who are in fact Christians - everyone is a potential Christian, that's what makes it conceptual universal, and who knows where they are on that road - no one, including themselves.  Now, there could be exceptions, mainly I think involving a kind of bad faith usage.  But I think this is why many Christian churches are not super-strict about this kind of thing.  

Edited October 18, 2018 by Bluegoat

[DesertBlossom]

5 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I think the oppression component is the piece that has been missing from the explanation for me.

Except that the idea of cultural appropriation has extended beyond that. It seems to me some people are looking for a reason to be offended. 

There have been white restaurant owners criticized for making or borrowing ideas from ethnic foods. But it's okay that my local Panda Express (super authentic!) has mostly hispanic employees working in the kitchen?

[Ravin]

40 minutes ago, freesia said:

Well,except maybe this issue. Lol

i get what you mean about dominant culture. However, to me, an atheist who is open and clear about their rejection of Christianity is making a mockery of the whole affair if they have a religious ceremony.  To me that is wrong and taking what you think is pretty or nice from a culture without reference to its meaning within the culture. Many religions Christian do feel like they are a minority.

A secular service just using the church would be fine.

 

There are plenty of ways to make  a mockery of something sacred to someone else that aren't cultural appropriation. For instance, I'm a Heathen. The deities I honor are portrayed as alien superheroes in comic books. An immature Heathen with a stick up his butt and unreasonable expectations of the world might be offended that this portrayal exists. But, in this century, Asatruar/Heathens are a self-made minority, practicing a reconstructed religion that was largely abolished by Christendom in Europe a thousand years ago, give or take. The reason there are such comic books is the same reason there was anything to base our modern reconstruction on--Christian monks in the middle ages wrote down what remained of the oral traditions that preserved the ancient lore, which survived as folklore and mythology enjoyed in various contexts by Christians and other non-Heathens for centuries. As a modern Heathen, I am certainly in a religious minority, but not one that is oppressed--we exist exactly because modern notions of religious freedom developed in predominantly Christian society gave us room to exist, and white privilege lets us exercise that freedom more freely because we are otherwise nonthreatening to the dominant cultural paradigm.

That is starkly different from the legacy of colonialism that included missionary zeal to wipe out indigenous culture and the culture of enslaved and transported people, including religion, in the New World, Australia, and so on, over the last 500 years. It is in understanding of the damage done by that process that the concept of cultural appropriation arises. 

It is NOT the same conversation to talk about why we have a football team called the Vikings as it is to talk about why we have a football team called the Redskins. It is NOT the same conversation to talk about why a white American woman who converted to Hinduism wearing a bindi is not the same thing as a British woman dressing up like a caricature of a south Asian woman for a costume party.

It's also not true that ALL cultural transfer from an oppressed culture to the dominant one is cultural appropriation. For instance, the vendors at the Navajo market down the street are just as happy to sell me jewelry or fry bread tacos as they are to sell them to their Navajo or Hopi neighbors. But some things are sacred and are not supposed to be sold, such as certain kinds of religious artifacts (medicine bundles and Hopi kachinas, for instance).

No one around here thinks anything of me having long hair, any human being who doesn't have unfortunate genetics can grow long hair, and while the Navajo have their own reasons why it was done traditionally and still is by some, but that doesn't mean they think they have a right to control how other people grow their own hair. However, unless invited to do so for a specific context (and helped to do so properly by someone who knows how), I would look ridiculous and it would be disrespectful of me to put my hair up in a traditional Navajo bun wrapped with wool. That would be an act of cultural appropriation in a way putting on a bolo tie for court wouldn't, because it's something that marks a person distinctively as Navajo when they do it. 

 

[TheReader]

1 hour ago, Arctic Mama said:

Oh I think it’s beyond stupid.  The only exceptions I can think of are where there is a profit motive, like native art, where selling something not clearly indicated as a replica would be appropriation to the detriment of the culture.  Otherwise it seems way overblown to me.

This is actually a big problem; there is so so so so so much fake Native American style jewelry out there (usually labeled as "Southwest style") and it's very detrimental to the actual Native American artists selling currently. Not sure if this falls under cultural appropriation or something else, but yes, it's a definite problem. 

 

53 minutes ago, ocolateblip said:

Did you ever see the Nightmare Before Christmas? I’ve seen it used as a simple way to explain appropriation. Basically, there wasn’t anything wrong with Jack being infatuated with the beauty and whimsy of Christmas. However, instead of appreciating Christmas as a beautiful, regional celebration, he treats it like something that’s been kept from him and with his very limited understanding of the intricacies of the tradition, declares that not only will he be hosting Christmas, but it will be even better than the original Christmas! So he takes it to Halloweentown and is praised for his cleverness while giving very minimal credit to Christmastown people, and Santa Claus is denounced and imprisoned for trying to celebrate it.

Things that fall under CA are objects or traditions with important meanings to a minority culture, cheapened and treated as novelties, especially if a profit is involved. Appreciating another culture’s art or dress or anything else isn’t CA, but treating a culture’s traditions as entertainment without regard for the meaning of them within that culture is CA.

None of this applies to majority traditions like modern Christmas or any other national holiday. While cultural, those are what I consider “public domain” holidays. Everyone is assaulted with them from all directions when it’s their time of year. They’re celebrated almost universally with people adding or subtracting whatever they want. 

 

Thank you! This helps me understand it, a lot. So this is why the Moana costume with the tattoos was offensive (treated it as entertainment, for profit, although the movie itself was not deemed offensive I don't think....?) but the wearing of actual tribal tattoos, presuming the wearer understands the meaning and is obtaining them for a valid reason, is not......yes? Or still no, because the tattoo artist providing the tribal (or Celtic, or Chinese symbol, or etc.) tattoo is not doing so with any understanding, but only as a means of profit.....? 

I guess I still kind of stumble over those two examples, because Disney has always made costumes of their characters, and the intent of a child dressing up for Halloween is....just to look like their favorite Disney character. They aren't being offensive in & of themselves, poking fun, stealing it, etc. To me it would almost seem more the reverse, in my mind....that the child's costume is more innocent than an actual person getting actual tattoos because "that looks awesome!" with no understanding of what they've put on themselves, or even if they know "it's the symbol for turtle" or whatever, they don't maybe understand that in the culture they took it from, the turtle, and that symbol, is a symbol for fertility and was worn as a prayer or hope for being able to conceive. (I just more or less made that up, no one go looking for what culture I'm talking about). 

But it seems there's way more uproar over the Moana costume (or was) than over the saturation of tribal symbols, etc, on real people, in real tattoos, with no clue what they're wearing. Which seems weird to me, so maybe I don't understand this concept as well as I thought.....

 

 

[ocolateblip]

21 minutes ago, TheReader said:

This is actually a big problem; there is so so so so so much fake Native American style jewelry out there (usually labeled as "Southwest style") and it's very detrimental to the actual Native American artists selling currently. Not sure if this falls under cultural appropriation or something else, but yes, it's a definite problem. 

 

 

Thank you! This helps me understand it, a lot. So this is why the Moana costume with the tattoos was offensive (treated it as entertainment, for profit, although the movie itself was not deemed offensive I don't think....?) but the wearing of actual tribal tattoos, presuming the wearer understands the meaning and is obtaining them for a valid reason, is not......yes? Or still no, because the tattoo artist providing the tribal (or Celtic, or Chinese symbol, or etc.) tattoo is not doing so with any understanding, but only as a means of profit.....? 

I guess I still kind of stumble over those two examples, because Disney has always made costumes of their characters, and the intent of a child dressing up for Halloween is....just to look like their favorite Disney character. They aren't being offensive in & of themselves, poking fun, stealing it, etc. To me it would almost seem more the reverse, in my mind....that the child's costume is more innocent than an actual person getting actual tattoos because "that looks awesome!" with no understanding of what they've put on themselves, or even if they know "it's the symbol for turtle" or whatever, they don't maybe understand that in the culture they took it from, the turtle, and that symbol, is a symbol for fertility and was worn as a prayer or hope for being able to conceive. (I just more or less made that up, no one go looking for what culture I'm talking about). 

But it seems there's way more uproar over the Moana costume (or was) than over the saturation of tribal symbols, etc, on real people, in real tattoos, with no clue what they're wearing. Which seems weird to me, so maybe I don't understand this concept as well as I thought.....

 

 

Yes, you are right about why the Maui costume was considered offensive. An actual wearer of tribal tattoos, provided they understood and were acting in accordance with the cultural meanings of those tattoos would very likely be fine, especially because someone getting such a tattoo would likely go to someone who also held the meanings as important. Random Joe Tattoo giving tribal butterflies as a $49 chair special is not okay, however.

I do understand what you’re saying about children just wanting to dress up as Disney characters innocently, but especially because islanders have already dealt with most of their culture being turned into campy novelties, it just isn’t something that should be done by non-islanders. As far as the costume verses actual tattoos, I agree that an actual tattoo is worse, and I think there is a level of hypocrisy there, or maybe I just haven’t seen any recent uproar about tribal tattoos since they aren’t very popular anymore.

ETA: The movie was fine. It honored the culture and didn’t characterize it, and Disney used islanders as the voice actors and consulted with islanders during the writing and production.

Edited October 18, 2018 by ocolateblip

[TechWife]

45 minutes ago, DesertBlossom said:

Except that the idea of cultural appropriation has extended beyond that. It seems to me some people are looking for a reason to be offended. 

There have been white restaurant owners criticized for making or borrowing ideas from ethnic foods. But it's okay that my local Panda Express (super authentic!) has mostly hispanic employees working in the kitchen?

I'm looking for the root definition, though, not the extensions. The extensions are what has confused me - I think because they don't have the context someone gave earlier of oppression.

[LMD]

1 hour ago, freesia said:

Well,except maybe this issue. Lol

i get what you mean about dominant culture. However, to me, an atheist who is open and clear about their rejection of Christianity is making a mockery of the whole affair if they have a religious ceremony.  To me that is wrong and taking what you think is pretty or nice from a culture without reference to its meaning within the culture. Many religions Christian do feel like they are a minority.

A secular service just using the church would be fine.

 

It's mocking and offensive and wrong and hypocritical, yes. Appropriation, as I understand it, requires a power imbalance. I think it would be hard to argue that Christianity is an oppressed class in the West.

[Farrar]

2 hours ago, Arctic Mama said:

Oh I think it’s beyond stupid.  The only exceptions I can think of are where there is a profit motive, like native art, where selling something not clearly indicated as a replica would be appropriation to the detriment of the culture.  Otherwise it seems way overblown to me.

But the profit element is huge in a lot of cases of cultural appropriation. As someone pointed out in response to your comment, non-Native artists selling their own stuff inspired by First Nations art does take profit away from Native artists. And take Joel Chandler Harris. His books sold well and he even got a movie deal out of his writing. The people who created the stories got nothing. You see this in music too... a white artist can sometimes make a lot more money performing dance and rap that are all based on forms created by African American artists, sometimes just directly stolen. But they get the backing of music labels and get more attention and money than the people coming out of the communities that actually created the music.

And the harm isn't just in money. In the case of art and stories, if the dominant version of the story or art becomes the one that the appropriator put forth, then the original forms can be lost or the original methods of the art or what have you. The original stories or music or art can lose something when other cultures or storytellers take it over and become perverted into something that even maligns the original culture. Like, those Uncle Remus stories were sometimes used to mock poor African Americans - but not their own versions - the versions told by a white man.

 

[Farrar]

I just wanted to add though... While I think cultural appropriation is totally an actual problem and I agree with some of the definitions above about how when profits are involved or when it hurts artists or producers in the culture directly, that's how you know it's appropriation...

I have seen SO MANY instances of my fellow liberals going way too far with the cultural appropriation thing that I don't think it's simple. We have to be able to share and learn and innovate based on each other because that's culture. Like, where would John Singer Sargent have been if he'd never seen a Ming vase? But he created something new. So... I don't know. I mean, at this point, who "owns" rock and roll? Developed by African Americans in large part... but influenced by so many American melting pot traditions. And largely the purview of white bands at this point. The other day, as we were watching Paul Simon on SNL, dh and I were talking about Graceland and what a masterpiece album it was. But could it even be made today? I mean, tons of artists benefited from the exposure he gave them (and the whole African Concert and apartheid, which is a whole other related kettle of worms) - does that make it okay? Or not? And I feel like I want to say, yes... he did it "right" - he credited African musicians, he promoted African musicians, he wrote liner notes about each song and the influences on it. But dh was like, but you know an artist doing something like that would be relentlessly criticized for it now. And that makes me sad. But maybe it's just because I like it and am making excuses. Except... that album and concert introduced me as a teen to other artists I love too that I might never have heard, like Miriam Makeba. So. Sigh.

Basically, I think some cases are clear. Some cases are dumb. But I think we have to be willing to engage the question and think it through when people bring it up about something, because that's what makes us a thoughtful society. Or... it should.

Edited October 18, 2018 by Farrar

[TechWife]

5 hours ago, SereneHome said:

I really shouldn't be commenting bc 1) it might get me banned or 2) I will not be very liked around here and I like this board, but....what the heck

I think the whole thing is beyond ridiculous.  I think there are plenty of ways that people learn from different culture and if they want to incorporate various activities, traditions, foods or whatever else in their lives bc they like it - it's a good thing.  It's a great thing!

How something so wonderful has been turned into a any kind of wrong-doing  just boggles my mind. 

 

My mother mind is boggled as well. I do think that the term, cultural appropriation, as a specific definition or explanation. 

I think what may be happening is that people who don’t have a good grasp on the meaning of cultural appropriation are using it in a more inclusive manner than that for that which it wasn’t intended. What started out as inappropriate use of Native American clothing (wrong person wrong place wrong time wrong reason. It has now morphed in to being overly careful about the food we it - I like Tacos so I take advantage of the Taco Tuesday special. Some people are making noise that that is cultural appropriation, when I’m just eating a lunch special. So how would I respond to the person who comes up to me as I am enjoying my tacos and wants to educate me on how I shouldn’t be doing that because of cultural appropriation. How do I start the conversation? 

[Farrar]

7 minutes ago, TechWife said:

My mother mind is boggled as well. I do think that the term, cultural appropriation, as a specific definition or explanation. 

I think what may be happening is that people who don’t have a good grasp on the meaning of cultural appropriation are using it in a more inclusive manner than that for that which it wasn’t intended. What started out as inappropriate use of Native American clothing (wrong person wrong place wrong time wrong reason. It has now morphed in to being overly careful about the food we it - I like Tacos so I take advantage of the Taco Tuesday special. Some people are making noise that that is cultural appropriation, when I’m just eating a lunch special. So how would I respond to the person who comes up to me as I am enjoying my tacos and wants to educate me on how I shouldn’t be doing that because of cultural appropriation. How do I start the conversation? 

Well, if a rando on the street were to engage you about Taco Tuesday, you should definitely run fast. There's no way to win that argument with anyone who would do that. ?

But if someone you did want to engage with said, hey, you're a cultural appropriator and you offend me for eating tacos, especially on a Tuesday of all days... then I'd totally have a conversation. And I assume we'd talk about whatever they wanted to talk about with it. Like, maybe they'd want to talk about how Taco Bell totally mainstreamed tacos in the US and they were a white-owned business and that wasn't cool in the least (it wasn't). Or about how Mexican labor is probably staffing the back of the kitchen of the restaurant you're eating at and probably underpaid. Or about how immigrants are often shamed for their food... until it's hip and then white people like it. I mean, all worthy things to talk about. And in the end, at least for me personally, I'd be like, you know, I think these are important things to be aware of and maybe I can try to be more conscientious about going to Mexican owned businesses and thinking about where my food comes from if I want a taco. But that I'm going to say... let's just eat the tacos.

[Ausmumof3]

1 hour ago, LMD said:

 

It's mocking and offensive and wrong and hypocritical, yes. Appropriation, as I understand it, requires a power imbalance. I think it would be hard to argue that Christianity is an oppressed class in the West.

I think I have some difficulty with this from time to time.  While Christianity is not a minority group obviously, actively living an openly and very religious lifestyle is.  Definitely there was teasing at school etc. it’s ok to be nominally Christian but not super Christian (is that a thing?!)

maybe my experience was different due to not being mainstream I don’t know.  Just some musings as I’ve tried to reconcile my lived experience with the frequently stated - Christians are a majority and never persecuted in modern society that floats around here.