Is Cultural Appropriation wrong?

Thinking it's a 'costume' is where the appropriation comes from, a costume is something which is merely worn for fun and holds no significance, whilst traditional attire is used to represent cultures and their histories. To call it a costume is offensive because it removes all significance behind it and leaves it to be something which can be or is ridiculed.

Thinking it's a 'costume' is where the appropriation comes from, a costume is something which is merely worn for fun and holds no significance, whilst traditional attire is used to represent cultures and their histories. To call it a costume is offensive because it removes all significance behind it and leaves it to be something which can be or is ridiculed.

Ridiculous. I'm Asian and I'm actually happy if people of other races wear traditional costumes from my race - it shows that they are embracing my culture and values. It is not in any way reducing my culture and history - perhaps only self-righteous whites / insecure african americans with a lot of free time on their hands to think about useless things and be outraged think this way.

Yes, I call it a costume, and I don't care whether you associate that word with any other meaning. Words aren't going to kill off a civilisation and culture which has been around for more than 4000 years.

I guess the best way, at least for me, to show how it's wrong is through examples:
Take Muslim women in hijab for example, many people say that the women who wear hijab have no "freedom" and that covering their hair is "backwards", even if it's the women's own decision to cover their hair... BUT when Khloe Kardashian visited Dubai and took a selfie of her in niqab (only her eyes were seen) the majority of comments towards her appropriating the hijab were "wooow *heart eye emoji*".
In Rastafarian culture and (not to sound racist, just simply stating a race) black culture (I guess), some men and women choose to get weaves and/or dreads.. I've seen my own friend get made fun of for having a weave... Just telling her that her hair is nasty and to clean it and that it's fake (which it is, but...) but I've also seen (white) girls wear weaves/dreads and be complimented for it???
Another example would be the bindi women wear on their foreheads in Indian/Hindu culture. According to the internet, the general significance of the bindi is supposed to show that the women wearing it (a red bindi) is married. People sometimes make fun of this symbol and call it weird and not modern, however if a woman from another culture were to wear the bindi, just for fun, people would be like "nice!"
It's not fair for the people from the cultures which are mocked to be criticized for sticking to their culture and way of life when people from other cultures are praised for looking so beautiful in these styles. But also, I've seen women who find these cultures amazing and respect the cultures, etc. which is more like cultural appreciation. Angelina Jolie went to Pakistan a while back and wore the hijab while she was there, it wasn't to show to the media "hey look how hot I am in this hijab" it was to respect Muslim culture (as well as the religion.) I don't know if this helped but this is my reasoning as to why I believe cultural appropriation is bad.

How do you know if someone is culturally appropriating, though? What if they look White, but they're actually mixed race Native Americans or Blacks? You might not know by looking at them.

It also opens up a confusing idea of what I call "cultural usage rights", and "proprietary cultures". Who decides who has the rights to a certain culture, and what criteria do they use?

Is it possible for Americans to appropriate British culture? Are we already doing so by speaking English, measuring stuff in feet, and using the King James Bible? Is there some kind of special rule where we can use any element of British culture that existed prior to 1776, but nothing they came up with after that time? Or would some of this be nullified by the fact that we have British ancestors, thus allowing us an indefinite license to use British culture just as third-generation Chinese immigrants have a license to celebrate Chinese New Year?

More importantly, who decides where the boundaries lie if there's a dispute about which culture "owns" something? For instance, suppose both Blacks and Whites claim ownership of Rock music, Black Americans try to make it about an African music tradition and White Americans try to trace the lineage to English folk music (which is of course cross-licensed with the British, Australians, Canadians, etc). Who would settle that dispute? Do we need an International Cultural Appropriation board? And who represents each culture? Is that representative appointed or elected?

I think in the best case scenario, all the English speaking countries will probably just cross-license one another's culture so that Americans can keep using common law and the Imperial system, while British people can keep watching Hollywood movies, American Football, and eating at McDonalds. We would probably have to decide whether we want to pay royalties to African cultures in order to use Rock music and Rap music, or else go back to Classical music and Opera (maybe the Italians will let us have that along with pizza in exchange for a baseball licensing agreement).

Ultimately, I dislike the concept of cultural appropriation for the same reason I dislike proprietary software. I think it stifles innovation and exchange of ideas. Culture should be open source.

It comes dangerously close to creating a system of proprietary cultures with boundaries defined by ancestry or birthplace. I really think allowing people to claim ownership of something cultural and dictate who can or can't use it opens a can of worms that really shouldn't be opened.

I think the main issue is not acknowledging where these clothes or styles come from, acting as though you've come up with it yourself kinda thing.

If you accept that it involves irreverence and disrespect, then I think that's the end of the debate.

And why?

Only people from that culture can tell you. For example, a lot of black people wouldn't like seeing a non-black person with dreadlocks (especially because it would be literal crap since fine hair can't dread) but others would willingly invite their white friends to wear braids as a way of appreciating their culture. Henna is a part of black culture and my own culture, and I'd never be okay with someone wearing traditional designs on their hands when I got made fun of for the exact same reason when I was younger.

Appropriating culture is different from adopting it. I think this answers your query about 'ownership' of culture. The problem is is not with sincerely adopting aspects of another culture, but treating them like fashion accessories.

It really doesn't seem like there's any consistent or clear definition here.

And even if there were, so what?

Why do cultures deserve respect, anyway? The Aztecs' culture involved human sacrifice; does that deserve respect? What is it about dreadlocks, grass skirts or tattoos that requires respect?

Isn't the difference a little subjective, though? It's not really something that would be easy to prove in court.

It really doesn't seem like there's any consistent or clear definition here. It seems like it just revolves around the feelings of people that are frustrated that some other group of people makes fun of their culture when they express it, and others from the same group want to emulate aspects of it.

There doesn't seem to be a rational principle or clear idea of justice at the heart of this. Just a lot of people putting demands on others because they're frustrated by what they perceive as hypocrisy.

I'm probably just going to stick to my own culture to be safe. But I'm not bothered enough to condemn anyone who does engage in cultural appropriation. I just won't do it myself. I guess you might say I intend to stay neutral on the matter if possible.

I could ask the same thing about intellectual property. Why does an author's work deserve respect? Why is no one else allowed to copy it without his/her permission? That's just the law, and I go along with it because I don't want to get sued. Not because I really respect the principle, but because they've laid out in black and white what I can or can't do, and I'm sticking to it because I respect the law.

Now you are getting very silly. Let's assume I choose to wear a sarong as an item of dress (as David Beckham has, in fact). Are you saying that I need to somehow indicate what its origins are? If you are then the same stricture would apply to anyone wearing transcontinental clothes anywhere in the world. What form would this signal take? A label pinned to the garment, perhaps? Shouldn't all those suit-wearing Asians have such labels?



Yes, as you say, if. I don't but I'll come back to it in a moment. I was merely taking the case you posited further. In determining my right to wear an item my reason for wearing the item is irrelevant. Here's why:

If I choose to wear it because I like it, then whose business is that, other than my own? Do you deny my right to do so? If you do then all those Asian suit wearers are on sticky ground, aren't they?

If I choose to wear it to mock or otherwise show irreverence to its origin, then what is wrong with that? Mocking is a perfectly normal and reasonable means of expressing an opinion. If I can mock people in my own culture without censure, why should I be censured for mocking people in other cultures? If you give special protection to other cultures you are stating they are unworthy and incapable of standing up for themselves - patronising them.

Or do you deny my right to mock people at all? If you don't, do you say I can only mock those of my own culture? In which case, you'll need to be specific about what my culture is. Can I mock any compatriot? Or only those of the same colour and religious belief? Or what?

I think that we need to distinguish between whether someone has a right to do something and whether they can be legitimately criticised for doing it.

Intellectual property exists to enable innovation. People make a living from inventing things or creating works of art or literature. If everyone else could profit from selling your work, without have invested time or money in that creation, what incentive would there be for anyone to create?