Yes, I suspect we know each other's points already, but I always am curious about how this particular element of the topic is defined by adherents of the group-to-which-I-don't-belong.
If we both define what's appropriate, and our definitions don't match, how should that disagreement be settled?
First of all, just to make sure we're on the same page about maybe one single thing, I don't think anybody thinks the subject of the linked article is cultural appropriation. I sure don't.
Ultimately everything is somewhat of consensus in society, right? I mean, even near-universal truths like "murder is generally bad" or "helping your neighbors is good" are just sort of things most societies kind of agree on.
Sometimes those consensuses (consensi?) change over time. Marijuana was legal for centuries, and then it wasn't, and now it kind of is again.
Sometimes the consensus is crap. In a lot of places there used to be a societal consensus that marrying your 13 year old cousin, or stoning religious heretics to death was cool.
If you've really done the work, and really explored why the groups affected by cultural appropriation think it's kind of a shitty thing to do, and you really just think they're just being crybabies or liars, and you're making an informed decision to disagree then, hey, cool.
Might not agree with you but if everybody put that much thought into things the world would be a better place.
how should that disagreement be settled
When it comes to an issue like this, maybe weigh the cost of giving a care about it vs. the cost of not giving a care about it.
Example: suppose I like to use slur XYZ because it's funny to me, and I think humor is a great way to bridge the gaps between people, and it would be better if we all decided to simply not let words hurt us. (I actually do feel that way!)
But a lot of people from group ABC feel like it's pretty crappy for me to use XYZ.
I could just simply think they're being oversensitive, and keep saying XYZ but like... is using XYZ really that important to me? It's pretty easy for me to stop using a word. That's a pretty small cost. If it might do some good, or at least make somebody else's day better, fuck it. I'm generally happy to pay that small cost.
Or to give maybe a more direct example: a friend of mine (who is not Native American) used to make those “dream catcher” wall hangings.
Obviously she meant no harm and saw it as a tribute; a sign of appreciation.
A few people told her why it was not cool. She didn’t really understand/agree. But it’s also like: did she really need to make dream catchers? So, she relented, and just made different crafts.
Moral being: she disagreed with the “consensus”, but still recognized that hey - it really did amount to to stepping on another groups’ toes, at least in their eyes, so why not just stop doing it?
She wasn’t shamed, or canceled, or throw in jail. She just acted in a way she felt was for the common good. Didn’t cost her anything.
I think it's not super relevant but: my understanding is that they were of partial Native American descent.
Reason why I say it's not super relevant in this particular case? As a white person, it would be ridiculous for me to attempt to speak for Native Americans or any other group. But it would be perfectly OK for me to say e.g. "hey, I think a lot of Native Americans aren't cool with white people making 'dream catchers' -- maybe look into that? Also here are some links to Native Americans talking about it?"
This line of thinking seems so bizarre to me, perhaps because I'm not from the USA. You basically say that the race of people should govern what they do or not (make a specific art) or decides the truth value of their claims (you can't say X as a white person, but a native American can). It seems like in the quest of combating racism, you just ended up in a form of racism that's just inverted the direction of the previous one.
I can’t really speak for you. I don’t know your opinions! You didn’t ask me to be your spokesperson. Cool? Makes sense?
But, I remember that one time you said you’re allergic to nuts.
Next year, somebody’s making cookies for the office. He asks what kind of cookies everybody likes. He’s thinking of making macadamia nut cookies. You’re out of the office that day.
“Oh, I’m not sure what kind of cookies hn_ta_234465 likes,” I say. “But I do remember that he’s allergic to nuts.”
Does that make sense? I’m not your spokesman and it would be weird/rude to put words in your mouth. But it makes 100% sense for me to refer to something you’ve already said.
So if my fiancee, who is part native, says it's okay to make and sell native-style dream catchers, I can just ignore your friends when you say it's not okay?
This speaks to a fatal flaw with the concept of cultural appropriation. Ok, so a "white" person can't "speak for Native Americans", but a Native American can? Can any, or just certain ones? Who wins if they disagree?
There's no "disagreement" between Native Americans in the sense that some of them are imploring white people to capitalize on their spiritual paraphernalia, and others are telling white people not to do that, and oh jeez what do we do we can't make both sides happy ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Instead, there are a sizable number of Native Americans who would prefer that white people don't capitalize on their spiritual practices. And then there are many who aren't all that invested in the matter, and simply don't care, but you're not going to disrespect or hurt or belittle them by respecting the others.
So there's a pretty clear course of action, for those who are willing to give half a shit about others, but that's definitely a choice that we all have to make on an individual basis.
You can choose not to care, or not care.
You can also tell yourself that you do care but they're being dumb. That one gets extra cool points.
> some of them are imploring white people to capitalize on their spiritual paraphernalia
There are no Native Americans making money from such activities? Looks like you do speak for them after all! You can guarantee that not a single one of them sells dreamcatchers.
Are the number of Indians excoriating Westerners for appropriating yoga "sizable", or not?
Hey, listen. I made an effort here to try and help a stranger understand something. In the end it's your choice, and I think your choice is very clear. Take care.
What a poor attempt at reductio ad absurdum. If you put half the effort into understanding this as you're currently spending on fighting very hard to not understand it, you'd have more free time in your day and learn something to boot.
There are quite a few native americans who find it wack when people, especially those belonging to the culture that took their land and more or less genocided them, co-opt their cultural symbols.
There are also a lot of native americans who don't care, probably some who think it's neato and a lot of native americans for whom the entire issue gets a big old "not applicable" because it's a big continent and "native american" is not a monolithic culture and not all of them give a shit about dream catchers.
Ultimately, it's up to you. You can decide to give a shit about the N% of native americans who feel it's wack for white people to make dream catchers, or you can decide they're a bunch of whiny crybabies who aren't qualified to make decisions about their own culture, and open a big ol' dream catcher factory within spitting distance of your nearest reservation. A lot of people will think you're a dick, and probably a lot of people will think you're a totally cool dude who just owned the libs.
> We all do, including you. [define what's inappropriate]
> There are also a lot of native americans who don't care...
> You can decide to give a shit about the N% of native americans who feel it's wack for white people to make dream catchers...
Okay, I decide to listen to the group of native americans who don't care. What now? Are you going to respect my choice, or is it still going to be a problem--and if so, why is it a problem, given that you've told me several times that it's my choice?
> But a lot of people from group ABC feel like it's pretty crappy for me to use XYZ.
Let's assume you had chosen a better example, such as abusing a religious symbol as the logo of a nightclub...
But there is also a whole lot of mindless calling-out going on regarding cultural appropriation. Most uses of imported cultural material are not meant to denigrate or minimize and don't do so by accident. "Stealing" culture is a stupid concept. Culture cannot be stolen, only disseminated.
But there is also a whole lot of mindless calling-out
going on regarding cultural appropriation
Absolutely agreed, although "some people are wrong about ___" doesn't automatically invalidate _____.
I mean, what do you want to hear? Literally anything you want to do with anybody else's culture is okay and you don't even have to think about it because it's literally impossible for it to be anything but okay?
There is a middle ground in which we agree that hey, some things are okay and some are better avoided.
I mean, yes, they are different. One is usually explicitly meant to denigrate another group; another is usually not meant to denigrate another group. In that sense, very different.
In another key way they’re absolutely similar: they are modes of expression that (in the eyes of some) harm other groups or (in the eyes of others) are not a big deal. And there are an awful lot of grey areas and nobody agrees on the definitions.
We not only don’t know that appropriation is intended to do harm. For any given claim of appropriation, we don’t even know that it does harm, nor that members of the group perceive it that way in general.
There really is no comparison at all, and it seems like your argument is that they are similar in that people disagree about them, which is not a meaningful point.
