2 ms·

"Appropriation" is one of those terms that has been overloaded and abused. Real appropriation is using another culture's culture and using it to pervert the me

"Appropriation" is one of those terms that has been overloaded and abused. Real appropriation is using another culture's culture and using it to pervert the meaning to the opposite. I completely agree with your point, just also pointing out that there are also real examples of appropriation out there - I guess many of the holiday traditions would qualify (native american thanksgiving stuff for commercialization, pagan christmas symbols used for christianity, etc).

mc32 11y ago
Actually, to me, it makes no difference. So Christians took yuletide traditions and appropriated them. No difference to me. Etc, etc. Take whatever you want as an individual, I don't care. If it were not for "appropriation" society would not be beyond farming. The greatest philosophical lineages which allow us to have these discussions are mostly Greek and Chinese traditions. The rest of us have appropriated those institutions along with learning and education which have all allowed us to ponder these things. Else we'd be like nomads and tribes who have traditions and culture but are little conscious of their provenance. It's not as if non modern cultures just up and spontaneously developed in cultural vacuums. We all have borrowed taken and appropriated consciously or unconsciously with and without premeditated purpose by weaker and stronger parties. To me, neither make a difference. Let everyone be what they want to be individually. In large groups their use can seem unfair, but individuals are not their groups. Not only that, but to not appropriate can only work in unconnected monocultures and I really don't think that's the direction either groups or individuals want to take, by and large. To some degree it seems denouncing appropriation is a bit like wanting to eat the cake and have it too.
- tunesmith 11y ago
  Well, I think you'd agree that abuse is bad. So, in the cases where cultural "borrowing" is driven by the intent to abuse, rather than the actual desire to assimilate the practice into one's own culture, would you agree that that is bad, also? Because that is the only point I'm making - that that is what the original definition of appropriation was about - where willful abuse was the point of it. Where it's a method of abuse. Beyond that, it's a spectrum and a matter of degree. Mason jars is not appropriation. A silly pop star wearing cornrows is probably not appropriation, although some valid counterpoints might exist. Someone wearing a native american headdress to sell cars, or the Washington Redskins refusing to rename, or the KC Chiefs singing the tomahawk song at their stadium... those debates get a bit meatier.

mc32 11y ago

Actually, to me, it makes no difference. So Christians took yuletide traditions and appropriated them. No difference to me. Etc, etc. Take whatever you want as an individual, I don't care. If it were not for "appropriation" society would not be beyond farming. The greatest philosophical lineages which allow us to have these discussions are mostly Greek and Chinese traditions. The rest of us have appropriated those institutions along with learning and education which have all allowed us to ponder these things. Else we'd be like nomads and tribes who have traditions and culture but are little conscious of their provenance. It's not as if non modern cultures just up and spontaneously developed in cultural vacuums. We all have borrowed taken and appropriated consciously or unconsciously with and without premeditated purpose by weaker and stronger parties. To me, neither make a difference. Let everyone be what they want to be individually. In large groups their use can seem unfair, but individuals are not their groups. Not only that, but to not appropriate can only work in unconnected monocultures and I really don't think that's the direction either groups or individuals want to take, by and large. To some degree it seems denouncing appropriation is a bit like wanting to eat the cake and have it too.

tunesmith 11y ago
Well, I think you'd agree that abuse is bad. So, in the cases where cultural "borrowing" is driven by the intent to abuse, rather than the actual desire to assimilate the practice into one's own culture, would you agree that that is bad, also? Because that is the only point I'm making - that that is what the original definition of appropriation was about - where willful abuse was the point of it. Where it's a method of abuse. Beyond that, it's a spectrum and a matter of degree. Mason jars is not appropriation. A silly pop star wearing cornrows is probably not appropriation, although some valid counterpoints might exist. Someone wearing a native american headdress to sell cars, or the Washington Redskins refusing to rename, or the KC Chiefs singing the tomahawk song at their stadium... those debates get a bit meatier.