The latest craze among Leftists is to accuse individuals of “cultural appropriation.” According to Wikipedia, “Cultural appropriation is a concept in sociology dealing with the adoption of the elements of a minority culture by members of the dominant culture.” For example, if an Anglo opens a taco truck, he is guilty of “cultural appropriation.” (Two women in Portland closed their burrito cart after being harassed for “cultural appropriation.”)
There are many aspects to this movement that are curious. As one example, by the definition offered by Wikipedia, only “members of the dominant culture” can be guilty of “cultural appropriation.” Apparently, it is acceptable for minorities to adopt elements of the dominant culture, but it is wrong for the reverse to occur. Why is that?
America is often called the “melting pot” of the world. In the American “melting pot,” individuals from different cultures can live together peacefully to the mutual benefit of all. Each of us is free to embrace those aspects of other cultures that we find enjoyable or beneficial, and we are equally free to reject those aspects that we dislike. This is what makes America’s culture unique, and this is what the advocates of “cultural appropriation” evade.
The American culture is one of individual rights—the moral right of each individual to live as he chooses, so long as he respects the freedom of others to do the same. Individuals from around the world come to America because of our culture. They are free to assimilate and become “Americanized,” or they can hold on to the customs and traditions of their native land. They are free to live as they choose. It is a freedom that does not exist in most cultures, and if they adopt it, aren’t they “guilty” of “appropriating” American culture?
If their culture offers some value that others might enjoy or benefit from, shouldn’t they be happy that they have contributed to America’s “melting pot”? Shouldn’t they welcome the fact that Americans embrace some aspects of their culture? To the advocates of “cultural appropriation,” the answer is a resounding: SORTA.
To the advocates of “cultural appropriation,” individuals should be allowed to appreciate and consume the values of other cultures, but they should not be allowed to produce values based on other cultures. Only those born into a particular culture should be allowed to do so. This nothing more than a crude caste system, in which individuals are relegated by birth to a certain place in life. They should not be free to live as they choose, but only within a sphere of activities that are defined by their birth.
This is not the American way, and it is foreign to the American culture. The “cultural appropriation” movement supports elements of the dominant culture when it suits its purposes. They want the freedom to live as they choose, but they do not want others to enjoy that same freedom.
Another reason cultural appropriation makes no sense is that it is impossible to identify firm boundaries between cultures, particularly in the USA. What most of us think of as “Mexican” food is really a combination of Mexican, Native American, and European food traditions that melded into something distinct from any of them. Similarly, what we think of as “Italian” cuisine is the result of mixing European and American traditions–tomatoes didn’t exist in Europe, so there are no truly traditional dishes using them. Clothing changes through time, manners change, even language changes. I’m writing with an alphabet that was adapted from that of the Romans, while the runic alphabets of my ancestors have fallen into disuse.
The end result is that those who use the concept of cultural appropriation arbitrarily select a time in history or a geographic location and declare that what was going on there and then is the culture of that group, in perpetuity. No reason is given because no reason CAN BE given; a rational view of culture (as a concept) must include the fact that cultures are always changing. This allows anyone to declare nearly anything to be cultural appropriation. This is often, in my experience, viewed as a positive, as the goal isn’t to protect minorities (how does me wearing a shirt or cooking food harm anyone else?), but to silence those who break from the party line.
I have a rule for dealing with accusations of this nature: Is the person claiming offense a member of the culture? If not–if they are offended “on behalf of” some other culture–they can and should be ignored. This removes 95%+ of claims of cultural appropriation in my experience.
I agree with you. Personally, I think that it is a compliment to adopt some aspect of a culture. It means that I find value in it. Those from other cultures should welcome that.
I just wish that more people, including contemporary Americans, would “appropriate” the culture from the time of the American Revolution. And I don’t mean taking up arms. I mean, a genuine interest in rational ideas and civil discourse.