The thing about cultural appropriation that I think a lot of people overlook is that there’s going to be difference in opinion between people living within that culture and people who have immigrated or are otherwise practicing that culture from within a different (the appropriating) culture. That is to say: an individual living in [some culture] might have a different view of what’s offensive than a [culture]-American individual
this reminds me of the discussion in this particular conversation, particularly:
I mentioned in one of the earlier chains of this that the people most loudly in favour of decol discourse back ‘home’ are largely fascists and/or people from powerful majority groups who have dubious ethics re the treatment of minorities & marginalised folk & the idea of cultural separatism falls into a similar category. There’s certainly some use for appropriation discourse in talking about power relations between cultural groups – which allow some cultural groups the power to take from others, control how these others are seen and in general commodify and sell their own ideas about these cultural groups to the point that even these groups may replicate these relations entirely on their own (e.g. how goa has basically been turned into western hippie paradise and so everywhere you turn you see hippie paraphernalia with figures of ganesh plastered all over them even though goa itself has a sizeable & dominant catholic community).
But this whole idea that cultures are static and immutable and that traditions must be preserved at all cost needs to be put away – it’s loudest proponents are almost always ppl with vested interests, interested in holding on to the power that makes them elite within their own countries.
it’s a very complicated issue indeed.
callanswall 