Cultural appropriation also robs what has been appropriated of its value, and contributes to reducing - or trying to reduce - the people that matter was appropriated from to bland, neutered things of no difference to the conquering / dominating / controlling power.
The Wikipedia article on this topic includes the following:
The term "cultural appropriation" or "cultural misappropriation" usually has a negative connotation. Cultural conservatives name an action as "appropriation" when the subject culture is a minority culture or subordinated in social, political, economic, or military status to the appropriating culture; or, when there are other issues involved, such as a history of ethnic or racial conflict or even genocide between the two groups.There are a couple of other aspects of the Wikipedia article that are worth looking at, in my view (partly so one knows what one is to disagree with, in the case of the second link :) ):
Cultural and racial theorist George Lipsitz outlined this concept of cultural appropriation in his seminal term "strategic anti-essentialism." Strategic anti-essentialism is defined as the calculated use of a cultural form, outside of your own, to define yourself or your group. Strategic anti-essentialism can be seen in both minority cultures and majority cultures, and are not confined only to the appropriation of the other. However, as Lipsitz argues, when the majority culture attempts to strategically anti-essentialize themselves by appropriating a minority culture, they must take great care to recognize the specific socio-historical circumstances and significance of these cultural forms so as not to perpetuate the already existing, majority vs. minority, unequal power relations.
Acts of resistance to dominant society, when members of a marginalized group take and alter aspects of dominant culture to assert their agency and resistance, is different from the usual understanding of cultural appropriation, as the power dynamic in this case is reversed. This is exemplified in the novel Crick Crack, Monkey by Merle Hodge when those who are colonized appropriate the culture of the colonizers. Another historical example were the Mods in the UK in the 1960s, working class youth who appropriated and exaggerated the highly tailored clothing of the upper middle class.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation#Religion.2C_spirituality_and_mythology;
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation#Criticism_of_the_concept.
I have come across instances where minor matters that are not of significance to those being discriminate against have been viewed by the overly-cautious as matters not to be used for fear of cultural appropriation. That is not helpful, even if the desire to err on the side of caution is, as it can contribute to the resistance against being properly considerate of cultural appropriation issues.
Now, having covered that, one matter I would like to raise is:
What happens when a member of a minority culture reincarnates in a majority persecuting culture - perhaps with the express intention of remedying those problems?This is an issue because of a problem I've come across in some runic circles, where great resentment can accrue to anyone who is not of Scandinavian (one jealously possessive cretin insisted only Scandinavians could use the runes - thereby ignored significant swathes of history), Germanic or other northern European descent using the runes. That is utter rubbish - it is racist nonsense, and also amounts to the immaturity of nyah nyah nyah nyah I've got a secret and I'm not telling.
In this life, I can trace my body's heritage to a range of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon and Germanic sources (and one Danish ancestor), so I probably qualify according to those bigots, but I know others of different backgrounds who can work successfully with the runes - and others of even more "impeccable" background who cannot. I'm also aware that my personal sequence of incarnations includes many lifetimes in other cultures - in fact, the Patron Deity I have served longest came from a life I had in western Africa, and I've had lives in Asian and other cultures. There was one period where I was a knight in England whilst a parallel of mine was fighting for Chinggis Khan, so the whole issue of who is entitled to use something is, in my view, fraught.
In situations where discrimination is not an issue, I consider the Buddhists - who are not, in the West, in the situations of discrimination that other minorities who are suffering from cultural appropriation are - have a more mature attitude to this matter than some others: teach their beliefs, so that they ensure there is respect and proper understanding.
There is, in fact, an argument that some matters which are of value should be taught more widely, so that they can be of benefit to those who need those matters. The key point here is:
when does benefitting others get outweighed by the harm being done by dilution and degrading the value of something of fundamental significance to a discriminated against minority?My answer is: every time.
The argument then becomes, how do we determine that the tipping point has been reached?
My answer to that is: by listening to those who are being discriminated against.
For those who have a problem with being told they cannot use or do something because of cultural appropriation (also an issue in some forms of humour), I say: grow up - you're like a small child, who when told that they cannot drive a car, responding with "Well, if I can't drive a car, no-one else can ride my bike".
A further point: there is the case of civilisations where no-one survives (and I cannot actually think of any examples, off the top of my head)? Well, I would not consider the reconstructionist approach to be correct, as my experience of such views is that they fail to take adequate consideration of the dynamism and change that all civilisations and cultures experience (unless they are dying ...), but I consider attempts at respect should still be made.
As a final point to consider: what if one's Higher Self / BPLF Guides / etc directs one to explore a culture that one may have ben a member of in the past, and perhaps use some aspects of that?
Well, I consider that it is theoretically possible to do so as part of a personal practice, without bleating about the matter to others, and definitely without attempting to make any money out of it, in a way that is respectful, and does not reduce the value to the original culture. Possible - but difficult, and not something that I've ever been directed to do, so I would have some wariness of such claims. It's not beyond the realms of possibility that this would happen, though, particularly when looking at the fact that this planet, and everyone and everything on it is meant to evolve - including our forms of spirituality, but I think it more likely that such situations would be a test of one's ethics: are you prepared to go without something of benefit for yourself, in order to stick to your BPLF principles?
Note that latter situation, a test, would not involve incorrect or misleading psychism: your BPLF Guides / Higher Self would genuinely give you that message, but it would still be a test.
As a final point, whilst some matters are clearly meaningless or trivial uses of another culture's devices (e.g., for football team), there is the point that some things work even when they are divorced from their roots, their culture. As an example, perhaps consider the example of dream catchers: have they become widely used because they work?
There is another article on this topic which is worth considering at The Wild Hunt: http://wildhunt.org/2014/11/culture-and-community-appropriation-exchange-and-modern-paganism.html.
Another link:
