David Meredith's Blog - Posts Tagged "segregation"
Why Cultural Appropriation is Segregationist Nonsense
This past week the acclaimed singer, Ricky Martin got himself in some trouble on social media. His crime? Cultural appropriation. So what exactly did he do? He posted a picture of himself wearing a full Lakota War Bonnet, sunglasses, and (gasp) he’s NOT a Native American.
The New York Daily News points out, “It is well known that Plains Indians headdresses hold deep spiritual significance and that each feather is earned through acts of courage… Moreover, Martin is not native. He is not enrolled (in a tribe)…” (Nov. 30, 2018). So is Martin completely out of line for daring to don the garb of another culture without providing the appropriate genetic credentials at the door?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines cultural appropriation as, “The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society.” Martin is a Latino from Puerto Rico, and I suppose we could get into a debate about whether Puerto Rican culture is more dominant than Lakota culture, but I fear that borders on the absurd given their limited interaction. I’m not familiar with the Great Puerto Rican Invasion of the Lakota Nation, so I’m not sure it is accurate to argue that one culture is dominant over the other. Having said that however, that still does not let Martin off the hook. Let’s focus on the “inappropriate” part of the definition above. Martin was definitely being inappropriate. He had no business wearing the war bonnet, but not because he was from the wrong culture. He was wrong in wearing the war bonnet because he was claiming for himself trappings of valor he did not earn. In short, he was being ignorant.
As the Daily News article mentioned, the feathers in tribal war bonnets are earned individually for acts of courage – traditionally in war. Martin was not in error for failing to stay in his ethnic/racial lane. Rather his mistake was more akin to an average civilian with no military experience walking around their local suburban mall with a Congressional Medal of Honor hanging around their neck. It would be horribly offensive to members of the military – exponentially so for individuals who had actually been legitimately awarded the honor, but not because of anything related to ethnicity or race.
What if instead Martin had chosen to decorate his house with Lakota artwork? What if he decided to wear traditional Lakota moccasins or put a Lakota beaded blanket on his bed? Would he be equally guilty of appropriating the culture because he had entirely the wrong genetics for that particular variety of footwear and bedding?
Claims of cultural appropriation are certainly not limited to Martin. Katie Perry was lambasted for wearing a kimono in a performance. Kylie Jenner was pilloried for “trying to look black” because she did her hair in corn rows. Selina Gomez got blasted for wearing a Bollywood outfit, as did Beyoncé. Two Portland women were even forced to close their burrito cart after being inundated with protesters highly offend that white women would dare think they could sell a warm tortilla wrap when they were clearly of the wrong race to do so.
How about a personal example? My daughter was born in Japan. Both I and my wife are white Americans of European decent. She attended Japanese public school through 4th grade, and the only English she spoke was with me and my wife for years. Every other interaction and relationship in her life when she was very young was with Japanese people, in Japan, through the medium of the Japanese language. In fact, she is a native level Japanese speaker, but racially she is undeniably still an American white girl with no Japanese ancestry at all. So when she wore a Japanese happi or yukata to local festivals or when she recited Japanese haiku for school cultural festivals, was she inappropriately appropriating Japanese culture because she was the wrong race?
I find this line of thinking troubling for many reasons, but primarily because it is the idea that race should be the determining factor in what music you play or listen to, what food you prepare or eat, what clothing you wear, or what cultural practices and beliefs you choose to incorporate in your own personal lifestyle. The fact of the matter is, when cultures interact, they always appropriate aspects of other cultures they find to be more attractive, more efficient, more effective, or just simply cooler than the way they were doing things before. The Greeks appropriated culture from the Etruscans. The Romans did the same thing to the Greeks. Japanese people, Russians, Indians, and most of the rest of the world compose and listen to rock and jazz music. They eat hamburgers and pizza sold by individuals with no racial connection to the United States or Italy. Should we be offended? Should we demand they cease and desist?
We certainly did at one time in US history. In the antebellum south, white southerners were adamant it was totally inappropriate if black people tried to use their bathrooms, go to their schools, shop at their stores, or drink from their water fountains. Today we view the practices of the Jim Crow to be rank injustices, and rightly so. How is this modern insistence that you are only allowed to participate in or utilize elements from a particular culture as long as you have the right racial pedigree any different? The idea should be patently offensive to anyone who claims to value diversity.
Having said that, there are cases where the cursory adoption of other cultural characteristics are problematic. Recently NBC anchor Megan Kelly defended wearing blackface at Halloween. She argued, “It used to be okay when I was a kid”. However, this is not a problem of simply being the wrong race. Blackface, a common artifice of minstrel shows, was specifically designed in the antebellum south as a method to stereotype and demean African Americans – to portray them as stupid, inferior, less. Blackface was not a case of “cultural appropriation”, but rather blatantly racist, anti-black propaganda. In a similar incident in 2012, a Penn State sorority had a widely publicized “Mexican Night” party where they all wore ponchos, sombreros, and phony mustaches. Likewise, the problem with this particular party theme was that it amplified a stereotype specifically designed to denigrate a particular group of people. Neither of these incidents were okay, but the problem was not about being the wrong race. The problem was intentionally portraying a certain group of people as buffoonish cartoons.
Let’s use the above example now as a segue and take a closer look at the burrito example mentioned previously. I don’t think anyone would argue the two white women involved were trying to perpetuate any negative racial stereotypes by making burritos. They just wanted to make money. They flew down to Puerto Nuevo, Mexico and met with local housewives to learn the traditional process of making and rolling perfect tortillas. Afterwards, they returned to the United States to implement these practices in their own business. They were then promptly accused of “stealing” the recipes to enrich themselves without any clear evidence they appropriately compensated the Mexican women from whom they learned the process.
Even if this is true, the injustice is not racial or ethnic in nature, but rather economic. Rich people stealing ideas from poor people to further enrich themselves is a persistent problem in every society, but it is not "cultural appropriation". It is instead socio-economic appropriation. Perhaps it was unfair for two relatively wealthy women to profit from poor individuals lacking the financial wherewithal to travel to another country and invest in the capital necessary to get a fledgling burrito business off the ground, but this was a function of financial disparity, not racial difference. I would argue, if a Mexican millionaire had done exactly the same thing, it would have been equally problematic.
I recently submitted a DNA sample to 23andMe.com in order to learn a little more about my genetic makeup and family background. I discovered my genome is comprised of 99.8% white European DNA with 0.1% Sub-Saharan African and 0.1% unknown. I suppose this means, according to the cultural appropriation argument I should only indulge in cultural practices racially consistent with my genetics. I should resign myself to wearing nothing but brown corduroys and button-down, short sleeve, white dress shirts, eat nothing but hamburgers, pork chops and potatoes, and listen to nothing but American country music or Bluegrass. I clearly don’t have the genetic right to partake of anything diverse.
Herein lies the biggest problem. The idea that one must have the right genetics to wear a particular style of shirt or play a certain kind of music is blatantly racist, segregationist, and anti-diversity. It ignores the fact that cultural exchange is a good thing. There is so much division in the world today. The trend is to retreat to our various tribes and label everyone different as other and a threat. However, when we experience the cultures of people different from ourselves, it provides an in – a common reference point, a conversation starter, and an opportunity to understand each other as human beings and individuals. If someone of a different culture listens to my cultural music, eats my ethnic food, watches my nation’s movies and thinks, “wow, that stuff is really cool. I want to do that too”. We should be delighted, not offended.
Even when the adoption attempt is ignorant and misguided like Mr. Martin’s, it still represents an opportunity to educate a person, who is clearly enamored of and open to my culture and values, in why we do what we do, why it is of value to us, and when, how, where, and for whom it is appropriate. It invites dialog. This can only engender mutual respect and understanding in the end. If instead, I decry that individual as being unworthy of my culture, all it does is reinforce division and emphasize the “otherness” of the way we live our lives compared to theirs. It makes us unnecessarily into something alien, foreign, and strange. If our goal is to increase diversity and intercultural understanding – if our goal is to decrease racism, stop segregation, and advance equality, respectful cultural exchange should be a thing we encourage, not forbid. Like the old adage says, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.”
-David Meredith, Ed. D.
The New York Daily News points out, “It is well known that Plains Indians headdresses hold deep spiritual significance and that each feather is earned through acts of courage… Moreover, Martin is not native. He is not enrolled (in a tribe)…” (Nov. 30, 2018). So is Martin completely out of line for daring to don the garb of another culture without providing the appropriate genetic credentials at the door?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines cultural appropriation as, “The unacknowledged or inappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society by members of another and typically more dominant people or society.” Martin is a Latino from Puerto Rico, and I suppose we could get into a debate about whether Puerto Rican culture is more dominant than Lakota culture, but I fear that borders on the absurd given their limited interaction. I’m not familiar with the Great Puerto Rican Invasion of the Lakota Nation, so I’m not sure it is accurate to argue that one culture is dominant over the other. Having said that however, that still does not let Martin off the hook. Let’s focus on the “inappropriate” part of the definition above. Martin was definitely being inappropriate. He had no business wearing the war bonnet, but not because he was from the wrong culture. He was wrong in wearing the war bonnet because he was claiming for himself trappings of valor he did not earn. In short, he was being ignorant.
As the Daily News article mentioned, the feathers in tribal war bonnets are earned individually for acts of courage – traditionally in war. Martin was not in error for failing to stay in his ethnic/racial lane. Rather his mistake was more akin to an average civilian with no military experience walking around their local suburban mall with a Congressional Medal of Honor hanging around their neck. It would be horribly offensive to members of the military – exponentially so for individuals who had actually been legitimately awarded the honor, but not because of anything related to ethnicity or race.
What if instead Martin had chosen to decorate his house with Lakota artwork? What if he decided to wear traditional Lakota moccasins or put a Lakota beaded blanket on his bed? Would he be equally guilty of appropriating the culture because he had entirely the wrong genetics for that particular variety of footwear and bedding?
Claims of cultural appropriation are certainly not limited to Martin. Katie Perry was lambasted for wearing a kimono in a performance. Kylie Jenner was pilloried for “trying to look black” because she did her hair in corn rows. Selina Gomez got blasted for wearing a Bollywood outfit, as did Beyoncé. Two Portland women were even forced to close their burrito cart after being inundated with protesters highly offend that white women would dare think they could sell a warm tortilla wrap when they were clearly of the wrong race to do so.
How about a personal example? My daughter was born in Japan. Both I and my wife are white Americans of European decent. She attended Japanese public school through 4th grade, and the only English she spoke was with me and my wife for years. Every other interaction and relationship in her life when she was very young was with Japanese people, in Japan, through the medium of the Japanese language. In fact, she is a native level Japanese speaker, but racially she is undeniably still an American white girl with no Japanese ancestry at all. So when she wore a Japanese happi or yukata to local festivals or when she recited Japanese haiku for school cultural festivals, was she inappropriately appropriating Japanese culture because she was the wrong race?
I find this line of thinking troubling for many reasons, but primarily because it is the idea that race should be the determining factor in what music you play or listen to, what food you prepare or eat, what clothing you wear, or what cultural practices and beliefs you choose to incorporate in your own personal lifestyle. The fact of the matter is, when cultures interact, they always appropriate aspects of other cultures they find to be more attractive, more efficient, more effective, or just simply cooler than the way they were doing things before. The Greeks appropriated culture from the Etruscans. The Romans did the same thing to the Greeks. Japanese people, Russians, Indians, and most of the rest of the world compose and listen to rock and jazz music. They eat hamburgers and pizza sold by individuals with no racial connection to the United States or Italy. Should we be offended? Should we demand they cease and desist?
We certainly did at one time in US history. In the antebellum south, white southerners were adamant it was totally inappropriate if black people tried to use their bathrooms, go to their schools, shop at their stores, or drink from their water fountains. Today we view the practices of the Jim Crow to be rank injustices, and rightly so. How is this modern insistence that you are only allowed to participate in or utilize elements from a particular culture as long as you have the right racial pedigree any different? The idea should be patently offensive to anyone who claims to value diversity.
Having said that, there are cases where the cursory adoption of other cultural characteristics are problematic. Recently NBC anchor Megan Kelly defended wearing blackface at Halloween. She argued, “It used to be okay when I was a kid”. However, this is not a problem of simply being the wrong race. Blackface, a common artifice of minstrel shows, was specifically designed in the antebellum south as a method to stereotype and demean African Americans – to portray them as stupid, inferior, less. Blackface was not a case of “cultural appropriation”, but rather blatantly racist, anti-black propaganda. In a similar incident in 2012, a Penn State sorority had a widely publicized “Mexican Night” party where they all wore ponchos, sombreros, and phony mustaches. Likewise, the problem with this particular party theme was that it amplified a stereotype specifically designed to denigrate a particular group of people. Neither of these incidents were okay, but the problem was not about being the wrong race. The problem was intentionally portraying a certain group of people as buffoonish cartoons.
Let’s use the above example now as a segue and take a closer look at the burrito example mentioned previously. I don’t think anyone would argue the two white women involved were trying to perpetuate any negative racial stereotypes by making burritos. They just wanted to make money. They flew down to Puerto Nuevo, Mexico and met with local housewives to learn the traditional process of making and rolling perfect tortillas. Afterwards, they returned to the United States to implement these practices in their own business. They were then promptly accused of “stealing” the recipes to enrich themselves without any clear evidence they appropriately compensated the Mexican women from whom they learned the process.
Even if this is true, the injustice is not racial or ethnic in nature, but rather economic. Rich people stealing ideas from poor people to further enrich themselves is a persistent problem in every society, but it is not "cultural appropriation". It is instead socio-economic appropriation. Perhaps it was unfair for two relatively wealthy women to profit from poor individuals lacking the financial wherewithal to travel to another country and invest in the capital necessary to get a fledgling burrito business off the ground, but this was a function of financial disparity, not racial difference. I would argue, if a Mexican millionaire had done exactly the same thing, it would have been equally problematic.
I recently submitted a DNA sample to 23andMe.com in order to learn a little more about my genetic makeup and family background. I discovered my genome is comprised of 99.8% white European DNA with 0.1% Sub-Saharan African and 0.1% unknown. I suppose this means, according to the cultural appropriation argument I should only indulge in cultural practices racially consistent with my genetics. I should resign myself to wearing nothing but brown corduroys and button-down, short sleeve, white dress shirts, eat nothing but hamburgers, pork chops and potatoes, and listen to nothing but American country music or Bluegrass. I clearly don’t have the genetic right to partake of anything diverse.
Herein lies the biggest problem. The idea that one must have the right genetics to wear a particular style of shirt or play a certain kind of music is blatantly racist, segregationist, and anti-diversity. It ignores the fact that cultural exchange is a good thing. There is so much division in the world today. The trend is to retreat to our various tribes and label everyone different as other and a threat. However, when we experience the cultures of people different from ourselves, it provides an in – a common reference point, a conversation starter, and an opportunity to understand each other as human beings and individuals. If someone of a different culture listens to my cultural music, eats my ethnic food, watches my nation’s movies and thinks, “wow, that stuff is really cool. I want to do that too”. We should be delighted, not offended.
Even when the adoption attempt is ignorant and misguided like Mr. Martin’s, it still represents an opportunity to educate a person, who is clearly enamored of and open to my culture and values, in why we do what we do, why it is of value to us, and when, how, where, and for whom it is appropriate. It invites dialog. This can only engender mutual respect and understanding in the end. If instead, I decry that individual as being unworthy of my culture, all it does is reinforce division and emphasize the “otherness” of the way we live our lives compared to theirs. It makes us unnecessarily into something alien, foreign, and strange. If our goal is to increase diversity and intercultural understanding – if our goal is to decrease racism, stop segregation, and advance equality, respectful cultural exchange should be a thing we encourage, not forbid. Like the old adage says, “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.”
-David Meredith, Ed. D.
