RE: "Cultural Appropriation"
June 7, 2017 at 12:27 am
(This post was last modified: June 7, 2017 at 12:28 am by bennyboy.)
(June 6, 2017 at 11:59 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: To all the above yes accept the violence part . She may not be responsible for it's beginning but she is responsible for it's continuation . There is nothing oppressive about protecting what's ours . And what so many have tried to extinguish or exploit or trivialize . And frankly we have put up with it for long enough .Oh, we have a live discussion now. Exciting!
So you are claiming that some college girl with a dream catcher is, knowingly or unknowingly, contributing to the ongoing oppression of tribal peoples, and she should be prevented, by the creation and enforcement of rules or laws, or from an overwhelming pressure from social groups, from wearing it?
How about beaded moccasins and beaded leather jackets? Should she be banned from wearing these, too, because they were made by native people? Or should she not only wear them but charge you royalties for using glass beads which were invented in her culture?
It seems to me that "appropriation" is just a word for the flow of cultural ideas and styles from one culture to the other, and that it happens every time any two cultures come into contact. White kid sees dreadlocks, thinks they're cool, gets dreadlocks. White girl sees dream catchers, says, "Oooh pretty!" and wears one. Native kid watches a ball game, thinks "I can do that," and starts wearing a Kobe Bryant t-shirt. Native dude hears country music, likes it, and starts wearing a cowboy hat.
I don't see that this is an oppression of one population on the other. It is mutual, and the insistence that one party (i.e. the guilty party) has to walk on eggshells, while another party (i.e. the oppressed party) can do whatever it wants with a clean conscience, is a double standard.