"Cultural Appropriation"

[The Grand Nudger]

I think, then, that the problem is that others -- not you -- are using a much broader definition of the term in order to garner and nurture offense. And I personally think your interpretation is a subset of the larger phenomenon. I don't, however, think that all cultural borrowing is appropriation; I think intent comes into play as well. Is someone adopting a cultural meme because they simply like it, or are they adopting it because they want to "leg-up" on someone by claiming a closer connection to the culture in question? To me, that is the dividing line.

The people who argued for the term culture appropriation is it's being used by myself and critics didn't think that all borrowing is cultural appropriation either, and they also explicitly reference the demonstrable intent of one group as of the distinctions between it and other forms of cultural transfer.

In that sense, Elvis was cultural appropriation, but Faith No More covering "Easy" wasn't -- because Elvis was monetizing what had never delivered much money to the original creators while sweeping away its roots, while FNM was covering a song which had already made its band rich, and simply paying homage.

It's not so much laid at Elvis's feet himself as it is the society which creates the atmosphere in which it is or can be done.  It's easy to note that white culture was cribbing, scrubbing, and profiting from black culture at a time when they were simultaneously being oppressed.  White american society was doing it, not elvis, personally.  It would be phenomenally difficult for a single person (and a performer at that) to accomplish cultural appropriation mainly for it being near-to-impossible for a single person to fulfill the criteria. 

Recently on a jazz forum I attend, the thread came up, "Is jazz too white?" This question obviously arose there, and was obviously just as controversial. But I think, again, that it goes back to intent. Benny Goodman? Appropriating. Pat Metheny? Not so much. The difference? The former added little or nothing to the value of the music, while the latter put his own spin on it and while paying homage, took it somewhere else.

I've followed this thread without much comment thus far because I have mixed feelings about the issue. But it's a fact that there are folks, OP included, whose understanding of "cultural appropriation" is much broader than your own, or mine. I get where you're coming from -- can't tell you how many times I've slagged Jimmy Page for fucking Howlin' Wolf over in royalties -- but that's a far cry from hanging a dreamcatcher on one's wall -- which some folks do regard as appropriation, and leverage that for critique, your disagreement notwithstanding. To those folks, I say, I'll hang whatever the hell I want on my own walls, and you can kiss my ass. I'm not going to sue Living Colour for playing heavy metal, either -- the music's out there, do what you want with it and have a heyday.

I think the broader version is what others in this thread are talking about, and in that sense, it seems to me that because of that discrepancy, you and the others are talking past each other.

Just my opinion, and worth every penny you've paid for it.

Referring to the broader version doesn't speak directly to or competently argue against the more narrow version that is intended by the terms use as they argue and to which the OP post was referring.  The term is not meant to be used to say that any of the other stuff is the cultural appropriation they're talking about, or bad.  That's been the number one misconception from page one. I agree that this is what other people are talking about...what I;ve been trying to hammer home is that all that other stuff is -not- what the term being used as-such is meant to convey. That it doesn;t contend that "the other stuff" is "this stuff", and so no amount of talking about the other stuff even begins to engage the discussion of this stuff.

I disagree in the dreamcatcher bit only insomuch as it is not, today, cultural appropriation.  It may be the legacy of past cultural appropriation, it may remind some people that it occurred, I can understand why it would be upsetting to them.  It just doesn't fit the criteria anymore.