Can someone own a culture? Why should 'appropriation' be inappropriate?

[Deepak]

You sure about that? No one from the group that originated the music profited at all?

Ask James Jamerson. He was instrumental in defining the Motown sound, and died a penniless alcoholic. Hell - he didn't even get credited, to the point where Carol Kaye (a fine player in her own right) claimed until recently that she played on many tracks that were actually Jamerson.

Maybe not exactly zero, but certainly not very many.

 

[EricK]

You sure about that? No one from the group that originated the music profited at all?

Ask James Jamerson. He was instrumental in defining the Motown sound, and died a penniless alcoholic. Hell - he didn't even get credited, to the point where Carol Kaye (a fine player in her own right) claimed until recently that she played on many tracks that were actually Jamerson.

Maybe not exactly zero, but certainly not very many.

According to Wikipedia he was at one point being paid $1,000 per week by Motown. So whether he got the recognition he deserved in his lifetime, it certainly can't be said that he didn't profit from his musical talents.

He wasnt the first alcoholic to die penniless and he won't be the last. I suspect the pennilessness was largely due to the alcoholism.

 

[Derec]

White guys definitely should not be discouraged from dressing this way, if they choose to. It is like a very informative neon sign telling the rest of us "Warning!, I'm a total douchebag."

So that applies only if they are white? In my opinion either it's douchy or it's not. That definitely is douchy though, no matter his skin color.

 

[Unbeatable]

I don't know the opinion of the person who wrote the post I was quoting on your questions.

How does a group get to obtain ownership of something, and how is the group defined?

I'm not sure if there's a definitive answer. Empirically, how can you tell whether anybody owns anything? How does that ownership come about? It's probably complex.

Are groups defined based on their race/skin color?

Groups are defined in different ways by different people, like moral codes. The most salient definitions are probably the ones held by the majority, because they can be enforced upon people who don't agree with them. e.g. Native Americans may define themselves as Apache, Navajo, etc., but what do these definitions matter in the outside world? Most of us non-natives don't even bother to know more than a handful of tribe names, so we'll tend to just lump them all together as Native American. If one culture under that umbrella borrows from another, it probably won't make the news.

For example, is it prefectly fine when West Coast blacks adopt symbols and culture that originated from East Coast or Southern Blacks and perhaps profit off of it, but a negative when whites do the same?

Whether something is "fine" or "negative" is a matter of opinion. There's no one objectively true answer.

A more objective question would be, "is it harmful?" "is it potentially harmful?" What I've been reading is that the actual/potential harm may indeed be greater when it's a majority borrowing from a minority than when it's a minority borrowing from another minority. And as the quote stated, a minority borrowing from a majority is just "assimilation".

Are there power disparities between West Coast, East Coast, and Southern blacks? Is it larger or smaller than the power disparity between American blacks and American whites? In mainstream American culture, are there clearly distinct stereotypes associated with West Coast blacks v. East Coast blacks v. Southern blacks?

Is it because they share skin color and thus there is some sort of skin color group ownership of symbols and culture?

If it was skin-color based, then Nina Davuluri would have more ownership over black culture than Malcolm Gladwell.

 

[Dank]

Drugged out rave kids wearing Native American headdresses aren't artists. They have little to no understanding of the meaning of these symbols, and when considered along with the near extermination and continuing horrible treatment that Native Americans receive, their use as fashion accessories is another slap in the face. Sure, you have the right to do it, and I have the right to call you an asshole for it.

Yo Yo Ma was born in Paris and moved to the US at age five...he has grown up in Western culture and has deep understanding of the music he performs. To call him a cultural appropriator simply due to his ethnicity highlights one's lack of understanding perfectly.

 

[Metaphor]

Why should anyone be offended if someone else made a facsimile of a war medal and wore it as jewelry? No one owns the idea of war medals.

Because certain symbols are held in high esteem by various groups. When someone misappropriates the symbol or disrespects it, it is usually seen as poor taste and offensive to those who hold the symbol in high regard.

You're begging the question when you say 'when someone misappropriates...'.

How and when is using a symbol or style or whatever, 'misappropriating' it?

I've thought of another example, this time from the right. There's a lot of clamour from the right that same-sex marriage activists want to misappropriate the cultural value and esteem that has been built up for the word 'marriage' in order to (in their view) mislead people into thinking same-sex relationships are as valuable as opposite-sex ones.

Of course, apart from being nonsense anyway, who owns the cultural value and esteem associated with marriage? The correct answer, of course, is nobody. Nobody owns it, so nobody is wronged if it's appropriated, or even 'mis'appropriated.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Can you elaborate on the problem here, as I'm not getting it.

you don't see a problem with the commoditization of an express of soul?
then no explanation will do for you. And no, I don't think musicians should starve or not get paid, commiditization goes far beyond musicians and composers getting paid.

but on top of that, up until recently, only on group got to profit from the commoditization and that one group,

You sure about that? No one from the group that originated the music profited at all?

yes, I am absolutely sure that is exactly tova man and to a dime what happened. That big house Nat King Cole had, he bought with money he got running numbers.

to add insult to injury, didn't thank or recognize the other groups. The pattern went like this: disparage the music, exoticize the music, commoditize the music, assimilate the music. Once assimilated, forget about whoever originated the music.

this history has sown bitter seeds among communities of color and some rather destructive behaviors. And it is this resentment that blinds people to what music, good music, is suppose to do, enlighten, enliven, and bring together. Music, when left to its own devices, transcends difference and propagates union and communion. But that can only happen when all involve respect the music, and that includes its history and its musicians.

Who gets to decide what good music is supposed to do? Is there a good music standards board?

if it sounds good, it is good -- Duke Ellington.

 

[Metaphor]

Drugged out rave kids wearing Native American headdresses aren't artists.

I can agree with that, but the question doesn't to me seem to turn on whether something is appropriated for an artistic purpose or not.

They have little to no understanding of the meaning of these symbols, and when considered along with the near extermination and continuing horrible treatment that Native Americans receive, their use as fashion accessories is another slap in the face. Sure, you have the right to do it, and I have the right to call you an asshole for it.

What moral difference does understanding the symbol make?

Yo Yo Ma was born in Paris and moved to the US at age five...he has grown up in Western culture and has deep understanding of the music he performs. To call him a cultural appropriator simply due to his ethnicity highlights one's lack of understanding perfectly.

A White person who played a classical instrument wouldn't be accused of (mis)appropriation, even if they grew up in sub-Saharan Africa. So, it does seem to me that perception of (mis)appropriation is based at least partly on a person's ethnicity, and whether it 'matches' the ethnicity of some other group of people associated with whatever is being (mis)appropriated.

Which to me, seems like nonsense. White people do not own 'classical' music, either morally or otherwise, and they've got no moral right to feel offended if someone from a non-White background wants to use it (or even 'misappropriate' it).

 

[Sabine Grant]

By Metaphor : What moral difference does understanding the symbol make?

A good question I will try to address. Let me relate the non fictive example of the College Football team, the Seminoles of Florida State University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Seminoles

The "Seminoles" name, chosen by students in a 1947 vote, alludes to Florida's Seminole people who in the early nineteenth century resisted efforts of the United States government to remove them from Florida.[3] Since 1978 the teams have been represented by the symbols Osceola and Renegade. The symbol represents an actual historical figure, Seminole war leader Osceola, whose clothing represents appropriate period dress. The athletic logo, in use since the early 1970s, shows a profile of a shouting Seminole warrior in circle. The model for the logo was Florida State music faculty member Thomas Wright, composer of the Florida State University Fight Song and Victory Song. The use of names and images associated with Seminole history is officially sanctioned by the Seminole Tribe of Florida.[4]

Native American Tribes have a profound attachment to their tribal identity and their respective history. The "moral difference" here is that the Seminole tribe of Florida itself has sanctioned FSU borrowing of names, symbols, and images directly related to the Seminole Tribe of Florida history. The recognition of their history and understanding of their meaning by FSU is reflected via the reality that the Tribe is not represented by a cartoonish symbol. Osceola and Renegade are replicas of the actual historical characters Chief Osceola and his horse. Right by the main entrance of the Doak Stadium stands a statue honoring and commemorating Chief Osceola riding his horse.

Essentially what we have here is the difference between a group adopting symbols, images, names from a culturally and ethnically defined group without any appreciation and understanding of their culture and history and a group adopting symbols, names and images while cultivating and nurturing a continuous understanding and appreciation for the original group's cultural and ethnic identity to include their history. While having approval from that original group.

 

[Metaphor]

A good question I will try to address. Let me relate the non fictive example of the College Football team, the Seminoles of Florida State University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Seminoles

The "Seminoles" name, chosen by students in a 1947 vote, alludes to Florida's Seminole people who in the early nineteenth century resisted efforts of the United States government to remove them from Florida.[3] Since 1978 the teams have been represented by the symbols Osceola and Renegade. The symbol represents an actual historical figure, Seminole war leader Osceola, whose clothing represents appropriate period dress. The athletic logo, in use since the early 1970s, shows a profile of a shouting Seminole warrior in circle. The model for the logo was Florida State music faculty member Thomas Wright, composer of the Florida State University Fight Song and Victory Song. The use of names and images associated with Seminole history is officially sanctioned by the Seminole Tribe of Florida.[4]

Native American Tribes have a profound attachment to their tribal identity and their respective history. The "moral difference" here is that the Seminole tribe of Florida itself has sanctioned FSU borrowing of names, symbols, and images directly related to the Seminole Tribe of Florida history. The recognition of their history and understanding of their meaning by FSU is reflected via the reality that the Tribe is not represented by a cartoonish symbol. Osceola and Renegade are replicas of the actual historical characters Chief Osceola and his horse. Right by the main entrance of the Doak Stadium stands a statue honoring and commemorating Chief Osceola riding his horse.

Essentially what we have here is the difference between a group adopting symbols, images, names from a culturally and ethnically defined group without any appreciation and understanding of their culture and history and a group adopting symbols, names and images while cultivating and nurturing a continuous understanding and appreciation for the original group's cultural and ethnic identity to include their history. While having approval from that original group.

I'm sorry, but everyone is still begging the question.

Do currently living Native American individuals own their tribal culture and identity? If they do own it, where did the moral right to own it come from? Certainly, I am not responsible for what people alive before me did, even if those people are my ancestors.

And, if they do collectively own it (which, as I've already said, I believe they do not), what if they disagree about how their intellectual property is to be used? What if some Seminoles disagree with allowing any use of their symbols?

 

[bigfield]

One day, someone will get the bright idea to use Western military medals and ribbons as items of jewellery. A very large number of Westerners will be outraged and offended, and the rest will wonder why they are so worked up over a bit of art.

I wonder if the young, middle-class, Melbourne hipsters will come to the defence of their own culture's restricted symbols.

Why should anyone be offended if someone else made a facsimile of a war medal and wore it as jewelry? No one owns the idea of war medals.

Because certain symbols are held in high esteem by various groups. When someone misappropriates the symbol or disrespects it, it is usually seen as poor taste and offensive to those who hold the symbol in high regard.

Exactly. It's not rational to hold symbols in high regard, but people do it anyway. Many Native Americans want the war bonnet to be restricted, Many Westerners want war medals and ribbons to be restricted.

They don't own the symbols, although they do claim ownership when demanding that others obey their rules about how to use the symbols.

Why should anyone be offended if someone else made a facsimile of a war medal and wore it as jewelry?

I think it's because people want to protect the customs and symbols that are used to honour war heroes, and would see such an appropriation as a violation of those customs. It's not rational. The desire to prevent people from wearing Native American war bonnets is likely rooted in similar sentiments.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Ever seen a white girl wearing a turban, crossing both gender and cultural lines?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

One day, someone will get the bright idea to use Western military medals and ribbons as items of jewellery. A very large number of Westerners will be outraged and offended, and the rest will wonder why they are so worked up over a bit of art.

I wonder if the young, middle-class, Melbourne hipsters will come to the defence of their own culture's restricted symbols.

Why should anyone be offended if someone else made a facsimile of a war medal and wore it as jewelry? No one owns the idea of war medals.

Because certain symbols are held in high esteem by various groups. When someone misappropriates the symbol or disrespects it, it is usually seen as poor taste and offensive to those who hold the symbol in high regard.

Exactly. It's not rational to hold symbols in high regard, but people do it anyway.

So? It's irrational. And?

Many Native Americans want the war bonnet to be restricted, Many Westerners want war medals and ribbons to be restricted.

They don't own the symbols, although they do claim ownership when demanding that others obey their rules about how to use the symbols.

Why should anyone be offended if someone else made a facsimile of a war medal and wore it as jewelry?

I think it's because people want to protect the customs and symbols that are used to honour war heroes, and would see such an appropriation as a violation of those customs. It's not rational. The desire to prevent people from wearing Native American war bonnets is likely rooted in similar sentiments.

or maybe they want to honor the veteran who died getting it.

Maybe native Americans see their history as worthy of respect.

But I'm talking about emotions and some here don't have those and think it's their duty to stomp on the emotions of others.

 

[Sabine Grant]

A good question I will try to address. Let me relate the non fictive example of the College Football team, the Seminoles of Florida State University.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_State_Seminoles



Native American Tribes have a profound attachment to their tribal identity and their respective history. The "moral difference" here is that the Seminole tribe of Florida itself has sanctioned FSU borrowing of names, symbols, and images directly related to the Seminole Tribe of Florida history. The recognition of their history and understanding of their meaning by FSU is reflected via the reality that the Tribe is not represented by a cartoonish symbol. Osceola and Renegade are replicas of the actual historical characters Chief Osceola and his horse. Right by the main entrance of the Doak Stadium stands a statue honoring and commemorating Chief Osceola riding his horse.

Essentially what we have here is the difference between a group adopting symbols, images, names from a culturally and ethnically defined group without any appreciation and understanding of their culture and history and a group adopting symbols, names and images while cultivating and nurturing a continuous understanding and appreciation for the original group's cultural and ethnic identity to include their history. While having approval from that original group.

I'm sorry, but everyone is still begging the question.

You asked " What moral difference does understanding the symbol make?". I expanded with a non fictive example on the difference between understanding and appreciating or valuing and borrowing without appreciating, understanding or valuing. To also note that the profound attachment Native American Tribes have to their cultural and ethnic IDENTITY has been a response to a history of colonialism and repression of their identity (that is historically documented and I doubt anyone would deny how Native Americans were so outrageously mistreated via European colonialism).

Who else than Native American Tribes are the legitimate owners of their cultural and ethnic identity? Whose ancestors suffered through the repression and persecutions targeting their cultural and ethnic identity?

Do currently living Native American individuals own their tribal culture and identity?

Yes, they do. They would legitimately have a "copyright" on their identity.

If they do own it, where did the moral right to own it come from?

It is called legitimacy. Again,who other than Native American Tribes are the legitimate nurturers of Native American Tribes cultural and ethnic identities? Who other than Native American Tribes established via their history and cultural practices the cultural blue prints of currently living members of those Tribes? Did an outside group not related to Seminoles in Florida experience and live the Seminole Tribe of Florida entire history and cultural practices? Did the same outside group have ancestors not related to the Seminole Tribe of Florida who experienced and lived the colonial oppression and persecutions targeting their cultural and ethnic identity?

IMO you are not acknowledging the reality that the blue prints of current generations were set via the history and experiencing of that history by the legitimate members of the ethnic and cultural group known as Seminole Tribe of Florida. You cannot separate cultural sensitivity today from a group's history experienced and lived by the members of the group.

Certainly, I am not responsible for what people alive before me did, even if those people are my ancestors.

I am not sure why you think that a claim to legitimacy is somehow a matter of blaming you for what your ancestors may or may have not done.

And, if they do collectively own it (which, as I've already said, I believe they do not), what if they disagree about how their intellectual property is to be used? What if some Seminoles disagree with allowing any use of their symbols?

Speaking of athletic teams borrowing symbols, images and names from Native Americans, you seem to not be aware about the controversy surrounding the use of the name "Redskins" by a pro football team and other protests issued by various Native American Tribes regarding other sports teams using cartoonish mascots relying on Native American symbols.

Let me see if you can relate to this or at least empathize : as a gay male, it is your identity and one like other millions of gay persons you have had to affirm in response to attempts to trivialize, ridicule it and more importantly invalidate as legitimate. You are among those millions of gay persons who have experienced and lived and still live and experience today the social stigmatization of "your kind". How would it not be a morally justified response on your part to preserve and protect your legitimate identity from being exploited by groups who do not demonstrate any sensitivity to your identity as a gay person? How would you like for an athletic team of heterosexual males to name themselves "The Gays" while parading a cartoonish mascot representative of your identity as a gay person?

The world would be a better place if the majority of us were to consider sensitivity to other ethnic and cultural groups' identities as an important contribution to motivating a peaceful coexistence within the diversity of ethnic and cultural groups rather than adopting apathy while viewing those groups in a vacuum as if who they are today is not the product of their history. More importantly as if they have no legitimacy to protect and preserve their heritage from exploitation.

Speaking of Seminoles who are still protesting the use by FSU of symbols, name and images related to the history of The Seminole Tribe of Florida, it is the case for some of the Seminoles under the banner of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma. However FSU has focused on demonstrating sensitivity to the Seminoles native of Florida since FSU is well...a State University located in Florida, since their donors do include Florida Seminoles who legally own Florida Casinos, since they offer scholarships to students resident in Florida not in Oklahoma. I am familiar with all those dynamics due to my son having his undergrad from FSU and now pursuing his post grad MBA at the College of Business of FSU. While I was already familiar with it long before he was born as his paternal grand father was a Professor at FSU and Dean of the Dept. of financial studies.

To be noted that FSU does not refer to the live representation of Chief Osceola and his horse Renegade as a 'mascot" but a symbol. The involvement of that live representation ( a carefully selected student based on academic achievements and proper behavioral history) riding bareback an appaloosa horse occurs only during the opening of a game not during the cheerleading exhibits /performances. Meaning that the Seminole Tribe of Florida Elders recognized that such live representation was not there for entertainment but as a symbol of the Tribe resilience and resistance and strength, traits the football team has adopted as their motivation to win.

The above is a demonstration of sensitivity to the legitimately acquired heritage by the Seminole Tribe of Florida. That because FSU has recognized their legitimacy and further consulted with the Elders before including the current symbols illustrating the cultural and historical heritage of the Seminole Tribe native of Florida.

The outcome of the above is beneficial to both groups. The Tribe benefiting of the PR effect of such large College POSITIVELY promoting the Seminoles native of Florida history and cultural heritage while FSU benefits of the financial donations of the Seminole Casino owners to support a variety of FSU scholarships.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Ever seen a white girl wearing a turban, crossing both gender and cultural lines?

What leads you to believe that a head cover shaped like a turban is only reserved for males and further only for non white ancestry or origin individuals?

Maybe your exposure to females wearing a head cover shaped as a turban in the below linked to tape will enlighten you as to why I find your question a tad off :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVDIXqILqSM

And of course turbans worn by Western women as a fashion trend :

http://livingembellished.blogspot.com/2011/10/fashion-101-history-of-turban-fashion.html

 

[Emily Lake]

First, let me be clear that this is my opinion, and nothing more than that. It is based on my reasoning and my understanding of human behavior, group dynamics, and sociocultural mores. I'm not an expert in any of those fields, so my understanding is of necessity imperfect.

Misappropriation of cultural symbols occurs when an outgroup begins to use a symbol of significance in an insignificant way.

Outgroups and ingroups aren't necessarily based on race, skin color, nationality, etc. They can be based on any shared characteristic which creates a feeling of group homogeneity - a shared "togetherness". Nationality and cultures that have strong associations with racial characteristics are very common ingroups, because they often share traditions and religions. But others exist as well: Consider the association of the rainbow with the Gay Pride movement, or the rosary with Catholicism (regardless of skin color).

A symbol has significance when it carries meaning to the ingroup beyond its base utility, when it represents some greater meaning.

So one would say that ravers wearing native american headdresses for fashion purposes are misappropriating that symbol, because they don't understand and respect the significance of the headdress as a symbol for the native american people.

As to whether it is inappropriate or not... that is entirely up to the mores of the culture in which one exists. If your society deems it as taboo, then it is taboo, otherwise it is not.

From my personal perspective, cultures and symbols have no innate value, and have no special protections. I appreciate the history that accompanies traditions, but I don't require that they be living histories. Nearly every tradition and culture today is alive because it appropriated the symbols and traditions of those that cam before. Just as nature evolves, so do societies and their attendant cultures. Symbols grow and mutate over time. If you wish a symbol to retain its original meaning, then it is incumbent upon you to educate the rest of the world as to that meaning. If the strength of the symbol holds, then you will prevail. If not, then the world will move on, and your sacrosanct ankh will decorate the necks of young goth chicks the world over...

 

[Sabine Grant]

By Emily Play :From my personal perspective, cultures and symbols have no innate value, and have no special protections. I appreciate the history that accompanies traditions, but I don't require that they be living histories. Nearly every tradition and culture today is alive because it appropriated the symbols and traditions of those that cam before. Just as nature evolves, so do societies and their attendant cultures. Symbols grow and mutate over time. If you wish a symbol to retain its original meaning, then it is incumbent upon you to educate the rest of the world as to that meaning. If the strength of the symbol holds, then you will prevail. If not, then the world will move on, and your sacrosanct ankh will decorate the necks of young goth chicks the world over...

My personal perspective differs from yours on 2 counts :

1) There are multiple websites maintained and updated by let's say a variety of Native American Tribes and in English(no excuse there for monolingual Anglophones) that the onus is on outside groups to not be so intellectually lazy that they will not educate themselves by consulting those sites which offer the quality of covering not only the history of the said tribe but the significance of their cultural traditions and symbols.

2) The cultivation of terms and symbols representative of a critical period of an ethnic/cultural group's history remains necessary so future generations will remain aware of how and why the said group became a target of termination by an oppressive group. It reinforces and motivates the need for those future generations to watch for red flags announcing similar circumstances facilitating another genocidal intent. Symbols and imagery related to the Shoah come to mind while reinforcing "Never again".

 

[Nexus]

So? It's irrational. And?

Irrational is bad. Not something that should be honored or aspired to.

 

[Emily Lake]

So? It's irrational. And?

Irrational is bad. Not something that should be honored or aspired to.

Irrational isn't necessarily bad. When making a decision, sure. When investing money, probably. But the vast majority of how humans work is still run by emotions and chemistry, not by logic. We apply logic whenever we can... but we're notoriously good at rationalization which isn't rational at all.

None of our emotions are rational by any common definition, but they are reasonable. Love is not rational, nor is hatred. But both play intensely vital roles in our interactions with other people. Loyalty is irrational, so is mistrust. Fight or flight, seeking advantage for oneself and one's progeny and loved ones, any number of other instincts by which we survive and flourish are far from rational.

Rationality is overrated; Reasonablitly is underrated.

Of course, that's just my opinion... and a derail to boot!

 

[Metaphor]

You asked " What moral difference does understanding the symbol make?". I expanded with a non fictive example on the difference between understanding and appreciating or valuing and borrowing without appreciating, understanding or valuing.

I understand what you did, but to talk about 'borrowing' already presumes that there is an owner to be borrowed from. I simply don't believe anyone owns a culture (or a general cultural idea, like an art movement) so there is no-one to 'borrow' from and no-one who has the right to prevent 'borrowing'. Indeed, Native Americans are 'borrowing' just as much when they practise Native American cultural ideas -- they're borrowing from previous Native Americans.

Who else than Native American Tribes are the legitimate owners of their cultural and ethnic identity? Whose ancestors suffered through the repression and persecutions targeting their cultural and ethnic identity?

"Who else" is generally a weak argument, but it's also the wrong question.

Who owns the idea of the wheel? The answer is not a specific person; nobody owns it. Not everything has an owner. Art movements don't have owners, even though many of them can be traced to a person or small group of people in a particular time and geography.

Yes, they do. They would legitimately have a "copyright" on their identity.

Why? How far does this copyright extend? When does it expire?

If I went to a restaurant selling Native American-style cuisine, should the restaurant have to pay royalties to every Native-American alive? Why or why not?

It is called legitimacy. Again,who other than Native American Tribes are the legitimate nurturers of Native American Tribes cultural and ethnic identities? Who other than Native American Tribes established via their history and cultural practices the cultural blue prints of currently living members of those Tribes? Did an outside group not related to Seminoles in Florida experience and live the Seminole Tribe of Florida entire history and cultural practices? Did the same outside group have ancestors not related to the Seminole Tribe of Florida who experienced and lived the colonial oppression and persecutions targeting their cultural and ethnic identity?

You're once again begging the question. To say they are the 'legitimate' owners doesn't help me understand anything. It's like explaining the soporific power of a drug by reference to its sleep-inducing effect.

For there to be 'legitimate' owners, that means a culture must be able to be owned. Why is it that you think a culture can be owned in the first place? Can art movements be owned?

IMO you are not acknowledging the reality that the blue prints of current generations were set via the history and experiencing of that history by the legitimate members of the ethnic and cultural group known as Seminole Tribe of Florida. You cannot separate cultural sensitivity today from a group's history experienced and lived by the members of the group.

Each Seminole alive today lived her own life. She did not live the lives of her ancestors. A collective unconscious is a nice romantic idea, but it's not reality.

I am not sure why you think that a claim to legitimacy is somehow a matter of blaming you for what your ancestors may or may have not done.

No: that was not my intended meaning, and I apologise for my poor wording.

Since you agree that I do not inherit the sins of my ancestors, I also do not inherit exclusive rights to ideas they and other people who lived near them had. You can legitimately inherit specific things from your parents -- their material possessions -- but they can't leave you exclusive use of their culture. It doesn't belong to you any more than it belonged to them, because cultures don't belong to anyone.

Speaking of athletic teams borrowing symbols, images and names from Native Americans, you seem to not be aware about the controversy surrounding the use of the name "Redskins" by a pro football team and other protests issued by various Native American Tribes regarding other sports teams using cartoonish mascots relying on Native American symbols.

Not only am I aware of it, it makes my point. Imagine you have people of a Native American tribe, and some of them do not want to 'license' their name and image to a football team and some of them do (and want money for it). Who makes the determination? Self-appointed leaders of the tribe? Democratically elected leaders? When did the elections take place? When does the copyright on their property expire?

Let me see if you can relate to this or at least empathize : as a gay male, it is your identity and one like other millions of gay persons you have had to affirm in response to attempts to trivialize, ridicule it and more importantly invalidate as legitimate. You are among those millions of gay persons who have experienced and lived and still live and experience today the social stigmatization of "your kind". How would it not be a morally justified response on your part to preserve and protect your legitimate identity from being exploited by groups who do not demonstrate any sensitivity to your identity as a gay person? How would you like for an athletic team of heterosexual males to name themselves "The Gays" while parading a cartoonish mascot representative of your identity as a gay person?

Mostly I wouldn't care, since I don't watch sport. But if I were offended, it wouldn't be because I'm the 'legitimate' owner of gay culture.

Think about an inversion of the case: what if homosexual men started a sport team called 'The Gays' and they paraded around a cartoonish mascot? That could still be in bad taste, don't you think? Or would they have the 'right' to do whatever they want with gay culture because they're the 'legitimate' owners?

Nobody owns gay culture.

The world would be a better place if the majority of us were to consider sensitivity to other ethnic and cultural groups' identities as an important contribution to motivating a peaceful coexistence within the diversity of ethnic and cultural groups rather than adopting apathy while viewing those groups in a vacuum as if who they are today is not the product of their history. More importantly as if they have no legitimacy to protect and preserve their heritage from exploitation.

They have that legitimacy if they own their heritage, but I'm challenging the idea that a culture can be owned.

Speaking of Seminoles who are still protesting the use by FSU of symbols, name and images related to the history of The Seminole Tribe of Florida, it is the case for some of the Seminoles under the banner of the Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma.

So, more powerful Seminoles (the ones who 'licensed' their image) got their way, and the less-powerful Seminoles (the ones who don't want symbols used or 'licensed out') did not get their way.

Do you think that is legitimate? Who determined that the Seminoles who agreed to the Seminole image being used were more 'legitimate' than the ones who did not agree?

The above is a demonstration of sensitivity to the legitimately acquired heritage by the Seminole Tribe of Florida. That because FSU has recognized their legitimacy and further consulted with the Elders before including the current symbols illustrating the cultural and historical heritage of the Seminole Tribe native of Florida.

The outcome of the above is beneficial to both groups. The Tribe benefiting of the PR effect of such large College POSITIVELY promoting the Seminoles native of Florida history and cultural heritage while FSU benefits of the financial donations of the Seminole Casino owners to support a variety of FSU scholarships.

Why should cultural histories be portrayed exclusively positively?

Do you think White people have a duty to protect their culture from PR damage by denying and minimising White colonialism?