Cultural appropriation mythicist angry that people have different tastes to her

[laughing dog]

Make sense or make up your mind first.

I've already explained myself a dozen times over. I call them mythicists because they falsely paint the actions they call 'cultural appropriation' as always negative.

So, you have no problem with people who paint some cultural appropriation as negative.

I've already explained I object to the word 'appropriation', and I've already explained that even if I accept calling the actions they describe as 'cultural appropriation', then cultural appropriation is not wrong in and of itself.

And, as has been demonstrated, your explanation is based on a false premise.

Now, you answer:

Name one act of cultural appropriation that is wrong solely because it is cultural appropriation.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tristin-hopper-this-is-what-actual-real-life-cultural-appropriation-looks-like

 

[Metaphor]

So, you have no problem with people who paint some cultural appropriation as negative.

I have no problem with somebody calling a particular act of 'cultural appropriation' negative if it is in fact negative and the harm can be demonstrated.

I have a very big problem with somebody calling all acts of 'cultural appropriation' negative (which the mythicists do), and with assuming that any selected act of negative cultural appropriation is negative because it is cultural appropriation and for no other reason without demonstrating it.

And, as has been demonstrated, your explanation is based on a false premise.

No, it's not. The ordinary meaning of the term appropriation implies taking something from someone and making it one's own. But I've also, for the sake of argument, accepted the term as it is.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tristin-hopper-this-is-what-actual-real-life-cultural-appropriation-looks-like

That's it? Somebody copied the design of a garment of a person who has been dead for over a hundred years?

The most generous possible concession one could make in this case is that it has some elements that might be considered a violation of intellectual property law, since her great-great-great grandfather presumably designed the garment and designers are afforded exclusive use of their designs for a while and that State-granted exclusive use can pass to the heirs of the designer. But that has not happened here. Somebody simply copied a 150 year old design over which nobody has a moral claim.

And note that the cultural appropriation mythicists would not need to rely on it being such a blatant copy to condemn it. Any garment that was 'inspired by' or that took visual elements of an indigenous culture's design conventions and arranged them in a new way would be deemed a cultural appropriation and therefore automatically condemned.

If that's the best example you've got (and I admit it is less obviously ridiculous than cornrows and twerking), then I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. The feelings of an individual were hurt, but that does not separate this case from the more obviously ridiculous cases.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it's not. The ordinary meaning of the term appropriation implies taking something from someone and making it one's own.

As has been shown and explained, that is untrue.

That's it? Somebody copied the design of a garment of a person who has been dead for over a hundred years?

The most generous possible concession one could make in this case is that it has some elements that might be considered a violation of intellectual property law, since her great-great-great grandfather presumably designed the garment and designers are afforded exclusive use of their designs for a while and that State-granted exclusive use can pass to the heirs of the designer. But that has not happened here.

It is about the commercial appropriation of a design that was (and apparently still is) sacred to a family and a culture. This has nothing to do with the issue of intellectual property.

Somebody simply copied a 150 year old design over which nobody has a moral claim.

Your obsession with the irrelevancy of "moral claim" is truly boring.

And note that the cultural appropriation mythicists would not need to rely on it being such a blatant copy to condemn it. Any garment that was 'inspired by' or that took visual elements of an indigenous culture's design conventions and arranged them in a new way would be deemed a cultural appropriation and therefore automatically condemned.

Irrelevant to the issue of cultural appropriation.

If that's the best example you've got (and I admit it is less obviously ridiculous than cornrows and twerking), then I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. The feelings of an individual were hurt, but that does not separate this case from the more obviously ridiculous cases.

The hurt feelings do not separate the case from the other ones. No one said it did. The facts speak for themselves. If you are deaf to them, there is nothing that can be presented to convince you (assuming you are open-minded enough to begin with).

 

[Metaphor]

It is about the commercial appropriation of a design that was (and apparently still is) sacred to a family and a culture. This has nothing to do with the issue of intellectual property.

Are these the elements -- commercial appropriation of 'sacred' ideas -- that makes this a case of cultural appropriation that is wrong? Are these elements necessary? Are they sufficient? Explain to me why the commercial appropriation of a sacred design is wrong/harmful.

Irrelevant to the issue of cultural appropriation.

It certainly is not irrelevant. For the mythicists, commercial appropriation might add an element of 'even wronger', but the free personal enjoyment of a 'culturally appropriated' idea is also 'problematic' (see dreadlocks and twerking).

The hurt feelings do not separate the case from the other ones. No one said it did. The facts speak for themselves. If you are deaf to them, there is nothing that can be presented to convince you (assuming you are open-minded enough to begin with).

The facts truly do speak to me. They tell me that a crybully whose ancestor believed insane things (like that symbolic hands woven into a top will prevent drowning) can convince people her feelings are so important that they are more important than the feelings of the many people who would have bought the top and enjoyed it for its aesthetic qualities.

Nothing is so utterly distasteful as a Puritan who can't stand the idea of others enjoying something.

 

[laughing dog]

Are these the elements -- commercial appropriation of 'sacred' ideas -- that makes this a case of cultural appropriation that is wrong?

It is part of them

Are these elements necessary?

Not in my opinion.

Are they sufficient?

Not in my opinion.

Explain to me why the commercial appropriation of a sacred design is wrong/harmful.

Since it is neither necessary nor sufficient, I cannot.

It certainly is not irrelevant. For the mythicists, commercial appropriation might add an element of 'even wronger', but the free personal enjoyment of a 'culturally appropriated' idea is also 'problematic' (see dreadlocks and twerking).

Your example was irrelevant to the issue.

The facts truly do speak to me. They tell me that a crybully whose ancestor believed insane things (like that symbolic hands woven into a top will prevent drowning) can convince people her feelings are so important that they are more important than the feelings of the many people who would have bought the top and enjoyed it for its aesthetic qualities.

Clearly the facts do not speak to you since you are literally making stuff up. The person is objecting to the appropriation of an important spiritual design in his culture for commercial use not to any possible enjoyment by anyone else. Your views about the ancestor's beliefs are irrelevant to the issue.

I am not a religious person. I have no personal use for sacred items. I have some appreciation for spiritual feelings (although those are not inspired by gods or spirts). But I do realize that for many people, the spiritual and/or the sacred are highly valued and play an important role in their living a life dedicated to doing good. I don't have to agree with their values or their beliefs to realize that. IMO, it is more than foolish to deride such views - it reveals something unpleasant about one's character.

Nothing is so utterly distasteful as a Puritan who can't stand the idea of others enjoying something.

Except people who throw tantrums over their own straw men.

 

[Metaphor]

Clearly the facts do not speak to you since you are literally making stuff up. The person is objecting to the appropriation of an important spiritual design in his culture for commercial use not to any possible enjoyment by anyone else.

In my experience, the mythicists who object to commercial use also object to personal use, although I'm baffled as to why anyone would make a distinction anyway.

For example, the wearing of certain items as Hallowe'en costumes grinds the gears of the mythicists, which is simply a case of personal enjoyment. They object to companies selling such costumes but also to people wearing them.

I am not a religious person. I have no personal use for sacred items. I have some appreciation for spiritual feelings (although those are not inspired by gods or spirts). But I do realize that for many people, the spiritual and/or the sacred are highly valued and play an important role in their living a life dedicated to doing good. I don't have to agree with their values or their beliefs to realize that. IMO, it is more than foolish to deride such views - it reveals something unpleasant about one's character.

I have no obligation to respect any particular spiritual belief. Indeed, some beliefs are so abhorrent they ought to be actively criticized.

There are dildos and buttplugs on the market shaped like iconic depictions of the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus. I'd never buy such items but it's none of my business if somebody does.

Except people who throw tantrums over their own straw men.

Nobody is ever able to point to something I've mischaracterised about cultural appropriation mythicists; I am not building straw men.

 

[Arctish]

The biggest problem I see with the cultural appropriation debate is that many of the participants insist on conflating all forms of cultural exchange with the exploitative ones. They present an all-or-nothing proposition: either all forms of cultural sharing are all good or they're all bad. But the reality is that most forms of cultural exchange aren't exploitative and don't bring about negative consequences, but some are and some do.

Cultural exchange of the sort that happened for centuries along the old Silk Road is beneficial. It leads to goods, ideas, technologies, and innovations becoming widely shared, and that improves everyone's lot.

Cultural appreciation is also beneficial. An example of this sort of thing is the popularization of the japanese-style garden in the US. The gardens found in American backyards are not considered authentic unless an actual Japanese Master Gardener designed them, but they clearly pay homage to the Japanese landscape design esthetic.

Cultural appropriation happens when the cultural exchange is one-sided, and/or when cultural patrimony of a marginalized group is freely used by another group without credit given to the originators. A good example of this is how freely the dominant white American culture uses the creations of black American culture without giving credit to the source. We're happy to hear how much other cultures admire American music styles like Jazz, Blues, Rock and Roll, Gospel, etc., but when white Americans think of black American culture the words" brilliant artistry" and "exceptional creativity" don't often come to mind. It's the same with public speaking. Some of the most powerful speeches in recent American history have come from black Americans like Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King Jr. , and whites often emulate their speaking style, but in general white Americans don't give black Americans credit for linguistic skill. Whites are more likely to simply mock the AAVE dialect. So while white Americans feel free to use the creations of black Americans, they don't give blacks credit for their creativity, artistry, innovation, and aesthetic style. That's exploitative.

Cultural misappropriation is another problem. That's when members of one culture use ideas, concepts, and styles from another culture but do it in such an ignorant and cack-handed way the result is a distortion so bad it makes the source look bad, too. A good example of this is a headline in an article Metaphor posted about 2 months ago in which the writer said 'Native Americans Sic Wendigo On J.K. Rowling'. First of all, the author clearly doesn't know what a wendigo is. His headline makes as much sense as saying 'Man Bites Ghost, Hears Purple'. Second, the concept of the wendigo explains something observable in the real world; it's not a scientific explanation, but it does match up pretty well with what modern medicine knows about starvation-induced psychosis. The Algonquians were on to something valid when they told stories of the wendigo, but you'd never know it from the way that article's author used the term. In using the word while understanding nothing of its meaning, the author himself created a negative impact. His misappropriation of 'wendigo' didn't enrich anyone or anything. Instead, it fosters ignorance and perpetuates a negative stereotype of Algonquians, and that's bad.

 

[RavenSky]

My culture is the culture that steals from all other cultures.

It's called present day US culture.

Every culture does that

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that some people misuse the concept (or extend it to "absurdity") is no reason to dismiss the concept. Doing so is the equivalent of foregoing the use of any tool because some people misuse it.

Name an act of cultural appropriation that is undesirable solely because it is cultural appropriation.

Indian head-dresses on women

 

[RavenSky]

I have no problem with somebody calling a particular act of 'cultural appropriation' negative if it is in fact negative and the harm can be demonstrated.

I have a very big problem with somebody calling all acts of 'cultural appropriation' negative (which the mythicists do), and with assuming that any selected act of negative cultural appropriation is negative because it is cultural appropriation and for no other reason without demonstrating it.

And, as has been demonstrated, your explanation is based on a false premise.

No, it's not. The ordinary meaning of the term appropriation implies taking something from someone and making it one's own. But I've also, for the sake of argument, accepted the term as it is.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/tristin-hopper-this-is-what-actual-real-life-cultural-appropriation-looks-like

That's it? Somebody copied the design of a garment of a person who has been dead for over a hundred years?

The most generous possible concession one could make in this case is that it has some elements that might be considered a violation of intellectual property law, since her great-great-great grandfather presumably designed the garment and designers are afforded exclusive use of their designs for a while and that State-granted exclusive use can pass to the heirs of the designer. But that has not happened here. Somebody simply copied a 150 year old design over which nobody has a moral claim.

And note that the cultural appropriation mythicists would not need to rely on it being such a blatant copy to condemn it. Any garment that was 'inspired by' or that took visual elements of an indigenous culture's design conventions and arranged them in a new way would be deemed a cultural appropriation and therefore automatically condemned.

If that's the best example you've got (and I admit it is less obviously ridiculous than cornrows and twerking), then I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. The feelings of an individual were hurt, but that does not separate this case from the more obviously ridiculous cases.

From the article:

The sweater’s most prominent feature, the hands over the chest, were designed by Qingailisag to protect himself from drowning. As CBC noted, an image of Qingailisag in the garment was published in a compendium of Inuit writing, which may be where KTZ spotted it.

In a world littered with iffy accusations of culture-theft, this is the real deal. A white-guy equivalent would be the Ontario descendant of a United Empire Loyalist waking up to discover their family crest had been slapped on the crotch of a new line of designer panties. Or the son of a war casualty finding that Dad’s service portrait was being used in a Chinese ad for shampoo.

The Inuit generally have no problem with people paddling kayaks or wearing parkas, both of which they invented.

And when an Inukshuk was picked as the symbol for the Vancouver 2010 Olympics, the choice got the endorsement of both the government of Nunavut and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the body representing Canada’s 55,000 Inuit.

But Kokon To Zai didn’t design a sweater that took a few Inuit design cues or made a subtle reference to Arctic culture; all scenarios that, in other circumstance, might have spurred more dubious accusations of “cultural appropriation.”

“This is a stolen piece … there is no way that this fashion designer could have thought of this exact duplicate by himself,” Awa told CBC.

Tellingly, KTZ fessed up to the deed almost immediately. It pulled the item from its catalogue, issued a public apology...

When the designer admits to stealing the design (as opposed to "being inspired by it"), I think you will have to admit that it is an example of "cultural appropriation"

For the most part, I think I agree with what I think you are trying to say - that for the most part, cries of "cultural appropriation" is really a bunch of whinging by people (usually very young) who do not have a clue about how cultures shift and borrow and merge and evolve.

I think we also agree (maybe?) that using stereotypes of a culture in an obnoxious/offensive manner is not acceptable. The "sexy geisha in a mini kimono" or nerf tomahawks at football games. I can even understand and agree with those who were pissed off at Kardashian's claim of inventing "boxer braids" when cornrows have been a part of African culture since around 3000 BC

That is what I have always thought of when I hear the term "cultural appropriation", but I'm no longer sure it fits the definition of "cultural appropriation":

Cultural appropriation is adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of a different culture without invitation or permission of use.

If "invitation or permission of use" is required for a yoga class to not be "cultural appropriation", then yeah... the outrage manufacturers - like the one in the OP - have probably gone quite a bit too far.

 

[RavenSky]

The biggest problem I see with the cultural appropriation debate is that many of the participants insist on conflating all forms of cultural exchange with the exploitative ones. They present an all-or-nothing proposition: either all forms of cultural sharing are all good or they're all bad. But the reality is that most forms of cultural exchange aren't exploitative and don't bring about negative consequences, but some are and some do.

Cultural exchange of the sort that happened for centuries along the old Silk Road is beneficial. It leads to goods, ideas, technologies, and innovations becoming widely shared, and that improves everyone's lot.

Cultural appreciation is also beneficial. An example of this sort of thing is the popularization of the japanese-style garden in the US. The gardens found in American backyards are not considered authentic unless an actual Japanese Master Gardener designed them, but they clearly pay homage to the Japanese landscape design esthetic.

Cultural appropriation happens when the cultural exchange is one-sided, and/or when cultural patrimony of a marginalized group is freely used by another group without credit given to the originators. A good example of this is how freely the dominant white American culture uses the creations of black American culture without giving credit to the source. We're happy to hear how much other cultures admire American music styles like Jazz, Blues, Rock and Roll, Gospel, etc., but when white Americans think of black American culture the words" brilliant artistry" and "exceptional creativity" don't often come to mind. It's the same with public speaking. Some of the most powerful speeches in recent American history have come from black Americans like Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King Jr. , and whites often emulate their speaking style, but in general white Americans don't give black Americans credit for linguistic skill. Whites are more likely to simply mock the AAVE dialect. So while white Americans feel free to use the creations of black Americans, they don't give blacks credit for their creativity, artistry, innovation, and aesthetic style. That's exploitative.

Cultural misappropriation is another problem. That's when members of one culture use ideas, concepts, and styles from another culture but do it in such an ignorant and cack-handed way the result is a distortion so bad it makes the source look bad, too. A good example of this is a headline in an article Metaphor posted about 2 months ago in which the writer said 'Native Americans Sic Wendigo On J.K. Rowling'. First of all, the author clearly doesn't know what a wendigo is. His headline makes as much sense as saying 'Man Bites Ghost, Hears Purple'. Second, the concept of the wendigo explains something observable in the real world; it's not a scientific explanation, but it does match up pretty well with what modern medicine knows about starvation-induced psychosis. The Algonquians were on to something valid when they told stories of the wendigo, but you'd never know it from the way that article's author used the term. In using the word while understanding nothing of its meaning, the author himself created a negative impact. His misappropriation of 'wendigo' didn't enrich anyone or anything. Instead, it fosters ignorance and perpetuates a negative stereotype of Algonquians, and that's bad.

I'm not sure of what you mean by the last one, and I think there could be a lot of overlap between the categories (especially as so much of it is in the eye of the beholder), but I think you have laid out an excellent framework here

 

[TSwizzle]

In my experience, the mythicists who object to commercial use also object to personal use, although I'm baffled as to why anyone would make a distinction anyway.

The mythicists are just a bunch of whining cry babies that act like a dog whistle to authoritarian lefties who respond with male bovine excrement lectures about how white people are nothing but ignorant, former slave owning cunts that have contributed nothing to mankind. I laugh in their face and move on but you are doing a sterling job of pointing out their fallacious claims.

 

[laughing dog]

In my experience, the mythicists who object to commercial use also object to personal use, although I'm baffled as to why anyone would make a distinction anyway....

Why do you continue to bring up the "mythicists"? You asked for an example of cultural appropriation and I gave one.

I have no obligation to respect any particular spiritual belief. Indeed, some beliefs are so abhorrent they ought to be actively criticized.

Which is irrelevant to the issue.

There are dildos and buttplugs on the market shaped like iconic depictions of the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus. I'd never buy such items but it's none of my business if somebody does.

Perhaps if you explained why this is relevant?

Nobody is ever able to point to something I've mischaracterised about cultural appropriation mythicists; I am not building straw men.

I understand it is difficult to stay on point when one is throwing a tantrum.

 

[Metaphor]

Why do you continue to bring up the "mythicists"? You asked for an example of cultural appropriation and I gave one.

And I've already explained why I call them mythicists, even if I accept the misleading quality of the word 'appropriation'. They are mythicists because they wrongly believe cultural appropriation qua cultural appropriation is wrong.

Even you agree that they are wrong about that.

Perhaps if you explained why this is relevant?

The point is that there should be no deference to 'sacred' beliefs; the privileging of the 'sacred' does not do humanity any good. You brought up sincere religious/cultural beliefs as something that might be relevant in cases of cultural appropriation, but I don't give those beliefs any special merit.

It again also points out the double standards of the mythicists, even though Catholics have been a persecuted minority at various points in history, they're mostly white so the appropriation of their beliefs is fair game. Now I realise that the mythicists don't deny their double standards, they're openly proud of it and defend it.

 

[Metaphor]

When the designer admits to stealing the design (as opposed to "being inspired by it"), I think you will have to admit that it is an example of "cultural appropriation"

I did not claim, and did not believe, that the designer came up with it independently. He clearly and obviously copied it.

What I disagree with is that this blatant copying was offensive and ought never to have happened. If a dress designer was going through old newspapers from the middle of the 19th century and copied a dress design advertised in its pages, I simply would not give a shit that it was blatantly copied. You either like a design or you don't.

The clothing label is embarrassed that the designer passed it off as his own design and that he was caught out. I doubt they think the cultural appropriation angle has any merit, and neither do I.

I think we also agree (maybe?) that using stereotypes of a culture in an obnoxious/offensive manner is not acceptable. The "sexy geisha in a mini kimono" or nerf tomahawks at football games.

Using stereotypes solely to offend somebody is obnoxious because the intention is solely to offend. But if you go to a party dressed as a geisha, you have done nothing wrong. You dressed up the way you wanted to and you don't owe anyone anything.

Feminists ought to understand this, as they are usually quite vocal about not being body policed (although they simultaneously hold contradictory ideas in their head). But the feminists are right: people should not be body policed by interfering busybodies. People should be able to wear what they want.

I can even understand and agree with those who were pissed off at Kardashian's claim of inventing "boxer braids" when cornrows have been a part of African culture since around 3000 BC

The Kardashians didn't invent braiding and neither did anybody alive. The mythicists don't just object to the claim of invention, though. They object to white people doing it at all.

If "invitation or permission of use" is required for a yoga class to not be "cultural appropriation", then yeah... the outrage manufacturers - like the one in the OP - have probably gone quite a bit too far.

How can a culture 'invite' or 'permit' an individual person who was not raised in that culture to use something? Is there an elected Head of Culture for every culture that might be appropriated? It simply makes no sense, but then, almost nothing the mythicists say makes sense anyway.

 

[Metaphor]

Indian head-dresses on women

Why is it wrong?

If you like the look of a particular object, are you also required to respect the beliefs of the culture where the object arose? Why?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If you like the look of a particular object, are you also required to respect the beliefs of the culture where the object arose?

What does it mean to respect a culture and why would you assume that is the issue instead of, say, empathy for an oppressed group?

 

[repoman]

So, if Picasso had never seen African art and masks he never could have made his famous paintings...

 

[Metaphor]

Cultural appropriation happens when the cultural exchange is one-sided, and/or when cultural patrimony of a marginalized group is freely used by another group without credit given to the originators. A good example of this is how freely the dominant white American culture uses the creations of black American culture without giving credit to the source.

What, precisely, does it mean to 'give credit' to the source? I don't mean for you to give me an abstract platitude, I mean for you to illustrate what it means to 'give credit' to a source and when you are required to do it.

For example, if a white environmental science student wears his hair in cornrows, to whom is he mean to 'give credit'? Is this act of penance sufficient for forgiveness? What if someone still objects to his personal use of dreadlocks?

We're happy to hear how much other cultures admire American music styles like Jazz, Blues, Rock and Roll, Gospel, etc., but when white Americans think of black American culture the words" brilliant artistry" and "exceptional creativity" don't often come to mind. It's the same with public speaking. Some of the most powerful speeches in recent American history have come from black Americans like Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King Jr. , and whites often emulate their speaking style, but in general white Americans don't give black Americans credit for linguistic skill. Whites are more likely to simply mock the AAVE dialect. So while white Americans feel free to use the creations of black Americans, they don't give blacks credit for their creativity, artistry, innovation, and aesthetic style. That's exploitative.

Of course white Americans feel free to use the creations of black Americans, just as black Americans feel free to use the creations of white Americans.

It's astonishing that you think things ought to be different.

Cultural misappropriation is another problem. That's when members of one culture use ideas, concepts, and styles from another culture but do it in such an ignorant and cack-handed way the result is a distortion so bad it makes the source look bad, too. A good example of this is a headline in an article Metaphor posted about 2 months ago in which the writer said 'Native Americans Sic Wendigo On J.K. Rowling'. First of all, the author clearly doesn't know what a wendigo is. His headline makes as much sense as saying 'Man Bites Ghost, Hears Purple'.

I am quite proud of that headline and it made me smile to remember it. The deliberate absurdity of the headline obviously went straight past you; I'm sorry you missed the point.

Second, the concept of the wendigo explains something observable in the real world; it's not a scientific explanation, but it does match up pretty well with what modern medicine knows about starvation-induced psychosis. The Algonquians were on to something valid when they told stories of the wendigo, but you'd never know it from the way that article's author used the term. In using the word while understanding nothing of its meaning, the author himself created a negative impact. His misappropriation of 'wendigo' didn't enrich anyone or anything. Instead, it fosters ignorance and perpetuates a negative stereotype of Algonquians, and that's bad.

Vampires explain something 'observable' in the real world, but nobody gets her panties in a tangle that the idea of vampires has been reimagined a dozen times over.

I also find it absurd in the extreme—in the extreme—that you could imagine that somebody reading my headline had a negative stereotype of Algonquians and that my headline reinforced and in their mind justified their stereotype, and that I am somehow responsible for things that idiots believe. Or that they had no knowledge of wendigos and then came to the belief that Algonquians were idiots for believing in them. Or that, if they only knew what Algonquians really believed about wendigos, then people would be full of respect and not believe it was absurd at all.

 

[Metaphor]

If you like the look of a particular object, are you also required to respect the beliefs of the culture where the object arose?

What does it mean to respect a culture and why would you assume that is the issue instead of, say, empathy for an oppressed group?

I don't know what it means to respect a culture. The particular example I was given was 'Indian head-dresses on women' as an example of problematic cultural appropriation, presumably because women were forbidden from wearing head-dresses in native American cultures because there were clearly enforced gender roles.

If I have empathy for an oppressed group, does that mean I am required to censure myself so as not to hurt any of their feelings? Ought I betray my own values to align with theirs?

Australian Aborigines have an instrument called a didgeridoo, and women are forbidden to play it in ceremonial contexts. If I had a daughter who wanted to play the didgeridoo, I would not tell her 'no, we need to have empathy for this oppressed group and you playing it would offend them'. That would betray my own values that men and women ought not to be proscribed from activities merely because of their gender.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

What does it mean to respect a culture and why would you assume that is the issue instead of, say, empathy for an oppressed group?

I don't know what it means to respect a culture. The particular example I was given was 'Indian head-dresses on women' as an example of problematic cultural appropriation, presumably because women were forbidden from wearing head-dresses in native American cultures because there were clearly enforced gender roles.

If I have empathy for an oppressed group, does that mean I am required to censure myself so as not to hurt any of their feelings? Ought I betray my own values to align with theirs?

Australian Aborigines have an instrument called a didgeridoo, and women are forbidden to play it in ceremonial contexts. If I had a daughter who wanted to play the didgeridoo, I would not tell her 'no, we need to have empathy for this oppressed group and you playing it would offend them'. That would betray my own values that men and women ought not to be proscribed from activities merely because of their gender.

How is that cultural appropriation?