You're right that not all views of cultural appropriation focus on whether or not there is a power imbalance, but I believe that discounting that imbalance entirely removes a lot of nuance necessary in this kind of conversation. Nothing exists in a vacuum.
I would argue that considering political power or majority/minority only maligns something that is otherwise neutral in most cases .
Where exactly are you getting this? That doesn't really make any sense. Unless a minority is being segregated, minorities are generally
expected to assimilate into the broader culture. Doing so has a lot of advantages socially - insular cultures are often looked down upon. The issue is that identity for a lot of minority groups comes from their individuality and the way they differentiate themselves. Again, this is a huge issue in Judaism, and in many sects of Judaism
assimilation is often considered a bad thing. "Having access to the majority culture" just does not play into it, at least not in the way you're thinking.
We're not debating the existence of racism, we're debating the existence of cultural appropriation and if a power balance has anything to do with it. Nobody is forcing ethnic groups to give up their culture even though there might be those that expect them to.
On top of that, minority access
does play into it because for there to be an imbalance of power they would have to be an imbalance in access. Minority cultures still have the same ability to adopt/adapt majority cultures as majority cultures do there's so there is no imbalance here.
What I think you're trying to get at is the concept of
cultural exchange, which is something that most people think is great, but is different from cultural appropriation.
Here is an article about what that difference is.
What the
perceived difference is. The only difference between the two is that people in the majority culture are more likely to feel guilty about adopting minority culture than the other way around, largely because many people are like you and misconceive a power balance issue that isn't there.
I would also hesitate to make the argument that Indian people wearing suits isn't a big deal, so non-Indians wearing saris shouldn't be either, since suits have very little cultural meaning and aren't considered special, whereas my understanding is that that's not exactly the case for saris. Either way, though, context matters; Indian people wearing suits = assimilation and survival, and non-Indians wearing saris = wanting to try something "exotic" for fun, which has no meaning for them and which they can disassociate with whenever they want.
Sure if this was the early to mid 20th century but it isn't. You're stuck in a time warp that seems to ignore modern attitudes and social progress. You're debating like this is still the fifties or sixties and ignoring that the vast majority of people don't actually give a damn if an Indian person chooses to wear traditional garments.
On top of that, you're implying that there is something inherently wrong with wanting to wear something "exotic" for fun. There's not. It's not the same as dressing in a sari for Halloween or mocking Indian traditions. It's also in no way "appropriating" that culture since for that to be correct we'd have to be taking it away from people who wish to practice it as originally intended, we aren't.
I'm not sure where you're getting this, but that isn't a factor, either. There can 100% be a power imbalance without a group being stripped of their culture. A power imbalance can arise simply from the fact that one group is the majority and others are minorities - majorities get to make the rules, and that in itself is an imbalance of power. To use an extreme example, Jews in Nazi Germany were not (as far as I know) banned from practicing their religion, wearing traditional clothing, or eating kosher food, but there was still an unbelievable power imbalance there, and the government made life living hell even for Jews who were fully assimilated.
There can be a power imbalance, but not in the context of cultural appropriation because in order for something to be appropriated we have to take it away as I just explained. Again, racism and xenophobia are not cultural appropriation and you frequently confuse the two.
Regardless, your point is kind of proved wrong simply by the fact that most minorities have to hide aspects of their culture in order to assimilate with the majority and thrive in that culture. This includes not wearing their culture's clothing, black people having to hide or change their natural hair, not eating their culture's food, not speaking in their natural dialect, etc. all because those things are not considered "professional" in the modern West. Nobody is holding these people at gunpoint and telling them they cannot do these things, of course, but when your job requires that you "fit in," the results are the same.
Except that you're completely wrong here because as a general rule, following a uniform or dress code has nothing to do with cultural appropriation and everything to do with your employer. Many western outfits would be considered inappropriate for workplaces in eastern countries but I highly doubt you'd complain about that. Alternatively, a workplace here could require female employees to dress in saris (might as well stick with the same example) - there's no power imbalance.
Nobody is forcing people to work under racist employers or to not follow their cultural norms outside of the workplace and laws prevent religious discrimination so you can forget trying to go down that road before you even try it.
The thing is, it's not really appropriating when it's a minority adopting the majority's culture because again, that is considered assimilation. A black woman living in China and practicing Chinese customs is assimilating in order not to be an outsider, and to survive. We can have a more nuanced discussion if we're talking about when she then comes back home to the US and continues practicing those customs.
It's not really appropriating ever because nobody is taking the culture away but I've been over that twice now and don't want to be preachy. Reading over your comments, this sounds very similar to white guilt - or more specifically majority guilt. Some misplaced belief that being in the majority somehow makes you wrong. So far you've not really shown me any reason why adopting culture is wrong other than you feel bad about it, if we were taking minority culture away somehow it would be different but that's not what's happening. The only difference between assimilation, exchange and cultural appropriation is how you personally feel about it, when you take away bias it's all ultimately the same thing or very similar.
That said, I wouldn't exactly say it's a "stereotype" that white people steal other people's cultures - that is literally what has happened throughout the history of colonialism. Now, that does not mean all white people are responsible for colonialism and thus cannot enjoy other people's cultures, but it does mean we should educate ourselves, listen to what people are telling us, and be responsible and sensitive when it comes to cultural exchange in order to prevent is from becoming cultural appropriation.
Modern society is not responsible for the crimes of the past, this is exactly what I mean when I talk about majority guilt. We do not live in the colonial era anymore, what white people as a majority
used to do is not relevant.
As a general rule I agree that it's important to educate yourself about other cultures and be socially aware. That doesn't mean someone should have to apologise for adopting cultural outfits or music or food for their own enjoyment. There's nothing wrong with "oh I like this so I'm going to have one". That's not a negative thing.
It's very easy for cultural exchange to become a one-way street if we don't listen to and respect one another. We have to believe people when they tell us that cultural appropriation is a problem and is important to them - you cannot have the cultural exchange you want to badly if you can't even do that, don't you think?
I think that humanity, equality and justice are something we can all agree are important but the existence of racism in the world doesn't turn exchange into appropriation. If a black person decides to wear a Native American headdress on Halloween, that's not cultural appropriation. Nobody is taking that culture away from Native Americans. It's racist, no matter how benign the man's intentions, but it's not cultural appropriation.
If a Japanese lady decides to wear a headscarf for the sake of fashion, that's not appropriation either. That's a person deciding something looks good and choosing to adopt it for their own personal style. There is nothing negative about that.
If a white person wants to make rap music, that's not stealing black culture. That's saying "I like that musical style and want to be a part of it." If they then claimed it was a white invention, maybe you'd have a case, but otherwise there's again nothing negative here.
I said in my first post that I think globalism is great, but the issue is that this is conflating cultural exchange with appropriation. There is a difference, even if there isn't always a clear line in the sand. There needs to be respect when different cultures meet, and we need to face the facts that nothing happens in a vacuum. Western cultures need to be aware of the history of colonization and understand what a loot of minority cultures have gone through in order to have a meaningful and equal exchange.
You can't take away culture and no majority culture in the modern era (at least in the west) is claiming the cultural traits of minority groups as their own or barring them from practicing cultural norms. The problem isn't conflating appropriation and exchange, it's that appropriation doesn't exist. You're confusing two separate things and twisting exchange and racism together out of some weird worldview or misplaced guilt. Racism is always bad, there's no denying that but there's nothing negative about adopting the culture of others so long as they still have access to that same culture. These are different things. Cultural appropriation is an illusion dreamed up by people who feel guilty for something their ancestors did or for being born into the majority or by people who need something to be offended about.
Maybe in the past this sort of thing was a huge problem, I will not deny that history is dotted with atrocities. I won't even pretend that there aren't people alive today who share a similar mindset to those who committed those atrocities (I'm looking at you Trump, Abbott). But
those people are a minority. they do not represent the masses and to act as though they do is to be stuck in the past. If you want to fight against the mockery or destruction of other cultures, I applaud you and support your efforts, but don't confuse something that is at worst neutral and at best positive with what you actually have a problem with. You don't have an issue with mislabeled cultural exchange (cultural appropriation). You have a problem with racism and are seeing racism in exchange that isn't there and are then calling that cultural appropriation.
Apologies for taking so long to reply, I've been a bit out of sorts and wanted to make sure I gave a good reply and not some drivel.
