Since cultural appropriation is now considered a scientific fact, by sites such as Verywell Mind and Healthline, it seems most appropriate (get it?) that I publish this piece on a STEM website. Of course, cultural appropriation is actually a controversial political idea and not a medical fact as the aforementioned websites would have their readers believe. That this political idea and medicine have been conflated is yet another example of social norms intruding into science (such as when homosexuality was classified as a mental illness).
The notion that there can be cultural (mis)appropriation is extremely problematic because it rests on a myriad of false assumptions, not least of which is the idea of cultural power. Indeed, there can be majority and minority cultures within specific regions and time periods, but cultural appropriation rarely takes such nuances into account. Instead, cultural appropriation tends to focus on Western imperialism, which is a form of Eurocentrism because it assumes that Western empires were globally dominant throughout history. However, the West is not a monolith (have the Irish always had power? Or the Scottish? etc.). Moreover, even though Western cultures have had vast empires, the myopic focus on the West is nonsensical in terms of cultural appropriation since 1) many alleged ‘appropriators’ have global fanbases, and 2) many of these cultural elements extend beyond the West, with hundreds or even thousands of years of history; thus, it is more reasonable to discuss cultural power in terms of the whole of human history, during which time the West has not been consistently dominant since Western cultures have not always had empires nor were they the only imperialists (ex. Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire, Songhai Empire, etc.).
In reality, cultural power shifts over time and varies between regions. For instance, Japanese and Chinese imperialism has had a more significant impact on Taiwan than Western powers. As an American with Taiwanese ancestry, how should I ‘appropriately’ culturally appropriate? Instead of simply adapting Japanese elements into my art, should I also look up Japan’s history and then feel relieved that they were the ‘dominant’ culture over Taiwan, thus granting me permission to borrow freely from them? But what about Taiwanese aborigine cultures? I’m likely one drop Taiwanese aborigine and the rest Han Chinese as a result of Han colonization of Taiwan. I was also born and raised in the States, a superpower. Does all this make me part of the ‘majority’ or ‘minority’ culture? How then, in terms of power dynamics, should I ‘appropriately’ appropriate? You see how quickly this exercise regarding cultural ‘power’ degenerates into a farce.
My aunts have also stated that they liked Japanese rule since the Japanese improved infrastructure in Taiwan, and such a viewpoint is by no means rare in Taiwan. But under the current dogma—which demands belief in empires as pure evil and homogenizes colonized/colored peoples as victims—views like my aunts’ are heresies to be invalidated or expunged from history.
Thus, cultural appropriation, and the diversity ideology to which it belongs, is based less on logic and truth, and more on orthodoxy, resembling a religion that reduces the vast and complex phenomenon of imperialism into an overly simplistic good vs. evil binary. This religion has priests (those assumed to hold the holy grail of moral truth); followers; rituals (like reading land acknowledgements); justifications; oftentimes tenuous reasonings; tenets (White tyranny, evil empires, etc.)—and even courses (resembling Sunday school) and retreats (resembling Bible camp), for unbelievers must be converted, or else silenced, excommunicated, or worse (cancel culture).
I suppose History repeats itself:
Then: “Sin is everywhere! We must self-flagellate, create an Inquisition, and burn the witches to purge the world of sin.”
Now: “Oppression is everywhere! We must feel guilty, create diversity committees, and cancel ‘harmful’ people to purge the world of oppression.”
The irony is that History remembers the moralizers of yesterday as the greater sinners; so History will also remember the moralizers of today as the greater oppressors.
Very clear case if you ask me.
I find your points about history repeating itself interesting. I see similar repeating ideas in new form. Eg. The idea of Armageddon/ end of times vs now the end of time due to human actions. (I am not saying there are no problems, but to sacrifice all to avoid it is just irrational.)
Elon Musk building an Ark to backup humanity. The believe in a utopian world where everything is good, and striving to reach it, no matter the cost. (Marxism is an example). Etc.
And also very interestingly, As a European, I see many ideas from USA getting copied and pasted here with just simple adjustments to fit our context. Or seemingly fit our context. I hope this cultural appropriation idea stays there, since I had to try my best to understand the issue at all.
These points reminded me also of the quote by Jordan Peterson of Jung: people do not have ideas, ideas have people. The first 2 answers of this Quora thread are a good read on this idea: https://www.quora.com/Can-anyone-elaborate-on-what-Jung-meant-when-he-said-We-dont-have-ideas-ideas-have-us
A line is crossed when you take items that are considered sacred in a particular religious or spiritual tradition and appropriate them for profit.