On Cultural Appropriation - Ajantha Ratnayaka
Identity politics has spawned an absurd, and often amusing new concept, ‘Cultural Appropriation’. The usefulness of this concept is mainly as a means by which the modern lightweight leftist can express their non-racist credentials when interacting with their peers. Indeed, I use the term ‘concept’ merely for ease, as the idea lacks clear definition or intellectual consistency. The WALE (White and Liberal Entitled) community, who, incidentally, regard themselves as far too dynamic to be categorised as such (unlike the amorphous mass that is the BAME ‘community’) are engaged in a constant competition amongst themselves to show that they are less racist than other WALE people. The accusation of being guilty of cultural appropriation is a favourite weapon in this battle, rather than being a tool for promoting justice or progress in a society.
Virtually all culture, and cultural practices, can be shown to be the result of interaction between peoples, whether through conflict, conquest, commercial, intellectual or general domestic contact. Race warriors might claim that power differentials, with their roots in historical interactions, are the key factor in assessing whether an action qualifies as ‘appropriation’. Questions then arise, for example, given their historical relationship, is it legitimate for the Japanese people of today to enjoy Chinese food, perhaps even with the additional offence of modifying a recipe to their tastes? Or would it be wrong for modern descendants of the Kingdom of Dahomey (Benin today) to engage in practices that have their origins in the regional cultures that were subjugated by their ancestors? Must Italian people reject anything that came to them via the violent conquests of the Roman Empire? Is it possible to define the parameters of ‘cultural appropriation’? Which people are able to claim that their culture is theirs alone, without external influence, modification and the resulting developments? The issue of power differentials, both current and historical, raises the question of whether it is acceptable for middle-class white people to adopt elements of culture from the white working-class.
The WALE community regards the conflicts between their ancestors and non-white people as being of greater significance than that between other peoples, thus they make confused attempts to classify the practices in which modern white people can justifiably engage. I have heard an argument that the trans-Atlantic slave trade and colonialism are sufficiently recent, making culture from this period inappropriate for white people to display. This suggests that the objection is not to the appropriation from cultures subjected to slavery and colonisation itself, but a matter of chronology. What is the cut-off point? How much time has to pass before a white British person can legitimately eat Indian food?
The clearest absurdity arises when one WALE person accuses another of culturally appropriating something, whilst seemingly unaware of their own ‘guilt’. Presumably, all white people in Britain today must try to identify what foods, hairstyles, arts, clothing etc. have originated solely
in Britain. Ironically, WALE people must aim for cultural practices that have ‘racial purity’.
Perhaps in order to avoid drowning in the sea of absurdity and contradiction, some WALE people make a distinction between ‘appropriation’ and ‘appreciation’. This distinction is impossible to define and identify, from what I’ve seen, it seems to be based on nothing more than: if you do it, it’s ‘appropriation’, and if I do it’s ‘appreciation’.
I speculate that many, if not most, non-white people care not at all what others, of any colour or race, eat, wear, sing or hang on their walls. Members of the WALE community, particularly those who delight in displaying a conspicuous fervour, want to use the idea of cultural appropriation to divide all people into more and more specific categories.
The fundamental issues around simple equality and justice are substituted by clumsy attempts to be seen to be acknowledging difference. Non-white people who take offence at ‘appropriations’ of ‘their’ culture, can neither show their ownership or how it affects them. They fall into the trap of WALE people’s desire to see offence where there is none, thus keeping the focus on trivia. When white people enthusiastically embrace elements of non-white cultures, at worst it is only ever an amusement to sometimes see their misinterpretations, often it is seen as a form of flattery. It is no more offensive than seeing non-Christian Asian people modifying traditional western Christmas dinner. WALE people must keep attention directed away from real progress, as such progress will rob them of their racialized worldview.
Culture, particularly in the modern world, is difficult to define in a definitive way. Culture consists of many elements. Values, practices, attitudes and many unquantifiable details of life. Because of this, it is clear that culture varies between people within national and/or racial boundaries. It is common to find individuals from what might be considered to be the ‘same culture’, who live in close proximity to one another, but do not share a ‘culture’. That is to say, they have nothing in common except, perhaps, their skin colour and where they were born. Likewise, the digital social media age has highlighted the fact that people can share more cultural commonalities with others who happened to be on the other side of the planet, than with their immediate neighbours. Often, the only significant difference between them is their nationality and/or skin colour.
Ideas of culture should not be left to be defined by those who seem to be addicted to conflict politics. The Left regarding ‘appropriation’ as an injustice or insult, whilst the Right regarding it as a dilution of their superior culture. These two ends of the political spectrum must not be allowed to decide how culture is expressed. The practical application of both Left and Right’s cultural prohibitions have the same result, culturally poorer societies.
Consider a world where no one has to continually pay for their ancestor’s actions by debating what clothes they can and can’t wear, what they cannot eat, or what hairstyle they prefer. Surely we must embrace the continual amalgamation of all cultural choices. Personally, I can see positive and negative elements in my own culture. Rejecting what I find negative, or simply not to my taste, from wherever it comes, is a fundamental freedom. Adopting ‘foreign’ ideas, in whatever aspect of life, can enhance life, and the modifying of these ideas creates true progress.
Ajantha Ratnayaka