If a group directly impacted by a phenomenon tells the world that please do not use a specific term, or artifact, or certain depiction, since it has historical implications that demean me and my family and my people, why, then of course I shall completely and unhesitatingly not use it.
I do not believe it is ever acceptable to make fun of or discriminate against people because of inherent traits such as skin color, sexuality, health status, socioeconomic status etc. I see no reason, nor do I find joy in making fun of people just because they adhere to any one religion. That said, I do find joy in pointing out logical flaws, lack of scientific thinking, bigotry and the overall uselessness and stupidity of religions. Criticizing religion is completely different from criticizing people.
Religion, and -isms of all kinds are more than fair game for commentary of any kind. -Isms and religions are sets of ideas, nothing more. Ideas are made to be criticized, even made fun of. Especially silly ones, such as religious ones.
If a whiny person, especially a jacked up social warrior, high on some alkaline detox shot, tells me to stop eating, baking, printing, wearing, selling, or saying something because it is cultural appropriation, then it is most probably way off base. Making Mexican food is not cultural appropriation. Wearing braids or cornrows or what have you is a style choice, albeit a bad one, but it is not cultural appropriation.
Incorporating positive parts of another people and countries is not a bad thing. It is a good thing. Enjoying another culture’s food, baking it, even selling it is not a bad thing. It is praise – this food is so goddamn tasty I need to make it and sell it so the world can enjoy it too. Dreadlocks are disgusting, and should really be banned for that reason alone, but any hippie, regardless of color or culture, has the right to wear them. It is not cultural appropriation. If in doubt, do your research. Exactly whose cultural would dreadlocks be appropriation from? Listening to rap is something all people have the same right to enjoy (or tolerate) just as they have the right to listen to polka or bluegrass or blues or what have you. We can all wear what we want, Indian saris or tie dye, pants or ponchos, it is a matter of bad or good taste, not of stealing someone else’s culture. Learning from other cultures, incorporating colors, art, food is a good thing! Appreciating and wanting to share what one has learned and seen abroad is a positive.
Now, if someone dresses up in an indigenous dress and makes fun of that culture, that is bad. If someone does blackface, it is derogatory and plain dumb. The same goes for sexually stereotyping someone. or for making fun of handicaps. Taking someone’s culture and passing it off as your own is not ok. Taking someone else’s work, minimizing or even removing its heritage claiming it is your, is going too far, it is completely lacking in respect and even theft. The line should be pretty clear, but is seems activists want it moved and that the new rules are both ambiguous and esoteric. What is really the purpose of enlarging the scope of cultural appropriation? What is the goal? I am not sure, but picking fights, where none are to be found, where there is no ill intent, is always a negative. Broadening cultural appropriation, making it mainstream, making it ubiquitous is not the way forward, it is derisive and illogical and most of all it is inflammatory. Stick to what is de facto bad, and make sure the line is not crossed, but keep a line. When the line is unclear just teach, enlighten, question with the purpose of making things better, don’t attack and name call and scream cultural appropriation and bigot at some confused baker/singer/writer/philosopher who simply expressed joy in whatever craft. Attacking never achieves a positive. And I am confident most cases of what activists call cultural appropriation, are simple lack of knowledge or insight, so what is the point of attack and arguing? Who will learn from that?
