There’s misrepresenting the culture, but there’s also misrepresenting one’s own relationship to it.
For instance: the term “two-spirit.” I’m non-binary, and I used very similar language to describe my experience in a journal when I was young – before I knew anything about trans issues, and probably before there was recognition of non-binary gender in the LGBTQ community in general. In fact, when I wrote that journal entry it was before a group of Native Americans of various tribes coined the term to describe the common phenomenon their languages had words for.
It really seemed to suit me well, except that they are explicit and adamant that it describes non-binary gendered people in a Native American cultural context, with all that goes with it in terms of acceptance and social roles, etc. I had a snit about that for a while, before I finally got it. A white person can call themself “two-spirit” either out of ignorance (not knowing it has a specific cultural meaning) or disrespect (knowing and not caring); I would argue that this isn’t a misrepresentation of Native American culture but counts as cultural appropriation if anything does.
I would suggest exactly the reverse; that it’s the very common phenomenon of something that actually is part of the human condition being appropriated by one group. Appropriation and misuse of specific cultural artefacts is one thing, the attempt to appropriate an aspect of human behaviour is on a slippery slope that descends ultimately to nationalism, racism and religious discrimination.
It is possible to recognise that minorities are discriminated against and this is a bad thing, while at the same time recognising that those minorities may do bad or inappropriate things themselves.
(As an example I disapprove strongly of the Russian suppression of the Jehovah’s Witnesses while agreeing that they should not have the right to refuse their children modern medical treatment). It’s right that native peoples should have protection for their biochemical discoveries (properties of plants); but not that they be allowed to appropriate a field of psychology!
They’re not saying that only Native Americans can be non-binary; they’re saying that the experience of a non-binary person growing up in their culture(s) is different than it is outside it, because of specific cultural traditions, norms, beliefs, etc. I wouldn’t call myself hijra either, because that’s a specific Hindu sect with its own traditions that don’t apply to me either.
Sure. But the question was about cultural appropriation and whether or not it’s even a thing we should spend brain space on. I was trying to get at the larger question of that rather than whether this particular thing is an example of it.
Consumerism, crass or otherwise, is yet a whole different kettle of fish, I think.
Fair enough there. The question with this particular thing is whether or not it qualifies as cultural appropriation. And we should note that quite a bit of power still rests in the hands of the white power structure, and that indeed does include liberals speaking over the voices of the people who have been historical subject to power imbalances.
But I don’t think they are attempting to stop people from that form of behavior or being, rather they are saying the term itself is rather specific to their culture. I don’t think they are saying that only Native Americans are non-binary, but rather the term is specific. Non-binary gender identity isn’t new or unique to modernity, it’s found in any number of cultures historically and dealt with and described in varying ways.
I’m coming around a bit on cultural appropriation - not when it comes to boomerangs, mind, but with other things like images of people, names (I’m looking at you, Jeep Cherokee) and perhaps certain symbols. But I don’t get this two spirit thing. Native Americans don’t own the word spirit. Just having two of them doesn’t make it a trademark of the native american people. If they want to call it something like Nij Achak or whatever, maybe. But two spirit? Nope.
It used to be common for Catholic women to cover their hair for mass, if I’m not mistaken. Pretty much until the reforms in the 1960s. I bet in some places, they still do.
Yeah. My mum has funny stories about not realising she’d forgotten her scarf until it was too late to go home, and winding up pinning Kleenex to her head.
I was part of a conference that included a “private meeting” (about 30 of us) with the then-Pope in the early 1980s. The Catholic women who were part of the contingent were all very concerned about having a scarf to put over their heads for the meeting, but those of us who weren’t Catholic were told we didn’t have to if we didn’t want to.
And then there was the woman who sat sobbing on a bench outside of the room, because she had divorced her extremely abusive husband, which meant she was automatically excommunicated from the Church and felt honor-bound to not sully the Pope by being in his presence (or something like that…I don’t understand the nuances here).
Yes it is, but that doesn’t mean other religion can’t be misogynistic as well. Mostly it’s the people and how they interpret their religion. They can use it for good, or they can serve their own self interests and keep other people down.
The parish I grew up in had plenty of divorced Catholics in it. In the same time period you’re describing all that meant was they couldn’t receive communion and couldn’t get married in a Catholic church again. They were definitely not excommunicated.
Sounds like your colleague got handed a bad piece of dogma. If the audience included non-Catholics she should have been fine. Or else geez, be a Protestant for a day and repent the next. Sheesh.
