Setting that aside, cultural appropriation is something that just happens; it's not a moral good or bad, despite the way that it often gets talked about in culture war rants. It's an emergent phenomenon of different cultures mingling.
There are negative aspects of appropriation, such as decontextualizing something to the point of erasing its original meaning, or using it as window dressing to be "exotic," or to make fun of people. These things can feel especially crass to people when they're present in a system that denigrates or oppresses the people that they are appropriating those things from.
I can't speak for everyone, but to me it makes sense that the issue people have against appropriation of sacred customs or ornamentation of some cultures is that it seems disrespectful to the people who hold it sacred. I'm not even sure that's what the original article is saying, though.
Was also expecting something way more Scottish from your description, when it's basically a uni-color classic cut orange sweater.
PS: also yes, what a jerky way to come at people.
Then, it's pretty hard to culturally appropriate Christianity when it's setup with a doctrine of expansion and push to fit everywhere it can. That was basically the premise of colonialism in the early days. Same way we wouldn't be crying rivers because Asians countries embraced Coca Cola.
> germ theory of disease
Hasn't that been a two-way street for basically the beginning of times ? The Silk Road was as much about exchanging theories and culture than exchanging goods. There's no discussion the very base of our own culture and science is heavily influenced by the early advancement of eastern countries.
Companies trying to make trademark, patent and copyright claims seems like an entirely different matter from people complaining about cultural appropriation. The former is typically by people who may have a legal basis for claiming ownership over an idea (the merits of which is a different conversation, in my opinion).
I don't get the sense that the article's author is attempting to make a copyright claim on Buddhism here. This is just ethnic turf staking.
On the article itself, I went through most of it, but have a very hard time being emotional about corporate culture getting crossed with institutional religious entities. I see both as kinda toxic, and if they can spend some time fighting each other we might actually get a break for once.
They call it colonization.
White liberals prefer nonwhites to be quaint, uneducated, and poor.
I feel like this deserves a response. I am going to try to avoid veering into flame war territory, if I fail feel free to downvote/flag.
Also, I'm currently on mobile. I'll try my best on formatting and spelling, but no promises.
Ok, on to the response.
I am a white liberal. What you have listed is the last thing I want - what I want is to ensure we continue to maintain a functioning democracy, ensure that social mobility is possible for the largest number of people possible, help as many people as possible become educated, and ensure companies do not gain too much power.
Verbiage like you just used is very comparable to verbiage like ACAB and "All republicans are fascist".
To be fair, until very recently in history, failure to convert to Christianity and assimilate into the colonial culture was illegal and practicing one's native culture or even speaking the language could get one killed. On the other hand, one could only assimilate so far before the pitchforks came out. Contrast that to today where if you transgress a cultural boundary, somebody might exercise their free speech in your general direction. It is a pretty one-way thing, but us white westerners aren't being oppressed.
I was referring to Ireland, whose colonisation[1][2] during the 16th and 17th centuries served almost as a prototype for future British expansion. Gaelic culture was nearly wiped out due to British policies, and even to this day, Irish is a severely endangered language. It remains the one of the few regions in Europe with a lower population in the present than it had in 1800.
But sure, let's call it a historical anomaly.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantations_of_Ireland
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwellian_conquest_of_Irelan...
> But that is not what we historically consider to be the multi-hundred year era of colonization than killed untold millions and impacted the lives of almost every non-Western person on the planet.
Ok. So again, I ask: what's the difference? There was a seizure of lands, systematic eradication of culture and language over the course of several hundred years, mass discrimination, and millions killed in conflicts and famine. What part of that makes it distinct from other instances of colonization?
The point I think you're trying to make is that different rules apply for cultural appropriation for white people than they do for people of color. Would you agree?
Aww, why'd you have to go and point that out? I was having fun beating around that bush...
But more seriously, I would have preferred to hear that from the poster. I specifically avoided putting those words in their mouth, despite being tempted to a few times; and also to avoid getting dragged down into a debate of whatever "white" means.
Rome violently occupied most of Europe and forced its culture on to those peoples. Therefore, most Europeans may eat as much pizza as they like. But if an Italian so much as looks at a croissant or wears pants, they've done A Cultural Appropriation.
Seems sensible to me!
Then yes, people could be pissed at Rome companies also producing "Rome croissant" that were to globally compete with French croissants and take their place on other countries' shelves.