Ellie Huntress ARH 200 Assignment 2 Cultural Appropriation Fall 2012 Appropriation is the act of taking something for

one's own use, typically without the owners permission. It comes from the Latin appropriare meaning make one's own and can often have negative connotations in regards to an artist reworking well known images or paintings into something of their own. Cultural appropriation is the act of adopting or borrowing certain specific elements, usually from a minority culture by a dominant culture. These elements can be visual things such as a style of dress, personal adornment, hair, fashion, and art. It can also be seen in a less physical aspect, in music, religion, language, or even social behavior. Some common examples of cultural appropriation are Native American headdresses, people learning martial arts, hair being formed into dreadlocks, and even the use of the leprechaun mascot by sports teams like the Boston Celtics. Appropriation can also be seen in stylized American foods. In a typical shopping mall only a few inches of plaster separate the Chinese food from the Mexican, neither of which hold many similarities to their actual traditional cuisine. All of these are considered appropriation when they are performed or utilized by a person who did not descend alongside the image they have borrowed, and are unaware of the traditional uses and meanings of them. The argument is often made that because one does not fully understand or appreciate the original meanings of that which is being appropriated, one is not allowed to use them at all. This brings into question the relationships we build as separate cultures, and what happens when they start to intertwine. If a white American diligently researches and respects ancient Japanese culture in relation to their traditional martial arts, can he or she practice them? Can he display Japanese figurines in bookcases and hang their art on his walls? If a person of Irish descent decides to put dreadlocks in their hair, with knowledge of and respect for their spiritual origins, can they?

What if they just like the way they look? Can a Black woman chemically straighten her hair? Can an American mother born and raised in Oklahoma buy her young daughter a dreamcatcher to hang above her bed? Should she? Some see these actions as insensitive and even racist. These can be sacred elements that are not just important to their people, but part of their identity. Cultural appropriation can be seriously derogatory and harmful when used casually by people who know nothing about them in order to sell products or look cool. This however only draws more questions regarding who is and is not allowed to do something or wear something. Cultures sharing ideas, styles of art and music, and beliefs has been growing and evolving perpetually alongside man. Where is the line between natural diffusion and purposeful exploitation? It is difficult to draw any conclusions when it is impossible to have an unbiased, objective standpoint. Cultural appropriation is not necessarily negative, in fact it can have an incredibly positive effect on us, from advancing us as a species to simply making things more interesting. Learning about the customs, symbols, and traditions of other cultures is exciting, and puts into perspective our incredibly diverse world. Possible answers to this seem to lie in the intent of the artist or user, and in the relationship between the two cultures. A Japanese teen wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the logo of a big American company is not the same as Madonna sporting a bindi as part of her latest reinvention. (Peterson par. 2) The difference is in history and power. It does seem to matter immensely who is doing the appropriating. A black woman straightening her hair is not an insult to those with naturally or traditionally straight hair. But if a member of a dominant culture seeks out and steals an element of a minority, it is seen as an insult and only further marginalizes an already off balance power relation between the majority and minority. The intent of the object or image is very important. Indian halloween costumes, especially with the adornment of a headdress is seen as extremely offensive to Native Americans. However if a white American jeweler researched traditional Native American jewelry or beading, and created their own work inspired by that, it seems significantly

more acceptable because of the knowledge of the history, in comparison with the assumed ignorance of the Halloween costume. Lakota activist Simon Moya-Smith states Our culture is not a fad, okay, these things are very sacred.(Moya-Smith 1:20) in response to a Denver gift shop window display littered with t-shirts and sunglasses among leather drums and bow and arrows. In the summer of 2008, the Los Angeles-based clothing company American Apparel released a new line called Afrika. It featured multiple tribal and animal print patterns available on various pieces including dresses and head wraps. The line was immediately recognized by many as an unfortunate exploitation and over-simplification of an entire continent. Africa has 54 fully recognized sovereign states, and dozens of culturally independent groups of people. The entire continent is not a monolith that can be boiled down to four simple textiles. The appropriation of these patterns, and labeling them as african, is an insult to the diverse history of authentic African artistry and identity. The creator of this image is the faceless corporation. The prints have been robbed of their traditional meanings and have been given new responsibilities; they are now being used solely to be trendy and appeal to a specific audience in order to make the most profits. This is the company's only goal. They are not respectfully promoting awareness or interest in the cultures and practices of African textile artists, they are simply taking an art that has historic significance to certain groups of people, and tailoring it to fit what was 'in-style' at the time to make money. The original intended meaning of the piece is simply a geometric tribal pattern, catering to young women in a certain vein of fashion, in hopes that they will embrace and purchase much of the line. They have stolen and vastly generalized an entire continent into a few mass-produced products. It can even be argued that this is both a racial and feminist issue. The thin white models who now represent Africa are fetishistic and over sexualized (a common theme in American Apparel clothing ads.) The line adds to the stereotypical concept of black women, and Africans in general, as being raw, animalistic beasts to be tamed, rather than human beings to be respected.

Although American Apparel never released a statement in response to the accusations of racism and cultural insensitivity, it seems unlikely that this was a publicity stunt, intending to shock or offend. The new meaning intended through the appropriation is that if a consumer were to buy these clothes, they become wild, daring, beautiful women who are bold and stand out from the crowd. Whether intended or not, the actual meaning through appropriation alludes to an extreme generalization of Africans as savages. And an extreme generalization of the continent itself; not all of Africa is tribal, not all of Africa has zebras. The Afrika line is an example of appropriation by the corporation for profit, and appropriation by the consumer for coolness. The marketing of the qualities of hipness and cool points to the class-based categories of high and low culture have been rendered meaningless. The signifiers of youth culture are marketed to middle- and upper-class consumers so they can look edgy. The signifiers of inner-city ethnic subcultures are marketed to white consumers with the promise of conferring hip insider status. Mainstream culture [] is constantly mining the margins of culture for new sources of meaning- and new styles for making money. The culture industries are constantly establishing what is new style by mining the margins and subcultures on the margins are always reinventing themselves by appropriating from mass culture and from other margins. (Sturken/Cartwright p. 87, par. 2) Culture can not be starkly separated into exact groups of people, it is a vast amalgam that is constantly changing. It changes based on groups within itself, and those groups change once again in response. There are no concrete rules we all follow, laws can be vastly different if you walk into another state, never mind around the world. What is celebrated or completely overlooked in one place may be bastardized and shunned in others. Although we have somehow evolved universal morals regarding murder, rape, and abuse as generally unacceptable, there are other gray areas when it comes to what is right and wrong. In most countries and in general, all are free to do what they please when it comes to fashion, art, music, design and style. But one must take into consideration the way one's actions affects those around them.

Cultural appropriation is a problematic topic that like most issues in life has very few clear answers and largely depends on the situation at hand. Is it acceptable to steal or learn from a culture to use their ideas for something of your own? If not, where else would new ideas come from? There are no truly original ideas, everything is inspired by something else, and everything is connected to a certain culture.