All Our Relations: Pagans and the more-than-human world.
For aware Pagans the Sacred encompasses us all, rivers and mountains, oceans and deserts, grasses and trees, fish and fungi, birds and animals. Understanding the implications of what this means, and how to experience it first hand, involves our growing individually and as a community well beyond the limits of this world-pathic civilization. All Our Relations exists to help fertilize this transition.
Moving Beyond 'Cultural Appropriation,' a Pagan Perspective. Part I.
Some people within the Pagan community object to instances of what they consider “cultural appropriation.” Smudging with sage, seeking a power animal, celebrating Day of the Dead, is somehow stealing. To my mind they are confused about culture, confused about appropriation, and even confused about what it is to be a human being. In their confusion they attack other Pagans, creating a problem for all of us.
No NeoPagans practice traditions with an unbroken connection to pre-Christian times. Almost all old Pagan traditions have been mostly oral, and the core of those teachings have been lost. When once Pagan practices have survived, their interpretation will have changed, as Sabina Magliocco has described in rural Italy.
To more deeply develop NeoPagan practices some of us have studied living Pagan traditions, hoping to learn what may be useful for ourselves. And it is here that the charge of “cultural appropriation” arises.
Most contemporary NeoPagans are citizens of countries that long collectively subjugated most of the world to their will. During the centuries of Western domination, other ways of life were often attacked and undermined and religious traditions other than certain kinds of Christianity were suppressed, often violently. Sometimes genocide followed subjugation.
The best among us are seeking to come to a balanced understanding of the West’s crimes as well as its achievements. Our task is not an easy one.
At the same time, people within cultures once subjugated and still dominated by Western powers seek to preserve as much as they can from their former way of life, either adapting it to the modern world or trying to safeguard it from Western modernity’s homogenizing and secularizing impact. Theirs is not an easy task either.
It is within this larger context that issues of “cultural appropriation” arise. Many of us seek to fill gaps in our own knowledge and traditions with what we have learned from teachers or books, about other non-Western traditions. Consequently, when we smudge with sage or seek out spirit animals, integrate decorative skulls from day of the Dead into Samhain, or even meet in circles, we are supposedly engaged in “cultural appropriation.”
I am as aware as most anyone of the injustices of the past towards other peoples, but this is not a good way to think about the subject. There are much better ways.
What is cultural appropriation?
Jarune Uwujaren defines cultural appropriation as "when somebody adopts aspects of a culture that's not their own." In addition, a "power dynamic" exists because "members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group." Maisha Z. Johnson agrees, writing "Cultural appropriation is when somebody adopts aspects of a culture that’s not their own.” Cultural appropriation also “refers to a particular power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group.”
Let me offer two counter examples to the claim this is always a bad thing. The Romans conquered and sometimes enslaved Greeks, and in the process ultimately incorporated much of Greek philosophy and art into their own culture. The Roman writer, Horace, said Rome’s military dominance was ultimately second to Greece’s influence: “Greece, the captive, took her savage victor captive and brought the arts into rustic Latium.”
The Romans practiced “cultural appropriation.” However, by adopting so much Greek culture, Rome strengthened Greek cultural influence in the Western world. It was not Rome’s adopting elements of Greek culture within their own culture that was bad, it was their military conquest of Greece. One could easily argue the Renaissance might never have happened had not Rome preserved important elements of Greek culture.
My second example hits closer to home.
Christian Rome and the Catholic Church culturally appropriated many Pagan sites and practices. Where did the date Dec, 25 come from? It was not when Jesus was born. What about Christmas trees? Magnificent churches are built on the sites of destroyed Pagan temples or places of veneration. It is not just by chance Easter and Ostara are similar names. St. Brigit was an appropriation of Bhride, a wonderful Irish Goddess. Old Pagan folk rituals have been wrapped in Christian terminology while otherwise remaining the same.
At another level, some of Classical Paganisms greatest work survived the monotheistic holocaust that destroyed much of the older culture and knowledge. Plato and Aristotle, to name the most important, were reinterpreted to fit Christian priorities. They were also preserved, and as they were reinterpreted, their writings became more generally available. Our history would be much different if all Classical Pagan writings had been consigned to the flames, as so much was.
If the Christian world was to dominate the Pagan one we are glad it appropriated so much and wish it had appropriated more. It preserved seeds from the past we could study, water, nourish, and sometimes revive. Had the Christian West utterly destroyed these remnants we would have far less to work with, and that they survived speaks to the power and magic in our heritage.
What is appropriation?
To appropriate something from someone is to take what does not belong to me. If I appropriate your car, I have it, and you don’t. I can also appropriate your identity, as happened to me once when my wallet was stolen. You may have my ID and credit cards, but you are not me. The first kind of appropriation is theft, the second kind is fraud aided by theft.
Can I appropriate ideas? Unlike the stolen car, in every case, you still have them, even if I am now also using them. If I claim expertise in a field or to understand an idea I know little about or to like something I do not like, or believe something I don’t, I am lying and perhaps committing fraud. But if I have truly made these ideas, tastes, and beliefs my own, I am not pretending to have incorporated a cultural element from elsewhere, I have in fact done so. If I also give credit to my sources I am not committing fraud or lying. If anything, I am praising those who introduced me to something I find valuable. By adopting these ideas I have not only not deprived others of them, I have expanded their scope and made them more available to others. If ideas were life forms, (an issue I will return to), they would be pleased at this expansion.
The language of possession does not fit regarding ideas, tastes, beliefs, and other contents of our minds. Ideas are not things. A specific creation can be copyrighted for a period of time and a discovery can be patented, but both are narrowly defined and temporary, existing to reward the creator for their contribution to the larger community. Whatever ideas are, they are not property.
There is one example where the term “cultural appropriation” might make sense, and it is related to these examples. In some cultures, songs and stories are the recognized property of a family or other group. They are shared with others as gifts. Using these stories and songs without permission is akin to stealing another’s story or song in the West, and I agree the legitimate owners should have legal protection, just as creators and inventers do in the West with copyrights. But we already have a clear term for these acts: theft. The stealing is not from ‘a culture,’ it is from a specific person or group of people. Without their permission, no one else in the culture would know of it.
Ironically the only group in the modern world seeking to make ideas permanently controlled as property are corporations seeking to extend copyrights and patents indefinitely- and they are not creators. They buy this ‘property’ from the creators. In this important respect the advocates for cultural appropriation endorse a capitalist conception of society. Ideas’ meanings are influenced by the different contexts within which they exist, both between and within cultures. In the West, at one time, marriage was usually for creating a family, making an alliance, or assuring security in old age. Love didn’t matter. Montesquieu observed, a “husband who loves his wife is a man who has not enough merit to engage the affections of some other woman.” In such a context, gay marriage was unthinkable. Once marriage increasingly focused on love, it was only a matter of time before gay marriage became thinkable, and now, a reality.
An idea can be either yours, someone else’s, or culturally embedded so we have no idea where it originated. Most ideas within a culture are the latter. It makes sense to say I stole your idea, if I do not give you credit. But it makes no sense to say I stole a culture’s idea. Cultures do not have ideas, they are composed of ideas in relationship with one another in ways independent of anyone’s control.
But what are cultures?
They are ecosystems. (Next installment: ecosystems, memes, language, thoughtforms)
Comments
-
Wednesday, 02 August 2017
Thank you for continuing the discussion! Though some of what you raise eill be in later installments, here is some stuff I hope you find useful.
I agree treating another culture's values and their expression with disrespect is a bad thing (if those values are defensible, unlike, say, suttee or cliterectomy,). My argument is the term "cultural appropriation" adds no clarity to the issue and is so vague that it can be used to cover a great many things to the point of absurdity.
You say for you it was limited to the sacred. Maybe for you. For example, thoughtlessly eating a burrito was given as an example by a writer recommended to me by supporters of the concepts and college demonstrations occurred after the 'appropriation' of the Chinese dish "General Tso's Chicken." https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/us/oberlin-takes-culture-war-to-the-dining-hall.html
General Tso's Chicken is not a part of any spiritual tradition of which I am aware. And when we get into the sacred there are a wide variety of practices - smudging for example - that some find to be appropriation while other Native Americans stand outside the grocery store where I shop and sell smudge sticks to people who will in no way use them in a sacred manner. Cultures do not own anything.
Further, to stick only with your example, when we enter the realm of the spiritual a third party is relevant- the powers with whom we hope to deal. If they come, it is irrelevant what some other human thinks. If they don't come, it is also irrelevant what some other human wants. The spirits are not our servants. A person wearing another culture's sacred stuff to, say, a party is ignorant, rude, arrogant, disrespectful, and probably other personal failings. One who does so disrespectfully and ignorantly while pretending to do a ritual is asking for a very other-y=than-human kick in the ass.
Trying to say Roman Christians were members of the same culture as Roman Pagans demonstrates the problem of trying to talk about cultures as specific things. Both the Christians and Pagans of the time saw themselves as very different. The Christians saw themselves as at war with Pagans. They used power to suppress them and then 'appropriated' certain dimensions of their practices. Modern Italy is directly linked to Rome linguistically, historically, geographically, and genetically. Is it the same culture? Obviously not. At what point did it change? Whatever point you pick will be obvious only in retrospect, not at the time.
So how do we differentiate cultures? Are Southern Baptist theocrats part of the same culture as California Pagans? For some purposes yes, for some no. I feel culturally far closer to friends in Vancouver, BC, than I do to such people in the South. What if the Baptists succeed in seceding and setting up a theocracy? For some things we'd agree it's a different culture- but by what standards? Cultures exist and are very very important, but the cultural appropriation way of talking about them is not very helpful, again as I shall demonstrate to an even greater degree in the next two installments, as I begin describing an alternative.
Nor were they all Romans. The Celts were not Romans. The Christmas tree was not a Roman practice. am not a Heathen, but I have read the Eddas were transcribed by Christians and in the process some parts likely modified. And so on.
So we are in agreement that adults thoughtlessly wearing a head dress imitating a plains tribe's outfit is at best ignorant and thoughtless, and at worst also arrogantly disrespectful and to be condemned. We are inagreement that we should attend to the views of leaders of a spiritual tradition- when they agree. (They often do not, especially among Native Americans). We are in disagreement that the term "cultural appropriation" adds any understanding to it.
But I have been told that W&P online needs shorter pieces than I sometimes write- so this entire argument is divided into a few parts. The second will appear by the end of the week. -
Thursday, 03 August 2017"You say for you it was limited to the sacred. Maybe for you. For example, thoughtlessly eating a burrito was given as an example by a writer recommended to me by supporters of the concepts and college demonstrations occurred after the 'appropriation' of the Chinese dish "General Tso's Chicken." https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/22/us/oberlin-takes-culture-war-to-the-dining-hall.html"
I said it was originally intended as such. I think it certainly has been stretched beyond its original meaning by some people. But I think that's not how it is predominantly used nor what its academic definition is.
General Tso's Chicken is a particularly silly example because it's not even Chinese. It's an American invention, as are burritos and fortune cookies. But just because people use the term inappropriately doesn't mean it isn't useful (the same way the term "socialism" is useful to describe certain political ideologies even if it is widely misused in American public discourse).
"Further, to stick only with your example, when we enter the realm of the spiritual a third party is relevant- the powers with whom we hope to deal. If they come, it is irrelevant what some other human thinks. If they don't come, it is also irrelevant what some other human wants. The spirits are not our servants. A person wearing another culture's sacred stuff to, say, a party is ignorant, rude, arrogant, disrespectful, and probably other personal failings. One who does so disrespectfully and ignorantly while pretending to do a ritual is asking for a very other-y=than-human kick in the ass."
To a certain extent I agree. But, the gods and spirits do not typically take action in obvious, direct ways. Ultimately, it is up to us as worshipers and human beings to in most cases enforce what we believe is or isn't appropriate in our culture. To depend on the divine for such action is as short-sighted (IMO) as depending on them to punish criminals. The gods, as always, act best through us.
"Trying to say Roman Christians were members of the same culture as Roman Pagans demonstrates the problem of trying to talk about cultures as specific things. Both the Christians and Pagans of the time saw themselves as very different. The Christians saw themselves as at war with Pagans. They used power to suppress them and then 'appropriated' certain dimensions of their practices."
This is where I have to disagree. From my understanding the conversion of Rome to Christianity was quite gradual and it is probably more accurate to say that Roman Christians simply carried what they already like about their prior traditions into Christianity when they converted (rather than the reverse, converting and then appropriating). Christians decided to celebrate Christmas near the Solstice because that's when they were celebrating anyway before they converted. In that sense it's like how many Pagans celebrate Christmas or Easter instead of the Solstice or Equinox: because it's culturally convenient to do so.
Christianity shows significantly more Greco-Roman influence than Judaic in my opinion as well and its philosophical foundations are more Platonic than Abrahamic. Christianity is and has predominantly been a gentile religion.
"So how do we differentiate cultures? Are Southern Baptist theocrats part of the same culture as California Pagans? For some purposes yes, for some no. I feel culturally far closer to friends in Vancouver, BC, than I do to such people in the South."
Ah, but what about Southern Pagans or Californian Methodists? What about black practitioners of Vodou vs. white atheists from Seattle? Which do you think you're closer to? You're right that cultural is mutable but region (and race) is in many cases more significant than religion. I'm fairly sure I have more in common with my atheist and Christian friends from the Portland area than I do with Pagans from Alabama. But that isn't to say I have nothing in common with them either! I certainly do and I think it would be a mistake to not think all Americans share a significant degree of cultural affinity with one another. There is an American superculture, just as there was a Roman one (and a Persian one, a Chinese one, etc.).
"Nor were they all Romans. The Celts were not Romans. The Christmas tree was not a Roman practice. am not a Heathen, but I have read the Eddas were transcribed by Christians and in the process some parts likely modified. And so on."
Depends what you mean by "Celts." Were the Irish Roman? Certainly not. Were the Gauls? Quite arguably so. They spoke Latin, worshiped Roman gods, and often had Roman-derived names. By the time the Franks took over Gaul, the natives considered themselves to be Roman, not Celtic (though the term Gauls was also used: indeed, the modern word derives from Frankish, not Latin or Celtic and has the same root as the words Welsh or Vlach). The last non-Frankish ruler of Gaul, Syagrius, was of Gallic descent but was regarded as one of the "Last Romans."
This gets into another, separate but related issue which is cultural assimilation. You mentioned the Greeks also and how they influenced the Romans. But it was certainly not a one-way street. The Greeks were also assimilated into Roman culture. The Byzantines, who succeeded the Romans in the West, spoke Greek but did not regard themselves as such. Their native name for themselves was Rhomaioi and it was by that name they would also come to be known by the Arab and Muslim worlds, who to this day still use the word "Rum" to describe Greeks living in Anatolia and West Asia. Indeed, the Byzantines were quite insulted by being referred to as "Greeks" as it was seen as an attempt to deny them the legacy of the Roman Empire (and it often was).
In any case, when non-Romans converted to Christianity it was again a case of local gentiles adopting a foreign religion and keeping their old traditions, not of a foreign population arriving and appropriating local beliefs. The Anglo-Saxons kept celebrating Lammas not because they stole it from Pagans but because they were Pagans before they converted. The Irish didn't venerate the Aos Si because they stole it from Pagans but because they refashioned their old gods into a form more compatible with their new religion.
When people talk about cultural appropriation in Paganism they don't mean religious conversion. They mean New Age Pagans taking what they like about religions like Hinduism (e.g. chakras) or Taoism (e.g. qi) and using it outside of its appropriate context or without respect to the original religion. Now I agree that in some cases it's debatable whether something is appropriation or syncretism. But that's not what was going on with Christianity and Pagans in Europe.
Side note: A more useful example of appropriation in Roman religion might be Mithraism, which took a single aspect of Zoroastrianism and mutated it beyond recognition to the point that modern scholars aren't even sure how much of the Mithraic rituals were even originally derived from Persian tradition. -
Friday, 04 August 2017
Aryós
I am not very concerned with where the term first appeared, but if you can provide a link I will be happy to make that distinction in the future. I always thought it first appeared in some English professors search for a new hook on which to hang a career.
Several more points:
1.
I am deeply troubled by your statement “it is up to us as worshipers and human beings to in most cases enforce what we believe is or isn't appropriate in our culture.”
My culture in the broad sense is not my possession. It is the dynamic result of an intricate network of relations among different people expending backwards in a very long lineage. It is like an ecosystem more than an organzation, and so “enforce” is, for me, the wrong word, one suitable for would-be dictators who want to freeze a culture or mold it in their image.
I remain convinced that the divine is able to take care of itself, and the history of people claiming to speak for it is both troubling and evidence that none of them did. Or if they did, they got the message wrong, especially if they said a particular culture at a particular time has it right.
2.
Roman culture’s turning Christian was not just a gradual shift. There was plenty of violence and the outcome of this violence was a very different religion, a very different view of government, a very different view of who people were, a very different view of the sacred, and a very different view of society- one along essentially totalitarian lines. What did not fit or could not be reinterpreted was destroyed as best they could.
And even if I grant you are right about Rome – and I do not so grant – my bigger point still stands - we NeoPagans wish more of Celtic and German Paganism had been appropriated so we would have more to work with as we nourish these traditions again.
The Celts were conquered and some of their deities were ‘appropriated,’ such as Bhride. Elsewhere the Yule tree seems to have met the same fate. They were removed from one context and put into another by the more powerful. We wish, many of us, they had done the same with Cerridwen or Cernnunos or Ostara rather than ignoring them or suppressing their memory.
3.
Something like chakras exists in other traditions, as in some Native Americans and the Chinese, and from what I have read there is no definitive map of chakras in Hinduism. Energy centers in the body are not a uniquely Hindu idea. The issue is not that someone has the orthodox view of them according to some tradition, but rather can people experience them and learn from those experiences.
4.
As for qi, this is something about which, for an Euro-American, I am well informed and with many years of experience.
I worked for years with a man (now retired) who is regarded by some as a qigong master. Lest you fret, he is a Chinese American. But he did not teach me most of what I know. The energy we both used I learned initially in a Umbanda context, which is also where I met him. We worked together in that very different cultural context. Qi also is utilized in many other contexts because it is not an idea, it is a dimension of reality. It is not the possession of any tradition or culture any more than gravity is a Western possession simply because Newton first found scientific principles that made more sense of it than anything before.
I have successfully used it in healing work for close to 30 years and have taught it to others- never claiming to be teaching Tai Chi or qigong or Umbanda healing ceremonies, but rather explaining that qi is the Chinese term for the stuff we work with- and that the Chinese have thousands of years learning how to work with it, so they are on balance better at it and we can learn from knowledgeable Chinese practitioners, none of whom, I would guess, would say qi os their cultural possession.
In other words, I think your examples do nothing to support the claim “cultural appropriation” adds any understanding and its reckless expansion to cover burritos is evidence it is too sloppy a concept to do the work it is supposed to do. Far more focused terms that apply to individuals, such as ignorance, disrespect, fraud, and lying, fit the bill better- when they apply. When they do not apply no harm has been done, and maybe some good. -
Wednesday, 16 August 2017
I think to a certain extent we're going to have to acknowledge we're not going to convince one another ;-) . But here's some thoughts I meant to post last week but didn't get around to. Feel free to reply.
"I am not very concerned with where the term first appeared, but if you can provide a link I will be happy to make that distinction in the future. I always thought it first appeared in some English professors search for a new hook on which to hang a career."
That seems pretty dismissive right out of the gate. But since you want some links here is one explaining the concept: http://jezebel.com/5959698/a-much-needed-primer-on-cultural-appropriation
"I am deeply troubled by your statement “it is up to us as worshipers and human beings to in most cases enforce what we believe is or isn't appropriate in our culture.”
My culture in the broad sense is not my possession. It is the dynamic result of an intricate network of relations among different people expending backwards in a very long lineage. It is like an ecosystem more than an organzation, and so “enforce” is, for me, the wrong word, one suitable for would-be dictators who want to freeze a culture or mold it in their image."
It's only troubling if you don't think that's what cultures already do. But it is. Laws, taboos, cultural norms are all enforced by a various number of hard and soft means, from education to peer pressure to literal imprisonment. We, as a society, for instance, enforce the rule that children shouldn't be allowed to drink before the age of 21.
"I remain convinced that the divine is able to take care of itself, and the history of people claiming to speak for it is both troubling and evidence that none of them did. Or if they did, they got the message wrong, especially if they said a particular culture at a particular time has it right."
That seems... negligent to me. Sure, the gods don't need our protection but the people who worship them? Absolutely we should defend them against injustice. And that's the point of cultural appropriation in the context of religion: it's not that it hurts gods or spirits, it's that it hurts the people who worship them.
"Roman culture’s turning Christian was not just a gradual shift. There was plenty of violence and the outcome of this violence was a very different religion, a very different view of government, a very different view of who people were, a very different view of the sacred, and a very different view of society- one along essentially totalitarian lines. What did not fit or could not be reinterpreted was destroyed as best they could."
There certainly was violence but it mostly occurred (at least in the sense of Christians persecuting Pagans) after Christianity had already won. By the time Constantine converted to Christianity it was already a very widespread religion in the Empire—despite the fact that previous emperors like Diocletian had tried very hard to stamp it out. And Constantine didn't turn the tables, at least not overtly. His primary contribution to Christianity was to make it legal. Which it wasn't before. It wasn't until Theodosius, half a century later, that Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. By which point Pagans were the minority, not the majority.
And I'd have to very strongly disagree with the idea that the post-conversion Romans were an entirely different culture. They very much were not. They still believed in many of the values of the old Republic like pietas, spoke Latin, considered the Emperor's authority to come from the Senate and People of Rome, and viewed themselves as the center of the world. Most importantly they still called themselves Romans (all the way up to the fall of Constantinople). They didn't see themselves as a different culture at least not to the extent you seem to be arguing.
"The Celts were conquered and some of their deities were ‘appropriated,’ such as Bhride. Elsewhere the Yule tree seems to have met the same fate. They were removed from one context and put into another by the more powerful. We wish, many of us, they had done the same with Cerridwen or Cernnunos or Ostara rather than ignoring them or suppressing their memory."
The British and Gauls weren't conquered by Christians. They were conquered by Romans. And then, centuries later, converted (along with the Romans), after having already been assimilated. The Scots and Irish, meanwhile, converted of their own accord and were likewise not conquered by Christians.
The Norse weren't conquered either. No Christian army from Francia or Italy invaded and conquered the Danes. Rather, a set of tribal rulers in Scandinavia were converted, one by one, and gradually spread the religion of their own accord (in some cases peacefully, in some cases very much by force). Once again, foreigners appropriated nothing. Instead the culture converted, which is a very different thing.
"Something like chakras exists in other traditions, as in some Native Americans and the Chinese, and from what I have read there is no definitive map of chakras in Hinduism. Energy centers in the body are not a uniquely Hindu idea. The issue is not that someone has the orthodox view of them according to some tradition, but rather can people experience them and learn from those experiences."
Similar ideas are not the same thing as identical ideas. And if similar ideas exist, why not use the terms for those?
And again, there's absolutely no problem with cultural exchange... if it's voluntary on both sides. As always, ask what authorities from the culture in question think. If they believe it's okay it probably is. If they don't, then is it so unreasonable to think they might have a point? -
Thursday, 03 August 2017I too, have found the phrase to be mostly a stumbling block. It seems as if it may have been mostly used for more extreme examples but now is applied so broadly as to be meaningless. As with accusing people of racism, sexism etc. All those are real problems, including the exploitation of indigenous/minority cultures. But we need to find more helpful ways to communicate about them.
-
Thursday, 17 August 2017
Aryós
Jezebel quotes cultural appropriation as
"'Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission.'
"To elaborate: 'This can include unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc. It's most likely to be harmful when the source community is a minority group that has been oppressed or exploited in other ways or when the object of appropriation is particularly sensitive, e.g. sacred objects.'"
This is obviously not only sacred objects, and explicitly agrees with me, And it is exactly the kind of thing I am criticizing as incoherent. Nothing farther down suggests anything better and the American Indian Arts and Crafts Act confirms my point that concrete terms like “fraud” are all we need.
Yin my view you are wrong as to what culture are and my later essays make it clear why. Let me give an example from your example- the 21 drinking age is hardly something that helps define American culture. It reflects a national law passed in 1984. Before then many states had lower ages. American culture does not suddenly become something new when that law was passed and it won’t if that law is changed.
Post conversion Romans were not ‘entirely different’ yet changing the drinking age change culture? That shows the underlying inadequacy of your framework, and the pne I am developing can easily handle such questions. And, BTW, you added “entirely” to what I had argued, changing it substantially.
The issue of similar ideas and identical ideas is also a nonstarter- but again, I deal with them in the essays that have already appeared. Feel free to criticize them where they appear. -
Please login first in order for you to submit comments
Speaking personally, my understanding of cultural appropriation as it was originally intended is to describe situations where a colonizing culture exploits elements of a culture that were sacred, profound, or intended to be exclusive in a manner that reflects none of those attributes. For example, wearing feather headdresses in imitation of American Indian (and more specifically Sioux) warriors while ignoring the fact that the dress was meant as a sacred honor comparable with modern military metals and not as a gaudy costume.
I think some thing which people describe as cultural appropriation are very definitely appropriative (such as the above example) while others are trickier (such as borrowing or imitating foreign rituals) and others are rather obviously not (such as cooking foreign food). I think it's more complex than a simple question over whether appropriation is real or not: in some cases it is and in other cases not.
And, as always, I think the golden rule is to listen to what actual leaders of the community from the culture in question. If they think it's offensive, it's worth listening to them as to why they believe it is.
As for your specific examples, I'm not sure Roman Christians really appropriated Roman Pagans' culture. After all, they were all Romans and religion aside they all shared the same culture. Rather, it was more like (from my point of view) that Roman Pagans appropriated Judaic traditions since the majority of Christians were gentiles, not Jews. And considering the history of Jews in Europe and the Mediterranean that puts a very different spin on things.