Social Musings: What is the Deal with Cultural Appropriation?

June 2021

Lately many people around the world have been walking on eggshells, as online politically correct / social justice activists have been accusing people of various “offenses” and threatened to destroy the lives of their targets with cancel culture. And tow of the battle cries of these keyboard warriors are cultural purity and an anti-cultural appropriation movement. In some cases, the have been righteous cause to call out some questionable actions; such as the Native American groups protesting the wearing of a Sioux chieftain’s headdress by attendees of the Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival and by model Karlie Kloss during the 2012 Victoria Secret fashion show.

However, this need to police other people online has become a double edged sword, with mobs attacking people for actions done decades past or create false accusations against celebrities and ordinary people. And some of these accusations are random rules regarding culture, that conflict with other rules that the same group promote.

What is this cultural purity movement and cultural appropriation that is propagating online and in pop culture?

The cultural purity thinking is an anti-colonialist movement that finds its roots from the hundreds of cultures that have been subjugated by European empires since the 16th century. During the many historical actions for independence, these cultures would look upon their ancestry as great freemen who lived in honor, compared to their current state.

However, this “noble savage” belief is a form historical revisionist propaganda that fails to note that all of these cultures also engaged in slavery and war against other ethnic groups, with some even openly engaged in genocide.

These revisionist beliefs continue today with modern “progressives” condemning the effects of European / American colonialism, but skip the details of what the ancient African, Asian, and South American civilizations have done to other cultures. In fact, the much of history of China is about the conquering of the many cultures in the region, starting with Emperor Qin Shi Huang.

History must be looked at an objective point-of-view, and no in an emotional driven lens that only sees oppression. In a simple review of historical events, would the whole world evolve to its current state with the shared belief of the respect of Human Rights, had Europe would have not colonized many states?

The answer is “no”, because the very philosophies of a Universal Declaration of Human Rights stated in the European enlightenment period, which are still much in application to this day. In fact, we as individuals would never exist if European colonialism had not had occurred. Would this belief in a Universal Declaration of Human Rights evolve without European civilization? Yes, but process take longer and equally wrought with it own wars, atrocities and also great accomplishments.

We do agree that many colonizers had committed atrocious acts against their subjugated people; however we must also see that our ancestors would have done the same thing against their enemies and their own slaves. Those times were “barbaric” in our eyes, but we cannot always measure those periods by current standards. For example, many American progressives are now trying to paint the whole American history as racist and evil, just because a small percentage of their forefathers were slave owners. And they refuse to accept that not all were Caucasians of those times were racist, and that more than 360,000 Caucasian Union soldiers gave up their lives for the freedom of the black slaves during the American Civil War.

Another revisionist historical discrepancy is that many “progressives” would not acknowledge that it was the Africans who caught other African groups to sell for slavery to the Europeans.

I am using the American “progressive” revisionist history, because it is a major talking point in current world news. However, that issue can be applied here in the Philippines, as many ancient groups were active in the Southeast Asian slave trade, often raiding the smaller coastal towns. In fact, based on my initial research work, I have surmised that many of the current “Igorot” people had migrated to the inhospitable Luzon Cordillera mountains to avoid the raids of the Muslim “Moro” peoples. In fact, the Hindu Namayana kingdom of the Tagalog region ceased to exist due to its wars with the Islamic Maynila and Tondo kingdoms, and not from the Catholic evangelization.

Another issue with historical revisionism is its strong anti-Christian sentiment, which details the many European atrocities done in the name of Jesus Christ. And in the condemnation of these acts, they outright reject the Christian faith and deem it as evil. Yet, at the same time these “progressives” would not condemn the similar “evils” committed in the name of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism or some other faith. In fact “progressive” artists can create images that insult Christianity, but cannot dare do the same sacrilegious work towards Islamic symbols. If they were anti-religion, where is the objectivity here?

Now this anti-colonialism movement is pushing of a puritan culture, where a person of one group cannot partake in the cultural practices of another culture. One example is when Beyoncé was accused of cultural appropriation when she wore a sexy kameez that she was asked to put on during a 2018 wedding she attended in India. Worst of all, the accuser was not even of Indian descent, while many people in India celebrated how the international pop-star wore their traditional clothing.

Who should be the police for the cultural needs of a people? Is it the “progressive” intellectuals of academe or the internet? Or should it be the very people themselves? If these online "police" are the designated guardians of someone else’s culture, then they are looking down on those people as too inferior to decide for themselves.

And should one “progressive” of that nationality complain, it does not prove that person does not represent the sentiments of whole population. And if the individual claims to know what is good for their race without a consensus, then that person is simply conceited.

And what is this “inclusive” but puritan culture that the “progressives” want?

I agree that Hollywood “white washing” must stop, in which Caucasian play roles that were intended for other racial groups. However, to create a purist culture is foolish, such as one “progressive” demanded that more roles be written for Filipinos in American films, and must be played by only Filipinos. First, this demand goes against what Filipinos have prided themselves in being talented enough to portray so many characters, such as the many award winning talents who have taken on the role of the Vietnamese “Kim” in the musical “Miss Saigon”. Second, roles should not be written to fill a racial quota, rather as characters that will appeal to the audience.

A puritan culture is both an impossibility and a foolish ideal. First and foremost, the progressives must identify what is the pure culture. If we look at ethno-geographical history of a place, there is no one culture that lived there, as many peoples have lived in those lands over the centuries. So who is the purist culture that should occupy the land?

One example of the impossibility of this puritan culture is the currently contested state of Israel. The Palestinians claim the land as theirs; however they were originally a nomadic people who never had a true land of their own. Whereas the lands of Israel were under the rules of the Canaanites, the Jewish kings, the Roman Empire, the Syrians, the British, etc. So who has right to the land? If we go back to the furthest historical accounts then it should be the Canaanites who have right to the land, but they do not exist anymore. And if the Palestinians never have rule over the land, then why cannot the Israelis live there? (note: as for current conflict, there are more issues to discuss more than just a historical perspective on right to land, which I will not discuss, but I hope that both sides must find a way to cease all hostilities and work together)

The same issue can be found in the Philippines, when many ethnic groups claim an area as theirs, but historically those lands belonged to the Aeta peoples, whom these groups push out. So who has right to the puritan state?

In the case of Filipino Muslims, some men wear the Thawb tunic and Keffijeh headdress that are of the Arabic culture. However, by lineage these mean are of the Malay / Austronesian descent and should be wearing the ethnic “Lumad” (Mindanao highland natives) clothing if we were to enforce a puritan culture.

In the modern context purists demand that one cannot explore the arts of another culture, such as some Black Americans are bullying Caucasian and even Asian performers from playing Jazz, because it is of “Black Culture”. First, these purists fail to see how many non-Black performers have helped Jazz evolve. Secondly, Jazz and the Blues developed by the use of European instruments, such as saxophone and guitar. If they want to be purist, then they should not be using European instruments and create their own.

The same argument can be extended to all non-Caucasian purists who must cease wearing “Western” clothing, eating in restaurants that do not serve food create by their race, or use any technology that was not created by their culture. That is impossible!

Culture is always evolving, and for the “progressives” trying to stop this growth by demanding a puritan lifestyle is an insult to people and the choices they make for themselves.

This brings us to Cultural Appropriation, which is the when a person or group use a culture expression of another group and integrate it with their own. Is this bad? In a general context, NO!

The humanity have survived and evolved through appropriation, assimilation and acculturation; which is the natural process of evolution. Appropriation is not an issue of who is the dominant culture, and that only those who are appropriating are in the wrong if they are from a dominant culture. Filipino musicians have appropriated rap or reggae from the Black Americans and Jamaicans, and it is fine because we are not a dominant group to them. But many Tagalogs and Bisaya people have explored the music of the Luzon Igorot, Mindanao Lumad and Moro people; but they are not condemned even they are from the dominant cultures.

Or is the condemnation of cultural appropriation only reserved for Caucasian people? If that is the case, then it is a very racist argument.

Mind you, all cultures have racism. Racism is not an issue of power, as “progressives” try to argue. In the Philippines, we are a very racist people. Some Tagalogs like to downplay all other ethnic groups and make fun of their accents. Many “native blood” people are distrustful of the Chinoy (Filipinos of Chinese descent), and not just Chinese nationals; while at the same time many Chinoy families dominate Philippine national politics and economics. So where is the issue of power?

In fact, when one of my relatives worked for the US Embassy in Manila, she had many Caucasian bosses over her years of service, but she only felt racial animosity from her Afro-American boss. The man was a minority in both American and the Philippines, but it was he who showed prejudice against Filipinos.

Racism is wrong, and to deny its existence in all cultures allows it to grow and fester. And accusing only Caucasians as capable of racism is both racist and dangerous.

Now that it has been cleared that appropriation is not a racism issue, then when is appropriation wrong?

This is simply a case of cultural sensitivity, and not appropriation in itself. In the case of the Sioux headdress, the people wore it without realizing that the artifact was a ritual symbol of warriors, which is why the Native Americans complained.

On the other hand, many of our “World Music” performers appropriate the music of the “Katutubo” (native) cultures, as a means to show respect to those ethnic groups and open their arts to a larger audience.

Whereas, the television show 2005 “Encantadia” was criticized by mixing and mashing together artifacts of different Filipino ethnic groups, and thus offending the different cultures they appropriated from. At the same time, many Filipino fashion designers have incorporated the patterns of fabrics of many ethnic groups, while carefully avoiding using ritual and sacred symbols. And in the 2018 film “Black Panther”, the production crew researched on various African cultures and created a whole new “culture” of language and clothing that was inspired by the people they studied.

The Italian designer Simone Legno studied the Japanese kawaii aesthetic and created the international brand of tokidoki in 2006. Although the Japanese are often wary of Gaijin (foreigner) influences, tokidoki has a strong following in Japan.

On the negative side, hundreds of people have trooped to small village of Buscalan to get a traditional tattoo from the Kalinga mambabatok, Whang-od Oggay. Although their intent of honoring the Kalinga culture seems fine, their collective action have destroyed the cultural economy of the village by turning Whang-od’s neighbors into tour guides and neglecting their fields. Competition between neighbors has also broken the peace in the small village, and life can never go back to as it was once before after Whang-od passes away. And her granddaughter who is training under her does not practice the rituals of tattooing as a rite of passage, and rather as a means of making money. This may be good for Whang-od and her family, but this has destroyed the culture and relationships of her people.

In fact before going to Whang-od became a trend, a group of tattoo enthusiasts went to up to Buscalan to have a “tattoo festival” with the local Kalinga people. These young men proudly showed their “ethnic” tattoos which they copied from books, and showed them off to the elders who were marked with tattoos earned in battle and ritual. The elders laughed quietly as many of the young men wore tattoos that were designed for women.

New Age practitioners who believe in a myriad of spiritual entities are guilty of misappropriating rituals of other cultures, and watering these rites to fit their needs. For example, some cultures require blood sacrifices, but a New Age group adopts the rite without the sacrifice and do not call the deity. Rituals are covenants between a people and their gods, and to appropriate and revise these practices are similar to breaking the contract of the people and their divinities.

Learning the ancient Indian practice of yoga is fine, but yoga gym instructors who call themselves “yogi” insult the actual spiritual teachers of the ancient discipline, who have taken decades of practice and humility to earn such a title.

Looking at the previous examples, cultural appropriation is neither good nor bad. It is up to the individual to do proper research on the culture that they are appropriating from, to ensure that their actions respect the source culture and its people.

Some artists may claim the “Freedom of Expression” and “Artistic Freedom” when appropriating without credit or respect, but that would put them under intense scrutiny and a question of their integrity. Remember, freedoms are not absolutes, as well have to balance these freedoms with our role in society.

In the information age where anyone can easily search of data online, ignorance is not an excuse. Such is in the criticism of the 2010 song “Your Love” by Nicki Minaj, where she writes: “Anyway I think we met in the sky / When I was a Geisha and he was a Samurai / Somehow I understood him when he spoke Thai”, in which her lyrics effectively insults two cultures by mixing them up.

Appropriators must also give credit to the culture that they are taking inspiration from, just as a musician would ask permission to the other musician they are sampling from. Appropriating without giving credit is a form plagiarism.