Apparently, it is now a 'Halloween/October Tradition' for SJW's to whine about something they call 'Cultural Appropriation' every October (I've posted two articles below and there are many, many more such articles).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tume/#comments
https://www.bustle.com/articles/1603...n-hurts-us-all
However, before examining their arguments (which are universally stupid and nonsensical), it is necessary to ask; 'Is it possible to "appropriate" a culture'???
(The short answer is; NO)
When used as a verb (which it appears to be in this case), the term 'appropriate' means to; "verb əˈprōprēˌāt/ take (something) for one's own use, without the owner's permission." Since it is impossible to "take" a person's culture by using elements (such as traditions, food, art, manner-of-dress, etc.) from that culture, it is therefore impossible to "appropriate" a culture.
For example;
If a commercial-driver of Mexican ethnicity (and possibly nationality) and myself, who is mostly of Scotch-Irish descent, both receive loads going from Ontario, California to Ontario, Canada, both realize that we don't have enough cold weather clothing, and he purchases a Scotch-Irish sweater, while I purchase a wool poncho (I actually own several), neither of us has "taken" the other's culture since he is still free to purchase as many traditional Mexican ponchos as he desires and I am still free to purchase as many traditional Scotch-Irish sweaters as I desire. In short, the ability of neither party to enjoy a culture, in whole or in part, has been diminished by the fact that others use elements of that culture. The same holds true for art, language, culinary traditions, etc. If a person of Mexican descent makes corned-beef and a person of Scotch-Irish descent makes a burrito, neither the Mexican nor the Scotch-Irishman has been prevented from making their ethnicities "traditional/cultural dish" then, or in the future...
As a matter of fact, the more people use the physical elements of a culture, the less-expensive it should be for the ethnic members of that culture (and everyone else) to purchase the same items due to economy of scale. If only true 'native-Americans' were permitted to purchase buck-skin jackets, the small market would make it inefficient to produce these on an industrial-scale and they would be very expensive. Instead, myself and many other non-Natives own buck-skin jackets, expanding the market for these items, making it worthwhile to produce them on an industrial-scale, and therefore, making them less-expensive for true Native-Americans to purchase as well.
Also, cultural "borrowing" usually (as in "almost-always") goes both ways, illustrated by the fact that the same Native American who sold me the jacket was wearing jeans, which were invented by Jacob W. Davis and Levi Strauss, a pair of (very) White men...
It doesn't make any difference if the Mexican driver wears his sweater, the Native American merchant wears his jeans, or I wear my poncho on October 31, or any other day....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tume/#comments
https://www.bustle.com/articles/1603...n-hurts-us-all
However, before examining their arguments (which are universally stupid and nonsensical), it is necessary to ask; 'Is it possible to "appropriate" a culture'???
(The short answer is; NO)
When used as a verb (which it appears to be in this case), the term 'appropriate' means to; "verb əˈprōprēˌāt/ take (something) for one's own use, without the owner's permission." Since it is impossible to "take" a person's culture by using elements (such as traditions, food, art, manner-of-dress, etc.) from that culture, it is therefore impossible to "appropriate" a culture.
For example;
If a commercial-driver of Mexican ethnicity (and possibly nationality) and myself, who is mostly of Scotch-Irish descent, both receive loads going from Ontario, California to Ontario, Canada, both realize that we don't have enough cold weather clothing, and he purchases a Scotch-Irish sweater, while I purchase a wool poncho (I actually own several), neither of us has "taken" the other's culture since he is still free to purchase as many traditional Mexican ponchos as he desires and I am still free to purchase as many traditional Scotch-Irish sweaters as I desire. In short, the ability of neither party to enjoy a culture, in whole or in part, has been diminished by the fact that others use elements of that culture. The same holds true for art, language, culinary traditions, etc. If a person of Mexican descent makes corned-beef and a person of Scotch-Irish descent makes a burrito, neither the Mexican nor the Scotch-Irishman has been prevented from making their ethnicities "traditional/cultural dish" then, or in the future...
As a matter of fact, the more people use the physical elements of a culture, the less-expensive it should be for the ethnic members of that culture (and everyone else) to purchase the same items due to economy of scale. If only true 'native-Americans' were permitted to purchase buck-skin jackets, the small market would make it inefficient to produce these on an industrial-scale and they would be very expensive. Instead, myself and many other non-Natives own buck-skin jackets, expanding the market for these items, making it worthwhile to produce them on an industrial-scale, and therefore, making them less-expensive for true Native-Americans to purchase as well.
Also, cultural "borrowing" usually (as in "almost-always") goes both ways, illustrated by the fact that the same Native American who sold me the jacket was wearing jeans, which were invented by Jacob W. Davis and Levi Strauss, a pair of (very) White men...
It doesn't make any difference if the Mexican driver wears his sweater, the Native American merchant wears his jeans, or I wear my poncho on October 31, or any other day....
__________________
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. ~Ayn Rand
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis!!! Si vis pacem, para bellum!!!
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. ~Ayn Rand
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis!!! Si vis pacem, para bellum!!!
Last edited by DAnconiaLead; 10-11-16 at 11:55 AM.