Culture thrives on exchange, trade and openness. However, progressives, of all people, are increasingly branding any mixing in art, literature, social sciences, film and even the kitchen as theft and exploitation. Anti-racism is tipping over into pigeonholing and ghettoization.
Having started in the U.S., there is an increasingly contentious debate about cultural appropriation. An example of this is the wearing of Native American costumes at Carnival time. It is said that such costumes convey a stereotypical image of Natives by ripping elements such as feather adornment or war paint out of their cultural context and assembling them into the image of a «cliche American Indian.»Culture thrives on exchange, trade and openness. However, “progressives,” of all people, are increasingly branding any mixing in art, literature, social sciences, film and even the kitchen as theft and exploitation. Anti-racism is tipping over into pigeonholing and ghettoization.
The line between racism and normal diffusion
One could argue that this is about harmless children’s fun, and as such it should be kept in perspective. However, a look at examples from other cultures quickly shows how easy it is to fall into a double standard. In the case of Swiss traditional costumes, for example, club members make sure that they are worn only on certain occasions, and are not copied and commercialized for other purposes.
The same applies to military uniforms, insignia or medals. People tend not to treat these lightly. This applies even more to religious symbols such as the cross, or to symbols associated with minority populations, like the Jewish kippa. Those who transgress proprieties in these areas may be accused of blasphemy or racism. Why then should we be less considerate of other cultures simply because they are further away?
The question is where the line between disrespect and a normal dissemination of cultural goods lies. One debate at the moment is about dreadlocks. Are whites who wear such braids committing «cultural appropriation»? On July 18, the Swiss band Lauwarm had to abort a concert in Bern. Apparently a few listeners had felt uncomfortable due to the dreadlocks and the African clothing worn by the white musicians. The organizers apologized for their «awareness gaps,» and said the audience should have been protected from such «cultural appropriation.»
They therefore took the position that Rasta hairstyles and reggae music should be reserved for dark-skinned Jamaicans only. This is because this population’s ancestors experienced exclusion and racism due to colonization, issues which reggae addresses. Under this argument, it is thus inappropriate for «privileged whites» to play this music or wear dreadlocks.
The biologization of differences
You can look at it this way. The central issue in the appropriation debate is, after all, the power imbalance. It is said that the dominant culture adopts everything from minorities except for discrimination. However, dreadlocks have long since broken away from the Rastafarian movement and were common in various cultures long before that. No one can copyright them. Bob Marley, who popularized reggae and dreadlocks worldwide, had a dark-skinned mother and a white father. In general, a great deal of music has sprung from the interactions between Blacks and whites, just think of blues, rock ‘n’ roll, R&B, jazz or hip-hop.
There is a tendency, however, not only among racists but also among anti-racists, to see the world in black and white. This is all the more paradoxical given that the latter see themselves as modern and progressive, while ignoring the increasing mixing and in-betweens of skin colors. For progressives there are only «privileged whites» and «oppressed Blacks.»
In the U.S., this tendency is particularly striking, as anyone with even a drop of «Black» blood is identified as African American. While with gender, obsessive attention is paid to respecting rainbow diversity and not reducing anyone to «man» or «woman,» when it comes to skin color, the binary logic is absolute. The racist categories that people want to put an end to reenter through the anti-racist back door, and culture becomes congruent with skin color.
Even addressing the issue of blackface is dangerous
This brings us to the much frowned-upon blackface. In the past, in addition to donning American Indian costumes, it was also common practice to paint one’s face black at Carnival time. The particular sensitivity of African Americans to this practice has to do with minstrel shows in the United States during the 19th century, when Black people were ridiculed as dim-witted but happy slaves who loved their owners despite everything. It’s understandable if African Americans don’t see the humor in this matter.
However, an incident that occurred last fall at the University of Michigan does give pause for thought. Bright Sheng, a renowned composer, who was teaching there, used Shakespeare’s «Othello» in his seminar to discuss how material can be transferred to different types of media – for example, from a play to opera and film. In this setting and after warning his students, he also showed clips from the famous 1965 film in which Othello is played by Laurence Olivier in black makeup.
Some students were shocked by the blackface. They sent an open letter to the university administration, and the subsequent spread of this document on social networks did the rest. In the end, the allegedly racist Sheng dropped out of his seminar early, and his future at the university is now unclear. Blackface has become so taboo in the United States that it is no longer even allowed to be shown in a historical context.
Not allowed to write about Latinas
Such guardians of order become particularly dangerous when they wield the purist mace and not even literature is safe. For example, there was controversy in the U.S. over whether author Jeanine Cummings was justified in publishing her bestseller «American Dirt» in 2020. The book is about a Mexican woman who flees to the U.S. after a drug cartel kills her family. The accusation was that as a white woman, she could not presume to write about a Latina. She received death threats and had to cancel her reading tour.
Incidentally, there are definitely biographical reasons for her choice of material, even if this fact is not decisive: She is of Irish and Puerto Rican descent, her cousin was murdered, and her husband lived illegally in the U.S. for years. However, the only thing that has stuck is the label «white.»
Things get even more absurd when the question of who is entitled to write about something reaches the social sciences. Jennifer M. Buck recently published an academic paper titled «Bad and Boujee» on trap feminism, an African American variety of feminism related to hip-hop subculture. A controversy emerged because she, as a white woman, had presumed to write about this «Black» issue. After massive pressure, her publisher withdrew the book.
Gallows as an artistic installation
There are similar tendencies in art. «Scaffold,» an installation of seven gallows by American artist Sam Durant, was shown in Minneapolis in 2017, on land traditionally owned by the Dakota people (who suffered the largest mass execution in American history in 1862, with 38 executed.) After a storm of protest, the work was destroyed in a ritual burning.
One critic remarked that it would not occur to anyone to artistically recreate concentration-camp gas chambers. That is right. But why in such cases must works always be immediately destroyed, books withdrawn, professors dismissed and performances canceled? Isn’t it enough to criticize the content? This type of behavior adds something archaic to the argument, reminiscent of exorcism, witch-hunts and scapegoating. Moreover, it is mostly progressives – artists, social scientists, writers, singers and professors – who are being affected. Durant has spent a lifetime studying American history and violence. The real racists are somewhere else entirely. This makes the attacks disproportionate, or even absurd.
The end of acting
Political correctness has even overtaken acting. Tom Hanks recently declared that he would no longer play the gay lawyer from «Philadelphia» – and that these days no heterosexual should play a homosexual. Helen Mirren – a non-Jew – has been reproached for playing Golda Meir, the Israeli prime minister from 1969 to 1974, in a new film.
Acting, as we all know, consists of playing another person. If, in the final analysis, everyone is only allowed to play themselves, it would no longer be film or theater, but self-promotion. Conversely, one also wonders whether a homosexual would then no longer be allowed to play a heterosexual, which would hardly be in the interest of gay actors. The same is true for literature: If one is no longer allowed to write about people from other walks of life, only autobiographies can remain.
The absolute prohibition on cultural appropriation would be the death of culture, which has to do with going beyond the individual self. This is true even within the kitchen. Recently, celebrity chef Jamie Oliver was criticized because his jerk rice deviated from the original Jamaican recipe. After all, cooking is the prime example of a melting pot! Perhaps Rösti will soon be canceled for cultural appropriation as well. After all, the potato comes from South America.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.