Jens Balzer says in his recent Ethics of cultural appropriation (Herder) that, one day, Bettina Jarasch, the head of the Greens’ list in the elections for the presidency of the federal state of Berlin, responded naively to a journalist’s question about what she wanted to be before becoming a candidate: “ “As a child, I wanted to be an Indian chief.” Needless to say, in the postmodern era of unreason in which we live, it didn’t take them a minute to put her back on track, reminding her that it was discriminatory to use a term like “Indian” and that it ridiculed people of another race and culture. The anecdote about Jarasch’s childhood dreams could have stayed there, but—nothing surprises me anymore—she and her party did not want to appear “racist” and, in less than two hours, they not only eliminated that cut in the video, but who made public an apology that added: “I condemn the spontaneous memories of my childhood.” Take the test; They won’t find it.
A few years ago, in Barcelona, at the popular Gràcia festivals, a similar phenomenon took place. It is a tradition that during the summer festivals in that neighborhood some streets are decorated thematically. On that occasion, one of the neighborhood associations saw fit to decorate the street in tribute to the American Indians. Error: about twenty people protested because they considered his references to the Native Americans of a reservation to be racist, which had been cultural appropriation. They ended up destroying the decorations.
I wonder, given the reaction of some and others, to what extremes we have gone that a phrase, an image, can end up being censored by the politically correct police with the excuse of cultural appropriation. Words create realities, postmodernists say, and these realities, most of the time “felt” (that is, of debatable reality), can make us doubt or even erase what we have believed all our lives. The dreams of a girl, the tribute of some neighbors, are outlawed, incinerated on the altar of political correctness, therefore cancelable.
To summarize, I will explain that cultural appropriation is what, they say, occurs when one resorts to the knowledge and traditions of others to benefit from them. There are those who even add that it is a colonial theft that activates a historical wound. All this within the framework of a minority culture, of course, compared to another that is considered dominant.
A thousand and one doubts and questions immediately arise in the face of this definition that exudes victimhood: Do cultural expressions have intellectual property? Who establishes that something belongs to one culture or another so that it can be used without committing cultural heresies? Why should we think that the use of references to traditions belonging to a culture that is not our own is done with the intention of ridiculing the other? Couldn’t it be a tribute? What’s more, and I believe that here is the true touchstone: Can anyone really believe in the 21st century that there are cultures so isolated as to exist without reflecting contact with another? Is there a pure culture?
It is evident that common sense should defend that, in reality, cultural appropriation, let’s call it cultural miscegenation if we prefer, is what has made all the cultures of the world rich. Yes, even childhood dreams or decorated streets. Would Elvis Presley have been one of the musical icons of the 20th century if he had not been influenced by gospel or blues? Can I dye henna without being accused of cultural appropriation? Would Rosalía be what she is today without her flamenco, reggaeton, hip hop or jazz influences? Does Eric Clapton have the right to play blues? Is it illegal for an American to cook a fabada or would he be appropriating the culture of the Asturians?
It seems clear that appropriation is just one more case of the confused panorama in which we are immersed, where, at times, one has the feeling that the accusation of cultural appropriation ends up being a form of racism and discrimination on the part of the traditional victims of racism and discrimination. Is there anything more racist and supremacist than prohibiting people from another culture from using elements of yours?
Perhaps that is why reality imposes itself again, and what should be asked is whether it is not that everyone who sees appropriation in cultural exchange and enrichment is not imbued with a supremacist sentiment that converts their feeling of purity into a model and measure of everything. And not only that, but if what is characteristic of each culture turns out to be only able to be used by those who belong to it, wouldn’t we be denying what precisely enriches culture, which is exchange and eclecticism, that is, learning , enjoy and create the experience of contact with the other?
The conclusion seems obvious, but here it goes: prohibiting appropriation is cutting the wings of all cultural creation; Otherwise, we will be attacking freedom of creation and expression. Those who denounce cultural appropriations are not protecting any historical culture; They are attacking everyone’s future.
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
_
#Dont #confessing #wanted #Indian