Original here: https://gegen-kapital-und-nation.org/das-konzept-der-kulturellen-aneignung-eine-kritik-des-rassismus-auf-seinen-eigenen-grundlagen/
In recent years, a new form of racism, cultural appropriation, has been criticized in some anti-racist circles . They always discover this where members of a group adopt cultural productions (e.g. certain cultural customs, hairstyles, items of clothing,...) that, according to advocates of the concept of cultural appropriation, come from other groups, namely those who have less power over the acquiring group due to racial discrimination. When criticizing cultural appropriation, respect for these cultures is demanded. This respect should then contribute to combating racial discrimination.
There was criticism that a non-indigenous artist in Canada integrated elements of indigenous art into her artwork. 1 Even when “white” 2 people wear dreadlocks or throw colored powder at each other (a practice inspired by the Indian festival of Holi), this is criticized as cultural appropriation.
The starting point for criticism of cultural appropriation may be understandable in individual cases. When the trend scouts of major fashion companies discover any embroidery patterns from communities in Mexico 3 as the next big thing, it's understandable if people feel strange about the money being made and the poverty in these communities. We can understand this strange feeling, but in many cases we do not share the conclusions that critics of cultural appropriation draw from this feeling. This text deals with what we believe to be false arguments.
The idea of cultural appropriation is problematic for several reasons. The critic of cultural appropriation assumes that there are groups of people who are essentially defined by their belonging to a certain culture. This idea only works if the culture attributed to a group, i.e. the entirety of music, certain foods, clothing, festivals and other practices, is seen as a homogeneous whole. If people were to take the differences that exist within a group seriously and take them seriously, then there could no longer be any talk of “the culture” of a group. Based on this construction of a uniform culture belonging to a certain group of people, the members of this group are then granted a kind of ownership right to it. As a consequence, members of a “privileged” 4 group should only be allowed to throw colored powder with the consent of the “author group”. The associated recognition and, if necessary, material compensation are intended to help the people affected.
Our thesis is that the concept of cultural appropriation is not helpful to this goal of abolishing racism, but rather is a hindrance. We believe that the idea of cultural appropriation is, firstly, based on incorrect ideas about culture, and secondly, it – unintentionally – affirms and promotes an essential intellectual basis of racism. This is why the concept of cultural appropriation does racially discriminated people a disservice instead of helping them. This concept does not criticize racism, but rather confirms and strengthens its foundations. We want to explain this in this text.
This text does not address the question of how to deal with cultural assets from non-European cultures that have found their way into European collections, for example the Benin bronzes 5 . It's about dealing with material objects that can actually only be in one place. He also does not discuss the question of the extent to which, for example, wearing “Indian” costumes (which is often referred to as cultural appropriation) or so-called blackfacing reproduce racist clichés and could therefore be problematic. All interesting topics to be discussed another time.
Even if it is clear that for the critics of cultural appropriation, cultural appropriation is a form of racism, we are not criticizing the underlying racism concept here . Instead, we limit ourselves to critically examining the understanding of culture and people.
1. Intellectual Property
As noted above, criticism of cultural appropriation is based on the idea that clothing styles, music or customs are the property of a certain group of people. Only under this condition do people come to the idea that their unauthorized takeover is a kind of theft. Intellectual property is therefore asserted, in a similar way to that which already exists as a copyright for software or films or as a patent for technical inventions.
There is one thing that Mexican embroidery patterns, Hollywood films, software and technical inventions have in common: they are intangible products. They have the property of not being used up through use and distribution. On the contrary: they multiply as a result. When a computer program is copied, more people can use it at the same time. Now, when a fashion company produces patterns inspired by traditional models, more people can wear similar clothing. We don't understand what's wrong with these expanded options. The fact that these expanded consumption options only exist because and as long as capitalist companies can make a profit from them does not distinguish the production of Mexican-inspired embroidery patterns from the production of Nuremberg gingerbread. And that can actually be criticized.
In many cases, leftists (especially) are bothered by the exclusion caused by intellectual property. Patents, especially patents on pharmaceuticals, limit access to the products protected by patents because individuals or health systems in many countries cannot afford the increased prices caused by license fees. In the case of medication, for example against HIV, this can sometimes have fatal consequences. Copyright law on software also quite rightly does not enjoy the best reputation, which is why free software is promoted as an alternative.
Anyone who demands that marginalized communities have intellectual property over their cultural productions should at least consider whether they think copyright and patent law are just as great and what the difference should be between these forms of intellectual property. In all cases, defining an intangible product as property excludes people from using it. This is initially a harmful use of knowledge, but it lies entirely in the logic of capitalism: only the exclusion of others from what they need or would like to have makes a business with it possible. Microsoft is doing the same business with software licenses that, according to well-meaning observers, Mexican communities are doing with their embroidery patterns. Evaluating the same type of business differently just because the players are different sizes or have different amounts of money ignores the harmful principle that small business owners and large corporations follow: to make as much money as possible with their property.
In other popular examples of cultural appropriation, not only those who sell the products are criticized, but also those who use them. For the latter, the material benefit of the “appropriators” is missing from the outset. When people throw colored powder at each other - inspired by the Indian festival of Holi - they do it for fun or because of the beautiful photos they can take. They don't make any money from it. And as explained above, they don't take anything away from anyone materially.
2. Where there is property, there are also owners
The idea of cultural products as intellectual property becomes really problematic in another respect: ownership means the exclusive assignment of a thing or a right to a person (or a defined group), who is then the bearer of the property, i.e. the owner. 6
Who can allow the fashion company to use traditional Mexican patterns? The individual seamstress who has mastered the relevant techniques? Do all seamstresses have to agree? Or just a (possibly qualified) majority? Or the entire community? And who would that be? Only those who live where this tradition is practiced? Or those who have lived in a major US city for three generations and no longer have anything to do with the place of origin of their great-grandparents?
Here it becomes clear that the idea of communities as owners of intellectual products is based on a serious mistake: groups are constructed that are supposedly connected by more than the fact that they live in a certain area and are involved there in some way have a social connection. That could also be said about the people of Kreuzberg or Copenhagen. Here an (allegedly) shared culture is declared to be the characteristic that constitutes the group. 7 This idea is no longer far from the idea that cultural peculiarities constitute peoples, and not state rule, which defines who belongs to the people and holds them together by force. 8 If someone were to claim that Bach, comma rules and sauerkraut make up the German people, the representatives of the concept of cultural appropriation would probably also have a bad feeling. When it comes to traditional communities, however, they don't notice anything if they imagine them as subjects with their own rights. But both follow the same logic: the homogeneity of a group is claimed based on actual or alleged similarities in cuisine, language, music, etc. (more on this in the next section). These similarities should define the group. And this group should then receive certain special rights to the intellectual products attributed to them. 9
Anyone who declares an indigenous community to be a definable group with its own rights in the manner described above is making the same division that occurs in racism. The only difference is that racism sees the oppressed group as inferior or at least not part of the majority society and wants to exclude them, while representatives of the concept of cultural appropriation want to protect the group by granting certain special rights. The representatives of the concept of cultural appropriation always emphasize that these special rights are necessary because of the existing power imbalance between the majority society and the oppressed group. They see this as the path to a world in which different groups live together in respectful harmony instead of fighting each other.
Unfortunately, this beautiful idea has the catch that the definition of “others” who are somehow special always suggests the transition to hierarchy. The idea of groups connected by a common culture has its roots in patriotism. This world is divided into states, each of which very practically defines who is German, Nigerian or Chinese through their citizenship laws. Patriotism mentally reverses this reality: it claims that the citizen collectives created by the states through their law - and with a lot of violence - existed before the states in question were founded and that the states are therefore only the expression and executor of one even without them commonality that exists in the activity. This sorting does not have to coincide with the existing state borders. In this way, someone can discover members of their “own” people outside the state borders who have to be “brought home” by redrawing the state borders. Conversely, Basques, for example, can insist that they are their own people and therefore need their own state, in contradiction to the official Spanish policy that confines them as Spaniards.
Modern patriotism has moved away from the idea that commonality is biological. Instead, a common language, history and cultural characteristics are usually asserted as supposedly constitutive characteristics of the people. It doesn't really matter which similarities patriots want to have discovered as typically German or Argentine. With the idea of a national unity that exists independently of the state, the state is portrayed as a service provider that enables a people to live according to their always existing peculiarities.
However, the claim that nationals are characterized by certain commonalities always achieves one thing: those who are denied these characteristics can and are repeatedly marked as not belonging. Who exactly this affects and with what consequences depends on the respective political and social situation.
The critics of cultural appropriation recognize the devaluation of certain population groups. However, they do not criticize the idea of essentially different population groups as the intellectual starting point for racist devaluations 10 , but rather want to make sorting as a positive basis for their anti-racist policy. It doesn't bother them that there is a sorting into ("ethnic") groups, only that some of them come off badly. Their antidote is a lot of respect for the oppressed groups and their cultural productions.
We consider this political program to be theoretically wrong and practically harmful. In its basic assumptions it does not differ from common patriotism/racism, which also exists in many peoples who are characterized by their own culture. That is why the following criticism hits not only the concept of cultural appropriation, but also the common patriotism and racism that the critics of cultural appropriation are against.
Addendum and digression: unpleasant oppression quartet
The adoption of cultural productions should only be reprehensible if it occurs between groups with different levels of power. If we take the idea seriously, a quartet of oppressions follows: If cultural appropriation can only be spoken of in the context of a power imbalance, it must be clarified which group is discriminated against more than the other. “Blacks” worse than Asians? And where do Turks or Jews fit in? Do people really want to start ranking different forms of racial discrimination, each brutal in their own way?
The classification of the various groups into a racist hierarchy naturally varies from country to country and changes over time. So is a “black” allowed to put up Buddha figures in the front yard and a Chinese woman to wear dreadlocks? And does it make a difference whether the Chinese woman is currently in Germany or the USA, where she is potentially subject to racial discrimination, or whether she lives in China as part of the majority society? The last example in particular makes it clear where evaluating behavior based on power imbalances leads. The same hairstyle on the same person potentially becomes cultural appropriation over a ten or twelve hour flight.
3. Culture as a supposedly homogeneous and definable thing
Central to the issue of cultural appropriation is the reference to an alleged culture of marginalized groups, however that culture is defined in each case. This is based on extremely dubious assumptions about culture in general, sometimes implicitly, but in most cases also quite explicitly. When we talk about the culture of a marginalized group, it is assumed that this group has developed the corresponding characteristics entirely from within itself. This idea ignores the fact that (with extreme exceptions) cultural practices always evolve through exchange and adoption (3.1). In addition, this idea includes the idea that cultural practices and preferences characterize a group as a whole, that is, they are an expression of the group's specific identity and are therefore shared by virtually all group members (3.2). The criticism of cultural appropriation is based on the idea that much would be gained in the anti-racist struggle if only marginalized groups were treated with respect. Therefore, the idea of a culture being important to the identity of a marginalized group entails a demand for respect for that culture, regardless of whether the corresponding cultural practices are particularly clever or sympathetic (3.3). This idea of different groups, each characterized by their own culture, combined with the demand for the unconditional preservation of these cultures, can also be found as ethnopluralism in political movements with which anti-racists probably do not want to have much to do (3.4).
3.1: Culture is autochthonous and worth preserving
The idea of a match between a group and its very specific culture sees culture as something that is produced by the group all by itself. This ignores the fact that such cultures only exist in groups of people who have been excluded from any exchange with the rest of the world for at least several centuries, for example on remote islands. Otherwise, the habits and customs in a society (i.e. what is commonly understood as culture) always develop because people are exposed to influences from “outside” and integrate, modify and further develop these into their lives in some form.
From the point of view of the advocates of the habits of life that previously existed in the entire group, the absorption of new influences or the change of existing practices is always a loss or a falsification of tradition. Tradition is nothing other than shorthand for “That’s just how it’s always been done.” The “always” is already an ideological construction, because the previous behaviors have not been practiced since the ancestors of humans climbed down from the trees. The claim that a practice has “always” existed typically arises when someone sees a situation that they like threatened. From the speaker's point of view, the claim of "always" is intended to mean that this situation should not be changed. 11
A development that is actually only a few decades old quickly becomes a quasi-eternal tradition. So what is now considered typical “tracht” for the respective German or Austrian region is not the result of centuries-old tradition, but rather a new invention. 12 These invented traditional costumes were intended to express a German national character. This assertion of a time-honored tradition is intended to establish a claim on the people: they should behave accordingly and fit into the community that created and supports this culture and identify with it.
When praising culture, it is often overlooked that a large proportion of behavior and habits are the product of domination. Religions, for example, in most cases do not prevail through simple persuasion, but are enforced by an authority that discriminates against or even bans other faiths. 13 On this basis, folk customs arise with all the associated festivals and habits, including certain clothing. The implementation of a certain language and a body of literary works that is considered “typical” is at least much easier if a government promotes this through its educational system. Other customs develop as an attempt to cope in some way with the hardships of rule. Even if one can try to read some kind of will to resist into this, the fact remains that the corresponding habits and practices were not freely chosen, but arose under conditions of coercion and scarcity. This autochthonous culture should then be particularly worth preserving:
" Aside from the fact that 'cultural appropriation' can be perceived as simply disrespectful by members of the group, it can also lead to traditions being lost or distorted." 14
A “pure” and “unadulterated” culture in this sense – apart from the exceptions mentioned above – never and nowhere exists. And why should it be desirable and particularly worthy of protection? It would make much more sense to change your own lifestyle sensibly and according to your own needs and to learn from others.
Note on cultural exchange:
Emphasizing the question of the extent to which cultural exchange takes place “on an equal footing” or in the context of a power imbalance misses the point. Discussing this question ignores the fact that cultural exchange over the last few thousand years took place in a world characterized by competition between different rulers, often in warlike form. A power relationship can be identified as the basis for pretty much every act of cultural exchange. That was the case and will remain that way as long as the reasons for the balance of power exist: competition between rulers for land, people and wealth. Peaceful arbitration also generally requires clarified balances of power and is in many cases based on clear economic and military power imbalances. In such a world, it is an absurd purity requirement to only accept the individual adoption of cultural productions if it takes place on the basis of equal opportunities. Creating a world without such power and violence relationships would be a more reasonable goal. Unfortunately, the questions raised in the debate about cultural appropriation do not contribute anything to this.
3.2: Culture is homogeneous and there is an agreement between group and culture
When people talk about a culture of a marginalized group, a lot of things are being assumed. The components of this culture are said to not only appear together more often, but also to have a necessary internal connection and to be common to all members of a particular group. So there should be a connection, for example, between certain clothing styles and dances, which is not limited to the fact that many people in the same group practice both. Rather, these elements should only be expressions of a culture that is expressed in the costumes and dances. And this culture is then attributed to all members of the group as a shared characteristic.
The fact cannot be disputed: in certain regions or within certain social groups there are empirical accumulations of certain behaviors. In one region you can find many people who dance in a certain way that you cannot find elsewhere. And people who dance this way also often celebrate certain holidays and often dress in a certain way.
However, this is never the case for all members of a group. Some people may find the dances totally annoying (or have no sense of rhythm at all), others may find the style of clothing impractical and ugly, and others may like the clothing but can't make it. When talking about “the culture” of a group, this is ignored and the corresponding customs and practices are attributed to all members. And in doing so, completely disparate things such as culinary preferences, wedding traditions, crafts, etc. are reified into a unity.
This ignorance of the actually recognizable differences within the group and the fact that the practices attributed to a culture have no internal connection is not just a mistake. Rather, this ignorance aims at a wrong transition: individual behaviors and customs are seen as mere expressions of a supposedly common culture from which they originate. The preferences for pork knuckle and lederhosen are said to reflect an underlying “Bavarian culture”, to which the Schuhplattler also belongs. But a Bavarian can happily wear lederhosen and eat pork knuckle, but hate Schuhplattler.
This common culture, which supposedly stands behind the individual customs and behavior, is then supposed to define the Bavarians. In this way, an ethnic group is constructed through a culture that is supposedly homogeneous and shared by all group members. It doesn't hurt this idea that by no means every man in Bavaria likes to wear lederhosen or pork knuckle. If these preferences are thought of as a mere expression of a Bavarian national character, then not every Bavarian empirically found has to share them. Anyone who has mentally classified a person as Bavarian will find another characteristic about that person that can be said to be “typically Bavarian!”
At the same time, these attributions of culture to a group can then “lock” people into these attributions - they have to and/or want to try to practice the cultural practices (well) in order to really belong to the group. If that doesn't work, the verdict may arise that they are not “real” Bavarians.
“The” culture of a certain group is at best an exaggerated generalization of certain statistical clusters. And the purpose of talking about “the culture” is ideological: people should be assigned a group membership through the supposedly shared culture. With this group membership, these people would also have certain characteristics in common, i.e. a very specific nature. In short: “that’s just how these people are”. This group membership, together with the alleged essence of being, is in turn intended to establish a claim on these people as a means for a political or social program 15 .
3.3: Traditional culture is good and must be respected
The accusation of cultural appropriation includes the accusation of a lack of respect for the cultures of marginalized groups. Cultural appropriation , i.e. the thoughtless and self-serving appropriation in which the value of certain cultures is not respected, should not be:
“Cultural appropriation is therefore strongly influenced by the self-serving and ruthless actions of an excluded culture. Do you throw colored powder at each other just to take a bunch of photos of it for Instagram - or do you know and respect the background of the holy festival from India, in which people from all walks of life throw sacred (!) colors at each other?" 17
The opposite image is cultural appreciation , in which an intensive dialogue is conducted “ with the affected marginalized culture” 18 and the context is respected. The goal of the critics of cultural appropriation is a respectful and equal coexistence of the different “cultures”. If “culture” is seen as an expression of the essence of a particular breed of people, this demand has its wrong logic: If I do not respect the expression of the essence of a particular breed of people, I do not respect the breed of people either. So I despise its members. Because the critics of cultural appropriation do not distinguish between behaviors/customs (“culture”) and those who carry them, the “culture” of a marginalized group can no longer be criticized, because this criticism would be an attack on the group itself.
Aside from the criticism of the construction of a unified “culture” and an ethnic group as its owner (see above), a question needs to be asked here: Why does something necessarily have to be respected just because it is the cultural practice of a marginalized group? Religious ideas should be criticized as harmful ideas 19 even if they occur among a marginalized group. In any case, the idea that Krishna protects one seems to us to be just as unreasonable as the belief in the resurrection of the dead after the Last Judgment.
Furthermore: Some cultural practices of marginalized groups, for example, are likely to be no less sexist than the Western norm, especially if they are traditional practices that were adopted from patriarchally structured societies. Do such cultural practices have to be respected as traditions and possessions of marginalized groups or is there not a very strong criticism in order here?
Even a group’s “own”, “unadulterated”, “traditional” or whatever culture – no matter how marginalized it is – can be unspeakably stupid, reactionary or brutal.
3.4: Ethnopluralism from the left?
People who criticize cultural appropriation are bothered by the usual racism in society, which criticizes "other cultures" as inferior to strangely exotic, but which has no problem using them as a self-service shop where it suits. However, critics of cultural appropriation are not alone with the idea of clearly separated “cultures” that characterize a certain breed of people, an expression of their essence and therefore created autonomously by them. Rather, they share fundamental assumptions with people who want quite the opposite of anti-racism. For example, the Identitarian movement and similar right-wing radicals also share cultural essentialism - under different circumstances.
Right-wing radicals are also no strangers to unconditional respect for individual cultures and the demand that they be preserved unadulterated (i.e. unmixed). Dissent only arises when the right-wing derives from these ideas the demand for spatial separation and does not want to tolerate non-"white" people from supposedly foreign cultures in Europe.
The representatives of the concept of cultural appropriation then make an additional distinction when it comes to cultural protection. For them, it is not the majority culture that is worth protecting, but only the marginalized one, because they do not criticize the falsification of the “appropriating” culture, but only the alleged theft. However, this idea takes them onto a slippery slope, because many Germans also see good German culture as marginalized by Americanization and Hollywood. Anyone who then wants to criticize this transition with the idea of cultural appropriation can argue with German nationalists about how oppressed Germany is. A discussion that we would rather not take part in...
4. Conclusion
The idea of cultural appropriation constructs groups based on a culture supposedly shared by its members. This culture must be respected and preserved. The group members are granted a kind of ownership right to the elements of “their” culture.
This idea corresponds to the common idea that peoples “just exist” naturally and that they are characterized by their respective, very own culture. Because of their special characteristics, they have the right to live among their peers in their own states. In its radical form, this idea is represented by right-wing radicals. But it can also be found weakened in normal patriotism (“The Germans/English/Nigerians/whatever are just like that”). It is precisely this idea of national collectives that differ based on pre-state similarities that is the ideological basis for the exclusion of groups to which these characteristics are denied and - often - harmful characteristics are attributed. Without this mental operation that constructs groups as somehow “different” from the majority society, racist exclusion cannot occur.
The criticism of cultural appropriation is based on a desire that we share. The critics are bothered by the normal, average patriotism and racism, especially in Western countries. Good idea, but fundamentally wrong implementation: Anyone who does not question the basis of “us” and “them”, of alleged “leading cultures” and “parallel cultures”, is not criticizing the foundations of racism.
A criticism of racism that gets to the root of the problem would also have to attack this mental error. However, proponents of the concept of cultural appropriation take a different approach. They discover that there are racially oppressed groups. Based on this observation, they do not criticize the fact that people are sorted into different groups. Their criticism only begins when they perceive that being sorted into a certain group entails a devaluation of the group members. For them, the damage is primarily the lack of respect. They consider the sorting itself to be unproblematic.
That is why the critics of cultural appropriation make the sorting of people into groups based on a - supposedly - shared culture the positive basis for their political demands. The members of the oppressed groups should be respected. So they come up with the idea that the oppressed groups need to be given special rights in order to combat discrimination. Behind this is the idea of a society of equal “cultures” that respect each other. As a result, with this strategy, the critics of cultural appropriation are only entering into competition with normal patriotism about which groups should now have which rights. Unfortunately, this is the opposite of a sensible criticism of racism.
1 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/newman-coleman-artists-open-letter-indigenous-appropriation-1.4437958
2 We put the terms “black” and “white” in quotation marks because 1. although they refer to colors, they generally have little to do with the actual skin color (in the color continuum from beige-pink to dark brown) and because they 2. stand for a racist sorting that is based on the real or alleged skin color and claims that the corresponding people form a group that has more in common than their pigmentation. And, 3. this sorting implies that similarities within this constructed group are more important than all the many differences between individual people.
3 https://orf.at/stories/3126664/
4 We have a lot to criticize about the idea of “privileged” groups: criticism that uses the moral accusation of “privilege” is based on false ideas about domination, competition and racism. It is difficult to deny that, despite formally equal rights, there is a lot of racist discrimination in the housing and labor markets. Only: The bitter necessity of selling one's own labor and paying rent just to live somewhere does not turn into a great "privilege" for those who want to better meet the (racist) requirements of 'employers' and landlords. It is true that people who are not affected by certain types of discrimination often have no idea how this pre-screening out of certain competitions makes people's lives even more (!) difficult. But telling “white” wage earners and tenants that they have privileges is a glorification of the constraints and completely ignores the reality of their lives. In addition, it almost encourages them to see people who are discriminated against as competitors for such desirable goods as a crappy job and a crappy, overpriced flophouse - instead of working together to change something about their shared predicaments.
5 bronze sculptures and plates that decorated the Royal Palace of Benin and were looted by Great Britain after the conquest of the kingdom in 1897 and have found their way into many European museums.
6 Intellectual property is also referred to as ownership of rights, e.g. ownership of a patent.
7 The construction of a community of “black” people that goes beyond the actual commonality of many “black” people’s experiences of racism and thereby claims a common culture or even unifying characteristics is nonsensical.
8 Our text is recommended: “Does the German people exist”? https://gegen-haupt-und-nation.org/baren-es-das-deutsche-volk-50f50a/
9 Special rights because regular copyright law does not protect such things. That's why the idea of cultural appropriation boils down to the demand to establish a kind of extra copyright law here. As a rule, the demand is less of an appeal to the state to issue laws and more of a moral appeal to everyone: “This should be adhered to”.
10 Incidentally, it is a common mistake in anti-racism to only recognize the damage of racist attributions to those who are excluded or devalued. The positive attributions, for example that Germans are hard-working and brave, are also quite impressive: they represent a demand on the addressees to disregard their own interests when sacrifices for “the community” are called for (not least in the event of war).
11 However, the tradition argument is not valid: https://despair.com/collections/posters/products/tradition?variant=2457305795
13 A good example is Tyrol. After the Reformation it was predominantly Protestant, but only a very rigorous Counter-Reformation created the model Catholic country that it was until well into the 20th century. The spread of Islam was also supported by wars.
15 The two typical forms: 1) An existing government defines people based on their alleged culture, for example as “Germans”. With this she justifies that her rule over these people, which she already exercises without any justification, is okay. 2) People are dissatisfied with the rule to which they are subjected and are discovering a different cultural identity in themselves and in many of their fellow human beings, for example a Kurdish one. This identity should then provide the reason why all these people need their own rule in accordance with their cultural identity and should kindly participate in the establishment of this rule.
16 What is probably meant is: against an excluded culture
17 https://enorm-magazin.de/gesellschaft/gleichstellung/kultur-aneignung-indianer-ist-nicht-verkleidung
18 https://ze.tt/cultural-appropriation-kultur-aneignung/
19 More argument on criticism of religion here: https://gegen-capital-und-nation.org/kaum-zu-lauben-kritik-der-religion/
Comments
Post a Comment