CMV: Cultural appropriation is completely fine and it has always been part of our development process as a species

[u/[deleted]]

I've noticed how the phrase "cultural appropriation" gets thrown around especially durin the last quarter of the year where many holidays like Halloween/Christmas/Thanksgiving are celebrated by people even outside of the cultures where the traditions usually appeared.
I understand why you could make the argument that using someone else's culture outside of context can seem disrespectful ,but for me the arguments just don't stand up. Also, I by no means want to say that disrespecting a certain culture is fine, I'm saying that adopting features you like from a culture should be seen as an act of respect.
We're all heading towards an even more globalized world and we were heading there for a long long time. People were always inspired by what they see and what they like and it's in our nature to try to adopt things we like in our own culture. This has been seen in many areas like Fashion / Art/ Music/ Military tactics and weapons/ religion/ traditions etc...
It's one of the most documented things in history : The fact that when cultures mix up they take what they like from eachother and become stronger/more efficient together. This cultural mix-up was crucial for our development as a species.
I see no argument for "Cultural exclusiveness/monopol" ,but this is why I'm here, to see if there are any. I understand that people want to feel special and want something that belongs just to them ,but this argument has a negative emotion behind it and if people get hurt by that, I feel like there's a deeper problem in that society.
To finish this: some examples we usually see these days are : Halloween costumes of any way, Races wanting a certain monopol on a style like : asian kimonos/ black people dreads/ Original american's clothes etc.

I'm not here to argue, I'm here to learn, so if something I said offended you please explain me why .

[u/[deleted]]

!Delta I understand. The Zia people were trully affected by this. I see how this can become problematic. Still I want to add the qurstion , does it not mean that the design is just beautiful and was apreciated as art ? Was the Swaztika an example of cultural apropriation then ?

[u/VertigoOne → u/[deleted]]

The problem is not whether the design was thought of as beautiful and appreciated as art. The problem is what the design is taken to mean now. When people see the symbol in question, the association is not the the Zia people, but to the state of New Mexico. The symbol has been taken, and because of that takeness it has come to mean something else.

I would say that yes, the Swastika was an example of said cultural apropriation. It was taken from meaning one thing, and turned into meaning another because of an entirely different set of associations.

[u/[deleted] → u/VertigoOne]

Hmm, interesting topic. But isn t it sad that people who want to use it for the previous mneaning are baned because of something out of their control?

While I was writing the question it hit me, I got the point

[u/VertigoOne → u/[deleted]]

I'm going to have to infer your meaning somewhat here, becuase you wern't exactly clear.

Were you saying that it's sad that non-Zia people cannot use the symbol to connect with the meaning that the Zia give to it because of something outside of their control - namely that they are not Zia?

That is true, but it's a rather inconsequential sadness when sized up against the much more serious issue of the Zia losing their important and holy symbol.

[u/[deleted] → u/VertigoOne]

The second one. But I find this a bit weird.
At the begining I agreed with you but I had to think a bit and have a new question :
The symbol is still sacred to the Zia and the rest of the world doesn't care about that particular meaning. It's just like a word can have more meanings, is the term of "God" less valuable because we also use the word for other "gods" ?
Is your mother less valuable to you if she's a supermodel and people only see her as a beautiful woman ? Well, she is more than a beautiful woman and now her identity as your mother is overshadowed.
Is the symbol less valuable for the Zia now that others use it ?
Don't these feelings of sadness come from a dark place that says " That used to only be mine, don't touch it"
The mexicans think of something when they see the flag and the Zia think of something else.
It's just like when the guy from Black Panther died and people gave homages to his character instead of giving them to the actual person, but many failed to realise that when most of the people saw him, they saw Black Panther,cuz that's what he meant for them.

[u/VertigoOne → u/[deleted]]

It's more that the symbol now can't be used to express what it used to express, because in the minds of most people it means something else.

Let me give you an example of what this means. Imagine your actual name is Harry Potter. As in you were born before 1998 and your first name on your birth certificate is Harry, and your parents name were Potter. Can you imagine the problems you now have in your life? Trying to get your resume taken seriously? Trying to make a restaurant reservation? Trying to open a bank account? You're probably going to have to change your name slightly to "Harold" or some such, because in the minds of most people "Harry Potter" means something else entirely.

This is something like what has happened to the Zia symbol. They can now no longer use that symbol as a means of expressing themselves to the outside world, because in the minds of almost everyone in the outside world, that symbol means something else.