Resisting Cultural Appropriation: A Human Response to the Inhumanity of Privilege
When I posted K. Tempest Bradford’s argument “that cultural appropriation is indefensible,” the first comment I received (from a white man) suggested cultural appropriation is unavoidable, mostly discounting Bradford’s challenges.
Once I replied, the same person added: “The solution is to change the power relationships, not to erect artificial cultural walls.”
First, when so-called racial minorities speak against inequity, whites often fail to listen, shouting over or offering the condescending “yes, but”—in the same way men correct and marginalize when women confront sexism and misogyny.
In the situation above, the typical white male moderate or even self-proclaimed progressive response is at play, something like “Let’s work toward a color-blind society!”
This ploy fails on several layers.
As noted already, it fails because the response replaces a willingness to listen, to value the perspective, and then to act in alliance.
But more broadly, the premise is also flawed because the goal is not to be a color-blind society or to eradicate cultural (or racial, or gender) walls, but to make our identifiable differences worthy of equal celebration and to insure that those differences never stand as markers for injustice, inequity, and dehumanization.
As Bradford asserts, cultural appropriation must always be resisted because the U.S. is a capitalistic and materialistic society in which each Resisting Cultural Appropriation: A Human Response to the Inhumanity of Privilege | radical eyes for equity: