It is a bad thing as far as I am concerned. Appropriation can also be harmful in some respects. An example would be some dufus white person leading a "sweat lodge" who doesn't have a clue what his/she is doing. There are have been a few deaths over this.

Pat Boone is the quintessential appropriator. He made millions recording songs written and performed by black R&B artists. He added nothing to the genre of R&B and made no direct effort to draw public attention to the original creators of his works.

The Beastie Boys, on the other hand, are generally not considered appropriators. Their interest in hip hop as a genre and a sub-culture was genuine; they used punk-rock sensibilities to help develop the genre, and their celebrity to bring awareness to other artists neglected by radio and MTV.

nuanced situations where people use the term cultural appropriation. I've seen anthropologists accused of this for writing about indegenous cultures and artists of various kinds accused of it for borrowing elements of different cultures.

I think there is a difference between commercializing and profiting from the cultural production that you have not had a role in generating, and creating something original using elements of another culture, which is almost unavoidable and arguably a good thing. The influence of one culture on another is universal. What happens, though, is that the original meaning of symbol, ritual or other cultural artifact may be changed when it is put into another cultural context. If I use a Mayan talismanic mask as wall decoration, I have changed it's meaning, and some would call that appropriation. OTOH, I have seen Mayan shamans use various artifacts of Western culture, such as coke and sunglasses, as well as Christian symbols, and no one calls that appropriation. There is a tendency for some groups to seek to control the use of their stories, music, and symbols so that in the course of their spreading, they original meaning is not lost. While I understand the sentiment, I think this is almost impossible, and I do not think this is the same thing as protecting cultural production from appropriation.

Good. He paid those responsible for that part of the culture. Those not involved aren't responsible and shouldn't vicariously share the fame of those who did innovate and spread the culture. Otherwise, communities don't own and possess intangibles, much less intangibles produced by individuals. (If this were true, then everybody in a community would also be responsible for crimes and hateful acts committed by members of their community. If what's done by one is the property of all, it doesn't matter if that's a good or bad "done by.&quot

We certainly had this fight with "Piss Christ", where the figure of Christ wasn't just appropriated by somebody who really didn't like the original and only wanted to draw negative public attention, and then painting of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung. Reactionaries hated them, ideologues loved them, but most just said, "Whatever."

As ideas and symbols in a culture cross boundaries, they are bound to be changed and revised, acquire new meanings and/or lose old meanings. Those things happen. Mardi gras is nothing like it originally was, and most of those celebrating don't bother with Lent: Since it brings in $ and notoriety, few care. It benefits the "right" people.

Dreadlocks had a certain meaning. It was taken from the group that used them in the West with that meaning. Cowboy hats, likewise. Berets. Mole was for royalty; now I can get it at any Mexican restaurant and pick up a jar for $2 at most supermarkets and put it on chicken--a cultural "possession" from SE Asia, I guess. If I like chicken hotdogs with ketchup, I can think cultural appropriation of chutneys and such by the British, Cambodians from 5000 years ago, and 19th century Germans (plus some innovative but appropriationist Americans); if I like them on potato rolls, then I have to thank some Incans and Anatolians from 10,000 years ago for potatoes and wheat, plus some medieval monks for the right kind of yeast. Don't know where water milling started. A lot of people are condemned by their own words--"don't culturally appropriate," but they've appropriated as much as anybody else.

Many Muslims insist on recognition for the 0. They're not so hot on recognizing that the source was Hindu and got to the Muslim world as a result of military conquest and subjugation to spread their faith and loot the pagans. They like having the 'ud recognized as the source of the lute and claim it's the source of the guitar. They're less hep on the idea that the violin and viol families go back to the rebec, which was essentially a loser instrument on the world stage (and predates Islam), or that the gittern or cittern probably also factored greatly into the guitar's origin. And many sort of don't like that distillation was really done by Muslims first, with the greatest outcomes being whiskey and vodka--Islamic science in the service of sin, by their standards.

Etc. Etc. It's appropriation if you can claim a benefit; it's acculturation if you can't. What matters isn't the person making something more public, more widespread, of greater applicability, but the recognition it brings you.

Here's a counterexample. In the '70s, _The Great Gatsby_ was made into a(nother) movie. "The Entertainer" figured prominently in it--ragtime. It cast a lot of attention on Scott Joplin. But you know, of those I've known who've known this, it's mostly whites who are glad that it highlighted at talented African-American composer, an innovator, one of the first published black musicians in the US. Most African-Americans (and fewer immigrant blacks) care in the least because it's not what they're about--ragtime, drags, stomps ...? They're not interested and get no benefit from the vicarious fame.

Appropriation only matters when there's honor, pride, and celebrity and $ involved and owed to the right people. Otherwise, it's okay.

As far as I'm concerned, it's what's been happening since humans formed two cultural groups and interacted. Muslims deserve much of the credit for zero because they developed the idea; the West gets more credit for further developing it. N. South Asians innovated the idea, and get some credit. But for the most part, when you're doing bookkeeping or math problems, it really doesn't matter.

It's not about money.

Virtually all of Pat Boone's hits were cover songs originally written by black artists. He profited from institutionalized racism that informed music marketing practices of the time. The record companies believed they could not market black artists to white consumers, so instead took their music and slapped a white face on it. Pat Boone's face.

This is much bigger than money. It's about playing a part in, profiting from, and thereby lending credibility to a racist system that for fucking decades made millions from the artistic achievements of black artists while denying them due credit and recognition.

Micro v macro.

Acculturation is an historical process that occurs regardless of whether societies are cognizant of it happening or not.

Appropriation is the generational reaction to and perception of it, seen through the biases of contemporary ethics, right vs. wrong, and a view to measure the exchange of social mores and traditions from the dominant to the minority culture and vice-versa.

at which appropriation becomes acculturation?

(i have been struggling to wrap my brain around the differentiation between the 2 which is why I opened this thread)

Acculturation specifically refers to migrant groups adapting their behaviors to a host culture. Native Americans, for example, could not have normative social relations if they dressed in traditional Native America clothing. So they started wearing European-style clothing.

Appropriation is quite a bit different... like a Victoria's Secret model strutting around in a war bonnet, a buck-skin and turquoise bra, and high-heeled moccasins kind of different. It's about selling a product exploiting the work or symbolism of an out-group, without any regard as to what that work or those symbols might actually mean.

on whose ox is getting moved from one culture to another what you call it. Cross pollination between adjacent cultures is going to happen whether people like it or not. It's an important part, if not one of the most important parts, of human existence.