Personally I dislike the term 'mixed-race' although I have yet to find anyone to share my opinion. Either we're one race or we're not. A lot of terms and ideas that should have been buried in 1945 seem to be in common usage.
In terms of the original question:
Most
Fashionphile customers will perhaps see the composed message the way the brand means it. In a pop-culture collage or quick reference points.
The shared signifier of zebra (print) is I supposed to = Zebra/Africa. Zebra not common except in Zoos in North America. There are cultures in Africa that also see different individuals and groups as having a deep connection to that animal, and for example Hermes pays tribute/commercially expoits this in its scarf Ndop (which I own and is one of my favourite scarves)
https://www.businessincameroon.com/...pired-from-the-cameroonian-traditional-attire businessincameroon.com).
The phrase "spirit animal' is of course a Fashionphile (fashion) reference to zebra-print. It supposed to make us think in terms of across decades/designers and how we can group together our own preferences from pre-loved as well as current clothing trends.
That few people have any real understanding of the idea of First Nation spirit animals is a sad reflection not only of our times but the past too. When we see full regalia or cheap copies of ceremonial head-dresses used as adult 'cos play' at festivals there is a worrying factor. I am very glad that you are exploring this in your lectures as hopefully it will make people think more about all of these issues.
I do however also agree very strongly with
@Sheikha Latifa. The more we share the better. I personally don't mind when 'outsiders' play 'our' music and sing our songs. Someone went to such trouble to learn difficult languages and sing complicated songs/rhythms without digging deep into the culture and the history, but maybe if a brand emailed me, putting together 3 stereotypical images together and stuck an orientalist caption underneath so that I could spend money with them it may be a different story.
Personally, I totally cringed when I saw this email earlier today. Full disclosure, I m currently teaching a course on Native American dramatic literature so I m a bit immersed in this topic at present.
When people live together, they learn from each other thereby enriching each other's culture. I always thought it is good. I personally am proud when I see references to my culture - it means that people appreciate it.
I agree with this though there are people who would consider those things you mentioned cultural appropriation. IMO, it is a first world problem to spend so much time worrying about cultural appropriation.
I don’t think it is appropriate. It’s the use of another culture’s spiritual beliefs to advertise. And that seems disrespectful to me. This is something they hold sacred.
As someone who is currently studying anthropology, I think the notion of cultural appropriation is nonsense especially when culture is shared,adaptive and learned. Culture survives through exchanges and it isn't a linear sequence someone can claim ownership of. An example of this would be the idea of individual creation that, by random chance, happened other places too such as the production of stone tools. Besides, where do we draw the line when it comes to cultural appropriation?
I don’t know that “cultural appropriation” necessarily fits but it’s still inappropriate in my mind to be glib about a person’s religious beliefs.
Majority of my reply here could be totally irrelevant... I think this could be an example of microaggression - we probably would agree that a. This email has no ill intent; b. This email is seen as inappropriate by some people. You can find all the controversies around this microaggression concept.
I totally get the idea of ‘sick of people being too easily offended’, however I also believe that everyone has a different ‘thresholds’ (not sure what’s the best word for it) of getting offended based on their own experience, and everyone is entitled to express their feelings and the reason behind it. I may or may not be able to understand it or to relate to it, but I try to empathize. Everyone is busy with their own lives so if anyone doesn’t have time to listen to others, or cannot put themselves in others’ shoes, I think it is also quite understandable.
What makes me sad however is in some cases - nothing related to this thread though - the minimal empathy. There are people just don’t care if others are hurt. To disguise this indifference most of the time they just blame the ‘victims’. This actually occurred to me when I came across a thread in chanel forum. The divisive replies in that thread even drove me to search whether there are studies about relationship between wealth and empathy level...
Back to OP’s question - I didn’t think too much when I saw the image and the text; I thank all the contributors here for all the knowledge they share about this term.
I agree with
all of you above!
So interesting to read people’s thoughts here. This connects to several of the big debates of our times which extend to concerns as various as blasphemy, ‘micro-aggressions’, trigger warnings, minority group issues such as gender self-identification and the impact of that and similar issues upon the rights and sensitivities of other groups, and many other matters.
My position would be that freedom of speech is one of the most important fundamental principles in a free society, so we need to tread extremely carefully when addressing matters related to cultural appropriation, and not hand a veto to individual groups, because handing such a veto to one group diminishes the rights of others to free speech.
The difficulty tends to arise when ‘appropriation’ relates to the culture of a people which has been or is at some point oppressed or dominated by another. That an arguable power relationship of this type justifies the dominated or ignored culture having a greater right to determine who is and who isn’t allowed to borrow ideas or images from their culture is ethically probably unsound. My belief is that on the whole, in principle, no such right should exist in a society where free speech and action (within the law) are fundamental. There are, rightly, laws against racial and cultural discrimination and to cover hate speech and incitement to hatred, but there should be no right not to be offended.
I’m uncomfortable philosophically with the concept of ‘micro-aggression’ I believe that aggression implies intent. If there is no intent to harm or belittle, there is no aggression. There may be offence, which could arise from ignorance, poor taste, disrespect or disregard, but I don’t believe I have a right not to be offended, whether I fall into a group without cultural dominance or a group with it. Most of us experience offence to some group of which we are a part. There’s a chilling effect on free speech in this concept of micro-aggression, and the danger is that discourse becomes infantilised and we become actually more rather than less divided, as we tiptoe around each other.
However, beyond the fundamentals, it’s a matter of good taste and mutual respect and empathy. I would attempt never knowingly to trivialise somebody’s religious or ethical beliefs; I would also expect respect for my belief in freedom of speech and expression, and hope for a mature recognition that not all adaptation of concepts picked up from different cultures is intentionally offensive, trivialising, oppressive or serious. I think there is a real risk of going round in ever-decreasing circles and forgetting about the bigger problems in the world that need solving.
Mostly where some people would see cultural appropriation I would see cultural appreciation or cultural influence, or just ideas that are in the air. Digging deep back into history there are few cultures which have been hermetically sealed from each other, and actually decoding our own accepted practices is far from simple and mostly reveals more interconnection than purity. I don’t think I would want to comment on the particular concept regarding ‘spirit animals’, other than to say that borrowing from or referring to another culture can create a metaphor without denigrating or diminishing the original culture. The concepts that enter our language over centuries are very rich, and hard to unravel, and don’t necessarily imply disrespect, on the whole. Sometimes where such tropes of language or image originally did imply disrespect, this disrespect is long since diminished and forgotten, and the tropes have undergone such transformation over time and usage that they now mean something quite different. I rather feel that the commercial aspect doesn’t make much difference.
