Cultural appropriation

at
Categories
Tags

 

Cultural appropriation is an aspect of human exchange that refers to the taking of someone else’s culture (expressions, dress, intellectual property, artifacts, knowledge, art forms, etc.) without “permission.” Cultural appropriation is very tricky to navigate as there are fine lines between attributing “ownership,” showing one’s appreciation for,and mocking or parodying another culture. The stakes are also heightened when aspects of culture are taken from minority groups or groups that have traditionally been oppressed or marginalized, and, as a result, those who take, borrow, or ‘exploit’ those aspects of culture benefit from them in terms of capital, power, prestige, and popularity (e.g. Miley Cyrus’s”twerking”). (Is “twerking” really an African American dance???) This benefit often occurs at the expense of the very group from which aspects of culture were appropriated.
Cultural appropriation: when ‘borrowing’ becomes exploitation
https://theconversation.com/cultural-appropriation-when-borrowing-becomes-exploitation-57411
Now that black culture is so mainstream, can we really accuse people of appropriation?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/black-cultural-appropriation-ariana-grande-7-rings-african-american-cardi-b-twerk-a8760726.html
Your Favorite Meme? Chances Are It Was Influenced By Black Culture
https://www.wpr.org/your-favorite-meme-chances-are-it-was-influenced-black-culture
What do you think? Has African American culture been “stolen” or at the very least “borrowed” by other groups? And, have those groups made money or a profit from African American culture at the expense of the original producers of that culture? Or, is it beneficial to African Americans and their community that their culture is appreciated and spread throughout the world?

Sample Solution

Cultural appropriation is the inappropriate or unrecognized adoption of a cultural or linguistic component or components by members of a different cultural or linguistic group. When individuals of a dominant culture appropriate from minority cultures, this can be contentious. Cultural appropriation, in contrast to acculturation, assimilation, or equal cultural interchange, is considered by opponents of the practice to be a kind of colonialism. When people of a dominant culture borrow cultural components from a minority culture and use those elements outside of their original context, often even against the express wishes of those in the originating culture, the practice is sometimes viewed negatively.

In any case, in some cases regular citizens are unintentionally killed through battles to accomplish their objective of harmony and security. This is upheld by Vittola, who suggests proportionality again to legitimize activity: ‘care should be taken where evil doesn’t offset the potential advantages (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is additionally upheld by Frowe who makes sense of it is legitimate to inadvertently kill, at whatever point the soldier has full information on his activities and tries to finish his point, yet it would include some significant pitfalls. In any case, this doesn’t conceal the reality the accidental actually killed blameless individuals, showing unethical behavior in their activities. Hence, it relies again upon proportionality as Thomson contends (Frowe (2011), Page 141). This prompts question of what meets all requirements to be a warrior, and whether it is legitimate to kill each other as soldiers. Soldiers are individuals who are involved straightforwardly or by implication with the conflict and it is legitimate to kill ‘to shield the honest from hurt… rebuff scalawags (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as referenced above regular citizen can’t be hurt, showing warriors as the main genuine focuses on, one more state of jus in bello, as ‘we may not utilize the sword against the people who have not hurt us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ likewise, Frowe proposed soldiers should be distinguished as soldiers, to stay away from the presence of close quarters combat which can wind up in a higher demise count, for instance, the Vietnam War. Also, he contended they should be essential for the military, remain battle ready and apply to the guidelines of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This proposes Frowe looks for a fair, simply battle between two members keeping away from non-soldier passings, however couldn’t this prompt higher demise rate for warriors, as the two sides have somewhat equivalent opportunity to win since both utilize comparative strategies? In any case, ostensibly Frowe will contend that warrior can legitimately kill one another, showing this is simply, which is likewise upheld by Vittola, who states: ‘it is legal to draw the sword and use it against transgressors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’ what’s more, Vittola communicates the degree of military strategies utilized, yet never arrives at a resolution regardless of whether it’s legal to continue these activities, as he continually tracked down a center ground, where it tends to be legitimate to do things like this however never consistently (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is upheld by Frowe, who estimates the genuine strategies as per proportionality and military need. It relies upon the extent of how much harm done to each other, to pass judgment on the activities after a conflict. For instance, one can’t just nuke the fear based oppressor bunches all through the center east, since it isn’t just corresponding, it will harm the entire populace, a potentially negative side-effect. All the more significantly, the officers should have the right expectation in the thing they will accomplish, forfeiting the expenses for their activities. For instance: if fighters have any desire to execute all detainees of war, they should do it for the right aim and for a worthy motivation, relative to the mischief done to them. This is upheld by Vittola: ‘not generally legal to execute all warriors… we should consider… size of the injury caused by the foe.’ This is additionally upheld by Frowe approach, which is much more upright than Vittola’s view yet suggests similar plans: ‘can’t be rebuffed essentially for battling.’ This implies one can’t just rebuff another on the grounds that they have been a soldier. They should be treated as accommodatingly as could be expected. Be that as it may, the circumstance is raised in the event that killing them can prompt harmony and security, inside the interests, all things considered. Generally, jus in bello proposes in wars, damage must be utilized against warriors, never against the blameless. In any case, eventually, the point is to lay out harmony and security inside the region. As Vittola’s decision: ‘the quest for equity for which he battles and the safeguard of his country’ is

This question has been answered.

Get Answer