Cultural Appropriation In Anthropology

It is a term that has dominated the media; from Halloween costumes to NFL mascots, headlines across the nation blare the words: “cultural appropriation.” Yet, many still are not quite sure what the term means. To put it simply, cultural appropriation is the exploitation of a culture that is not one’s own.

“Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life across the Borders of Settler States” recounts the situation of indigenous peoples living in their original lands, but refusing to accept “gifts” of state citizen and cultural recognition, as it’s not good for them. The author specifically addresses the situation of the Mohawk peoples who require self-autonomy and their own government as oppose to belonging to a sovereign state such as the United States or Canada.

Political Scientists, Thomas Flanagan and Roger Townshend explain the key to the big question: “Can a Native State Exist Within a Canadian State?” in the readings: “The Case for Native Sovereignty” and “Native Sovereignty: Does Anyone Really Want an Aboriginal Archipelago?”. The essay will outline and provide evidence to both sides, whether there could or could not exist a Native State in Canada. The document will argue that Natives are not organized enough to form their own government. Throughout the decades, Natives have agonized many savageries at the hands of the European settlers. The essay will take Flanagan’s side with the belief that Natives should not be sovereign, using the textbooks “Principles of Comparative Politics”, and

Cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation. Two very different terms that many individuals have yet to comprehend. It’s understandable, it can be daunting trying to figure out how to please everyone or at a minimum not offend anyone. The difference between the two is not always clear. There is a very thin line to walk on.

The Canadian government says that it is dedicated to making its obligations to First Nations by discussing issues and bringing closure to all claims. Canada likes to underlie that by looking at the historic inequality and building strong partnerships among First Nations people; governments, and the private sector are emerging. Nevertheless, the current progress of First Nations Land Claims is very unhurried and seems to be deliberately painstaking.

Thomas Flanagan disapproves the idea of Native sovereignty ever coexisting with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan identifies the flaws in Townshend’s arguments referring to them as a theoretical approach and not a practical approach. It is true that the sharing of jurisdictional power is the essence of the Canadian state but this cannot apply to the Aboriginals of Canada. One reason a third level of government cannot work in Canada is “In the 10 provinces, Canada has over six hundred Indian bands living on more than 2200 reserves, plus hundreds of thousands of Métis and non-status Indians who do not possess reserves,” (Flanagan 44). Flanagan draws the fact that “No one has proposed a workable mechanism by which this far-flung archipelago could

The first paper by Ladner and Orsini, (2003) gives a detailed account, review and analysis of the First nations governance act. The paper reflects on the act and provides arguments supporting the fact that it is an example of a gentler, subtle form of colonialism that is still in practice today. It argues that although the government has well researched the problems affecting the first nations, it has not efficiently advocated the involvement of these people in their own welfare and improvement.

Appropriation allows those people who are appropriating to remain prejudice and/or ignore the racism the black community is dealing with. Maisha

This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.

After watching Your Are On Indian Land, and reading the weekly readings for this critical discussion an obvious theme is repeatedly touched upon. That theme is, First Nations are not taken seriously by the Canadian government or Canada as a whole. It is seen time and time again that Canada and First Nation have never been on the same page. Whether it is about land, education, resources, etc. Canada and First Nations are always in a disagreement.

After watching You Are On Indian Land, and reading the weekly readings for this critical discussion an obvious theme is repeatedly touched upon. That theme is, First Nations are not taken seriously by the Canadian government or Canada as a whole. It is seen time and time again that Canada and First Nation have never been on the same page. Whether it is about land, education, resources, etc. Canada and First Nations are always in a disagreement.

Some levels of the government were beginning to see the issues regarding Aboriginal policy in Canada. A positive change was made to the Constitution Act in 1982. Section 35 of the Constitution Act now provided First Nations people the protection of the Crown regarding treaty rights. According to Long & Dickason (2011), ““… Canadian Crown rather than the Crown of England was responsible for Canada’s First Nations. Lord Denning also ruled that this meant that the Canadian state was obliged to honor all Aboriginal and treaty rights” (p 270).

Cultural appropriation is a huge topic, within today’s society, many question what is cultural appropriation and what is not. The definition of cultural appropriation is, “....the use of ideas, symbols, artifacts, images, objects, etc., derived from contact between different cultures. It often implies a negative view towards the minority culture by the dominant one and is often culturally insensitive”(Biron). Examples of cultural appropriation would be portraying a culture through stereotypical depictions of them or wearing a culture as a ‘trend’. Another example would be wearing a headdress to portray a Native American or wearing a sombrero and a poncho to depict a Mexican. Just those words sound degrading and racist each of these ethnicities. Many think it is socially acceptable to be insensitive to a culture, because they classify the appropriation as them appreciating the culture. Cultural appropriation shows only the stereotypical view of culture and has no regards to the actual culture. Many look at the cultures as inspiration for ideas, but that does not mean to steal the ideas completely. Cultural appropriation is not only insensitive, but also racist. Blackface, for example, was used to portray an African American by painting the face of an non-black actor black. The NFL team Redskins uses an offensive and racist word to label their team; their mascot is a “Native American” wearing headdress. First and foremost, not all Native American cultures wear headdresses, these depictions of Native culture show natives as all the same. Minorities have faced appropriation for decades, but why did this problem only recently come about?

Self-government proposals also have their critics among the very people for whom it is intended. For example, Inuit women have objected to many parts of the Nunavut agreement mainly because of concerns about an emphasis on conventional southern Canadian notions of resource management. They also had concerns and about an emphasis on the economic, social and political roles and issues for men at the expense of those of women in Nunavut (Inuit Women‰s Association, 1993). In

Cultural appropriation is when someone adopts aspects of a culture that’s not their own. That's only the icing on the cake. It’s particularly a power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group. Cultural appropriation is not the same as cultural appreciation, (when people share mutually with each other, because cultural exchange lacks that systemic power dynamic). When it comes to wearing fashion based on other cultures, it’s hard to know if you’re being tacky, cool, or offensive. Practicing appropriating culture let’s people show love for the culture,