Identification of Snapshots
This journal entry seeks to analyze four snapshots that exemplify appropriation. Snapshot one is Emanuella Grinberg’s article on racism; it reviews Ohio University students’ campaign of the same name organized to criticize racist/offensive Halloween attire (Grinberg, 2011). The article illustrates many forms of appropriation, ranging from seemingly harmless to openly hostile ones. Next, snapshot two is Mary Rowe’s article devoted to micro-inequities (Rowe, 2008). Snapshot three is Robert Shimshock’s commentary on identity-related microaggressions’ status as legal evidence of discrimination (Shimshock, 2016). Snapshot four is Derald Sue’s interview on microaggressions at universities organized by PBS NewsHour (2015). The selected materials approach the appropriation issue from various viewpoints.
Snapshots as Cultural Appropriation and the Extent of Being Dangerous
The first snapshot serves as an example of cultural appropriation by featuring diverse Halloween costumes based on ethnic/racial stereotypes. Appropriation refers to the disrespectful adoption of some culture’s elements by other ethnicities (Halualani, 2018). In snapshot one, campaign posters exemplify various instances of disrespectful treatment, such as people dressed as geishas, Native Americans, Islamic terrorists, stereotypical Black Americans, and Mexicans (Grinberg, 2011). From my perspective, most of them qualify as appropriation rather than harmless borrowing, with one of them being explicitly dangerous. Most costumes purposefully exaggerate certain culture/race-specific features for comedic purposes. Particularly, a woman dressed as a geisha overuses eyeliner to mimic Asian eye shapes, and a woman wearing brown paint reduces Black people to rap culture (Grinberg, 2011). While these examples are offensive, the costume of a terrorist is also genuinely dangerous. It includes a traditional male Arab headdress, which is a symbol of Islam but not Islamic terrorism, and dynamite attached to the man’s body (Grinberg, 2011). Aimed to depict an Islamic extremist, the costume actually represents an ordinary-looking Arab with explosives, thus blurring the line between radical and peaceful Muslims and adding to prejudice against the latter.
The next two snapshots exemplify appropriation by demonstrating the borrowing of body language and dance styles. In snapshot two, Rowe (2008) mentions the practice of using belly dancers as entertainers in non-Muslim countries. This instance constitutes appropriation as a minority culture’s elements are placed in a different context, but its degree of danger actually depends on the circumstances. If a non-Arab belly dancer retains her original identity and only borrows the moves, this might be relatively harmless; the danger comes from disguising oneself as an Arab woman and taking an Arab-sounding stage name. Snapshot three exemplifies appropriation by describing how gestures and salutation habits ascribed to one culture are mocked in conversations with this group’s representatives. Professor Wheeler recollects his non-Black acquaintances’ attempts to greet him using what they thought was a black handshake and an unceremonious salutation phrase ending with “my man” (Shimshock, 2016, para. 4). The example involves adopting and exaggerating a minority’s unique habit, thus representing appropriation. However, it might be relatively harmless due to being caused by a genuine desire to please interlocutors and demonstrate an awareness of their groups’ rituals.
Snapshot four does not feature very explicit examples of appropriation apart from the discussion of racial slurs. As the interviewer mentions, the use of the N-word has become a social issue (PBS NewsHour, 2015). Although the mentioned term is widely considered derogatory, some Black Americans may view its use in everyday interaction as the ability to reclaim the offensive label and acknowledge their predecessors’ suffering. In this sense, the word’s use by non-Black people could count as appropriation. The word’s contextual meaning changes drastically depending on who uses it. Regardless of their true intentions, White people would sound as if they ascribe a particular social status to their Black interlocutors, making this example of appropriation quite dangerous for the Black community.
Parties that Gain and Lose from the Featured Representations
Regarding snapshot one, although not all white people select controversial costumes out of the desire to humiliate minority and marginalized groups, the white race gains the most from the featured representations. Specifically, none of the depicted ideas is based on negative anti-white stereotypes; there is a white person dressed as a vampire, but such characters are not perceived as negative symbols of whiteness (Grinberg, 2011). Furthermore, as the source confirms, there are no pervasive stereotypes to refer to white people as a whole and not just specific ethnicities (Grinberg, 2011). With such costumes maintaining their popularity, white people remain the only large group not affected by them, which could qualify as gaining from these representations.
All minority populations featured in snapshot one lose from such representations, with Arabs being the most affected group in terms of overall consequences. In one costume, wearing a ghutra, which is a crucial part of Arab culture, is mostly equated to malicious intentions and radical methods of promoting one’s religion, such as killing innocent non-Muslims (Grinberg, 2011). Years after 9/11, U.S. citizens may still be excessively cautious whenever they see strangers in Arab attire in public spaces (Halualani, 2018). Continuous representations of Arab clothing as something inseparable from religious wars and terrorism make the post-9/11 anti-Muslim hysteria more difficult to overcome, affecting Arab Americans’ everyday experiences.
For the remaining snapshots, the gaining and losing parties are different. In snapshot two, Arab belly dancers are affected due to the caricatured representations of their culture as their movements’ sacral and hidden meanings are distorted (Rowe, 2008). At the same time, the U.S. entertainment industry wins by exploring new show options at the expense of another culture. As for snapshot three, Black employees lose from the discussed example of appropriation (Shimshock, 2016). By receiving peculiar greetings from non-Black high-ranking professionals, they are going to be singled out from their teams for no reason. Their non-Black interlocutors engaging in such communication gain from it by presenting themselves as culturally aware individuals. Finally, for snapshot four, the use of the N-word as appropriation would leave the Black community as a losing party due to normalizing terms originally created to point to their low social status (PBS NewsHour, 2015). White people would represent the gaining party by acquiring the right to cross the minority group’s boundaries and turn multiple generations’ pain into a joke. Thus, minority populations in certain locations lose from appropriation, whereas the majority acquires more freedom of self-expression.
Distinguishing Between Appropriation and Borrowing: Guidelines/Standards of Judgment
Based on all snapshots, knowing if something represents dangerous appropriation or relatively harmless borrowing requires one to detect the implicit message’s presence. For instance, listening to another ethnicity’s music or learning more about its arts, communication rituals, crafts, philosophies, or clothing come from a genuine interest in another cultural group rather than a desire to mock anyone. Overall, the guidelines and standards of judgment to separate the two phenomena should include assessing the intention, the reaction of a culture’s representatives, and the act’s consequences for this culture (Grinberg, 2011; PBS NewsHour, 2015; Rowe, 2008; Shimshock, 2016). If borrowing something from another culture does not pursue the purpose of humiliating others, causes no disapproval from this culture’s members, and creates no negative implications for this group, it could be classified as harmless. Negative implications to avoid can be diverse, ranging from making this culture’s representative uncomfortable to crystallizing a distorted image of this group in the public mind. However, if the standards are not met to a full extent, appropriation can be detected.
References
Grinberg, E. (2011). ‘We’re a culture, not a costume’ this Halloween. CNN. Web.
Halualani, R. T. (2018). Intercultural communication: A critical perspective. Cognella Academic Publishing.
PBS NewsHour. (2015). How unintentional but insidious bias can be the most harmful [Video]. YouTube. Web.
Rowe, M. (2008). Micro-affirmations and micro-inequities. Journal of the International Ombudsman Association, 1(1), 45-48. Web.
Shimshock, R. (2016). Law prof: Microaggressions can be evidence of discrimination. Campus Reform. Web.