The Ethics of Cultural Appropriation by James Young, is a detailed exposé of cultural appropriation through research and real life accounts all ranging from things like religion, to archaeological studies and everything in between. This book seemed fitting to my topic as it takes cultural appropriation one step farther, and discusses the ethics behind it from a number of different viewpoints. Each chapter in the book is a separate idea than the last, being discussed in detail, edited numerous times, and then finally added in the book. One of the more interesting chapters, titled “Genetic Research And Culture: Where does the offense lie?”, writes about the issue of using genetic material in research and how that may be considered cultural appropriation
…show more content…
A plethora of people argue that artists should have whatever creative freedom they desire, while others argue that there should be limits and they should be respectful, but where are the boundaries to be drawn and who is responsible for deeming it appropriate or not? The data from this chapter is taken mostly from case studies about musical rights from Canadian First Nations. Some state that when people appropriate music, they often are not trying to profit from the music they are taking, but rather work it into their music and enhance the previous and create new even better music. “Appropriation of music through technological means may be viewed as a continuation of a long Western artistic tradition of musical parody, mimicry and quotation” (176), this quote from the chapter is supporting the point of, although it is appropriation, it is done in respect to the original music and a continuation of tradition, rather than disgracing where the music originates from. Furthermore, the argument …show more content…
This has been said to be one of the most offensive and unethical forms of cultural appropriation, as instead of stealing FROM ancestors, it was literally stealing THE ancestors. The author says that in times before indigenous peoples feelings were considered, anyone just did whatever they wanted and took whatever they wanted. Scientists disregarded feelings as a whole and called it “not sacrilegious depredation but praiseworthy service in one of the noblest of all causes, the furtherance of human knowledge” (75), basically saying that what they did is not wrong because it was for science. This is debated though because, without all the research that has been done and the discoveries that have been made we would be much farther behind scientifically, but after that research has been done, should the bodies/remains be returned to the original home? This has been a heavily debated issue in that researching this bodies can only give so much information but, returning or reburying the bodies can hinder the use of further information in the future. “Many Indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand, southern Africa and elsewhere possess similar moral and religious traditions which condemn as impious and improper any disturbance of the dead” (77), continues the moral and
A plethora of people argue that artists should have whatever creative freedom they desire, while others argue that there should be limits and they should be respectful, but where are the boundaries to be drawn and who is responsible for deeming it appropriate or not? The data from this chapter is taken mostly from case studies about musical rights from Canadian First Nations. Some state that when people appropriate music, they often are not trying to profit from the music they are taking, but rather work it into their music and enhance the previous and create new even better music. “Appropriation of music through technological means may be viewed as a continuation of a long Western artistic tradition of musical parody, mimicry and quotation” (176), this quote from the chapter is supporting the point of, although it is appropriation, it is done in respect to the original music and a continuation of tradition, rather than disgracing where the music originates from. Furthermore, the argument …show more content…
This has been said to be one of the most offensive and unethical forms of cultural appropriation, as instead of stealing FROM ancestors, it was literally stealing THE ancestors. The author says that in times before indigenous peoples feelings were considered, anyone just did whatever they wanted and took whatever they wanted. Scientists disregarded feelings as a whole and called it “not sacrilegious depredation but praiseworthy service in one of the noblest of all causes, the furtherance of human knowledge” (75), basically saying that what they did is not wrong because it was for science. This is debated though because, without all the research that has been done and the discoveries that have been made we would be much farther behind scientifically, but after that research has been done, should the bodies/remains be returned to the original home? This has been a heavily debated issue in that researching this bodies can only give so much information but, returning or reburying the bodies can hinder the use of further information in the future. “Many Indigenous peoples in Australia, New Zealand, southern Africa and elsewhere possess similar moral and religious traditions which condemn as impious and improper any disturbance of the dead” (77), continues the moral and