Reading Response to “Is Cultural Appropriation Always Wrong?” For my reading response, I chose the article “Is Cultural Appropriation Always Wrong?” by Parul Sehgal published on www.nytimes.com. Sehgal argues for her belief that cultural appropriation is not always wrong. In times where cultural customs, clothing, hairstyles, etc, of minority groups are being used by majority groups (white people), where personal gain or profit is involved, then it is negative cultural appropriation. This is because the majority group is taking an aspect of a minority’s culture and making it popular and liked, when the minority group is often shunned for it. However, Sehgal justifies that there are times when not all cultural appropriation is wrong. When a
…show more content…
It seems very empowering to minority groups that a person of privilege promotes rights and accurate stories of minorities, as long as the person of privilege does it out of the goodness of their heart, and does not get any personal gain from it. Public patriarchy, as discussed by Kimmel in a reading the class had about masculinities and manhood, evidently has a lot of influence over a whole society. Using public patriarchy for only the benefit of minorities seems like a great idea. But how can we tell a person’s true intentions? A white male author may act like he sincerely only cares about the story of a Pakistani woman, but what may not be seen is the dollar signs in his head. There have been many instances in history where a white man appears to assist a minority only to “screw them over” when the white man gets what he wants (such as settler traders giving indigenous people blankets, only to really give them smallpox). Authors, movie directors, musicians, etc, almost always make money or fame somehow. Even if they may not get paid directly for their actions, they may eventually immediately be recognized by society as “John Doe, the white man who told the story of a Pakistani woman when she couldn’t.” Fame and recognition could be a payment within itself (as in most non-egalitarian societies) humans are motivated by praise for their accomplishments. Unfortunately, not all “whites for minority rights” are what they appear to
It seems very empowering to minority groups that a person of privilege promotes rights and accurate stories of minorities, as long as the person of privilege does it out of the goodness of their heart, and does not get any personal gain from it. Public patriarchy, as discussed by Kimmel in a reading the class had about masculinities and manhood, evidently has a lot of influence over a whole society. Using public patriarchy for only the benefit of minorities seems like a great idea. But how can we tell a person’s true intentions? A white male author may act like he sincerely only cares about the story of a Pakistani woman, but what may not be seen is the dollar signs in his head. There have been many instances in history where a white man appears to assist a minority only to “screw them over” when the white man gets what he wants (such as settler traders giving indigenous people blankets, only to really give them smallpox). Authors, movie directors, musicians, etc, almost always make money or fame somehow. Even if they may not get paid directly for their actions, they may eventually immediately be recognized by society as “John Doe, the white man who told the story of a Pakistani woman when she couldn’t.” Fame and recognition could be a payment within itself (as in most non-egalitarian societies) humans are motivated by praise for their accomplishments. Unfortunately, not all “whites for minority rights” are what they appear to