I happen not to strongly care about stolen valor, either, on a personal level. That said, I can easily see that it's a bad thing which ought to be condemned.
It's poor taste for someone not of that culture to wear the headdress, which represents accomplishment and esteem that must be earned in their own context. But again, that is based on true facts about the history of the headdress and its role in native culture, to say nothing of the historical relationship between natives and Western settlers.
The gripe about hoops lacks that provenance.
I tend to think people are entitled to pretty much whatever feelings they happen to feel. But once I'm being asked to change my behavior because of those feelings, there needs to be something there. And where I might be tolerant of an individual with irrational feelings, I can't accept that as a "rule" of broad applicability to a whole demographic. Indulging an irrational person may be an act of patience, but these kinds of ideas are supposed to be vetted before they are granted scope over whole communities.
Arth, in all seriousness, why is that a controversial position?
I wouldn't say it's a controversial position. It's a
selfish position. You're saying that
your feelings are more important than someone else's - that their feelings aren't sufficient reason to change your behaviour. And yet,
they should simply deal with whatever
your feelings are about a subject. Essentially, you're saying that your opinions are far more important than their feelings.
For me, in contrast, if someone says that something I did offended them, I take that as sufficient reason for me not to do that thing in the future. I don't care
why they are offended, and I don't need data-supported, peer-reviewed evidence to prove that they are offended or that the thing I did is generally offensive. If I offend someone, I apologise to them and change my behaviour so that I don't do it again in the future.
You, on the other hand, when someone says they are offended, respond by shrugging and saying "Why the hell should I care? That's your problem."
And what about the Purple Heart? The Congressional Medal of Honour? How would you feel about someone wearing one of those that you knew they hadn't earned? Would you really just shrug?
How could I even know that? I've never been wounded in battle.
Huh? I didn't ask you whether you had been wounded in battle, I asked you how you responded if you found out that someone who had never been wounded in battle was wearing a Purple Heart.
Would
you wear a Purple Heart? If not, why not?
Once again, you have yet to show an element of deliberate deception in *any* of the examples of CA given in the thread. That seems like a fairly crucial point of disanalogy to me.
That's because deception isn't the key concept. Cultural appropriation isn't bad because it is deceptive. It's bad because it is
appropriation. It's bad because when you do it, you are saying "this is mine", even though you haven't worked for it, fought for it, or suffered for it.
And to forestall your next argument about the hoops. Yeah - ignore that one. It's stupid. Focus on the ones that actually matter, and don't let the wild, ridiculous extremes guide your view of the broad range of the subject. Just because one specific example is stupid doesn't mean that the entire concept is. If you're having trouble distinguishing between examples that are stupid and examples that are not, ask yourself this: Does it seem stupid? If yes, it probably is.
