Cultural appropriation is a concept dealing with the adoption of the elements of a minority culture by members of the dominant culture. It is distinguished from equal cultural exchange due to the presence of a colonial element and imbalance of power. Particularly in the 21st century, cultural appropriation is often portrayed as harmful in contemporary cultures, and is claimed to be a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures, notably indigenous cultures and those living under colonial rule. Often unavoidable when multiple cultures come together, cultural appropriation can include using other cultures’ cultural and religious traditions, fashion, symbols, language, and songs.
According to critics of the practice, cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or cultural exchange in that this appropriation is a form of colonialism: cultural elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture.
Often, the original meaning of these cultural elements is lost or distorted, and such displays are often viewed as disrespectful, or even as a form of desecration, by members of the originating culture. Cultural elements which may have deep meaning to the original culture may be reduced to “exotic” fashion or toys by those from the dominant culture. Kjerstin Johnson has written that, when this is done, the imitator, “Who does not experience that oppression is able to ‘play’, temporarily, an ‘exotic’ other, without experiencing any of the daily discriminations faced by other cultures. The African-American academic, musician and journalist Greg Tate argues that appropriation and the “fetishizing” of cultures, in fact, alienates those whose culture is being appropriated.
Some writers on the topic note that the concept is often misunderstood by the general public, and that charges of “cultural appropriation” are at times misapplied to situations such as eating food from a variety of cultures, or learning about different cultures. Commentators who criticise the concept say that the act of cultural appropriation does not meaningfully constitute a social harm, and that the term lacks conceptual coherence. Some argue that the term sets arbitrary limits on intellectual freedom and artists’ self-expression, reinforces group divisions, or itself promotes a feeling of enmity or grievance, rather than liberation.
Furthermore the SA Constitution makes provision for the protection and promotion of all cultures and languages in the Republic. Discrimination based on colour, race, ethnicity religion, and culture are prohibited – Chapter 2 Bill of rights, Chapter 2 (30 &31) protects cultural and language rights in the republic
The changing of the names of streets, buildings, towns, airports and or historical events must be seen as Cultural Appropriation of the minority group the Afrikaners / Boer nation.
For example: Pretoria / City of Tshwane
Pretoria was founded in 1855 by Marthinus Pretorius and named it after his father, the Voortrekker Andries Pretorius, who defeated the Zulus at Blood River.
Therefore by changing the name of a town, city, or / and event will change the cultural and historical facts , and will also affect the original group which has a cultural copyright to the name.
Outcome required: compensation should be paid to the affected cultural group and names should be restored to fit its cultural heritage.
Additional laws should written in order to protect our heritage and cultural value, and prevent cultural theft within the Republic
By Barend Daubern
Executive council NCP
South Africa Today – South Africa News
