Fraternity was told it was appropriating culture. Administrators won’t say which

[Dr. Arch]

If you're not joking, that's not how appropriation works. All words have etymologies, whether they're obscure or not. The process of one word being adopted into a language from another is called borrowing and is socially neutral.

In order for a word, term, phrase, or practice to be appropriated, it has to first exist in the language already and then be associated to a group in society, usually one that is stigmatized, and then recycled by an outsider group (or the target group itself), which redefines the unit and popularizes that redefinition over the original.

Examples of words that have been appropriated: Queer, Gay, Nigga, Dude

Examples of words that have not been appropriated: Orthodontist, Dentist, Garage (all from other languages)

[Dr. Arch]

So when was the fixed time at which point all culture was supposed to have solidified into the current caste system? If several black rappers were to incorporate bagpipes into their beats, is that some sort of oppression too? What if they had been incorporated into hiphop 20 years ago? Does that matter? Because very often, (as in the OP) culture that is purportedly being appropriated has already been appropriated from earlier cultures. Like how dreadlocks were popular among Egyptians, then Vikings  but now apparently a newer, different group "owns" that hairstyle.

Exactly how are dreadlocks in Viking and Egyptian culture relevant to contemporary society? This is a ridiculous analogy, and you know it.

[Dr. Arch]

So when was the fixed time at which point all culture was supposed to have solidified into the current caste system? If several black rappers were to incorporate bagpipes into their beats, is that some sort of oppression too? What if they had been incorporated into hiphop 20 years ago? Does that matter? Because very often, (as in the OP) culture that is purportedly being appropriated has already been appropriated from earlier cultures. Like how dreadlocks were popular among Egyptians, then Vikings  but now apparently a newer, different group "owns" that hairstyle.

Exactly how are dreadlocks in Viking and Egyptian culture relevant to contemporary society? This is a ridiculous analogy, and you know it

So if dreadlocks decline in popularity among black people in the next ten years, and grungy white hippies continue to wear them, does that mean a new cultural group "owns" the style? Because your answer suggests that cultural appropriation is only a thing when a current and trendy piece of culture is being appropriated. I mean, we still describe democracy as a greek innovation, even though they stopped being democratic for a few millenia. Copying is copying, whether you copy from the guy down the street or from an old old book on ancient civilizations. I mean, who gets to define what is "relevant to contemporary society" in the first place.

You can't draw a strict a line, but it's safe to say that a cultural group from 1,000+ years ago in another part of the world holds little to no relevance in contemporary American society.

Merely copying is not appropriation. The fact that you are using both words interchangeably suggests you don't understand the distinction.

Appropriation is not necessarily bad, BUT the intent, context, and results matter on a case-by-case basis.

Positive Example: The LGBT community appropriating "Queer," which was used a pejorative term. This is ameliorating appropriation and has a positive and empowering effect on the original target group.

Negative Example: Rachel Dolezal. She, as a White woman, has the ability to pick and choose whatever aspects of Black culture she found alluring and benefit from those without actually living the negative experiences associated with the culture and characteristics she appropriated.

Regarding your example with dreadlocks, yes, but it wasn't an intentional act of pejoration on the original group. Dreadlocks, in your example, transitioned as a group marker from one group to another.

[Dr. Arch]

So when was the fixed time at which point all culture was supposed to have solidified into the current caste system? If several black rappers were to incorporate bagpipes into their beats, is that some sort of oppression too? What if they had been incorporated into hiphop 20 years ago? Does that matter? Because very often, (as in the OP) culture that is purportedly being appropriated has already been appropriated from earlier cultures. Like how dreadlocks were popular among Egyptians, then Vikings  but now apparently a newer, different group "owns" that hairstyle.

Exactly how are dreadlocks in Viking and Egyptian culture relevant to contemporary society? This is a ridiculous analogy, and you know it

So if dreadlocks decline in popularity among black people in the next ten years, and grungy white hippies continue to wear them, does that mean a new cultural group "owns" the style? Because your answer suggests that cultural appropriation is only a thing when a current and trendy piece of culture is being appropriated. I mean, we still describe democracy as a greek innovation, even though they stopped being democratic for a few millenia. Copying is copying, whether you copy from the guy down the street or from an old old book on ancient civilizations. I mean, who gets to define what is "relevant to contemporary society" in the first place.

You can't draw a strict a line, but it's safe to say that a cultural group from 1,000+ years ago in another part of the world holds little to no relevance in contemporary American society.

Merely copying is not appropriation. The fact that you are using both words interchangeably suggests you don't understand the distinction.

Appropriation is not necessarily bad, BUT the intent, context, and results matter on a case-by-case basis.

Positive Example: The LGBT community appropriating "Queer," which was used a pejorative term. This is ameliorating appropriation and has a positive and empowering effect on the original target group.

Negative Example: Rachel Dolezal. She, as a White woman, has the ability to pick and choose whatever aspects of Black culture she found alluring and benefit from those without actually living the negative experiences associated with the culture and characteristics she appropriated.

Regarding your example with dreadlocks, yes, but it wasn't an intentional act of pejoration on the original group. Dreadlocks, in your example, transitioned as a group marker from one group to another.

What do you see as the difference between copying and appropriating? It sounds like you are arguing that appropriation is just copying with some sort of negative perception. I mean, why is Dolezal only allowed  to adopt cultural traits if she assumes both positive and negative? This argument assumes that a group can claim collective ownership over ideas, even if living members of that group had no actual participation in the discovery of those ideas. A 20 year old black woman has no more claim over dreadlocks than a 20 year old white man, other than that she looks more similar to those who claim to have pioneered it in the "contemporary" era.

I just gave you positive and negative examples of appropriation. I'm not sure how it sounds that I'm arguing that "appropriation is just copying with some sort of negative perception."

Dolezal assumed both positive and negative, yes, but she did not live the cultures from which those characteristics were taken, and she claims they were her own as if she were fully fledged member of that group. How bad was it? To the point that she said that actual African-Americans were not "black" for X or Y reason. Namely, because those African Americans did not exactly live those stereotypes upon which her appropriation was modeled.

A sole individual has no claim to group characteristics, but an individual as an authentic member of that group does. As shallow as it may sound, looking the part is a great size of the ball game in American society. As human beings, we make assumptions about groups based on the characteristics that are most apparent to us and then create a model upon which to judge others who either: a) claim membership to that group, and b) appear to be members of that group. It's the way we understand the world. Racism and bigotry step in when we assume that those stereotypes are all that the members of that group are capable of or should be.

Id est, certain sets of practices form part of a culture. That culture may be targeted, marked, or stigmatized for such practices. Other cultures can participate in those practices inanely for the purposes of creating solidarity--think other minorities in African-American neighborhoods. That is not appropriation. When an outside group takes those practices as their own and changes them, with the eventual result or erasing recognition of the practices of the original group and without participating in the original culture, that's appropriation.

If the appropriating group was being affected negatively by the target practice, and they reverse that stigma by appropriating it, then that is positive appropriation.

When a targeting group that was negatively affecting another group takes that group's practices as their own, that's negative appropriation, usually with the effect of demeaning or neutralizing the target group's culture further.


Clarifying note: I'm talking about appropriation as a sociocultural act, and NOT a linguistic act. These don't need to be mutually exclusive, but usually operate under different paradigms. The OP's article talks about sociocultural appropriation, while referencing language etymology as a reason to dismiss negative sociocultural appropriation, which is a false cause logical fallacy.