So "cultural appropriation" is in the news again...
... thanks to literary fiction writer Lionel Shriver, who caused a ruckus over
a speech she recently delivered at the Brisbane Writers Festival that politely - but firmly - criticized the rhetoric of the regressive left. I for one applaud Shriver for her audacity and agree 100% with her remarks. "Cultural appropriation" - like many concepts born of "social justice" zealotry - takes a tiny germ of truth and then seeks to push its applications to the very edges of absurdity. It obviously behooves us to treat other cultures - including subcultures within our own society - with respect. But "respect" means we should work hard to be accurate and fair; it does
not mean we should wall these cultures off from
all outside curiosity. Indeed, to attempt to accomplish the latter is outrageously counter-productive. First, in suggesting that these cultures cannot withstand the outsider's explorations, SJZ's are implicitly suggesting that these cultures are
inferior to ours. After all, nobody is seriously arguing that, say, Lin-Manuel Miranda has damaged white American culture by embracing Alexander Hamilton and transforming him into a hip-hop icon (and, in my view, a deserving Broadway sensation). So let's think about this: Do we
really believe that white American culture is uniquely robust while every other culture is exquisitely fragile? Secondly, Americans of European extraction are still the majority demographic in the United States; how, then, will minority cultures
ever become visible and clothed in dignity if white folks aren't permitted to enjoy aspects of those cultures in their own pursuits? Racial harmony and human solidarity come from empathy, and empathy comes from stepping into the shoes of the Other -- and from
no other source.
Meanwhile, regarding the presidential campaign...
... Hillary Clinton has been having a rough week. Personally, as a person with a debilitating autoimmune disease who still manages to nail her job, I think it's a little weird that we're obsessing over Clinton's health and not over her manifest corruption in other matters. Clinton is - despite all tongue-and-cheek speculations to the contrary - a human being, and human beings get sick. On the other hand, the Clinton
campaign royally deserves mockery for the cagey way in which it's handled the whole health question. Just be
honest, okay? For Christ's sake, it's not like the US president has to be able to drop everything and run a marathon!
It was also not a smart move to claim that a significant chunk of Trump's supporters belongs in a "basket of deplorables". I'm no Trump fan, but I still think this characterization of the Trump camp is slanderously inaccurate. Sure: Trump
does attract alt-right provocateurs, and some of those
are objectively racist white nationalists. But I think Trump has also attracted frustrated working-class whites who are looking for someone -
anyone - to pay attention to their problems and give them a voice -- not to mention a lot of vocally reluctant supporters who just fear Clinton more. I encourage
everyone - but especially out-of-touch urban elites - to sit in fly-over America for a spell and actually
listen to the people who live there before throwing out careless judgments. Oh, and also? First cast the beam out of thine own eye, Ms. Clinton. The left has its own problems with "deplorables"; clear out your own house and we will clear out ours.
