Marion G. Harmon, A Writer in Vegas.

It is possible to eat moderately. It is possible to express yourself moderately. It is not possible to believe moderately.

M.G.Harmon

Yes I just quoted myself, but sometimes I’m worth quoting. This post is a bit of a departure for me (I’ve only previously discussed anything remotely political in relation to the Great Mortgage Bubble of ’07 and my natural skepticism of doomsdayers). But there are a few subjects that have been bugging me lately—or more specifically the public rhetoric about them has bugged me—and if I can’t talk about it in my personal blog where can I talk about it?

Before I begin, let me talk about moderates.

When people say they’re moderates, what they usually mean is 1.) they’re willing to compromise with those of other political tribes, or, 2.) they hold some views, possibly many, that are not held by their own identified political tribe.

Political moderates are often accused of being wish-washy and uncommitted, and take abuse from both sides; neither progressives nor conservatives have any use for them. But being a moderate also means that you often see reason and absurdity on both sides. Temperamentally, it also means qualifying your opinions, being humble in your convictions, and slinking rather than rushing to judgement.

Temperamentally, I am a moderate. Although I hold some beliefs quite strongly, I try and keep in mind Cromwell’s Appeal: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken. And I am increasingly a political moderate as I watch the political Left and Right drift further and further apart from each other and the Center, a drift mirrored in our American culture.

The drift itself doesn’t worry me so much as the increasing animosity displayed by both tribes for each other. I am convinced it is created by a growing and  fundamental empathy-gap between Conservatives and Progressives that rests on the following syllogism:

1. I am a rational/good human being.
2. Because I am a rational/good human being, I believe X.
3. If you do not believe X, you must be either misinformed, irrational, or a bad person.

This is a natural way to think, in fact it takes an act of will and imagination and to think differently, but the truth is that other people think differently. The way you think about any subject is shaped to a huge degree by your environment and your world-view. Do you trust people? Do you distrust people? Do you think freedom is the cardinal social value, or do you believe that virtue is the cardinal social value? Is liberty more important than equality, or is equality more important than liberty?

The danger in this syllogism is this; it can very easily lead to Statement 4.

Since you are misinformed, irrational, or a bad person, you must be re-educated, cured, or punished.

Because progress cannot be achieved any other way.

By definition, the opposite of moderation is extremism. Today the Left is the tribe most often accused of extremism, but conservative extremism is quite possible as well; it can even be praised.

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” (Barry Goldwater)

Sounds good doesn’t it? Until you remember some of the indefensible things we’ve done in the defense of liberty and the pursuit of justice.

So there it is, and I could meander on a good bit more about my moderate philosophy. Instead, depending on the reception this post receives, I intend to display that philosophy with commentary (sometimes less-than-serious) on some of today’s issues.

Today’s topic: hair and cultural appropriation.

Cultural appropriation is a sociological concept which views the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of a different culture as a largely negative phenomenon. Generally, an assumption that the culture being borrowed from is also being oppressed by the culture doing the borrowing is prerequisite to the concept. (Wikipedia)

The heat and sometimes rage over cultural appropriation is a relatively new thing; once upon a time, civil rights focused on individual social equality—a social good famously and succinctly described by Doctor Martin Luther King:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

But King was actually a moderate in his own movement, and the heirs of the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s are not so moderate in their philosophy; the civil rights movement has largely given way to the social justice movement, and the social justice movement is very, very concerned with authenticity.  Authenticity, as used now, was originally a psychological term:

Authenticity is a technical term used in psychology as well as existential philosophy and aesthetics (in regards to various arts and musical genres). In existentialism, authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one’s own personality, spirit, or character, despite external pressures; the conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures, and influences which are very different from, and other than, itself. A lack of authenticity is considered in existentialism to be bad faith. (again Wikipedia)

Not being allowed to be one’s “authentic self” is oppression, not being one’s authentic self is self-betrayal, and today there is very much a self-conscious “authentic blackness” or “authentic feminism” or authentic group-ness of almost every kind. And this group-authenticity is not defined and policed by the “white patriarchal cis-gendered ruling class” either; it is defined by each group. To be deemed inauthentic is to be deemed a quisling traitor of the group.

There is a positive side to group-authenticity; by willingly adopting or retaining concrete tokens and manners and a related history as “of the group” and taking pride in them, you help create group pride. Scots-Americans (I’m one) take pride in being able to “authentically” wear a particular clan tartan. Recovering cultural artifacts of your family past can strengthen your sense of self (I learned to play the bagpipes). Hearing Flower of Scotland done at all well gives me a thrill. And this can be very important when your group has historically been marginalized and oppressed. (Not even British conquest oppressed the Scots much, and their self-image is a bunch of hard headed tough bastards.)

But I think there can also be a deeply negative side, and one problem with stressing group-authenticity is finding offense in cultural appropriation.

On one level this is understandable; dressing up in a way that invokes mocked or distorting stereotypes can be offensive. The improper use of cultural tokens important to the group can be offensive. (Personally, I take offense at seeing people dressing up as Catholic priests or nuns— especially Slutty Nuns—for Halloween and I’m not even Catholic.)

But I have seen things condemned as cultural appropriation that were never appropriated in mockery or denigration. Should belly dancing only be performed by dancers from the originating Middle Eastern and Eastern cultures? Should hip-hop artists only be black? Should only Japanese wear kimonos? Should only Native Americans engage in Native-American spiritualism? Should only Easterners practice yoga?

All of these are cultural appropriations which have offended some very vocal people.

And then there’s this:

I came across this in a recent article: go ahead and read it, I’ll wait.

My first thought was to laugh, but then I tried to understand just what the objectors found so objectionable in this. I sort of got it, although I think they are wrong. They feel that adoption from other cultures or groups, especially historically oppressed groups, is disrespectful.

But here’s the thing; I cannot think of one instance of appropriation in which the adopters didn’t respect the group they were appropriating from, or at least an aspect of that group. If you hate a group, or look down on it, you will not adopt anything identified with it.

In other words, white people adopting Afros, cornrows, and dreadlocks, is a sign that white American culture (yes there is such a thing) has become much less racist. It’s a sign of progress.

And it was seen that way, once. Nobody raised an eyebrow over Bo Derek’s cornrows in the 80s:

And then there was:

I should know: I had an Afro in high school. Seriously, it was 100% natural, no product, I just toweled my hair dry and brushed it out. And nobody thought anything of it (well my dad didn’t like it, but he was ex-military).

Today?

Let’s just say that a white man or woman with an Afro raises eyebrows. And voices, tempers, and blood pressure. It’s appropriation.

That’s not progress, that’s going backwards.

Update: I threw yoga out there as an example because one writer somewhere mentioned it as “appropriating spiritual practices,” but I never thought someone would take him seriously. Well, one Canadian university has shut down a yoga class.

“Staff at the Centre for Students with Disabilities believe that “while yoga is a really great idea and accessible and great for students … there are cultural issues of implication involved in the practice,” according to an email from the centre.”

“The centre official argues since many of those cultures “have experienced oppression, cultural genocide and diasporas due to colonialism and western supremacy … we need to be mindful of this and how we express ourselves while practising yoga.”

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/11/20/free-ottawa-yoga-class-scrapped-over-cultural-issues.

This is why we can’t have nice things.