Cultural Appropriation - Yay or Nay?

[GaiaDianne]

Isn't what we're dealing with here the difference between Wicca and (for want of a better term) Neo-Wicca?

GAIA:

Yes -- but i'd have to say that in my experience, most "Neo-Wiccans" have little idea what those differences are, let alone why they're important.

Here's how one person (Callisto) describes those differences:

"Wicca and Neo-Wicca (aka "Solitiary Eclectic") are completely different religions, with completely different goals, principles, practices, etc.

All BTW (British Tradition Wicca traditions) share core practices, beliefs, knowledge and purpose that readily identify them as being kin. There is no such kinship between Traditional Wicca and Solitary-Eclectic. Nor is there any kinship between one person's Eclectic practice and another's -- it differs from person to person.

Once those BTW elements are removed, as in the case of Eclectic Wicca, it's something else. Eclectic Wicca was sold to individuals as being Wicca -- i.e., BTW For One. But it's not. It borrows some non-initiatory components, but even that varies in extent from person to person.

Solitary-Eclectic or "Neo-Wicca" is missing BTWs core knowledge and purpose -- i.e., the very things Gardner established Wicca for in the first place.

So what's left? The newcomer is handed an empty case in which he is to fill it with whatever he wants. Yet somehow it's all (called) "Wicca".

To use the can analogy I've used before: Take a can filled with beans and put a label on it, "Beans". That's traditional Wicca. What do people expect is inside? Beans. If you open that can, what you will find? Beans. That's BTW, no matter what brand (e.g. Gardnerian, Alexandrian) one picked up, one will find beans inside.

Eclectic Wicca is a different thing. It doesn't have beans and there isn't access to beans so the person starts out with an empty can with a label on it marked "Beans". But without access to beans, the person is left to fill it with whatever s/he wants. So one person fills his with artichokes, another with spinach, and another with carrots and so on. Despite these substitutions, each chooses to leave their cans labeled as "Beans" instead of what it actually consists of.

Now if you see all these cans on a table, what do you think they contain? Well, "Beans" because that's what's on the labels. Yet, if you open those cans you'll find artichokes, spinach and carrots ... but no beans. There's nothing wrong with those things, they're all equally good and tasty... they're just not beans. If you bought one at the store because you had a craving for beans or was preparing a dish that called for beans and opened it to find something else, wouldn't your thought be, "Hey, this isn't beans!"? You can either go back to the store and look for beans or decide to make something different because you don't have any beans."

To explain in more specific detail:

…..Wicca, as it was founded and intended to be practiced, does not exist to simply service personal needs or comfort. It is a priesthood - one that bears responsibilities and obligations.

A (traditional) Wiccan is called to practice in a way that does not solely address himself, but makes him part of something greater than himself and his needs. He becomes part of the initiatory clergy of a Mystery cult ("cult" in the ancient sense, not the modern brain-washing sense). That means not just focusing on himself, but in service to honoring specific deities in a specific way, maintaining a body of knowledge and rites.

Aside from that, there's Eclectic/Solitary Wicca which is not an initiatory priesthood and does focuses solely on the needs of the practitioner. [Solitary-Eclectic] takes basic outward, non-initiatory elements of traditional Wicca to use as a “template” or base, upon which the individual “fleshes out” and builds a personal mode of practice -- because the core of Wicca, what it was established for is not there.

Since it does not have the inner teachings and knowledge of Trad Wicca (as that's attained via initiation), it's a different practice all together -- One that also differs from person to person since it's developed on an individual basis.

This is where some of the confusion comes in, because each person does things differently. Various deities, myriad influences from other sources, one person focusing on a particular discipline, another focusing on something else. There is no unifying core, only basic parts from original Wicca (and even that will vary in extent). It's up to the individual to determine the overall purpose, to give it its "heart". No two Eclectics practice the same and can be widely different to one another. Again, this differs from Trad Wicca in which it's abundantly clear those practices are akin to one another as they share a core purpose, meaning and function.

(End quote by Callisto, further discussions can be found here:

http://www.wiccantogether.com/forum/...ment%3A2721005

http://www.wiccantogether.com/forum/...age=3#comments


I hope someone finds that helpful; Blessed Be ~ Gaia

[Maps]

Just saw a half-social justice half-personal tumblr gal I follow say that wearing an ankh if you're not black (I'm assuming it was "not black", though really she just said "white people") is appropriation.

Thoughts? Have Kemetics run into this a lot or at all?

[sailor]

Just saw a half-social justice half-personal tumblr gal I follow say that wearing an ankh if you're not black (I'm assuming it was "not black", though really she just said "white people") is appropriation.

Thoughts? Have Kemetics run into this a lot or at all?

If you are at least 1/32 of something you are part of that minority. End of cultural appropriation issues for many folks.

[Maps]

If you are at least 1/32 of something you are part of that minority. End of cultural appropriation issues for many folks.

That's sarcasm, right? Please tell me that was sarcasm.

[monsnoleedra]

That's sarcasm, right? Please tell me that was sarcasm.

That was sort of what I was thinking. I've discovered a lot of people require at least 1/8 at a minimum to be recognized. That doesn't even touch upon requirements such as being listed on the Dows Rolls for instance for many Native American nations in addition to what ever blood percentage they require.

It definately is not a "I say I am there for I am" type situation or recognization.

[Jabberwocky]

Just saw a half-social justice half-personal tumblr gal I follow say that wearing an ankh if you're not black (I'm assuming it was "not black", though really she just said "white people") is appropriation.

Thoughts? Have Kemetics run into this a lot or at all?

My view that it's impossible for those recreating long dead cultures to indulge in cultural appropriation would apply here. Apart from anything else, who has the right to speak for those cultures? I can't see that she does, any more than anyone else. Also, in this case, we aren't talking about a culture that was in anyway marginalised at the time it existed, we're talking about an extremely powerful and dominant one.

I do think seeing it as about "white people" as opposed to "non-Egyptian people" gets into some quite problematic territory. Neither the Ancient Egyptians (as far as we know) or modern Egyptians would see themselves as black in terms of ethnic identity.

The former would have simply seen themselves as Egyptian. The latter would either themselves primarily as either Arab or as Egyptian. (That's quite a big debate in Egypt, both historically and currently). Or some would see their identity in religious as opposed to ethnic identity.

There is an element here of a Westerner imposing what is very much a Western (more specifically it's actually a very American) worldview, on the people of a Middle Eastern country. (I'm assuming the blogger in question is American If I'm wrong I apologise and most of this criticism is also not the case. Although I'd have to admit that I'll be utterly startled if that turns out not to be the case).

[sailor]

That's sarcasm, right? Please tell me that was sarcasm.

Not sarcasm, that's American academia diversity hiring.

[Maps]

My view that it's impossible for those recreating long dead cultures to indulge in cultural appropriation would apply here. Apart from anything else, who has the right to speak for those cultures? I can't see that she does, any more than anyone else. Also, in this case, we aren't talking about a culture that was in anyway marginalised at the time it existed, we're talking about an extremely powerful and dominant one.

I do think seeing it as about "white people" as opposed to "non-Egyptian people" gets into some quite problematic territory. Neither the Ancient Egyptians (as far as we know) or modern Egyptians would see themselves as black in terms of ethnic identity.

The former would have simply seen themselves as Egyptian. The latter would either themselves primarily as either Arab or as Egyptian. (That's quite a big debate in Egypt, both historically and currently). Or some would see their identity in religious as opposed to ethnic identity.

There is an element here of a Westerner imposing what is very much a Western (more specifically it's actually a very American) worldview, on the people of a Middle Eastern country. (I'm assuming the blogger in question is American If I'm wrong I apologise and most of this criticism is also not the case. Although I'd have to admit that I'll be utterly startled if that turns out not to be the case).

Thank you for the discussion I was hoping to get out of bringing up that point. And no, the blogger in question is a black American. (I don't know how much she knows about ancient Egypt.)

Part of the CA debate I've seen get presented is open vs. closed culture, and... ancient Egypt, as far as I know, was about as open as a culture can get.

Also, not saying that there are any hard and fast rules or answers here; there are probably as many opinions about the issue as there are people that know what it is. I just thought it was interesting to see such a symbol being used as an Exhibit C, so to speak. Was the first time I've seen it.

[Ainne]

So in perusing a number of different threads on here I've noticed a theme. There seems to be a great semi silent battle waging about whether using aspects of different cultures is acceptable or not.



I have to admit, I've never really thought much about this myself. There's the couple different cultures that I'm attracted to and I research and I try to incorporate into my life. To me it's always been a matter of what feels right to me and what helps me fell connected to Mother Earth. I am hesitant to try new things and hence tend to ask many ridiculous questions if given the chance but still.... I'd like to know other people's opinions on this.

Is cultural appropriation acceptable, sometimes acceptable, never acceptable? What do you think

In my opinion I think it is perfectly acceptable, I mean, why wouldn't it be? For me, the Greek and the Irish are two cultures I adore, and I use deities from both cultures.

[mandrina]

Not sarcasm, that's American academia diversity hiring.

do you have a reference for that? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to see it anyhow.