We hear a lot of talk today about cultural appropriation. Some of it is legitimate; some shows a lack of understanding the difference between cultural appropriation, cultural exchange, cultural assimilation, and acculturation. All of these begin in some form or another when one culture comes into contact with another.

Almost without exception, we all borrow from the things we see around us- and with the modern world, what we “see” comes at us via television, the internet, social media- and we all borrow from what we like, whether it takes the form of hairstyles, clothing, ways of living, the designs of our homes and interiors, the food we eat, the music we enjoy…and whatever culture, society, ethnic group or other differences we have, most of us have a high level of resistance towards examining whether we are appropriating or exchanging. And of course, the solution is simple, though there, too, I find much resistance.

Let’s look first at definitions. These will be simplified for the purpose of the article and for ease of understanding:

Cultural appropriation: an unequal exchange in which the dominant culture adopts dress, foods, slang, hairstyles, rituals etc of another culture, with a lack of respect for, and understanding of, the non-dominant culture. The dominate culture assumes the right to take on these things, without permission, because it assumes privilege and the self-entitlement to do so, and often assumes a right to market or profit from, what they borrow from the culture. The key words here are dominant culture- because the truth is, who is dominant and what the dominant culture is depends on where you are. And the deeper truth is that within each culture, there are subcultures that can also be “guilty” of cultural appropriation.
It’s become popular today to assume that only “whites” can appropriate a culture- that assumes that whites dominate everywhere and hold all the power- and this is not true. Claiming that “whites” hold all the power is giving them that power, and using that claim to make oneself into a victim, even when such victimhood is not necessarily the case.

Cultural assimilation: there are two possibilities to consider here. 1) The minority culture adapts itself to, and is absorbed by, the dominant culture for the sake of survival. In other words, if they do not adopt the culture of the dominant group, they risk ostracism, poverty, starvation or disenfranchisement. 2) However, it can be also said that an already on-the-edge culture on the breaking point chooses to be assimilated because it already faces a possibility that it is no longer viable in the world it inhabits. A culture can survive inside a dominant culture if it has created a way of living that enables it to not just survive, but thrive apart from a dominant culture. But there are cases where survival has become a daily struggle, simply because the conditions (such as environmental,  group health, the lessening of resources due to natural changes in the environment , weather patterns, and so on),  have altered enough to make a way of life less supportable than it has been. In those cases, we can see a culture making a decision to assimilate for its own sake. When a culture does this, they also choose which parts of a dominant culture to assimilate in order to ensure a thriving culture, and which parts to reject in order to avoid weakening their own cultural ties.

Cultural exchange:  a mutual and mutually beneficial sharing of cultures and beliefs. There is equality, respect, and mutual reciprocal benefits for each culture, financially, culturally and socially.

Acculturation: the minority culture changes but is still able to retain unique cultural markers of language, food and customs.

In today’s world of stew pot nations, we see everyone borrowing from many different cultures. This makes it harder to know if you are exercising cultural appropriation or exercising cultural exchange. But note that the words mutual benefit, respect, and understanding are key words in cultural exchange, while in appropriation, a lack of respect and a lack of understanding are the key words.

Finally, it is important to bear in mind that not everything is cultural appropriation, and not everything can be attributed to, or assumed to belong to, just one culture. Why? Because outside of culture which is defined as “the ideas, customs, and social behavior of a particular people or society”, there is also the human culture, defined as “the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively”, meaning the sum of human perceptions, imagination and experiences- and many of these are shared by all humans.

Let us take the circular, or “hoop” earring for example. The saying “a circle is a circle is a circle” is true (and this applies to most shapes). Shapes are perceived by humans worldwide, and, like human movement, are used in similar ways, not because of any specific group, but because we are human sharing a human perception.

A short time ago, I read several op-ed pieces stating that hoop earrings were of “African creation, originating around 2500 BCE in Nubia, now called the Sudan” (1). The articles were suggesting that “white” women should not wear them because it was “cultural appropriation”.

This is where I feel the discussion went a bit askew. Why? Because 1) the truth is, we can only always guess where something began based on what we find archeologically, and 2) our interpretation of findings can often leave out critical information and finally 3) the term “white” woman is so subjective, like any other “color” label, that it becomes a carnival of mislabeling. I will cover #3 in another blog..

The story of prehistoric or ancient fashion is riddled with “best guesses”. In terms of hoop earrings, we have to consider two things:
1) what we currently know
2) what we need to consider

What We Currently Know

We can trace several origin stories regarding the hoop earring. And the critical factor is in the term concurrent (happening or occurring at the same time; running parallel to) and conjunction (the action or an instance of two or more events or things occurring at the same point in time or space).

In Homeric Greek we find the word krikos (κρίκος) meaning  “hoop” or “ring” (2). In the first millennium BC, hoop earrings were being used by the Greeks and Etruscans, embedding them with beads and gems.

One of the earliest records of women wearing hoop earrings was in the Bronze Age (2700-1100 BC) or 3000-1200 BC, making this earring style is more than 3100 years old. (3)

Some believe hoop earrings were being worn in the region around Mesopotamia; some historians say the ancient Sumerians (modern day Iraq) and the ancient Nubians (modern Sudan) were concurrently began wearing hoop earrings around 2600-2500 BCE.  (4)

Later, hoop earrings were found in Egyptian culture around 1500 BCE.

The Romans adopted the custom of wearing hoop earrings; the Byzantines wore hoops with additional pendants attached…in other words, we find hoops worn by various peoples across the globe, and these seem to have entered the scene independent of outside sources- in other words, concurrently.  Why? Because creativity and body décor is a human response, and a circle is a circle is a circle, whether worn on the wrist, the ears, the neck or the ankle.

What We Need to Consider

In an age where anger and politicization of so many things seems to be the common default position, we all need to be able to step back from a situation and examine not just the motives we assume others have, but our own motives as well. We need to clearly examine if we are witnessing cultural appropriation, cultural assimilation, cultural exchange or acculturation. We also need to acknowledge that these types of events have been happening since almost the beginning, and that no one group has been solely guilty, not any group innocent.

Humans are curious, imitative and constantly drawn to things that enhance beauty, status, power or that causes them to become “unique. They see other animals with manes, spots, stripes, and bring those decorative features into their own rituals and beauty markers. They wear teeth, claws and skins to enhance their own importance and status. It is natural to copy, imitate- and humans have been doing it all along. The fact that such actions have taken on a political meaning is another step in the human experience, but it does not have to be confrontation and certainly should not be built on false assumptions and artificial conflicts, anymore than anyone should feel free to take from another culture without understanding and respect- and in some cases, permission.

It is a good thing to be proud of the cultural/tribal/ethnic/racial group you come from, but it is also important not to try to see appropriation in everything around you. At the same time, if you find something from another culture or people that appeals to you, don’t rush in and adopt it, use it or seek a way to profit from it; also, before taking something on, take the time first to understand what you are dealing with and why it might be important to the culture you are taking it from and whether you should even adopt/borrow or use it at all.

Perhaps in time each person will create their own unique presentation of Self, but until that time, we will probably see humans across the planet borrowing from each other as technology brings us closer and makes our world smaller- it is wisdom to do so with reciprocal respect, mutual acknowledgement and a wider understanding.

© 2021

(1) Devon Davis; A History of Hoop Earrings
Who Owns Hoop Earrings, Erica Euse, 2017
(2) from The Palaeolexicon   www.palaeolexicon.com
(3)  www.metmuseum.org
(4)  Jewelry manufacturers Association; Circling Through Time The History of Hoop Earrings June 2020