Cultural Appropriation Theme Analysis

In So You Want to Talk about Race, Ijeoma Oluo looks at how borrowing, or appropriating, from other cultures can be a form of oppression. While many people think of the U.S. as a “melting pot” of cultures that all influence one another, Oluo argues U.S. society is set up to privilege white culture. This means that when white people borrow the trappings of marginalized culture (like their music, hairstyles, or food), their whitewashed interpretations of those things (for instance, a Native American Halloween costume or rap music made by white artists) often become normalized in the dominant culture at the expense of the genuine ethnic versions. Oluo is careful to point out that there’s nothing wrong with admiring what other cultures do and wanting to participate in their practices. However, there is a problem when there’s a “power imbalance” in play between the two cultures involved. Oluo argues that using symbols or practices from an oppressed culture to gain success in the marketplace is wrong because it takes opportunities away from disenfranchised people. Thus, it’s not so much the appropriation that’s problematic, but the economic and social damage it causes to people who are already oppressed.

Many people assume that sharing between cultures fights racism, but Oluo argues that this perspective is naïve and simplistic. In a society designed to privilege white people (like the U.S.), this so-called sharing is more like stealing from another culture when white people do it, because they end up taking opportunities away from marginalized (non-white) people. When white rappers are successful, for example, their sound “changes the definition of rap for the American culture.” This makes it harder for artists of color to succeed because their sound is different. As Oluo puts it, “When the same white rappers are given Grammys for their attempts, over more talented black rappers, it makes it harder for rap by black artists to be accepted by mainstream culture—because it sounds different than what they’ve come to know as ‘good rap.’” Similarly, Oluo argues, fusion restaurants “helmed by white chefs” often take the lion’s share of economic success through “Americanized menus” that are more likely to appeal to (predominantly white) food critics. Restaurants with better reviews can charge more money, meaning it’s easier for restaurants with Americanized or fusion cuisine to succeed in the marketplace, and this reduces economic opportunities for ethnic restaurants with more traditional menus. To Oluo, people who genuinely appreciate things about other cultures—say, their food, fashion, or music—shouldn’t appropriate if they are in the dominant culture. A person who really loves rap, for example, will appreciate that rap is an art form that grew from the pain of oppression. Oluo says that “the heritage of rap, the struggle of rap, the triumph of rap” may inspire someone to want to rap, but they can never share in the pain that gave rise to the art form, they can only reap the benefits—“the enjoyment and the profit and the recognition.”

Oluo also finds it unjust when a society demonizes traditional or ethnic cultural expressions (like rapping or wearing braids) but celebrates appropriated versions as somehow safer or less threatening. Rap by black artists, for example, is often “vilified by many in ‘respectable’ white America.” As Oluo puts it, rap “is the language of ‘thugs’ and is responsible for numerous societal ills from ‘black-on-black’ crime to single-parenthood. Rap music is the reason why your teenager is suddenly disrespectful. Rap music is the reason why kids don't go to church anymore. Wife leave you? Pretty sure rap music told her to.” When white rappers don’t share in that blame, U.S. culture effectively tells people that whitewashed rap is safer and therefore better, which, Oluo argues, is racist. This attitude effectively normalizes white expression over ethnically marginalized expression, which further reinforces white supremacy.

Oluo concludes that when it comes to appropriating, it’s important to consider if using another culture’s symbols or practices might increase the economic and cultural marginalization of people who are already disenfranchised. If there’s a chance it might, it’s better not to use their symbols or practices: the inconvenience of playing it safe is much smaller than the potential damage of appropriating.