It seems to me like the whole idea of cultural misappropriation is based on the reification of the idea of culture. Culture is not a static, fixed object. Even in cases where a motif isn't popularized within and by politically dominant culture shift occurs. Take your own example of King Cake. It doesn't mean the same to an elderly person who grew up in NO (esp if their parents were also from there) that it does to members of our generation. And it's meaning has certainly changed the more you go back in time.
The motif in question becomes an element of the larger culture, and the meaning the larger culture attaches to it drowns out the original meaning attached to it by the smaller culture.
The thing that drowns out meaning is when the dominant culture (because of the power involved, not because the phenomena is unique to dominant cultures) decides it defines "the one true meaning" and are partaking of the "real" meaning rather than seeing culture as a function of history and geography.
In short, it is a part of the greater pattern of commodification and of misappropriating the language of dissent, the process by which meaningful utterances which pose any threat of causing people to question the authoritarian ideology are rendered harmless.
Again, the process of attaching a meaning to things which outside of time and space are ultimately meaningless. It is somewhat unrealistic to want an idea to spread and to expect that the form and meaning of said idea to mean the same to those in a different situation. Not spreading would equal no change. Spreading but insisting on creating "the one true meaning" - sounds like the beginning of the "new" authoritarian regime.
I guess what I am trying to say is yes, harm is caused by "cultural misappropriation." But the patterns behind the idea of cultural misappropriation - the objectification and attempted ownership of the ultimately abstract - is the root from which the harm springs.
no subject
The motif in question becomes an element of the larger culture, and the meaning the larger culture attaches to it drowns out the original meaning attached to it by the smaller culture.
The thing that drowns out meaning is when the dominant culture (because of the power involved, not because the phenomena is unique to dominant cultures) decides it defines "the one true meaning" and are partaking of the "real" meaning rather than seeing culture as a function of history and geography.
In short, it is a part of the greater pattern of commodification and of misappropriating the language of dissent, the process by which meaningful utterances which pose any threat of causing people to question the authoritarian ideology are rendered harmless.
Again, the process of attaching a meaning to things which outside of time and space are ultimately meaningless. It is somewhat unrealistic to want an idea to spread and to expect that the form and meaning of said idea to mean the same to those in a different situation. Not spreading would equal no change. Spreading but insisting on creating "the one true meaning" - sounds like the beginning of the "new" authoritarian regime.
I guess what I am trying to say is yes, harm is caused by "cultural misappropriation." But the patterns behind the idea of cultural misappropriation - the objectification and attempted ownership of the ultimately abstract - is the root from which the harm springs.