The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it Resolved, cultural appropriation is part of the American experience.

Episode Date: October 22, 2024

The release of the country album “Cowboy Carter” by Beyoncé this spring caused some surprising controversy.  Some complained Beyoncé, who is Black, shouldn’t be dabbling in what many consider a white music genre. At least one radio station in Oklahoma initially refused to play the album’s first single, “Texas Hold’em.” Her supporters pointed out that Black Americans have a rich history in country music and cowboy culture. But the incident raised the issue of cultural appropriation: The stealing from one culture by another.  Some say that “imitation is the best form of flattery” and that cultures borrowing from each other only enriches us all. Others argue that while different cultures will always be inspired by and borrow elements from each other, there are times when borrowing crosses the line into theft.  Arguing in favour of the resolution is Monica Harris. She is a TEDx speaker, blogger, and author of The Illusion of Division. She is also Executive Director of the Foundation Against Intolerance & Racism, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to bridging the ideological divide in America by focusing on shared values and interests. Arguing against the resolution is Nadra Nittle. She is a reporter for The 19th News, and  has also written for Vox.com, the Los Angeles News Group, and many others. Her books include “Toni Morrison’s Spiritual Vision” and “Recognizing Microaggressions.”   Free Munk Members can vote on who they think won this debate on our website, www.munkdebates.com   SOURCES: Beyonce The host of this Munk Debates podcast is Ricki Gurwtiz To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Producer: Daniel Kitts Editor: Kieran LynchBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We tried socialism all through the 20th century, and it failed every time. We should restore dignity to the working class and stop saying you need a credential in order to achieve the most basic, modest version of the American dream. Netanyahu is the worst leader the Jewish people ever had. He should be impeached. Genocide is the latest modern blood liable that anti-Semites use to justify their anti-Zionism. we should prioritize making sure that no more Ukrainians die, that this war is brought to an end. All parents want to help children with their feelings, but I argue that not every feeling is worth paying attention to. Why are these students covering their faces? I think it says something about their movement, about their ideology, and also simply the fact that they're also cowards.

Welcome to the Monk Debates. Every episode, we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issues of the day. To arm you, the listener, with enough information, to make up your own mind. I'm Ricky Gerwitz sitting in for Richard Griffiths. Today's debate, be it resolved. Cultural appropriation is part of the American experience. Well, the release of the country album Cowboy Carter by iconic singer Beyonce this past spring

caused an unexpected uproar. Some complained Beyonce, who is black, shouldn't be dabbling in what many consider a white music genre. At least one radio station in Oklahoma initially refused to play the album's first single, Texas Holden, which you just heard. The controversy died down when many others pointed out that Black Americans have a rich history in country music and cowboy culture. But the incident raised the issue of cultural appropriation, this stealing from one culture by another. While some say that imitation is the best form of flattery and that cultures borrowing from each other only enriches us all, others argue that while different cultures will always be inspired by

and borrow elements from each other, there are times when borrowing crosses the line into theft. On this installment of the Monk Debates podcast, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the motion, be it resolved, cultural appropriation is part of the American experience. experience. Arguing in favor of the resolution is Monica Harris. She's a TEDx speaker, blogger, and author of the Illusion Division. She's also the executive director of the foundation against intolerance and racism. Arguing against the resolution is Nadra Niddle. She's a reporter for the 19th news and she's also written for Vox.com, the Los Angeles News Group, and many other publications. Her books include Tony Morrison's spiritual vision.

and recognizing microaggressions. Monica, Nadra, welcome to the Monk debates. Thank you. Great to be here. Thanks for having. When is it okay to borrow from another culture? At what point does it become offensive to do so? We will unpack all of this in the debate today. So with that in mind, let's get to our resolution today.

Be it resolved, cultural appropriation is part of the American experience. Monica, you are arguing in favor of the resolution today. I'm going to put two minutes on the clock for you. Let's hear your opening statements. Okay. I would argue that the concept of cultural appropriation is actually misplaced in the context of culture. And that's because, and I'm a lawyer, so I'm sort of thinking of this from a legal perspective, but appropriation is the taking of someone's property without their permission or taking something they own. Land can be appropriated without permission, money, property. But these takings deprive the owner of the use of the thing being taken. This isn't the case with culture. Culture isn't collectively owned by a single

group of people. It would be impossible to obtain permission from an entire group of people to adopt their culture. Let's say, for example, a white teacher wants her students to dress in traditional costumes to celebrate Dia de los Mueros. I mean, whom would she submit her request to? The Mexican government, the leaders of indigenous villages, thousands of them throughout Mexico. And what if some members of the Mexican community are comfortable allowing their heritage or their traditions or customs to be adopted by others? But some people aren't. Who gets to decide?

Appropriation also implies that what's taken without permission deprives the owner of the right to use it. So, again, if you appropriate a car, the owner can't use it. But that's not the case with culture. Unlike land or money or property, culture is intangible, which means, that it can still be used and celebrated by its originator and anyone else simultaneously. But more importantly, in the context of this discussion, I would argue that the concept of cultural appreciation has no place in a uniquely inclusive society like the United States. So unlike Italy, Japan, or Russia or other countries with homogenous populations, America is

an amalgamation of cultures. Our country was built on the identity, culture, and experiences of immigrants. So what we bring from our homelands or develop in our communities, it just contributes to the many threads that make the tapestry of American culture. So I would argue that what's being called cultural appropriation today is really more accurately term cultural appreciation. And cultural appreciation opens minds and reduces polarization that brings us together. That said, I do want to throw out, America does have an ugly history of cultural degradation, which I'm sure we will get to later in this discussion, and that's when we treat other cultures poorly or with disrespect. So in closing, I would just say, I believe America was intended to be a truly inclusive society. Today,

more than ever, we're reminded of the importance of inclusion, but we can't practice that if we aren't allowed to sample from other cultures. We can't, in other words, we can't be inclusive if we erect cultural walls around people instead of bringing them together. Thank you. Thank you, Monica, for that opening statement. Nadra, we're going to to you for your opening statement. You're arguing against our resolution today, be it resolved. Cultural appropriation is part of the American experience. So I agree with Monica when she discusses cultural appropriations definition and part of that definition, being taking, whether it's artifacts, traditional knowledge, intellectual property, et cetera,

without provision. A legal, Monica mentioned that she has a legal background, but a legal scholar came up with this definition of cultural appropriation in a 2005 book called Who Owns Culture? The term goes even back way before then. It was first coined in 1945 by a scholar called Arthur Christie, who was discussing cultural appropriation in terms of, quote unquote, Orientalism, dating back to 1700s. and literature. And so what he was concerned about were stereotypical depictions of China, India, what was then known as Burma and other countries in literature written by white European and white American authors born in the 1700s and 1800s. So this is a discussion, you know, that goes back pretty far. But there is an idea of who you would ask for permission. So, we're talking about music or specific musical style, then we might ask the innovators of that style for permission. And people have done that and they continue to do that. So I don't think it's impossible,

right, to get permission. I think it's been pretty obvious when it comes to different indigenous tribes and other groups who you get permission from. But I do think that in some cases, it, you know, all members of a group may not agree. But I think the problem is that for too long, people haven't gotten credit where credit is due. And that has robbed them of recognition of their creative and intellectual genius, as well as the financial compensation that they deserve. Okay, Nadra, thank you for that opening statement. Monica, now is your turn to offer a rebuttal to anything you heard in Nadra's opening statement. I would just sort of push back on the idea that culture belongs to a group of people and you can get permit, you need permission or can even get permission to use or adopt the culture.

From a historical perspective, for example, it's often unclear how culture was created or who should get credit for its creation. I mean, when we think back to just many thousands of years, all humans originated from the same source. And as we dispersed across the globe, we developed customs and practices that fed off of each other's histories and experiences. So as humans, we are the products of genetic and cultural miscegenation. Can Mexican Americans who have ancestors in Europe partake in cultural practices that were invented by Mayans? Should members of a, I don't know, a tribe in southwest Africa be allowed to sell handcrafted dishes to a neighboring tribe? And what about biracial artists? Can a painter with a black mother and a white father open up a soul food restaurant in Chicago?

And I guess my point is that cultural origination is tricky and messy and it gets hard. It's very difficult to know exactly who to go to for credit in these particular circumstances. Thank you, Monica. Nadra, now is your term for your rebuttal. Is there anything that you want to take issue with from Monica's opening statement or her rebuttal? Yeah, I mean, I continue to disagree with the idea that it's difficult. to know who to give permission from or how to give credit. So there may be examples or there may be cases where you don't go to a specific person or a specific group, but that has happened.

For example, you know, there's a baseball team called the Spokane Indians in Washington. And while we're in an age where mascots have been named after indigenous groups have been criticized, their names have been replaced. in that case, the team ended up working with the Spokane tribe on how to have a name, have a mascot named after their tribe in a way that showed cultural appreciation rather than cultural appropriation. So that would be one way a group asked for permission. Monica also mentioned, you know, Mexican Americans. Well, the Mexican government has in recent years come out and said that cultural appropriation is wrong when it comes to. their indigenous people. So there's, in Oaxaca, there are a lot of indigenous people there and

a French designer, more than one designer, but there's one in particular, who I'm not going to name now, who's been notorious for copying the tribal dress of that tribe, and then selling dresses based on their traditional costumes for hundreds of dollars without including them in the process. So the Mexican government has said that they are going to take legal safeguards and enact other policies to prevent outsiders from coming in and copying the traditional dress of the Wahawkin people without consulting them. The U.S. government has also done that in 1990 when they created a repatriation act that resulted in museums and other institutions. returning artifacts, sacred objects, human remains, et cetera, returning them back to indigenous peoples and saying that museums and other institutions never should have had these artifacts in the first place that they were inappropriate to have.

And as recently as February, actually, the Fowler Museum at UCLA in Los Angeles also just returned various artifacts back to, they were connected to Ghana and other West African countries because they said it was inappropriate for them to have. So I don't think even at the legal level that there's always necessarily misunderstanding about,

hey, if it's okay for someone to have a certain artifact, if it's okay for someone to be using whether there's traditional knowledge, et cetera, without permission. And I'm about to stop, but we've seen not just governments and institutions like museums,

we've seen even, in corporations enact policies to prevent cultural appropriation from happening. So it's very possible and it is being done and it's being done today. Okay, Nadra, thank you for that rebuttal. We are getting to the moderated section of this debate and this is a chance for me to come in and ask questions that are top of mind to our listeners. I just want to pick up on something that Nadra, you just said, which is about museums and returning artifacts to the country or tribe from which they were stolen. You know, this is an ongoing legal issue for a lot of museums. And one might say, well, by taking these artifacts away, we are reducing the ability for people

to learn about other cultures. What would your response be to that? Yeah, I don't think that's necessarily true because there may be some objects that museums, you know, have that are perfectly acceptable for them to have. I think the problem is, like I said, when they have objects that groups have said, these objects belong to us and it's inappropriate for them to be displayed. Things like human remains, you know, religious objects of significance, et cetera. And so I think usually the groups themselves will say when they think it's appropriate or inappropriate for an institution to be displaying those objects. I also think, you know, this goes, you know, in connection to museums as well, that when it comes to say, you know, indigenous artifacts, that there are things that indigenous people have no problem, you know, selling to the general public and other things that they say are off limits. So whether that's artifacts or traditional knowledge that they don't think should be up for public consumption. So I don't think museums, especially something like human remains, I mean, I think it's agreed even, you know, by the U.S. government.

There's no reason that an institution needs to have in most cases why they would need to have human remains and display them. And there's other ways for people to learn about different cultures without going to a museum. Monica, where do you stand on that issue? Well, I'd just like to look back to what Nadra said earlier. I think it's ironic that we are trusting governments like the Mexican government to speak on behalf of indigenous people as to when appropriation occurs or doesn't occur. I also think it's easier. It's much easier to determine origination in these very narrow contexts of the Spokane Indians or artifacts. But what about what about broader uses of culture like?

Dia de los Muirtos. In my example, I gave up a white teacher wants her students to dress up in native or traditional garb to celebrate that Mexican holiday or geisha culture. Who created that? Who's responsible for that? How will we possibly get permission? So that's one issue I, one thing I take issue with because right now, this conversation is being targeted in a very narrow context. Today, when we hear allegations of cultural appropriation, it's largely in the context of customs and practice. not artifacts. So we'll hear, for example, that Bo Derek or Kemp Kardashian wore cornrows, and they made them fashionable and they get credit for creating them. And I think that's problematic, as Nadra mentioned, that whenever culture is borrowed for commercial gain and no credits given to the underlying creator of the culture or the customer practice, I think what's happening is that oftentimes, that's easy when we have a true sense of where these customs and practices originated. But like with respect to cornrows, for example, black people are often, we're often offended when white people wear cornrows, but it's even problematic for us to wear cornrows in the sense

that many of us can't solely claim African heritage. Many of us have white ancestors, which makes us biracial. So to the extent that cornrows, for example, can be traced back to be of uniquely African origin, that it's not only disrespectful for white people to borrow or appropriate cornrows. It's equally disrespectful for black people to borrow or appropriate cornrows because our heritage is also mixed. So I think we get into really tricky and slippery territory when we try to ascribe a group of people with credit for creating a culture. It's really easy when it's the very narrow context of artifacts is not just discussed. It's much more difficult when we're talking about broader culture. And I think we'll probably get into music at some point.

But yeah, I mean, I think that's another wonderful example. I don't know how much longer I can go on. So, well, you mentioned music. So let's go there. So, you know, at the start of this debate in the intro, we talked about Beyonce. And her new album, which is a country album, there was some criticism when it was first announced because country is seen as a, shall we say, a white, more white dominant music genre. And people were criticizing Beyonce from borrowing from that culture when white people often get criticized, on the other hand, for borrowing from R&B or hip-hop. So let me get your reaction to this specific case, which I think will help both the of you and pack kind of the broader issue here. So Nadra, what would your response be to that

controversy? Yeah, so this topic has come up before. It came up actually, I believe it was five years ago or so when Lil Nas X, the rapper came out with Old Town Road, that there were similar conversations that took place. What I would say is, you know, Beyonce is a black woman from Texas and that she has every right to perform and produce country music. And she did get permission, right? She had to legally get permission to cover Dolly Parton's Jolene, for example. This wasn't something that she just took credit for and did on her own. So just in the act of recording an album, she legally had to get permission for some of the music on her album. The other thing I would say, you know, it's interesting that cultural appropriation, that part of the concern about it is that

the people who innovated it are not getting credit. And we know that black people have always played a part in country music. Even instruments like the banjo have origins in the West African country of Gambia. So without black people, whether it's West Africans who created that instrument or enslaved black people who contributed to what we now know is country music, you know, country music wouldn't exist. So I think it's a uniquely American art form and it belongs to basically everyone. I think the other thing with Beyonce that's concerning is that I think that there is some racial animus here. It's not just white people who are concerned that their culture, quote unquote, is being appropriated. Because we have.

have top country stars like Keith Urban, who's Australian, who's not American, and he has not faced a backlash like Beyonce had. So I think it's important that we don't ignore the fact that I think part of the reason people have targeted people like Beyonce and Little Nas X may be because of their race and not just because of true concerns about cultural appropriation. Okay, well, Monica, moving a little bit from Beyonce to another musical icon. And I think you know where I'm going with this, but let's talk about Elvis Presley. So borrowing or cultural appropriation is seen exploitative because according to its critics, it robs oppressed groups of the credit and sometimes financial compensation that they deserve. So many people say that the pioneers are, of rock music died without any financial compensation while white musicians like Elvis earned millions and lived on in rock infamy. So where do you stand on Elvis and that whole narrative? Oh, God. My father was a huge Elvis fan, I've got to say. Okay, so let me just say it's unfortunate

and it's also wrong when people adopt other cultures or perhaps. and benefit from them more than those who created them. I totally agree with that. And yes, Elvis does come to mind when Little Richard and Bee-B King were singing rhythm and blues, no one paid attention, white boy comes along, plays the same tunes and suddenly it's, or gives him a little twist, and suddenly it's cool. He becomes more famous and builds the empire, like you said. So that's not fair. But I think we have to understand that racism defined at that time who became a cultural icon and who didn't. In other words, racism and inequality should, shaped the ways in which people saw each other and their culture and their music.

But I would say that that was a different time. And I think we'd all agree that if Little Richard or Beebe King came along today and white audiences were introduced to their music, they wouldn't be shunned or ignored in favor of a white person who adopted their music. Just to give you an example. So when the Sugar Hill gang broke the first rap song in what, the late 80s or early, I can't remember now. and they created an entire genre of rap that made black musicians multimillionaires when they were introduced to white audiences. These musicians weren't eclipsed when Vanilla Ice and Eminem emulated them. And if anything, Vanilla Ice and Eminem allowed rap to cross over to an even larger audience and made the genre of rap more appealing and more profitable for the black artists who originated the genre.

So I guess this is my way of saying this, sometimes the best way and sometimes the only way to open minds and expose people to art, tradition, and customs that they would otherwise be ignorant or even fearful of, is to allow people with crossover appeal to bridge that gap. And once that gap is bridged, everyone on both sides benefits and our society and collective culture is richer as a result. Interesting. That's a very interesting point. And actually, something that I wanted to bring up with Nadra, because, you know, I'm Jewish, and when I hear about, let's say, a Jewish studies professor in a university who's not Jewish or someone is playing a Jewish character in a film that's not Jewish, I actually see that as a good thing because it means that someone's learning about my culture and is making it available to a wider audience. And that's a way for us to bridge the gap between culture,

and maybe, you know, potentially decrease anti-Semitism or prejudices or ignorance. So what is your kind of response to that? Would you agree with Monica that there is something positive that can come from people popularizing or building bridges between cultures? Well, I would say that the remnants of... of what happened to the pioneers of rock and roll in the 1950s, you know, still exist today, where we see black people innovating,

whether it's musical styles or other art forms, and they're not compensated as much as their white counterparts who go mainstream, right, and are rewarded handsomely for it. One case I can look at is TikTok. So in 2021, black creators on TikTok went on strike because they were tired of non-black people on TikTok taking, you know, their styles, their dance styles. So whether it was like majorette dancing, which is practice at historically black colleges and other forms of choreography that they had innovated, copying them and not crediting the black creatives. for it. So this happened in 2021, and it did have real-life implications in the sense that on TikTok

and other forms of social media, if you amass a following and you are perceived as the person who has innovated something on there, that you may, that may lead to marketing deals and other deals where you are compensated. And there was a study that came out showing that there was a gap of around 30% between what black creators on TikTok get and their white counterpart. So that was the reason why there was a strike. But this still comes on today. And well after the 1950s in terms of music, it really set a pattern what happened in the 1950s in terms of giving black people really either poor record deals or putting literally there

were albums done by black people like Miles Davis, for example. and they put white people on the cover, it led to this idea that if white people can do something that black people are doing, that not only is that a way for them to go mainstream and to get more money, that is the preferred way of basically introducing this to the public. And so that hasn't entirely gone away.

And so I think part of the discussion with cultural appropriation is we have to look at we have to look at how people are compensated and the fact that there are wealth disparities that continue to exist today. Monica, do you want to respond to that? Yeah, I would say that, to be clear, I don't believe that anyone, I'm not saying that people who adopt or borrow intellectual property of any sort, including cultures, should not be compensated or given credit.

I absolutely do. And I acknowledge that decades ago, black artists were not properly compensated or credited. I think that I would push back and say that that's really not the norm now. I think that most often black artists are really well represented because black cultures become like really profitable in American culture. So I think the situation that Nadra's talking about with Miles Davis and other artists, black artists in the 50s who were clearly treated very poorly, that's really not very common today. I think what's the appropriation that really is at issue.

here is not about people of color not being or indigenous people not being properly compensated for their culture being borrowed, but whether their culture is allowed to be borrowed to begin with. And I would go back to, just look back to Beyonce. In my opinion, it wasn't so much Beyonce's adoption of country music that raised the spectrum of cultural appreciation. A lot of people were outraged by her album cover. And that's what I tweeted about, that she had long, straight, blonde hair and white people are like, wait a minute, black people always claim that we're appropriating their culture and here they are appropriating our culture. So black cowboys have a long and rich history in America, like Nadra says. But black women do not naturally have long straight blonde hair.

So in that respect, she is sampling something from white culture. And while people will say that white culture isn't about having white hair, culture is invariably linked to identity. And identity is linked to physical characteristics. So arguments against cultural appropriation fundamentally rest on a belief that culture is entwined with identity. So that's why menstruals and performers like Al Jolson, when they don blackface, their performance was seen as cultural appropriation, not because black skin is synonymous with black culture, but because black skin represents black identity. And I would argue that that's not even cultural appropriation, because Jolson didn't want to become black or walk around black all the time. It was cultural degradation.

not, you know, he was literally belittling and mocking black identity. So that's the issue now whether people of other colors, particularly white people, have the right to adopt black ways of moving through the world, whether it's hairstyles or or clothes or things like that or, you know. So, and I believe that anyone of any culture should have every right to borrow from a culture, whether it's a blonde wig or whether it's wrap. music or whether it's a white boy wants to wear dreads or, you know, we should all have that freedom to sample and borrow. Not without giving credit, of course. Credit should always be given to the extent that there is a single originator who can be identified and credited. But when the originator is more amorphous, it's not necessary, in my opinion. But again, I just want to highlight that culture does not belong in the vast majority of instances.

to any single group. Okay, so Monica, just to kind of reiterate what you said is essentially that you are supportive of cultural, what you would call appreciation, not cultural degradation, which is the mocking of a culture. Correct. Now, I think that one of the concerns people had about the backlash to the Beyonce album and the cover of her with her blonde wig was the idea that cultural appropriation really is about the theft of culture from oppressed groups and that the, let's say,

majority group, so in this case, the, you know, white group cannot claim that their culture has been appropriated. So what is your response to that? All right. So this is, this argument always confuses me because on one hand, we're told that white culture, the culture of power, is being forced historically underrepresented people. We saw this four years ago at the National Museum of African American history and culture. They had a display in 2020 called, talking about race, and it described aspects and assumptions about white culture. And it laid out these 14 categories of white dominant culture or whiteness, like history or religion, the nuclear family, even traits like hard work, self-reliance, respect for authority. Those are all like symbols of white oppressive culture,

along with women's beauty, blonde, thin, straight hair, ironically what Beyonce was modeling, white power. But all of these traits that museum identified were like signs of an oppressive culture. So what's confusing is on one hand we see this resentment of white culture that's being pushed on us on underrepresented groups. But on the other hand, we're told that white people can't adopt or sample from other cultures when they try to learn from these underrepresented groups. So it strikes me as an internal inconsistency because you simply can't have it both ways. And ultimately, this power imbalance argument fails because what it means is that white people are damned if they do and damned if they don't. So what are they to do?

Nadra, do you have anything you want to add to that before I go to my last question? I think we do have to talk about power dynamics in the sense that cultural appropriation, you know, has been linked and is situated in conversations about, colonialism, racism, capitalism. It doesn't happen in a vacuum. And so when we were talking about museums and artifacts earlier, you know, that's directly tied to colonialism. And I think that's the reason why the people who have popularized this concept, who were white, by the way, who first came up with this term or popularized the term, you know, is because of that history. So we can't ignore a power imbalance. When it comes to Beyonce, Beyonce,

Beyonce has been criticized by black people by having straight blonde hair by feminists. Like the late bell hooks, for example, it has, you know, before her death was known to be a vocal critic of Beyonce and even other, you know, black people who have worn blonde hair or straight in their hair. So I do think this is something even black people have a problem with. I don't view it as cultural appropriation because, you know, no one is going to somehow think that Beyonce created blonde hair, that she is all of a sudden popularizing blonde hair that's just not going to happen. And I think the other reason I disagree with it is because of acculturation, which is connected to cultural appropriation in a sense that, you know, black, indigenous and other marginalized groups in the U.S. have had to acculturate, have had to assess.

and that, you know, before many black women will say, when they show up for a job interview, they make sure their hair is straight. And so that having straight blonde hair is a way, you know, that some people think they can more easily fit in. And so we have to look at that history and the fact that right now we still have black students, indigenous students being told that they can't wear their hair, that they will be suspended if they show up to school with their hair, a certain length or a certain hairstyle. That's going on today. And so I think that's one of the reasons why black people may be concerned if a white person adopts, you know, an Afrocentric hairstyle and not really understand without really understanding, you know, the history of this

hairstyle or the struggles that black people have to endure to wear their hair as it grows naturally out of their head because in some places, even having your hair in an afro has been banned. So I don't see these two. I don't see Beyonce wearing a blonde wig as cultural appropriation, but I do see it as problematic. Okay. Well, you mentioned something that I've wanted to bring up the whole debate because I think it kind of encapsulates what we're talking about. And I will end with this final question, which is about the melting pot versus the mosaic. So many people who are critical of cultural appropriation would say that the American, the long American held value of being a melting pot is in of itself a backwards way of thinking, that it encourages people

to shed their culture, their ethnic identity in order to mold to mold themselves to the larger population, the majority population. So, Nadra, where do you stand on this debate between the melting pot versus the mosaic? Yeah, I mean, I've heard that the, you know, the melting pot is problematic in the sense that we do have, in some ways, we do have distinct cultures and they should be recognized. So I don't know if I think there's any good analogy or metaphor to describe, you know, the mix of people in the U.S. because in some ways I do agree with Monica, there has been a blending of different cultures, right? But in other ways, there are still things that, you know, may be pretty distinct that you can say this is this came out of African American culture this came out of

Mexican American culture in some places you know we can get even more distinct like this is text mex culture I don't know if there's a good way to you know describe the melting pot versus the mosaic but I definitely understand why people think the melting pot isn't the best way to describe things because there's this kind of blunting or blurring of cultures and also there's a suggestion that people don't want to be recognized for having distinct cultures or having a distinct identity. And many people are proud of their cultural heritage and don't want to just be lumped in with everyone else. So those are my thoughts on that. And Monica, can I have your thoughts on the mosaic versus multiculturalism debate?

Yeah, I'm not even sure I've often struggled with this. I'm not even sure I understand the melting pot versus the mosaic. I assume my best guess is that a melting pot implies that we sort of lose our distinct culture, whereas a mosaic implies we retain our culture and little pods separated from each other. I'm not sure. That's correct. That is the general assumption, yes. That is okay.

My feeling is, I don't think being an American we're asking anyone to shed their identity. So I guess I lean more towards the mosaic concept. What we're asking people to do is honor what we're expecting, I think, all Americans to do is honor their culture while celebrating the common values and the common culture that make the American tapestry. All of these different cultures, these mosaics, you know, when we pull back, we get the bigger picture. That's when we see America. And, you know, I'll just take something as simple as food. Hamburger and pizza might have origins in Germany in Italy, but that doesn't mean Americans can't adopt them and enjoy what their ancestors brought here. And right now, even though the hamburger was a part of, was originated in

Germany, you know, McDonald's is now like one of the most American things you can imagine. That becomes part of this mosaic. Language, for example, I think that Mexican immigrants come here. They speak Spanish, but does that mean that their language should only exist in a little pod as a reflection of their culture? I think that it's helpful when it's not even just helpful. It benefits all of us when we don't shed our culture, and we're not being asked to shed our culture, when we retain our culture like Mexican immigrants retain Spanish. And they actually, offer that language to other people when white children or Asian children are encouraged to learn Spanish. It doesn't deprive Mexican Americans of their culture or identity. It doesn't, it's not a

sign of colonialism when a white child is taught how to speak Spanish. It's really honoring that unique portion of the, of the mosaic and bringing it into the larger picture and this, larger tapestry. Yeah, so I would argue that I guess I lean a little, I definitely lean now that I'm thinking about it towards the mosaic. And I think that that represents what America is and what we should be. Hi, Rudyard Griffiths here, the executive director of the monk debates. Well, if you're enjoying the kind of civil and substantive conversations that we have at the debates, where we're really trying to get at the big issues and ideas that are driving the public conversation, I want to urge you.

to check out the hub. The hub is Canada's fastest growing digital and news outlet. And like the monk debates, it's focused on those important conversations and bringing them to you in ways that are enlightening, enriching, and again, focused on civility above all. You can check out the hub right now at triple w the hub.ca or open your favorite podcast app and type in The Hub Canada. you'll go to the Hub's channel and see all kinds of great interviews, roundtables, discussions with thought leaders from around the world. So, Monk Debate Community, check out the hub.

We think you'll like what you see, listen, read, and hear. Do that right now at triple-w the hub.ca. Now let's get back to our Monk Debates program. We're almost out of time, so we're going to go to closing statements, and we're going to do it in the reverse order this time. So as a reminder to our listeners, our debate today is be it resolved. Cultural appropriation is part of the American experience. Nadra, you are arguing against the resolution today. Let's hear your short closing statement.

Yeah, I just want to make it clear that concerns about cultural appropriation are not so much about an individual person appropriating a hairstyle, for example. or some sort of fashion trend. I think really we have to look at cultural appropriation in connection to capitalism, racism, colonialism. We have to look at the ways, you know, entire industries, institutions, corporations have borrowed from oppressed peoples without permission. I think we also need to get rid of this idea

that when we are talking about individuals or more narrow examples, that it just quote unquote woke people, you know, targeting a well-meaning person who may be appropriated something and made a misstep. I don't think that that is the major concern here. I think we have some serious examples of misappropriation of, say, you know, Black Lives Matter. That slogan being used by a group of activists who were concerned about the way that black people are oppressed by police in the legal system. And then we have right-wing people turning that into Blue Lives Matter. Just recently, at a Trump rally, we had a right-wing group unfurl of flag that said white boy summer, something that they misappropriated from Megan the

stallion, who came up with Hot Girl Summer. So we have clear examples of people with nefarious intentions appropriating terms from marginalized groups. And I think we need to focus on that and not so much focus on, you know, individual celebrities or entertainers or just a random person walking down the street in a hairstyle, that this is much bigger than that. And I will also just end with one more example, too. Florida governor Ron DeSantis came up with the Stopwoke Act. which he was appropriating the term woke from black Americans to come up with the legislation that would prevent schools and companies from focusing on things like diversity, equity, and inclusion. So again, we have not just historic examples of people borrowing artifacts. We have present day examples of people really using, you know, terminology and other concepts from groups of color and using them in the service of oppression. Okay, thank you, Nadra, for that closing statement. Monica, we're going to have you give the last

word in today's debate. You're arguing in favor of our resolution, be it resolved. Cultural appropriation is part of the American experience. Well, not to defend Governor DeSantis, but I don't think a law called stop-wokism is meant to in any way intended to appropriate the word woke, just as, you know, stop racism wouldn't be intended to appropriate the word racism. He's using the word to identify something he's trying to stop, not to adopt it for use in regular practice. But I would say at the heart, it seems to me the concerns about cultural appropriation are really changing what it means to challenge racism.

These concerns about colonialism and how cultural appropriation enables colonialism. Once upon a time, we challenged racism by demanding equal treatment for all, by demanding that we don't see each other differently. Now, it seems like we're fighting racism and challenging colonialism by requiring cultures and experiences to be walled off and boundaries to be policed. But from my perspective,

creating these gated cultures doesn't promote social justice. It doesn't promote equity. It doesn't promote tolerance. I mean, 70 years ago, racist radio stations, white radio stations, refused to play black music for a white audience. Today, we have these anti-racist activists insisting that white painters can't paint black subjects. It makes no sense.

We're really moving backwards instead of forwards with this cultural gatekeeping. So I believe the way forward to a more inclusive society, the one that we all talk about, every day, the one we really want, the way forward that truly honors the assimilation this country was built on and the integration that it was built on is not to gatekeep culture. but rather to open the gates as wide as possible. And, you know, I'll go back to Martin Luther King. He taught us that the key to overcoming hatred and fear is human connection and exposure. Separation of any sort breeds fear and hatred and intolerance. When people are exposed to people of different races and cultures and lifestyles, they're more likely to become tolerant, and that's what we want.

So cultural appreciation, not cultural separation, which is what cultural appropriation propagates. Cultural appreciation is the key to achieving equal rights, equal respect, and an understanding of universal values. Thank you, Monica, for that closing statement. And thank you both for engaging in a very current, a very heated debate. Really appreciate you both spending some time with us today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Well, that wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, Monica and Nadra. you've given us a lot to think about. A reminder that if you are a free member of the Monk Debates, you can vote on who you think won today's debate on our website, www.w.w.munkdebates.com. And if you have any feedback or reflections on what you've just heard,

please send us an email at podcast at monkdebates.com. Thank you for helping us bring back the art of public debate and dialogue, one conversation at a time. I'm Ricky Gerwitz. The Monk debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating.

Thank you again for listening.