How False Accusations of "Cultural Appropriation" Hurt Neopaganism

I believe in equality between everybody and everybody and respect all cultures.  I'm opposed to prejudice and can understand how minority cultures would feel outraged by disrespectful or demeaning depictions of their cultures.

However, recently, I'm concerned about the frequency and ease with which my fellow Neopagans make what seems to me spurious and unnecessarily caustic accusations of "cultural appropriation".  I've recently heard of Feri initiates being worried that working with their central God, Malek Taus, might constitute "cultural appropriation" from the Yezidi.  I've heard that worshiping Greek Gods in Hindu ways or Hindu Gods in Neopagan ways might also be "cultural appropriation".  Recently, a fellow Mesopotamian Semi-Reconstructionist suggested that worshiping ancient Sumerian Deities, which is the entire point of our temple, might constitute "cultural appropriation" at the expense of long dead Sumerians.

I think it's great that Neopagan members of the ethnic majority are so mindful of avoiding offending other cultures and that ethnic minorities are so strong in defending their group against racism.  The problem is that true multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism, which are respectful of all cultures, are good, liberal ways of acting and I'm worried that, in trying to be liberal, the bandwagon of "cultural appropriation" in the Neopagan community is actually leading us toward conservatism and, ultimately, toward ruin.

I can definitely see how, say, Native Americans would be outraged by baseball teams with names like "Redskins".  I could see how some could view this as "cultural appropriation".  No multi-culturalism is gained by the team name.  The name does nothing to further respect for Native Americans.  In fact, it debases them.

Worse, having a baseball team named "Redskins" is sort of like having a sports team named "Kikes" or "Niggers".  However, we can see that it's racist without having to bring in the accusation of "cultural appropriation".

The baseball team "The Braves" seems trickier, at first glance.  It sounds respectful, since it may seem to respect Native American warriors.  However, the reason why I think it's racist to Native Americans is because it's a use of an element of their culture (and a rather idealized one to boot) that has little to do with real Native American culture.  The pseudo-Native American chop and chanting that its fans do is equally problematic.  The real problem is that it's a caricature and, as such, seeks actually to make fun of Native Americans rather than to respect them.  So, rather than being respectful multiculturalism, it's disrespectful.  I think it's adequate to just say this, however, rather than to bring the concept of "cultural appropriation" into the debate.

I can also see how Native Americans would be upset over, say, new-agey self-appointed spiritual leaders who claim that some spiritual practices that they teach are Native American when they're not.  Certainly, if I were to become involved with Native American spirituality I'd want something authentic.  The problem there, though, is fraud.  Again, I think fraud is a better accusation to make against such people than "cultural appropriation".


When it comes to Neopaganism, I find that my fellow Neopagans have, ironically, turned this branding into a sort of PC witch hunt.  PCism is something that I've always been uncomfortable with in the first place.  While I support most of its goals, it's conservative means to liberal ends.  That is, PCism sacrifices critical thought and open debate (both critical aspects of liberalism) in order to make gains on minority issues.  While fighting racism is an important part of liberalism, PCism is a form of social policing and harassment at worst and a petty way to score free points in liberal culture without doing much thinking about the issues at best.

Worse, though, the accusations of "cultural appropriation" within the Neopagan community are witches hunting witches and we'll all be the victims if it continues to escalate.  Every concept in Neopaganism that I can think of (and, as I'll explain, every religious and spiritual concept I can think of) can be attacked under the "cultural appropriation" frame.  Worse, as I'll explain, I see this attack as actually undermining much of our relationships with other, non-Judeo-Christian cultures, such as Hindu, African Diasporic and Native American cultures.  These relationships are not only critical alliances in our political movement toward assuring that freedom of religion applies to all religions, not just Judeo-Christian ones.  A cosmopolitan attitude toward these other non-Judeo-Christian groups comes from an important part of our ethos and worldview as Neopagans: that all of the Old Gods and Old Spirits of the Earth in all cultures should be revered and all the Ancient Ways, around the world, preserved.  The anti "cultural appropriation" attack on Neopaganism is also an attack on these efforts, if an unwitting one.

Any Neopagan or New Ager who uses chakras or practices any form of yoga could be branded as "culturually appropriating" something Hindu.  The famous Seven Goddess chant that Deena Metzger authored that has becomes so popular in the Goddess movement ("Isis, Astarte, Diana, Hecate, Demeter, Kali, Inanna") and it's God complement by an unknown author ("Neptune, Osiris, Myrddin, Manannan, Helios, Shiva, Horned One") both have Hindu Deity names in them.  Should we brand this as "cultural appropriation"?  (By the way, if anybody knows who did author the God chant, I'd like to know so I can give attribution.)

If we do make this charge, it would only be fair to accuse Hindus of the same.  Hindus got the vadra symbol from the Ancient Greeks (it was originally a symbol of Zeus's lightning bolt).  Many Hindus revere Jesus as an incarnation of Vishnu and place crosses on Vishnu altars to represent this.  Should we accuse them of "cultural appropriation" on these grounds?

Currently, there's a debate in the Asatru/Heathen community between the folkish Asatru who believe that only descendents of actual Germanic peoples should practice Asatru and the non-folkish ones who believe that no one owns the Gods and that anyone who wants to be a part of the religion can be.

This bandwagon of "cultural appropriation" accusations plays right into the hands of the folkish Asatru, who could use it to claim that non-folkish Asatru are guilty of "cultural appropriation".  Then again, some scholars have surmised that Norse myths such as Odin on the World Tree, Ragnarok, the misdeeds of Loki, and the resurrection of Baldur were all simply instances of Christian mythology repainted as Norse.  So, if the folkish Asatru complain of "cultural appropriation", the rest of us might demand that they cease and desist from engagement with any of these tropes.

The same charge could be raised against Wiccans who worship the Celtic Deities by people of Celtic descent, or against Wiccans who worship Hecate by people of Italian, Greek or Anatolian descent.  It could be raised against Roman Reconstructionists by Greeks and Anatolians, on the grounds that Hecate was Greek and Anatolian before She and that the ancient Romans "culturally appropriated" Her.  It could be charged by Anatolians, who could accuse the Greeks of the same thing. 

Of course, those who subscribe to the idea that Hecate was originally Egyptian or that She was always Greek could make the same charge against Anatolians.

What about the recent charge against Feri as to the "cultural appropriation" of Malek Taus, I mentioned earlier?  There are so many obvious answers why it's not "cultural appropriation" that it makes me sick that we've come so far that we actually think that might be the case.   Malek Taus has been a critical part of Feri at least since Victor Anderson, and the origins myth of the Feri religion say that Feri goes back thousands of years.  Regardless of the historical validity of this claim or lack thereof, the myth, which Victor taught sincerely, is a part of the Feri religion.  By Victor's understanding of Feri history, both Feri and Yezidi religion come from a common source. 

As for historical accuracy and religion, I doubt any religion has much historical accuracy.  Modern historians doubt the authenticity of any of the Gospels, for example, as being written by the apostles and many doubt that the apostles or even Jesus ever existed.  Some even doubt the existence of the historical Buddha.  I'd guess that every religion must navigate between historical accuracy and spiritual validity and would say that spiritual validity is more important to the practitioners of any religion.

As for Feri, much of Feri would fall apart if people tried to take out anything that they thought constituted "cultural appropriation".  (Unless, of course, we accept Victor's conviction that it's actually thousands of years old.)

What's more, as much as many of us Neopagans may dislike Christianity, personally, Jews could accuse all of Christendom of cultural appropriation.  They could make the same accusation against Muslims.

However, I would say that the Gods cannot be owned!  People of Germanic descent don't own Freya or Thor.  People of Greek descent don't own Zeus or Hermes.  People of Celtic descent don't own Manannon Mac Lir.

What about the Indian computer industry?  Since computers were invented in the West, we could accuse the citizens of Bangalore of "cultural appropriation" of the computer industry.  Americans could accuse all other countries that have light bulbs as "culturally appropriating" an American invention.

One problem with all of this is that cultures have gotten ideas from other cultures since the beginning of time.  It would be impossible to unravel who got what from where.  Moreover, because just about every culture in the world got ideas from other cultures at some point, all cultures are, to some extent, multicultural.

And that brings me to my real point.  The entire concept of "cultural appropriation" may seem to be a liberal concept.  It seems like it's helping to combat things like racism.  However, it's actually conservative.  It goes directly against the liberal ideas of cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism.

It can very easily be used to serve the causes of nationalism.  The Nazis could have justified their racism against Jews and Gypsies on the grounds that both groups were "culturally appropriating" German culture.

As it's being used in America, it would suggest that all white people be only white!  Do we really want white people to, say, stop listening to rock and jazz?  Do we really want white people in America to limit their musical experience and expression to classical and country?  Should we denigrate the Nineteenth Century American folk song "Clementine" on the basis that it has a Spanish tune?

Do we really want white people to distance themselves from Native American religiosity so far that they no longer have any respect for it?  Do we really want white people to do the same for Black culture?  Jewish culture?  Latino culture?  Asian culture?

Mono-culturalism and cultural homogeneity are fundamentally conservative.  They suggest that all of us should hold fast to rigidly defined definitions of whatever culture we come from.  They suggest that we limit ourselves and our experiences to the culture that bore us rather rather than being free individuals.  They suggest that we understand ourselves only as rank-and-file members of a cultural automaton, rather than as cosmopolitan, human individuals.  This is exactly what the "cultural appropriation" frame reinforces.

If we're going to be liberal, let's be truly liberal.  I suggest that we re-frame the entire issue in terms of what I call respectful multiculturalism.  Multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism are good things.  If we want to combat racism, they are one of the best tools to do it.  By exposing ourselves to other cultures in a respectful way, we learn to appreciate those cultures.  Incorporating them into our lives with love and respect sends a message to our selves and to society around us that we are individuals.  Rather than allowing our own culture to define us, we define ourselves through a cosmopolitan appreciation of all humanity.

By the same token, we should celebrate individuals from other cultures doing the same thing to Western culture.  Again, respect would be paramount, and we'd have every right to demand the same respect from them that we liberal, cosmopolitan individuals in the West extend to them.  Or, if a non-Western person is reading this, I, for one, would expect you to be respectful of your partaking in and celebrating of Western culture, but would encourage you to engage with it in whatever respectful way you choose to.  After all, perhaps the greatest classical cello player in the world, Yo-Yo Ma, is Chinese.

Every real issue of racism that I can think of that has been branded as "cultural appropriation" would be more accurately described as disrespectful.

As for religion, no one owns Divinity.  To put this in a Neopagan context, none of us own the Deities.  Religion is the engagement with the Divine and the Sacred.  By definition, what is Divine and Sacred shines out to all of humanity.  It is a fundamentally humanitarian act for we humans to revere what we truly understand to be Divine and Sacred, regardless of what culture we were born into or where we find inspiration.