Cultural
appropriation is "the
adoption or use of the elements of one culture by members of another culture" but some call it "cultural misappropriation"
and see it as "a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating culture" (Wikipedia).
Those who see it that way
are now in power, moral power, enough to get defenders of appropriation in
Canada fired from their jobs as editors (Malik, NYT 6-15-17).
They have the kind of
power liberals generally claim, and generally have had, and generally have not
noticed how it's been leaking away as they extend their domain. That they are now overextended is
clear, at least to me, in the beating they have been taking on the frontiers of
political correctness. Kenan Malik (an Indian now writing in Britain)
administers one of them on yesterday's NYT Op-Ed page, where, as a defender of
civilization, he puts up a formidable defense of appropriation. I think that until those who call it
"misappropriation" can distinguish what they're complaining about
from what advances civilization they are going to take beatings like this.
Malik and the others
don't need my help, and just quoting those who say you shouldn't paint a
picture of a murdered black unless you're black may be enough, but they may
appreciate Thomas Jefferson's help.
Here's something I found once while looking through arguments against
broad readings of patent and copyright laws. The arguments, mostly by judges, show great reluctance to
interfere with the general expansion of anything found good — new ways of
painting, or singing, or dancing, but especially new ways of thinking. Claims of intellectual property rights
had to be adjudicated within the strict limits of harm to the general good,
which cultural advancement was taken to be.
Here's Jefferson , in
a letter (those were the days) to Isaac McPherson
on August 13, 1813:
If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all
others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of
every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar
character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other
possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives
instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives
light without darkening me.
