The initial read that Sam assigned was very interesting. It almost felt as if I had to read up an English assignment for high school because we had to read two sides of the argument. However, after reading both pieces, the lines that define cultural appropriation blurred. Both articles defined the term as using a part of another’s culture without benefitting them. There were several examples used in the articles such as a painting of the poor Emmett Till, Elvis Presley’s success at the cost of African Americans, and a sculptured attributed to the hangings of several Native Americans. It’s true. All of those examples depicted horrendous events/times in history where a minority has been taken advantage of. I think these were more serious forms of cultural appropriation than the chandelier hair clip that ASOS decided to sell a while back. I think the problem that comes along with cultural appropriation is that the cultures that are borrowing from others fail to credit them. If it was just the idea of borrowing and recognizing, then we wouldn’t have had such a problem. However, people “steal” ideas or forms from other cultures and try to relabel them as something new. Just the acknowledgement is enough to make people happy. Sometimes if it is about a heritage, things get more complicated. Cultures are mixable and the lines aren’t very defined because it depends where you grow up and are raised. Heritage, however, is solely yours. People may sympathize or try to to understand but, they may not completely do so. In these cases, although a person’s intentions may be pure, the reception is critical. Permission is needed and the best actions should be taken to comfort the people you have offended. If culture is understood and one has a passion to ask the questions to explore that culture, then I think cultural appropriation may not be in the form that it is in today. I’m just questioning how we’ll define the term once we become a truly global society.