Today I have been reading about cultural appropriation. It started out with reading ::this post:: at This Is Corp Goth, about how mainstream fashion appropriates outward signifiers of Goth sub-culture, stripping it of the meaning it has to market it to masses, especially to those who are looking to be "edgy" and distinguish themselves slightly from the mainstream in pursuit of a bought "individuality", not because it reflects their inner aesthetic preferences (if they have developed a core set of aesthetic preferences), but because it is the current trendy way of seeming interesting; they want to be seen as "different" and "interesting" and "individual", but dare not do anything that endangers them to being thought of as "freaky" and "weird" or "not normal", distancing themselves from the originating subculture and the roots of what they have adopted.
This is an issue that has been much talked about in the Goth community, but there is another issue that is not talked about, or at least that I have not seen talked about: do members of the Goth community appropriate things from other subcultures, cultures and traditions, and are our inspirations being used in a way that is cultural and subcultural hybridisation, or in a way that is simply adopting something because it looks nice or is popular amongst other goths, without thinking of the origins of these things.
I routinely see things aimed at Goths that are marketed as "Celtic", "Gypsy" and "Japanese" which are either based off stereotypes or have nothing to do with those people, or even worse are based off hugely erroneous romanticisations of those people with vast historical and anthropological inaccuracies. There is, for example, a difference between the interlace animal designs of the Vikings and Pictish crescent designs and ancient Bronze Age spiral designs, and the interlace designs of Irish monasteries, but all get marketed as 'Celtic knotwork', despite not all of them actually including knots, or being from a group called 'Celts'. This is taking a broad an inaccurate view of what the word 'Celtic' means, and ignoring a lot of history to market something to people who have only a vague knowledge of the term. Often this is pandering to those seeking something exotic, and conflating something being exotic with it somehow being better with what is usual simply because it is different.
It is not wrong to appreciate the artistic styles of another race or nationality or culture, but to genuinely appreciate something you have to understand that more than just words and obvious symbols are signifiers of meaning, and that some things that we think are merely art or decoration have long and deep traditions as something deeply personal and meaningful to many people in their originating culture, and to them it as vexing to see us appropriate those signifiers and unintentionally strip them of meaning as it is for us to see non-Goth people wear obviously Goth-inspired fashion and then denigrate Goth and Goths.
That said, I do not think it is wrong to wear or have or make things inspired by other cultures and traditions, as long as the inspiring items/traditions are understood, and as long as it is not too direct a copy, more a new creation with artistic ties, because one is not directly copying a symbol or item, but appreciating the aesthetics and then combining them with whatever else lurks in the designers brain and producing something new and appreciative and therefore not taking a specific symbol or item and re-using it stripped of its meaning. A lot of it comes down to understanding what a specific symbol or item means, and the context in which it is used in its originating culture, something that can easily be learnt with a bit of research, and avoiding using that symbol or item in a way that would be disrespectful to that culture, and if you do wish to use something outside of its proper context, changing it enough so it is clear that you mean no accidental insult or sacrilege, and are merely being aesthetically inspired.
For example, walking down the street wearing a feather in a band in the same way a Native North American people would do in the context of a feather earned by a warrior would be a bit like walking down the street wearing a medal that would normally be earned by a soldier when you haven't earned it yourself, compounded by being from the people who fought against those who would have earned it, but wearing a different type of feather in a different way altogether would just show an appreciation for that feather.
It is also important to remember that just because something happened a long time ago, it does not mean that the event or culture is no longer relevant to people today. A lot of people are very proud of their ancestors, and very connected to their roots, and historical events that caused harm to large swathes of certain cultures have not been forgotten or relegated to the history books, so be careful when using symbols from times past. A red ribbon around someone's neck meant something specific in the French Revolution, and there are definitely people around who still know what that means, and whose ancestors did end up killed on the guillotine. Even more pressing, there are cultures who still feel the repercussions of historic events, and if you happen to come from the culture they feel has injured them, wearing their symbols could be seen as a grave insult.
I think this is an important issue for us to bear in mind as creative people and people interested in fashion, especially as people whose tastes are likely to be more eclectic and to draw on things outside of western culture, or from different historical periods. It is basically a case of being aware of what symbols and items mean before using them, and of doing the research. We are a magpie people, who spot something and want it, but sometimes we have to acknowledge that, no, we can't have that exact thing, and then use it as an opportunity to be creative and create our own thing, which will mean so much more as something made by oneself.
