Pants-of-dog wrote:Actually, defrauding the customer with a lie like this is cultural appropriation when the lie is that the art or craft is made by and in a specific culture when it is not.
Defrauding the customer is wrong in all contexts, you don't need a special scenario for when brown and black people are involved.
A company advertising that their shoes are made by aborigines by hand with the finest deer hide when they are actually made with cow leather in china is not much different than me telling my patients that I graduated 1st of Harvard school of medicine or that vitamin D will cure their cancer.
Lying is bad, misrepresenting your products is bad. This is completely independent of claiming some sort of bizarre cultural appropriation BS.
And again, we do think this is a Bad Thing in modern law, which is why the term “champagne” is legally reserved for the sparkling wine of a particular region. If Indigenous groups had the same power as the French government, there would be similar laws all over the world.
Oh please. This is branding. Now, my particular views is that this should not exist.
Do you have sibblings? How often were you able to use the excuse "because my brother/slash sister did it too" to get away for doing something your parents didn't want you to use.
Furthermore, you think a company making mocassins is cultural appropriation because france is protecting their sparking wines under the name champagne? Are you suggesting that the US/Canada should put together a law saying that the word mocassin can only be used for products produced within native American reservations and created by native american people?
Indigenous communities are already marginalised and disproportionately dealing with poverty and lack of access to resources. Laws like the US law protect these communities from further economic loss.
So your plan is to throw them a bone, we stole your country, so in return, we will give you exclusive use of the word "moccasin" so you can make shiton of money-making shoes. Seriously I don't think that plan stands a chance of working.
On a more serious nature. Ideally, the continent would not have been stripped from their native people like it was, unfortunately, history is history and we cannot go back in time and we have to play with the cards we are being delt. I am not opposed to allocating a large portion (state-sized) land area, with natural resources, freshwater resources, coastal access and "gift it back" (and I know, it sounds ugly) to their original owners and have them decide if they wish to make an independent nation, if they wish to make a new state and join the federation, or if they wish to sell the land to chinese investors and use the money to retire to Monaco. This is however unrealistic.
Again. I still don't understand what exactly constitutes "cultural appropriation" to your views.