Recently, I was added to and promptly removed from a Facebook group called “Jews for Decolonization — a brainstorming collective." I do not know why I was added. Though I am not a fan of colonization, social media groups dedicated to fighting it often represent a broader, and more radical perspective than my own. In spite of this, I stayed in the group out of curiosity. I wanted to see what this group talked about and how it talked about it. I did not get much of a chance.

Soon after I joined, a group members posted something I felt compelled to respond to. In honor of Israel's independence day, Reebok was producing a customized Israel-themed sneaker. It was blue and white, displaying the sign “Israel 68" on the back (68 years is the age of the state of Israel). Initially, I did not think much of it. However, this group member argued that by customizing a sneaker, Israel was appropriating Black, hip-hop culture. For those who do not know, cultural appropriation is when one identity group--particularly a pervasive one--adopts a a cultural practice associated with a different identity group--particularly a minority. Leftist millennials consider this oppressive.

I personally found the group member's claim about the sneakers to be ridiculous, and even guilty of stereotyping. If customizing a sneaker in this instance is an appropriation of black culture, then anyone who customizes a sneaker, and is not Black, would be committing same crime. That would mean that only black people should customize sneakers, and all people should exclusively stick to behaviors associated with their identity group. This is where the stereotyping lies. In order to decide which behaviors belong to which group, one needs to separate the world into definitive racial/ethnic categories: "white things", “Black things", “Hispanic things" etc. That is the definition of stereotyping.

After briefly voicing my thoughts on the post, four other members of the group immediately jumped on me. The first one was mild. She simply said to me “sloppy. Do better". The next one was more aggressive. He accused me of commenting “in bad faith" and of committing a micro-aggression (another oppressive act) because apparently the author of the post was a minority (which I did not know, and which would not have changed my response to her either way). The last one labeled my comment “not civil" and called on the administrators of the group to monitor me. I was taken aback and somewhat peeved by the intensity of the response. I tried to clarify point, which may not have been articulated clearly enough, hoping that someone would try to debate me instead of assault me. That did not happen, and I was removed from the group later that day. “Brainstorming" does not entail open inquiry, I guess.

Though I do not know what they would have said had they engaged with me rather than throw me out, I have tried to imagine what their arguments might have been. I know that some argue against cultural appropriation because they claim it allows a dominant group to copy and then take credit for a practice developed by a less privileged group. This occurred in the 1950s when white musicians borrowed the rock n' roll stylings of their black counterparts and then received credit and profit for it, while black musicians could not. This is wrong, but it is not an inherent part of cultural mimicry. One can adopt culture elements from different group, while attributing them to the original source. Elvis Presley publicly cited his debt to black music, pointing to artists such as B. B. King, Arthur "Big Boy" Crudup, Ivory Joe Hunter, and Fats Domino.

One of the other arguments against cultural appropriation is misrepresentation which could result in the perpetuation of stereotypes. But this too is not an inherent part of cultural copying. One can borrow from another culture in without characterizing or distorting it. Jews do not have to be portrayed with big noses. Native Americans do not all have to be portrayed performing a war whoop.

There is an appropriate way to adopt aspects of other cultures, and there is am inappropriate way. it cannot all be grouped together. Eminem is one of the most, if not the most successful rapper in the world. He is the best-selling artist of the 2000s in the United States. Rolling Stone ranked him 83rd on its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time, and called him the King of Hip Hop. Eminem also happens to be white. Should he give up rapping because the art form originated within black culture, and should therefore (according to the logic behind the custom shoe argument) be exclusively a “black thing"? Of course not. Eminem is not stealing credit from or misrepresenting black culture by rapping. It would actually be oppressive to tell him, and other non-black people, that they cannot be rappers because they do not have the right skin color.

Dividing the world into mutually-exclusive, cultural realms is not the way to avoid cultural appropriation. I understand the concerns about it, and those should be addressed, but this hair-trigger opprobrium of any cultural borrowing is not healthy for our society. We need to create thoughtful distinctions between proper and improper instances.