I suppose the difference I am seeing is simply that, it seems that any mimicking seems to be a bad thing by default unless shown otherwise in U.S, while the opposite seems to be true in India (I think I have seen this view pervasive enough in India to make this claim, though I am not knowledgeable enough with the western and rest of eastern culture to know if this can be extended to them too). I feel that it is rather difficult to get multiculturalism right with the first view point, in that it requires an inordinate knowledge of a culture before a person can start using the symbols of it, and even then you can be accused of misappropriation just on the basis of not belonging to the original culture. It promotes a kind of exclusivity. I wonder if your Indian friend, who took offense to misappropriation of "Guru" would have similarly challenged another Indian with the same level of ignorance of what it means in India (or even in US)? I suspect he wont (Look for word guru in linked pages).I think we'd both agree that multiculturalism is a positive thing. My asterisk is just when done Right
I agree with your assertion, but I feel that we also need enough leeway for a shared experience between the members of the society.
Not quite, and this is something kb was getting at, too. I'm arguing that multiculturalism isn't that if you don't learn anything about a culture in the process. You could go in with that knowledge or go in with the hope of gaining knowledge. If I choose to celebrate Irish culture by following a recipe for an Irish dish, I've gained a tiny slice of understanding, a small memory I can associate with the region. But if I celebrate Irish culture by painting my nose red and getting black-out drunk, I'm reinforcing a false stereotype based on my (America's) ill-conceived notions about the country. You might say that the hippie's stereotype of India is at least a positive one, but my view is that it's still rooted in the same absence of learning. It's not quite the same thing, but there has a similar change in meaning to the word "Shah", which has transitioned from a title for Persian Kings / Emperors (which itself was taken from Sanskrit, iirc) to a surname within Indian and Pakistani culture. Maybe appropriation among distinct cultures, but all keeping within similar meanings of one another. Then there's Shahs of Sunset, which switches its meaning into an insult for pampered Persians. Though honestly, it's hard to take that example seriously because of just how over-the-top ridiculous the show is. Still, we're going back and forth over the same few points, so maybe it's better to agree to disagree on this.in that it requires an inordinate knowledge of a culture before a person can start using the symbols of it, and even then you can be accused of misappropriation just on the basis of not belonging to the original culture.