HuffPo has done us all a service by deciding the ranking of oppressed groups, and they’ve done so in a clever way: by adjudicating which group should be most offended by cultural appropriation. The decision is in the piece below, co-written by Lilly Workneh, HuffPo’s Black Voices Senior Editor, and Jessica Prols, the Asian Voices Executive Editor. Click on the screenshot. In this case, it’s a black versus Asian contest: which, would you guess, is the most oppressed (i.e., which group is most hurt by cultural oppression: tattoos vs. dreadlocks)? 
First, the contests: Asian-American basketball player Jeremy Lin (above right, plays for the Brooklyn Nets) sports dreadlocks. Former Net Kenyon Martin, above left, who is black, sports, among his copious ink, a Chinese tattoo on his arm. I can’t read it (maybe a reader can help), but here it is:
I thought the fracas about dreadlocks had died out, and I still think it’s okay for people who aren’t black to wear them. After all, the hairstyle is adopted not as an insult, or a gesture of “colonialism”, but out of admiration for the look. It’s not at all like blackface or wearing a “Mexican bandito” costume during Halloween. And, after all, cultural appropriation is pervasive for every culture. Asians now wear Western suits, as do blacks, who didn’t wear them until they got their freedom from slavery and mingled with culture derived from Europe. In fact, the black parts of Chicago are loaded with Chinese restaurants. Why is that not cultural appropriation, while Sporting Dreadlocks While Asian is?
At any rate, Lin wrote a thoughtful defense of his hairstyle at The Player’s Tribune, and did so because there was, as usual, a back-and-forth not only between these two players, but also on social media. Here’s part of his explanation:
I never thought I’d ever think so much about hair. Honestly, at first I was surprised anyone would care what I did with my hair. When I started growing it out a few years ago in Charlotte, it was just something I was doing with six of my family members and friends. It was meant to be fun, and to be an expression of freedom.
I didn’t really plan for it to be anything more than that.
Then I kept going with it and it started to become … a thing. Looking back, I can see why my hairstyles turned some heads. (What was I thinking here?) But I liked how the process of changing my look actually made me feel more like myself again. I realized that in the years since Linsanity, I had spent a lot of time in a box, worrying about other people’s opinions on what I should and shouldn’t be doing. I wanted to stop basing my decisions so much on what strangers or critics might say about me. It was cool how something as simple as how I wore my hair could pull me out of my comfort zone and make me feel more free. Before I got older and had a family and kids and all of that, I wanted to be able to say to myself, Who cares what anyone else thinks? For me, the different hairstyles became a fun way to do that.
But then he goes on to worry about insensitivity, which is fine, but concludes that he’s keeping his dreads. The very fact that he felt he had to write this is a sign of how deeply Offense Culture has spread. And the essay didn’t satisfy Martin. As PuffHo reports:
The matchup between the two began last week when Lin wrote an essay about why he got dreads. In the The Player’s Tribune, he admitted he hadn’t considered the issue of cultural appropriation, that he had talked with a number of people about his decision and pointed out he was able to empathize.“I know how it feels when people don’t take the time to understand the people and history behind my culture,” he wrote. “It’s easy to brush some of these things off as ‘jokes,’ but eventually they add up. And the full effect of them can make you feel like you’re worth less than others, and that your voice matters less than others.”
Three days later, Martin weighed in and said Lin’s dreadlocks pointed to the fact he wanted to “be black.”
“Do I need to remind this damn boy that his last name Lin?” Martin asked in a YouTube video. “Come on man, somebody need to tell him, like, ‘Alright bro, we get it. You wanna be black.’ Like, we get it. But the last name is Lin.”
And PuffHo won’t let it die. First, the black and Asian authors of the article agree to declare Martin the Most Appropriated, because blacks are more oppressed:
But borrowing a cultural marker like dreadlocks, which embody both joy and struggle unique to the black community, is not the same as having a Chinese tattoo, a symbol that doesn’t carry the same weight of oppression. Yes, appropriating Chinese culture through a tattoo is exoticizing and insensitive. But the the act of putting on and taking off dreadlocks ― which are related to the systematic economic and social oppression of a racial group ― demonstrates a greater level of disregard.
And they go into excruciating detail, to explain why (my emphasis):
To Lin’s point, the adoption of Chinese tattoos, tribal tattoos and other similar varieties is problematic. It doesn’t cross a using-someone-else’s-culture-for-personal-gain line in the same way, say, Kylie and Kendall Jenner’s Chinese takeout purse does. But the issue of appropriation boils down to the fact that most Asian people don’t like their culture reduced to an accessory. There’s also the issue of modern-day and historical discrimination against Chinese people, so turning Chinese customs into an accessory can come across as cherry-picking parts of a culture to accept ― rather than embracing an ethnic group as a whole. And ultimately, a practice like making Chinese tattoos a Western trend without an actual connection to the culture can feel exoticizing.
But Lin’s retort to Martin’s criticism was basically saying the tattoos and dreads are uniform in their demonstration of “respect,” and that’s just not accurate. Yes, cultural appropriation of Asian culture is oppressive in that exoticizing a culture can create a depiction of Asians as “others” or perpetual foreigners. But Asian-Americans are not held down by this characterization in the same way black people are for something as fixed as hair ― and the struggle it represents.
Dreadlocks, which are essentially twisted locks of hair, are more than just a hairstyle. They have become symbolic of blackness and black culture and while some wear them for aesthetic reasons, others can have a deep cultural and spiritual connection to them. The style itself is widely worn by many Rastafarians, a religious movement bred in Jamaica, and, for some among them, it can represent a resistance to Western or Euro-centric hairstyles while honoring their roots.
Well maybe it’s not “respect” that’s demonstrated, but it’s certainly “admiration” for the hairstyle. The key to PuffHo’s answer is in the bolded part above. It’s surely true that blacks are more oppressed, and subject to more discrimination, than are Asians. But it’s not because of their hair. What PuffHo is saying is that it’s not appropriation that’s the real issue, but “appropriating up“—emulating aspects of a culture that’s less oppressed than yours. Apparently all sorts of borrowing is bad (except borrowing from European culture), but it’s more bad to borrow from a culture seen as more marginalized than yours. I’d suggest that PuffHo and others fixated on cultural appropriation produce a Hierarchy Chart, so we can know when we have to worry (i.e. it’s not ok to appropriate from those lower on the list).
As for the “false equivalency”, that’s misleading. According to HuffPo, they are equivalent faux pas; it’s just that one is more faux than the other.
And as for tattoos, that’s risible. I’ve seen many people inked with phrases in Sanskrit, French, Hebrew, and many other languages. The phrases are not expressions of bigotry, but usually phrases expressing some sentiment or emotion in its original language. When I see a movie star with a Hebrew tattoo, getting angry would be the last thing I’d do. In fact, that wouldn’t even cross my mind. Tablet shows eleven non-Jewish celebrities with Hebrew tattoos. Perhaps the “worst offender” is David Beckham, who has arm tattoos in both Hebrew and Sanskrit:
Both Beckhams are inked with ani l’dodi v’dodi li, ha’roeh bashoshanim, the Song of Songs wedding fave: “I am my beloved’s and my beloved is mine, who browses among the lilies.” Shockingly, hers is written and spelled correctly. His is ungrammatical (“my beloved,” dodi, is in the masculine form) but still sweet. FYI: His tattoo is above a Sanskrit rendition of his wife’s name, spelled wrong. (Becks also has a bonus, smaller Hebrew tattoo above his left elbow, from Proverbs 3:1; it means“My son, do not forget my teaching but keep my commands in your heart.” I can’t find any non-blurry pictures of it, but one must assume it features the correct gender pronouns. Yay?)
Should I write an article for HuffPo? I could give ELEVEN cases of Jewish appropriation, and who has historically been more marginalized and oppressed than the Jews? It’s a thought. . .
I’ve discussed this issue several times before, and have argued that yes, there are times when cultural appropriation is, well, inappropriate. Most invidious is when you actually damage a person or group by appropriating their culture. I find this uncommon, but there was one potential instance that I used as a counterfactual: if Paul Simon had appropriated South African music, collaborating with the members of Ladysmith Black Mambazo on the “Graceland” album, but then denied them credit or a decent amount of money, that would be offensive and execrable. That didn’t happen, of course, because Simon is a decent man, but if it had, it would be cultural appropriation that should be called out. Likewise, dressing in blackface, which is meant to mock African-Americans, is hurtful.
But things like food, dreadlocks, tattoos, wearing kimonos, and so on—these are expressions of admiration, not denigration, and they don’t hurt anybody except the Pecksniffs eternally looking to be offended as a way to affirm their uniqueness. I refuse to stop wearing my Indian clothes in India (and sometimes in the U.S.): they look good, and in India they’re simply more comfortable. Do I need to be mindful of the oppression of Indians by the British every time I put on a kurta? I don’t think so, nor do I need to explain it. I know what happened in India, and that’s enough for me. But even if I didn’t, I wouldn’t feel it necessary to apologize if an Indian person called me out for wearing the clothes of their culture.
It’s venues like HuffPo that continue to divide the Left and make us all look ridiculous. Culture is meant to be appropriated, for it’s that kind of fusion that improves life, and is damaging only rarely. Yet this rot is spreading into society at large. When two professional athletes need to argue about who’s been the most damaged by tattoos and dreadlocks, then you know something’s gone wrong with society.
