http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/magazine/die-antwoord.html?_r=0

Though Fairbanks begins to address the criticism Die Antwoord faces from black South Africans, she tiptoes past one glaring problem: “How dare a white band hit the jackpot by imitating a community whose own musicians were still largely stuck in apartheid-created slums?” Fairbanks wonders. Yet, she never answers her own question. Instead, Fairbanks takes the approach of humanizing Ninja and Yo-Landi. There is no good answer to Fairbanks’ question: catchy though their music may be, the group’s persona is undeniably racist and appropriative.

In response to Die Antwoord’s wild collage of an identity, many fans have questioned whether or not the band’s image is an act. Die Antwoord has addressed this question in their song, “Fok Julle Naaiers,” rapping snidely, “Is it real? No, it’s just a big black joke.” Fairbanks’ article clearly illustrates that it is, in fact, a joke, but what she fails to mention is that, whether or not it’s real, it is a blatant exhibition of white privilege. “After apartheid fell,” Fairbanks writes, “white artists were free to explore a wider range of personas.” But this right to self-exploration does not, by any means, give white South Africans the right to try on other racial and cultural identities—identities whose authentic owners have been oppressed by colonialism—as though they are mere costumes. Die Antwoord’s flagrant use of blackface and senseless appropriation of a “ghetto” aesthetic are simply inexcusable. No matter how much I strain to find a progressive social statement behind Die Antwoord’s appropriative persona, I just can’t do it: cultural appropriation is cultural appropriation, no matter how much we might wish it weren’t.