![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cultural Appropriation
There's a general discussion on my friends list about cultural appropriation and whether it is appropriate, and my entry point is a specific debate regarding white people telling stories about Native Americans. The talk centers around a particular book which I haven't read and have no interest in reading; my own reaction is more general.
My favorite take on this is Jonquil's, which is worth reading in all its nuance, but which basically amounts to: people connect to the things they connect to. When you tell a story, the listener is going to respond to it emotionally, and when retelling that story, will retell it through that filter, not because she's trying to change it, but because of what she finds beautiful or horrifying - and because of what she thinks will matter to her audience. Thus even a very conscientious white author is never going to tell a white audience the same story a Sioux speaker tells a Sioux audience - and a white audience will generally prefer the white-filtered story.
I can understand how this would frustrate a member of a cultural minority. One could take the perspective that the people creating the value (the minority culture) will never be able to benefit from it as much as a member of the majority culture could, simply by virtue of being the minority. A majority-culture member has a natural connection to a wider audience - the majority culture. The minority member is always going to have a harder time achieving mainstream success, and is probably going to resent the success of the majority member who doesn't understand the appropriated culture with the same depth as the native, and who nevertheless succeeds wildly.
However, the key point is that nobody has done anything wrong. (It's useful to remember at this point my attitudes toward intellectual property, and the degree to which I champion creative commons licenses.) There is no conspiracy; there is no attempt by the majority to dismiss the minority, or by the minority to withdraw into secrecy. There is a genuine interest on both sides in getting minority stories widely disseminated.
Let's be honest and say the issue is money and spin. When people say they are bruised that their culture has been stolen, they mean exactly that - they want to be the ones controlling distribution and profiting from their ancestral stories, and it pisses them off that a bunch of interlopers are making more money and controlling the more widely-read (and therefore more influential) account of events. You would feel the same way if someone was telling a story about your grandmother, particularly if it were about a family tragedy. But - and this is the key - do your feelings have moral force? Does the fact that you loved your grandmother and feel uncomfortable at hearing her talked about mean that the storyteller is doing something reprehensible?
If we want more attention paid to our interpretation of events, we must do it by publicizing our interpretation - not by saying we have the only rights to it. We don't. This is particularly true when the matter under debate is cultural or historical: we were born into cultures, and into historical narratives. We didn't create them, and we don't own them.
The big truth of the majority culture is that we like bridges. We want people who understand us and who understand them. I have no interest in hearing Catholics talk to a Catholic audience, or men talk to a male audience, or electrical engineers talk to electrical engineers. I want someone who will talk to me. I also want that someone to be genuinely knowledgeable, but I'm not going to be able to tell the difference if I can't understand what they're saying. Thus the key to becoming a recognized "expert" is not about depth - it's about breadth. I know full well that a white author doesn't know as much about Native American culture as a Native American, but if that white author knows more about Native American culture than the Native American knows about white culture, the white author is going to be my go-to. It's no coincidence that the really successful Native American authors aren't the ones who have pursued Native studies with the greatest depth, but the ones who have worked hard to learn about white people. And I imagine they were ridiculed in some circles for assimilating, since every culture (including white culture) has a more-authentic-than-thou purity crowd.
In other words, if I like for-white-by-white books about Native Americans, it does not mean I'm stupid, or lazy, or insensitive. It means you have not given me a superior alternative. You've just told me over and over that I can never understand, and am possibly an oppressor, and that the burden to decipher the confusing parts is all on me. I'm going to walk out of that class. I'm going to go with the person who tells me "sure you can understand, and have valid emotions. Here - let me tell you some stuff." (White people: stop apologizing and saying your opinion doesn't count. You are the market. You are half of the conversation.) And I'm going to read that fictional book with a historical event I've never heard of, and because I've read that book, I'm going to go research it - which I wouldn't do if I didn't have an entryway. Because I'm interested, and somebody said that was okay.
Now I am going to put on my Victorian-via-contemporary-Japan shirt, listen to a German opera based on a Turkish story and sung by English vocalists, look at African-inspired paintings made in France by a Dutchman, and make vaguely Italian guacamole, which like most Tex-Mex will feature Moroccan cumin. To hell with you if you think I'm inauthentic, and to hell with you if you want to limit what I can make art about.
[note: This is strictly post is strictly about cultural appropriation, and takes Native Americans as context because of what it's responding to. The same point could be made about arguments I've heard from black people, Irish people, Japanese people, goths, vegans, lesbians, poets, wiccans, Zionists, Hindus, gamers, environmentalists, senators, jocks, mothers... I recognize that in all these cases, vocal and abrasive individuals do not necessarily represent their communities at large.]
[key point: "I wish things were this way" doesn't equal "this is morally right and everything else is wicked" any more than it does when religious fundamentalists say it.]
My favorite take on this is Jonquil's, which is worth reading in all its nuance, but which basically amounts to: people connect to the things they connect to. When you tell a story, the listener is going to respond to it emotionally, and when retelling that story, will retell it through that filter, not because she's trying to change it, but because of what she finds beautiful or horrifying - and because of what she thinks will matter to her audience. Thus even a very conscientious white author is never going to tell a white audience the same story a Sioux speaker tells a Sioux audience - and a white audience will generally prefer the white-filtered story.
I can understand how this would frustrate a member of a cultural minority. One could take the perspective that the people creating the value (the minority culture) will never be able to benefit from it as much as a member of the majority culture could, simply by virtue of being the minority. A majority-culture member has a natural connection to a wider audience - the majority culture. The minority member is always going to have a harder time achieving mainstream success, and is probably going to resent the success of the majority member who doesn't understand the appropriated culture with the same depth as the native, and who nevertheless succeeds wildly.
However, the key point is that nobody has done anything wrong. (It's useful to remember at this point my attitudes toward intellectual property, and the degree to which I champion creative commons licenses.) There is no conspiracy; there is no attempt by the majority to dismiss the minority, or by the minority to withdraw into secrecy. There is a genuine interest on both sides in getting minority stories widely disseminated.
Let's be honest and say the issue is money and spin. When people say they are bruised that their culture has been stolen, they mean exactly that - they want to be the ones controlling distribution and profiting from their ancestral stories, and it pisses them off that a bunch of interlopers are making more money and controlling the more widely-read (and therefore more influential) account of events. You would feel the same way if someone was telling a story about your grandmother, particularly if it were about a family tragedy. But - and this is the key - do your feelings have moral force? Does the fact that you loved your grandmother and feel uncomfortable at hearing her talked about mean that the storyteller is doing something reprehensible?
If we want more attention paid to our interpretation of events, we must do it by publicizing our interpretation - not by saying we have the only rights to it. We don't. This is particularly true when the matter under debate is cultural or historical: we were born into cultures, and into historical narratives. We didn't create them, and we don't own them.
The big truth of the majority culture is that we like bridges. We want people who understand us and who understand them. I have no interest in hearing Catholics talk to a Catholic audience, or men talk to a male audience, or electrical engineers talk to electrical engineers. I want someone who will talk to me. I also want that someone to be genuinely knowledgeable, but I'm not going to be able to tell the difference if I can't understand what they're saying. Thus the key to becoming a recognized "expert" is not about depth - it's about breadth. I know full well that a white author doesn't know as much about Native American culture as a Native American, but if that white author knows more about Native American culture than the Native American knows about white culture, the white author is going to be my go-to. It's no coincidence that the really successful Native American authors aren't the ones who have pursued Native studies with the greatest depth, but the ones who have worked hard to learn about white people. And I imagine they were ridiculed in some circles for assimilating, since every culture (including white culture) has a more-authentic-than-thou purity crowd.
In other words, if I like for-white-by-white books about Native Americans, it does not mean I'm stupid, or lazy, or insensitive. It means you have not given me a superior alternative. You've just told me over and over that I can never understand, and am possibly an oppressor, and that the burden to decipher the confusing parts is all on me. I'm going to walk out of that class. I'm going to go with the person who tells me "sure you can understand, and have valid emotions. Here - let me tell you some stuff." (White people: stop apologizing and saying your opinion doesn't count. You are the market. You are half of the conversation.) And I'm going to read that fictional book with a historical event I've never heard of, and because I've read that book, I'm going to go research it - which I wouldn't do if I didn't have an entryway. Because I'm interested, and somebody said that was okay.
Now I am going to put on my Victorian-via-contemporary-Japan shirt, listen to a German opera based on a Turkish story and sung by English vocalists, look at African-inspired paintings made in France by a Dutchman, and make vaguely Italian guacamole, which like most Tex-Mex will feature Moroccan cumin. To hell with you if you think I'm inauthentic, and to hell with you if you want to limit what I can make art about.
[note: This is strictly post is strictly about cultural appropriation, and takes Native Americans as context because of what it's responding to. The same point could be made about arguments I've heard from black people, Irish people, Japanese people, goths, vegans, lesbians, poets, wiccans, Zionists, Hindus, gamers, environmentalists, senators, jocks, mothers... I recognize that in all these cases, vocal and abrasive individuals do not necessarily represent their communities at large.]
[key point: "I wish things were this way" doesn't equal "this is morally right and everything else is wicked" any more than it does when religious fundamentalists say it.]
no subject
If I may be so bold to suggest a refinement: "...if that white author has written down and published more about Native American culture..." (or any other culture) because, if the information is not available and accessible, indexed somewhere readers and researchers are likely to find it, then it may as well not be there at all.
(no subject)