The Myth of Cultural Appropriation

This is a rant, it's designed to stimulate thought.

It is something I’ve been thinking about for a while, because there are certain people on the periphery of the independent roleplaying community who get very vocal about the topic.

Cultural appropriation is argued vehemently by a number of people who have very strong opinions on the topic, but in many cases when I’ve tried to nail someone down on the subject they get very ephemeral in their responses. The more I look into it, the more I feel like this should be a topic for the Penn and Teller television show “Bullshit”.

As far as I can see (based on the rhetoric and histrionics), cultural appropriation is the taking of a cultures elements and the use of those elements to pigeon-hole or even belittle the culture. If you take the stereotypes of a culture and use them to engage the typical stereotypes of the group, then it seems you are engaging in cultural appropriation. If you are prejudiced toward a culture, drawing opinions about them based on the information of others and not doing research for yourself; that also seems to be a case of cultural appropriation.

This idea seems to be a very secular view of things, almost a reaction against religion. I say this because most religions have a view where their version of salvation or redemption is deemed the “correct path”, while everyone else is considered wrong. Those who indulge in cultural appropriation are engaging in the same tactics, by claiming to know something about other cultures and then claiming specific facts about those cultures based on their assumptions…a fundamentalist Christian says that all Muslims are going to hell because their belief system is flawed, a devout Buddhist might claim that a Christian will never achieve enlightenment because they draw their faith from a part of the illusion that surrounds us all. Those who take a stand against cultural appropriation seem to believe that the Christian fundamentalist and the Buddhist from the example are both flawed in their thinking. The religious examples provided are simply human nature:

  1. I join a group.
  2. I identify with the group I’ve joined.
  3. I know that there are groups that exist outside the group I’m a part of.
  4. I don’t identify so much with those groups.
  5. 5. In my opinion, the ways I don’t identify with those groups are ways that those groups are wrong.

“Cultural Appropriation” says that everyone makes their first choice to identify with a group, and in that way everyone is unique. It further seems to push the notion that you shouldn’t categorise other people based on the groups they identify with, in fact you shouldn’t categorise them at all.

It’s a nice doctrine, generally inoffensive; you shouldn’t judge others without engaging in their deeper aspects of being. But like most doctrines, when you push it a bit further it starts to crack. That’s when the adherents start to get defensive.

In Australia, we’re seeing this idea filter through the news. No longer are you allowed to say that a crime was perpetrated by a man of middle-eastern appearance, because that’s considered ethnic profiling, or even racism. You can say “light skin”, “dark skin”, “olive complexion”, but as soon as you get more specific you have a backlash from somewhere. I guess the same thing has happened around the rest of the western world. We saw the same thing come out of the United States a few decades ago when it was declared racist to use the word “Nigger”, the race had to be referred to as “African American”, “Black American” or whatever new catchphrase was deemed appropriate in each passing year…then the “African Americans” decided to take the word back for themselves. They were allowed to call each other by the name “Nigger” (or “Nigga” if they identified with street culture), but if someone not of their race used the term is was still considered an affront. This has left a generation of people unsure of what is offensive any more.

So it seems that people just take offense to anything and everything, just to be safe.

We’re getting to the point that descriptions are meaningless…you can’t say “Black” because that will offend someone, you can’t say “Muslim” because that will offend someone else, you can’t call them gypsies because that’s a racial slur that has been perpetrated for centuries. As soon as you try to identify someone according to some context, you run the risk of offending someone.

Those who oppose cultural appropriation seem to be the types who will take offense for the sake of taking offense. They take on the role of old ladies who tell young children that roads are dangerous because of cars; the kids don’t know where to play anymore because all the flat areas around them have been paved by people of a previous generation (people who had been told that grass caused allergies, so they couldn’t play there).

Everything offends someone, and it seems that there are some who are offended by everything.

That leaves us with a dilemma.

If we can’t describe people according to their appearances (because that’s prejudicial or racist), and we can’t identify them by their cultural affiliations (because that’s cultural appropriation or just another form of racism), how do we describe them?

You could describe them by the sum of their actions, but that would take a long time to assess and just as long to divulge the information. What if you only caught a glimpse of them or heard a few heavily accented words in a conversation? You can’t describe their skin colour or their accent due to claims of racism, blatant stereotyping or some other form of offense taken by someone.

I was referred to a TedTalk by an African author Chimamanda Adichie (Here). This was referred by one of those people who are vocal opponents of cultural appropriation. It was an interesting talk, but it seemed to be hedging around the issues rather than confronting them. An interesting point she made was an anecdote about an American university lecturer who claimed that her writing didn’t sound “African”. Obviously the professor had a prejudice about what an “African” novel should sound like; he had appropriated her culture and had pigeonholed it. She thought it seemed odd that as an African novelist her novels didn’t sound “African”. I’m not going to say that her novels are bad, I haven’t read them. Apparently they seem to be pretty good because she was invited to present the talk and has sold numerous copies of her work. Africans can identify with what she writes, but my question would be how well other people identify with what she writes.

She might be a good novelist who is African, but does she write good “African Novels”. What is an African novel?

As soon as we start to identify traits of an “African Novel”, someone will claim that we are appropriating the culture. Perhaps she writes good stories about living in a newly urbanised environment within a specific African nation, but is that just generalising that particular urban area. Perhaps she writes a good story about a specific person, but who is that person out of context?

As humans we need descriptors to identify people.

Using cultural stereotypes may not be a perfect way to describe people, but surely it’s a distinct part of the whole.

If I write a story or a game about Australian Aboriginals and simply write them using common English speech and inoffensive mannerisms, how do I show that they are different to the Europeans around them? If I use a couple of stereotypical terms to place them in context, they actually develop character. Granted a stereotype will only generate flat characters, but it gives a reader a common ground, allowing potential for further and deeper exploration once the common ground has been set. If I don’t place them in context, the actions of these characters will be much harder to connect with.

If I write a story about the Lebanese community in western Sydney, I could use the stereotypical conflict between the Islamic and Christian Orthodox families within the community, tying this conflict back into their homeland. There are people who’d find it racist, but there are far more people who’d instantly grasp the background of the story. I could do the same thing through the car culture commonly found among young Lebanese males in the area. Again, it’s a stereotype, but it instantly sets up degrees of conflict within the setting. If I apply both stereotypes, I run the risk of generating caricatures of the community members, but if I apply other cultural templates across the characters to build up something deeper, they each become more complex.

That complexity just wouldn’t be possible without the cultural context.

Maybe I could rewrite one of Chimamanda Adichie’s novels using characters from the Lebanese community in western Sydney, simply changing the place names and the character names. If it still resonated as a moving story, then maybe it’s not a good “African Novel” after all, it’s just a good novel written by an African.

Comments

Zac in VA said…
I think you were done a bad turn by one or two folks at story-games who are far, far too prickly - the sort of folks who think they're sooo policktical, but are really just arguing over dross.

I don't buy into what you're writing here (the implication, to be histrionic, is that your free use of the word "nigger" would somehow make the world a better place), but I can definitely sympathize - identity politics can be some bullshit, especially when it takes the form of the Language Police.

As far as what words to use, and when, I think it's best to just ask people you know, if a given word comes up, what they think about it.
Making a point of asking me "hey, Zac, how do you feel about 'faggot'?" may elicit a somewhat negative response, but if someone lobs it at me on a forum or something, and I kvetch to you about it, feel free to ask me "So, what's your history with this word?"
If I can make one last recommendation, I think it's crucial to see each taboo word or phrase as something that's been used as a weapon against somebody, at some time. When it comes to words like "black", I just don't care. If I met somebody who was specifically offended by me using that word, I'd do them the courtesy of using their preferred term instead, in their presence.

And that whole discourse about "gee, what a great African [or what-have-you] novel" is a weird sort of neo-colonial, patronizing bullshit. Whenever people say, "Ah, this novel... this is a great stride forward for the literature of [country x]," the author is being pigeon-holed as ONLY mattering because s/he's from the White Man's latest favorite nation-to-consume.

As far as game design, maybe all you need to cover yourself is a little foreword about how cool you think Aboriginal culture is, why you wrote the book, etc. - not as a defense of your work, but just to give folks a better sense of context. Then, if people give you shit, and they're off-base, you can say "Did you read the foreword?" and get all Ron on them [I say with love] when they say "No..."
Zac in VA said…
Hm. Blogger just ate my witty, insightful comment.
To sum up: people who go on about African novels or Asian novels are either nationalists of some stripe, Third Worldists (old-school Black Panthers, etc.), or just patronizing, middle-class twits.
Also: since this ties back to gaming, and to Walkabout, why not put in a foreword about how much you think Aboriginal culture and myth is amazing? And that's what inspired you to write the book?

I've met some class-unconscious anarchists who go on and on about not touching the implements of other cultures, and they're idiots. All I would suggest is to have really done your homework, so you don't pull a White Wolf (they're the biggest cultural thieves and grave-robbers in gaming).

Lastly, this rant makes me think about this cartoon: http://www.leftycartoons.com/?s=nigger
I don't think you're this guy, but don't get too bent out of shape about what words you're "allowed" to use. You can use whatever words you like, and sometimes folks will be totally irrational in how they react. Sometimes they will be reacting reasonably, and it's up to you to decide how to respond.
Vulpinoid said…
Good points, Zac.

It's good to see a level headed perspective on the issue (actually, is it level-headed or is it just me agreeing with someone who seems to share an opinion with me...??)

Given that it's the same two or three people who always rant about "cultural appropriation", and that far more people said to me "Just write the damn thing!!", I think I can safely assume that the "cultural appropriation standpoint is just in the minds of overly politically correct critics.

I don't get up on my moral high horse talking about the rape of my Celtic and Norse ancestry every time someone writes generic fantasy.

Sometimes you've just gotta go with what's fun.
Zac in VA said…
Trust me, I'm level-headed ^__^
It sounds like you're keeping things in perspective pretty handily - if a limited number of folks have actually said this kind of stuff to you, I'd just let it go.

I'm one of those folks saying "write the thing!" after all :)
Sheikh Jahbooty said…
Personally, I like the way the word "nigger" is used at present. If you use the word "nigger" it means you are an ignorant slob who can't be bothered to properly pronounce the word "negro". The only reason anybody thinks there is a double standard is because a collegiate entrepreneur will know that appearing to be a "bookworm" will hurt his acceptance among other negros far more than "ignorant slob", so he will joke or rap about "nigga's" to appear less educated and less cosmopolitan.

"African American" is a term that my wife thinks we should just totally drop. "You, French-Dutch-Polish-Czech-Armenian dude: does anybody call you a Eurasian American? Did anybody ask me if I wanted to be called African American? I saw Henry Louis Gates get upset when the genetic tests came back Irish. The label 'African' American, instead of 'Black' American messed him up, made him seem racist." My wife can go on and on about it.

I tried to decry the whole cultural appropriation thing in another forum, but Jonathan got really upset, so I backed down. Plus, I think I really upset him in a private message when he challenged where my knowledge came from and I replied that it was from a woman I was corresponding with in an Aboriginal culture center in Australia who was giving me access to Aranda glossaries, but I didn't ask her if she was black so I don't know how "authentic" the information was.

The whole "African American" thing highlights the main reason it's bullshit.

Who do we ask if it's OK? We will never know what makes us assholes in the eyes of another culture. (For example, lying or sitting with the soles of your feet facing qiblah makes you an asshole in Islam. I can almost guarantee that nobody reading this knew that.) So who do we ask? If we ask Jesse Jackson, we end up upsetting Kemba (my wife). No culture exists that is so monolithic that everyone from that culture agrees on every issue. If the idea of misrepresenting or insulting people from another culture stops us from discussing them, then that is not just racist, it is an abandonment of free speech.

To site one of the pet peeves of the person who maintains the Cultural Appropriation blog: This person is really bothered by the cavalier attitude that people seem to have towards the war bonnet (the big feathery headdress). I, however, have met people of indigenous American ancestry in a mosque (yes, Muslims), who couldn't care less about that, but they would be horrified by Kurt Westergaard's cartoon. They're both Native Americans? Who's culture is respected and protected, and who has to just suck it up and understand the importance of free speech?

Plus, what kind of racist jerk would try to make the claim that indigenous cultures stopped when they encountered "the white man", that the only culture that deserves protection from free speech is one that existed in some mythological past, but the culture that they practice and is alive today is fair game for ridicule? Native Americans can jump in a lake if they don't like Piss Christ, but don't worry, we'll stop people from carelessly wearing special hats that were only ever used by certain nations?
Vulpinoid said…
Sheikh J...

Thanks for sending me the email, it looks like your reply got sent to the spam box. I probably wouldn't have noticed it if you hadn't sent a message to my email. Nice insightful response.

Thanks again.
Wordman said…
This post has been rattling around in my head for a while. I find it sort of oddly put together, for reasons that boil down to something entirely appropriate to its content: you're an Australian and I'm not.

Your post meanders between, and (to my eyes) mashes together, three concepts that are largely treated as much more distinct in America.

The "Language Police" type of stuff (e.g. "African American", not "Black"; "Asian", not "Oriental") would fall under the label "Policial Correctness" in most parts of the states, particularly liberal universities in the early 1990s (and in Wikipedia). It occupies an odd niche in academic life these days, where on the one hand, everyone in the university knows it is a load of crap, but yet everyone demands its use anyway.

Not too far away from other parts of your post is the notion of (again, in Yank-speak) "multiculturalism". This concept is a lot more nebulous, particularly because people that don't actually understand it deride it using a strawman definition ("all cultures are equal"), while supporters would never actually use that definition. Even the supporters can't agree on what it is, though. I have a definition that works for me, but probably not others. Basically, "multiculturalism" is basically a "live and let live" mindset.

Neither of these concepts, at least in my experience, is what I would call "cultural appropriation". The best American example of this would be the "wigger" culture, where suburban White teens adopt the "gansta" dress and lingo of inner city Black (sorry, African American) teens, to the detriment of both. A less wide-spread version is the hippie movement's use of various Native American cultural elements.

You don't really hear the phrase "cultural appropriation" much in the States, however, and certainly not as derisively as elsewhere. Part of the reason is most likely that America really isn't old enough to have many of its own "culture", and what little it does have is entirely based on the "melting pot" idea of everyone appropriating the culture of everyone else in a weird amalgam. If a girl with a Black Jew for a father and an Asian mother sports a Celtic cross over her tribal tattoo while consuming French wine and Argentine steak while trying to convince her Hindu lover of the similarities between the M'Butu regime and Lady Ga Ga, whose culture is appropriating whose? That's just how America works.
Vulpinoid said…
Wordman,

I see where you're coming from, and I'll be the first to admit that my posts have a tendency to meander.

There are political and social elements of Australian society that pride themselves on the fact that Australia is a hub of multiculturalism...where the US gained a lot of immigrants in the early 20th century, Australia gained a lot of immigrants in the mid 20th century...where the US started it's path of "invaders versus natives" five centuries ago, Australia has only been on that track for just over 2 centuries. Australia is a melting pot of cultures trying to find it's own unique identity in much the same way that the US is...perhaps more so because we've been at it for even less time.

I think that in Australia our interpretation of the term "multiculturalism" is more along the line that there are many cultures in Australia, each of which has the right to exist as a separate entity as long as it maintains tolerance with the other cultures around it.

I don't like the idea of homogenising the various cultures that make up a community, and that comes down the to truism "variety is the spice of life".

I find that a lot of the people who scream "CULTURAL APPROPRIATION" are often trying to homogenise the whole world (..."but theyare just like us"...) or trying to segregate the cultures completely (..."that's them, this is us, don't confuse the two"...). Both of these ideas are anathema to the concept of multiculturalism as I see it.

You raise an interesting point with the "wigger", or the appropriation of native american ephemera by various new age groups. The same can be said of the "twinky" stereotype (yellow on the outside, white in the middle). I think this is a really interesting and valid point that I'm trying to explore through my game experimentation.

How much of you is derived from your birth genetics? How much is derived from your upbringing? If you identify with a particular community and start taking on the idiosyncrasies of that group, will other people start to identify you with that group more than they identify you with your birth racial heritage??

How can you explore these themes without appropriating some culture? And furthermore, isn't roleplaying a good outlet for this exploration in a safe social context? (In much the same way that roleplaying has tradiionally been a more socially acceptable outlet for violent behaviours.)

...but I'm starting to ramble again. So I'll stop.

Popular posts from this blog

A Guide to Geomorphs (Part 7)