Cultural Appropriation

To be absolutely clear – there is no doubt that the western/industrial/mainly European world has for centuries felt entirely free to use/appropriate anything from another culture it felt like. It has done so without any consideration of what such appropriation felt like to those of that culture. Clothing designers, musicians, writers, movie producers and others have all felt entitled to use another culture’s images or stories to enhance their product. Groups such as the Rainbow Family or those Europeans who are so immersed in First Nation culture that one argued with me that “he was more Indian than the Indians” have assumed that because some of their values are, if not aligned with traditional North American First Nation’s values, are at least parallel to them, that that gives them the right to use any part of that culture that they want to. No matter how distorted that use becomes. Such appropriation is at best profoundly misguided.

 

In the last week or so there has been a significant amount of discussion within the various media in Canada on the issue of cultural appropriation. It appears to have all started when an editor of a magazine, attempted (he says) through humour to initiate a discussion as to when can an non-aboriginal Canadian use Aboriginal character, story lines and other artifacts in their creative works. His words were, very understandably, not appreciated by the Aboriginal community. Other non-aboriginal writers got involved in the discussion and some of them such as Jonathan Kay, editor-in-chief of the Walrus have also faced some public censure.

 

One of Kay’s points was that it does little good to call someone a racist just because they have appropriate a piece of another’s culture. I think he is right in that while the act of appropriation may be and perhaps should be labelled a racists act – if the individual did so not understanding why such appropriation is potentially harmful – is he or she a racist? I don’t think so.

 

Those of us who are of the elite – and by that I mean of European decent – and certainly people of a certain age - have been raised in a world where certain things were understood. To be clear – these were cultural understandings. A white person in Alabama in 1960 would have assumed that there would be/should be two drinking fountains – one labelled for white use, one labelled for non-whites. Clearly that is horrendously racist. But the white person could not have recognized that because it was the only world they knew. Similarly, I grew up playing “cowboy and Indians”. No one wanted to be the Indians – they always lost. My world view of First Nations people was in general formed by television and perhaps some books (my father’s boyhood books by G. A. Henty that I devoured as a boy were more than a little bit racists). While the play activity may have very clear racist overtones – the act of playing “cowboy and Indians” did not make me a racist. However, now that I know better, if I allowed my son or grandchildren to play such games, without me having a conversation with them to redirect them – then I would quite clearly be a racist. As a human I have the capacity to learn and to adapt to new cultural understanding. I, on occasion, may need some time to make those adaptations.

 

There are some (many?) people who in spite of ample exposure to the other side of the issue, refuse to deviate from their long held cultural beliefs. For example, they continue to believe that as white people, they have the right, if not the obligation to be in charge and to decide what is right for other people; that their skin colour alone makes them and their culture better in every aspect. These people and their activities need to be clearly labelled as being what they are: racist. But I would argue that there are far more people who are struggling with the issue of what is or is not okay. We search out information; we want to talk with those Canadians from First Nation communities; we acknowledge that we have been wrong in our approaches and our attitudes. The last thing we want to do is to oppress or hurt someone. And we need help to understand.

 

Is it fair that the victims of oppression are continually required to educate me and folks like me? Is it right that the very people who have had so much of their culture denigrated or more likely completely destroyed have to defend what is theirs? Is it even reasonable to ask those peoples to have patience with me and to not get angry or frustrated as I fumble my way though it all? Probably not.

 

But if not them – then who?