Support NeoGAF

[Irminsul]

"One woman doesn't mind catcalling, so all women should be okay with it."

Fuck off.

Okay, first of all, sorry for the snarky reply, apparently you are willing to discuss things. I'm currently on mobile so I'm going to give a quick reply, knowing that you already answered that... but I have a problem with that comparison for another reason: not only is catcalling inherently bad, it's also not clear not borrowing from marginalised cultures is the best thing to do.

My example wasn't someone not minding stuff, it was someone actively encouraging the opposite, and I think that is an important distinction.

 

[P44]

Fair enough. I don't disagree that the comparison isn't 1:1, but the sentiment should be just as strong, in my opinion. You could (and I do) look at "cultural appropriation" as a sort of analogue to "objectification", in that you are reducing someone's culture to the aesthetic level for the purpose of accommodating your own desires. Essentially, in this case, the idea of a skinwalker is being "objectified", i.e., reduced to nothing but entertainment, for the good of the writer and reader.



I think what I wrote above is hopefully more clear? It's a sort of rephrasing of what I said in my first post. It's harmful because it misrepresents what they actually believe. What they actually believe is something very few people know about, because MOST people learn about Native American culture (especially tribe-specific culture!) from fiction that is almost never correct.

I think it would be wholly different if the Navajo religion was common knowledge.

For an example of cultural appropriation that I don't have a problem with: see Islamic stuff. I can understand why Muslims do not like it, and I empathize with that, but their religion is not one that no one knows about. The biggest thing they have to fight against is the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists, which is a very real problematic assumption, and one I work to correct at every opportunity. But it has nothing to do with, for example, a recent anime soundtrack having to remove a song because it has Islamic chanting in it.

I do not believe cultural appropriation is a black and white issue.

I do, however, fully believe that this specific issue of misrepresenting Navajo beliefs is one worth considering.



I understand where you're coming from, but, in my not so humble opinion, it's possible to borrow from other cultures while also being respectful of those cultures. In this specific case, I would suggest refraining from implying that the Navajo are wrong to vilify skinwalkers. I would choose another path to explanation. Maybe say skinwalkers are evil creatures, but some Navajo wizards devoted their lives to hunting them down, or something. I dunno, I'm not the writer here, but, like I said above, cultural appropriation is not a black and white issue!

In the end, an idea is an idea. It's not worth anything in and of itself.

You say people know of Islam, I would say people know of Navajo - people don't really understand Islam, not even close, and people don't understand modern day Navajo so well either. On some level this kind of thinking, that I am 'x' and this is my culture is one I am not fond of as a second gen minority - it has caused much time spent thinking, and much time wasted with fretting over identity. I've come to see a culture as a bag of ideas and nothing more over time.

On your final point - I dislike the rewrite. The books are about witches and wizards, a group of people over history vilified by societies all over the world. Why should the writer veer away from writing a 'bad' or 'wrong' minority character?

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

That those people have no more claim to gatekeep their culture from others than anyone else. Contests for cultural purity are stupid, and aside from actually using force it's never actually worked.

I mean being a marginalized group compared to white people (the majority), gives them a little more claim.

 

[Infinite]

This is a pretty good and very succinct explanation on cultural appropriation. I don't hope to changes people's minds on either side of the debate by posting this but hopefully everyone can be on the same page while having the discussion.

 

[Kalentan]

What is hilarious to me is that when watching the trailer for the American wizarding world (or whenever I see Americans infatuated with Harry Potter) it felt like cultural appropriation of the UK in a way haha. I mean harry potter is SO British, everything about it, that it feels strange when in a different context.

But back on point, I haven't read the new content yet, but America is pretty young so she drew upon the oldest culture available in the region. I feel that it would have been much worse not to include them?

She would have caught flack either way.

I think this is true. If she had said that Europeans brought it over, she would have caught flack for that as well. Making people think that in the Harry Potter universe, Native Americans couldn't use magic, but white people could...

This really is a lose-lose situation.

 

[God Dayumm]

I think you're projecting. Person was saying that there's always a grey area with cultural appropriation and my response was that isn't true. There are instances where we can universally agree that some instances of appropriation are plain bad such as black face and the Washington redskins.

Neither of those instances are cultural appropriation. Black face is an offensive caricature of black people, this is not part of their culture. Redskin is a slur I guess? That is the issue.

If you think Rowling including some aspects of Native American religion in her fiction mocks or demonizes the people then that is indeed problematic. Not because of appropriation, but because it is racism.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Would you also agree that it's pretty much impossible in most cases to have a nation have a consensus on sharing their culture with others (or the opposite)?

Yep, hence why I think it's pointless. I mean the French can have their official language institute all they want, but it's like building a sandcastle; inevitably the tides will come and the language is going to change irrespective of their dictates.

This may be a uniquely American attitude; after the requisite period of fearing new arrivals are going to ruin everything, we realize they've got lots of stuff we like and then embrace and intermingle their cultures with ours, and that's been the trend for hundreds of years now. The "others" everyone once feared have just become everyday Americans after a period.* But from our vantage point I've never seen examples of where trying to lock down your culture works, or is helpful.

*The two obvious exceptions to this are blacks and American-Indians, although I think you could argue certain ultra-orthodox Jews and religious fringes like the Amish fit too.

 

[Irminsul]

I mean being a marginalized group compared to white people (the majority), gives them a little more claim.

Hm, so what about the Irish and St Patrick's Day? Sure, they're not really marginalised today (as far as I know), but it's not like they don't have a history of oppression.

Or Jews for that matter.

 

[Funyarinpa]

This is a pretty good and very succinct explanation on cultural appropriation. I don't hope to changes people's minds on either side of the debate by posting this but hopefully everyone can be on the same page while having the discussion.

Regarding the purple heart- headdress comparison in that post, isn't there a difference there in that the purple heart can be worn by anyone who's been of great military service to the US whereas the headdress is a purely Native American thing (NA as a placeholder for the particular tribes that use it, since I don't know which do)?

Not to mention that IMO consideration of other cultures as inherently respectable isn't something that's taken for granted. I'm Turkish and my own culture has some very toxic undertones, and although most people in this country are accepting of it I wouldn't be offended if there were works out there that took a huge crap on the culture's problematic aspects OR treated the culture the exact way they wanted it to.

Same goes for religions. I respect the freedom to believe, but I am under no obligation whatsoever to respect any religious belief out there, nor do I expect other people to be inherently respectful to mine.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

This is a pretty good and very succinct explanation on cultural appropriation. I don't hope to changes people's minds on either side of the debate by posting this but hopefully everyone can be on the same page while having the discussion.

It is good.

Hm, so what about the Irish and St Patrick's Day? Sure, they're not really marginalised today (as far as I know), but it's not like they don't have a history of oppression.

Or Jews for that matter.

I guess I just don't understand what you're saying.
What about them?

 

[Irminsul]

I guess I just don't understand what you're saying.
What about them?

I just wonder if they have a claim to gatekeep their culture according to you.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I just wonder if they have a claim to gatekeep their culture according to you.

If they do we're gonna' have to shut down New York City and have ourselves a bagel-burning.

 

[Infinite]

Regarding the purple heart- headdress comparison in that post, isn't there a difference there in that the purple heart can be worn by anyone who's been of great military service to the US whereas the headdress is a purely Native American thing (NA as a placeholder for the particular tribes that use it, since I don't know which do)?

Not to mention that IMO consideration of other cultures as inherently respectable isn't something that's taken for granted. I'm Turkish and my own culture has some very toxic undertones, and although most people in this country are accepting of it I wouldn't be offended if there were works out there that took a huge crap on the culture's problematic aspects OR treated the culture the exact way they wanted it to.

Same goes for religions. I respect the freedom to believe, but I am under no obligation whatsoever to respect any religious belief out there, nor do I expect other people to be inherently respectful to mine.

From wiki:

Feathered war bonnets (also called warbonnets or headdresses) are worn by males of the American Plains Indians who have earned a place of great respect in their tribe. Originally they were sometimes worn into battle but they are now primarily used for ceremonial occasions.

So it seems like the conparisson is apt.

 

[Herne]

This is ridiculous. Does anyone think the Irish cared when she used leprechauns in Goblet of Fire? They're a member of the Sídhe race, after all, and part of our folklore. No, we didn't, because that's bollocks.

 

[Funyarinpa]

From wiki:


So it seems like the conparisson is apt.

I think you misunderstood. I meant that the purple heart is wearable by anyone in the US, but the war bonnets are exclusive to the American Plains Indians. Does that create a difference?

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

I just wonder if they have a claim to gatekeep their culture according to you.

Yes.

This is ridiculous. Does anyone think the Irish cared when she used leprechauns in Goblet of Fire? They're a member of the Sídhe race, after all, and part of our folklore. No, we didn't, because that's bollocks.

Im sure some did also because one group doesn't mind does not mean another cannot.
There is no right or wrong.

 

[Bearjewpiter]

If I understand this correctly it seems like Rowling is trying to show the skinwalkers as the misunderstood heroes in her book rather than the evil wizards of Native American lore. Why could a change not be made to have them remain the evil wizards and have some wizards from the tribe fight them off? That way they remain evil, as they are depicted in the source material, Native Americans get a hero character, and the appropriation levels drop somewhat.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

This is a pretty good and very succinct explanation on cultural appropriation. I don't hope to changes people's minds on either side of the debate by posting this but hopefully everyone can be on the same page while having the discussion.

The 3 main points when judging appropriation, according to the author are
1. Significance - considering the original/true significance of the imagery or idea
2. Source - considering the source of the idea
3. Similarity - considering how similar it is to the original idea

In Rowlings short story, which I suspect most people didn't actually read, she doesn't really fall into any of these pitfalls. She mentions that

The legend of the Native American ‘skin walker’ – an evil witch or wizard that can transform into an animal at will – has its basis in fact. A legend grew up around the Native American Animagi

Of which the bolded part accurately represents the original idea behind skin walkers, satisfying 1 and 2. The only change she made was to 3, by tying them into her already existing idea of Animagi, which are magical users that can transform into animals. And then further explaining that some skin walkers were actually persecuted animagi, who were victims of rumors by which lead to those bad associations. So changing them from evil wizards to misunderstood wizards

Like I said before, her story isn't a non-fictional account of native peoples and her story isn't set in our world. It's based on our world and, as a result, things can't be wholly similar.

So, using what she actually wrote and this, can someone explain why her short story was harmful cultural appropriation?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

careful with that edge

Thanks for proving him right.

Neither did Rowling write "an entire story" here. The only reference to actual "Native American" history / culture / mysticism / whatever is a single paragraph.

The legend of the Native American ‘skin walker’ – an evil witch or wizard that can transform into an animal at will – has its basis in fact. A legend grew up around the Native American Animagi, that they had sacrificed close family members to gain their powers of transformation. In fact, the majority of Animagi assumed animal forms to escape persecution or to hunt for the tribe. Such derogatory rumours often originated with No-Maj medicine men, who were sometimes faking magical powers themselves, and fearful of exposure.​

Yeahhhh can't see what's offensive here. Sorry, I'm usually on the side of Native Americans whenever they're attacked, but this is on the same level as complaining about "inaccurate" use of Leprechauns in a fantasy story.

 

[Jack Remington]

It's really dangerous and frankly, unacceptable to tell fiction writers (or musicians, or visual artists) what they can and can't use in their art.

 

[infinitys_7th]

If I understand this correctly it seems like Rowling is trying to show the skinwalkers as the misunderstood heroes in her book rather than the evil wizards of Native American lore. Why could a change not be made to have them remain the evil wizards and have some wizards from the tribe fight them off? That way they remain evil, as they are depicted in the source material, Native Americans get a hero character, and the appropriation levels drop somewhat.

This is the biggest problem with it I can see, but IIRC she did the same thing she did with some European tradition in the series - the "good wizards" in folklore were non-magical con artists who demonized the real wizards.

Edit: Nevermind that, misread Rowling's quote.

 

[Irminsul]

Yeahhhh can't see what's offensive here. Sorry, I'm usually on the side of Native Americans whenever they're attacked, but this is on the same level as complaining about "inaccurate" use of Leprechauns in a fantasy story.

Well, if you look a few posts above yours, apparently this could be an actual issue. I mean, that stance is at least consistent, but I really wonder if anyone thinking this has thought about the consequences.

But if we're doing this, can anyone tell me which culture gets to claim dragons?

 

[Maedhros]

Oh hey, another non-issue being transformed into a giant problem on the internet...

Jesus christ... this world we live in... I think it's impossible to do something without people being oppressed or offended huh? It's kinda of suffocating.

Well, if you look a few posts above yours, apparently this could be an actual issue. I mean, that stance is at least consistent, but I really wonder if anyone thinking this has thought about the consequences.

But if we're doing this, can anyone tell me which culture gets to claim dragons?

China... I think that some countries from the north part of Europe too...

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Oh hey, another non-issue being transformed into a giant problem on the internet...

Jesus christ... this world we live in... I think it's impossible to do something without people being oppressed or offended huh? It's kinda of suffocating.

Yeah but it's probably worse when people actually did things to marginalized groups.

It's really dangerous and frankly, unacceptable to tell fiction writers (or musicians, or visual artists) what they can and can't use in their art.

They can use whatever they want (in the bounds of law) but don't expect people not to call you out about it.

 

[ZeroMaverick]

Hasn't this stuff (like skinwalkers) been used dozens of times in other fictions?

And it's always been ethically questionable or wrong.

 

[Maedhros]

They can use whatever they want (in the bounds of law) but don't expect people not to call you out about it.

To call you out: ok. People can just ignore it.

To want them to stop or to go against them in court: not ok.

I dunno if the second case will happen with this case, but it's very dangerous when this happens.

 

[213372bu]

I know you guys are trying to be funny but I don't see what wrong with what I posted. Like if a group of people decide they don't want share their culture with others, how is that a problem?

Aside from the current discussion, You actually support a committee for cultures that allows and disallows how culture is spread?

Take a step away from the computer and find out about the modern world, how culture is spread, why a fascist-like control of culture is bad, and how the world operates in general.

Modern Western culture is the way it is because culture is spread fast, easily, and inconspicuously.

Can't imagine my culture being controlled by some arbitrary "cultural advisor" of the world

Culture is culture. For good and bad it freely spreads. Any attempt at erasing any negative forms of culture is lol worthy.

Completely missing the point, even of the article.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

And it's always been ethically questionable or wrong.

Really? Always? Why is that?

 

[twobear]

so to be clear, the reaction is towards her changing skin walkers from being 'evil wizards' into 'construed as evil by non-wizards'?

 

[Herne]

Yes.

Im sure some did also because one group doesn't mind does not mean another cannot.
There is no right or wrong.

I would say there's surely no chance of that, but people like Fidelma Healy-Eames exist, so you're probably right. *Shudder*

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Aside from the current discussion, You actually support a committee for cultures that allows and disallows how culture is spread?

Take a step away from the computer and find out about the modern world, how culture is spread, why a fascist-like control of culture is bad, and how the world operates in general.

Modern Western culture is the way it is because culture is spread fast, easily, and inconspicuously.

Can't imagine my culture being controlled by some arbitrary "cultural advisor" of the world

Culture is culture. For good and bad it freely spreads. Any attempt at erasing any negative forms of culture is lol worthy.

Completely missing the point, even of the article.

Im saying the group should have a say in how its spread and with some say in it.
Not because of the law but out of respect.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

so to be clear, the reaction is towards her changing skin walkers from being 'evil wizards' into 'construed as evil by non-wizards'?

I think so? Because that would go against what Skinwalkers are supposed to be to the Navajo and Rowling twisting it to her own fictional world..(Another example brought up that's similar is how, in the Potterverse, the Salem witch burnings were done by a few wizards who really enjoyed the sensation of burning, again twisting reality to fit her fictional world).

 

[UnemployedVillain]

so to be clear, the reaction is towards her changing skin walkers from being 'evil wizards' into 'construed as evil by non-wizards'?

I honestly don't think she wrote enough for there to be a reaction to anything other than that change. Tthe mentions amount to a single short paragraph. Unless there are some who think Native American stories are off limits, in which case I'm just going to scoff and ignore those people

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Hm, so what about the Irish and St Patrick's Day? Sure, they're not really marginalised today (as far as I know), but it's not like they don't have a history of oppression.

Or Jews for that matter.

I've honestly always wondered what would happen if I made a stink about St. Patrick's Day nonsense on my campus.

 

[213372bu]

Im saying the group should have a say in how its spread and with some say in it.
Not because of the law but out of respect.

So like, should we ignore any negative events that a culture tries to ignore/not mention?

Can we not let a writer publish a work against these "leaders of culture"?

Should we not have media that includes slants on holy deities?

Where do you draw the line?

Culture has been spreading through the most basic of interactions. Many are drawn to know more about cultures due to perspectives from other cultures.

Any time someone suggests this it just comes off as naive.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

So like, should we ignore any negative events that a culture tries to ignore/not mention?

Can we not let a writer publish a work against these "leaders of culture"?

Should we not have media that includes slants on holy deities?

Where do you draw the line?

Culture has been spreading through the most basic of interactions. Many are drawn to know more about cultures due to perspectives from other cultures.

Any time someone suggests this it just comes off as naive.

No
You can
You can if you want to
Who knows. Law will probably help with that.
Sure
Maybe

 

[inner-G]

I think any restrictions on expression are bad across the board.

 

[Cocaloch]

I've honestly always wondered what would happen if I made a stink about St. Patrick's Day nonsense on my campus.

St. Patrick's Day basically started as a pride parade for the Irish. It's distinctly Irish-American, so you can't really argue it's being appropriated here. Ironically you could make a fuss about the ones in Ireland now I suppose.

 

[KurtSloane]

Hm, so what about the Irish and St Patrick's Day? Sure, they're not really marginalised today (as far as I know), but it's not like they don't have a history of oppression.

Or Jews for that matter.

Irish had their lands taken and efforts made to destroy their culture and heritage, even Dublin is founded on what was the centre for the slave trade of Irish by the vikings.

Slaved, oppressed, attempts to destroy culture and language (of which the British where very nearly successful).

Even Disney made a stereotypical "Irish" movie.

Then we have the cultural appropriation of Halloween and St Patrick's Day by Americans.

 

[injurai]

They can use whatever they want (in the bounds of law) but don't expect people not to call you out about it.

"Hey, you're not representing our people in a realistic manner. I don't feel like my history is being respected."

"In my fiction world, people have developed differently over the past 100 years."

"So you're changing our history?"

"I wrote a different future, starting in the past, in which the present has become the setting."

"Aha, you admit to misrepresenting us."

"In my fiction, the laws of nature are different. Magic exist and just like technologies cultures have started to converge towards a more accurate understanding of it. The past of these cultures were defined by a naive understanding of the world around them. Most every preexisting cultural understanding of magic is different from my universe. So our real world, reflects the muggles misunderstanding of magic. If you're reading my books, you'd be a muggle in my world. If you're pagan, an animist, mono/poly theist, etc, in real life, you have a misunderstanding of magic in my world. Your culture doesn't get to be right about magic in my world."

"But my group is marginalized, so can't you see how that is more hurtful to us than it would be to others."

"Many others get hurt by my representation of magic. My books have been banned because people couldn't understand they were fiction. I don't seek to rub salt in the wound of any specific peoples. I don't try to change the facts by writing under the guise of non-fiction. I don't try to distract from the real generational scars that people suffer. It is simply a fantastic world of magic to escape into. If you have supernatural beliefs in real life, my book hopefully offers a supernatural experience that feels more active."

"But for us the supernatural is active."

"Then perhaps my next book will be about a less fantastic world for people to escape into."

-----------

People can certainly call JK Rowling out. It doesn't mean they are in the right. We should have types of fiction that both subtle change reality, that strive for accurate representations. We should also have fiction that wildly rewrites the laws the world, and plays with everything. Exploring how things are different from the real world that we live in. HP is the later, and some criticism simply don't apply.

 

[Cocaloch]

Irish had their lands taken and efforts made to destroy their culture and heritage, even Dublin is founded on what was the centre for the slave trade of Irish by the vikings.

Slaved, oppressed, attempts to destroy culture and language (of which the British where very nearly successful).

Even Disney made a stereotypical "Irish" movie.

Then we have the cultural appropriation of Halloween and St Patrick's Day by Americans.

What's Disney's stereotypical Irish movie? Are you talking about Brave? It may be quasi-Gaelic but it's set in Scotland.

St.Patrick's Day is Irish-American more than it is Irish, and Halloween is a pan western tradition.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

People can certainly call JK Rowling out. It doesn't mean they are in the right. We should have types of fiction that both subtle change reality, that strive for accurate representations. We should also have fiction that wildly rewrites the laws the world, and plays with everything. Exploring how things are different from the real world that we live in. HP is the later, and some criticism simply don't apply.

Seriously. It's not like she's perpetuating stereotypes. She's just writing fantasy/alt-history.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

-----------
People can certainly call JK Rowling out. It doesn't mean they are in the right. We should have types of fiction that both subtle change reality, that strive for accurate representations. We should also have fiction that wildly rewrites the laws the world, and plays with everything. Exploring how things are different from the real world that we live in. HP is the later, and some criticism simply don't apply.

So you're taking the opinion that fiction has free reign and more importance than actual real world cultures.
Also, this is kinda of offensive:

"Many others get hurt by my representation of magic.

Seriously. It's not like she's perpetuating stereotypes. She's just writing fantasy/alt-history.

To some she is.

 

[Maedhros]

To some she is.

They are wrong,

 

[Irminsul]

To some she is.

What stereotypes would that be?

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Seriously. It's not like she's perpetuating stereotypes. She's just writing fantasy/alt-history.

Thats how I feel about it.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Not to mention that no single person can speak for any of the demographics they belong to. A Native American claiming that this act is inherently offensive and/or harmful isn't speaking for their whole nation, neither is a Native American who doesn't mind it.

This is exactly my issue with cultural appropriation. A person can be offended, a culture cannot. A person cannot appropriate a culture, simply adopt aspects of it for whatever reason they so choose.

Every human being alive on this earth has adopted aspects of cultures not their own. A person can be born into a culture, choose to be part of a culture, or pick aspects of it, and it has no impact on anyone else. If a person is degrading a culture, deriding it, that is not appropriation, but simply derision which is unfair, because again it's not a person but all people and they do not have one voice or principal. The concept to me simply has no logic at all, and perhaps that is my failing, but I have never seen a good reason why it actually makes any sense when it is a natural part of sharing the same species on the same planet. We will of course all mix and match concepts, ideas, principles, styles, whatever, and no one person can claim they belong to them and others should not use them.

 

[q_q]

I think you're projecting. Person was saying that there's always a grey area with cultural appropriation and my response was that isn't true. There are instances where we can universally agree that some instances of appropriation are plain bad such as black face and the Washington redskins.

Black face and redskins are examples of stereotypes, not appropriation.

 

[Kathian]

Cultural appropriation is normal and your culture was appropriated. The whole discussion around this in recent years has been bizzare to say the least.

 

[q_q]

Cultural appropriation is normal and your culture was appropriated. The whole discussion around this in recent years has been bizzare to say the least.

It's just racism by another name. Person X isn't allowed to do/say/sing/write Y because they're not part of a particular "culture."