Support NeoGAF

[Funyarinpa]

So you're taking the opinion that fiction has free reign and more importance than actual real world cultures.

1) Fiction and real world cultures aren't necessarily hurting each other. Both have a right to exist. Kind of a strawman argument here.

2) Yes, fiction has free reign. Deal with it.

 

[KurtSloane]

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.

St Patrick's Day is Irish, simple.

Secondly Halloween and most of its traditions are based off Samhain, culturally appropriated by the Christians originally.


The movie I refer to is Darby O'Gill, as stereotypical as it comes.

 

[injurai]

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:

There is a difference between claiming your fiction's setting is based in the real world versus building an entirely alternative world.

You know what is also real. Book readers, multi-culturalists, authors. All of whom have a variety of different backgrounds. I know it's not just the Anglosphere that likes alt-history in their fiction. When I defend Rowling and HP. I'm also defending writers of other backgrounds to play with both their culture and others.

As for that being "offensive." Yeah, I saw plenty of Christians upset with HP because it made out magic to be real. It created a world in which the Christian supernatural wasn't real. Where it was you're everyday person who was in the wrong for being suspicious and distrusting of magic.

In many ways Rowling is misrepresenting pagan and vlach cultures and far more so than what a simple paragraph reinterpreting a Navajo custom does. But you won't see anybody in the west give a damn about those people. Or how they have been misrepresented.

But now that her fictional magic is in conflict with specific culture's beliefs. All of a sudden her fiction is problem, and is claimed as being uniquely offensive. Those being upset by this, are giving power to her fiction in a way that it shouldn't be. They claim a concern on behalf others, that they will not be able to see her work for what it is. I find it quite patronizing towards people that have their own voice.

 

[Peagles]

I'm always torn with these types old threads, along with the ones about women's issues. Should I really invest the time explaining an indigenous perspective here? I'm leaning towards no as it always feels like a losing battle.

 

[akira28]

Ah, that sentence again. Should I quote myself from earlier in the thread? Or let's make it simpler.

If I find you a Native American that's telling you to please go ahead and borrow from their culture because it's great to notice one culture's influence everywhere, are you going to listen?

I would listen to him and ask another native american to get an idea of how people feel. and since there are layers to this thing, I might ask a native american who cares about his heritage, and I might ask a native american who doesn't revere his heritage as much. (and I have). And who's desires have more weight? I'm probably going to listen to the one who actually cares.

see, no native americans want to just roll over and offer their culture up wholesale to any curious consumers who want to borrow. none. not even the most self defeated and self-hating. many want to share their culture with the world, which is why you'll find a lot of non-natives at native gatherings and sacred dances. So this idea that they're just closing themselves off to outsiders and they're the ignorant ones is just plain wrong. This conversation didn't start here, and a lot of voices have been heard, which is why I am so confident about native communities in general wanting to put a cap on how they get referenced and represented in other cultures.

I'm always torn with these types old threads, along with the ones about women's issues. Should I really invest the time explaining an indigenous perspective here? I'm leaning towards no as it always feels like a losing battle.

some people actually listen to reason on the internet and carry that reason with them into the real world. amazing, I know, but it does happen.

but if you don't feel up to it(we all get tired), don't do it, because you might end up hurting the message yourself...

 

[Combichristoffersen]

I need to read the entire article after work to get a better understanding of the issue here, but what immediately stood out to me was this:

And skinwalker stories have .. reality

I get context and roots, but reality? Are they implying they believe skinwalkers are real, existing beings?

 

[Thelonelykoopa]

I need to read the entire article after work to get a better understanding of the issue here, but what immediately stood out to me was this:



I get context and roots, but reality? Are they implying they believe skinwalkers are real, existing beings?

Though many Native American tribes has been heavily Christianized many do still have their older beliefs and for the some Navajo the Skin Walkers are very much real beings in the same way as Religious people from any other belief.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

see, no native americans want to just roll over and offer their culture up wholesale to any curious consumers who want to borrow. none.

My question to this is why? What reason does a person have - who presumably have themselves adopted aspects of other cultures - to deprive others from it, or control it's use? What gives a person ownership of a myriad of things, from legends to haircuts that comprise a culture? Why is the prospect offensive? This is the part that doesn't add up for me, because I can only think of a few legitimate answer to that, and none of them are good or seem especially valid. There are very few to no cultures that isolate themselves so utterly from the world as to not appropriate things themselves, be it now or in the future. How then can one declare things out of bounds for the rest of humanity?

 

[MHWilliams]

In many ways Rowling is misrepresenting pagan and vlach cultures and far more so than what a simple paragraph reinterpreting a Navajo custom does. But you won't see anybody in the west give a damn about those people. Or how they have been misrepresented.

But now that her fictional magic is in conflict with specific culture's beliefs. All of a sudden her fiction is problem, and is claimed as being uniquely offensive. Those being upset by this, are giving power to her fiction in a way that it shouldn't be. They claim a concern on behalf others, that they will not be able to see her work for what it is. I find it quite patronizing towards people that have their own voice.

Nope. This lady specifically had an issue because it was related to her culture. It's not "all of a sudden" because the same people who would care about Christian religion or Wicca are not the same who would care about Native religion.

A and B are not analogous.

 

[injurai]

Though many Native American tribes has been heavily Christianized many do still have their older beliefs and for the some Navajo the Skin Walkers are very much real beings in the same way as Religious people from any other belief.

While it's important to respect an individual. There is no reason their interpretation of the world need to represented as true or real, this pertains to both fiction and nonfiction. Respect the individual, but beliefs should be open for criticism. In saying that it's important to respect First Nation's people and their real world struggles. But their should be no need to represent them as if their beliefs were true, especially in a fiction with it's own metaphysical laws.

 

[injurai]

Nope. This lady specifically had an issue because it was related to her culture. It's not "all of a sudden" because the same people who would care about Christian religion or Wicca are not the same who would care about Native religion.

I'm not saying it's the same people. I'm saying something becomes uniquely offensive at a certain time to a particular group. If it's okay for HP to fly in the face of Christian beliefs. To poorly represent pagan and vlach customs of magic which HP generously takes inspiration from. If all of that is okay. Then it should be okay to be consistent with how to reinterprets cultures in relation to these new metaphysical laws.

 

[akira28]

My question to this is why? What reason does a person have - who presumably have themselves adopted aspects of other cultures - to deprive others from it, or control it's use? What gives a person ownership of a myriad of things, from legends to haircuts that comprise a culture? Why is the prospect offensive? This is the part that doesn't add up for me, because I can only think of a few legitimate answer to that, and none of them are good or seem especially valid. There are very few to no cultures that isolate themselves so utterly from the world as to not appropriate things themselves, be it now or in the future. How then can one declare things out of bounds for the rest of humanity?

people still steal native american kids so they can raise their own indian.

 

[Funyarinpa]

see, no native americans want to just roll over and offer their culture up wholesale to any curious consumers who want to borrow. none. not even the most self defeated and self-hating. many want to share their culture with the world, which is why you'll find a lot of non-natives at native gatherings and sacred dances. So this idea that they're just closing themselves off to outsiders and they're the ignorant ones is just plain wrong. This conversation didn't start here, and a lot of voices have been heard, which is why I am so confident about native communities in general wanting to put a cap on how they get referenced and represented in other cultures.

I think that any assumption made for a group of people as large as the native americans is too broad.

Also, another thing: Why aren't cultures allowed to have a free perception of other cultures themselves? As long as you're free and able to practice your culture, why should there be a barrier on cultural exchange?

 

[MHWilliams]

I'm not saying it's the same people. I'm saying something becomes uniquely offensive at a certain time to a particular group. If it's okay for HP to fly in the face of Christian beliefs. To poorly represent pagan and vlach customs of magic which HP generously takes inspiration from. If all of that is okay. Then it should be okay to be consistent with how to reinterprets cultures in relation to these new metaphysical laws.

I mean, I'm sure you can find those who argue against the bolded. That's my point. I've read Pagans who dislike HP because the converts it brings believe all the wrong things and are ultimately short-lived. I know Wiccans were up in arms over True Blood's Wiccan character, for example. Different people care about different things.

The only difference between them and this person is she was on Twitter and the Guardian wrote an article about her.

It's always okay and there will always be people with cogent arguments as to why it's not okay. What you do with those arguments is ultimately a personal choice.

 

[Peagles]

My question to this is why? What reason does a person have - who presumably have themselves adopted aspects of other cultures - to deprive others from it, or control it's use? What gives a person ownership of a myriad of things, from legends to haircuts that comprise a culture? Why is the prospect offensive? This is the part that doesn't add up for me, because I can only think of a few legitimate answer to that, and none of them are good or seem especially valid. There are very few to no cultures that isolate themselves so utterly from the world as to not appropriate things themselves, be it now or in the future. How then can one declare things out of bounds for the rest of humanity?

Because dominant cultures have taken and misused parts of indigenous cultures in the past and continue to do so today.

Indigenous people are allowed to protect what's precious to them. It's not about declaring it out of bounds for the rest of humanity, which is why I talked earlier about consulting.

Heck, even within my culture I consult before I go writing anything.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

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."

Its totally not. I don't know how you get to that conclusion.

1) Fiction and real world cultures aren't necessarily hurting each other. Both have a right to exist. Kind of a strawman argument here.

2) Yes, fiction has free reign. Deal with it.

1)Of course they do.
2) I mean I do deal with it but sometimes it's shouldn't.

I need to read the entire article after work to get a better understanding of the issue here, but what immediately stood out to me was this:

I get context and roots, but reality? Are they implying they believe skinwalkers are real, existing beings?

People believe in gods so why does this come as a surprise. Not making fun, I'm just saying.

 

[injurai]

I mean, I'm sure you can find those who argue against the bolded. That's my point. I've read Pagans who dislike HP because the converts it brings believe all the wrong things and are ultimately short-lived. I know Wiccans were up in arms over True Blood's Wiccan character, for example. Different people care about different things.

The only difference between them and this person is she was on Twitter and the Guardian wrote an article about her.

It's always okay and there will always be people with cogent arguments as to why it's not okay. What you do with those arguments is ultimately a personal choice.

I still don't think you understand my point. I'm not saying there aren't pagans that take offense. I'm saying many people take issue with HP over it's different liberties in different ways. If you can enjoy the fact that it reinterprets one culture, but it's a problem when it reinterprets your cultural or a specific culture that you taking concern for. Even when it's obviously fiction. Then maybe you need to rethink what is really important in life.

I think it's much more important to be consistent. It's important to allow people to play with culture, with stories, with fantasy and fiction. It's important for all people from all backgrounds to do this. As humans we should be able to take influence from all cultures, and not exclude others or be excluded.

For Native Americans and all First Nations people. The generational scars they suffer are real. The are socioeconomically disenfranchised, which makes it hard for them to have opportunities, and to keep their culture alive. The emphasis should be on strengthening the solidarity between cultures, so that everyone and be culturally self-determined. But it shouldn't be JK Rowling's responsibility to represent Navajo culture from specific lense.

So if a fictional version of Skinwalkers is a problem for you. Then a significant amount of others things in HP should be a problem, so much so that the series ought not exist.

 

[Bananajama]

Free publicity. She'll be loving this.

Nothing wrong with it either imo

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Free publicity. She'll be loving this.

Nothing wrong with it either imo

Such coldness to appropritating another culture.

But it shouldn't be JK Rowling's responsibility to represent Navajo culture from specific lense.

So if a fictional version of Skinwalkers is a problem for you. Then a significant amount of others things in HP should be a problem, so much so that the series ought not exist.

No one is saying that but wouldn't it be great if did or at least tried.
Your second point is so silly. lol

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I get context and roots, but reality? Are they implying they believe skinwalkers are real, existing beings?

Are you suggesting that this belief is silly? Next you'll tell me believing in angels is silly, or something!

While it's important to respect an individual. There is no reason their interpretation of the world need to represented as true or real, this pertains to both fiction and nonfiction. Respect the individual, but beliefs should be open for criticism. In saying that it's important to respect First Nation's people and their real world struggles. But their should be no need to represent them as if their beliefs were true, especially in a fiction with it's own metaphysical laws.

Yup.

 

[injurai]

No one is saying that but wouldn't it be great if did or at least tried.
Your second point is so silly. lol

Saying should have at least tried, implies there is an ideal end goal to strive for. I don't believe there is one. The fiction might necessitate a deviation from such an ideal. Which is why I argue what I do in the first place.

It really isn't a silly point, unless you don't believe that solidarity should extend equally to all misrepresented and disenfranchised people.

 

[Tesseract]

animorphs

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Free publicity. She'll be loving this.

Nothing wrong with it either imo

Why the fuck hell would Rowling care about more publicity at this point?

 

[UnemployedVillain]

No one is saying that but wouldn't it be great if did or at least tried.

How did she not try??? The only think she changed was skin walkers all being bad to some being good and misunderstood. Literally the ONLY thing

 

[oti]

I wonder what would happen if the Oracle at Delphi turned out ot be a witch in her books. Greece was kinda pissed about Disney's Hercules

Spoiler

ugh

when it came out.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Because dominant cultures have taken and misused parts of indigenous cultures in the past and continue to do so today.

Indigenous people are allowed to protect what's precious to them. It's not about declaring it out of bounds for the rest of humanity, which is why I talked earlier about consulting.

Heck, even within my culture I consult before I go writing anything.

I'm not sure you can misuse a culture. How can you even define that? You can deride a culture, mock it, be negative in opinion of it, and the opposite, but you cannot misuse it. A culture is comprised of so many things. You can't stop a person from adopting aspects of any culture, nor should anyone. Can a person rightly tell another human being what beliefs they be allowed to share in? This position seems like some kind of recompense for wrongs done to the people invested in the culture, as a means of denying something from those who persecuted them, historically or not. When you also consider that everyone has adopted aspects of cultures not their own, how is this a sound position?

I can fully understand something being precious to a human being, to a group of them, and them wanting to preserve that, but not the claim of ownership to a concept comprised of many things that are free for all people to choose. Truly, no person can lay claim to anything that forms a culture as a whole.

Regardless, I appreciate your response.

 

[poppabk]

How did she not try??? The only think she changed was skin walkers all being bad to some being good and misunderstood. Literally the ONLY thing

Plus it wouldn't surprise me if historically the 'evil skin-walkers' didn't serve the same purpose as 'evil witches' to marginalize or oppress a segment of the population.

 

[#sorrynotsorry]

I edited the first sentence in my post for better clarification, but I'm talking about forgetting about the people in which the culture comes from, in this case, people who continue to be marginalized.

But this doesn't marginalize them. This does the opposite. People who have a spotlight on them are not forgotten. They are remembered. Or learned about for the first time.

The reason this culture is little known is because it is xenophobic. Not because people marginalize Native Americans.

This is good for them.

 

[Peagles]

I'm not sure you can misuse a culture.

Read about appropriation and you'll find out.

There are ways to borrow from a culture that are cool, more like paying a homage. What isn't cool is the misuse or appropriation.

I appreciate its pretty hard to get your head around, particularly if you're from a dominant culture, and it can certainly be a fine line to walk. Like I said, I consult even within my own culture.

But this doesn't marginalize them. This does the opposite. People who have a spotlight on them are not forgotten. They are remembered. Or learned about for the first time.

The reason this culture is little known is because it is xenophobic. Not because people marginalize Native Americans.

This is good for them.

Whaddya mean that's not how it was? You should be grateful we even remembered you!

And the old we know what's good for you? Wow.

 

[injurai]

Read about appropriation and you'll find out.

There are ways to borrow from a culture that are cool, more like paying a homage. What isn't cool is the misuse or appropriation.

I appreciate its pretty hard to get your head around, particularly if you're from a dominant culture, and it can certainly be a fine line to walk. Like I said, I consult even within my own culture.

Misuse? So what if one culture finds a religious tool useful for more practical purposes. They appropriated to fit their customs and needs. Do we say they misuse it because it shirks the religious ties. Is this misuse, and offensive. Or is it wrong to control someone else? Is it wrong to deny people to use such a tool simply because one group beat them to the punch. Or to the idea.

You need to remember that appropriation is neutral. Disparaging a culture, but parading it as somehow better or purified when you do it is something entirely different. That's cultural imperialism.

There is no inherent issue with appropriation. Appropriation is how we combine ideas with our own to create something new or that fits us.

 

[Peagles]

Misuse? So what if one culture finds a religious tool useful for more practical purposes. They appropriated to fit their customs and needs. Do we say they misuse it because it shirks the religious ties. Is this misuse, and offensive. Or is it wrong to control someone else? Is it wrong to deny people to use such a tool simply because one group beat them to the punch. Or to the idea.

You need to remember that appropriation is neutral. Disparaging a culture, but parading it as somehow better or purified when you do it is something entirely different. That's cultural imperialism.

There is no inherent issue with appropriation. Appropriation is how we combine ideas with our own to create something new or that fits us.

I don't think you're talking about what you think you're talking about.

With that, I'm out. I was leaning towards no and I should have leaned all the way.

 

[injurai]

I don't think you're talking about what you think you're talking about.

With that, I'm out. I was leaning towards no and I should have leaned all the way.

What do you mean by me not talking about what I think I'm talking about? Maybe we are talking past each other with different definitions of appropriation? As there is no single definition I'd be happy to try to get on the same wavelength. No need to throw in the towel, I'm not trying to be difficult with that post.

 

[Charcoal]

Everyone wants a piece of Harry's pie.

 

[akira28]

I think that any assumption made for a group of people as large as the native americans is too broad.

Also, another thing: Why aren't cultures allowed to have a free perception of other cultures themselves? As long as you're free and able to practice your culture, why should there be a barrier on cultural exchange?

its not an assumption. I've heard that sentiment come from multiple Native Americans, all the way up to the chief level. I don't assume it speaks for everyone, but I know it is a widely held opinion within native communities.

and to your second point, historically this has been a travesty, not just a problem, but a horrible example of humanity, in reference to how "culture exchange" has played out for native peoples in america.

 

[Funyarinpa]

its not an assumption. I've heard that sentiment come from multiple Native Americans, all the way up to the chief level. I don't assume it speaks for everyone, but I know it is a widely held opinion within native communities.

and to your second point, historically this has been a travesty, not just a problem, but a horrible example of humanity, in reference to how "culture exchange" has played out for native peoples in america.

I see. I respect your knowledge on the matter. That's very saddening (but not surprising) to hear. Valid point on the second part too, I guess some mutual respect has to be sustained for the good of both parties.

Before I log off for the night, I want to say that I'm conflicted on the issue. Both sides have points I find irrefutable. On one hand, I respect the sentiment some Native American people have that they don't want to share their culture. On the other, the fact that there's no definite owner of any culture, and thus, that a culture can't have a definitive consensus on whether it wants to be shared or not, and my notion of complete literary liberty. I am leaning towards the creative liberty side still (and I'm still sure that what JRK wrote isn't problematic) but it's far from an easy issue by any means.

 

[MHWilliams]

I still don't think you understand my point. I'm not saying there aren't pagans that take offense. I'm saying many people take issue with HP over it's different liberties in different ways. If you can enjoy the fact that it reinterprets one culture, but it's a problem when it reinterprets your cultural or a specific culture that you taking concern for. Even when it's obviously fiction. Then maybe you need to rethink what is really important in life.

I think it's much more important to be consistent. It's important to allow people to play with culture, with stories, with fantasy and fiction. It's important for all people from all backgrounds to do this. As humans we should be able to take influence from all cultures, and not exclude others or be excluded.

For Native Americans and all First Nations people. The generational scars they suffer are real. The are socioeconomically disenfranchised, which makes it hard for them to have opportunities, and to keep their culture alive. The emphasis should be on strengthening the solidarity between cultures, so that everyone and be culturally self-determined. But it shouldn't be JK Rowling's responsibility to represent Navajo culture from specific lense.

So if a fictional version of Skinwalkers is a problem for you. Then a significant amount of others things in HP should be a problem, so much so that the series ought not exist.

You seem to take issue with people being people and having more concern over the ideas that reflect things in their own life.

A person can watch a ton of other TV shows that take place in various cities, but you can bet they'll quibble with the show that says in takes place in Brooklyn but is filmed in Vancouver, if they're from Brooklyn. If you draw from real life setting, ideas, and characters, the people associated with the facets will have issues with the creative liberties you take. (See, the Spider-Man feedback in the Civil War trailer, arguing that the costume isn't as good as it could be because it diverges from the comic ideal.) We are people, everyone has different lines.

Again, nothing is stopping Rowling from doing this. The person in the original article, as I've shown elsewhere, has issues with her doing it poorly and not reaching out to someone from the culture to ensure that use is rooted in some truth. That person is allowed to hold that belief about their own culture. I may disagree or feel differently. Regardless, I don't feel she shouldn't say that or there's isn't some logical basis for her argument.

I do enjoy the jab, "Then maybe you need to rethink what is really important in life." The person in the original article feels rather strongly about her culture and its representation in media. She has a whole blog about it. It also seems to be a part of her doctorate and academic focus. So, that is what is important in life to her. I'm unsure why that's a problem.

 

[akira28]

I see. I respect your knowledge on the matter. That's very saddening (but not surprising) to hear.

Before I log off for the night, I want to say that I'm conflicted on the issue. Both sides have points I find irrefutable.

these people have been subject to defeat on top of defeat, and half the time it came from someone who initially claimed to be an ally. so you can't just come up and expect complete openness when 9 times out of 10 the person coming to you just wants something from you, and hasn't brought anything to give.

its hard to find anyone more generous than native americans have been, but they have had so much taken from them, and they do not have very much left to give, let alone to keep for themselves.

 

[Trident]

You seem to take issue with people being people and having more concern over the ideas that reflect things in their own life.

A person can watch a ton of other TV shows that take place in various cities, but you can bet they'll quibble with the show that says in takes place in Brooklyn but is filmed in Vancouver, if they're from Brooklyn. If you draw from real life setting, ideas, and characters, the people associated with the facets will have issues with the creative liberties you take. (See, the Spider-Man feedback in the Civil War trailer, arguing that the costume isn't as good as it could be because it diverges from the comic ideal.) We are people, everyone has different lines.

Again, nothing is stopping Rowling from doing this. The person in the original article, as I've shown elsewhere, has issues with her doing it poorly and not reaching out to someone from the culture to ensure that use is rooted in some truth. That person is allowed to hold that belief about their own culture. I may disagree or feel differently. Regardless, I don't feel she shouldn't say that or there's isn't some logical basis for her argument.

I do enjoy the jab, "Then maybe you need to rethink what is really important in life." The person in the original article feels rather strongly about her culture and its representation in media. She has a whole blog about it. It also seems to be a part of her doctorate and academic focus. So, that is what is important in life to her. I'm unsure why that's a problem.

So it seems you actually are making the argument I originally thought you were in my previous post - you're conflating whether people have the right to do something with whether they should do that thing.

No one is arguing that people don't have the right to make complaints about Harry Potter. Nor is anyone arguing that JK Rowling is required to listen or care about those complaints. That's simply not the conversation anyone is having.

A somewhat oblique comparison would be if I argued that "2 + 2 = 5." Of course I have the right to think I'm correct, and you have the right to think I'm incorrect - but any discussion we have is about whether I'm *actually* correct.

Similarly, people here are arguing over the *merits* of this woman's position about cultural appropriation, not about whether she has the right to believe in it.

Unless you're a complete relativist, and believe there is no actually correct/incorrect view of cultural appropriation or this particular example, then I'm not sure what the point is of telling people they have a right to express their opinions on it - since that's not what anyone is arguing against.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I'm always torn with these types old threads, along with the ones about women's issues. Should I really invest the time explaining an indigenous perspective here? I'm leaning towards no as it always feels like a losing battle.

Unfortunately threads like these cause a lot of people to give up on trying to explain or educate.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I wish more people would comment specifically within the context of what Rowling wrote, but I don't think most of the people in here actually read it

 

[JeTmAn81]

I wish more people would comment specifically within the context of what Rowling wrote, but I don't think most of the people in here actually read it

I did, and I didn't see a problem with what she wrote. There was no attempt to unfairly portray that culture in a negative light, just mentioning of some legends which exist in the culture.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

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:






To some she is.

I absolutely think art is more important than any religion, marginalized or not.

 

[3rdman]

JK Rowling just shot herself in the foot.

I don't know how much the rest of you know about American Indian culture (I'm an expert), but honor and shame are huge parts of it. It's not like it is in England where you can become successful by being an asshole. If you screw someone over in North America, you bring shame to yourself, and the only way to get rid of that shame is repentance.

What this means is the Indian public, after hearing about this, is not going to want to purchase Harry Potter, nor will they purchase any of Rowling's movies. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but Rowling has alienated an entire market with this move.

JK Rowling, publicly apologize and cancel Pottermore or you can kiss your business goodbye.

 

[mugwhump]

I wish more people would comment specifically within the context of what Rowling wrote, but I don't think most of the people in here actually read it

Yes, 95% of the thread is people talking about cultural appropriation in general. Sometimes posters will mention that "Rowling should have tried harder," or "she should have consulted someone." But most don't really say how she should have done better, or exactly what a cultural consultant would have taken issue with or suggest she change (apart from "don't use our culture at all").

 

[SkeptiMism]

The concept of cultural appropriation has always been so hard for me to understand for whatever reason. And yes, this is obviously related to my privilege, I get that.

I do understand though that people of a marginalized culture might be pissed off if they are constantly portrayed wrong in the mainstream culture. And I am sad that whenever someone talks about this, they face huge backlash. Disagreeing opinions are fine, but it's always sad to see people not even trying to understand where they're coming from. People yelling "it's fiction, fuck off!" really doesn't help, and attacking the speaker (which isn't really happening here fortunately, but it does happen in general) is just horrible.

That said, I'm still heavily inclined to agree that Rowling's writing here is fine. It's hard to see any disrespect in there, as it's not portraying Native Americans or their tales in any bad light at all. It doesn't use racist caricatures or anything like that either. It's a very similar treatment as what Rowling has done to other cultures - take what they have, but conform it to the fantasy world.

She could've of course sought council from Native Americans, but honestly, I don't really hold it against her that she didn't. It would've been nice, but it's not something that should be expected every time a creator wants to take things from a culture, even if it is a marginalized one. Research is something that should be expected I'd say, but it seems that the amount of research isn't the problem here, as Rowling didn't even write much about it and what is written is based on their myths/religion, but it's just conformed to her magical world.

Native Americans are of course free to offer their criticism still, but I just don't see why I should have any sympathy towards it. I can understand where it's coming from, but I don't agree that it's fair criticism.

Some of the criticism also just seems really strange. Like the tweets of Johnnie Jae in the article in the OP:

Jae wrote: “This isn’t us saying that Native people can’t be wizards or magical beings, but that @jk_rowling’s attempt is unacceptable & disrespectful because @jk_rowling has based her ‘native wizards’ off the same racist stereotypes & miseducation that JM Barrie used in Peter Pan.”

We're saying that there is problem when non-natives continue to use outdated & racist stereotypes as the basis for their native characters"

I can agree with the latter part when generally speaking, but when talking about this particular case, what racist stereotypes and miseducation is she using/portraying?

If someone has any idea, I'm open to hear it though. As I said, cultural appropriation is really hard for me to understand, but I do try.

 

[akira28]

The concept of cultural appropriation has always been so hard for me to understand for whatever reason. And yes, this is obviously related to my privilege, I get that.

I do understand though that people of a marginalized culture might be pissed off if they are constantly portrayed wrong in the mainstream culture. And I am sad that whenever someone talks about this, they face huge backlash. Disagreeing opinions are fine, but it's always sad to see people not even trying to understand where they're coming from. People yelling "it's fiction, fuck off!" really doesn't help, and attacking the speaker (which isn't really happening here fortunately, but it does happen in general) is just horrible.

That said, I'm still heavily inclined to agree that Rowling's writing here is fine. It's hard to see any disrespect in there, as it's not portraying Native Americans or their tales in any bad light at all. It doesn't use racist caricatures or anything like that either. It's a very similar treatment as what Rowling has done to other cultures - take what they have, but conform it to the fantasy world.

She could've of course sought council from Native Americans, but honestly, I don't really hold it against her that she didn't. It would've been nice, but it's not something that should be expected every time a creator wants to take things from a culture, even if it is a marginalized one. Research is something that should be expected I'd say, but it seems that the amount of research isn't the problem here, as Rowling didn't even write much about it and what is written is based on their myths/religion, but it's just conformed to her magical world.

Native Americans are of course free to offer their criticism still, but I just don't see why I should have any sympathy towards it. I can understand where it's coming from, but I don't agree that it's fair criticism.

Some of the criticism also just seems really strange. Like the tweets of Johnnie Jae in the article in the OP:

I can agree with the latter part when generally speaking, but when talking about this particular case, what racist stereotypes and miseducation is she using/portraying?

If someone has any idea, I'm open to hear it though. As I said, cultural appropriation is really hard for me to understand, but I do try.

she's portraying the native american no-majs(the non magical people aka muggles) as superstitious and oppressive of their people's magic as the white settlers were, to make native magic some kind of "special monster" instead of the focus point of their culture and the reason for their connection with nature and the world around them. And to push her point she takes one of the sacred stories of balance and morality and mystery (which is complicated as fuck, oh my god.) and makes it an example one of her favored tropes of "see, magical hatred is universal", along with "magical people gotta eat too" to normalize her world where magic exists in the negative space of the human imagination.

Yes, 95% of the thread is people talking about cultural appropriation in general. Sometimes posters will mention that "Rowling should have tried harder," or "she should have consulted someone." But most don't really say how she should have done better, or exactly what a cultural consultant would have taken issue with or suggest she change (apart from "don't use our culture at all").

and there are a lot of ways she could and should have made her work better. just because we don't walk you down the primrose path doesn't mean you can't find it yourselves. (in other words it exists)

 

[poppabk]

she's portraying the native american no-majs(the non magical people aka muggles) as superstitious and oppressive of their people's magic as the white settlers were, to make native magic some kind of "special monster" instead of the focus point of their culture and the reason for their connection with nature and the world around them.

This sounds dangerously close to the magical native american trope.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicalNativeAmerican

 

[BrightLightLava]

JK Rowling just shot herself in the foot.

I don't know how much the rest of you know about American Indian culture (I'm an expert), but honor and shame are huge parts of it. It's not like it is in England where you can become successful by being an asshole. If you screw someone over in North America, you bring shame to yourself, and the only way to get rid of that shame is repentance.

What this means is the Indian public, after hearing about this, is not going to want to purchase Harry Potter, nor will they purchase any of Rowling's movies. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but Rowling has alienated an entire market with this move.

JK Rowling, publicly apologize and cancel Pottermore or you can kiss your business goodbye.

What's the origin of this? It throws me off every time I see it.

 

[Chris R]

What's the origin of this? It throws me off every time I see it.

FFXIII reveal for the 360.

edit: here

 

[UnemployedVillain]

She could've of course sought council from Native Americans,

I've seen this multiple times in this thread and still have no idea what it means. Is there an official native American council on all things related to specific tribes? Who or what or where is this council? And how much council would one need to look up what a skin Walker is?