Support NeoGAF

[akira28]

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

yes because I said all native americans had magical powers. its not magic and I will stop referring to it as such, since there appears to be some further confusion brewing.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

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.




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)

So because she suggested that one group of Native Americans in a hypothetical reality where magic exists had the same basic attitude toward practitioners of it as Europeans, she has misrepresented Native Americans because their worldview is such that magic users probably would have been embraced, despite the fact that magic in the Harry Potter universe works almost entirely differently compared to any actual Native American tribe's conception of it and therefore might plausibly have been mistrusted as "evil" or shameful?

 

[akira28]

no

 

[BrightLightLava]

FFXIII reveal for the 360.

edit: here

Thanks, some of the replies to that are hilarious.

 

[GYODX]

Of all the things I'd be concerned about being under fire for, cultural appropriation is way, way down that list. Just shrug it off, Rowling.

 

[poppabk]

yes because I said all native americans had magical powers. its not magic and I will stop referring to it as such, since there appears to be some further confusion brewing.

OK, what are you saying?

 

[injurai]

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.

Thank you, I'm glad someone can actually follow the plot.

 

[DiscoJer]

I think its weird that she would use Navajo which is west coast when the majority of the story is taking place on the east coast. I would argue Cherokee mythology would fit much better within the harry potter universe when dealing with Magic and how magic users are treated.

Navajo folklore is much more popular in fiction though.

Biggest example would be the novels of Tony Hillerman, who had a long running series about a pair of Navajo detectives, including a novel called Skinwalkers, which is probably the source of this whole thing, since it was an extremely popular book (and adapted into a PBS movie)

I suspect she simply read the book and thought it would be a neat idea to adapt to the Potterverse.

I don't think there is anything similar for the Cherokee, either in terms of popularity or depth. (I could be wrong, but I read a lot of fiction)

 

[Maedhros]

Maybe someday, in the future, we'll have a list of things that people can't use on their works of fiction.

 

[Infinite]

Thank you, I'm glad someone can actually follow the plot.

Funny you say that and people are have been making posts like this one since the thread began.

Maybe someday, in the future, we'll have a list of things that people can't use on their works of fiction.

 

[akira28]

OK, what are you saying?

that these things of the other side, power, medicine, spirits and the natural world make up a large part of their religious and personal spiritual beliefs? how that lead you into the Magical Native American trope that these things imbue some kind of racial magical powers to all natives?

Because that's not what I said, but that doesn't stop anyone from taking my posts and extrapolating them into arguments you'd prefer to address, rather than the one that was actually presented.

always a pleasure to see your avatar too, I know I'm in for a good time.

 

[poppabk]

that these things of the other side, power, medicine, spirits and the natural world make up a large part of their religious and personal spiritual beliefs? how that lead you into the Magical Native American trope that these things imbue some kind of racial magical powers to all natives?

Because that's not what I said, but that doesn't stop anyone from taking my posts and extrapolating them into arguments you'd prefer to address, rather than the one that was actually presented.

always a pleasure to see your avatar too, I know I'm in for a good time.

I'm trying to parse what you are saying. Are you saying that because of their religious and personal beliefs - the native americans would have accepted wizards?

 

[akira28]

I'm trying to parse what you are saying. Are you saying that because of their religious and personal beliefs - the native americans would have accepted wizards?

I'm not sure one thing would really tell you the answer to the other, if you're asking seriously, lol.

 

[MHWilliams]

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.

Sorry, was watching Zootopia.

You've entered "should" into the lexicon, so let's tackle that first. Why should she not speak her mind if she feels Rowling has erred? I gave you examples of others who have spoken when they've felt art has misrepresented their culture. Here's a few more:

Mental Health issues can be misrepresented on film, tv
Poles say Oscar-winning ‘Ida’ misrepresents Jewish persecution
Wolf Totem: writer blasts hit film over 'fake' Mongolian culture
How the Media Misrepresents Alcoholics Anonymous
Real witches cry foul at portrayal on "True Blood"
The Blatant Cultural Appropriation in 'Fuller House' Is Not Cool
'The Lone Ranger' Movie: Why Are Native Americans Angry At Johnny Depp?
Why Nurse Stereotypes Are Bad for Health
There's whole host of nerds who feel Big Bang Theory poor mines nerd culture.

In that spread you have writers, psychologists, and average people who feel art (fiction and non-fiction) has not told their stories correctly. That art has, in the search for some other truth, failed on offering their truth. Some simply disagree with the ideas put forth, some charge that concepts reinforce stereotypes that keep harmful ideas and practices alive. These are fictional worlds and shows, but people's connection to them is quite real in positive and negative ways. In many cases, people are simply asking that creators do their homework and show some respect, which shouldn't really be that revolutionary a concept.

So why should they not say something?

If we're arguing the merit of these ideas, do you believe that creators should not attempt to do better? Do you believe more research and a greater understanding of the settings and cultures you based your characters and worlds on is a poor idea? As a writer, that oddly seems to go against everything I was taught in school.

So, I ask you, do you believe Rowling did the legwork? Or do you believe she just threw something together? Or somewhere in between. If you don't feel she did the research and due diligence, would that not be something you'd point out? (I honestly don't think there's enough there to feel either way about, but hey, I'm not that close to this.)

Like if you feel a writer utterly failed when it comes to describing bladed weapons of any type. Perhaps you're a writer who has experience in the military, calling out others for things they get wrong about the military. Everyone has a thing that's important to them and they will comment on that things.

Writers don't have hit every nook and cranny. Hell, they honestly can do whatever they want. But I find people actually tend to enjoy the work more when the writers does put forth that actual effort. Given that I've already pointed out where she seems fine with allowing people to use native culture if they reach out to Native resources, I'm unsure how you take issue with the merit of that argument.

Here's Writer's Digest:

Just because you’re writing fiction, it doesn’t give you license to make everything up.

Well, okay, so maybe it does. It’s your story, you can do whatever you want. But, let’s say you want someone to actually read it. Now, things are a little different. You want to write a story that will draw readers in—that will engage them. We’re talking about writing realistic fiction or fiction that is at least entertaining enough that the reader will be willing to suspend disbelief. There’s a word for that true-to-life feeling that a story can have—one that writers often throw around when they’re trying to sound smart and writerly: verisimilitude. And that’s what you want. So how do you accomplish that? How do you write a story that feels real to the reader? Well, you employ another, less impressive word: RESEARCH.

Those complaints and comments above? The idea of cultural appropriation? It all boils down to "You didn't do the research." And I don't think asking for that should be a problem.

 

[Trident]

You've entered "should" into the lexicon, so let's tackle that first. Why should she not speak her mind if she feels Rowling has erred?

Okay, apparently there was an ambiguity in my use of "should", so let's tidy that up:

I didn't mean "should" as in "should people say things they believe in" - obviously the answer to that is yes, and again, I don't think anyone is arguing against that.

I meant "should people say that" as a synonym for the merits of what they're saying - are the beliefs they hold, that they have every legal and metaphysical right to express, correct or not?

That's what people are arguing about: Is she right? Is she wrong? Not whether she should be allowed to speak, or whether she should choose to speak to the things she believes in - but whether the things she's saying are right.

If we're arguing the merit of these ideas, do you believe that creators should not attempt to do better?

Me personally? I really have no idea - I have essentially no culture, so I have no frame of reference to these sorts of issues. I came to this thread to read people's thoughts and become informed, and every time you speak on the actual issue at hand I find it very insightful and helpful to me.

What prompted me to speak was that you are conflating two completely separate issues: the merit of ideas and the right to express them. I see this online all the time now, and it almost always results in a mushy, imprecise conversation, with people arguing right past each other to no end at all.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

There is no real indication that Rowling didn't do research. She expressed knowledge that Skinwalkers seem to have a similar relationship to certain Native American tribes that "demons" and the like had to European Christians, and said that, in actuality, these "Skinwalkers" were real witches and wizards vilified as evil by their fellow tribesmen. Some are taking issue with the idea that Native Americans would vilify magic, because there is a certain mysticism and magic inherent to their worldview and religion (though there are reasonable objections to this objection), but the bulk of the criticism seems to be in the very idea that she used Native American religious folklore and put her own spin on it, because it's not "hers" and not something she has any right to. That simply is not how art nor culture works, nor how art nor culture SHOULD work. Current Native Americans are the genetic inheritors, not the creators, of their theology, and they have no more inherent right to it than any other human being, because culture is ultimately a collective human project, not the property nor birthright of specific individuals. No religion should be sacrosanct and off-limits for authors, no matter whether the people practicing it are marginalized or not, because all religions are basically folklore and myth to people that do not practice them, and all folklore and myth does more good as fodder for the collective human imagination than as some fenced-off cultural curio. Nobody's religion exists any less because J.K. Rowling made a paragraph-length mention of it, nobody is less able to practice their religion because of that, no non-practitioner of said religion will be any less inclined to do their due diligence in researching it, and the religion is not cheapened any more than any other religion is cheapened when it has its sacrosanct aspect lampooned or reappropriated toward another purpose in a work of art.

Now, Rowling happens to be a pretty mediocre artist, but as long as the conversation revolves around criticizing her on non-artistic grounds, I'll speak in more general terms, because the general gist of what she's doing is artistically and morally unobjectionable, unless you skew your own priorities such that you are unable to appreciate art on its own terms.

 

[Erevador]

It's clear from this thread, and so many similar conversations that are being had recently that people simply have wildly different conceptions of what the role and value of art is in a society. I'm not sure those differences can really be reconciled.

Two different conversations are happening in parallel here.

 

[Darksol]

Meh. She didn't do anything wrong. This will blow over in a few days when the Internet finds a new non-controversy to create.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

Meh. She didn't do anything wrong. This will blow over in a few days when the Internet finds a new non-controversy to create.

The idea that people write stuff like this is so sad and pathetic.
To reduce these people's arguments to just wanting to creat controversy is so disappointing.

 

[MHWilliams]

That's what people are arguing about: Is she right? Is she wrong? Not whether she should be allowed to speak, or whether she should choose to speak to the things she believes in - but whether the things she's saying are right.

Right, but in this area, then you're starting to get into the subjectivity of it all. Your connection to the work is different from mine and hers.

That's why I offered up the other examples. Are they wrong? I don't care about the specific tactics of military organizations, so if you write one in a work of complete fiction, I'm not taken out of the work. If you have some facility, that lack of research actually effects your connection and immersion with that work.

It's such a grey area that I don't think you can really hit on "right" or "wrong".

There is no real indication that Rowling didn't do research. She expressed knowledge that Skinwalkers seem to have a similar relationship to certain Native American tribes that "demons" and the like had to European Christians, and said that, in actuality, these "Skinwalkers" were real witches and wizards vilified as evil by their fellow tribesmen. Some are taking issue with the idea that Native Americans would vilify magic, because there is a certain mysticism and magic inherent to their worldview and religion (though there are reasonable objections to this objection), but the bulk of the criticism seems to be in the very idea that she used Native American religious folklore and put her own spin on it, because it's not "hers" and not something she has any right to.

Honestly, there's no indication either way. Like Mahoutokoro, maybe Rowling did a ton of research or maybe she didn't.

That simply is not how art nor culture works, nor how art nor culture SHOULD work. Current Native Americans are the genetic inheritors, not the creators, of their theology, and they have no more inherent right to it than any other human being, because culture is ultimately a collective human project, not the property nor birthright of specific individuals. No religion should be sacrosanct and off-limits for authors, no matter whether the people practicing it are marginalized or not, because all religions are basically folklore and myth to people that do not practice them, and all folklore and myth does more good as fodder for the collective human imagination than as some fenced-off cultural curio.

I agree with you, but this has little to do with the idea of concepts, ideas, and traditions carry meaning with certain once a group of people have offered up their time and effort for them. When those ideas are used in the creation of speech, those people may have issues with that use. There's nothing wrong with that and their arguments have a solid core.

Nobody's religion exists any less because J.K. Rowling made a paragraph-length mention of it, nobody is less able to practice their religion because of that, no non-practitioner of said religion will be any less inclined to do their due diligence in researching it, and the religion is not cheapened any more than any other religion is cheapened when it has its sacrosanct aspect lampooned or reappropriated toward another purpose in a work of art.

That actually minimizes the potential effect of pop culture, like the Harry Potter owl purchases or the huge number of tourists on Quileute land due to Twilight. Again, pop culture effects us and may have unintended effects on those represented.

Now, Rowling happens to be a pretty mediocre artist, but as long as the conversation revolves around criticizing her on non-artistic grounds, I'll speak in more general terms, because the general gist of what she's doing is artistically and morally unobjectionable, unless you skew your own priorities such that you are unable to appreciate art on its own terms.

I don't particularly delineate art from speech. Speech is speech. The commentary on art is much the same as the art itself.

 

[Nairume]

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.

The sad/funny part is that, knowing what the person behind this meme does now, this is perhaps the most hilariously unfortunate application of this meme.

 

[Romars202129]

Relax and read the article. Your post is actually offensive.

No he's right this is bullshit. I'm sorry Native Americans have taken some real shit before, but this is not that.

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

No he's right this is bullshit. I'm sorry Native Americans have taken some real shit before, but this is not that.

How come?

 

[Skeyser]

knowing what the person behind this meme does now.

tell us more

 

[Romars202129]

How come?

How not is the real question isn't it? Unless, does England not have freedom of speech?

 

[Darksol]

The idea that people write stuff like this is so sad and pathetic.
To reduce these people's arguments to just wanting to creat controversy is so disappointing.

What's sad and pathetic is that this is considered an issue in the first place. People are entitled to make a big stink over it. I'm entitled to think it's a trivial non-issue. The world keeps spinning.

 

[Nairume]

tell us more

He makes games heavily influenced by folklore, recently including one that was based on exhaustive research of indigenous American culture (specifically Inuit) that has since been translated into several indigenous languages.

You could say he's an expert.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

=Honestly, there's no indication either way. Like Mahoutokoro, maybe Rowling did a ton of research or maybe she didn't.

That's partially my point - how much research an author does or does not do is immaterial. In art, the final product, i.e. what the author communicates and how, is what is significant.

I agree with you, but this has little to do with the idea of concepts, ideas, and traditions carry meaning with certain once a group of people have offered up their time and effort for them. When those ideas are used in the creation of speech, those people may have issues with that use. There's nothing wrong with that and their arguments have a solid core.

You can "have issues" with anything, but in communicating them, it is incumbent on you to make a case for why others should care, not on others to fall in line because of an abstract fear that failure to do so might constitute "oppression" or "colonialism" (words that grow ever more nebulous by the month, fwiw). Rowling took something that the vast majority of the world considers to be folklore and made use of it for her own artistic ends. This is something that artists should do, and totally ignoring the artistic context of what Rowling did is pure Philistinic ignorance. Yes, practitioners of this religion have every right to be bothered by it, but they are owed no more mind from the wider world than the conservative Christian grumbling that Kevin Smith's "Dogma" got a few things wrong. The Mormon Church has been quite smart in advertising themselves in the program of The Book of Mormon, a musical that outright ridicules a number of silly Mormon beliefs and is far more objectively offensive than anything in Rowling's sub-50 word paragraph.

That actually minimizes the potential effect of pop culture, like the Harry Potter owl purchases or the huge number of tourists on Quileute land due to Twilight. Again, pop culture effects us and may have unintended effects on those represented.

I didn't say that culture has no effects. I said that the religion does not exist any less for Rowling's writing, that nobody is any less able to practice it because of that, that it does not discourage any non-adherents from learning about it, and that it is not cheapened any more by Rowling's use of it than any other religion is cheapened when they are used as "flavor" for some other artistic purpose. Those are specific claims, ones that might merit some kind of a response from the other world if they were false, but mere offense is not inherently meaningful nor deserving of action.

I don't particularly delineate art from speech. Speech is speech. The commentary on art is much the same as the art itself.

Art is communication, but done at its highest level. It lies mainly in the "how" of its execution, not so much in what is or is not communicated. Rowling is not that good at art, but the general principle that all products of the human imagination are game to be fodder for it holds whether the executor is John Steinbeck or Stephanie Meyer.

 

[Cameron122]

1. Are ancient Egyptian and Greek religions currently being practised?
2. Did Egyptians and Greeks suffer cultural genocide?

Greek dynasties took over Egypt, which were then taken over by the Romans

 

[Scientist Supreme!]

How not is the real question isn't it? Unless, does England not have freedom of speech?

I don't see how that would factor in.

What's sad and pathetic is that this is considered an issue in the first place. People are entitled to make a big stink over it. I'm entitled to think it's a trivial non-issue. The world keeps spinning.

Yeah, I love keeping the status quo too. I mean why would Native Americans have a problem with someone appropriating their culture. It's not like that harmed them in the past or anything, right?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

It should also be noted that, even if Native Americans succeeded in obtained a century-long moratorium on depictions of all religious aspects of their culture by white people, they wouldn't really do anything to "save" their religion for more than a generation or two, if it even had any affect on their morale at all. Even the biggest religions on the planet are seeing their grip on both social policy and the human imagination loosen in recent years. Regional religions with relatively few adherents stand basically no chance.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

It should also be noted that, even if Native Americans succeeded in obtained a century-long moratorium on depictions of all religious aspects of their culture by white people, they wouldn't really do anything to "save" their religion for more than a generation or two, if it even had any affect on their morale at all. Even the biggest religions on the planet are seeing their grip on both social policy and the human imagination loosen in recent years. Regional religions with relatively few adherents stand basically no chance.

This really reads like "oh they didn't fight hard enough, so they deserve to have their culture and religion appropriated."

 

[injurai]

This really reads like "oh they didn't fight hard enough, so they deserve to have their culture and religion appropriated."

It actually reads more like "Young generations are open to new ideas, and the old guard even if unfairly disenfranchised is going the wayside as the result of youth self-determination."

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

This really reads like "oh they didn't fight hard enough, so they deserve to have their culture and religion appropriated."

I already said that every single religion on the planet is less important than art, more generally, and do more good as fodder for the collective human imagination than as jealously-guarded cultural curios.

My point is that, in arguing for people to take or cease taking a specific action, generally some good has to be posited, and I don't really see any plausible outcome in which the religion gains anything tangible from not receiving passing references by white authors. If anything, sealing it off from the wider world would likely accelerate its extinction. You can argue that it's a moral duty, that they are "owed" this respect for the historical wrongs they have suffered, but that's ultimately going to be much more murky and subjective, and I direct you to paragraph numero uno of this post for my general thoughts on the matter.

 

[Zekes!]

It should also be noted that, even if Native Americans succeeded in obtained a century-long moratorium on depictions of all religious aspects of their culture by white people, they wouldn't really do anything to "save" their religion for more than a generation or two, if it even had any affect on their morale at all. Even the biggest religions on the planet are seeing their grip on both social policy and the human imagination loosen in recent years. Regional religions with relatively few adherents stand basically no chance.

Indigenous spirituality is not so comparable to Western religion.

Also, there is a major push by Indigenous communities to reclaim their culture (at least here in Canada) before it is completely lost.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

I already said that every single religion on the planet is less important than art

This is so random

 

[Unknown Soldier]

The sad/funny part is that, knowing what the person behind this meme does now, this is perhaps the most hilariously unfortunate application of this meme.

Most of us probably don't know what the originator of this meme does now? Please tell us?

 

[Inukage]

How is this anything knew Skinwalkers have appeared on shows like Supernatural and Grimm heaps of times and they always have twisted mythology to suit the shows...

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Indigenous spirituality is not so comparable to Western religion.

Also, there is a major push by Indigenous communities to reclaim their culture (at least here in Canada) before it is completely lost.

It's not comparable in terms of the driving philosophy, but I consider cultural homogenization of the world to be basically inevitable at this point. You'll see a few differentiated pockets, revivals here and there of older traditions, but the long-term arc seems clear, imo.

 

[Moonkid]

It's clear from this thread, and so many similar conversations that are being had recently that people simply have wildly different conceptions of what the role and value of art is in a society. I'm not sure those differences can really be reconciled.

Two different conversations are happening in parallel here.

I'd say it's also tension between those who approach the discussion by treating the content as a media text while others view it as a work of art, which I think is happening to some degree between Prophet of Doom and Williams. Despite involving virtually the same material, they're separate entities under the broad field of the arts/humanities because what they're trying to achieve, the context of their study, and their approach to analysis is completely different.

edit: This is on the bottom of the page isn't it, fuck.

 

[akira28]

How is this anything knew Skinwalkers have appeared on shows like Supernatural and Grimm heaps of times and they always have twisted mythology to suit the shows...

apparently people are complaining about media portrayals all the time, its just this time it was Harry Potter, and featured in a big British newspaper.

 

[Chuckie]

He makes games heavily influenced by folklore, recently including one that was based on exhaustive research of indigenous American culture (specifically Inuit) that has since been translated into several indigenous languages.

You could say he's an expert.

Never Alone?

 

[Darksol]

I don't see how that would factor in.


Yeah, I love keeping the status quo too. I mean why would Native Americans have a problem with someone appropriating their culture. It's not like that harmed them in the past or anything, right?

I cannot think of any religion or culture that hasn't been harmed in the past or used in fiction at some point or another.

How feeble and weak you must think their beliefs are, to be so shaken by a paragraph summary by a children's author.

 

[Oersted]

I cannot think of any religion or culture that hasn't been harmed in the past or used in fiction at some point or another.

How feeble and weak you must think their beliefs are, to be so shaken by a paragraph summary by a children's author.

Is using the term children's author an attempt of downplaying?

 

[Darksol]

Is using the term children's author an attempt of downplaying?

There's nothing to downplay. She hasn't done anything wrong.

 

[Not]

He makes games heavily influenced by folklore, recently including one that was based on exhaustive research of indigenous American culture (specifically Inuit) that has since been translated into several indigenous languages.

You could say he's an expert.

Are you fucking telling me that the Japanese Culture Expert created Never Alone?