Support NeoGAF

[mugwhump]

Nope. Salient point: "You can't say a work should be something other than what it is." Further discussion carries on from there.

EDIT: Perhaps I should be clearer: You absolutely can say what you want within reason. That's the point of this forum and most social interaction. People may dislike or like what you say and react accordingly. On and on into infinity. Art is no sacrosanct. It's speech just like everything else. I can say, "I wish Naruto was scrubbed from his show because he's a horrible character." You may disagree and creator is allowed to do with that feedback as he or she pleases. Thus life continues.

I think there's a distinction to be made between criticizing the work itself and criticizing the morality of the work. It's the difference between "this work is bad" and "this work is bad for our society by virtue of being problematic/offensive/insensitive/corrupting/etc." The former says something about the talent of the author and the taste of people who support the work, but the latter says something, however indirectly or weakly, about their morality. The former type of criticism can be thrown out there, but the latter kind has more weight and should be more carefully considered before making it, and people making it expect it to be taken more seriously.

Regarding censorship, criticisms on the basis of morality aren't censorship, but censorship is almost always preceded by them, which is another reason people are more wary of that flavor of criticism. It would of course be fallacious to suggest that censorship necessarily follows, though.

 

[MHWilliams]

Fair enough, but isn't the counter point to the criticism that Rowling shouldn't use actual Native myths to base her stories that Rowling is free to write about whatever she wants? isn't that what the core to their criticism is?
i mean the whole counter argument is that it's not Rowling's job to be more "aware". but then again this type of people have more of a problem with social criticism than anything else

Yes. Rowling doesn't have to be aware. Rowling doesn't have to do anything, as she's operating from a position of strength here.

Rowling can do as she pleases and these people are are allowed to react to that.

This is the thing. People talk about those providing criticism being sensitive and then they get equally or more angry at that criticism. Which is to say, people get angry or offended at different things. This may not be a problem to you. It is to her. You may be incensed about Ubisoft offering microtransactions in The Division, while she doesn't care. You both retain the right to offer up criticism and feedback to those who created the things you're talking about.

I think there's a distinction to be made between criticizing the work itself and criticizing the morality of the work. It's the difference between "this work is bad" and "this work is bad for our society by virtue of being problematic/offensive/insensitive/corrupting/etc." The former says something about the talent of the author and the taste of people who support the work, but the latter says something, however indirectly or weakly, about their morality. The former type of criticism can be thrown out there, but the latter kind has more weight and should be more carefully considered before making it, and people making it expect it to be taken more seriously.

Regarding censorship, criticisms on the basis of morality aren't censorship, but censorship is almost always preceded by them, which is another reason people are more wary of that flavor of criticism. It would of course be fallacious to suggest that censorship necessarily follows, though.

Strike the ability to speak on the potential morality of a work and you are attempting to limit the ability of speech. There will be works that are unintentionally racist, sexist, anti-religion, pro, for, or whatever. Those works may have intended or unintended meanings. You should be free to talk about that or free to bring up the subject. Which is to say, I'm unsure what your alternative to that is.

I'm sympathetic to the worry about such speech, but saying it should not exist is equal to someone in this case saying Rowling shouldn't have the ability to approach the subject matter at all. And within that is still more room for speech on those topics.

 

[thetrin]

I believe the problem is that they don't view it as mythology. It's their religion.

It's like if there were a Potterverse book in which Jesus was a wizard who made up that whole "son of God" business. People don't like it when you call their religion fantasy.

I dunno man. I was born hindu, and I thought Virgin Comics' indian mythology comics were fucking awesome.

Then again, I grew up reading indian mythology comics made by Indians.

I honestly don't see the big deal. I'm overjoyed when fiction writers want to plumb the depths of my culture's deep mythological stories for their own work. That's super cool. Have at it!

 

[mugwhump]

I read an interesting comment that I think is relevant to the conversation, and introduces a point that I've seen in many comments ("this is made up anyway.")

I don't see how Rowling could have incorporated her own magic systems into the rest of the world without either rewriting/changing parts of other mythologies or just ignoring those cultures. One of the fun things about her universe was how it looked like our world, but if you looked below the surface there were magical explanations for tons of myths and historical events. No culture is going to be exempt from that reimagining, nor should it be.

Strike the ability to speak on the potential morality of a work and you are attempting to limit the ability of speech. There will be works that are unintentionally racist, sexist, anti-religion, pro, for, or whatever. Those works may have intended or unintended meanings. You should be free to talk about that or free to bring up the subject. Which is to say, I'm unsure what your alternative to that is.

I'm sympathetic to the worry about such speech, but saying it should not exist is equal to someone in this case saying Rowling shouldn't have the ability to approach the subject matter at all. And within that is still more room for speech on those topics.

Woah there! I didn't imply such criticisms shouldn't be made. Far from it. As you say, that would be really limiting.
I'm just saying that you can very often distinguish between the types of criticism, and that they're treated differently by people responding to them and making them. I think it's a good idea to be more careful when criticizing a work on the basis of morality.

 

[Trident]

Yes. Rowling doesn't have to be aware. Rowling doesn't have to do anything, as she's operating from a position of strength here.

Rowling can do as she pleases and these people are are allowed to react to that.

This is the thing. People talk about those providing criticism being sensitive and then they get equally or more angry at that criticism. Which is to say, people get angry or offended at different things. This may not be a problem to you. It is to her. You may be incensed about Ubisoft offering microtransactions in The Division, while she doesn't care. You both retain the right to offer up criticism and feedback to those who created the things you're talking about.

I may be totally missing something, but is anyone arguing against anyone's right to provide criticism or to speak? I thought they were just critiquing the content of speech?

If I say "x" and you say "saying x is bad" and I say "no it isn't, 'saying x is bad' is bad", then no one has attacked anyone's right to speak, just the content of their speech and the thought processes behind them. Saying "people have a right to speak" isn't relevant to a conversation about whether the things people are saying are good or bad - it's a complete red herring.

 

[infinitys_7th]

Discussing anything around the "Witchery Way" (including skinwalkers) is taboo for Dine because, traditionally, belief in and fear of these practices/"witches" empowers them, in addition to the more academic cultural concerns. So there is that as well.

If Rowling had compared Witchery Way with the Dark Arts and sings with regular magic, she would have been a lot more faithful to the actual mythos. Dine "Witches" (practicers of the Witchery Way) are be pretty nasty.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I would be more sympathetic to the argument if JK Rowlings had portrayed a minority in a poor, caricatural, or stereotypical light.

But from what I understand this isn't the argument being made, it's that she used stuff from their folklore/religion in a way that displeases some Native Americans, or worse, that she used this stuff at all to begin with.

And that is frankly a whole load of bollocks.

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

If the answer to #1 is "no", doesn't that basically mean that the answer to #2 is yes? xD

In any case, yes they are (by tiny minorities, but still), and yes they did, though not quite at the same extent. However, that's a fallacious premise, as I don't think the number of current practitioners of the religion matters. If you really want to argue that it does... well, this should be good. xD

Appropriation is also the flippant use of elements of other cultures because they're exotic until they become commercialised or caricatured.

That'd be a fair criticism, but it doesn't appear to be the issue, unless I'm misunderstanding something.

Some Christians did still get upset about him misrepresenting the devil as a sympathetic character though

And I'd equally laugh at them, too.

She is reducing an oppressed groups culture to goofy magic folklore.

Is she? Or just their religion?

Strangely enough that's what religions are too.

I don't care if some wittier-than-thou gaffers will make fedora comments (boy they sure showed you), this is true. -)

well according to the legends he was still a virgin by the time he reached 30.

rofl

 

[dity]

I honestly think if Rowling had reached out and asked and gotten first-hand information about Native American religion and folklore things would be in a better place.

I draw parralels to if someone suddenly decided to use the Australian Aboroginal Dream Time in a story based upon third party research basically solely for profit reasons. They're within their right to write about it, but it's disrespectful and probably based upon only one tribe's interpretation of the legend.

 

[TAJ]

That just means I went on Metacritic.

I think that you added extra punctuation to my post in your head.

 

[uncelestial]

What you're referring to is acculturation, not appropriation... the former is the term for that kind of exchange and melding of cultures, appropriation refers to a specific circumstance wherein there is a relationship of social dominance from the culture that takes cultural elements upon the culture from which they are taken.

I'm happy to be schooled about this if I'm way off base, but... Conceptually it seems like there's literally no difference between acculturation and appropriation, except the latter accounts for privilege/cultural dominance.

This is always my problem with the appropriation argument; so long as a culture is sufficiently established it's okay to borrow from/be influenced by that culture. But do the same thing to a culture that has been victimized and there is no path to this cross-cultural influence happening in a way the more subjugated culture will accept -- or, I should say, that some aggrieved representatives of that culture will accept. And the reason I have a problem with that is not just "double standard hur!" (although I do think ideally it would be nice if we could find a common protocol for cross-cultural appreciation that works for every situation).

I'm bothered at how this attitude is very isolating. It is death for a culture to refuse to participate with anyone else, because in a connected system, anything that doesn't replicate just gets filtered out. I feel very sorry for cultures who cut their nose off to spite their face. They could probably accompany the narrative with "actually, this is what our story says" and use this opportunity to educate and take advantage of the interest in their culture. But to take your ball and huff and go home, and be angry that your name was ever in someone else's mouth? I just don't think that ends well. It means resentment towards and ignorance of your culture will continue, and as the inevitable cross-breeding and passage of time dilutes out the shrinking "pure" population of that culture, the end eventually comes - either literally, or by relegation of a once-practiced culture to a third-hand legend to the vast majority of people.

 

[Stilton Disco]

This outrage culture needs to fuck right off.

Fiction needs to be free to draw on any source, it's part of how all cultures and societies evolve and even understand one another better, and is a fundamental part of how mythology and stories grow and transition from one culture to another.

 

[RDreamer]

Personally, I tend to side with writers getting inspiration from anywhere and everywhere no matter what. I think everything's fair game.

I believe the problem is that they don't view it as mythology. It's their religion.

It's like if there were a Potterverse book in which Jesus was a wizard who made up that whole "son of God" business. People don't like it when you call their religion fantasy.

But... don't writers do this all the fucking time?

 

[KonradLaw]

But... don't writers do this all the fucking time?

Yes. But the reaction can wildly differ. Few people bat an eye when christian mythology is used to spin fictional stories, but on the other hand there was plenty of complains when Supernatural used hindu goddess and showed her as inferior power-wise to Lucifer.

 

[TatteredHat]

It's pretty much a given at this point that if you're writing about marginalized cultures in any way while not being part of said culture someone is going to give you shit for it, I personally just wouldn't bother with it anymore.

 

[ExplodingKetchup]

You can technically appropriate any culture, but appropriating cultures from historically oppressed groups is much more harmful, and leads to fetishization and adds to narratives of white supremacy.

 

[Oersted]

What the fuck? So we should start rioting about Hollywood using greek mythology too? Or anything with vampires and such? Hell, fucking Santa Claus? Fuck off internet, get a life.

This hateful unawareness represents rather beautiful the issue.

This outrage culture needs to fuck right off.

Fiction needs to be free to draw on any source, it's part of how all cultures and societies evolve and even understand one another better, and is a fundamental part of how mythology and stories grow and transition from one culture to another.

OP features calm criticism. You are outraged.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

I don't really get cultural appropriation as a complaint a lot of the time. We are living in a multicultural world. One of the most exciting aspects of that is mixing different aspects of different cultures in making new art.

 

[Walpurgis]

I think that you added extra punctuation to my post in your head.

Then why don't you quote the post that you're referring to?

 

[KonradLaw]

It's pretty much a given at this point that if you're writing about marginalized cultures in any way while not being part of said culture someone is going to give you shit for it, I personally just wouldn't bother with it anymore.

There needs to be a balance. Because otherwise it will lead to crappy results. I mean... does this mean that as a white writer I shouldn't have black characters? Or have any gay characters if I'm straight? What would that do to the representation of minorities in fiction?
There has to be a way to avoid offending members of the culture, while also being able to draw from it.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

There needs to be a balance. Because otherwise it will lead to crappy results. I mean... does this mean that as a white writer I shouldn't have black characters? Or have any gay characters if I'm straight? What would that do to the representation of minorities in fiction?
There has to be a way to avoid offending members of the culture, while also being able to draw from it.

Yes, this is a great point.

 

[Peagles]

Uhh, why not consult with the people you are intending to write about? The worst they can say is no. Best case you have their permission and guidance, and probably better quality work because of it.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Uhh, why not consult with the people you are intending to write about? The worst they can say is no. Best case you have their permission and guidance, and probably better quality work because of it.

It's about folklore and religion, not "the people", from what I gather. It's always nice to do the research, but if I write a fictional story with parts inspired by Jewish mythology or Japanese folklore, I wouldn't start asking a Jewish or Japanese person "is this OK" for every single thing, y'know... If I were to write a story about the actual people or historical events it'd be a different thing.

 

[dity]

It's about folklore and religion, not "the people", from what I gather. It's always nice to do the research, but if I write a fictional story with parts inspired by Jewish mythology or Japanese folklore, I wouldn't start asking a Jewish or Japanese person "is this OK" for every single thing, y'know... If I were to write a story about the actual people or historical events it'd be a different thing.

You're acting like asking for an opinion on something like this would be a bad thing. If anything, it'd only work in her favour. "I consulted with so and so from such and such on this story and made sure it made sense and was respectful while still working within the confines of the Harry Potter universe".

Besides, apparently she did write about Native Americans sheltering American wizards(?). They weren't portrayed as savages, but I wonder if Native Americans would have done such a thing.

 

[TatteredHat]

There needs to be a balance. Because otherwise it will lead to crappy results. I mean... does this mean that as a white writer I shouldn't have black characters? Or have any gay characters if I'm straight? What would that do to the representation of minorities in fiction?
There has to be a way to avoid offending members of the culture, while also being able to draw from it.

I completely agree with you, but currently it doesn't seem to be a possibility.

 

[MHWilliams]

I may be totally missing something, but is anyone arguing against anyone's right to provide criticism or to speak? I thought they were just critiquing the content of speech?

If I say "x" and you say "saying x is bad" and I say "no it isn't, 'saying x is bad' is bad", then no one has attacked anyone's right to speak, just the content of their speech and the thought processes behind them. Saying "people have a right to speak" isn't relevant to a conversation about whether the things people are saying are good or bad - it's a complete red herring.

I'm unsure what this has to do with anything I've posted? The line of discussion you're replying to went like so:

1. Someone said that people couldn't ask Rowling to change her story.
2. I replied, why not?
3. Another poster asks if criticism is free from criticism.
4. I reply, no.
5. Poster from 4 points out that Rowling has no real responsibility here, outside of writing what she wants.
6. I agree.

Perhaps you meant to reply to the latter part of the post? If that's the case, that poster seemed to be arguing that discussions of the morality of a work are more touchy than discussions of the mechanics of a work. I argued that it doesn't matter either way, because everything is within the scope of discussion, otherwise, you're saying what can and cannot be spoken of.

There needs to be a balance. Because otherwise it will lead to crappy results. I mean... does this mean that as a white writer I shouldn't have black characters? Or have any gay characters if I'm straight? What would that do to the representation of minorities in fiction?
There has to be a way to avoid offending members of the culture, while also being able to draw from it.

It's really not the hard. Do your research and perhaps reach out to people who are a part of the culture you're writing about. I would not write an entire story talking place in Brazil without, you know, making sure that my story has some basis in reality. The same is true of New York, London, Seattle, Capetown, or Tokyo.

This is why many writers are told to "write what you know". Part of writing is seeking some truth or authenticity. Rowling was able to bring that nuance to a culture she had knowledge of. That improved the work. The contention here is that has yet to happen with the other magic schools. People have successfully written about other cultures they're not a part of before.

 

[CloudWolf]

Man, imagine the shit Neil Gaiman would've gotten if he wrote American Gods now.

 

[Trident]

I'm unsure what this has to do with anything I've posted? The line of discussion you're replying to went like so:

1. Someone said that people couldn't ask Rowling to change her story.
2. I replied, why not?
3. Another poster asks if criticism is free from criticism.
4. I reply, no.
5. Poster from 4 points out that Rowling has no real responsibility here, outside of writing what she wants.
6. I agree.

Perhaps you meant to reply to the latter part of the post? If that's the case, that poster seemed to be arguing that discussions of the morality of a work are more touchy than discussions of the mechanics of a work. I argued that it doesn't matter either way, because everything is within the scope of discussion, otherwise, you're saying what can and cannot be spoken of.

Mm, if I misunderstood your post I apologize. I see a lot of people treating "people shouldn't say x" as the same as "people shouldn't be allowed to say x", and I think I got too trigger happy.

 

[213372bu]

Isn't Native American culture widely drawn from in fiction?

I really can't see why anyone is upset, especially people who read fiction.

I can't imagine how many books I read that had stuff drawn Native American culture and religion, and I'm not even a big reader.
--

On a different note, what about stuff like Hinduism?

Hinduism is still practiced today, but fiction and media still draws from it and even paints them in a negative light.

Should that media be gone too?
--
How about stuff like SMT, which draws from multiple active religions and paints deities in a negative light?

Is that wrong?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

How about stuff like SMT, which draws from multiple active religions and paints deities in a negative light?

Is that wrong?

Without having played SMT, I'm sure that the answer is no, and if people get offended, well, I can't muster any sympathy.

But I'm guessing I'm gonna get fedora comments any time soon now.

Man, imagine the shit Neil Gaiman would've gotten if he wrote American Gods now.

He never got enough shit for that

Spoiler

because the book sucks xD

 

[Trident]

How is this cultural appropriation? As it's always been explained to me, appropriation happens when a member of a dominant group adopts some aspect of a minority group's culture, and is praised as a bold innovator while the actual innovators are ignored or forgotten (rock n' roll). Or it's an instance where an artist adopts the style of a minority culture and is praised despite the fact that that the same behavior is abhorred when a minority artist does it (twerking, dreadlocks, box braids).

I've never seen the "cultural appropriation" term used in an instance like this, wherein a creator re-imagines and re-configures the mythos of a foreign or minority culture. If a Native American were to re-imagine their tribe's myths, would that also be appropriation? You can make exactly the same argument. "What if somebody sees this clearly fictional work and believes it to be an accurate depiction of a minority culture?"

"Cultural appropriation" feels very Motte and Bailey, in that when it's defended as a concept, it's described in very narrow, reasonable ways. But when actually employed, it's used in much broader, more general ways.

Although part, if not all, of that is likely because people just use words of best fit to describe what they're thinking.

 

[Oersted]

Isn't Native American culture widely drawn from in fiction?

I really can't see why anyone is upset, especially people who read fiction.

I can't imagine how many books I read that had stuff drawn Native American culture and religion, and I'm not even a big reader.
--

On a different note, what about stuff like Hinduism?

Hinduism is still practiced today, but fiction and media still draws from it and even paints them in a negative light.

Should that media be gone too?
--
How about stuff like SMT, which draws from multiple active religions and paints deities in a negative light?

Is that wrong?

Read before making stuff up?

http://nativeappropriations.com/2016/03/magic-in-north-america-part-1-ugh.html

 

[Peagles]

It's really not that hard. Do your research and perhaps reach out to people who are a part of the culture you're writing about. I would not write an entire story talking place in Brazil without, you know, making sure that my story has some basis in reality. The same is true of New York, London, Seattle, Capetown, or Tokyo.

This is why many writers are told to "write what you know". Part of writing is seeking some truth or authenticity. Rowling was able to bring that nuance to a culture she had knowledge of. That improved the work. The contention here is that has yet to happen with the other magic schools. People have successfully written about other cultures they're not a part of before.

Bingo.

 

[dity]

It's really not the hard. Do your research and perhaps reach out to people who are a part of the culture you're writing about. I would not write an entire story talking place in Brazil without, you know, making sure that my story has some basis in reality. The same is true of New York, London, Seattle, Capetown, or Tokyo.

This is why many writers are told to "write what you know". Part of writing is seeking some truth or authenticity. Rowling was able to bring that nuance to a culture she had knowledge of. That improved the work. The contention here is that has yet to happen with the other magic schools. People have successfully written about other cultures they're not a part of before.

*clapping*

 

[BocoDragon]

I'm questioning whether the whole idea of cultural "ownership" is basically wrongheaded.

Its one world culture and we all share (and steal) ideas from one another with wanton disregard... maybe we should just accept that reality.

I mean.... give credit if you're ethical. Publish your sources. But to say I can't use that meme that's out in the open.....? Odd. Doesn't work. Doesn't fit with this globalized reality.

 

[213372bu]

Read before making stuff up?

http://nativeappropriations.com/2016/03/magic-in-north-america-part-1-ugh.html

I just read that article.

What part of my questions is "making stuff up" exactly?

 

[dity]

I'm questioning whether the whole idea of cultural "ownership" is basically wrongheaded.

Its one world culture and we all share (and steal) ideas from one another with wanton abandon... maybe we should just accept that.

That's easy to say if you've grown up in a culture that doesn't have problems with appropriation. There's not much to complain about if you're from the culture that owns the melting pot, so to speak.

 

[maquiladora]

But I'm guessing I'm gonna get fedora comments any time soon now.

I've started to noticed this more and more, people throwing out a one sentence "fedora" response every time somebody calls out the absurdity of religious beliefs. It's like...well I've got nothing to counter your comment/joke on how religions are full of bullshit, so...uh nice hat there, you socially awkward virgin loser.

 

[Oersted]

I just read that article.

What part of my questions is "making stuff up" exactly?

Not even one thing you said actually engages with the criticism.

 

[213372bu]

Not even one thing you said actually engages with the criticism.

I asked some actual questions and they were related to the discussion that's been happening in the past few pages.

Why are you singling me out?

 

[BocoDragon]

That's easy to say if you've grown up in a culture that doesn't have problems with appropriation. There's not much to complain about if you're from the culture that owns the melting pot, so to speak.

Yes, it is easy to say from my perspective. Though it's not just that my culture owns the melting pot... it's also that growing up in the melting pot means that I've learned to accept that the ideas that came from my ancestors, or my relatives (or even to me) don't inherently belong to me.

I'm scandinavian and it never once occurred to me to get mad about Marvel and Disney stealing and profiting from Thor, the gods my ancestors worshipped, for example. Now obviously that's not "my culture" anymore and its different than someone raised Native who still revere their mythology. I'm just saying it's more easy to give up claims to it because I'm post-modern and don't really believe in the cultural ownership of ideas, more than it is because I "own" the melting pot. I get no ownership of ideas belonging to my ancestry, same as Native Americans, but I've grown up in a western culture that never raised me to believe that I should cherish my culture's ideas as belonging to me.

But putting aside my clearly privileged perspective, let's talk about it like philosophers. Why do cultures own ideas? I think it's an unchallenged assumption at the heart of this "cultural appropriation" debate, which has not been established.

 

[23qwerty]

I've started to noticed this more and more, people throwing out a one sentence "fedora" response every time somebody calls out the absurdity of religious beliefs. It's like...well I've got nothing to counter your comment/joke on how religions are full of bullshit, so...uh nice hat there, you socially awkward virgin loser.

careful with that edge

 

[KimiNewt]

I read an interesting comment that I think is relevant to the conversation, and introduces a point that I've seen in many comments ("this is made up anyway.")

That's nice and all but there's no reason you can't portray parts of their religion in a fictional universe. It is the same as if Jesus or Mohammad were portrayed there.

To be honest, I believe that if she did portray something about Judaism/Christianity/Islam as magical or somehow incorporated it into her story there would have been an outrage - but I still think she is allowed to use it in any way she likes. Could it be misleading? Maybe, but she is writing fiction so the onus isn't on her in this case.

 

[Brakke]

I would not write an entire story talking place in Brazil without, you know, making sure that my story has some basis in reality.

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.​

 

[BocoDragon]

What is SMT?

Shin Megami Tensei, the Japanese RPG series which consciously draws upon various world mythologies and tweaks them for use as fantasy settings for the various games.

The original game had you fighting YHWH (aka Yahweh or Jehovah) the god of Judeo-Christianity.

Digital Devil Saga was a digital reimagining of Hindu cosmology.

I doubt we'll ever see the Islamic one though................

 

[Real Hero]

how did Chris Carter manage to avoid this?

 

[dity]

Yes, it is easy to say from my perspective. Though it's not just that my culture owns the melting pot... it's also that growing up in the melting pot means that I've learned to accept that the ideas that came from my ancestors, or my relatives (or even to me) don't inherently belong to me.

I'm scandinavian and it never once occurred to me to get mad about Marvel and Disney stealing and profiting from Thor, the gods my ancestors worshipped, for example. Now obviously that's not "my culture" anymore and its different than someone raised Native who still revere their mythology. I'm just saying it's more easy to give up claims to it because I'm post-modern and don't really believe in the cultural ownership of ideas, more than it is because I "own" the melting pot. I get nothing from my ancestry, same as Native Americans, but I've grown up in a western culture that never raised me to believe that I should cherish my culture's ideas as belonging to me.

But putting aside my clearly privileged perspective, let's talk about it like philosophers. Why do cultures own ideas? I think it's an unchallenged assumption at the heart of this "cultural appropriation" debate, which has not been established.

I'm going to take a wild whack at it since I'm not too keyed into my own Romani roots, but do have an idea of what my grandfather went through when he fled Hungary for Australia while his culture and religion were persecuted: I'd fathom it's about still being to know who you and your people are without having to care about appearance, upbringing, distance from home or whatever. Your culture's history helps define who your fellow people are, it's what they are as a group up until this very moment. Even if it's ancient folklore, people within your group - your tribe - your family - they actually thought and believed that. It's real. You'd be alive now and have learnt and respect how your ancestors viewed things and how that shaped your current surroundings. When someone takes that, doesn't ask you about it, and just uses it in their story or something it likely feels like they're trivialising it. It's as if it was just something to hear about and go "wow that sounds neat maybe I can make another buck from that".

Those thoughts seem jumbled but I dunno there they are.

 

[Walpurgis]

I read an interesting comment that I think is relevant to the conversation, and introduces a point that I've seen in many comments ("this is made up anyway.")

This! This is what I was getting at and this is what has been bothering me the most in this thread, that Santa Claus remark especially. It seems that some people think that they get a free pass with Aboriginal cultures.

That's nice and all but there's no reason you can't portray parts of their religion in a fictional universe. It is the same as if Jesus or Mohammad were portrayed there.

To be honest, I believe that if she did portray something about Judaism/Christianity/Islam as magical or somehow incorporated it into her story there would have been an outrage - but I still think she is allowed to use it in any way she likes. Could it be misleading? Maybe, but she is writing fiction so the onus isn't on her in this case.

Of course, she is free to write what she wants and people are free to criticise her for it. This goes without saying.

 

[213372bu]

No.

But aren't lots of "ancient" tribes in like Sci-Fi and Fantasy draw from their culture in general?

Even stuff like their gods have inspired lots of characters in fantasy iirc.

What is SMT?

It's a pretty popular RPG series.

You summon gods/goddesses etc. as "demons" and the stories in the games generally have a negative slant of them.

They draw from lots of active religions too.

Shin Megami Tensei, the Japanese RPG series which consciously draws upon various world mythologies and tweaks them for use as fantasy settings for the various games.

The original game had you fighting YHWH (aka Yahweh or Jehovah) the god of Judeo-Christianity.

Digital Devil Saga was a digital reimagining of Hindu cosmology.

I doubt we'll ever see the Islamic one though................

They've had Islamic angels and stuff for a while now as demons though.

But yeah, an actual story based on that would seem impossible.

 

[BocoDragon]

I'm going to take a wild whack at it since I'm not too keyed into my own Romani roots, but do have an idea of what my grandfather went through when he fled Hungary for Australia while his culture and religion were persecuted: I'd fathom it's about still being to know who you and your people are without having to care about appearance, upbringing, distance from home or whatever. Your culture's history helps define who your fellow people are, it's what they are as a group up until this very moment. Even if it's ancient folklore, people within your group - your tribe - your family - they actually thought and believed that. It's real. You'd be alive now and have learnt and respect how your ancestors viewed things and how that shaped your current surroundings. When someone takes that, doesn't ask you about it, and just uses it in their story or something it likely feels like they're trivialising it. It's as if it was just something to hear about and go "wow that sounds neat maybe I can make another buck from that".

Those thoughts seem jumbled but I dunno there they are.

I find that enlightening. Thanks.

I guess I can see it from a "don't be a dick, some people won't appreciate this" perspective, rather than an "ownership" perspective.

Legally, ethically, I see no problem with people borrowing ideas from one another. And I think we get into really weird territory if we were to start drawing lines between cultures and saying that any borrowing between them is akin to a kind of bigotry. I don't support that view of it.

But if it's like "dude, this will hurt some people"... then I can see that tact comes into the picture, and it's logical to weigh the impact on the audience and on society.

 

[MHWilliams]

Man, imagine the shit Neil Gaiman would've gotten if he wrote American Gods now.

I mean, Gaiman's American Gods and Anansi Boys are generally taken as an example of doing it correctly. Though I'm sure there are some arguments otherwise.

Avatar: The Last Airbender is another many give as an example of doing it right. Creators Michael Dante DiMartino and Bryan Konietzko created a fictional world and populated it with imagery from various Asian cultures. It's lauded because there's the feeling that they did their homework.

Again, this seems to be the sore point of contention. People will call you out for cultural appropriation when you do so poorly.

Let me offer perspective and words from writers of color.

http://www.rukhsanakhan.com/articles/voiceappropriation.html

I’ve come to the conclusion that voice appropriation and writing about other cultures is inevitable. In fact it’s done all the time. Every time a writer writes anything that is outside their immediate field of experience, when a male writer uses a female protagonist or vice versa and especially when a writer writes historical fiction--they are writing about another ‘culture’. That said, there are ways a writer can reduce the possibility of gross errors and misrepresentation.

--

I think if you’re going to write about another culture, in order to do it justice, you have to almost set aside your own feelings and completely identify with that culture. You must adopt its values as your own for the scope of the book--not an easy task. It is my opinion that only by doing so, can you give the culture the respect it truly deserves. If you ‘adopt’ the culture, the story will stand a better chance of being ‘true’ to the spirit of the people. Unfortunately most authors play ‘dress up’. They treat the other culture like a costume.

With all the criticism I’ve levelled at others in the past, it was with great trepidation that I wrote my first story outside my culture, The Roses in My Carpets. It’s about a young Afghani refugee boy. Thing is I’m not an Afghani or a refugee, or a young boy. Some would think that Afghanistan being right next door to Pakistan would be close enough in terms of ethnic proximity, but the cultures are quite distinct.

--

To conclude, my advice to anyone wanting to write about another culture is first and foremost do your homework. Don’t take any detail (like pubic hair) for granted. Secondly, sublimate your own cultural values and prejudices for the duration of the book. Write true to that culture and to your characters. And most of all, respect the culture you’re writing about. That way if anyone steps up to challenge your work, and you can bet someone might just do that, at least you’ll be satisfied that you did your best.

http://www.malindalo.com/2014/04/should-white-people-write-about-people-of-color/

Anyone who wants to write outside of their culture has to remember this: Books are personal, and one person’s reaction does not mean that everybody is going to react the same way. In fact, it’s likely that every single reader will have a different reaction.

This doesn’t mean that it’s okay to blithely write whatever the hell you want about a culture that isn’t yours. Writers who are writing outside of their culture do have to work extra hard to research that culture, because they have much farther to go to get to the kind of instinctual knowledge of it that allows someone to hear my Chinese name and feel that it sounds poetic.

When white writers come to me and ask if it’s OK for them to write about people of color, it seems as if they’re asking for my blessing. I can’t give them my blessing because I don’t speak for other people of color. I only speak for myself, and I have personal stakes in specific kinds of narratives.

It also feels as if they’re asking for a simple answer, and frankly, there is no simple answer. Writing outside your culture is a complicated endeavor that requires extensive research, being aware of your own biases and limitations, and a commitment to delving deeply into the story. However, writing any fiction requires this. There are no shortcuts to writing fiction truthfully and well. There really aren’t. The writer must put in the time so that they become confident in their decisions, and there are a million and one decisions to make when writing a novel.

You get the idea. If you're going to do it, do it 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.​

I was speaking in generalities about cultural appropriation in writing.

On Rowling's case, her world-building blurb struck a chord in some people.