Support NeoGAF

[Irminsul]

She speaks from her perspective and unlike many, makes note of that.

Well, then I have a question on that.

If that's "just" her prespective, why does this get so big? Note, I don't fault her for that or anything. But okay, you don't like how something is written that talks about your culture, so you complain. And of course, a single voice can be representative of general feeling within a group. But is that the case here? And yes, I think the answer to that pretty important. What if a big majority of Native Americans doesn't agree with her? Then you would doing exactly the opposite of what a marginalised group wants. That may sound snarky, but I actually just want to know what the best approach is here. There's a nice saying in German, "the opposite of well done is well-intentioned", and sometimes I get the feeling that's exactly what's happening in these kinds of threads.

Side note, that's also why I think "You should be listening" is a pretty unhelpful suggestion. Listen to whom? Do marginalised groups suddenly have the same opinion on everything just because they're marginalised? It's not like the only options are following what individuals have to say or staying (at best) oblivious to issues facing minorities. Different individuals of the same group saying the exact opposite is very much an option. So what do you do then?

 

[Vagabundo]

In the Harry Potter universe JK is queen. Anything she says goes. If Skinwalker aren't real, they're not real. It's an alternate fictional reality. I don't think the criticisms are warranted.

Saying that I can see why Native Americans are touchy about stuff like this. There hasn't been a whole lot of respect for their culture.

 

[openrob]

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

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

She would have caught flack either way.

 

[BocoDragon]

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

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

She would have caught flack either way.

That's a great point, actually.

Imagine an American Harry Potter mythos that implied there was no magical society until white people.

 

[Deleted member 1235]

Responding to a question on Twitter, Rowling said that “in my wizarding world, there were no skinwalkers”, with the legend created by those without magic “to demonise wizards”.

But campaigner Dr Adrienne Keene told Rowling on Twitter that “it’s not ‘your’ world. It’s our (real) Native world. And skinwalker stories have context, roots, and reality … You can’t just claim and take a living tradition of a marginalised people. That’s straight up colonialism/appropriation.”

what.

isn't this logically false?
Rowling created a world and says that skinwalkers were not a part of it.

campaigner says 'your world isn't your world it's ours'

I can't follow.

 

[G.ZZZ]

There are many, many things in the world worth an outrage. An artistic license by a fantasy writer is not. But of course, critizicing things worthy of discussion need time invested in critical reading, which is a too high hanging fruit for this kind of people.

Pretty much. Missing the forest for the tree.

 

[MHWilliams]

Well, then I have a question on that.

If that's "just" her perspective, why does this get so big? Note, I don't fault her for that or anything. But okay, you don't like how something is written that talks about your culture, so you complain. And of course, a single voice can be representative of general feeling within a group. But is that the case here?

Simple answer? Because someone at the Guardian was following Rowling on Twitter, noticed the exchange, and wrote something about it. Many other tweets and opinions don't get articles. They still exist.

And I don't know if her thoughts mirror those of many others. There are a few others in the article and there's the general take from Native Americans on use of their culture, but you're sort of wandering around in the dark. I personally don't know any Native Americans myself to speak with any clarity.

And yes, I think the answer to that pretty important. What if a big majority of Native Americans doesn't agree with her? Then you would doing exactly the opposite of what a marginalized group wants.

Even that marginalized group is comprised of various people. Some care a lot, some don't care, some have different takes on the matter. Without concrete polling, you have no clue if you're doing what that "group" wants or does not want. Like everything else, society has to guess and estimate. Even with polling, if 80 percent of Native Americans dislike Rowling's use of their culture, then what? Do you lean towards the 80 or the 20?

Side note, that's also why I think "You should be listening" is a pretty unhelpful suggestion. Listen to whom? Do marginalised groups suddenly have the same opinion on everything just because they're marginalised? It's not like the only options are following what individuals have to say or staying (at best) oblivious to issues facing minorities. Different individuals of the same group saying the exact opposite is very much an option. So what do you do then?

There's no real easy answer. And the problem is people want an easy answer.

For example, some black people prefer to be referred to as "black". Some prefer African-American. So which one do you use? I find your best bet default to one and when someone says they prefer another, use that one around them.

At some point you have to say "Oh, I'm hearing enough people talking about this or I feel this person has enough authority that I should listen". Or even a single voice that's saying something that resonates. That's not always an easy thing to figure out, but your other option is just to listen to no one at all.

 

[KonradLaw]

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

Isn't that very limiting though? I mean the necessity of remaining faithful. If you're writing about history then it's paramount, but fantasy as a genre is built around taking myths and twisting and modifying them to fit fantasy reality. If we try to remain faithful we loose that and instead of fantasy what we're getting is just recreation of actual religious beliefs instead of new material solely inspired by it.

I wonder if there's a way one could retain full freedom and yet still don't offend culture he's drawing bits and pieces from. Maybe some sort of disclaimers at the end of the book with information that "I took the idea and made something new with it, but here is how it's in historical context and here's where you can read more about it". Would that be enough?

 

[Trident]

Isn't that very limiting though? I mean the necessity of remaining faithful. If you're writing about history then it's paramount, but fantasy as a genre is built around taking myths and twisting and modifying them to fit fantasy reality. If we try to remain faithful we loose that and instead of fantasy what we're getting is just recreation of actual religious beliefs instead of new material solely inspired by it.

I wonder if there's a way one could retain full freedom and yet still don't offend culture he's drawing bits and pieces from. Maybe some sort of disclaimers at the end of the book with information that "I took the idea and made something new with it, but here is how it's in historical context and here's where you can read more about it". Would that be enough?

This is my immediate reaction, but then I remember trying to watch Big Trouble in Little China recently and just being appalled - and I'm not even Asian. Sure it's "fantasy" but it's a fantasy about a real group of people - not imaginary elves.

 

[Not]

So essentially all she had to do was leave specific references to spiritual figures like skin walkers out of it and she would have been in the clear?

Know when to be vague and when to be specific. That's a fair writing platitude, no?

 

[KonradLaw]

This is my immediate reaction, but then I remember trying to watch Big Trouble in Little China recently and just being appalled - and I'm not even Asian. Sure it's "fantasy" but it's a fantasy about a real group of people - not imaginary elves.

Yeah. I love that movie, but it's very insensitive I feel like it might be the matter of clearly establishing a fantasy. Like, if you're not going to remain faithful you need to go far away from the source. So that it's clear you're just using the real thing as a starting point for something new instead of just being ignorant.
Big Trouble in Little China is set in our world. in places we know and just gives caricatures of people we might be meeting everyday. The connection to reality, to concrete people is what makes it feel wrong. If you would set the whole thing in some alternate reality different from our own and cut the ties with realworld context I think it would go down much smoother.

 

[MHWilliams]

Isn't that very limiting though? I mean the necessity of remaining faithful. If you're writing about history then it's paramount, but fantasy as a genre is built around taking myths and twisting and modifying them to fit fantasy reality. If we try to remain faithful we loose that and instead of fantasy what we're getting is just recreation of actual religious beliefs instead of new material solely inspired by it.

I wonder if there's a way one could retain full freedom and yet still don't offend culture he's drawing bits and pieces from. Maybe some sort of disclaimers at the end of the book with information that "I took the idea and made something new with it, but here is how it's in historical context and here's where you can read more about it". Would that be enough?

I mean, people are going to dislike your work for various reasons. If you want to create something completely new, rock out. Do it right and create something wholly new - see Avatar TLA, which draws from various Asian cultures, but doesn't directly mirror any of them - and people will be fine with it. Do it wrong and they won't. There's no cry and dry line.

There's an attempt to find the style of creation that everyone will love and have no issues with. It doesn't really exist. Even the best works have detractors, many with valid points, because art is subjective and based partially on the interaction with the reader. Regardless, you always have that full freedom in creation. You just don't have freedom from people who will have issues with your work.

 

[Irminsul]

Even that marginalized group is comprised of various people. Some care a lot, some don't care, some have different takes on the matter. Without concrete polling, you have no clue if you're doing what that "group" wants or does not want. Like everything else, society has to guess and estimate. Even with polling, if 80 percent of Native Americans dislike Rowling's use of their culture, then what? Do you lean towards the 80 or the 20?


There's no real easy answer. And the problem is people want an easy answer.

For example, some black people prefer to be referred to as "black". Some prefer African-American. So which one do you use? I find your best bet default to one and when someone says they prefer another, use that one around them.

At some point you have to say "Oh, I'm hearing enough people talking about this or I feel this person has enough authority that I should listen". Or even a single voice that's saying something that resonates. That's not always an easy thing to figure out, but your other option is just to listen to no one at all.

Yeah, but that exactly is my point. I certainly don't want easy answers. I can live with a complex world perfectly well.

The thing is, and I don't think I'm alone with this feeling (yeah, I'm very well aware of the irony of that sentence), is that in some situations, you simply can't do things correctly. Which fits Rowling's situation pretty well, I'd argue, as others have already said. And, at least to me, that is what comprises the rather stupid term of "outrage culture". That even if I make an honest attempt to do things in a (notice the emphasis) correct way, I'm still chastised in the same way as if I were one of those who simply don't care about a topic at all. Before anyone claims that my feelings are being hurt: I couldn't care less.

But I believe it makes people sick of trying to do things the correct way if the end result is the same. And don't give me any of that "If you were a real ally..." stuff. First of all, allies support your cause anyway. But maybe getting basically oblivious people with a trace of sympathy for your cause supporting you full-on would help? Sure, you may not need that, but it surely would get easier that way, wouldn't it? And no, you don't get that by saying "Maybe you tried, but you did it WRONG, so do it correctly next time or else". Whoever believes that lacks either a look outside their filter bubble or empathy.

I even get that, from the "other side", you get tired pretty quickly of people not caring about your ideas if you try it by charming them. But I think by doing what I described above you're gliding into a black-and-white approach and I don't think that helps either.

À propos: some arguments used strike me as pretty communist (or rather Marxist, to be exact) in their origin, with that idea of different groups in a society fighting against each other for power. I'm not quite sure if ideas about a industrialising society should be applied to modern struggles of minorities.

 

[Currygan]

how did Chris Carter manage to avoid this?

let me take a guess

 

[Darryl]

If there were wizards back then tho, they'd obviously be involved in those skin walker legends in the context of Harry Potter.

The way around it would be to pretend there weren't wizards before the settlers crossed, which is leagues more insensitive. This is already approaching the material cautiously.

 

[Charles Brandon]

Apologise then delete the story and delete the American school. It's not worth the hassle.

If she cuts the Navajo bit completely it'll look whitewashed
If she leaves it as it is people are obviously not happy and it will just drag on.
If she re-writes to reflect more accurately the real world equivalents of the stories she had used, with additional context added by a Navajo cultural consultant, it'll stick out like a sore thumb.

The opinions if the Navajo are valid but the only way to win here is not to play. And say sorry.

 

[MHWilliams]

Yeah, but that exactly is my point. I certainly don't want easy answers. I can live with a complex world perfectly well.

The thing is, and I don't think I'm alone with this feeling (yeah, I'm very well aware of the irony of that sentence), is that in some situations, you simply can't do things correctly. Which fits Rowling's situation pretty well, I'd argue, as others have already said. And, at least to me, that is what comprises the rather stupid term of "outrage culture". That even if I make an honest attempt to do things in a (notice the emphasis) correct way, I'm still chastised in the same way as if I were one of those who simply don't care about a topic at all. Before anyone claims that my feelings are being hurt: I couldn't care less.

But I believe it makes people sick of trying to do things the correct way if the end result is the same. And don't give me any of that "If you were a real ally..." stuff. First of all, allies support your cause anyway. But maybe getting basically oblivious people with a trace of sympathy for your cause supporting you full-on would help? Sure, you may not need that, but it surely would get easier that way, wouldn't it? And no, you don't get that by saying "Maybe you tried, but you did it WRONG, so do it correctly next time or else". Whoever believes that lacks either a look outside their filter bubble or empathy.

I even get that, from the "other side", you get tired pretty quickly of people not caring about your ideas if you try it by charming them. But I think by doing what I described above you're gliding into a black-and-white approach and I don't think that helps either.

À propos: some arguments used strike me as pretty communist (or rather Marxist, to be exact) in their origin, with that idea of different groups in a society fighting against each other for power. I'm not quite sure if ideas about a industrialising society should be applied to modern struggles of minorities.

Well to boil it down, I get the feeling that Rowling's additions probably weren't going to make anyone happy. She's entering the George Lucas phase where her original work is done and any additions are unlikely to live up to that level, so fans express displeasure.

Given that the dissatisfaction can be expanded outside of the auspices of cultural appropriation, I return your question to you. Why should she create more given the real chance there will only be dissatisfaction either way?

I tried to get at this with the previous answer. There's no "correct" way to create and trying to aim at that is a fool's game. People trying to focus it on this one issue, but it's true of anything you create. Why make an adaptation of a comic or novel for film/TV, given that comic fans will hate all the ways you deviated from the source material? Why tell a true story like Straight Outta Compton, given that people will harp on you for the history you missed? Why try to create anything new, given that it will be compared, likely in a negative direction, to that which has come before?

The only real answer to your question is "Because you want to." If you want to tell the story of a culture outside of your own, do so. But again, people will probably be dissatisfied vocally if you do so poorly. Hell, some will still be dissatisfied if you do it right.

Whether it's for creative drive or financial reasons, Rowling has to have her own reasons.

I find this kind of framing tries to say "Well, you can't be criticized for this in particular" and my reply to that is "why?"

As an example, comments about the story, picked from random searches on the stories.

http://www.mugglenet.com/2016/03/se...beyond-by-j-k-rowling-released-on-pottermore/

Yet again, there are things that make no sense that she's not addressing. "Wizard trafficking"... to whom?!? Who exactly is in the market for wizard slaves? Not any muggles in North America, presuming the wizards in question are Europeans.

Certainly any muggle trying to keep a wizard slave would not hold onto them for long, and keeping a wizard in captivity could be challenging even for fellow wizards. But what wizards are in the market for fellow wizard slaves?

Even by Pottermore's VERY low standards, the writing thus far this week has been sloppy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotte...tory_of_magic_in_america_seventeenth_century/

How did the MACUSA know to use "United States of America" 100 years before that term even existed? Am I missing something or does that not make any sense?

It really doesn't. I feel like it'd work better as "the governing body that would one day be called", and probably use "Magical Continental Congress" to start with.

I'm still bitter over the No-maj thing. No-maj isn't even a word that we Americans would say- the syllables aren't natural. American south, possibly, but the North, Midwest, and East defininitely wouldn't!

And once again, JK proves her ignorance of what Americans talk like. Do we pronounce USA as "Oosa? I think just calling it the Mac would be more likely.

Please Rowling stop. This is just bad all around, and also goes against your own previous writings. Remember Wendelin the Weird who was burned at the stake 47 times because she'd stop the flames from burning. Also witches and wizards thought to use United States of America a century before there were states or a united country? What? Come on.

 

[Kenshin001]

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.​

She should just delete the reference. She was trying to stimulate some interest in their culture and it backfired.

 

[Charles Brandon]

This is only going to get worse when we get to the other schools around the world.

 

[Ninja Of Chaos]

When i first read the story, i thought she had ripped-off the Desden Files. Then I realized that it was actually a N-A thing. Huh. Did Butcher do it better or something? Because skinwalkers are pretty prevalent in the later books of the series.

 

[tkscz]

I mean, people are going to dislike your work for various reasons. If you want to create something completely new, rock out. Do it right and create something wholly new - see Avatar TLA, which draws from various Asian cultures, but doesn't directly mirror any of them - and people will be fine with it. Do it wrong and they won't. There's no cry and dry line.

There's an attempt to find the style of creation that everyone will love and have no issues with. It doesn't really exist. Even the best works have detractors, many with valid points, because art is subjective and based partially on the interaction with the reader. Regardless, you always have that full freedom in creation. You just don't have freedom from people who will have issues with your work.

That's my only problem with this, there is no "do it right" or "do it wrong", there is only do it. Let's take Rowling here for example, yes, we have natives who are offended by this, but we also know there are just as many (or more or less) native people who like that their culture is even included, or don't care, or don't like it, but aren't mad at it or any other form of reaction. Like you said, your writing will get a reaction, it will offend, you can't escape that. But you can't escape who or how it will inspire either. Yes, for some it's best to do your homework, but for others, they rather see it taken as far from the original legend as possible because they enjoy seeing it fantasized. For some, they rather you do it accurately or you're offending, for others, they rather see it mix perfectly with what you've already created, rather than seeing it butt heads with it. To say do it right or do it wrong, is to take the imagination away from someone writing fantasy or sci-fi. That's just how I see it.

I mean, do you remember Gargoyles? The main character Elisa was Black/Native. They took lore from both and added it to several other lores and I remember some people not liking that. That some magic elf god should not have control over mystical beings from Africa, because it shows some sort of racism. I don't agree with this notion, and only see it as taking a lore and fantasizing it as with any other lore. You will offend some, but others will like it. To the ones you offended, you did it "wrong". To the ones who liked it, you did it "right".

 

[cj_iwakura]

Sheesh, Soul Hackers was based completely around Native American mythology, no one cared about that.
(or the game )

 

[Darryl]

No-maj makes sense. It has a jarring sting to it, like harsh american racial slurs. I can easily imagine saying fucking no-maj in a degrading way so it checks out.

 

[Apt101]

No-maj makes sense. It has a jarring sting to it, like harsh american racial slurs. I can easily imagine saying fucking no-maj in a degrading way so it checks out.

I think mud blood sounds worse. And muggle sounds like they're ridiculing them. Heh. Muggles.

 

[bengraven]

Skinwalkers aren't even really supernatural beings. I was reading an AMA a few years ago by a Native. Native Americans don't like to talk about them, but they're really just poisonous people. We would call them sociopathic douchebags - they believe that skinwalkers are so poisonous that they might as well be real monsters.

Also, every fantasy writer alive has appropriated mythologies and histories from every culture - including NA culture. Most of them were just not popular enough to reach NA's attention I'm guessing.

And I'm a huge supporter of Native people as post histories may suggest here and on other forums, but I do admit they are very very defensive.

 

[Sesha]

Skinwalkers aren't even really supernatural beings. I was reading an AMA a few years ago by a Native. Native Americans don't like to talk about them, but they're really just poisonous people. We would call them sociopathic douchebags - they believe that skinwalkers are so poisonous that they might as well be real monsters.

That sounds like Euhemerism to me, as a way to rationalize and modernize their folklore and make it reasonable and easily explainable in a modern day framework. I don't doubt Natives largely consider Skinwalkers as what you describe, but they absolutely used to be supernatural in origin.

 

[Irminsul]

I find this kind of framing tries to say "Well, you can't be criticized for this in particular" and my reply to that is "why?"

Well, I can definitely see that, because you're right, there certainly are situations in which you are in a lose-lose situation, but only because you decided to do anything at all when you maybe should have done nothing. So yeah, "either way I'm fucked" isn't really that great of an argument, at least in this case.

Regarding the things you quoted, I was always of the opinion that you really shouldn't take too close a look at Rowling's universe, because it falls apart pretty quickly. Sure, doesn't mean you can't criticise it, but in my opinion, it is a bit missing the forest for the trees if you go at each detail and you overanalyse things that have a rather mundane, "harmless" explanation. Maybe it's even harsher to say that Rowling's universe building doesn't warrant such a detailed analysis.

And regarding the criticism and hand, I agree with you when you say "If you want to tell the story of a culture outside of your own, do so. But again, people will probably be dissatisfied vocally if you do so poorly. Hell, some will still be dissatisfied if you do it right." The thing is, I believe the woman the OP quotes disagrees with the first sentence, not agrees with the second one. And I really disagree with that.

 

[Jarmel]

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

I think that's a much more valid type of argument than just saying she can't use it.

 

[Arkeband]

For a fictional universe where the entry point is to run at a wall in a train station headfirst at full speed, I think both the amount of supplementary detail surrounding these new schools and the reactions to them need to be dialed back a bit.

I'm also disappointed that my 10/10 Bravely Second joke on the first page went completely ignored, but I'm sticking to it.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

First nations are... real people bro still existing and practicing their traditions.

And? Mythology is mythology. Nobody other than the people practicing a religion are under any obligation to respect sacred aspects of it.

It's shit like this that make the whole "anti-cultural appropriation" crowd look like a bunch of Luddites with no sense. Culture is never, ever, ever going to have lines around it to protect the integrity of marginalized people, nor should it, because once cultures are in contact, their traditions, religions, and technologies inherently get pooled together and become fair game in both directions. Rowling is a hack, but this is a passing reference used to help build a world. This idea that there are stories that white people "don't have a right to", and that them using it "erases" the original, is ridiculous. Culture is something made by specific humans to make sense of their context, not a perfect Platonic form handed down from on high.

 

[Funyarinpa]

"B-b-but there isn't enough representation for marginalized people in media!!!1!!1!"

"How dare she represent us in media? OFF WITH HER HEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!!!!"

This is what people mean by outrage culture, SJ-GAF.

 

[Erevador]

Incredibly absurd.

This kind of thinking has gone so far off the deep end that it has looped back on itself and turned back into "separate but equal."

 

[infinitys_7th]

That sounds like Euhemerism to me, as a way to rationalize and modernize their folklore and make it reasonable and easily explainable in a modern day framework. I don't doubt Natives largely consider Skinwalkers as what you describe, but they absolutely used to be supernatural in origin.

They absolutely are supposed to be supernatural in origin, but there would definitely be some overlap. Skinwalkers have to give a loved one as a human sacrifice to gain their abilities, and a lot of Witchery Way revolves around corpse powders and similar macabre bits of these victims.

Of course, the skinwalker label may be applied to pariahs as well (much like any other negative label) but it is a supernatural phenomenon.

I love the lore around skinwalkers, more from the paranormal side. There are a lot of fascinating stories around this, especially with the Utes and in the Uintah Basin.

 

[Infinite]

Incredibly absurd.

This kind of thinking has gone so far off the deep end that it has looped back on itself and turned back into "separate but equal."

Why are you se afraid of criticism?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Why are you se afraid of criticism?

Thinking particular criticism is ridiculous, petty, and dumb is not fear of it.

 

[Erevador]

Why are you se afraid of criticism?

I am not afraid of criticism. I am criticizing the criticism. Where's the fear in that?

 

[Infinite]

Thinking particular criticism is ridiculous, petty, and dumb is not fear of it.

That's fine but saying "this is seperate but equal" territory is hyperbolic as fuck. Essentially what that person is saying is the reaction to criticism of a thing is to no longer do thing to make everyone happy.

 

[Russ T]

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 am Hopi, bear clan from First Mesa. I live on the Hopi reservation, and was raised very strictly according to our tradition. I also am a teacher. Harry Potter is great and many of our students claim J.K. Rowling as a favorite author. The Navajo are also our enemy going back hundreds of years but I am going to stick up for them anyway.

If you are "Native", do not call any other tribe's traditions "fictitious". Our way of life and our religion are often the same. I have never seen a skin walker, but I have heard stories of them from Dine (Navajo) people and I would dare not discredit them in much the same they would dare not discredit our Kachina. This comes from mutual respect for each other's way of life. Christians and Muslims also have stories, and when they come to visit us we treat them as real because how shall any of us ever know?

One could gather this as use of creative license because Rowling had no one proper to consult on the sensitivity of another religion. After all, we make up less than 1% of the population but we still exist. The Navajo nation boasts 1 million and the power of the Internet now gives us that small voice we never had since books, movies, and television chose to depict indigenous people in the manner they pleased.

Just gonna quote this again because it seems like people are ignoring the point being made by this actual real Native American. This is a religion, and a system of beliefs, that is held by real people today.

"But what about Christianity!" you scream from the rooftops of your million-dollar mansion that your parents bought for you on a private island.

Well, Christians aren't marginalized. Everyone knows what Christianity is. How many people actually realize that Native Americans are still practicing their religions to this day? Not many, I'd wager. So, when they, the Native Americans, see something they believe is real being misrepresented, even if it's just fiction, it offends them. Yes, they are offended by people treating their beliefs as a bucket of ideas, rather than respecting the marginalized and often forgotten cultures that, I feel I should remind you, still exist.

"But what about all the previous uses of skinwalkers!" you shout into the microphone at a stadium full of people your parents paid to come sit and listen to you whine about how other people's cultures are free game for all to mine and abuse.

Well, the internet is still relatively new. Native Americans are often much poorer than the people who typically have easy access to the internet. As the internet spreads, their voices grow stronger. It's entirely possible they were upset about previous appropriation and misrepresentation of skinwalkers, but did not have the power or voice to make that known. Also, these issues are more and more coming to the light because our culture is evolving and allowing people to voice their issues with things without being immediately ignored. This is a good thing.

"But it's just fiction!" you yell from the moon base your parents bought for you to more easily transmit your message to as much of the earth as possible as quickly as possible and also any extraterrestrial aliens who might be listening.

So? Fiction is all most people have as a basis for understanding Native American cultures. Most people in the developed world can very easily explain the basics of what Christianity is. Tell me how any single Native American tribe practices their religion. Now tell me which piece of fiction you learned that from.

This shit is real.

This shit is important.

Stop being dismissive just because you want your fun stories. There's a way to represent Native American beliefs without being harmful. For a start: saying an inherently evil creature in their mythology is actually just misunderstood and that the people were wrong to persecute said creature... probably not a good idea.

 

[Erevador]

Thinking particular criticism is ridiculous, petty, and dumb is not fear of it.

The guise of false moral superiority is the only way in which people who are not particularly clever can grab attention and be seen to "win" an argument. Criticize something incredibly popular from an angle that would occur to no one else (because it's completely manufactured), and make sure that angle is potent and controversial enough that a large portion of people won't feel comfortable critiquing it. Stage your battle on a minefield of social risk and people will let you win it.

It's an old tactic, but one re-enforced and enabled by the mechanics of social media, particularly Twitter.

 

[wildfire]

First nations are... real people bro still existing and practicing their traditions.

This helps me understand the problem better. Usually I only see appropriation as a problem if people deny it they cribbed from the source material when there are some obvious examples lifted wholesale from other people's efforts.

Your statement makes me think of how would I feel if someone was taking apart my religion and doing things that really misrepresent what is taught within the scriptures.

I'm sure Rowling was trying to handle this respectfully but the amount of latitude among people practicing a tradition will vary. It's not the end of the world.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

Just gonna quote this again because it seems like people are ignoring the point being made by this actual real Native American. This is a religion, and a system of beliefs, that is held by real people today.

"But what about Christianity!" you scream from the rooftops of your million-dollar mansion that your parents bought for you on a private island.

Well, Christians aren't marginalized. Everyone knows what Christianity is. How many people actually realize that Native Americans are still practicing their religions to this day? Not many, I'd wager. So, when they, the Native Americans, see something they believe is real being misrepresented, even if it's just fiction, it offends them. Yes, they are offended by people treating their beliefs as a bucket of ideas, rather than respecting the marginalized and often forgotten cultures that, I feel I should remind you, still exist.

"But what about all the previous uses of skinwalkers!" you shout into the microphone at a stadium full of people your parents paid to come sit and listen to you whine about how other people's cultures are free game for all to mine and abuse.

Well, the internet is still relatively new. Native Americans are often much poorer than the people who typically have easy access to the internet. As the internet spreads, their voices grow stronger. It's entirely possible they were upset about previous appropriation and misrepresentation of skinwalkers, but did not have the power or voice to make that known. Also, these issues are more and more coming to the light because our culture is evolving and allowing people to voice their issues with things without being immediately ignored. This is a good thing.

"But it's just fiction!" you yell from the moon base your parents bought for you to more easily transmit your message to as much of the earth as possible as quickly as possible and also any extraterrestrial aliens who might be listening.

So? Fiction is all most people have as a basis for understanding Native American cultures. Most people in the developed world can very easily explain the basics of what Christianity is. Tell me how any single Native American tribe practices their religion. Now tell me which piece of fiction you learned that from.

This shit is real.

This shit is important.

Stop being dismissive just because you want your fun stories. There's a way to represent Native American beliefs without being harmful. For a start: saying an inherently evil creature in their mythology is actually just misunderstood and that the people were wrong to persecute said creature... probably not a good idea.

The very nature of fantasy writing is twisting aspects of the real world to fit an imagined one. Nothing and nobody deserves protection from that process, and you gave not a single example of harm in your entire post, just snarky, sanctimonious declamations.

 

[Arkeband]

Just gonna quote this again because it seems like people are ignoring the point being made by this actual real Native American. This is a religion, and a system of beliefs, that is held by real people today.

"But what about Christianity!" you scream from the rooftops of your million-dollar mansion that your parents bought for you on a private island.

Well, Christians aren't marginalized. Everyone knows what Christianity is. How many people actually realize that Native Americans are still practicing their religions to this day? Not many, I'd wager. So, when they, the Native Americans, see something they believe is real being misrepresented, even if it's just fiction, it offends them. Yes, they are offended by people treating their beliefs as a bucket of ideas, rather than respecting the marginalized and often forgotten cultures that, I feel I should remind you, still exist.

"But what about all the previous uses of skinwalkers!" you shout into the microphone at a stadium full of people your parents paid to come sit and listen to you whine about how other people's cultures are free game for all to mine and abuse.

Well, the internet is still relatively new. Native Americans are often much poorer than the people who typically have easy access to the internet. As the internet spreads, their voices grow stronger. It's entirely possible they were upset about previous appropriation and misrepresentation of skinwalkers, but did not have the power or voice to make that known. Also, these issues are more and more coming to the light because our culture is evolving and allowing people to voice their issues with things without being immediately ignored. This is a good thing.

"But it's just fiction!" you yell from the moon base your parents bought for you to more easily transmit your message to as much of the earth as possible as quickly as possible and also any extraterrestrial aliens who might be listening.

So? Fiction is all most people have as a basis for understanding Native American cultures. Most people in the developed world can very easily explain the basics of what Christianity is. Tell me how any single Native American tribe practices their religion. Now tell me which piece of fiction you learned that from.

This shit is real.

This shit is important.

Stop being dismissive just because you want your fun stories. There's a way to represent Native American beliefs without being harmful. For a start: saying an inherently evil creature in their mythology is actually just misunderstood and that the people were wrong to persecute said creature... probably not a good idea.

I learned about Native American beliefs from school textbooks, non-fiction books from the library, and Cub Scouts when I was like eight years old, so your hilariously goofy diatribe doesn't make sense here.

Fiction authors do not have any moral responsibility to preserve the lore of skinwalkers 1:1, period.

 

[Thelonelykoopa]

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.

 

[jorma]

The very nature of fantasy writing is twisting aspects of the real world to fit an imagined one. Nothing and nobody deserves protection from that process, and you gave not a single example of harm in your entire post, just snarky, sanctimonious declamations.

I bet you wrote that from a fortress of Doom your mom bought for you when you graduated from prophet school. Everyone knows that this renders your opinion invalid.

 

[Irminsul]

The very nature of fantasy writing is twisting aspects of the real world to fit an imagined one. Nothing and nobody deserves protection from that process, and you gave not a single example of harm in your entire post, just snarky, sanctimonious declamations.

I agree, but aditionally, I wonder whether the one you quoted would say the same things if "Christianity" was replaced by "Judaism".

 

[Erevador]

This shit is real.

This shit is important.

I can't be the only person growing weary of being lectured by people who cling to this kind of phraseology.

 

[Thelonelykoopa]

Here is an example of one of the many cool as hell things from Cherokee Mythology which I would love to see in Harry Potter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_Mocker

 

[DrForester]

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.

Do Cherokee have anything in their beliefs like Skinchangers? That might be why she chose the Navajo.

 

[Hikari_Ryu]

Just gonna quote this again because it seems like people are ignoring the point being made by this actual real Native American. This is a religion, and a system of beliefs, that is held by real people today.

"But what about Christianity!" you scream from the rooftops of your million-dollar mansion that your parents bought for you on a private island.

Well, Christians aren't marginalized. Everyone knows what Christianity is. How many people actually realize that Native Americans are still practicing their religions to this day? Not many, I'd wager. So, when they, the Native Americans, see something they believe is real being misrepresented, even if it's just fiction, it offends them. Yes, they are offended by people treating their beliefs as a bucket of ideas, rather than respecting the marginalized and often forgotten cultures that, I feel I should remind you, still exist.

"But what about all the previous uses of skinwalkers!" you shout into the microphone at a stadium full of people your parents paid to come sit and listen to you whine about how other people's cultures are free game for all to mine and abuse.

Well, the internet is still relatively new. Native Americans are often much poorer than the people who typically have easy access to the internet. As the internet spreads, their voices grow stronger. It's entirely possible they were upset about previous appropriation and misrepresentation of skinwalkers, but did not have the power or voice to make that known. Also, these issues are more and more coming to the light because our culture is evolving and allowing people to voice their issues with things without being immediately ignored. This is a good thing.

"But it's just fiction!" you yell from the moon base your parents bought for you to more easily transmit your message to as much of the earth as possible as quickly as possible and also any extraterrestrial aliens who might be listening.

So? Fiction is all most people have as a basis for understanding Native American cultures. Most people in the developed world can very easily explain the basics of what Christianity is. Tell me how any single Native American tribe practices their religion. Now tell me which piece of fiction you learned that from.

This shit is real.

This shit is important.

Stop being dismissive just because you want your fun stories. There's a way to represent Native American beliefs without being harmful. For a start: saying an inherently evil creature in their mythology is actually just misunderstood and that the people were wrong to persecute said creature... probably not a good idea.

Sorry, but I disagree. Lots of the magic elements presented in HP take a basis on existing folklore and twisting it. I don't think she should have to change anything about what she said about skinwalkers in her work of fiction. What I think would be better is putting some sort of disclaimer saying something like:

"This work of fiction is loosely based on real beliefs of Native Americans. We encourage our readers to educate themselves on the real myths and beliefs, which are honored to this day."

Maybe also have links to some sites or books that talk about Native American religious traditions.

 

[Count of Monte Sawed-Off]

A culture doesn't need to tell their story if they don't want to.

And who gets to make that decision?