From: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca (Crawford Kilian)
Subject: Re: Cultural Appropriation and the New Age
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 06:34:01 GMT

Mary Smith-Nolan raises an important question in a slightly confusing way:
Calling Europeans "New Agers" makes me think Columbus discovered America
thanks to a channeler.

Getting beyond that to her basic question, "cultural appropriation" has
become a noisy issue here in Canada--especially in connection with white
writers portraying native Indians or members of other ethnic groups. As a
novelist of German-Slovak-Anglo-Irish descent, born in the US, raised in
Mexico and now a citizen of Canada, I have a very hard time with the very
concept of cultural appropriation. In effect, it tells writers they can write
only about themselves; they have neither the right nor even the ability to
explore anyone else's culture, or to show their own in the light of someone
else's.

In its most extreme form, which I call "clonism," the premise is that nobody
knows the trouble I've seen except someone just like me--and nobody except
someone just like me has any business writing about my experience and values.
The logical extension of this view is that artistic expression is beside the
point--no one except someone just like you can ever *really* understand the
experience you portray in art. And if art can't communicate across cultures,
generations and genders, what the hell is the point?

About 20 years ago, an Inuk named Markoosie appropriated the form of the
English-language novel and wrote a superb novel called Harpoon of the Hunter;
it brought Inuit life and values alive in my imagination and the minds of
many other readers. About 2 years ago, another Inuk--a teenage girl in
Iqaluit, on Baffin Island--posted a story about her family in an online
writing course I was teaching. The story created the cyberspace equivalent of
an earthquake, startling and delighting everyone who read it.

By the same token, if I were to master the technique of Inuit carving, and I
was really good at it, I would be contributing to an artistic genre and in
turn enriching every other carver. If I was lousy at it, my work would
rapidly disappear. Similarly, if I "appropriated" stories and legends from
some ethnic group (Haida, Maya, Slovak) and adapted them to science fiction
or fantasy, I would benefit both the originating culture--by disseminating
its arts--and the receiving culture (and God knows SF and fantasy need all
the benefits they can get). If I sensationalized or trivialized what I'd
taken, I might enjoy a passing success among readers who wanted agreement
with their preconceptions; but I wouldn't remain a longtime influence because
dishonest art doesn't last.

What are the "spiritual" effects of such appropriation? Probably an intense
annoyance when the appropriator screws up. We all feel that when we read or
watch something that conflicts with what we know to be the case. (I came out
of seeing "The Deer Hunter" absolutely seething at the stupidly inaccurate
way US servicemen were portrayed--my God, Robert DeNiro as a Green Beret in a
*beard*?) That's too bad, but unless you're going to keep your culture hidden
away in the dark, someone else is going to see it, be affected by it, and
incorporate it into another culture.

I hope I'm making sense about this. I welcome reponses from Mary and anyone
else with an interest in the subject.


--
Crawford Kilian   Communications Department   Capilano College
North Vancouver BC Canada V7J 3H5
Usenet: Crawford_Kilian@mindlink.bc.ca
Internet: ckilian@first.etc.bc.ca

Newsgroups: rec.arts.books