From: millerl@wharton.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: Cultural Appropriation and the New Age
Date: 28 Dec 92 03:51:56 GMT
Organization: Newt World Order

In article <1992Dec27.220912.19473@netcom.com>, tmaddox@netcom.com (Tom Maddox) writes:
>>Acknowledge your sources and your prejudices.
> 
>>That's good enough, and it's all you can do.
> 
> 	A very optimistic and perhaps naive point of view.  There are several
> fairly compelling theories around that tell you this is simply (a) impossible
> and (b) not good enough.  Good will, a good heart, good intentions--they 
> probably aren't enough, but you (or I, or anyone) cannot "acknowledge"
> prejudices in many instances because we simply aren't *aware* of them.  Also,
> some would argue that there is no privileged or prejudice-free position from
> which to work.  And also, power relations determine what happens, not good
> or ill will.

True, that was simplistic, and it didn't really address your concerns. I
was writing about how to borrow interculturally without inadvertently
misrepresenting other cultures, and without plagiarising them. I still
think that a warning of prejudice (or simply state your background and
let the reader decide on your probable prejuduces) and source is all you
can do, and it's usually good enough, even though it darn well isn't
good enough for Salman Rushdie who didn't even reach outside his own
culture. Even if it isn't perfect, it allows you free range as an artist
and assuages your own guilt if you care about the ethics of such things.
As for hurt feelings, you can't help but bother extremists, so why not
concentrate on the people who listen to what you say and respond
rationally?

Your concern (if I recall correctly) was with people buying something
with an intangible worth in another culture and sticking it in their
homes, thereby robbing it of its original worth and replacing it with
the new owner's interpretation of its function/value, which seems to be
an act of cultural imperialism. The originating culture is robbed of the
presence of the artifact itself, and the artifact loses its old meaning
and gains a new one. I have difficulty agreeing with those who complain
about this behavior. Most of the artifacts that I have seen in stores
which come from other cultures were produced for western consumption.
They have never been used in religious ceremonies, they just look like
they have to us ignorant westerners. With the few that weren't made for
sale I must presume that their owners made good trades, that they valued
whatever they got for the artifacts more than the artifacts themselves.
Some artifacts were taken by force, and that I despise, but most stolen
artifacts are in museums now, and not available at the corner zulu
boutique. So check out provenance if you have reason to believe the
artifact was actually used in rituals.

I think that those who say that it's bad to buy sacred items from other
cultures are practicing their own brand of imperialism. "We whites
understand the value of your artifacts better than you do yourselves and
we prohibit you from selling them." You can't read minds, so in lieu of
telepathy let's go by what people say. If someone offers to sell you a
beautiful artifact and claims that it is sacred to some culture then
inquire as to the provenance so you don't end up buying stolen property,
but if it was acquired legally and you like it, go ahead and buy it. If
it gives you a view of holy secrets, even if they aren't the same
secrets envisioned by the artisan, then it is doing its job. To make an
analogy, and to bring discussion back to the nominal topic of this
newsgroup, would you criticize the enjoyment that someone has of a novel
you wrote if it wasn't the same kind of enjoyment you expected the
reader to have?

-- 
whoah,
+++++++++++++++++++++++23
Loren Miller                           internet: MILLERL@wharton.upenn.edu
Mediocrity is a hand rail.                         -- Baron de Montesquieu
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books