Cultural appropriation in writing?

Nellisir said:

There's absolutely no way you can argue that cultural mores do not have a way of becoming law, and that it is a very, very slippery slope. Yes, it's scary. It's absolutely f*ing terrifying. That's why this thread scares the piss out of me. People often, routinely, nonchalantly, confuse the two. Creationism becomes required science material to avoid offending one group. Abstinence-only sex-ed becomes mandatory to avoid offending another group. The Comics Code Authority is enacted because a third group is offended.

Click to expand...

I've argued no such thing. You may be confusing my posts with something you've read elsewhere, perhaps? That aside, I don't think we're making laws in this thread.

The reverse also is true - defense of offensive or morally wrong behaviour behind a shield of legal entitlement is equally scary. "I am not legally prohibited from doing this thing to you" is a terrible excuse for appalling behaviour. It's an excuse for racism, misogyny, bullying, and discrimination. Indeed it is sociopathic.

And if you want to talk "slippery slopes", we all know darn well where that has led in the past!

Nellisir said:

Or lets go your way; let's say we're talking about manners, not law. Manners are societal constructs that we use to regulate behavior. Manners matter because society enforces them. So society decides that writers shouldn't borrow from other cultures. How is that going to be enforced? Without law, the usual recourses are public shaming and/or ostracization. So if I write about the French, I get ostracized, or publicly shamed. Cross-cultural literature gets turned into pornography; you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. Authors get hate mail; death threats; their existing books downvoted to oblivion on Amazon.

Here are two (and a half) names that are currently undergoing public discipline for "bad manners": Lynn Shepherd & Miriam Weeks/Belle Knox. Neither has broken the law.

You can NOT start this ball rolling and expect it to stop when you say so.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to entertain an extremist argument that we shouldn't use manners. Sorry, dude - if the conversation's going in that direction, I'm out. Not my bag.

Nellisir said:

You can't have it both ways; you can't say I need to respect other people's cultures and do what they want, and then say that I can choose what I think is silly and what isn't.

Click to expand...

Actually, I can. Because "show respect to others" does not mean "slavishly follow the dictates of others". There are things that, if we think about it, should be pretty darned obvious might be touchy. The thing with rice wasn't one of them. But, for example, use of ceremonial dress should be.

I understand respect, but my respect ends when you start abrogating my right to freedom of expression. I have the _right_ to offend you, and there may even be times when I am right to do so.

Click to expand...

Sure. There are times when one is right to do so. There are also times when doing so makes one a big, fat jerk. You sound like you are firmly concentrated on whether or not you *can* do something. And in being so focused, you seem to be losing the question of whether you *should* do it, and when and how you should do it.

You have the right. No question there. But, we're all familiar with Spider-Man's catchphrase, right? With each and every right comes a responsibility. And that's the crux of the matter of the thread.

Sometimes we act in a manner that we can be almost certain offend certain people. That's life.

Click to expand...

And, if in exercise of your rights, you were careful to meet your responsibilities, then I agree - that's life. But, we can turn that around, and note that if you weren't careful, or didn't take the effort to meet your responsibilities, then the fault is yours, not theirs. So, you cannot just dismiss all offense as, "Well, they choose to be offended."

Umbran said:

Actually, I can. Because "show respect to others" does not mean "slavishly follow the dictates of others". There are things that, if we think about it, should be pretty darned obvious might be touchy.

Click to expand...

Edit: removed a line of mine that confused the issue and was a bit hyperbolic. But...no. You do not get to decide what offends other people, and whether it's justified or not, silly or not. You do not get to put the burden of proof on the other person to prove that they are allowed to be offended. You just don't.

The thing with rice wasn't one of them.

Click to expand...

So your friend was wrong to take offense? Are you really saying you know better than he does?

But, for example, use of ceremonial dress should be.

Click to expand...

A kilt, to use my example, isn't "ceremonial dress". A clan tartan, with all the bells and whistles, is ceremonial, and wearing one to indicate membership in a group to which one does not belong would be a misrepresentation, much like wearing medals and a uniform of the US Marines and claiming ranks to which you are not entitled. The kilt as an article of clothing is not ceremonial, anymore than a generic military uniform with shiny things on your sleeve is.

With each and every right comes a responsibility. And that's the crux of the matter of the thread.

Click to expand...

Yes indeed. To use that right responsibly, and in moderation, and to defend it. Defining when and where cultural appropriation is appropriate, however, is not a responsible action. It's the opposite. The definition takes responsibility away from the individual, because to the public eye both the actor and the acted no longer has choice; one has given offense, the other is required to take it. We as a society get confused when people don't take offense when we expect them to. Sometimes we elevate that person; sometimes we vilify them.

Morrus said:

I'm not going to entertain an extremist argument that we shouldn't use manners. Sorry, dude - if the conversation's going in that direction, I'm out. Not my bag.

Click to expand...

I think that's a pretty gross and simplistic misreading of my position. (there's a whole meta-argument here about whether or not I can choose to be offended at your misrepresentation, but it's boring and I don't care.) I'm still talking about cultural appropriation. You didn't want to talk about legal ramifications, you don't want to talk about manneristic ramifications. In what plane exactly is any offense or ramification supposed to occur?? I feel like you keep moving the goalposts*. That's all pretty much hypothetical, BTW - you don't need to answer.

Here are my questions: Who decides when and to what severity cultural appropriation has taken place? What are the ramifications of such an act? What compensation is due to the offended party? Who sets those compensations?

*"goalposts" is a metaphor, not a literal interpretation that this conversation is something to be won, lost, or otherwise scored.

Just for kicks, I'll answer OP's questions. I thought I was doing so, but apparently not. For the record, I have no issue with OP, the questions, or the issues. I think this stuff is incredibly important and needs to be discussed so people understand the ramifications of their decisions.

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:

Here is a question for the writers and readers here, particularly anyone with a background from somewhere besides America or Europe.

Click to expand...

Not me, then, but since most of us fall into this category, and my wife doesn't, I'm going to calim privilege on her behalf and answer it anyways.

How do you feel about someone writing or creating a story in your country or among your people, culture, etc, if they are not a part of your ethnicity?

Click to expand...

No comment here. (Edit: Actually, yes comment: I don't care. I don't expect other people to agree with me, though.)

To whit, can it be legitimately argued something like “Bridge of Birds,” a fantasy about ancient China, is racist, guilty of cultural appropriation or perpetuating some variation of the “noble savage” idea?

Click to expand...

Can it be argued? Absolutely, no doubt. Argued legitimately? Probably yes. What then?

To a lesser degree this happens all the time among “western” nations and that arguably makes them all acceptable target.

Click to expand...

What is the argument that makes "western" nations acceptable targets? Eye for an eye? Do unto others as they have done for you?

For example, Naomi Novik’s Temeraire series is not likely to be accused of racism and other problems when the characters are running around England, France, Germany and possibly even Russia. But what about when they are in China, Africa and South America?

Click to expand...

Haven't read it; no opinion.

Scalped was a comic book series about Ogala Lakota, but the series is written by a white guy from Alabama. Is that automatically a problem?

Click to expand...

A) No; b) I'm not lakota, so if a) was "yes", should I even get an opinion? (the use of the word "problem" has the implicit promise of "solution" as well.)

Umbran said:

You sound like you are firmly concentrated on whether or not you *can* do something. And in being so focused, you seem to be losing the question of whether you *should* do it, and when and how you should do it.

Click to expand...

If you lose the right to do something, you lose the choice as to whether or not you should. Yes, you should exercise respect, caution, responsibility, care, and decency in the exercise of your rights. None of which goes against anything I've said.

Edit: Frack this is frustrating. I don't know how much simpler I can make this.
Point one - You can look at your own work and decide whether it's appropriate or not. Absolutely, everyone should do that. Everyone does do that, every day.
Point two - You don't get to decide when someone else is offended. You just don't. You don't get to choose what I find funny, or what I find sad, or what I find offensive.
Point three - If your primary concern is whether or not someone else is going to be offended by your work, and you make your decisions based solely on that, then you are self-censoring, and you're never going to write anything provocative again. Sad but true. If you do it anyways, then you are placing your opinion about your work above someone else's sensibilities. Honestly, we all do this every day. People just don't like to acknowledge it.
Point four - once you've decided to censor yourself, it's a small step to censoring others. The King and I is offensive. It IS banned in Thailand. If you defend it, you're opening yourself up to accusations of supporting cultural appropriation, insensitivity, and bigotry. If you don't defend it, you're opening yourself up to accusations of censorship and abrogation of free speech. Books are still banned in places around the US today. This isn't some antique concern. Pointing at a book and saying "is this a problem?" opens the door to an answer of "yes", and the question becomes "what do you do about it?"

Last question: the Rodgers & Hammerstein play "The King and I" is banned in Thailand. It is considered offensive and disrespectful to the monarchy and Thai culture. Is this a problem? Should Rodgers & Hammerstein have written the play at all?

Potentially relevant link: https://www.facebook.com/nkjemisin (see status of March 20th)

Edit: I'm basically done posting about this topic. I can't break it down further. There is no right answer to the questions above, incidentally. You're going to offend someone.

goldomark said:

Thank you for explaining to me my native tongue.

Click to expand...

Bravo! Tu te débrouilles bien en anglais. Si tu continues tes efforts en anglais, tu pourras un jour participer aux forums anglophones comme ENWorld sans avoir l'air d'un provocateur. Pour l’instant, tes messages font penser que tu as un besoin pathologique d’attention. Sans doute, c’est simplement tes limites an anglais qui donne cette impression mauvaise.

Nellisir said:

Last question: the Rodgers & Hammerstein play "The King and I" is banned in Thailand. It is considered offensive and disrespectful to the monarchy and Thai culture. Is this a problem? Should Rodgers & Hammerstein have written the play at all?

Potentially relevant link: https://www.facebook.com/nkjemisin (see status of March 20th)

Click to expand...

"The King and I" and "Annie Get Your Gun" (by Irving Berlin, to show it wasn't just a problem of Rogers and Hammerstein) have some very problematic stuff in them, no doubt about that.

Saying that a work is a product of its time is not a shield. It is just an explanation. Back in 1951, the country (and the rest of the world) was pretty darned bigoted. We have knowledge and experience today that they lacked - those shows were written before most of what we think of as the Civil Right Movement, after all. We could not expect them to write as if they were written today, because they weren't.

But that's a different issue - we are now comparing historical actions to today's moral and ethical compass. That can find you some folks who are ahead of their time, but isn't a terribly valid criticism, on the whole.