Cultural appropriation in writing?

[Kramodlog]

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.

Extraordinaire, champion! C'est une belle démonstration de psycho-pop. Je suis fière de toi.

Est-ce que tu peux me dire si ma mère m'a allaité quand j'étais petit?

 

[Morrus]

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.

Post in English, please. And definitely do not insult people in other languages. We do have access to Google Translate.

Extraordinaire, champion! C'est une belle démonstration de psycho-pop. Je suis fière de toi.

Est-ce que tu peux me dire si ma mère m'a allaité quand j'étais petit?

Drop the sarcasm, please. You reported the post; that's enough.

 

[Umbran]

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

As noted above, this was an acquaintance, not a friend. And the issue was not directed at me, but at another person. Her peers, including others of her own culture, found that she was being a bit over-the-top. The disposition and use of soy sauce and/or rice are not sacrosanct in her home culture, so she had little basis for complaining how others use them. So, yes, she didn't have foundation to take offense.

A kilt, to use my example, isn't "ceremonial dress". A clan tartan, with all the bells and whistles, is ceremonial

Yep. Exactly. "Utilikilts" are just clothing, and since non-formal-tartan kilts also exist among the Scots, this is not a problem. Real tartan kilts are a different beast, as are, say, Native American feathered headdresses. You don't go wearing those willy-nilly. There are still occasions where you can use those, too, but you just need to be more careful about it.

Defining when and where cultural appropriation is appropriate, however, is not a responsible action.

Other than "when you are failing in your responsibilities to other people", which is a case-by-case discussion all on its own, I'm not laying down any law here. Since I'm aiming at a dynamic, thoughtful approach, rather than a strict definition, I don't see how we're in opposition on that.

 

[Nellisir]

"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.

It is a different issue, and it's not all dusty history. The 1999 remake of The King and I, titled Anna and the King and starring Chow Yun-Fat and Jodie Foster, is also banned. So, again, is this a problem?

 

[Nellisir]

Since I'm aiming at a dynamic, thoughtful approach, rather than a strict definition, I don't see how we're in opposition on that.

I think we're in opposition only insofar as that we're answering on different levels. You're saying "sometimes" to the OP's question; I'm saying "wrong question".

One Night in Bangkok by Murray Head is also banned, btw.

 

[Grumpy RPG Reviews]

Bringing this closer to home, consider Chakotay, of Voyager, and the Gypsies book from White Wolf. Both were in theory supposed to be positive things, one a Native America, the other about the Rom. Both failed in execution and became insulting. Good intentions mean di... very little. However, leaving all such characters out means a production will be guilty of white washing.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"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.

The King and I is an interesting case. My wife is Thai, so this is a subject I hear a heck of a lot about. One misconception is that the issue with the old film in Thailand has much to with oncerns of bigotry or the use of yellow face (not saying these are not issues in the film, just this isn't why they take issue). Thai people dislike Anna in the king because they have serious misgivings of the accounts wriitten by Anna Leonowens, which the king and I is based on (this is why the Jodi Foster version is equally disliked in Thailand). They basically consider The King and I an innacurate and insulting portrayal of King Rama Iv (and V). The strong dislike of Anna Leonowens herself cannot be understated. Mention that name and my wife expresses her opinion quite forcefully.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To a point. There are also, unfortunately, those who are willing to engage in, for lack of a better term, "manufactured outrage", taking offense when none is really called for.

An acquaintance of mine, for example, took offense at people eating Asian food, and putting soy sauce on white rice. I kid you not.

I think this point is important. It is important to be respectful of course, but we can also make evaluative judgments about peoples' reactions. In some cases outrage is warranted, in others it may be misplaced. If someone takes offense where it really isn't warranted and then closes off an entire avenue of exploration in fiction or gaming, it would be foolish in my opinion to go along with that.

 

[Nellisir]

The King and I is an interesting case. My wife is Thai, so this is a subject I hear a heck of a lot about. One misconception is that the issue with the old film in Thailand has much to with oncerns of bigotry or the use of yellow face (not saying these are not issues in the film, just this isn't why they take issue). Thai people dislike Anna in the king because they have serious misgivings of the accounts wriitten by Anna Leonowens, which the king and I is based on (this is why the Jodi Foster version is equally disliked in Thailand). They basically consider The King and I an innacurate and insulting portrayal of King Rama Iv (and V). The strong dislike of Anna Leonowens herself cannot be understated. Mention that name and my wife expresses her opinion quite forcefully.

My wife is half-Thai, and grew up in Bangkok. Interesting place to visit.

But yeah, it has much more to do with respect for the monarchy and national pride than anything else; that's my understanding. Thais are very proud of the fact that they're the only southeast Asian country to have retained their sovereignty and not come under the control of a European power.

 

[Bedrockgames]

My wife is half-Thai, and grew up in Bangkok. Interesting place to visit.

But yeah, it has much more to do with respect for the monarchy and national pride than anything else; that's my understanding. Thais are very proud of the fact that they're the only southeast Asian country to have retained their sovereignty and not come under the control of a European power.

Part of it is Anna basically claims credit for things like the elimination of Slavery in Thailand, and Thai people generally reject this notion. There are also issues with her account of events and how close she actually was to the king. I read both of her books and judging from the forwards it looks like literary scholars and historians are still actively debating this, though the weight seems to be on the side of her account being flawed and even intentionally misleading). But it is still debated by some.

my understanding is the bans of the king and i films are due to the lese majeste laws of Thailand (that is why the most recent film still got banned despite attempts to make it more culturally sensitive).