Sensitivity Writers. AKA: avoiding cultural appropriate in writing

[Superbeast20]

that's the difference between cultural exchange, and cultural appropriation. The latter is taking someone else's culture typically against the desires of the minority culture.

I see what you mean, but how can anyone tell those apart?

Like in the example, no one gave the Japanese approval to get interested in animation. And America didn't get approval to like anime.

I suppose it could be said that its an exchange as neither of them complained about the other liking it. But what if one of them had? Should the other have stopped? Or tried to interpret the art in a way the other deemed appropriate? It really seems a murky issue when it gets down to intentions and interpretations.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I see what you mean, but how can anyone tell those apart?

Like in the example, no one gave the Japanese approval to get interested in animation. And America didn't get approval to like anime.

I suppose it could be said that its an exchange as neither of them complained about the other liking it. But what if one of them had? Should the other have stopped? Or tried to interpret the art in a way the other deemed appropriate? It really seems a murky issue when it gets down to intentions and interpretations.

The key is to see the reactions of the people being affected by it. It's their culture. If you're getting a substantive feedback that is negative, chances are it's appropriation as opposed to exchange. Also, this requires actually listening to them and giving them a platform. For Native Americans, we (as a society) didn't give them a platform, so no one heard them complain. It wasn't in the news, it wasn't reported, their complaints fell on deaf ears from the government, the government actively suppressed them, etc. So many people assumed that because they didn't see it or hear their protests against it, that it wasn't a big deal to appropriate Native traditions.

 

[Derren]

The key is to see the reactions of the people being affected by it. It's their culture. If you're getting a substantive feedback that is negative, chances are it's appropriation as opposed to exchange. Also, this requires actually listening to them and giving them a platform. For Native Americans, we (as a society) didn't give them a platform, so no one heard them complain. It wasn't in the news, it wasn't reported, their complaints fell on deaf ears from the government, the government actively suppressed them, etc. So many people assumed that because they didn't see it or hear their protests against it, that they were OK with it.

And again you pretend that you speak for or at least with a whole culture. But in truth you only speak to a small circle of like minded people and confuse their opinion with the opinion of everyone. You probably can't even define who belongs to the culture you claim to protect, let alone have an accurate idea what the majority of those people want.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It takes a special kind of "logic" to interpret this:

"Listen to the people being affected."

as

"You act like you're speaking for an entire culture."


I mean, it's literally the opposite of what I'm advocating. I'm not saying listen me, I'm saying listen to them.

 

[Derren]

It takes a special kind of "logic" to interpret this:

"Listen to the people being affected."

as

"You act like you're speaking for an entire culture."


I mean, it's literally the opposite of what I'm advocating. I'm not saying listen me, I'm saying listen to them.

It would help your understanding if you quoted the whole post. Of course then you would have to answer to things I actually said and don't get to choose.

 

[Superbeast20]

The key is to see the reactions of the people being affected by it. It's their culture. If you're getting a substantive feedback that is negative, chances are it's appropriation as opposed to exchange. Also, this requires actually listening to them and giving them a platform. For Native Americans, we (as a society) didn't give them a platform, so no one heard them complain. It wasn't in the news, it wasn't reported, their complaints fell on deaf ears from the government, the government actively suppressed them, etc. So many people assumed that because they didn't see it or hear their protests against it, that it wasn't a big deal to appropriate Native traditions.

I can see what you mean by that. But like you said its a point of substantive negative feedback.

Like you mention sometimes those voices are ignored, but the opposite can also be true. And a few voices can be amplified (especially with the internet ).

How can an individual know the truth of it?

Does the one complaining represent a substantive majority or are they just an individual that is upset?

Especially now and days when the only voices that keep speaking about such things are usually the extreme views that out last everyone one else.

 

[Deset Gled]

In addition to the proactive measures discussed at various points in this thread, a similar disclaimer or note from the author could be used to defuse some of the potential negative backlash. Like those disclaimers of last century, remind the reader that this is a work of fiction, note some of the steps you took to avoid offense, and say that any errors and offenses were unintentional.

I've seen this done before, and I think it's effective.

The Assassins Creed games had a disclaimer like you are advocating for. Considering the content of those games, I think it worked pretty well. YMMV. Turner Classic Movies has also made similar notes about racial issues before showing old movies, and the context that the content is being viewed in. I think I also have a DVD of old Looney Tunes cartoons that has a similar disclaimer (some of the early ones were pretty racist). And I have a vague memory of something like this popping up in the credits or commercials for the The Real Adventures of Johnny Quest, which would have to date back to the late 90s for me to see it on TV.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I can see what you mean by that. But like you said its a point of substantive negative feedback.

Like you mention sometimes those voices are ignored, but the opposite can also be true. And a few voices can be amplified (especially with the internet ).

How can an individual know the truth of it?

This is true. Which is why, IMO, the onus is on the potential offender to do due diligence and be proactive to see if it's just one voice being amplified, or a bigger issue that you (general you) might not be aware of. It's why me (writer/designer who is the potential offender) creates a thread like this in the first place. To do additional due diligence

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why do some keep acting like we're arguing about whether to write up anti-appropriation laws, or something?

We are literally just asking folks to seek out and listen to marginalised voices before using elements of their culture as a prop, costume, or "muse" for creative endeavors. At no point is the "don't appropriate" side of the "debate" saying, "never use stuff from other cultures". That is 100% something made up by people who don't want to be asked to think about appropriation.

 

[Mercurius]

That's a rather biased and uncharitable view of what is actually a fairly diverse field in both theory and practice. The fact that it impacts already marginalized folks can lead some people to dig in to their prescribed ideologies, but for the most part the field is engaged in very healthy debate along any number of issues.

What academics in the field don't tend to take too kindly to is folks who question the underlying basis of the field itself, of which there is plenty and of whose opinions on the subject are demonstrably not valid.

I think I said that there are good things happening, but I also see a lot of bad - particularly in its divisiveness and finger-pointing at certain demographics, as well as insularity and inability to be self-critical. I feel that, as a general rule, anything that tribalizes and separates often does more harm than good. We should be looking for ways to bring us together to recognize our shared humanity, not further divide.

I think also you diminish the degree of entrenchment, and how the rigidity of a certain ideological outlook has spread outward...as evinced by some of the participants in this thread, who are--as one poster put it--thumping the bible down and saying, "this is how it is - no questions or variances in perspective allowed." When a movement or ideology doesn't question itself, isn't self-critical, it risks becoming cultish.

I don't see why it is a problem to question underlying assumptions. Certainly there are certain phenomena that are unquestionable. But the way we interpret that phenomena? The frameworks and concepts? Certainly those shouldn't be inviolable.

Well, I'm trans, so you can probably guess where I stand on that.

Not necessarily. I wouldn't assume you reacted a certain way just because you're trans. This is part of the problem, I think: the assumption that everyone of a certain demographic must or will have the same reaction, that there is a "proper amount of offense" one should take, depending upon one's intersectional profile. We're all much more variable and diverse than that.

If you didn't already, you might want to watch the "hidden" epilogue at the end of the special. He shares an interaction he had with a trans person who actually loved his standup and thanked him for normalizing transgender people by telling jokes about them. I'm not saying this is the right way to look at it, or that you should look at it this way, but it is the way that at least one transgender looked at his standup.