Cultural Appropriation and Celebration of Failure to Read the Screen

A 5th point, I think, to be added to Maenid's 4, is that often a non-dominant-culture story only gets one chance at the telling in and for the dominant culture. I fell foul of this one years ago, when I wrote an historical TV miniseries from the perspective of an Irish priest who was involved in trying to save an Arrente man from the gallows. Just before we went into production, the newly-formed Aboriginal Unit pulled it. My producers pointed out that the MC was not Aboriginal. The Aboriginal Unit pointed out that this was a story about police and judicial abuse of Aboriginal people - and it would never get more than one telling in mainstream TV, and they would like to be the people who told it.

Ari Meermans said:

Since no one has yet answered the question, I'll tell you how I think of the term "cultural appropriation." The definition of "appropriation" is generally understood to mean the taking of something not our own for our own use. When we talk about cultural appropriation, we're really talking about cultural misappropriation which is the taking of something not our own for our own use in a way that causes harm to those to whom it does belong. This misrepresentation of a group of people or a culture isn't writing "true" because it causes harm—it perpetuates mistaken belief systems and it hurts those to whom the culture does belong.

This doesn't mean we can't write about cultures not our own, only that we must take care to get it right. We can't be careless. To take less than the appropriate care is to be dishonest.

Click to expand...

With this conversation, my perception is that a few participants were not engaging in good faith. That makes it impossible to get anywhere if someone doesn't genuinely care about communication, compromise, or solutions.

That may not be entirely fair of me since the participants in question have mostly been banned and so can't defend themselves. On the other hand, that kind of supports my point.

But this is the thing that gets me in discussions like this. Anna Iguana posted a good sample of acknowledging someone's fear; except in my experience, that still doesn't result in any sign of willingness to engage in good faith from those you're addressing. So what then? How are we supposed to communicate with someone who doesn't want to hear it?

Excellent questions, JJ. Don't those questions pretty much apply to most serious and/or contentious subjects? When do we cut our losses and accept we're getting nowhere?

The answer to that is much easier for me on the forum than it is in real life. My face-to-face conversations are usually with family and close friends—those in whom I have an emotional investment and really want to understand. It's frustrating and disheartening when they don't. Wrt the forum, I know there are those who, while not actively participating in the conversation, are reading with a sincere desire to understand and get it right. I consider them, as well.

andiwrite said:

I have seen it suggested that white people should not write POC quite a few times.

Click to expand...

I have been thinking more about this and wanted to address this particular point, because I think it's part of the "fear" issue. And I don't want to dismiss it as nonexistent. Because this opinion is, I think, out there, as is the opinion that dominant-cultured people should include marginalized characters but not write from their POV, or similar--there's a whole range of answers to this problem, because there are a range of people involved with individual feelings and perspectives.

An intelligent friend pointed out to me the other day, as I was twirling about this myself, that there is no monolithic Correct Answer to Appropriation. People are going to have differing opinions on the response. Because it *is* complicated--the history of Western civilization parasitizing other cultures makes it so, and marginalized voices wanting to have their voices unobstructed, untrodden--and unspoken-for, by varying measures--is a totally legitimate response, I think. I mean, it is a reality that white writers who write *about* the experience of others have historically been given more attention than people writing from their *own* experience, and that is something that needs to change. The question of how is one with a few different answers, and that's--yanno, that's a reflection of human variance in a real issue.

And yet--the extreme flip side of it is that dominant-cultured people only write about the dominant culture. Personally--right now, my opinion is I don't think this helps. I mean, it's fine in isolation, this book or that book -- but in a wave of creative works, in a long view of how stories create culture, diversity is necessary, I think. Because representation is important. Someone seeing themselves in a story as a hero, as a three-dimensional person--this can mean everything to a life. This can legitimize personhood that is otherwise minimized and belittled, or caricatured or exoticized. This can also broaden the perspective of humanity for dominant-cultured readers, to blur over that "other" line, to learn to see heroes who look different as heroes and not as tokens or one-offs. This, too, is essential, I think.

But that's just my opinion, and I fully accept that I might be wrong--maybe I shouldn't write in diverse POVs; maybe I shouldn't include any direct experience that could be better told by another voice. That, too, I consider a legitimate answer to the question of how to approach this, even if right now I lean the other way. I waver over this line quite a lot, actually, and I could be convinced someday that my current approach is more harmful than not. Because, yanno, my voice is not important here. Others are. That's the truth--but that's just how I feel personally. I don't know if I could extend that to others.

And, again, I also accept that fuck-ups happen. I've fucked up a lot in the past. Hell, my username was a fuckup. It's right there, undermining this whole post, because I didn't even think about stuff like appropriation back in 2011. I can't guarantee I'm going to have the right answers for any of this. What I *can* do, I think, is try to do better. Try to keep learning, be open to the idea that I can screw up, get readers, and if someone says "hey this is harmful," fix it.

The point is, I think the answers to the issue of appropriation can be complicated, and it can vary. So I understand worries about approach to the issue. But what doesn't hold water for me is dismissing the issue entirely, or complaining that you're at a disadvantage because you're white and publishers might prefer diverse voices. I don't really buy it, but even if it were true, you know what? If the publisher chooses diverse voices over mine, good. It's about time. Kids don't have to grow up as ignorant as I did. Their worlds can be so wide, so inclusive; their minds could be so open right from the start. Why not?

And again, when PoC say, for example, that cultural appropriation hurts them--that it trivializes things that are important to them, that it steals the chance for them to speak for themselves, that it makes caricatures and archetypes out of real people, that it promulgates stereotypes that make them feel restricted as human beings--why is it considered a legitimate response to say "no it doesn't" or "you're too sensitive" or "you're censoring me"? I don't understand it. Confusion over how to approach an issue doesn't have to be transmuted into an "oh yeah well to hell with you," does it?

Can we at least agree that it's a real issue, one that negatively impacts real people, rather than dismissing it as "political correctness"? And if not, why not?

buzhidao said:

...I mean, it is a reality that white writers who write *about* the experience of others have historically been given more attention than people writing from their *own* experience, and that is something that needs to change.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And it's very damaging when inaccurate portrayals by people from outside become what most people in society "know" about the marginalized culture in question.

I don't know why so many white people or European, Christian extraction would rather read narratives about Lakota, or African Americans, or Muslims than about stories written by members of these groups. Maybe it's the voice or style of storytelling itself that hits a comfort zone, or maybe it's because some of the white-told narratives put the experience of a white character (as a convert to the cause of equality, or even as a savior) as very central to the narrative. Who doesn't like to feel good about someone like oneself "seeing the light" and becoming an ally who makes a difference for some poor, downtrodden characters?

And yet--the extreme flip side of it is that dominant-cultured people only write about the dominant culture. Personally--right now, my opinion is I don't think this helps. I mean, it's fine in isolation, this book or that book -- but in a wave of creative works, in a long view of how stories create culture, diversity is necessary, I think.

Click to expand...

I agree, and if white authors and filmmakers continue to focus only on stories about white characters, or "compromise" by only casting PoC in marginal or support roles, then nothing changes, does it? Because that's mostly what they've been doing up until now.

Also, even in speculative fiction (let alone fiction set in the real world), completely monochrome and culturally monolithic settings are unrealistic. Even if cultures are made up from scratch (and I think our own knowledge of real world cultures will tend to creep in, even so), why would everyone have exactly the same skin color or follow the same religion and have the same cultural norms?

Because representation is important. Someone seeing themselves in a story as a hero, as a three-dimensional person--this can mean everything to a life.

Click to expand...

I remember reading some essays by PoC who loved fantasy as kids but rarely saw any protagonists who weren't white. The overwhelming crux of these essays was that it was very moving and important when they did find a book with a protagonist who wasn't white, even when it was written by a white person (assuming the book was well written and respectful).

Roxxsmom said:

I don't know why so many white people or European, Christian extraction would rather read narratives about Lakota, or African Americans, or Muslims than about stories written by members of these groups. Maybe it's the voice or style of storytelling itself that hits a comfort zone, or maybe it's because some of the white-told narratives put the experience of a white character (as a convert to the cause of equality, or even as a savior) as very central to the narrative.

Click to expand...

Obviously the opinion of someone who is not POC, but I think there's some kind of instinctual fear of "cultural subtitles."

You know how a lot of people would rather watch a movie dubbed into their own language with voices that speak in a familiar cadence, instead of watch it in the original language and read the subtitles? Some people don't like the extra effort of reading; some are put off by the different rhythm of the way speech is carried out in other languages; some (for reasons I honestly can't comprehend) think the subtitles are less accurate than the dubs. It's like a fastfood knock-off of "foreign" food. No one really thinks Taco Bell is "Mexican food," but it's easier, familiar, and wearing the costume, and it doesn't require the person eating to adjust their expectations.

Whether people realize it or not, they're approaching books, movies, etc, with a distrustful eye/ear, and looking for the presentation that hands them what they expect with few surprises or challenges to their established narrative.

Cyia said:

You know how a lot of people would rather watch a movie dubbed into their own language with voices that speak in a familiar cadence, instead of watch it in the original language and read the subtitles?

Click to expand...

I think this is true for me. I've been shamed for my laziness, but I'm a very voice sensitive writer. A lot of the time, whether or not I can "get into" a book depends on the voice and narrative style that allows me to quickly connect with the protagonist. It's certainly true that our comfort zone and expectations tend to be set by past experience. They can shift, but it takes time, and everyone is different. I've been shamed as a lazy reader who is unwilling to subvert myself to complex narratives because there are even some white fantasy writers where I simply can't follow their narrative (I could not get more than a few pages into The Riddlemaster, for instance, but most people rhapsodize about that book).

There are PoC writers I love, but they tend to be the ones who become top sellers (Alice Walker and Amy Tan come to mind), so they obviously found a way to write that appeals to so-called mainstream white, American readers. I've tried reading outside my comfort zone, but I haven't always been successful. For instance, I couldn't get into The Three Body Problem at all, and I think the narrative style had a lot to do with that. I found it distancing and rather emotionally flat.

I hope I get my point across the way I'm intending it. That's the tricky part of writing and not verbally speaking with people.

Here's how I see some of these stories unfolding. Some writers are writing from areas where they are geographically removed from the people they are writing about, meaning those people aren't in their back yard and don't have to necessarily deal with any potential face to face encounters. For example JK Rowling, she's across the pond and the aboriginals who are unhappy with her have no chance of actually meeting her face to face(plus huge advantage for her she has millions of dollars and a swath of supporters who love her) but my point she will never have to worry about it being in her back yard so to speak.

For me, it's directly in my backyard and in my career where I travel to reserves and provide nursing care it would directly affect me. There would be no hiding. So do I have a thick skin, nope, not where I live. I think those who want to use cultures for their own writing even when asked not to may not be directly affected by the outcome. Or they have super thick skin and frankly don't care about the outcome. Either way I'm not sure it's right. Legal yes. But why would I want to take someone's legends and culture that at one time defined them and use it for my own personal gain(let's say the book actually makes money) when I know that group has lost its culture due to the past which is completely outside my control. I don't have a time machine so I can't change what my great great great grandfather may or may not have done, all I can do is change what I do.

So the way I view it is, if a first nations reserve says "don't use this legend" then don't use it. But lets face it, many cultures have cross over legends so the water is murky. Shape shifters appear in more than one culture. Just like every culture has their own version of the bogey man. I think it's complex and tricky and more so for those of us who have to deal with the fall out directly.

Jan74 said:

So the way I view it is, if a first nations reserve says "don't use this legend" then don't use it. But lets face it, many cultures have cross over legends so the water is murky. Shape shifters appear in more than one culture. Just like every culture has their own version of the bogey man. I think it's complex and tricky and more so for those of us who have to deal with the fall out directly.

Click to expand...

It's more than ownership of a legend. There's nuance to culture. Some native concepts have a physical and a metaphysical side. While something may translate into "blanket," which would seem to be a physical thing. Even if that concept is represented by a blanket in ceremony. The concept is not the blanket. The people participating will know this, but a writer outside the culture likely won't. They'll write about the special meaning of this blanket and how it's passed from family member to family member like it's the thing that's important. This is the kind of thing writers outside of a culture get wrong. They don't see the big deal because they never understood "the deal" in the first place.

It would be as absurd as handing out a corn husk and talking about how this husk is the main food source for this people or that. The husk isn't the important part - the corn is - but if you tell people who've never seen corn that the husk is the nutritional part, they've no reason to disbelieve you. Tell them this for two hundred years or so, and no one will even question "the facts" when they're challenged by actual corn farmers.

Cyia said:

It would be as absurd as handing out a corn husk and talking about how this husk is the main food source for this people or that. The husk isn't the important part - the corn is - but if you tell people who've never seen corn that the husk is the nutritional part, they've no reason to disbelieve you. Tell them this for two hundred years or so, and no one will even question "the facts" when they're challenged by actual corn farmers.

Click to expand...

This is a good analogy, and it makes me wonder how many of the historical "facts" that everyone knows, even about western European history, that are similarly muddled by time and distance.

Roxxsmom said:

This is a good analogy, and it makes me wonder how many of the historical "facts" that everyone knows, even about western European history, that are similarly muddled by time and distance.

Click to expand...

I would say most of it. Just think how good we are at Othering and add to that the speed with which an Urban Legend takes hold.

mccardey said:

I would say most of it. Just think how good we are at Othering and add to that the speed with which an Urban Legend takes hold.

Click to expand...

Blood libel and "Little Saint" Hugh of Lincoln

Part of the root here is the misunderstanding of Jewish history and ritual. Also generic anti Semitism.

But the Leprechaun, the happy drunken miserly "Irish" symbol is a good example as well.

The Irish Medieval myth is about a tiny race of otherworld dwellers who live underwater.

The English version from the late 18th/early 19th century was originally anti-Irish propaganda, now often perceived as actually Irish. Which, really, it's not. It's cultural mis appropriation and propaganda.

To me, cultural appropriation means taking symbols, icons, language, artist patterns, dress, style of music, etc, from other cultures and incorporating it into your own use. I personally don't think it is a bad thing. What I do think is bad is when you take these things and misrepresent the culture you acquired it from by claiming that it is either authentic, or use these things to mock or criticize these people with their icons. I think this is akin to slander. In a free country I don't think it should be a punishable offense, except for slander, but it is certainly in bad taste, faux pas, and should be publicly condemned if it is meant to cause harm or insult.

For example if you were to copy some traditional dance and then claim it to be authentic by altering it, or not using what it was meant for in that culture claiming to be authentic, then that is like slander, but I think if you incorporate aspects of that dance or style saying it was influenced by what ever culture, then I think it should be fine because you are not claiming to be authentic.

Then same for Mexican restaurants that have been Americanized claiming to be authentic. I think if they aren't actually authentic, then they are sorta slanderous.

If we were to examine or own culture it might make more sense. Take for example military uniforms. If someone wanted to go dressed as an army soldier, and wore the dress uniform with a mix match of medals, I personally think it is okay because we all know that Halloween is pretend, but if someone were to wear that same costume to a military parade pretending to have served and not have earned those medals, then it would be seen as deeply offensive to anyone who had served. Again, it comes down to be slanderous and misrepresentation.

The same thing if you impersonate a police officer, you are pretending to be something that you are not. But I think elements of that uniform can be used and appropriated in other types of clothing.

This may be getting off subject, but take the American flag. We as citizens of the USA take this symbol quite personally. To me, the flag stands for our freedoms as citizens that our forefathers fought to defend and preserve, yet it is a symbol. There will be those soldiers who claim that they fought for the American flag, the piece of colored cloth, which to me seems rather foolish. I argue that I did not join the army to defend a piece of cloth, but I joined to defend a nation that honored the laws written upon the US Constitution that guarantees freedoms to all of its citizens. Part of that freedom is the ability to burn the flag, desecrate the flag as a form of protest if that government threatens to go against the constitution. If you loose that freedom, then the flag looses its value and is meaningless. If some other culture were to take our flag and burn it, make clothing out of it, it wouldn't bother me any. What would bother me would be if our politicians were to dismantle the constitution and taking away those freedoms. As a response I would fly the flag upside down to show that our country is in crisis, and yet there will be those who would be irate not for losing freedom, but for desecrating a symbol.

People in the western world hold the idea of freedom pretty seriously, but the opposite may be true if we were to be living in a culture ruled by religion such as Islam where the way you dress, the way you act, the words you say, and the art that you produce can have you severely punished. Simply drawing a picture of Mohammed can get you killed. In a culture such as that I would be killed just for being gay. They would try to impose their sharia laws upon us here if we were to draw a picture of Mohammed in our own country.

So to me personally, I value personal freedom to speech, art, and see nothing wrong with cultural appropriation as long as it isn't slanderous or meant to misrepresent or demean people. But I also believe in using symbols, icons as a form of protest against oppressive government, ideologies, or religions that intend to enslave people.

Underdawg47 said:

People in the western world hold the idea of freedom pretty seriously, but the opposite may be true if we were to be living in a culture ruled by religion such as Islam where the way you dress, the way you act, the words you say, and the art that you produce can have you severely punished. Simply drawing a picture of Mohammed can get you killed. In a culture such as that I would be killed just for being gay. They would try to impose their sharia laws upon us here if we were to draw a picture of Mohammed in our own country.

So to me personally, I value personal freedom to speech, art, and see nothing wrong with cultural appropriation as long as it isn't slanderous or meant to misrepresent or demean people. But I also believe in using symbols, icons as a form of protest against oppressive government, ideologies, or religions that intend to enslave people.

Click to expand...

I don't even know where to start with this. I guess it's just lovely that you live in special place where there is no censorship, no extra-judicial killings, no dress-policing, no gender-policing - and where no religion enslaves.

ETA: And can I just say how grateful I was to learn that you

Underdawg47 said:

see nothing wrong with cultural appropriation as long as it isn't slanderous or meant to misrepresent or demean people.

Click to expand...

Appropriation hinges on disrespect / misuse. It's not as simple as "I went to the Bahamas and a Bahamian braided my hair on the beach, so obvs, it's okay."

Look at something as seemingly benign to most people as a Halloween costume. "Native American Princess" reduces a diverse group of tribal nations into a monoculture with no history or context. (This also applies to "African princess" or "Asian priestess" or any group made by superficially melding an entire continent into a single group.) There's no care or respect given to what the pieces of the "costume" mean. Those "feathers" you think look pretty are honors won in battle.

By wearing a headdress, you're claiming valor and victory you have no right to. It would be like wearing an aluminum copy of a silver star into a gathering of veterans. They'll know you're a fake and they won't be happy - you're disrespecting what that star means.

Those "beads," in many cases, are prayer cones. They're not decorations.

Take it a step further and look at the costumes called "sexy____," or "naughty____" which are either miniskirt or bikini versions of anything from a cartoon character to religious figures. Maybe Sexy Scooby-Doo is your thing, and that's fine, but when your costume involves taking a religious garment that's meant to be floor length and cuts it off to the point that bending over takes you from PG to R-rated, you're disrespecting the people who hold to that religion as something serious and worthy of respect. You're telling them their beliefs mean less than your desire to make a bad joke. Which is the crux of appropriation. The person taking the thing thinks they've got more right to define it than the people they took it from.

Cyia said:

It's more than ownership of a legend. There's nuance to culture. Some native concepts have a physical and a metaphysical side. While something may translate into "blanket," which would seem to be a physical thing. Even if that concept is represented by a blanket in ceremony. The concept is not the blanket. The people participating will know this, but a writer outside the culture likely won't. They'll write about the special meaning of this blanket and how it's passed from family member to family member like it's the thing that's important. This is the kind of thing writers outside of a culture get wrong. They don't see the big deal because they never understood "the deal" in the first place.

It would be as absurd as handing out a corn husk and talking about how this husk is the main food source for this people or that. The husk isn't the important part - the corn is - but if you tell people who've never seen corn that the husk is the nutritional part, they've no reason to disbelieve you. Tell them this for two hundred years or so, and no one will even question "the facts" when they're challenged by actual corn farmers.

Click to expand...

^^^as others have pointed out this is a great analogy.

Underdawg47 said:

To me, cultural appropriation means taking symbols, icons, language, artist patterns, dress, style of music, etc, from other cultures and incorporating it into your own use. I personally don't think it is a bad thing. What I do think is bad is when you take these things and misrepresent the culture you acquired it from by claiming that it is either authentic, or use these things to mock or criticize these people with their icons. I think this is akin to slander. In a free country I don't think it should be a punishable offense, except for slander, but it is certainly in bad taste, faux pas, and should be publicly condemned if it is meant to cause harm or insult.

People in the western world hold the idea of freedom pretty seriously, but the opposite may be true if we were to be living in a culture ruled by religion such as Islam where the way you dress, the way you act, the words you say, and the art that you produce can have you severely punished. Simply drawing a picture of Mohammed can get you killed. In a culture such as that I would be killed just for being gay. They would try to impose their sharia laws upon us here if we were to draw a picture of Mohammed in our own country.

So to me personally, I value personal freedom to speech, art, and see nothing wrong with cultural appropriation as long as it isn't slanderous or meant to misrepresent or demean people. But I also believe in using symbols, icons as a form of protest against oppressive government, ideologies, or religions that intend to enslave people.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your post or I'm nit-picking, but on one hand you say you value your freedom of speech and wouldn't want others to use their laws on you in your country yet in the same breath you are taking something from another country but because your law says its ok you basically are saying to hell with the other persons laws. I get that Sharia law can't touch you in the USA but what these cultures are saying is it's misrepresentation and its slanderous and demeaning to use their cultural legends/art/dress/dance/style, but you view it that its ok to do that because in your eyes its personal freedom of speech and art. This is where those who are trying to take back their culture and have a voice get frustrated.

AW Admin said:

The English version from the late 18th/early 19th century was originally anti-Irish propaganda, now often perceived as actually Irish. Which, really, it's not. It's cultural mis appropriation and propaganda.

Click to expand...

This is a good example, but it seems that even most people (and institutions) who are proud of their Irish heritage in the US don't know this anymore. That's another thing that happens when stereotypes and disrespectful portrayals become accepted as the authentic thing themselves, even the victims of the stereotyping can come to accept or normalize it.

Though I don't put the mascot for Notre Dame in the same category of offensive as major league sports franchises like Washington. Not only are Irish Americans not terribly marginalized these days, Irish Catholics founded Notre Dame and choose the icon for themselves. If a Native American-run school wanted to have a similar logo to the Washington Redskins, that would be their right, even if I wondered why they'd do that.

Roxxsmom said:

This is a good example, but it seems that even most people (and institutions) who are proud of their Irish heritage in the US don't know this anymore. That's another thing that happens when stereotypes and disrespectful portrayals become accepted as the authentic thing themselves, even the victims of the stereotyping can come to accept or normalize it.

Click to expand...

One reason cultural appropriation by dominant cultures is so fiercely refuted by culture members is that the appropriating culture's version can subsume the authentic one. Irish is an endangered language, one that for a long time was essentially not allowed to be used in Ireland. So the people who knew the older traditions, and could read the older forms of the language became rarer and rarer. So the medieval text referring to the original luchorpán became obscure and the graphic representation of the shoe-making gold-hoarding dwarf was meant to satirize the Irish for an English audience, "became Irish."

Appropriation can become devastation, or erasure.

AW Admin said:

One reason cultural appropriation by dominant cultures is so fiercely refuted by culture members is that the appropriating culture's version can subsume the authentic one. Irish is an endangered language, one that for a long time was essentially not allowed to be used in Ireland. So the people who knew the older traditions, and could read the older forms of the language became rarer and rarer. So the medieval text referring to the original luchorpán became obscure and the graphic representation of the shoe-making gold-hoarding dwarf was meant to satirize the Irish for an English audience, "became Irish."

Appropriation can become devastation, or erasure.

Click to expand...

To a lesser extent, this phenomena can extend to outsiders' assumptions of a nation's current identity / make-up. Ask your average American what someone from Ireland looks like, and you're likely to get many, many descriptions of red hair and green eyes.

Ask someone from Ireland the same question, and they'll tell you you're more likely describing someone from Scotland. Ireland has the same approximate incidence of dark hair as Greece, and only around 10% red.

Perception often clouds fact.

AW Admin said:

...
Appropriation can become devastation, or erasure.

Click to expand...

Which is why no definition of appropriation is sufficient without this acknowledgement: the people who decide what is to be protected is the people who stand to be harmed.

SWest said:

Which is why no definition of appropriation is sufficient without this acknowledgement: the people who decide what is to be protected is the people who stand to be harmed.

Click to expand...

Repeating this. I think many of us understand this intuitively, but others don't necessarily. Only the people of the culture in question get to decide what constitutes harm to that culture. It's important that even those of us with the best of intentions remember this.

This thread makes for interesting reading for a Brit. As far as I can tell, everyone posting here is from the USA, Canada or Australia, all countries with indigenous First Nations peoples. In the UK there's no such thing (well there sort of is, but the history is so much older as to make it virtually irrelevant today) and we don't even really have this expression over here never mind such strong opinions about it. Not really sure what my point is, it just struck me as interesting and got me wondering what the general opinion is in say, France or Sweden.

It’s also reminded me of this article from a few days ago where Anthony Horowitz was in the papers saying his editor had told him not to write a black character at all – he appears to be blaming attitudes amongst American readership for this. I’ve no idea how accurate his view is, but again, it’s interesting comparison in perceived difference of opinion/experience on different sides of the Atlantic.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...tz-i-was-warned-off-including-black-character

It’s also reminded me of this article from a few days ago where Anthony Horowitz was in the papers saying his editor had told him not to write a black character at all – he appears to be blaming attitudes amongst American readership for this. I’ve no idea how accurate his view is, but again, it’s interesting comparison in perceived difference of opinion/experience on different sides of the Atlantic.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...tz-i-was-warned-off-including-black-character

Click to expand...

The article says:

Bestselling author Anthony Horowitz has said he was warned off including a black character in his new book after being told by an editor it would be inappropriate.
Horowitz, best known for his Alex Rider series of novels, said he found it “disturbing” that he was being advised against a white writer creating a black character.

Click to expand...

There is a big difference between a specific author being warned off including a specific character in a specific book and "a white writer being advised against creating a Black character" in general.

I don't know who Anthony Horowitz is, but could it be that the person advising him against writing Black characters was doing so specifically only to Horowitz? Maybe the person knows Horowitz well enough to know that he doesn't have the ability to write Black characters without Othering them. Maybe the editor read the MS in question and found it inappropriate. I'm just guessing here, like I said, I don't know Horowitz, and I don't know who gave him that advice, and for all I know Horowitz could be lovely and progressive and the advice given to him might be entirely wrong, but there are definitely people to whom I'd be like, "Uhmm...yea...maybe think about writing about writing different characters, because wow, you are racist."

I'm a member of a group specifically for writers of color. Some of the members do sensitivity reads, and man, you would not believe the shit they come across. One of them recently ranted about reading a book where all the Black characters are brutally murdered and there's a scene where there's a building full of mutilated Black corpses, all the while the white characters have agency and don't end up raped or dead, and...yeaaa. At what point do you say to the writer in question: "Pls don't write Black characters, because LOOK AT WHAT YOU WROTE. JUST LOOK AT IT."

I mean, it's like being aware of your limitations. Sure, people have the right to write whatever they want, but *should* they, is the question. If a white guy who can't sing insists on entering a talent show and is told unceremoniously to, for the love of god, stop singing in public, it doesn't mean all white guys are being told not to sing in public, just that particular one. He still has the right to sing in public, but *should* he, knowing it would cause others around discomfort?

Putputt said:

The article says:

There is a big difference between a specific author being warned off including a specific character in a specific book and "a white writer being advised against creating a Black character" in general.

I don't know who Anthony Horowitz is, but could it be that the person advising him against writing Black characters was doing so specifically only to Horowitz? Maybe the person knows Horowitz well enough to know that he doesn't have the ability to write Black characters without Othering them.

Click to expand...

Quite possibly, I don't know the man but he's a famous bestseller of spy fiction (Alex Rider and now the new James Bond novels), not just some random guy.

I'm a member of a group specifically for writers of color. Some of the members do sensitivity reads, and man, you would not believe the shit they come across. One of them recently ranted about reading a book where all the Black characters are brutally murdered and there's a scene where there's a building full of mutilated Black corpses, all the while the white characters have agency and don't end up raped or dead, and...yeaaa. At what point do you say to the writer in question: "Pls don't write Black characters, because LOOK AT WHAT YOU WROTE. JUST LOOK AT IT."

Click to expand...

Ouch!

I mean, it's like being aware of your limitations. Sure, people have the right to write whatever they want, but *should* they, is the question. If a white guy who can't sing insists on entering a talent show and is told unceremoniously to, for the love of god, stop singing in public, it doesn't mean all white guys are being told not to sing in public, just that particular one. He still has the right to sing in public, but *should* he, knowing it would cause others around discomfort?

Click to expand...

Oh sure, I'm not arguing that point at all.

PeteMC said:

This thread makes for interesting reading for a Brit. As far as I can tell, everyone posting here is from the USA, Canada or Australia, all countries with indigenous First Nations peoples. In the UK there's no such thing (well there sort of is, but the history is so much older as to make it virtually irrelevant today) and we don't even really have this expression over here never mind such strong opinions about it.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what to make of this, as it seems to be implying Britain is isolated from the topics of this conversation. Forgive me if I'm misreading, but I've seen a particular attitude from Brits before -- a sort of, "wth America?" with respect to our various racial and cultural tensions, that comes with a whiff of Brits being befuddled at how other countries can have such Issues.

Which rather ignores a very lengthy and oppressive history of British colonialism and imperialism that subjugated or destroyed indigenous peoples all over the globe.

I'm not saying Brits are to blame for America's current race issues -- we definitely need to bear our own responsibility there -- but the idea that British history and culture is somehow disconnected from cultural appropriation is . . . well. Um. A little ridiculous? If there are no strong opinions about cultural appropriation in Britain, well, forgive me for saying, but IMHO there really ought to be.

Not attacking you, Pete, just continuing the conversation.

(signed, child of someone raised in a British colonial territory)