Cultural Appropriation in Fandom – guest post by Akhetnu.
by Patch O'Furr
Guest post submitted by Akhetnu.
Furry is a unique exploration and interpretation of the human experience, warts and all, through the lens of animals both real and fantastic. Many of these creatures are unique to certain parts of the world, especially the imaginary ones that form part of the mythological archetypes of the cultures other than our own. When it comes to looking at humanity, we also tend to investigate these various cultures as they existed and continue to exist throughout time.
As a result, there are many fursuits, fursonas and furry art of beings such as dragons from East Asia adorned in silk kimono, wolves dressed as Navajo warriors, and raptors wearing uniforms of the imperial Prussian army (that was a shameless plug for myself, incidentally). Still others may adopt a small piece of a cultural artifact such as a ying-yang symbol, Alpaca poncho, or a Chinese character tattoo. Furries may even refer to their fursonas as ‘totems’, at least if that concept is in the popular consciousness of their society.
Many of these furries are not themselves descendants of the cultures portrayed on their fursonas or suits. This had led to concerns over cultural appropriation, which is believed by many to be problematic in that is dehumanizes the people of other cultures and robs them of their own identities, as and hence is thought to represent Western white oppression of minorities.
An example in the real world was at Yale University where a letter was circulated urging students not to adopt Halloween costumes portraying other cultures, as it was allegedly harmful to others of those cultures. An art exhibit wherein people could try on the kimono used in a painting by Monet was shut down after protests accusing the art gallery of cultural appropriation. A Columbian student in Canada was told not to wear his own Columbian poncho and hat for Halloween, not because it was him culturally appropriating (can you appropriate from yourself?) but because other students may have mistaken it for such.
What, then, is the appropriate way to appropriate? I would first offer the suggestion that cultural appropriation is not in itself problematic or objectively harmful. Rather, it is a natural and historical outcome of the interaction between any two cultures, and is invariably two-way. For example, American blue jeans or cowboy images are popular throughout the world, even as samurai literature fueled cowboy Western films, which were themselves produced in Italy. Not only that, but specific cultural ideas and artifacts adopted from one culture by another will invariably be altered by the latter to suit their own needs.
Voodoo came from West African slaves incorporating Christianity into their native religious practices. Many Chinese in Shanghai would don a Western fedora and scarf with their own cheongsam, Japanese tempura was adopted from Portugese deep frying, Japanese Judo is practiced in Brazil, while Zen Buddhism came to the US in the 1950s and adopted a unique character all its own, even as Japanese Zen was different in some ways from the original Chinese Chan Buddhism.
Some may counter that the difference between such cultural exchanges and cultural appropriation is the latter involves one culture dominating another. Yet, it is impossible for any culture to encounter each other on a purely level playing field, technologically, militarily, politically or economically. In addition, the end results of the cultural exchanges between different power balances seem similar: each culture is influenced by the other regardless of who has more power.
Cultural appropriation may actually help keep fading cultures in the public consciousness. The Boy Scouts get accused of cultural appropriation of Native American symbolism in their Order of the Arrow group, but that many native tribes actually like what they do because it keeps their traditions alive. In fact the Order of the Arrow is advised by representatives of Native American tribes. Meanwhile, the Japanese love when others adopt elements of their cultures so much that they have a term for it, “cool Japan”.
When you look at who is accusing other people of cultural appropriation, it often comes from those outside of the cultures they claim are being harmed. In fact, it tends to be people who were born and/or raised in the US. Even Speedy Gonzalez is loved by many Mexicans; they recognize that as a comic character he will have humorous exaggerations, but his ultimate heroism and amusement is something they find enjoyable. Polling consistently shows many native Americans do not mind mascots patterned on their people. When an Arab character was shown in a recent Street Fighter video game, audiences in the middle east cheered while some Americans wrung their hands. As with anything, opinions vary inside and outside the cultures portrayed in Western media.
Another issue brought up is appropriation being undesirable in the context of commerce: using other cultures for marketing or selling items inspired by said cultures. Again, I’m not sure if that’s a bad thing…trade is among the first interactions between cultures, after all. Settlers and native peoples would usually exchange ornamentation and fabrics they created. In fact, cultural exchange is often enabled by trade. That much of it took the form of bartering means it also took place outside of a purely ‘capitalist’ system. All cultures have also bought and sold most of their artifacts among themselves, such as clothing, food and other items, to begin with.
While cultural appropriation is natural and largely beneficial, it does not seem unreasonable to take certain steps when adopting the trappings of another culture, if one is presenting themselves as authentic representations of that culture. At that point, they are fulfilling the role of educator in a sense, or at least a reenactor, and hence it is useful to follow the rules reenactors adopt.
Essentially, they should undertake research and attention to detail with all due diligence. They should clarify, if needed, that they are not from that culture, not pretend to know what they do not know, and can point to a good source for more information. That way they do not misrepresent what they are portraying, and faithfully represent it all they can within the limits of their budget and research.
At the same time, if someone is just using a symbol, cultural artifact or idea as part of their fursona, with a different interpretation or as part of an eclectic presentation, they need not have to fit any strictly traditional or historical pattern. All they need is to be honest about that too, drawing a distinction between “portraying X” versus “being inspired by X”. After all, being inspired by someone or something is to respect that aspect of them, because you feel it is worthy enough to incorporate into your own experience.
In addition, it is courteous at the very least to not portray the other culture in a mean spirited manner that mocks it. This is ultimately a judgment call, since some comic exaggeration is not uncommon in any furry portrayal. As long as the intent of the suiter or fan is not to ridicule the other culture, it is reasonable to avoid reading a mocking intent into it without asking. For example, in San Francisco Chinatown I have seen conical hats and even caps with fake queues for sale. These can be considered ‘costumes’ but even the ethnic Chinese shopkeepers sell them voluntarily, and seem happy to make money off of what may be very silly looking tourists donning their wares. Of course, all countries have their own ‘national costume’, so cultures ARE costumes. Everything is a costume if it’s not what you normally wear.
In furry we are all about costumes: we appropriate species by definition, and if you ask enough vegans, you’ll find out that some view humans as oppressing animals as well.
In spite of all this, there is one aspect to cultural appropriation that does seem more clear cut: adopting unearned honors. Any society will use symbols to designate those members who have proven their merit in some aspect of the social hierarchy. Military medals for valor, the Nobel Prize, and doctoral degrees come to mind. To wear an item of such importance that is still being awarded by an existing culture, while not having done what is necessary to earn it, can be construed as misrepresenting one’s self and diluting the honor associated with the item. Since those cultures still exist, their members expect those symbols to represent and communicate certain things about the wearer.
In my own Prussian officer fursuit, I wear only two medals: the German Armed Forces Proficiency Badge (a real, modern German award I have actually earned in the Army), and the WWI version of the Iron Cross Second Class (a defunct award no longer given, with no living recipients). I even wear military rank that corresponds to my current Army rank of captain.
So what if you are from a culture being portrayed in some way in fandom?
If you see errors, it’s certainly appropriate to politely correct any misconceptions or simply give additional information for the benefit of the “appropriator” and the audience. At the same time, one should also ask if the person is trying to be a full reenactor of their culture, or is just using part of it in a new way. Asking that person’s view of the culture is perhaps the most revealing: if they enjoy or admire some aspects of it, whatever they are doing is unlikely to be with the intent of ridicule. If they admit to disliking the culture and are portraying it in a manner that seems ridiculous, expressing one’s disapproval is equally valid. Just because someone can do something legally does not mean it is illegal for someone to likewise explain why they find it offensive.
– Akhetnu
In Japan in the post-World War I period and the early 1920s, so many young Japanese mixed articles of modern Western dress with traditional Japanese clothing, whether they were appropriate or not, that those who did so got the sarcastic nickname of “High-Collar-san”, meaning the garish mixture of Western high celluloid white collars with traditional kimonos or yukatas, whether the individuals actually wore these or not.
I can understand the criticism of not appropriating other cultures, but what if the intent is to honor, appreciate, and learn from those cultures? Before anime fandom became popular in the late 1970s, most Americans did not know the difference between ninja and samurai, or between the shogun and the emperor. Today these are widely known, but it took time for the knowledge to spread. Yes, call attention to mistakes, but – with fursuiters especially – do not expect strict accuracy. Didn’t Mark Twain in “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court” humorously mashup the styles of 6th-century England and modern (late 19th century) America?
This post is shockingly ignorant of the power relations involved in cultural appropriation. The “positive” examples of appropriation may be better described as borrowing, but appropriation itself is wholly negative. When a dominant culture takes something from an oppressed culture, that is appropriation.
“Cultural appropriation may actually help keep fading cultures in the public consciousness.” But why are the cultures in question fading? Native American cultures have been oppressed on the American continent for centuries due to European settler colonialism. Ignoring this and portraying the adopting of Native American imagery as a kind act to give more attention to their cultures is quite appalling. White people (like myself) don’t get to oppress another culture for hundreds of years and then take up their symbols and call it a compliment. We just don’t have that right.
Also, how many Mexicans exactly were polled about Speedy Gonzalez? And is the author aware of the #changethename campaign to get the Washington R*dsk•ns to change their offensive team name? And how can the author mention not appropriating awards or honors without noting that Native American headdresses (war bonnets) are just that?
Bottom line: Intention doesn’t matter. If you’re part of a colonialist regime and you adopt the customs or symbols of the colonized, you’re appropriating.
I think the author’s point is that “power relations” are not a one way street and it’s very selective to put cultures into such black and white terms , perhaps even appropriating their own voices. I notice selective exclusion of arab, Chinese and japanese examples in the complaint. I would agree some native american caricature is kind of tasteless but I don’t believe boy scouts being approved by native american advisors is an act of an evil colonialist regime. These kind of value judgements strike me as more about serving dogma than about spreading respect. Do enlighten me if you could suggest an “appropriate way to appropriate” with boy scouts adopting some symbols in a practical manner outside of seeing them in a museum. I don’t think it makes an either/or example where people can’t be conscious of colonial history at the same time.
Postcolonial theory is a huge and complicated field that can’t be summarized here. But suffice it to say that appropriation is not just any cultural exchange. Positive or neutral cultural exchanges I would label “borrowing,” as I indicated. Examples of this might include people of non-Western heritage wearing bluejeans, or Arab characters represented in videogames (I don’t know much about Street Fighter, so I can’t speak specifically to that topic, but representation of minority cultures and ethnicities is important). Those things are cultural exchanges, and they may be fine. They’re not appropriation.
The verb “appropriate” in English has a mostly negative connotation—it means to “steal” (oddly, unlike the adjective “appropriate,” which means “proper” or “right”). Thus this verb should be reserved for negative or harmful cultural exchanges. This is the way that people who talk about this subject usually use it (e.g., @NativeApprops on Twitter). Appropriation is bad. Appropriation is a dominant culture/person stealing something from a subjected culture/person.
You are right about one thing—it’s not black and white. Postcolonial theory deals a lot with these complexities of cultural exchange. For instance, the Native Americans approving Boy Scout use of Native American cultural artifacts—obviously, some Native Americans may disagree with that decision, but clearly some seem to agree with it. But look at the power relations—a colonized group acquiesces to allow a colonizing group to use its traditions. So where does the power lie? How much of a choice does this Native group have? Maybe they feel boxed into a corner—maybe they feel that they need to allow their traditions to be used by people outside their culture in order for them to survive. Maybe they feel like they have to give away their culture in some sense in order for it to live on. I don’t know what’s going through their heads, but the parties involved are not on an equal level as far as power relations are concerned. So whose side are they on? The colonized or the colonizer? It’s not clear, because it’s not black and white. But the question of power relations has to be asked because it matters so much in this instance.
Anyway, I’m not going to argue further. It’s just best for people (especially for white people like me—everything I’m saying is also self-critique) to think hard before adopting something from a culture that is not their own.
That just sounds like semantics though. “Cultural borrowing” doesn’t seem to be a definition anyone else sets apart, and (as the author indicated) “appropriate” is a positive adjective. The latin root isn’t negative, it means to use for one’s own.
The problem with doctrinaire lecturing about “oppressed” vs “dominant” is that it leaves nothing that anyone can do right. Out of the ivory tower, culture doesn’t work this way. It spreads despite what people consider moral, proper, fair, polite, tasteful, holy, legal, etc. Otherwise we could all be walking around saying sorry for breathing each other’s air and still not follow subjective boundaries made for arbitrary reasons.
The author notes that people doing “appropriation” and the ones borrowed from often do consider it positive. If there is negative history behind it, that can be recognized at the same time. In that case I think its a worthy point that intention does matter more than “power relations.” After all, what are powerful people to do – exist completely separate lives inside gated communities, or learn about others all around them, take part in their food and customs, and perhaps make families together? This is always happening everywhere.
I think the “in fandom” part is interesting, because there’s very little money dominating it, it mostly is a recreational culture that every participant makes.
Thank you for your input into my article.
I would say that almost all “appropriation” is essentially “borrowing” or “adopting”. None of it is negative per se except in the caveats I outlined, and even then one could say that it’s simply a point of courtesy. I would likely not even use the term “appropriate” except for how popular it is in current discourse. This may be subjective, in which case it’s rather futile to argue in the first place.
More to the point, it’s problematic to treat all cultures as monolithic in their opinions on the matter. Continuing your example, many native Americans do not object to the use of the term “Redskins” for the football team, while others do mind. (Source http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/)
You then suggested the former may be making this decision without choice. Yet we get on even thinner ice when criticizing people from a culture for NOT objecting to what we deem as “appropriation”. By accusing them of making that decision under some sort of duress, as you have, is to remove their agency in a very paternalistic manner, simply because they do not object to what you think they should object to. It’s also assuming your position is correct in the first place and that anyone who disagrees is somehow misguided – which is begging the question. Often, this criticism comes from those outside the culture they claim to be defending – like yourself with native Americans, ironically “speaking for them” in violation of post-colonial etiquette. The “internalized racism” card is a similar rhetorical tactic.
In the end, to assume the culture on the lower end of a power relation is somehow correct or should be deferred to anyway, falls prey to the underdog fallacy. Let’s also remember that many non-Western cultures have interacted with (and appropriated from) each other in the same power-imbalanced manner, such as the Aztecs with their Nahuatl neighbors. This is why I generally disagree with post-colonial theory and its related disciplines. It’s not that I am “ignorant” so much as I am “dismissive”.
– Akhetnu (Angriff is my new handle but I am the author of the piece)
“Cultural appropriation” is an idiotic concept, and supported only by stupid people and proponents of political correctness (there is a 3 letter acronym I won’t use).
CULTURE IS SUPPOSED TO BE BORROWED AND SHARED.
And yes, even stolen. You can, should, and must steal the culture of others. Only through that can you enrich your own culture with the foreign supplements.
It’s tempting to call people stupid but let’s be nice about disagreement. 🙂
Is it appropriate to report this here?
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/scholastic-pulls-children-s-book-criticized-depiction-happy-slaves-n498986
It seems obvious that the author, the illustrator, and the editors of this book did not mean to be insensitive. Yet they are accused of promoting an image of “happy slaves”. To what extent is this accusation true? To what extent is it accurate?
Does anyone today know what the relations were between George Washington and his slaves? Was he benevolent to them? Did he mistreat them? Did they long for their freedom, or did they consider that they were well off being owned by George Washington compared to other African-Americans in the new United States at the time? “Being owned” at that time entailed a degree of “being protected”; how did they feel about that?
It seems to me that the people associated with this book were making a statement about George Washington and his slaves in particular, and those protesting it are objecting to the state of slavery in the U.S. at the time in general. This seems similar to this discussion of cultural appropriation vs. cultural borrowing.
That seems more of an issue of historical accuracy than cultural exchange.
Hi Fred – that’s indeed an interesting example. It makes me wonder “what on earth were they thinking”?
I would hazard a guess that they sincerely wanted to present some history, and get kids interested in “cultural foodways”, with a very lightly entertaining approach to leaven a dry topic. It comes with P.C. bonafides – written by a team of “women of color”. But the ingredients are just so discordant, there’s little way not to have it go sour. It seems possibly a product of publisher committee-thinking or pandering, without anyone stepping back and asking if a bunch of small decisions added up to one good one. Perhaps, consider it not as much someone’s personal message of culture, as a bad product of a team working in a business.
I can imagine a place for depicting that history with well rounded humans – reminds me of positive things about the Harlem Rennaissance in the midst of segregation – but it sure seems like bad taste to do it in a fluffy kid’s book. There just isn’t much room for nuance, so the inaccuracy makes it deceptive by omission. Yes I’d call it an issue of accuracy.
Sometimes that kind of thing becomes so banal that nobody bothers about it. Pirates weren’t romantic daredevils, I imagine they were full of desperation and suffered brutal conditions. Witches didn’t wear funny hats and stir cauldrons, they were probably made-up caricatures to excuse torturing peasants. I guess you can just figure things out by reading some real history if it’s an issue.
Something that I’ve noticed as “someone who was there” is that, up until roughly 1990, dressing up in costumes in America was almost universally called “masquerading”. Since about 1990, it’s been called “cosplay”. That’s a word specifically taken from Japanese anime fandom, which appropriated it from the Japanese youth culture itself, who made it up from the English words “costume play” even though nobody in America or Britain had used the phrase. Is that cultural appropriation from American culture or Japanese culture, or both?
It’s important to note that cosplay has become the standard word used by almost EVERYONE in America and Britain today, not only the anime fans.