At what point does domination by cultural mangling become cultural imperialism become cultural genocide?
Ay, there's the rub.
Then, even if we are 'stealing' a culture with every ounce of respect and due diligence and accuracy, it's still revealed an attempt to silence the other culture. Don't worry, dears, we'll do the talking for you. Maybe the euphemism of 'cultural appropriation' isn't just vague, but just plain too much of a gentle euphemism. Maybe sometimes it should be called imperialism...
But then, how does one combat that imperialism? Because I dislike raising such an inflammatory notion without having something concrete to go with it: what can be done from the inside to combat that, what can be done from the outside? What do you do when your culture has so thoroughly swallowed the imperialistic hype that your original culture is no longer identifiable, and you've completely accepted the external narrative?
Perhaps it may be helpful to recast things a tad in terms of that - an "external" instead of an "internal" narrative, and the problem is when the former becomes strong enough or vicious enough to wipe out the latter with no possibility of reprieve.
But if so then it's the "might makes right" narative all over again, and I don't know what the answer is to that. SHOULD we all just stop writing about anything other than what we can touch, see, smell or hear RIGHT NOW? Does that mean that people with "different" lives - people who were dragged around the globe as kids, people like Jay Lake or, for that matter, me - does that mean that even if we CAN see/touch/smell/hear things outside our own bedroom window we are STILL prohibited from writing about them because of the perennial "us vs them" question and no amount of being with "them" can make you one of "them" unless you look like "them"?
I don't believe that. That way lies parochialism, insularity, and entirely the wrong kind of "patriotism". It is not out of line to resent a wholesale cliched misrepresentation of the American South as being little more than 'dem ol' cotton fields back home', especially if it is done with a fine disregard for ANYBODY's feelings - starting from the cotton-picking pickaninny stereotypes to the thing you called the "ersatz Scarlett O'Hara" stereotypes to the people who are just annoyed because the play-actors can't even be bothered to figure out how to use "y'all" correctly.
But is history erased if you don't speak about it or you ignore it? Is it better to have history erased completely as opposed to having an attitude of "History- ur doin it wrong" and getting your knuckled slapped if you deserve it by people who (for whatever reason) have a better insight or a greater claim?
How much of our own past can we legitimately "own" to the point of denying access to it for anyone else?
no subject
Date: 19 Jan 2009 07:49 pm (UTC)Ay, there's the rub.
Perhaps it may be helpful to recast things a tad in terms of that - an "external" instead of an "internal" narrative, and the problem is when the former becomes strong enough or vicious enough to wipe out the latter with no possibility of reprieve.
But if so then it's the "might makes right" narative all over again, and I don't know what the answer is to that. SHOULD we all just stop writing about anything other than what we can touch, see, smell or hear RIGHT NOW? Does that mean that people with "different" lives - people who were dragged around the globe as kids, people like Jay Lake or, for that matter, me - does that mean that even if we CAN see/touch/smell/hear things outside our own bedroom window we are STILL prohibited from writing about them because of the perennial "us vs them" question and no amount of being with "them" can make you one of "them" unless you look like "them"?
I don't believe that. That way lies parochialism, insularity, and entirely the wrong kind of "patriotism". It is not out of line to resent a wholesale cliched misrepresentation of the American South as being little more than 'dem ol' cotton fields back home', especially if it is done with a fine disregard for ANYBODY's feelings - starting from the cotton-picking pickaninny stereotypes to the thing you called the "ersatz Scarlett O'Hara" stereotypes to the people who are just annoyed because the play-actors can't even be bothered to figure out how to use "y'all" correctly.
But is history erased if you don't speak about it or you ignore it? Is it better to have history erased completely as opposed to having an attitude of "History- ur doin it wrong" and getting your knuckled slapped if you deserve it by people who (for whatever reason) have a better insight or a greater claim?
How much of our own past can we legitimately "own" to the point of denying access to it for anyone else?