"Cultural appropriation" — I don't think it's suited to just a textbook definition any more than "sexual harassment" "pornography" "bullying" or even "racism" itself can be exactly pinpointed. It's something to be taken in context with some parameters, red flags and patterns to warn of the possibility. In one way, it's a tougher call than the others I listed because doesn't have to be done in a bad or negative way.
Writers and other artists are frequently in a damned-if-they-do and damned-if-they-don't when it comes to their character representation. Leaving out diverse characters is criticized. Including diversity and how portrayed is criticized plus open to cries of cultural appropriation, propagating/ignoring prejudice issues, etc.
I read a lot of science fiction and I even see critics projecting a specific race or issue onto one alien race or alien society on sometimes a very flimsy basis (like when one critic equated a cold-blooded saurian being sluggish in polar setting cared for by human teammates picking up some of its duties meaning writer was saying that all POC were lazy welfare recipients -- despite saurian being green and some of the humans POC).
That said, personally I really cannot stand it when writers try to shove some race or cultural into the book in a heavyhanded attempt to be diverse and are either utterly clueless about it or outright stereotypical. Sometimes it might be unintentional because clearly ignorant, but can still wind up perpetuating a racist trope. Trying to write about a race or culture not your own when badly done just screams of "cultural appropriation" to me -- particularly if jumping on the bandwagon of whatever just hit bestseller lists. I recently read a very formulaic romance that tried to be about the black community -- it tried by seemingly whipping out the thesaurus to find words describing "brown" or coffee colors so could keep referring to character skin tones -- which was so badly done I'm not sure it even warrants the tag of "cultural appropriation" due to the absence of "culture." Tossing in descriptions of mocha colored skin in place of porcelain skin ...
Cultural Appropriation to me is taking only a "good" aspect from a culture (any culture to which one does not belong by blood or upbringing or adult conversion) and isolating it from the pain of that culture. The egregiousness of the act depends on how much money the thief is making, and how insulting they are to the stolen-from culture, and how deeply significant the stolen item is, and the extent to which the thief is an active abuser of the culture being robbed.
So, a writer creating a character from another culture/race/ethnicity/[insert disadvantaged group of your choice] etc. isn't bad, in and of itself. A white writer creating a Cherokee character isn't wrong, necessarily. A white writer creating a Cherokee (I live in the South) character, ignoring the disadvantages of history and ongoing prejudice suffered by the Cherokee Nation, getting the culture wrong, making a fortune off a book promoted as a "a true story" and using the money to support your racist activities in the Klan: that is some high-level appropriation and I hope he suffers the tortures ascribed by Dante to Hell for all eternity.
Where punching down is always wrong, punching up might be okay. A white writer creating a character who claims to be 1/8th Cherokee but knows absolutely nothing about Cherokee culture or history, and who is mocked for it by the narrator or another character, probably not offensive.
It's not always something I notice in a book once immersed in the story (I think I notice more after I recently read a book that handled that culture well or if it's one I have any exposure/familiarity); but, more and more it's getting noticeable that an author wrote [insert something/someone diverse] without developing or giving real cultural context. Sometimes even tried an entire book about.
The "lighter" the fiction the less in-depth or profound it needs to be—but, proper context. More than look-here's-a-[insert]-character. I am getting particularly tired of a side character for diversity inserted to make the main character shine -- I'll outright DNF a book that is inserting a diverse character to excuse the main character's bigotry (meaning for example: mc mouths off racist, sexist or whatever-ist crap but is excused because they are tolerant of or friends with the diverse character who is sometimes even given dialogue supporting the bigotry of the mc).
So like when Laurell K Hamilton makes Anita Blake part Hispanic but only uses racism in the class of one story about an ex and every other minority character is simply a white person with exotic skin, is wrong. But say, Pullman's book about a girl finding her place, struggling with being mixed race is okay because he doesn't use trophes or whatnot?
It doesn't have to be a story about race, nor, in a series, does every story need to be about race. (In fact, everyone is really happy when stories stop being about an identity, and instead have other plots, and the identity is just a little extra characterization and realism.) But if you are writing a character who is in some way "other" and you aren't making a point to include some of the hundreds of little microagressions the "other" is heir to, then it's just tokenism.
To be fair, I haven't read/heard of any of your specific examples
So - and I ask this with sincerity and respect - what about, say Patricia Briggs' Mercy Thompson and Charles McCormack? I might be totally wrong (I tend to remember what I like about a story and not what I didn't) but I don't think either of them suffer the micro-aggressions that befall Native Americans (although, to be fair, I doubt anyone would show much aggression towards Charles at all, for anything, ever) - would Briggs be guilty of cultural appropriation?
I've had these questions myself and I have no answers. Sometimes it seems clear cut, and at other times it seems artists are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Is it wrong that a white Jewish man wanted to tell the story of Memoirs of a Geisha? Or, (I didn't watch the film, so honestly, I have no idea) is it that he didn't respect the work when he made the film?
Everyone wants more diversity in the arts (rightfully) but I often wonder: if an artist (of whatever medium) is obviously shoe-horning characters in of different ethnicities/orientations, just for the sake of being 'diverse', isn't that its own form of objectification? I don't know.
See, that's what I wonder too. From what I hear Jenkins in directing WW did a good job with the Native American because she let, allowed, was intelligent enough, to let the actor, who was Native American, determine dress and language. I've read much positive feedback about that. I think the same was done in the recent Magnificent Seven remake.
I may be misremembering because not read about him in a while. I thought because Charles had been around centuries, in some of the backstory she gave him in some tales he and his did suffer the aggressions/prejudices and avoided more by staying in wilderness areas; until, becoming the enforcer, just wasn't around non-pack people to have to deal with any of it. That very much of his life was spent alone -- not that there wasn't prejudice but that by avoiding people he avoided much.
Harder for me to judge with Coyote-descendant Mercy because she's already out-there all by herself doing her own thing but clearly the underdog in terms of power. Surrounded, one way or another, by those so much more powerful of so many other races, clearly being frequently treated as "other" or seen as weaker because of sex, because coyote not wolf, ...
In all that Mercy is dealing with, how much of the judgments and prejudices are for her Native American heritage rather than her being human, being a shifter, her gender, her independent lifestyle? How much crap did she avoid in her childhood/adolescence by being the fostering of the very powerful pack in basically still a pretty remote area with mostly just pack around compared to if she was growing up in areas with a more diverse, more non-pack white folk around? Are the Fae and Vampire judgments of her and aggression to her in any way more because she is Native American than that she is seen as human/shifter female?
Actually, urban fantasy tales with lots of supernatural races can murk up a lot of racism, cultural and other -ism issues. Are one or more fictional races/advantages/disadvantages supposed to represent some diversity? Is any prejudice or aggression by a supernatural against a diverse human character about the victim being human or about their diversity?
If writers are going to depict realistic societies, there will be diversity and what choice does a writer have except to write outside their own race? It could be a case of 'less is more'. Avoid stereotypes and writing about cultures the author has never experienced at least second hand. Also setting makes a difference. If a writer wants to depict ghetto experience, they need to have experienced a ghetto. If they come across different races in an office environment or a futuristic setting, a minimum of subtle terminology or quirk that's more about the character than their cultural background can make them distinctive.
If say the white person mentioned above were to write about life on an Indian reservation without at the very least spending some time on one and talking to the residents, it's not going to be realistic. I suppose the main thing is to avoid cliche. People from dark skinned races aren't always poor, for starters.
1. What exactly is cultural appropriation?
I think that cultural appropriation is two things in this day and age. One as others said is that you take elements of a culture and use it. Most people equate all cultural appropriation as cultural misappropriation now though. I think that is because you have a lot of people doing things such as (white woman or white girls wearing their head in dreads) and don't get what it means for many black people who wear their head in dreads. And there's the added bonus of people saying how exotic or hot that white women/girl looks and people judging you for having an ethnic hairstyle at work.
2. I understand why Elizabeth Banks is being called out, and she should be. Forgetting the Color Purple is wrong and white woman feminism. But why is it therefore okay for everyone to forget Memoirs of a Geisha which Spielberg produced? Isn't that the same thing?
I think that Elizabeth Bank's biggest point is that as a director (forget producing) Speilberg arguably could be making sure he brings in more women in the movies he directs. No one was speaking on projects that Speilberg produces since he was not the director for those. Banks forgetting about The Color Purple didn't bother me because I hate how Speilberg adapted it anyway. He left out a lot of key things (such as the lesbian relationship between Shug and Seelie) and made the rape that Mister attempted of Seelie's sister seem funny. I didn't really get that until I got older and read the book in college. My professor called Speilberg a coward for shying away from more of the mature themes in the book and I think he did too.
He changed the Seelie's arc in the book didn't he, too? I had the same reaction onece I read the book. The sad thing is that many younger people today tend to only see the movie or the musical (which I haven't seen) and have not read the book. And in my experience, it is more of schooling issues for it isall students. Apparently in many english classes it is now show the movie and skip the book.
Ugh. I can't imagine just showing a movie and not letting children read the book too. When I was growing up (I saw in my I am scores of years old :-) we always read the book and maybe the teacher would show the movie and we would discuss how it changed different plots, took them out, combined characters, etc.
@OB -- exactly. What sort of English teacher skips the book? (I'm all for adding in viewing the movie, but skipping the book in a language or literature course?)
I don't remember if it was my english class or not, but my teacher was the sort that skipped the book. We watched The Color Purple in class without having the book assigned. Did I miss out on a lot of story arc? Probably... most definitely from what y'all say. But did it affect me the way the book would have? Definitely - or at least, it was a (barely) gentler way of teaching the same lessons. And if the teacher tried to make me read the book, honestly, I'd have flat out refused. The movie was devastating enough for me. Mister might have looked pathetic and foolish in the movie, but no way did I miss the point of that scene, that it was rape and it was horrific. (It took me years before I could watch Danny Glover in anything else without my skin crawling.)
Generally, I think it's ALWAYS better to read the book - but with younger kids or younger adults, if the movie is generally agreed to be a solid adaptation... I'm ok with it. It shouldn't be standard procedure, but there's a place for it in a curriculum, in my opinion.
I would imagine most people reading the book would be older. I didn't read it til college and was sad to see how much was left out. I don't think kids below he age of 16 would be mature enough for the book. But I hate saying what kids can and can't handle reading material wise. I read a ton of very mature books before I was 12. Heck most romances I snuck from my mom had the hero raping the heroine.
I was the same - I read way above but I stuck with stuff that wasn't really emotionally confronting (Wifey was the most scandalous, iirc). But I was definitely too young or too naive to have handled The Color Purple as a book, and likely so were most of my classmates. I think the teacher felt that the movie was important enough for what it did show, and based on what you said about the lesbian relationship, she never would have gotten the book approved (conservative private, religious school). So the movie probably gave her the loophole she needed to include the story at all.
Writers and other artists are frequently in a damned-if-they-do and damned-if-they-don't when it comes to their character representation. Leaving out diverse characters is criticized. Including diversity and how portrayed is criticized plus open to cries of cultural appropriation, propagating/ignoring prejudice issues, etc.
I read a lot of science fiction and I even see critics projecting a specific race or issue onto one alien race or alien society on sometimes a very flimsy basis (like when one critic equated a cold-blooded saurian being sluggish in polar setting cared for by human teammates picking up some of its duties meaning writer was saying that all POC were lazy welfare recipients -- despite saurian being green and some of the humans POC).
That said, personally I really cannot stand it when writers try to shove some race or cultural into the book in a heavyhanded attempt to be diverse and are either utterly clueless about it or outright stereotypical. Sometimes it might be unintentional because clearly ignorant, but can still wind up perpetuating a racist trope. Trying to write about a race or culture not your own when badly done just screams of "cultural appropriation" to me -- particularly if jumping on the bandwagon of whatever just hit bestseller lists. I recently read a very formulaic romance that tried to be about the black community -- it tried by seemingly whipping out the thesaurus to find words describing "brown" or coffee colors so could keep referring to character skin tones -- which was so badly done I'm not sure it even warrants the tag of "cultural appropriation" due to the absence of "culture." Tossing in descriptions of mocha colored skin in place of porcelain skin ...
So, a writer creating a character from another culture/race/ethnicity/[insert disadvantaged group of your choice] etc. isn't bad, in and of itself. A white writer creating a Cherokee character isn't wrong, necessarily. A white writer creating a Cherokee (I live in the South) character, ignoring the disadvantages of history and ongoing prejudice suffered by the Cherokee Nation, getting the culture wrong, making a fortune off a book promoted as a "a true story" and using the money to support your racist activities in the Klan: that is some high-level appropriation and I hope he suffers the tortures ascribed by Dante to Hell for all eternity.
Where punching down is always wrong, punching up might be okay. A white writer creating a character who claims to be 1/8th Cherokee but knows absolutely nothing about Cherokee culture or history, and who is mocked for it by the narrator or another character, probably not offensive.
It's not always something I notice in a book once immersed in the story (I think I notice more after I recently read a book that handled that culture well or if it's one I have any exposure/familiarity); but, more and more it's getting noticeable that an author wrote [insert something/someone diverse] without developing or giving real cultural context. Sometimes even tried an entire book about.
The "lighter" the fiction the less in-depth or profound it needs to be—but, proper context. More than look-here's-a-[insert]-character. I am getting particularly tired of a side character for diversity inserted to make the main character shine -- I'll outright DNF a book that is inserting a diverse character to excuse the main character's bigotry (meaning for example: mc mouths off racist, sexist or whatever-ist crap but is excused because they are tolerant of or friends with the diverse character who is sometimes even given dialogue supporting the bigotry of the mc).
Also, I want to thank everyone for responding.
To be fair, I haven't read/heard of any of your specific examples
I've had these questions myself and I have no answers. Sometimes it seems clear cut, and at other times it seems artists are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. Is it wrong that a white Jewish man wanted to tell the story of Memoirs of a Geisha? Or, (I didn't watch the film, so honestly, I have no idea) is it that he didn't respect the work when he made the film?
Everyone wants more diversity in the arts (rightfully) but I often wonder: if an artist (of whatever medium) is obviously shoe-horning characters in of different ethnicities/orientations, just for the sake of being 'diverse', isn't that its own form of objectification? I don't know.
But artists *are* always damned if they do and damned if they don't about every conceivable aspect of their art, not just this one.
And yes, characters who exist only to meet imaginary quotas are objectified. They are also shallow characters unlikely to please anyone.
I may be misremembering because not read about him in a while. I thought because Charles had been around centuries, in some of the backstory she gave him in some tales he and his did suffer the aggressions/prejudices and avoided more by staying in wilderness areas; until, becoming the enforcer, just wasn't around non-pack people to have to deal with any of it. That very much of his life was spent alone -- not that there wasn't prejudice but that by avoiding people he avoided much.
Harder for me to judge with Coyote-descendant Mercy because she's already out-there all by herself doing her own thing but clearly the underdog in terms of power. Surrounded, one way or another, by those so much more powerful of so many other races, clearly being frequently treated as "other" or seen as weaker because of sex, because coyote not wolf, ...
In all that Mercy is dealing with, how much of the judgments and prejudices are for her Native American heritage rather than her being human, being a shifter, her gender, her independent lifestyle? How much crap did she avoid in her childhood/adolescence by being the fostering of the very powerful pack in basically still a pretty remote area with mostly just pack around compared to if she was growing up in areas with a more diverse, more non-pack white folk around? Are the Fae and Vampire judgments of her and aggression to her in any way more because she is Native American than that she is seen as human/shifter female?
Actually, urban fantasy tales with lots of supernatural races can murk up a lot of racism, cultural and other -ism issues. Are one or more fictional races/advantages/disadvantages supposed to represent some diversity? Is any prejudice or aggression by a supernatural against a diverse human character about the victim being human or about their diversity?
If say the white person mentioned above were to write about life on an Indian reservation without at the very least spending some time on one and talking to the residents, it's not going to be realistic. I suppose the main thing is to avoid cliche. People from dark skinned races aren't always poor, for starters.
I think that cultural appropriation is two things in this day and age. One as others said is that you take elements of a culture and use it. Most people equate all cultural appropriation as cultural misappropriation now though. I think that is because you have a lot of people doing things such as (white woman or white girls wearing their head in dreads) and don't get what it means for many black people who wear their head in dreads. And there's the added bonus of people saying how exotic or hot that white women/girl looks and people judging you for having an ethnic hairstyle at work.
2. I understand why Elizabeth Banks is being called out, and she should be. Forgetting the Color Purple is wrong and white woman feminism. But why is it therefore okay for everyone to forget Memoirs of a Geisha which Spielberg produced? Isn't that the same thing?
I think that Elizabeth Bank's biggest point is that as a director (forget producing) Speilberg arguably could be making sure he brings in more women in the movies he directs. No one was speaking on projects that Speilberg produces since he was not the director for those. Banks forgetting about The Color Purple didn't bother me because I hate how Speilberg adapted it anyway. He left out a lot of key things (such as the lesbian relationship between Shug and Seelie) and made the rape that Mister attempted of Seelie's sister seem funny. I didn't really get that until I got older and read the book in college. My professor called Speilberg a coward for shying away from more of the mature themes in the book and I think he did too.
Generally, I think it's ALWAYS better to read the book - but with younger kids or younger adults, if the movie is generally agreed to be a solid adaptation... I'm ok with it. It shouldn't be standard procedure, but there's a place for it in a curriculum, in my opinion.