# Cultural appropriation in writing?



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 20, 2014)

Here is a question for the writers and readers here, particularly anyone with a background from somewhere besides America or Europe. 

How do you feel about someone writing or creating a story in your country or among your people, culture, etc, if they are not a part of your ethnicity? To whit, can it be legitimately argued something like “Bridge of Birds,” a fantasy about ancient China, is racist, guilty of cultural appropriation or perpetuating some variation of the “noble savage” idea?

To a lesser degree this happens all the time among “western” nations and that arguably makes them all acceptable target. For example, Naomi Novik’s Temeraire series is not likely to be accused of racism and other problems when the characters are running around England, France, Germany and possibly even Russia. But what about when they are in China, Africa and South America?

Scalped was a comic book series about Ogala Lakota, but the series is written by a white guy from Alabama. Is that automatically a problem?


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 20, 2014)

I do yoga. I guess I'm racist toward Hindus... and worship demons.


----------



## Cor Azer (Mar 20, 2014)

Not inherently a problem in my view. Ideally, the work should stand apart from the author (yes, I know this doesn't always happen).

It's little different than saying men cannot write female characters, or kids cannot write about adults.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 20, 2014)

It can't be avoided. Humanity had such a broad, rich cultural background. In fact, you can include Europeans and Americans - they write about (or portray each other onscreen ) all the time; sometimes well, sometimes not so well. 

As long as you try not to insult or stereotype people, it's perfectly cromulent.

Places like China can hardly be considered minorities or anything.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2014)

I think an author of any race or nationality has a bit of an obligation to write about people from a position of understanding and respect. 

So, it is okay for a man to write about women.  Just don't write your female characters by slapping a stereotype down and calling it done.  If there are stereotypical behaviors you want to depict, learn why they happen in real life, and depict them accurately.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 20, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I think an author of any race or nationality has a bit of an obligation to write about people from a position of understanding and respect.
> 
> So, it is okay for a man to write about women.  Just don't write your female characters by slapping a stereotype down and calling it done.  If there are stereotypical behaviors you want to depict, learn why they happen in real life, and depict them accurately.



Frank Miller is pointing and laughing at you.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Frank Miller is pointing and laughing at you.




I'm pretty certain he doesn't know, and doesn't care about what I say.

But even then, it isn't as if he should talk - his work* is known for its depiction of decent ethical behavior.  


*The best of which is already decades behind him, IMO.  He seems to be riding his own coattails these days, rather than creating or innovating.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 20, 2014)

Okay I'm trained as an Anthropologist and I actually enjoy the genre of non-european fantasy and like to run a critical eye over the cultural aspects of the story. But I accept that fantasy is the purile entertainment and so my view is that the story should be respectful to the source material but does not need to be 'authentic'.

I'm also Polynesian and remember reading Garry Kilworths Navigator-Kings tilogy and generally enjoying its take on Polynesian myth. Kilworth is an Yorkshireman but I feel he did enough research on the folklore to be respectful even as he changed aspects and introduced anachronisms. I did frown at his base conceit of the Lands of Mist being iron-age Scotland in Polynesia (in the place of New Zealand) and screwed up my nose at the story of celts in the pacific but did not find his material offensive.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2014)

Tonguez said:


> But I accept that fantasy is the purile entertainment....




This post is largely aside the point of the thread, but there's a point worth making:

That's what the critics want us to believe, so that we'll read the boring stuff they prefer 

Much of *any* genre is puerile (90% of everything is crud, after all).  But fantasy is no more so than any other genre.  There is nothing inherent to fantasy that prevents an author from addressing serious, thought provoking subjects.


----------



## Janx (Mar 20, 2014)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> Here is a question for the writers and readers here, particularly anyone with a background from somewhere besides America or Europe.
> 
> How do you feel about someone writing or creating a story in your country or among your people, culture, etc, if they are not a part of your ethnicity? To whit, can it be legitimately argued something like “Bridge of Birds,” a fantasy about ancient China, is racist, guilty of cultural appropriation or perpetuating some variation of the “noble savage” idea?




Hogwash.

This train of logic would lead to roadblocks as it effectively means the only person who can write about a culture is a legitimate member of that culture.

What if those culture's can't write?  Jane Goodall can't write about apes because she's not an ape?

Most of what we know about other cultures happens because some gringo gaijin writer takes it upon himself to learn and write about somebody else's culture.


----------



## Zander (Mar 20, 2014)

Morrus said:


> As long as you try not to insult or stereotype people, it's perfectly cromulent.




Agree about the need to avoid insulting people but not so sure one shouldn't stereotype. What about when the stereotype is true? What about when it's complimentary? Or both true and complimentary?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2014)

Zander said:


> Agree about the need to avoid insulting people but not so sure one shouldn't stereotype. What about when the stereotype is true? What about when it's complimentary? Or both true and complimentary?




Complimentary or not, stereotypes are generally oversimplifications.  "All of you are like X" is kind of insulting to individuals, even if X is nice.  You can get things like the "noble savage" problem.


----------



## Zander (Mar 20, 2014)

Umbran said:


> "All of you are like X" is kind of insulting to individuals, even if X is nice.




Really? If someone associates a group to which you belong with a positive characteristic, that's insulting? Doubtful. I'm a member of an ethnic minority. If someone outside of my ethnicity attributes to it a positive characteristic, even in a sweeping way that may not be entirely true in its generality, I would hardly feel insulted. Amused, perhaps, but not offended.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 21, 2014)

Zander said:


> Really? If someone associates a group to which you belong with a positive characteristic, that's insulting? Doubtful. I'm a member of an ethnic minority. If someone outside of my ethnicity attributes to it a positive characteristic, even in a sweeping way that may not be entirely true in its generality, I would hardly feel insulted. Amused, perhaps, but not offended.




I'm not sure where I stand on it - I can see what both of you are saying. I think it has hints of "you all look the same to me"; it's insulting in that it implies that an ethnicity or a nationality lacks individuality.  At least, that's the point being made; certainly if someone were to say "All British people are smart" I'd - like you - not be insulted, but I'd think the speaker was pretty dumb to think such a thing could be possible.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2014)

Zander said:


> Really? If someone associates a group to which you belong with a positive characteristic, that's insulting? Doubtful.




I repeat:  "noble savage".  It is technically a positive statement, the idea being that the person has not been corrupted by civilization, and still has humanity's innate goodness.  My understanding, however, is that suggesting that Native American's ancestors were Noble Savages is not considered a good thing.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 21, 2014)

Zander said:


> Really? If someone associates a group to which you belong with a positive characteristic, that's insulting? Doubtful. I'm a member of an ethnic minority. If someone outside of my ethnicity attributes to it a positive characteristic, even in a sweeping way that may not be entirely true in its generality, I would hardly feel insulted. Amused, perhaps, but not offended.




I know a few 'Asians' (East Asians specifically) who get peeved about the stereotype that 'Asians' are all nerd geniuses who are good at maths and can play the violin. One guy was a fine arts student who was into punk and considered himself an anarchist another was a party girl. I also know of other brown people who hate sport even though the stereotype is that they will be athletic so yeah sometimes even positive stereotypes can be annoying



Umbran said:


> This post is largely aside the point of the thread, but there's a point worth making:
> 
> That's what the critics want us to believe, so that we'll read the boring stuff they prefer
> 
> Much of *any* genre is puerile (90% of everything is crud, after all).  But fantasy is no more so than any other genre.  There is nothing inherent to fantasy that prevents an author from addressing serious, thought provoking subjects.




yeah fair comment and I did actually hesitate before typing that word. I'm a fan of the genre and agree that the narrative of fantasy can indeed possess gravitas. I merely meant that, within the context of the OP, nobody should be looking for authentic cultural representation within "Fantasy" which by its very nature is grounded in the authors own fabrication


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 21, 2014)

Morrus said:


> ...if someone were to say "All British people are smart" I'd - like you - not be insulted, but I'd think the speaker was pretty dumb to think such a thing could be possible.




And if someone where to say "All English people drink tea" how would you feel? Someone might mean well when talking about Chinese, Brazilians or Persians and still might be doing the same thing as saying "\"All English people drink tea" - something problematic.


----------



## Zander (Mar 21, 2014)

Umbran said:


> My understanding, however, is that suggesting that Native American's ancestors were Noble Savages is not considered a good thing.




I'm reluctant to open the can of worms marked "noble savage" because so much ink has been spilt in relation to it already that it's a corpus of literature in its own right. I will say though that the word "savage" in English has particular connotations that are negative, but originally it simply meant closer to nature or in its natural form or as nature intended. The French word "sauvage" is a closer approximation.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 21, 2014)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> And if someone where to say "All English people drink tea" how would you feel? Someone might mean well when talking about Chinese, Brazilians or Persians and still might be doing the same thing as saying "\"All English people drink tea" - something problematic.




I'd think it an odd thing to say, because it's obviously untrue and a bit of a daft statement, but no - I don't think it'd offend me at all.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 21, 2014)

Zander said:


> I'm reluctant to open the can of worms marked "noble savage" because so much ink has been spilt in relation to it already that it's a corpus of literature in its own right. I will say though that the word "savage" in English has particular connotations that are negative, but originally it simply meant closer to nature or in its natural form or as nature intended. The French word "sauvage" is a closer approximation.



"Sauvage" translated in English can mean "wild". "Noble wilding" would be a good translation. Still is offensive.

I'm just not sure what cultural stereotypes have to do with cultural appropriation.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I'm just not sure what cultural stereotypes have to do with cultural appropriation.




Most of us are saying, "You can write about other cultures, just so long as you learn about what you're writing, are respectful, and don't slap around a lot of stereotypes"

Then someone asked about stereotypes that say nice things.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2014)

Zander said:


> I'm reluctant to open the can of worms marked "noble savage" because so much ink has been spilt in relation to it already that it's a corpus of literature in its own right




Fine.  I'm not married to that example. The "All Asians are smart, good at math and play the violin," works better, being more about today in any event.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 21, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Fine.  I'm not married to that example. The "All Asians are smart, good at math and play the violin," works better, being more about today in any event.




Weirdly, I think this is the first time I've heard that stereotype.


----------



## Janx (Mar 21, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Weirdly, I think this is the first time I've heard that stereotype.




well, here in the US, the stereotype in schools is that it's the asian kids with the best test scores, and most of them are driven hard by their parents and take violin lessons (or some other musical instrument)

like all stereotypes, there is some truth to the matter.  Not that ALL asians are that way, but that more of them do have better math scores, than other demographics.

And that's the first mistake in folks who get offended by a "positive" stereotype.  While somebody saying "black people are better at basketball" is being overly broad and obviously working with a stereotype,  the fact is, you see more black guys on a basketball team than white.  The statement is obviously not about EVERY black person.  But instead it should be take as a generalization that there's an inordinate amount of people in that group who exhibit that trait than other groups.

Laymen don't speak in precise technical terms, listeners need to chill out and see the grain of truth in what's being said.


----------



## Derren (Mar 22, 2014)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> To a lesser degree this happens all the time among “western” nations and that arguably makes them all acceptable target. For example, Naomi Novik’s Temeraire series is not likely to be accused of racism and other problems when the characters are running around England, France, Germany and possibly even Russia. But what about when they are in China, Africa and South America?




As you specifically call out Novik's Temeraire, what description in them do you find problematic?


----------



## Umbran (Mar 22, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Weirdly, I think this is the first time I've heard that stereotype.




Well, stereotypes are cultural constructs.  You are in a different nation, with different relationships between your majority and minorities.  I wouldn't be surprised if you had stereotypes of the Scots or Irish that I'd never heard of.


----------



## Zander (Mar 22, 2014)

goldomark said:


> "Sauvage" translated in English can mean "wild". "Noble wilding" would be a good translation. Still is offensive.




"Sauvage" can mean that but generally means in its natural state. "Un pigeon sauvage" doesn't usually mean an unruly or vicious pigeon. It means an undomesticated one, i.e. one in the wild.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 22, 2014)

Zander said:


> "Sauvage" can mean that but generally means in its natural state. "Un pigeon sauvage" doesn't usually mean an unruly or vicious pigeon. It means an undomesticated one, i.e. one in the wild.



Thank you for explaining to me my native tongue.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 22, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Well, stereotypes are cultural constructs.  You are in a different nation, with different relationships between your majority and minorities.  I wouldn't be surprised if you had stereotypes of the Scots or Irish that I'd never heard of.




Or more likely Indians and Pakis fill the Niche afterall the "Kumars at 42" stretched the stereotypes out for seven seasons


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 23, 2014)

Derren said:


> As you specifically call out Novik's Temeraire, what description in them do you find problematic?




I don't have a problem with it, but I am an American, a honkey. I cannot speak for the reactions of the English to the book, or for how Peruvians might react (the books go to a fictional Incan empire still standing in the 19th century), or for how Kenyans might react (the books visit a fictional anti-slavery inner African society run by dragons) or for how Chinese might react (the books visit a fictional strong, imperial 19th century China). I cannot speak for these people, but I can ask what others think.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 23, 2014)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> Here is a question for the writers and readers here, particularly anyone with a background from somewhere besides America or Europe.
> 
> How do you feel about someone writing or creating a story in your country or among your people, culture, etc, if they are not a part of your ethnicity? To whit, can it be legitimately argued something like “Bridge of Birds,” a fantasy about ancient China, is racist, guilty of cultural appropriation or perpetuating some variation of the “noble savage” idea?
> 
> ...




Going back to OP's question, I feel like I take issue with the notion of cultural appropriation itself. I just read a quote that seems appropriate "offense is taken, not given". What cultures are sacrosanct? Why? How finely can this be parsed? Is a country? A state? A county? A town? A neighborhood? You _can_ take offense, but people really need to also recognize that their right to their (negative) opinion does not overwhelm someone else's right to expression.

It gets very weird for me when people insist on doing, or not doing, something, to avoid offending a group even though that group isn't offended.  I wear a kilt to contra dances. It's a plain black "modern" denim "utility" kilt. A friend admired it. I suggested she get one. She said she couldn't; it wouldn't be right; she wasn't Scottish. I pointed out that there are registered tartans for almost every country in the world, and it's an article of clothing, not a flag. She insists that it would be offensive for her to wear one (I recall thinking that that would only be true if she was English, but I might not have said it).  I dropped it at that point.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Going back to OP's question, I feel like I take issue with the notion of cultural appropriation itself.




On the one hand, taking ideas and using them is what humans do.  Asking us to never do that is like asking us not to eat.

On the other hand, folks can be big dismissive jerks about how they take things from other cultures.  There is a point where thoughtlessness on your part shows disrespect - and then they aren't taking offense, you are giving it.

That's why I said one should learn about what you're taking, and use it wisely.  So, like, maybe you shouldn't take someone else's serious religious iconography and use it as a print on the fabric of your new line of doggie clothes.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 23, 2014)

Person A does not get to decide if they have offended Person B. Person A might well possess good intentions, or bad ones, but they do not get to decide for others if others get to be offended. Person B gets to decide if they are offended.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2014)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> Person A does not get to decide if they have offended Person B. Person A might well possess good intentions, or bad ones, but they do not get to decide for others if others get to be offended. Person B gets to decide if they are offended.




To a point.  There are also, unfortunately, those who are willing to engage in, for lack of a better term, "manufactured outrage", taking offense when none is really called for.

An acquaintance of mine, for example, took offense at people eating Asian food, and putting soy sauce on white rice.  I kid you not.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 23, 2014)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> Person A does not get to decide if they have offended Person B. Person A might well possess good intentions, or bad ones, but they do not get to decide for others if others get to be offended. Person B gets to decide if they are offended.




As I said, they are taking offense.

The quote I used came from a discussion about when it's appropriate to ban books.

Edit: Actually, this is perfect. You are exactly right. Person A does not get to choose. They can't "give" offense to person B; only person B can choose whether or not to be offended.  Person A could, at best, "offer" an offense.

For instance: you could moon me. That's an offensive act. You're showing your buttocks to me in an act of derison.
If you were "giving" offense, I would have to be offended. I would get upset, demand recompense, have you arrested for public indecency, and so forth.
BUT
It's not your choice. I don't have to take offense. I can ignore you and your shining white hindparts. I can hold my nose and point and laugh (which might cause you to take offense). I could ask what's got you so upset.  It's MY choice.

Person B does not get to choose Person A's actions; Person A does not get to choose Person B's reactions.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2014)

Umbran said:


> An acquaintance of mine, for example, took offense at people eating Asian food, and putting soy sauce on white rice.  I kid you not.



White rice supremecist? /rim shot


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 23, 2014)

Umbran said:


> On the other hand, folks can be big dismissive jerks about how they take things from other cultures.  There is a point where thoughtlessness on your part shows disrespect - and then they aren't taking offense, you are giving it.




So I should stop putting soy sauce on rice?  Neither is my "cultural heritage", so who am I to say what is "appropriate"?  You can't have it both ways; you can't say I need to respect other people's cultures and do what they want, and then say that I can choose what I think is silly and what isn't.



> So, like, maybe you shouldn't take someone else's serious religious iconography and use it as a print on the fabric of your new line of doggie clothes.




Or take the image of a religion's founder and use it in a cartoon?  

Ok, I've stricken out a paragraph here because it got into religion a bit further than I thought would past muster, but there are religions much, much closer to home than Islam for Umbran (if he's in New England) and I that do not use religious iconography because to do so was offensive to the religion's founders.

I understand respect, but my respect ends when you start abrogating my right to freedom of expression. I have the _right_ to offend you, and there may even be times when I am right to do so. Many people find images of war, death, disease, poverty, abuse, and sexuality offensive; should we stop publishing those?

Sometimes we act in a manner that we can be almost certain offend certain people. That's life. We always act in a manner that will, in some situation, offend somebody. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Ultimately, that decision on whether or not to take offense is up to them. You control your own reactions.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> So I should stop putting soy sauce on rice?  Neither is my "cultural heritage", so who am I to say what is "appropriate"?  You can't have it both ways; you can't say I need to respect other people's cultures and do what they want, and then say that I can choose what I think is silly and what isn't.
> 
> 
> Or take the image of a religion's founder and use it in a cartoon?
> ...




Nobody's trying to tell you you don't have a legal right to say what you want. They're talking about manners. We have the power to choose not to do something we're not legally prevented from doing.

The thought of people confusing these two things is quite scary.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 23, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Nobody's trying to tell you you don't have a legal right to say what you want. They're talking about manners. We have the power to choose not to do something we're not legally prevented from doing.
> The thought of people confusing these two things is quite scary.



There's absolutely no way you can argue that cultural mores do not have a way of becoming law, and that it is a very, very slippery slope. Yes, it's scary. It's absolutely f*ing terrifying. That's why this thread scares the piss out of me. People often, routinely, nonchalantly, confuse the two. Creationism becomes required science material to avoid offending one group. Abstinence-only sex-ed becomes mandatory to avoid offending another group. The Comics Code Authority is enacted because a third group is offended.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 23, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Nobody's trying to tell you you don't have a legal right to say what you want. They're talking about manners. We have the power to choose not to do something we're not legally prevented from doing.
> 
> The thought of people confusing these two things is quite scary.




Or lets go your way; let's say we're talking about manners, not law. Manners are societal constructs that we use to regulate behavior. Manners matter because society enforces them. So society decides that writers shouldn't borrow from other cultures. How is that going to be enforced?  Without law, the usual recourses are public shaming and/or ostracization. So if I write about the French, I get ostracized, or publicly shamed. Cross-cultural literature gets turned into pornography; you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. Authors get hate mail; death threats; their existing books downvoted to oblivion on Amazon.

Here are two (and a half) names that are currently undergoing public discipline for "bad manners": Lynn Shepherd & Miriam Weeks/Belle Knox. Neither has broken the law.

You can NOT start this ball rolling and expect it to stop when you say so.


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> There's absolutely no way you can argue that cultural mores do not have a way of becoming law, and that it is a very, very slippery slope. Yes, it's scary. It's absolutely f*ing terrifying. That's why this thread scares the piss out of me. People often, routinely, nonchalantly, confuse the two. Creationism becomes required science material to avoid offending one group. Abstinence-only sex-ed becomes mandatory to avoid offending another group. The Comics Code Authority is enacted because a third group is offended.




I've argued no such thing. You may be confusing my posts with something you've read elsewhere, perhaps? That aside, I don't think we're making laws in this thread. 

The reverse also is true - defense of offensive or morally wrong behaviour behind a shield of legal entitlement is equally scary. "I am not legally prohibited from doing this thing to you" is a terrible excuse for appalling behaviour. It's an excuse for racism, misogyny, bullying, and discrimination. Indeed it is sociopathic. 

And if you want to talk "slippery slopes", we all know darn well where that has led in the past!


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Or lets go your way; let's say we're talking about manners, not law. Manners are societal constructs that we use to regulate behavior. Manners matter because society enforces them. So society decides that writers shouldn't borrow from other cultures. How is that going to be enforced?  Without law, the usual recourses are public shaming and/or ostracization. So if I write about the French, I get ostracized, or publicly shamed. Cross-cultural literature gets turned into pornography; you can't define it, but you know it when you see it. Authors get hate mail; death threats; their existing books downvoted to oblivion on Amazon.
> 
> Here are two (and a half) names that are currently undergoing public discipline for "bad manners": Lynn Shepherd & Miriam Weeks/Belle Knox. Neither has broken the law.
> 
> You can NOT start this ball rolling and expect it to stop when you say so.




I'm not going to entertain an extremist argument that we shouldn't use manners.  Sorry, dude - if the conversation's going in that direction, I'm out.  Not my bag.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> You can't have it both ways; you can't say I need to respect other people's cultures and do what they want, and then say that I can choose what I think is silly and what isn't.




Actually, I can.  Because "show respect to others" does not mean "slavishly follow the dictates of others".  There are things that, if we think about it, should be pretty darned obvious might be touchy.  The thing with rice wasn't one of them.  But, for example, use of ceremonial dress should be.



> I understand respect, but my respect ends when you start abrogating my right to freedom of expression. I have the _right_ to offend you, and there may even be times when I am right to do so.




Sure. There are times when one is right to do so.  There are also times when doing so makes one a big, fat jerk.  You sound like you are firmly concentrated on whether or not you *can* do something.  And in being so focused, you seem to be losing the question of whether you *should* do it, and when and how you should do it.

You have the right.  No question there.  But, we're all familiar with Spider-Man's catchphrase, right?  With each and every right comes a responsibility.  And that's the crux of the matter of the thread.  



> Sometimes we act in a manner that we can be almost certain offend certain people. That's life.




And, if in exercise of your rights, you were careful to meet your responsibilities, then I agree - that's life.  But, we can turn that around, and note that if you weren't careful, or didn't take the effort to meet your responsibilities, then the fault is yours, not theirs.  So, you cannot just dismiss all offense as, "Well, they choose to be offended."


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 23, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Actually, I can.  Because "show respect to others" does not mean "slavishly follow the dictates of others".  There are things that, if we think about it, should be pretty darned obvious might be touchy.



_Edit: removed a line of mine that confused the issue and was a bit hyperbolic. But...no. You do not get to decide what offends other people, and whether it's justified or not, silly or not. You do not get to put the burden of proof on the other person to prove that they are allowed to be offended. You just don't._


> The thing with rice wasn't one of them.



So your friend was wrong to take offense? Are you really saying you know better than he does?



> But, for example, use of ceremonial dress should be.



A kilt, to use my example, isn't "ceremonial dress". A clan tartan, with all the bells and whistles, is ceremonial, and wearing one to indicate membership in a group to which one does not belong would be a misrepresentation, much like wearing medals and a uniform of the US Marines and claiming ranks to which you are not entitled. The kilt as an article of clothing is not ceremonial, anymore than a generic military uniform with shiny things on your sleeve is.



> With each and every right comes a responsibility.  And that's the crux of the matter of the thread.



Yes indeed. To use that right responsibly, and in moderation, and to defend it. Defining when and where cultural appropriation is appropriate, however, is not a responsible action. It's the opposite. The definition takes responsibility away from the individual, because to the public eye both the actor and the acted no longer has choice; one has given offense, the other is required to take it. We as a society get confused when people don't take offense when we expect them to. Sometimes we elevate that person; sometimes we vilify them.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 23, 2014)

Morrus said:


> I'm not going to entertain an extremist argument that we shouldn't use manners.  Sorry, dude - if the conversation's going in that direction, I'm out.  Not my bag.



I think that's a pretty gross and simplistic misreading of my position. (there's a whole meta-argument here about whether or not I can choose to be offended at your misrepresentation, but it's boring and I don't care.) I'm still talking about cultural appropriation. You didn't want to talk about legal ramifications, you don't want to talk about manneristic ramifications. In what plane exactly is any offense or ramification supposed to occur?? I feel like you keep moving the goalposts*. That's all pretty much hypothetical, BTW - you don't need to answer.

Here are my questions: Who decides when and to what severity cultural appropriation has taken place? What are the ramifications of such an act? What compensation is due to the offended party? Who sets those compensations?

*"goalposts" is a metaphor, not a literal interpretation that this conversation is something to be won, lost, or otherwise scored.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 23, 2014)

Just for kicks, I'll answer OP's questions. I thought I was doing so, but apparently not. For the record, I have no issue with OP, the questions, or the issues. I think this stuff is incredibly important and needs to be discussed so people understand the ramifications of their decisions.



Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> Here is a question for the writers and readers here, particularly anyone with a background from somewhere besides America or Europe.



Not me, then, but since most of us fall into this category, and my wife doesn't, I'm going to calim privilege on her behalf and answer it anyways. 



> How do you feel about someone writing or creating a story in your country or among your people, culture, etc, if they are not a part of your ethnicity?



 No comment here. (Edit: Actually, yes comment: I don't care. I don't expect other people to agree with me, though.)



> To whit, can it be legitimately argued something like “Bridge of Birds,” a fantasy about ancient China, is racist, guilty of cultural appropriation or perpetuating some variation of the “noble savage” idea?



Can it be argued? Absolutely, no doubt.  Argued legitimately? Probably yes. What then?



> To a lesser degree this happens all the time among “western” nations and that arguably makes them all acceptable target.



What is the argument that makes "western" nations acceptable targets? Eye for an eye? Do unto others as they have done for you?



> For example, Naomi Novik’s Temeraire series is not likely to be accused of racism and other problems when the characters are running around England, France, Germany and possibly even Russia. But what about when they are in China, Africa and South America?



Haven't read it; no opinion.



> Scalped was a comic book series about Ogala Lakota, but the series is written by a white guy from Alabama. Is that automatically a problem?



A) No; b) I'm not lakota, so if a) was "yes", should I even get an opinion? (the use of the word "problem" has the implicit promise of "solution" as well.)


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 23, 2014)

Umbran said:


> You sound like you are firmly concentrated on whether or not you *can* do something.  And in being so focused, you seem to be losing the question of whether you *should* do it, and when and how you should do it.



If you lose the right to do something, you lose the choice as to whether or not you should. *Yes, you should exercise respect, caution, responsibility, care, and decency in the exercise of your rights.* None of which goes against anything I've said.

Edit: Frack this is frustrating. I don't know how much simpler I can make this.  
*Point one *- You can look at your own work and decide whether it's appropriate or not. Absolutely, everyone should do that. Everyone does do that, every day.
*Point two* - You don't get to decide when someone else is offended.  You just don't. You don't get to choose what I find funny, or what I find sad, or what I find offensive.
*Point three* - If your primary concern is whether or not someone else is going to be offended by your work, and you make your decisions based solely on that, then you are self-censoring, and you're never going to write anything provocative again. Sad but true. If you do it anyways, then you are placing your opinion about your work above someone else's sensibilities. Honestly, we all do this every day. People just don't like to acknowledge it.
*Point four *- once you've decided to censor yourself, it's a small step to censoring others.  The King and I is offensive. It IS banned in Thailand. If you defend it, you're opening yourself up to accusations of supporting cultural appropriation, insensitivity, and bigotry. If you don't defend it, you're opening yourself up to accusations of censorship and abrogation of free speech. Books are still banned in places around the US today. This isn't some antique concern. Pointing at a book and saying "is this a problem?" opens the door to an answer of "yes", and the question becomes "what do you do about it?"


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 23, 2014)

Last question: the Rodgers & Hammerstein play "The King and I" is banned in Thailand. It is considered offensive and disrespectful to the monarchy and Thai culture. Is this a problem? Should Rodgers & Hammerstein have written the play at all?

Potentially relevant link: https://www.facebook.com/nkjemisin (see status of March 20th)

Edit: I'm basically done posting about this topic. I can't break it down further. There is no right answer to the questions above, incidentally. You're going to offend someone.


----------



## Zander (Mar 23, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Thank you for explaining to me my native tongue.




Bravo! Tu te débrouilles bien en anglais. Si tu continues tes efforts en anglais, tu pourras un jour participer aux forums anglophones comme ENWorld sans avoir l'air d'un provocateur. Pour l’instant, tes messages font penser que tu as un besoin pathologique d’attention. Sans doute, c’est simplement tes limites an anglais qui donne cette impression mauvaise.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Last question: the Rodgers & Hammerstein play "The King and I" is banned in Thailand. It is considered offensive and disrespectful to the monarchy and Thai culture. Is this a problem? Should Rodgers & Hammerstein have written the play at all?
> 
> Potentially relevant link: https://www.facebook.com/nkjemisin (see status of March 20th)




"The King and I" and "Annie Get Your Gun" (by Irving Berlin, to show it wasn't just a problem of Rogers and Hammerstein) have some very problematic stuff in them, no doubt about that.

Saying that a work is a product of its time is not a shield.  It is just an explanation.  Back in 1951, the country (and the rest of the world) was pretty darned bigoted.   We have knowledge and experience today that they lacked - those shows were written before most of what we think of as the Civil Right Movement, after all.  We could not expect them to write as if they were written today, because they weren't.  

But that's a different issue - we are now comparing historical actions to today's moral and ethical compass.  That can find you some folks who are ahead of their time, but isn't a terribly valid criticism, on the whole.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 23, 2014)

Zander said:


> Bravo! Tu te débrouilles bien en anglais. Si tu continues tes efforts en anglais, tu pourras un jour participer aux forums anglophones comme ENWorld sans avoir l'air d'un provocateur. Pour l’instant, tes messages font penser que tu as un besoin pathologique d’attention. Sans doute, c’est simplement tes limites an anglais qui donne cette impression mauvaise.



Extraordinaire, champion! C'est une belle démonstration de psycho-pop. Je suis fière de toi.

Est-ce que tu peux me dire si ma mère m'a allaité quand j'étais petit?


----------



## Morrus (Mar 23, 2014)

Zander said:


> Bravo! Tu te débrouilles bien en anglais. Si tu continues tes efforts en anglais, tu pourras un jour participer aux forums anglophones comme ENWorld sans avoir l'air d'un provocateur. Pour l’instant, tes messages font penser que tu as un besoin pathologique d’attention. Sans doute, c’est simplement tes limites an anglais qui donne cette impression mauvaise.




Post in English, please.  And definitely do not insult people in other languages. We do have access to Google Translate.



			
				Goldomort said:
			
		

> Extraordinaire, champion! C'est une belle démonstration de psycho-pop. Je suis fière de toi.
> 
> Est-ce que tu peux me dire si ma mère m'a allaité quand j'étais petit?




Drop the sarcasm, please.  You reported the post; that's enough.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 23, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> So your friend was wrong to take offense? Are you really saying you know better than he does?




As noted above, this was an acquaintance, not a friend.  And the issue was not directed at me, but at another person.  Her peers, including others of her own culture, found that she was being a bit over-the-top.  The disposition and use of soy sauce and/or rice are not sacrosanct in her home culture, so she had little basis for complaining how others use them.  So, yes, she didn't have foundation to take offense.  



> A kilt, to use my example, isn't "ceremonial dress". A clan tartan, with all the bells and whistles, is ceremonial




Yep.  Exactly.  "Utilikilts" are just clothing, and since non-formal-tartan kilts also exist among the Scots, this is not a problem.  Real tartan kilts are a different beast, as are, say, Native American feathered headdresses.  You don't go wearing those willy-nilly.  There are still occasions where you can use those, too, but you just need to be more careful about it.



> Defining when and where cultural appropriation is appropriate, however, is not a responsible action.




Other than "when you are failing in your responsibilities to other people", which is a case-by-case discussion all on its own, I'm not laying down any law here. Since I'm aiming at a dynamic, thoughtful approach, rather than a strict definition, I don't see how we're in opposition on that.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 24, 2014)

Umbran said:


> "The King and I" and "Annie Get Your Gun" (by Irving Berlin, to show it wasn't just a problem of Rogers and Hammerstein) have some very problematic stuff in them, no doubt about that.
> 
> Saying that a work is a product of its time is not a shield.  It is just an explanation.  Back in 1951, the country (and the rest of the world) was pretty darned bigoted.   We have knowledge and experience today that they lacked - those shows were written before most of what we think of as the Civil Right Movement, after all.  We could not expect them to write as if they were written today, because they weren't.
> 
> But that's a different issue - we are now comparing historical actions to today's moral and ethical compass.  That can find you some folks who are ahead of their time, but isn't a terribly valid criticism, on the whole.



It is a different issue, and it's not all dusty history.  The 1999 remake of _The King and I_, titled _Anna and the King_ and starring Chow Yun-Fat and Jodie Foster, is also banned. So, again, is this a problem?


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 24, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Since I'm aiming at a dynamic, thoughtful approach, rather than a strict definition, I don't see how we're in opposition on that.



I think we're in opposition only insofar as that we're answering on different levels. You're saying "sometimes" to the OP's question; I'm saying "wrong question". 

_One Night in Bangkok_ by Murray Head is also banned, btw.


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 24, 2014)

Bringing this closer to home, consider Chakotay, of Voyager, and the Gypsies book from White Wolf. Both were in theory supposed to be positive things, one a Native America, the other about the Rom. Both failed in execution and became insulting. Good intentions mean di... very little. However, leaving all such characters out means a production will be guilty of white washing.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 24, 2014)

Umbran said:


> "The King and I" and "Annie Get Your Gun" (by Irving Berlin, to show it wasn't just a problem of Rogers and Hammerstein) have some very problematic stuff in them, no doubt about that.
> 
> Saying that a work is a product of its time is not a shield.  It is just an explanation.  Back in 1951, the country (and the rest of the world) was pretty darned bigoted.   We have knowledge and experience today that they lacked - those shows were written before most of what we think of as the Civil Right Movement, after all.  We could not expect them to write as if they were written today, because they weren't.
> 
> But that's a different issue - we are now comparing historical actions to today's moral and ethical compass.  That can find you some folks who are ahead of their time, but isn't a terribly valid criticism, on the whole.




The King and I is an interesting case. My wife is Thai, so this is a subject I hear a heck of a lot about. One misconception is that the issue with the old film in Thailand has much to with oncerns of bigotry or the use of yellow face (not saying these are not issues in the film, just this isn't why they take issue). Thai people dislike Anna in the king because they have serious misgivings of the accounts wriitten by Anna Leonowens, which the king and I is based on (this is why the Jodi Foster version is equally disliked in Thailand). They basically consider The King and I an innacurate and insulting portrayal of King Rama Iv (and V). The strong dislike of Anna Leonowens herself cannot be understated. Mention that name and my wife expresses her opinion quite forcefully.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 24, 2014)

Umbran said:


> To a point.  There are also, unfortunately, those who are willing to engage in, for lack of a better term, "manufactured outrage", taking offense when none is really called for.
> 
> An acquaintance of mine, for example, took offense at people eating Asian food, and putting soy sauce on white rice.  I kid you not.




I think this point is important. It is important to be respectful of course, but we can also make evaluative judgments about peoples' reactions. In some cases outrage is warranted, in others it may be misplaced. If someone takes offense where it really isn't warranted and then closes off an entire avenue of exploration in fiction or gaming, it would be foolish in my opinion to go along with that.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 24, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> The King and I is an interesting case. My wife is Thai, so this is a subject I hear a heck of a lot about. One misconception is that the issue with the old film in Thailand has much to with oncerns of bigotry or the use of yellow face (not saying these are not issues in the film, just this isn't why they take issue). Thai people dislike Anna in the king because they have serious misgivings of the accounts wriitten by Anna Leonowens, which the king and I is based on (this is why the Jodi Foster version is equally disliked in Thailand). They basically consider The King and I an innacurate and insulting portrayal of King Rama Iv (and V). The strong dislike of Anna Leonowens herself cannot be understated. Mention that name and my wife expresses her opinion quite forcefully.




My wife is half-Thai, and grew up in Bangkok. Interesting place to visit.  

But yeah, it has much more to do with respect for the monarchy and national pride than anything else; that's my understanding. Thais are very proud of the fact that they're the only southeast Asian country to have retained their sovereignty and not come under the control of a European power.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 24, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> My wife is half-Thai, and grew up in Bangkok. Interesting place to visit.
> 
> But yeah, it has much more to do with respect for the monarchy and national pride than anything else; that's my understanding. Thais are very proud of the fact that they're the only southeast Asian country to have retained their sovereignty and not come under the control of a European power.




Part of it is Anna basically claims credit for things like the elimination of Slavery in Thailand, and Thai people generally reject this notion. There are also issues with her account of events and how close she actually was to the king. I read both of her books and judging from the forwards it looks like literary scholars and historians are still actively debating this, though the weight seems to be on the side of her account being flawed and even intentionally misleading). But it is still debated by some.

my understanding is the bans of the king and i films are due to the lese majeste laws of Thailand (that is why the most recent film still got banned despite attempts to make it more culturally sensitive).


----------



## tomBitonti (Mar 24, 2014)

Wait.  What measure are we using to decide?

For a writer trying to reach a particular audience, or to navigate an editorial process, or to reach past censors of various ilk, is the measure whether the work sells to the particular audience, or, say, escapes the editors or censors?

Is the measure based on whether the material is either respectful or is accurate to the source culture?  Is any part of the measure whether the work shows a high degree of artistry?  Or whether the work provides a deep or insightful or revealing commentary?

An author can be wildly successful while being hugely disrespectful or inaccurate (perhaps deliberately).

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Kaodi (Mar 24, 2014)

Is this thread really even talking about cultural appropriation or is it really talking about the more general case of cultural ignorance? Or is the latter just what it morphed into?

I am not a huge fan of how the notion of cultural appropriation is used. The notion certainly has a place and does important work, but it is all too easily taken too far in a direction that I think is more likely to _produce_ small mindedness and cultural ignorance than _prevent_ it. If it is forbidden to apply things you have learned about other cultures in creative ways, why bother learning about them in the first place?


----------



## Tom Strickland (Mar 24, 2014)

Kaodi said:


> If it is forbidden to apply things you have learned about other cultures in creative ways, why bother learning about them in the first place?




<darkhumor> {grimHumor} Creative are the ways used to portray the enemies of a nation to stir up the populace to war.  {/grimHumor}</darkhumor>

Anecdote: A modern country years ago contained a business that exactly copied "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" and just gave them different names. Disney at least was understandably concerned about this.

Comment: It could be argued that there are analogies to long-established legal principles regarding how, when, and under what conditions intellectual, cultural, ephemeral or other "properties" might acceptably--by those who subscribe to the notion of the advantages of legal (and moral) societies--be used by others for fair and even commercial purposes. 

Since the legal principles are extensive and nuanced, how can we do less justice to the concept of human opinions regarding what may "appropriately" be done to and with other people's dress, language, myths, history, festivals, etc.

Anecdote: Some citizens of some less (militarily) powerful nations are concerned when businesses in powerful nations come and take their natural/scarce/unique (bio) resources for massively lucrative products without providing any compensation whatsoever.

Comment: Consider "knock-offs" of video games, songs and books. "Candy Crush vs. CandySwipe" "A very old song whose trumpet melody sounds amazingly similar to the Star Wars theme" And consider whether the author of the "Harry Potter" series would be interested in how closely other "creative" expressions borrowed themes--or more concernedly--exact textual descriptions of magic and creatures.

Since the real world has many force-backed and consequence-ridden examples of how presentations of fiction and reality can be used--creatively or otherwise, and for what length of time--it could be useful to reference those when forming opinions about how much creativity would be "acceptable" to the modern, morally conscious community regarding the use of any culture's clearly and uniquely representative expression.

When one successfully navigates all of that--by all means write and produce anew. After all, we "stand upon the shoulders of giants who came before" and nobody wants to "reinvent the wheel".

And personally: learning about ancient and modern cultures is an experiential and pleasurable feast that--as with virtual resources whose use does not diminish the original--may be enjoyed repeatedly and by others concurrently regardless of whether I may desire or be allowed to closely and creatively adapt their presentations of self and culture, or whether I may be inspired to create something significantly different which nevertheless owes thanks and attribution to the source.


----------



## Kaodi (Mar 25, 2014)

All of this "failure to properly attribute" stuff is besides the point when applied to mythology. If your depiction of something is familiar enough to a cultural community to be offencive they you were probably not making an effort to hide your inspiration. Exactly replicating Disney's version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves except for changing the names is not analagous at all: The original fairy tale is there to be drawn on by anyone, and not using that inspiration to do something of your own is the tell-tale difference between "intellectual property theft" and inspiration.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 25, 2014)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> Bringing this closer to home, consider Chakotay, of Voyager, and the Gypsies book from White Wolf. Both were in theory supposed to be positive things, one a Native America, the other about the Rom. Both failed in execution and became insulting. Good intentions mean di... very little. However, leaving all such characters out means a production will be guilty of white washing.
> 
> Damned if you do, damned if you don't.




I am not sure how Voyager failed in the portrayal of Chakotay. I remember the hoopla at the time was based on the fact that actor Robert Beltran was not an "American" Native American but is of Mexican and Meso Indian  descent. But in the context of Star Trek I thought they handled his spirituality rather well for a SF TV show that takes places 400 years from now. 

I think some people look for reasons to be offended. I remember a group getting offended over Stargate making the ancient Egyptian gods aliens.

I do think if you are writing a historical or modern piece using a different culture then you should try to portray the culture as realistic as possible. That includes both the good and the bad. Now fantasy is another matter. In Voyager for example they speculated that the tribes that settled on Chakotay home planet shared some cultural and religious practices which is why the vision quest and the medicine bag which is more plains Indian was something he used.

In Stargate they were not trying to demean the Ancient Egyptians they were doing a what if.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 25, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> I am not sure how Voyager failed in the portrayal of Chakotay. I remember the hoopla at the time was based on the fact that actor Robert Beltran was not an "American" Native American but is of Mexican and Meso Indian  descent.



I'm not a Star Trek follower at all, so I had to look up about Chakotay. Apparently he was intended to be of Meso-American descent, so if the actor's geneology actually matched that...well, that's pretty darned incredible in Hollywood.

I think I had assumed he was Maori.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 25, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> I'm not a Star Trek follower at all, so I had to look up about Chakotay. Apparently he was intended to be of Meso-American descent, so if the actor's geneology actually matched that...well, that's pretty darned incredible in Hollywood.
> 
> I think I had assumed he was Maori.




Originally when planning the series they knew they wanted a Native American from the planet Darvon. In Next Gen the Native Americans on that planet chose to give up their federation citizenship and become  Cardissian citizens. Eventually this lead to the resistance group the Maquis. So they knew they knew they wanted to reuse this for Voyager. At the time in pre planning they were going for more of a plains or pueblo style Native American. When they cast Robert Beltran that is when they went with the Meso American Indian. 

But it made a lot of people mad that they didn't hire a full native American actor. Though they read many of them. I thought at the time a lot of ignorance was being thrown around. That so many people didn't seem to understand that many Mexican families are of mixed heritage they have both Spanish and Native blood in their lineage.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 25, 2014)

Tom Strickland said:


> Anecdote: A modern country within the past few years contained a business that exactly copied "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" and just gave them different names. Disney at least was understandably concerned about this.



Why would anyone but Disney be concerned?



> Since the real world has many force-backed and consequence-ridden examples of how presentations of fiction and reality can be used--creatively or otherwise, and for what length of time--it could be useful to reference that when forming opinions about how much creativity would be "acceptable" to the modern, morally conscious community regarding the use of any culture's clearly and uniquely representative expression.



I think the problem -and I'm have a little trouble parsing your sentences, so maybe I'm getting something wrong - is that most of those consequences involve copyright violation, which is not a static area of law, and far less personal to the public than cultural transgression. Copyright also is very specific. Disney does not own "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves". They own the copyright to images and a presentation of the story, but the story itself is public domain in virtually every sense of the word. Copyright in the US has gone from 15 years term to life + 75, at which point it's public. I don't think you can put a neat point on a time when a "culture" becomes "public".  Name a religion, and there is someone out there who believes it to be true. Name a country and culture, and there is someone out there who is descended from it.

I've been working on an OSR bestiary utilizing lesser-known but "real-world" mythical creatures, and some of that has edged up against current real-world religions. Is it appropriate to make Ganesh into a monster? A race? What about Hanuman? What about lesser beings in the same cycle? I think ultimately those are questions people need to answer for themselves. (FWIW, I decided not to use Ganesh right now; I'm undecided about Hanuman; but I'm OK with using Sekhm(et) as the name and basis for a lion-headed race.)


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 25, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> That so many people didn't seem to understand that many Mexican families are of mixed heritage they have both Spanish and Native blood in their lineage.



Therein lies the difference between conquering armies, and settlers with families. The soldiers finish out their tours and don't want to go back to Spain, so they marry native.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 25, 2014)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1619406.stm

After a Maori lawyer wrote  to  Lego concerned at the use of Maori words and imagery in the Bionicle Mata Nui line, Lego agreed to remove some  words and to work with Maori to devolop a  code of conduct


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 25, 2014)

The whole notion of culture needs to die in a fire.  We're so worried about accepting everyone as equal but none of us are willing to give up even a part of what separates us and has since our respective cultures were formed.  

Meh, if you're always walking on eggshells you're never gonna get anywhere.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 25, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> The whole notion of culture needs to die in a fire.  We're so worried about accepting everyone as equal but none of us are willing to give up even a part of what separates us and has since our respective cultures were formed.
> 
> Meh, if you're always walking on eggshells you're never gonna get anywhere.



That and the fact that every culture on Earth was formed by stealing ideas from your neighbors and making stuff up.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 25, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> That and the fact that every culture on Earth was formed by stealing ideas from your neighbors and making stuff up.




Yep.  It's truly amazing to me that people wonder why we treat each other so differently.  _It's what we want._  It shouldn't be but whatever.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 25, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Yep.  It's truly amazing to me that people wonder why we treat each other so differently.  _It's what we want._  It shouldn't be but whatever.




Yes I recommend that you give up your way of life and be forced to adopt mine. Lets start by banning you from speaking english and removing the priviledge of using the internet for frivolous reasons....


----------



## Grumpy RPG Reviews (Mar 26, 2014)

Elf Witch said:


> I am not sure how Voyager failed in the portrayal of Chakotay.




Granted Voyager suffered from weak writing in general, but Chakotay was more or less the Generic Positive Indian Guy, complete with no identified actual group (not specific as a Navajo, Apache, Lakota, etc) and with speeches about "his people" and "spirit" and even "land." More to the point he was created as a character by a man who said he was a Native America, but was actually a Greek-Armenian.


----------



## Elf Witch (Mar 26, 2014)

Grumpy RPG Reviews said:


> Granted Voyager suffered from weak writing in general, but Chakotay was more or less the Generic Positive Indian Guy, complete with no identified actual group (not specific as a Navajo, Apache, Lakota, etc) and with speeches about "his people" and "spirit" and even "land." More to the point he was created as a character by a man who said he was a Native America, but was actually a Greek-Armenian.




Actually they used the ancient rubber tree people of central America as the basis for his tribe. Which granted they never gave a name to. One of the reasons at least according to what Robert Beltran said was that they did not want to pin it down and speculate on how a native American tribe would be in the 24 century. 

Which person claimed to be Native American but was actually Greek Armenian? This is the first I have heard of that. 

But lying about your heritage that is a no no but why can't a Greek Armenian create a Native American character?

Star Trek has always used basically generic characters since Next Gen almost all the humans are Americans with the exception of Picard who is French played by an English actor who used his English accent. I don't see outrage over that. Yet because they do a generic Native American some how that is bad. Why do Native Americans deserve special treatment but not the French? It is a SF show set 400 years in the future who is to say that many tribes will still exist and not have main streamed into the mainstream culture?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 26, 2014)

Tonguez said:


> Yes I recommend that you give up your way of life and be forced to adopt mine. Lets start by banning you from speaking english and removing the priviledge of using the internet for frivolous reasons....




Missing the point.  You don't have to have one culture conquer all others for varying cultures to be let go.  But hey, if you're down with perpetual war, mistreatment, abuse and the readily available justification for all of those (and more terrible things) that culture provides, whatever.  I mean, if that's your culture ... 

Srsly, why is the first place your mind took you 'one culture to rule them all'?  That's nothing I even implied.  We can _blend _cultures to form a single cohesive one.  Anyhoo, that this is what you thought says more about you than me.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 26, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> The whole notion of culture needs to die in a fire.  We're so worried about accepting everyone as equal but none of us are willing to give up even a part of what separates us and has since our respective cultures were formed.
> 
> Meh, if you're always walking on eggshells you're never gonna get anywhere.




Why does the idea of culture need to die in a fire? What do you imagine will replace it?


----------



## Kaodi (Mar 26, 2014)

I actually kind of think it is a problem that fiction does not seem to much imagine what indigenous/non-indigenous relations look like in the future. You need that sort of vision baseline to think about what the results of actions in the present might be.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 26, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Why does the idea of culture need to die in a fire? What do you imagine will replace it?




I explained that.  In another post I also suggested what may replace it: a single culture that's the result of all cultures blending.  This requires that everyone give something up, though, and I don't see that ever happening.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 26, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I explained that.  In another post I also suggested what may replace it: a single culture that's the result of all cultures blending.  This requires that everyone give something up, though, and I don't see that ever happening.




Okay, but what does that look like. I am just having difficulty understanding what a blend of all cultures in the world is or means. Mechanically how does that work? By what process do you decide what to keep and what to remove? I am not sure i see the merit in this idea.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 26, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Okay, but what does that look like. I am just having difficulty understanding what a blend of all cultures in the world is or means. Mechanically how does that work? By what process do you decide what to keep and what to remove? I am not sure i see the merit in this idea.




I have no idea.  The merit is obvious, however: If everyone has the same background there's less crap to fight over.  It's easier to see people as the same/equal.  There's a less easy path to other folks.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 26, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I have no idea.  The merit is obvious, however: If everyone has the same background there's less crap to fight over.  It's easier to see people as the same/equal.  There's a less easy path to other folks.




i am not at all sure that is true at all. Really you are just proposing the creation of a monoculture, the process of doing this requires the destruction of existing cultures (destroying good and bad elements). Can't think of anything more othering than telling people they need to stop being who they are.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 26, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Missing the point.  You don't have to have one culture conquer all others for varying cultures to be let go.  But hey, if you're down with perpetual war, mistreatment, abuse and the readily available justification for all of those (and more terrible things) that culture provides, whatever.  I mean, if that's your culture ...
> 
> Srsly, why is the first place your mind took you 'one culture to rule them all'?  That's nothing I even implied.  We can _blend _cultures to form a single cohesive one.  Anyhoo, that this is what you thought says more about you than me.




You said the notion of culture needs to "die in a fire" to which I agreed (admittedly facetiously), the notion of cultures dying in a fire is inherently destructive and oppressive, very much in the maner of imperialism.

That you recant now and instead call for a blending of cultures into a single cohesive hegemony is on the face of it a positive step, but as Mr Bedrock points out who decides what cultural elements are worthy of inclusion? How does this blending of cultures proceed without becoming Assimilation?

I was simply recommending that, as I believe my culture is sufficiently worthy, if you wish to abandon yours then mine can remain as our shared monoculture.

PS as we are currently sharing thoughts on a forum dedicated to DnD, using a shared language, doesn't that imply the 'blending of cultures' is already happening anyway with no fiery death required?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 26, 2014)

Tonguez said:


> You said the notion of culture needs to "die in a fire" to which I agreed (admittedly facetiously), the notion of cultures dying in a fire is inherently destructive and oppressive, very much in the maner of imperialism.
> 
> That you recant now and instead call for a blending of cultures into a single cohesive hegemony is on the face of it a positive step, but as Mr Bedrock points out who decides what cultural elements are worthy of inclusion? How does this blending of cultures proceed without becoming Assimilation?
> 
> ...




Also culture includes a lot of different things. To participate in such an evaporation of culture, you would have to lose your beliefs, your ideas, your identity, your traditions, your music, your games, etc. D&D would certainly need to go, because that is a cultural feature, and an obvious source of division among edition warriors. You would be losing all this in order to avoid "othering" and conflict. And it isn't clear at all that you achieve this. 

But the bigger issue here is culture can't just evaporate, it must be replaced with something. So zombie is still stuck with the problem of one group spreading its culture and destroying others (even if that group is just a cluster of academics who identify the five good cultural qualities that should be perpetuated). 

This just seems like an outrageous proposal.


----------



## Tom Strickland (Mar 26, 2014)

It is interesting to read some of the well-reasoned statements in the recent discussion.

Additionally:



Zombie_Babies said:


> The whole notion of culture needs to die in a fire.




Several things in fiction and reality throughout time have been consigned by individuals, groups, or legal authorities through use of force to "die in a fire."


*Books:*

Fahrenheit 451


*Civilizations (and humankind):*

The Terminator Series


*People:*

- Burning of live human babies on the statue of Moloch in ancient times

- Burning alive of "witches" and "heretics"

- Burning of "criminal" men, women and children routed into buildings and prevented from escaping


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 26, 2014)

Weird. It's like no one has ever heard of hyperbole before.


----------



## Kramodlog (Mar 27, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Weird. It's like no one has ever heard of hyperbole before.



No one!? I've heard of it and obviously so have you too! 

I demand a retraction, good sir.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 27, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Weird. It's like no one has ever heard of hyperbole before.




Hyperbole is akin to sarcasm and progenitor of escalation which leads back to calefaction


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 27, 2014)

Tonguez said:


> ... calefaction



Huh. That was a new one.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 27, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> i am not at all sure that is true at all. Really you are just proposing the creation of a monoculture, the process of doing this requires the destruction of existing cultures (destroying good and bad elements). Can't think of anything more othering than telling people they need to stop being who they are.




Some elements will be lost, others will not.  This is not a black and white situation.  I also never once suggested than anyone would tell anyone else that part X of their culture had to die.  This is evolution, not edict.

I know, you think it's impossible.  Well, it's not.  See, I'm an American.  My family came to this country in the late 1800s and early 1900s.  I'm Polish, German and Irish in heritage yet I do nothing specific to any of those cultures.  I'm American and I celebrate American holidays, dress in an American manner, etc, etc.  So, as you can see, this sort of thing happens all the time.  It will take quite a bit of time to get to where I'd like to see us (longer than I'll be around) but it's possible.  And nobody has to tell anyone else who to be.

Honestly, it's a strange assumption and I'm puzzled as to why it's the first place some of you have chosen to go.



Tonguez said:


> You said the notion of culture needs to "die in a fire" to which I agreed (admittedly facetiously), the notion of cultures dying in a fire is inherently destructive and oppressive, very much in the maner of imperialism.




*sigh*

Death by fire - since you want to be so literal - doesn't have to be murder, you know.  Don't blame me for your assumptions, please, and don't call me a liar when I correct your errors in interpreting what I've said.  What you've decided to assign to me as my argument and my argument are two different things.



> That you recant now and instead call for a blending of cultures into a single cohesive hegemony is on the face of it a positive step, but as Mr Bedrock points out who decides what cultural elements are worthy of inclusion? How does this blending of cultures proceed without becoming Assimilation?




I'm not recanting anything - I'm telling you that you made an assumption and that it was wrong while also trying to help you understand exactly what I _am _saying since I didn't get terribly into it with that first comment.  

And, again, I simply can't understand why evolution never enters anyone's mind.  It's happened, it's happening now and it will continue to happen.  No one has to decide anything, no one has to have a gun held to their head while their holiday is erased from history.  That's not something I've said, it's something y'ins have chosen to read into things I've said.  



> I was simply recommending that, as I believe my culture is sufficiently worthy, if you wish to abandon yours then mine can remain as our shared monoculture.




Evolution, not edict.  No culture has to go away completely, no one specific culture has to erase all others.  This isn't a Highlander kind of thing, it's an English (language) kind of thing.  I ... I honestly don't know how else to put it.

You do see that _you're_ the one that's calling for a specific culture to dominate and replace all others and not me, right?  You chose to assume that's what I meant, of course, and you're wrong.  Am I getting anywhere or are we gonna be hung up on this Strawman forever?



> PS as we are currently sharing thoughts on a forum dedicated to DnD, using a shared language, doesn't that imply the 'blending of cultures' is already happening anyway with no fiery death required?




Yes, it is happening.  That doesn't mean that disparate cultures are a good thing, though.  If, say, polio is going away for whatever reason does that make it a good thing?  Nope.  In other words, the event you cite says nothing about the problem I'm addressing.

And THANK GAWD that someone mentioned hyperbole.  For Jeebus' sake ...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 27, 2014)

Zombie I an an American too.

what you are describing is not culture dying in a fire, just assimilation into an existing culture.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 27, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Zombie I an an American too.
> 
> what you are describing is not culture dying in a fire, just assimilation into an existing culture.




He said "the NOTION of culture" needs to die in a fire. Not cultures themselves. I suspect* you could compare his vision to one of ending racism (being "color-blind"), not ending races (committing genocide).

There's an entitlement argument to be made; that as a (probable) member of the ruling clique (white men) of the predominant/controlling culture of our times (USA! USA!) it's in Zombie's interests for the notion of culture to disappear, but that's not an argument I'm interested in having or supporting.

* I "suspect" because I haven't asked, and I'm not going to put words in his mouth. Y'all have crammed plenty in already, and half the time he's got a foot in there too.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 27, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> He said "the NOTION of culture" needs to die in a fire. Not cultures themselves. I suspect* you could compare his vision to one of ending racism (being "color-blind"), not ending races (committing genocide).
> 
> There's an entitlement argument to be made; that as a (probable) member of the ruling clique (white men) of the predominant/controlling culture of our times (USA! USA!) it's in Zombie's interests for the notion of culture to disappear, but that's not an argument I'm interested in having or supporting.
> 
> * I "suspect" because I haven't asked, and I'm not going to put words in his mouth. Y'all have crammed plenty in already, and half the time he's got a foot in there too.




Again what is describing is assimilation, not the notion of culture dying in a fire. What he seems to be after is the existence of one, single culture. I don't know that that is possible or desireable.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 27, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Again what is describing is assimilation, not the notion of culture dying in a fire.



I'm just going by his original words. 



> What he seems to be after is the existence of one, single culture. I don't know that that is possible or desireable.



I don't think it's possible to have one culture, and I don't think it's desirable. As far as assimilation and the creation of a single culture...I dunno.  If everyone was blind, would we still judge by skin color? Would we all be the same color? Maybe what he's intending to say is do what you want, just stop being territorial and arrogant about it.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 27, 2014)

This is a weirdly surreal discussion for me. 

First of all, to restate the obvious, the notion of culture does not equal culture, anymore than the notion of a horse equals a horse. A notion is an idea or concept. He's talking about the idea of cultures, not a particular culture. It's meta.

Just because a "notion" or idea of something doesn't exist doesn't mean the thing itself doesn't exist. Calculus existed before the notion of calculus.  I'm pretty sure gravity worked before Newton. Blind people don't see skin color; that doesn't mean they're literally transparent.  Skin color still exists and has an effect (sunburn, for one), its just not perceptible and it ceases to be a means of division.  There's a solid theory that a small percentage of people can perceive 4 primary colors, not 3 - they literally can see colors we have no conception (or notion) of (tetrachromacy). 

Similarly, culture can still exist without the notion of culture; it just ceases to be a means of division. Forced cultural assimilation can't occur without a concept of culture. You wouldn't be forced to adopt a monoculture; you wouldn't be forced to do anything. All choices are equal. You can wear your kilt and your penis sheath and your sunhat/sombrero to temple, because who gives a hoot?  If you've got the latest issue of National Geographic, you can starch up your lace and don your Breton bonnets with flair.  Traditions aren't discarded, they're exchanged among people who desire them. 

Is something lost? Sure. Concepts of exclusivity, superiority, and inferiority. The linkage between genetic inheritance and societal memes.

I go contra dancing. It's a traditional and popular form of couples dance.  Like most couples dances, contra has a leading, or traditionally gentleman's, role, and a following, or traditionally ladies, role. But something that's become basically de rigueur in contra is what could be called death to the notion of gender roles. Does that mean no one leads and no one follows? No. It means dance whatever role you want to dance. Dance lead if you want. Dance the follow if you want. You don't need to pass a physical, just do whatever you enjoy.  I generally dance lead, because that's what I've learned and dancing the follow role feels backwards (also the follow role usually spins more, which makes me nauseous), but I know men who and women who regularly dance either. Some couples switch back and forth during the dance. 

Is the notion of culture blindness as realistic or possible? Probably not. Is it desirable? I have no idea. It's still a valid thought exercise.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 28, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> Zombie I an an American too.
> 
> what you are describing is not culture dying in a fire, just assimilation into an existing culture.




Bro, I'm not gonna play pedantic games with you.  Someone pointed out hyperbole, I thanked them for it and that, my friend, should have been sufficient explanation for the whole 'die in a fire' thing you're so hung up on.  You wanna keep telling me I'm saying things I'm not, that's cool.  I mean, I won't respond but whatever floats your boat.  I've explained myself enough times to be bored with repeating the same stuff over and over.  

This conversation needs to die in a fir ... whoops, don't wanna get arrested cuz someone takes me too literally.  *ahem* I do not intend to literally burn this conversation down.  As it's an online thing I can't imagine how anyone would think it possible but stranger things have happened.  Hm, I _guess _they could think I meant the people I'm discussing with?  Well, I can assure you I don't know who they are, don't know where they live and haven't the faintest interest in finding out.  They're safe.  I also suppose someone could take it to mean the servers the board is hosted on.  Well, again, I have no idea where they reside and don't care so they're also safe.  Nothing will be literally burned, nothing will be literally harmed, nothing will be literally eradicated, nothing will literally be forced to become something else.  Ok, my disclaimer is officially over.  I hope.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 28, 2014)

I am not sure I understand what either of you are trying to say at this point then.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 28, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Bro, I'm not gonna play pedantic games with you.  Someone pointed out hyperbole, I thanked them for it and that, my friend, should have been sufficient explanation for the whole 'die in a fire' thing you're so hung up on.  You wanna keep telling me I'm saying things I'm not, that's cool.  I mean, I won't respond but whatever floats your boat.  I've explained myself enough times to be bored with repeating the same stuff over and over.
> 
> .




I am not trying to play pedantic games either, just trying to understand your position. Sorry if ocmes off as me putting words into your mouth, that isn't my intent.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 28, 2014)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not sure I understand what either of you are trying to say at this point then.



Yeah, that's why this seems surreal. I don't understand why it's not perfectly clear that a thing is different from the idea of that thing, or that those ideas change or disappear all the time.

I'm not knocking you; there's just apparently a disconnect that I can't see at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Mar 29, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Yeah, that's why this seems surreal. I don't understand why it's not perfectly clear that a thing is different from the idea of that thing, or that those ideas change or disappear all the time.
> 
> I'm not knocking you; there's just apparently a disconnect that I can't see at all.




I understand the difference between an idea and the thing itself. but I guess I just don't see your statements about that connecting very clearly with what Zombie appeared to be saying. I mean the idea can disappear, but that does't make culture disappear, or create a monoculture on its own (it just means people are not conscious of culture as a concept). But cultural difference would still exist, and so would divisions and conflicts that extend from culture (people would just have difficulty putting a label on it).


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2014)

Just to chime in here but you are not alone in having trouble following this BRG.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 29, 2014)

So. How 'bout this weather, eh?


----------



## Klirshon (Mar 29, 2014)

Please define "this weather" for an accurate response.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 29, 2014)

Klirshon said:


> Please define "this weather" for an accurate response.



Note: You must include a self-addressed stamped envelope if you wish to have your query returned to you.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 31, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> So. How 'bout this weather, eh?




This weather?  Man, this weekend was terrible.  It was snowing cats and dogs on Saturday!  Er ... I mean, not _literally.  _Like, there weren't _really _cats and dogs falling from the sky.  It was just ... you know what?  Forget it.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 31, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> This weather?  Man, this weekend was terrible.  It was snowing cats and dogs on Saturday!  Er ... I mean, not _literally.  _Like, there weren't _really _cats and dogs falling from the sky.  It was just ... you know what?  Forget it.



Y'know, it's pretty inappropriate to expect amnesia on command. And exactly what sort of animal cruelty are you practicing over there? Why do you hate everything?


You must be west of me; Saturday was nice here, but it snowed Saturday night....and it's still on the ground now.  :/  I'm glad I did the roofing Saturday.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Mar 31, 2014)

Nellisir said:


> Y'know, it's pretty inappropriate to expect amnesia on command. And exactly what sort of animal cruelty are you practicing over there? Why do you hate everything?




It weren't me what was cruel to animals, it were god.



> You must be west of me; Saturday was nice here, but it snowed Saturday night....and it's still on the ground now.  :/  I'm glad I did the roofing Saturday.




It started snowing Saturday afternoon and we've still got some on the ground.  It sucked.  We were gonna clean up the garage an' stuff but the weather kinda killed that thought.


----------

