The caption to the cartoon is:
“And now, panel, let’s turn to that giant meteor that’s heading right for us on a path to destroy the planet—whose campaign will it benefit?”
Chandra posts:
2:45 PM
“France” just won the World Cup with at least half of its team drawn from “black” players, all w/ origin in Africa.
Which triggered more questions about “appropriations” cultural & otherwise.
some questions which buzzed -“cannoned” as Phil’d put it, making me imagine billiards/pin-ball machines – in my head:
what would we call this kind of appropriation?
is having “white” singers do slave songs any kind of appropriation? (Rollingstones on down these white musicians have played an integral role in popularising “black american music” world wide. cf. also Ken Burns on Jazz.)
Is learning English, or another language a form of appropriation?
how about playing Sitar for a white person, or cooking curry better than Indians?
isn’t the whole notion of “cultural appropriation” total hogwash? a way of weaponizing a hair-style/clothes brand, food and just about everything used in our daily life.
More importantly it is a way of emphasizing difference, division, separation & underplay all that is similar amongst us all (Shylock speech in Merchant of Venice) thus allowing politicians to endlessly fuck us over.
Fred responds:
6:26 PM
In response to your question: ‘isn’t the whole notion of “cultural appropriation” total hogwash?’ I got to work and researched three articles that
point to a complex answer. The first article from a Gay Black cultural mag is an intriguing observation on high culture and American Black artists shepherded by European curators for exhibition over there.
The second article is written by a Canadian author who gives her take on appropriation and the relationship between Can/Lit and white supremacy. I also suggest since you mention France’s winning the World Cup today an article in the NYT that looks closely at the huge sprawling impoverished neighbourhoods surrounding Paris central that is now relentlessly sifted by pro scouts from all over Europe for young prodigy boys and signing them
to contracts starting before their teens. As you know the winning French team today has young players from this hood and now many young boys
aspire to riches playing football but the reality is only a few will make it. Capitalism has its own checks and balances but is it fair.
Phil responds without having looked at Fred’s links:
Nothing works better for the purposes of propaganda than reducing issues to zero-sum games. Or to put it another way, to make everything a matter of absolute principle, stripping things of their historicity, their context, in short to see things synchronically and not diachronically or dialectically. In so doing, opposing sides are created, each holding the other to an absolute standard [principle] that is impossible to maintain.
It then becomes a game. Whatever my group does, can be excused, rationalized, or better, compared favourably to an antecedent, similar crime on the other side. Propagandists [for sake of demonstration, “Team A”] don’t particularly care about bad faith, so the excuses, rationalizations can be zingers. This traps the other side [“Team B”] if it chooses to play the game in the contrasting role of honest broker. Team A will search for some conduct by Team B which transgresses the principle of honest brokering. Voila, Team B’s case is out the window! Fake news!
Looking at the examples cited above contextually and historically allows us to tell a different nuanced story other than “everyone does it, so the concept must be hogwash”. My god, if there is anything politicians and mainstream journalists despise, it is nuance. Sadly, most folks, without a great deal of careful, engaging exposition, react the same way, and yes, these propagandistic actors exploit this.
Most black musicians know that throughout the 20th century in N. America, white musical performance was privileged. On the way back from Greece I watched a doc on the plane about Adam Clayton Powell persuading the State Department in the fifties to use the soft power of Jazz to counter America’s racist reputation quite successfully and sensibly propagandized by the USSR and non-aligned countries. When Louis Armstrong and other black musicians began refusing to go because of the segregation fights happening in the south, the state department sent a willing Dave Brubeck prior to moving to defend civil rights.
Is this story “appropriation”? Well, I see no point in stupidly narrowing the understanding by focusing on Brubeck and say, “he’s white, he shouldn’t play/represent that music”. But it would be in bad faith, to my mind, to say that what the state department did was not some form of purposed “appropriation”.
More than any other 70’s outfit, it seems to me, the Rolling Stones did highlight the centrality of black music and practitioners in pop. They were known to humbly bow to the creativity of Muddy Waters, Tina Turner, Billy Preston and others. But seriously, in looking at the history of pop, I do not see it as unreasonable to say that many white folks got very wealthy, in ways that a good number of black folks didn’t, thru an organized business that used black music as its product .
Miles was quite pissed off that the white trumpet hack with the sweet, boyish voice, Chet Baker, was selected as best “trumpeter” by Downbeat in the fifties. I think Miles had a few choice words to say about appropriation here. On the other hand, less than stellar trumpet skills aside, Baker brought his own undeniable virtuosity to the genre.
We can, and should say, that the admiration of the Stones for their heroes, the music press, activism and just common sense over time has foregrounded black music in the way it should — though some rap folks still feel ripped off when it comes to the Grammies.
I heard a wonderful interview with Charlie Pride the other day. What a guy. The Nat King Cole of country music. Navigated the Grand Ole’ Opry scene quite well, but did face adversity. Still, he’s not bitter, he did very well, and he had support from good white friends. For example, Chet Atkins was listed as one of six producers on his first record. Tho Atkins didn’t actually produce, he wanted to ensure that radio stations didn’t think the record was a gag [i.e. black C & W singer, ha-ha!] and to give the recording a pedigree. The tactic worked, and Pride sold the second most records for RCA behind the appropriator extraordinaire, the cracker, Elvis.
Did Pride appropriate white C &W music? Did Nat appropriate the songs of mostly Jewish song writers? We could say “yes”, but this would reduce the word to and essentialist principle, and miss the point of the word’s use in a social context. It would just be an agit-prop game that likely would minimize the racism N K Cole faced throughout his professional life.
Appropriate, when used in political discourse, connotes using an artefact produced by someone else for one’s own profit while simultaneously sidelining the producer. This has happened routinely, haphazardly, and innocently throughout time, but it has also happened in less innocent ways. For this, you need to closely examine the context, the history and circumstances. And, yes, over time, an appropriation might dialectically turn into a mere development, a fruitful exchange or modulation in a widespread activity. Again, I believe it is necessary to step away from dualistic, essentialist thinking — the propagandist’s weapon. Look less at the act in terms of a principle and look at it more as a process. Better to say there are moments/situations of appropriation, sometimes not directed by those most identified with expressing the appropriation. [e.g.The music business in the sixties and seventies was much bigger more instrumental than the Rolling Stones.]
So, what to do about France’s half-black team? While Europe is out of its mind trying to work itself out of the migrant crisis for which it is largely responsible, you have European countries selectively accepting migrants euphemistically and conveniently called “football players.” In my view, this is all too convenient and manifests the opportunism that fits with the critical ascription of the term “appropriate”, as in France appropriated this talent. This form of poaching — a synonym for appropriate that makes the pejorative connotation tough to miss — is legion all over this capitalist world in all domains. [Here, I am echoing what Fred has pointed out above.]
To go back to our local example: dualistic thinking demands that either Lepage or the demonstrators are right or wrong. The more people stick to this narrow zero-sum game approach, the more rigid the perspectives become, the higher the stakes appear to be, the more there is to lose, the more entrenched both sides. This now becomes an excellent device for propagandists on both sides. Gregory Bateson called this social activity “symmetrical schismogenesis”, and he observed it in a diversity of contexts, surrounding countless issues. The results of an escalation were quite the same in all contexts: fights, capitulations, or switching understanding.
As I mentioned earlier, I don’t quite see Lepage’s wisdom in this situation. I see his moral point, his right to speak, but not his wisdom. He just appears to be blind to the context of his speech. Some folks take exception to how he speaks, of where he gets his material. Now this objection doesn’t come out of left field. There is a whole legacy of unacknowledged borrowing for profit that has been examined for over a century. Slavery, colonialism, forced migration, economic coercion are notions very much part of contemporary discourse and politics. For him to seemingly act as if his speech is somehow outside this context seems rather dull-witted. Just about anybody could have anticipated blowback. Why go there? What could the practical reason be? Some might say, he has no reason to be wary, because he knows how to nail the issue. Perhaps, but why be so cocky, so certain of oneself, especially when you could be accused of being the privileged white guy? Again, incredibly predictable.
It is hard for me to think that there are no actors of colour able to faithfully interpret his work –after all, many in black culture are steeped in the traditions. As a consequence, it appears petty, tone deaf, and just plain impractical to not put such people in suitable roles. Doesn’t have to be a full out capitulation. It could be a negotiation. It’s tough for me to see — it doesn’t appear to be very creative — how engaging in this manner could somehow dangerously dilute the work.
If it is a question of uniting us, then sticking to your side of the dualist, essentialist principle is going to do the reverse, whether you see yourself on the side of the worthy underdog or clearly superior spirit. This is polemical politics at its worst, and presents a field day for the most reprehensible opportunistic, adventuristic and irresponsible propagandists who, sadly, end up working for the powerful because it is from the latter that you gain the most for your mercenary work. I believe it is a more mature, thoughtful and civil position that does’t panic and can recognize the valid points on both sides. There is opportunistic appropriation and there is mutually beneficial exchange. No point reducing any situation to a single principle by which we are to be judged. Yet, undeniably, a negotiation is required. How might it fruitfully proceed?
I have no great contribution to make to this discourse, except to reiterate the reference I made to our former culture minister and his claim that he saw his job as more just insuring employment for his constituents. It irks me that were I to subscribe to cable, I would be required to have 51% of my channels Canadian, but I get it. By the same token I can see the use of ID politics as a way of ensuring employment for a given group. The zero sum game of appropriation seems a tad thick to me. Keith Richards idolized Chuck Barry and even tried to revive his career. Barry resented, even loathed Richards but tolerated him for the cash. Even the idea of authenticity in “culturally accurate casting” seems problematic. Would I cast a weaker actor to play a native person, perhaps—less “acting” involved. For a person of colour, just how much colour are we talking, Halle Berry colour, or Lupita Nyong’o colour? One of my hispanic students was troubled by Disney’s Coco. She felt she was “supposed” to be offended, but thought it innocuous enough.
I accidentally wiped out a bit of my text and had to rebuild it. The original credited you, Jess, with the idea of avoiding strict dualities — something that you mentioned in conversation last Monday. This is to say, avoiding seeing things in term of taking sides, either/or, black/white, right/wrong, etc. Real life is too complicated for this way of thinking, and from what I can see, most propaganda works hard at keeping people of the duality track [i.e. friends and enemies]. I framed your warning in terms of the operationalized duality of the zero-sum game.
Here, I repeat: it is the ideologue that frames matters like “appropriation”, “fake news”, “id politics” in dualistic zero-sum games. It is the ideologue that exploits this type of framing for political purposes. It is crucial to not fall into the trap.
Framing things in dualities is lazy thinking and analysis. It misses the complexities of real existence in order to provide caricatures of the other. In my view, you are falling into this trap in your comment.
Yup, the culture minister does keep folks employed. We should carefully debate this whole notion, but it so easily slides into caricature. “Useless arty types get fat on gov’t largesse.” “Leave it to the market. Canadian shit is just that and can work without subsidy.” On and on.
I am guessing you, tho, are ok with some support, but then the issue becomes support who? As you know only too well, institutions get calcified, fossilized even, and lose track of what or who might warrant support. And, of course, you don’t have to look hard to find artists of all kinds saying the process is politicized, while the minister lists all the various accomplishments of the department, blah-blah-blah, and the situation is again reduced to caricature.
The Chuck Berry – Keith Richards story is funny and easy to understand. Yet, leaving this way is to leave it as caricature. Whatever sensible reasons Berry had to dislike Richards and take the money, it doesn’t erase the fact that some drug-addled hippie made wads more money off something you put together than you did. And this was systematically repeated over and over again.
The way you characterize casting choices is also a caricature framed in a zero-sum game where the native, black or other self-identified outsider is always the weaker choice. Practically speaking, in relation to what is routinely accepted as acting, seriously, lots of people can fill lots of roles.
The notion of how black does the person have to be is also predicated on an inverted zero-sum game, and ignores the historical realities. In the same way that it is not the Jew who is the Jew for Gentiles, it is not the black that is the black for white people. Historically, traces of mixed race were enough to segregate people, with some working very hard to carry themselves as white, where possible, to get ahead. Mixes of race, more often than not, put folks in the “black” category of the zero-sum game. Your use of this sliding, almost digital scale of “blackness” indicates just how entrenched the zero-sum game of black and white is.
Most would feel less than offended at innocuous appropriations, and there are lots. To be offended would be to fall into caricature. But there are important instances that need clear and close examination. Some just leap out at you. Some are very concrete. From an interesting book and doc on NPR:
Generations ago, the American Indian Osage tribe was compelled to move. Not for the first time, white settlers pushed them off their land in the 1800s. They made their new home in a rocky, infertile area in northeast Oklahoma in hopes that settlers would finally leave them alone.
As it turned out, the land they had chosen was rich in oil, and in the early 20th century, members of the tribe became spectacularly wealthy. They bought cars and built mansions; they made so much oil money that the government began appointing white guardians to “help” them spend it.
And then Osage members started turning up dead.
This is literally appropriation. It happened and continues to happen. To simply say, such things are just a matter of degree, happenstance, or something raised to divide us are forms of caricature aimed at denial. We should have the maturity, patience and rigour to fully examine and evaluate.
Chandra posts:
having read Phil’s & Jesse’s posts (yet to get around to Fred’s links) my 2-bits:
1) While individual works of art can be monetized & thus seen as belonging to its producer/artist, arts/culture/language are of necessity a collective construction and are owned by no one individual, group or nation/State.
Only what belongs/owned/monetized is, can even be appropriated.
2) Cultures evolve as regionally infused weather-systems operating across all borders of all manner of sectarian divides: of races, of cultures, of nationality, of all politicizable kind of political Ids. (Ids as a descriptive tool is quite different)
First, thanks for reading what’s been posted, especially my tryingly long entries. In general sympathy with your two neatly phrased statements. Caveats:
– collective artefacts can be monetized / commodified too. [“Collective” is a singular noun as is producer.] Prime example: the pointless, random group activity, the spectacle of which has just ended, took its current ridiculously monetized form from large gangs of English village idiots kicking and punching some ball-like thing, and often each other, over large spaces for free. Appropriating not just land, but homeland from aboriginals or the Palestinians to mine or build and sell “settlements” is monetizing a collective artefact.
– Cultures, or at least elements of them, also overlap without connecting. It seems to me that there are still a few self-identified Hindus who won’t eat a self-identified Muslim’s cow, among many other similar examples. Properly appreciating what these differences amount to, and what common cultural elements the former might obscure, requires, to my mind, very close, disinterested reading of codes and interpretive frameworks in [their historical] context. So, the Hindu and Muslim might both identify in solidarity as farmers, but the cow thing can still be politicized with significant effect, depending on the state of a wider set of social circumstances.
update on Robert Lepage production, Kanata. Prior to its first presentation he did consult with several excellent reps
from the First Nations cultural community in Canada. However after the poop hit the fan over SLAV these individuals
have now been interviewed by a journalist…..
“I gave RL tons of advice, he obviously took none of it. I don’t appreciate being name-dropped” Blackfoot filmmaker Cowboy Smithx
“I don’t understand how they did not think of this. How is it that a troupe of French actors are going to portray Indigenous Americans? We’re not in the age of blackface.” Yves Siou Durand, Wendake Huron Wendat Nation, playwright, actor and author.
“What I’m interested in is the bigger picture of who gets to tell these kind of stories in Canada, I think it’s a really important time in Canada to get it right, because we’ve had so many years of our stories being told through a certain kind of lens that is not particularly our own. It has to be more than just an actor in it, it’s really getting into the deeper creative space that I’m talking about, whether we’re producing, whether we’re directing, whether we’re writing, moving beyond consultation.” Sandra Laronde, formerly, Director of Indigenous Arts at the Banff Centre for Arts and Creativity.
https://nationalpost.com/entertainment/theatre/indigenous-consultants-distance-themselves-from-robert-lepage-play-kanata-over-lack-of-native-actors
“In response to the letter, Lepage and Mnouchkine have invited the signatories to meet with them Thursday in Montreal.”
Well, it appears he may be brought there kicking and screaming somewhat, but Lepage seems to find [at least the motion towards] negotiation to be appropriate. Upon reading the article, the native “consultants” appear to be reasonable and fair in their assessment of Lepage and his work. This type of civil discourse and negotiation is an example how you can move things forward without a politicized dust-up, or to wait [and wait] for things to change “organically”.
…
The meeting between Robet Lepage and First Nations cultural reps has concluded and here are two articles from the First Nations side on what transpired and what resolutions were arrived at. It appears the two sides agreed to disagree and one wonders why Lepage even bothered to call the meeting. Did he really hope to win his critics over to his position without cutting them any slack on the issue whatsoever. If it all comes down to optics then calling the meeting signals a progressive gesture and for the polictally motivated funding agencies it reads as neatly crossing all your t’s and dotting all your i’s. It’s something that has worked well for him so far.
1, https://montrealgazette.com/entertainment/local-arts/robert-lepages-kanata-indigenous-leaders-hurt-frustrated-after-talks
2. https://montrealgazette.com/opinion/opinion-robert-lepages-kanata-and-slav-have-the-same-major-flaws
Robert Lepage’s production Kanata has been cancelled after the show’s North American co-producers pulled the plug.
https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/tcha-dunlevy-robert-lepages-kanata-cancellation-is-right-result-wrong-reason