I'm mixed race British and Asian, and I have been confused by some of the recent controversies in cinema and other arts, over 'cultural appropriation'. One of the sci-fi news blogs I read regularly blasts things for this and displays outrage (although io9 is hyperbole central) - Ghost in the Shell met with a considerable degree of ridicule - but the Japanese anime shows that I love freely appropriate elements of European fantasy, among other things, and I have never encountered a person who saw this as a negative thing - I certainly don't. This thread is both a serious question - I ask people to provide their understanding of the term - but also I offer a perspective on why I feel Ghost in the Shell is not insensitive.
When I look at the definition of cultural appropriation, it seems to be aimed at protecting cultures from colonialism, which is a worthy intention. But all cultures have always freely appropriated new ideas, arts, cuisine, etc, from others. Additionally, they have always adapted drama via whoever was available - Shakespeare is performed by Japanese actors in Japan, despite being set in Elizabethan England. Growing up I had the simplistic view that colonialism was wrong because it involved one ethnicity ruling a foreign one, but actually, why would the color of a person's skin matter, when colonial conquerors often simply replaced earlier equally as oppressive ones? It's not that colonialism was bad because it was white, it's bad because it was undemocratic, exploitative and violent - it's whiteness was incidental, since Manchus and Mughals were often just as avaricious and exploitative as Portuguese and French, as far as I can tell.
One of my interests is history, and specific favorite areas that I read more on, are European, South Asian and East Asian history. It may surprise some people that the chili pepper did not arrive in India, until the Portuguese brought it from the New World after Columbus's voyage in the 1490s - yet the hot curry is seen as a quintessential symbol of Indian culture (likewise the tomato arrived from the new world and wasn't present in Italian cuisine). The Buddha is usually depicted as an East Asian in East Asia, or rather just a non-specific general appearance, rather than appearing Indian/Nepali, just as Christ's appearance differs depending on geography All mythological beings are adapted to the culture they are in - the ancient Ethiopian church depicts Jesus as an Ethiopian. Things we think of as European, Middle Eastern, Indian or Chinese are often from one or more of the others, although often perfected into a new form in the adoptive culture, that becomes 'native' because it is so integral. An idea isn't owned by a culture - coffee isn't 'Islamic' because it happened to be cultivated in the Middle East.
Is Scarlett Johansen playing The Major in Ghost in the Shell really a big deal, when it is after all an authorized western adaptation, of a work inspired by both European and Japanese philosophers, incorporating themes in which the consciousness is individual but universal, in which a future Japan is very multiracial? I would hate to live in a world in which a person couldn't feel universal ownership of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle because they were not Greek, or Confucious, Laozi and Mohzi because they were not Chinese. Yet isn't that at the heart of say ISIS's extremism, or the KKK's - a refusal to admit any good comes out of anything but their parochial sense of identity?
The Tibetan Epic of King Gesar is thought to be a corruption of legends surrounding 'King' Julius Caesar (Gesar being cognate with German Kaiser, Russian Tsar, Arabic Qaysar, etc), just as the Middle East has many legends surrounding Iskander/Sikander aka Alexander the Great, and the Buddha was accidentally canonized in Europe as a Catholic saint due to the tale of Barlaam and Josephat. More recently, Levi Jeans, a type of 'ethnic dress' specific to Americans, has been appropriated by us lot in the Old World. Gandhi corresponded with Tolstoy, Dr King was influenced by Gandhi. The Rolling Stones and Beatles owe their roots to black music, brown music, and white folk music. Shopenhauer and others were influenced by Asian thought. At what point does something become cultural appropriation? Many of these things took place without authorization or context, yet are beautiful exchanges. Avatar the Last Airbender is a fantastic series - some of the people who worked on it are American Asians - are American Asians forbidden from appropriating elements of mainland Asian culture, since they have been living on another continent with different social ideas?
When I was younger I had a sense that sometimes people used and combined elements of Asian culture without due reverence for the origin or meaning - but the more I read the more I find myself perfectly okay with cultural borrowings - there is no magic line in the middle of the Ural mountains separating Asia and Europe, or in Sinai separating Asia and Africa. Furthermore, reason and science are the universal levelers that can be understood and used by people of any background to understand our shared natural universe.
When a Canadian university bans yoga because it's cultural appropriation, even though a fair number of yogic philosophers would argue it's a universalistic practice, who are they appealing to as their source of authorization? I certainly don't feel outraged that many forms of yoga practiced by hundreds of millions of westerners are devoid of their original philosophy; its a wonderful thing. Or when mindfulness is used by scientists devoid of any metaphysical assumptions, as a treatment for anxiety. I feel as the Buddha "take whatever parts of my teaching you want, and discard what doesn't work for you".
This is quite separate from the issue of discriminatory casting in cinema and TV - see this video by Chloe Bennet, formerly known as Chloe Wang from Agents of SHIELD for an idea of the issues Asians face in Hollywood. If one was to argue that Ghost in the Shell suffered from a Hollywood that does not believe an Asian female lead can be an appealing choice for American audiences, I can certainly agree that something should be done about that - but the message I take from that separate problem isn't that it's wrong to cast Johanssen - but rather that African, Asian and European actors should have been considered equally for the roll, assuming they were not.
I am really glad that Star Trek: Discovery has two amazing Asian woman - Rekha Sharma and Michelle Yeoh in prominent positions, as Security Chief of the USS Discovery and Captain of the USS Shenzhou. It's awesome to see the diversity of humanity and alien life represented working in unison in the Federation, without special comment or novelty, as just a fact of life. For me Star Trek always had it right - ethnicity simply should not matter in future, because it is a social construct, and enlightenment humanism entails that we do away with things that don't serve a rational purpose, but only distract us from collective peace, prosperity and our individual rights - paying undue reverence to people's prejudices and religious dogmas is not the answer, in my opinion, but enfranchisement of different people through TV, film and games is great.
If you feel that I am missing the point of the term I would be very interested to hear another perspective.
When I look at the definition of cultural appropriation, it seems to be aimed at protecting cultures from colonialism, which is a worthy intention. But all cultures have always freely appropriated new ideas, arts, cuisine, etc, from others. Additionally, they have always adapted drama via whoever was available - Shakespeare is performed by Japanese actors in Japan, despite being set in Elizabethan England. Growing up I had the simplistic view that colonialism was wrong because it involved one ethnicity ruling a foreign one, but actually, why would the color of a person's skin matter, when colonial conquerors often simply replaced earlier equally as oppressive ones? It's not that colonialism was bad because it was white, it's bad because it was undemocratic, exploitative and violent - it's whiteness was incidental, since Manchus and Mughals were often just as avaricious and exploitative as Portuguese and French, as far as I can tell.
One of my interests is history, and specific favorite areas that I read more on, are European, South Asian and East Asian history. It may surprise some people that the chili pepper did not arrive in India, until the Portuguese brought it from the New World after Columbus's voyage in the 1490s - yet the hot curry is seen as a quintessential symbol of Indian culture (likewise the tomato arrived from the new world and wasn't present in Italian cuisine). The Buddha is usually depicted as an East Asian in East Asia, or rather just a non-specific general appearance, rather than appearing Indian/Nepali, just as Christ's appearance differs depending on geography All mythological beings are adapted to the culture they are in - the ancient Ethiopian church depicts Jesus as an Ethiopian. Things we think of as European, Middle Eastern, Indian or Chinese are often from one or more of the others, although often perfected into a new form in the adoptive culture, that becomes 'native' because it is so integral. An idea isn't owned by a culture - coffee isn't 'Islamic' because it happened to be cultivated in the Middle East.
Is Scarlett Johansen playing The Major in Ghost in the Shell really a big deal, when it is after all an authorized western adaptation, of a work inspired by both European and Japanese philosophers, incorporating themes in which the consciousness is individual but universal, in which a future Japan is very multiracial? I would hate to live in a world in which a person couldn't feel universal ownership of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle because they were not Greek, or Confucious, Laozi and Mohzi because they were not Chinese. Yet isn't that at the heart of say ISIS's extremism, or the KKK's - a refusal to admit any good comes out of anything but their parochial sense of identity?
The Tibetan Epic of King Gesar is thought to be a corruption of legends surrounding 'King' Julius Caesar (Gesar being cognate with German Kaiser, Russian Tsar, Arabic Qaysar, etc), just as the Middle East has many legends surrounding Iskander/Sikander aka Alexander the Great, and the Buddha was accidentally canonized in Europe as a Catholic saint due to the tale of Barlaam and Josephat. More recently, Levi Jeans, a type of 'ethnic dress' specific to Americans, has been appropriated by us lot in the Old World. Gandhi corresponded with Tolstoy, Dr King was influenced by Gandhi. The Rolling Stones and Beatles owe their roots to black music, brown music, and white folk music. Shopenhauer and others were influenced by Asian thought. At what point does something become cultural appropriation? Many of these things took place without authorization or context, yet are beautiful exchanges. Avatar the Last Airbender is a fantastic series - some of the people who worked on it are American Asians - are American Asians forbidden from appropriating elements of mainland Asian culture, since they have been living on another continent with different social ideas?
When I was younger I had a sense that sometimes people used and combined elements of Asian culture without due reverence for the origin or meaning - but the more I read the more I find myself perfectly okay with cultural borrowings - there is no magic line in the middle of the Ural mountains separating Asia and Europe, or in Sinai separating Asia and Africa. Furthermore, reason and science are the universal levelers that can be understood and used by people of any background to understand our shared natural universe.
“Taking intellectual property, traditional knowledge, cultural expressions, or artifacts from someone else's culture without permission. This can include unauthorized use of another culture's dance, dress, music, language, folklore, cuisine, traditional medicine, religious symbols, etc."
When a Canadian university bans yoga because it's cultural appropriation, even though a fair number of yogic philosophers would argue it's a universalistic practice, who are they appealing to as their source of authorization? I certainly don't feel outraged that many forms of yoga practiced by hundreds of millions of westerners are devoid of their original philosophy; its a wonderful thing. Or when mindfulness is used by scientists devoid of any metaphysical assumptions, as a treatment for anxiety. I feel as the Buddha "take whatever parts of my teaching you want, and discard what doesn't work for you".
This is quite separate from the issue of discriminatory casting in cinema and TV - see this video by Chloe Bennet, formerly known as Chloe Wang from Agents of SHIELD for an idea of the issues Asians face in Hollywood. If one was to argue that Ghost in the Shell suffered from a Hollywood that does not believe an Asian female lead can be an appealing choice for American audiences, I can certainly agree that something should be done about that - but the message I take from that separate problem isn't that it's wrong to cast Johanssen - but rather that African, Asian and European actors should have been considered equally for the roll, assuming they were not.
I am really glad that Star Trek: Discovery has two amazing Asian woman - Rekha Sharma and Michelle Yeoh in prominent positions, as Security Chief of the USS Discovery and Captain of the USS Shenzhou. It's awesome to see the diversity of humanity and alien life represented working in unison in the Federation, without special comment or novelty, as just a fact of life. For me Star Trek always had it right - ethnicity simply should not matter in future, because it is a social construct, and enlightenment humanism entails that we do away with things that don't serve a rational purpose, but only distract us from collective peace, prosperity and our individual rights - paying undue reverence to people's prejudices and religious dogmas is not the answer, in my opinion, but enfranchisement of different people through TV, film and games is great.
If you feel that I am missing the point of the term I would be very interested to hear another perspective.
