So What's A White Boy To Do?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Then there's my dad, who is currently in the kitchen passing on our culture's traditional teachings to my son. To wit: "I don't believe in anything I can't see for myself, everything dies, the only real wealth is that what comes from the ground".

Oh, Dad.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ok, here is what I understand.
Selling or using things that are tribal or of a tribal style (whether by actual indians or others) = ok
Selling or using things with the intent of trickery = what everyone has a problem with
Sacredness is a secondary (though seemingly important) component of it, which seems to muddle things.


As far as the OP goes, I've never really been in any kind of culture (to my knowledge). So never had anything to get away from.

The sacredness thing was kind of a side note... to say that not only are the fake, exploitative money-grubbing "shamans" doing something that's bullshit and defrauding people in the process, but that even if someone wanted to buy something sacred, they couldn't because the buying part makes it not sacred.

Addendum: Even things that aren't necessarily sacred get approprated.

Buying a Navaho bracelet made by a Navajo trying to make a living = ok
Buying a Franklin Mint plate with a picture of a "Native American" woman with caucasian features in a buckskin miniskirt with a three wolf moon = not ok and DERP.

All kinds of DERP, yes. 

[Sita]

Guess I don't fully understand culture then. Which doesn't surprise me.
How do I find out what culture I'm part of?

Honest question, because I really am quite naive about such things.

What culture is your family part of? Who do you hang out with, where do you live? Your culture is that which you are immersed in. It's invisible to you because it's the default, it's your normal.

A polygamous Mormon living in a Mormon township surrounded by other Mormons doesn't see their surroundings and behaviors as "culture", they see them as "normal". Likewise an Irish Catholic in Boston.

Guess that's part of my problem then.
My family (meaning my parents and I) have pretty much always done our own thing. Parents never had friends over, we didn't do parties or anything like that.
I've been pretty much a loner since I was 12. Never really hanging out with people beyond school. As an adult I have no friends that aren't online, think I might've mentioned that before, and I stay inside all day.

So what culture do I have? A computer one?

[AFK]

You know, I thought I had an understanding of this finally but now I'm all confused again.
Is something being sacred a personal thing or does an object have an inherent sacredness? Think that's the root of my confusion.

It depends.

But the problem I'm having with this conversation is that a whole bunch of people are caught up on the THINGS, when what I'm talking about is the INTENT. That's in the people, not the things.

And anyone who thinks there isn't a significant contingent of white boys (and girls) who buy indian drums because they want to buy into tribal identity has apparently never met one of the people we are so affectionately referring to here as "Cherohonkeys". Who, actually, are in some sense the people this thread is about, because they are the type of disenfranchised people I'm asking about.

There are layers and layers of racism at play in the word "Cherohonkey" itself, and at some point I'd love to discuss blood-quantum law and how horrific and backward it is. But first it might be nice to clear up the distinction between the objects and the people. RWHN doesn't seem to get that just because an object is the same in every material way as one used for sacred purposes, it doesn't make it a sacred object. Does anyone else have that issue? Can we yalk about it and maybe clarify it a little?

I get it fine but it's a moot point once the objects are purposefully being sold to people outside of the culture.  At that point, yeah, clearly the objects aren't meant for their sacred intent, at which point, it shouldn't matter what the intent of the buyer is, because at that point, it's just a commercial good like any other commercial good.

[AFK]

Another way to think about it.  I buy a Tibetan singing bowl, but I use it not to,play traditional Tibetan music.  I use them in some experimental electronic music, which clearly is not the sacred intent, so am I insulting the culture and misappropriating?  I would say no because I feel that I would be honoring the culture by wishing to incorporate something from the culture I respect and have admiration for in my own spiritual expression through my music. 


Now, maybe if I was using them to cook soup there could be a valid complaint.

No, but if the person who sold it to you was selling it as a traditional sacred object blessed by whatever holy person, with inherent sacredness in the object, and you believed that and started calling yourself a Tibetan shaman, and then stared doing faith healings on your friends with that bowl, claiming that it gave you authentic Tibetan healing powers and that you had been adopted into the Tibetan tribe, it would be appropriate to call that a misrepresentation and a misappropriation.

That kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME with Native American objects and culture. It's created a very real problem, too, which ties back into the "Cherohonkey" thing, which is that it has engendered a really unfortunate suspiciousness and hostility in a lot of Native communities toward "outsiders", and that, in my opinion, really hurts the community's ability to allow the descendants of lost children to re-assimilate and bring their skillsets back to the community. Not even to start talking about the blood quantum issues, which are fundamentally racist and genocidal.

Then why are they selling it to outsiders in the first place?  They can't have a realistic expectation that every person from outside the culture who buys one of these items is going to 100% treat it with the exact respect and manner for which it was intended.  Clearly, theintentof the seller is to supply a demand for cultural artifacts and to make money for the culture in question.  At that point, the culture/seller kind of loses control over what happens. So if it is that much of an issue or concern, they need to find a different way to make money.


Now,that obviously doesn't speak to the people outside of the culture who make and sell forgeries, replicas, etc., But that's a different issue.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Another way to think about it.  I buy a Tibetan singing bowl, but I use it not to,play traditional Tibetan music.  I use them in some experimental electronic music, which clearly is not the sacred intent, so am I insulting the culture and misappropriating?  I would say no because I feel that I would be honoring the culture by wishing to incorporate something from the culture I respect and have admiration for in my own spiritual expression through my music. 


Now, maybe if I was using them to cook soup there could be a valid complaint.

No, but if the person who sold it to you was selling it as a traditional sacred object blessed by whatever holy person, with inherent sacredness in the object, and you believed that and started calling yourself a Tibetan shaman, and then stared doing faith healings on your friends with that bowl, claiming that it gave you authentic Tibetan healing powers and that you had been adopted into the Tibetan tribe, it would be appropriate to call that a misrepresentation and a misappropriation.

That kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME with Native American objects and culture. It's created a very real problem, too, which ties back into the "Cherohonkey" thing, which is that it has engendered a really unfortunate suspiciousness and hostility in a lot of Native communities toward "outsiders", and that, in my opinion, really hurts the community's ability to allow the descendants of lost children to re-assimilate and bring their skillsets back to the community. Not even to start talking about the blood quantum issues, which are fundamentally racist and genocidal.

Then why are they selling it to outsiders in the first place?  They can't have a realistic expectation that every person from outside the culture who buys one of these items is going to 100% treat it with the exact respect and manner for which it was intended.  Clearly, theintentof the seller is to supply a demand for cultural artifacts and to make money for the culture in question.  At that point, the culture/seller kind of loses control over what happens. So if it is that much of an issue or concern, they need to find a different way to make money.


Now,that obviously doesn't speak to the people outside of the culture who make and sell forgeries, replicas, etc., But that's a different issue.

Yes, and poor people who live in ghettos should just snap out of it.

I don't know, if you knew how to make things and you knew people wanted to buy them, and you didn't have a lot of options in terms of feeding your family, what would you do?

I can't help having the feeling that you are wilfully missing the point, because I've restated the same thing in a number of different ways and you're still hung up on the idea that Native Americans have a problem with the selling of THINGS, or the use of THINGS, rather than a problem with the misrepresentation of their religious practice as something that is for sale.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

You know, I thought I had an understanding of this finally but now I'm all confused again.
Is something being sacred a personal thing or does an object have an inherent sacredness? Think that's the root of my confusion.

It depends.

But the problem I'm having with this conversation is that a whole bunch of people are caught up on the THINGS, when what I'm talking about is the INTENT. That's in the people, not the things.

And anyone who thinks there isn't a significant contingent of white boys (and girls) who buy indian drums because they want to buy into tribal identity has apparently never met one of the people we are so affectionately referring to here as "Cherohonkeys". Who, actually, are in some sense the people this thread is about, because they are the type of disenfranchised people I'm asking about.

There are layers and layers of racism at play in the word "Cherohonkey" itself, and at some point I'd love to discuss blood-quantum law and how horrific and backward it is. But first it might be nice to clear up the distinction between the objects and the people. RWHN doesn't seem to get that just because an object is the same in every material way as one used for sacred purposes, it doesn't make it a sacred object. Does anyone else have that issue? Can we yalk about it and maybe clarify it a little?

I get it fine but it's a moot point once the objects are purposefully being sold to people outside of the culture.  At that point, yeah, clearly the objects aren't meant for their sacred intent, at which point, it shouldn't matter what the intent of the buyer is, because at that point, it's just a commercial good like any other commercial good.

Why are you still hung up on the completely erroneous notion that the area of contention is the intent of the buyer, when I have repeatedly stated that it isn't?

[AFK]

Another way to think about it.  I buy a Tibetan singing bowl, but I use it not to,play traditional Tibetan music.  I use them in some experimental electronic music, which clearly is not the sacred intent, so am I insulting the culture and misappropriating?  I would say no because I feel that I would be honoring the culture by wishing to incorporate something from the culture I respect and have admiration for in my own spiritual expression through my music. 


Now, maybe if I was using them to cook soup there could be a valid complaint.

No, but if the person who sold it to you was selling it as a traditional sacred object blessed by whatever holy person, with inherent sacredness in the object, and you believed that and started calling yourself a Tibetan shaman, and then stared doing faith healings on your friends with that bowl, claiming that it gave you authentic Tibetan healing powers and that you had been adopted into the Tibetan tribe, it would be appropriate to call that a misrepresentation and a misappropriation.

That kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME with Native American objects and culture. It's created a very real problem, too, which ties back into the "Cherohonkey" thing, which is that it has engendered a really unfortunate suspiciousness and hostility in a lot of Native communities toward "outsiders", and that, in my opinion, really hurts the community's ability to allow the descendants of lost children to re-assimilate and bring their skillsets back to the community. Not even to start talking about the blood quantum issues, which are fundamentally racist and genocidal.

Then why are they selling it to outsiders in the first place?  They can't have a realistic expectation that every person from outside the culture who buys one of these items is going to 100% treat it with the exact respect and manner for which it was intended.  Clearly, theintentof the seller is to supply a demand for cultural artifacts and to make money for the culture in question.  At that point, the culture/seller kind of loses control over what happens. So if it is that much of an issue or concern, they need to find a different way to make money.


Now,that obviously doesn't speak to the people outside of the culture who make and sell forgeries, replicas, etc., But that's a different issue.

Yes, and poor people who live in ghettos should just snap out of it.

I don't know, if you knew how to make things and you knew people wanted to buy them, and you didn't have a lot of options in terms of feeding your family, what would you do?

I can't help having the feeling that you are wilfully missing the point, because I've restated the same thing in a number of different ways and you're still hung up on the idea that Native Americans have a problem with the selling of THINGS, or the use of THINGS, rather than a problem with the misrepresentation of their religious practice as something that is for sale.

No, but what I'm telling you is that there cannot be a reasonable expectation for that to be controlled once the items are sold.  Yeah, it sucks that some white guys are buying your shit and acting like morons pretending to be Shamans, but that's gonna happen if you give idiots the ability to buy your shit. 


However, I tend to think the majority of people who buy cultural items tend to treat them pretty respectfully and buy themout of a sincere interest and respect for the culture.  But there is fuck all you can do about the morons other than to stop selling your stuff all together.

[AFK]

You know, I thought I had an understanding of this finally but now I'm all confused again.
Is something being sacred a personal thing or does an object have an inherent sacredness? Think that's the root of my confusion.

It depends.

But the problem I'm having with this conversation is that a whole bunch of people are caught up on the THINGS, when what I'm talking about is the INTENT. That's in the people, not the things.

And anyone who thinks there isn't a significant contingent of white boys (and girls) who buy indian drums because they want to buy into tribal identity has apparently never met one of the people we are so affectionately referring to here as "Cherohonkeys". Who, actually, are in some sense the people this thread is about, because they are the type of disenfranchised people I'm asking about.

There are layers and layers of racism at play in the word "Cherohonkey" itself, and at some point I'd love to discuss blood-quantum law and how horrific and backward it is. But first it might be nice to clear up the distinction between the objects and the people. RWHN doesn't seem to get that just because an object is the same in every material way as one used for sacred purposes, it doesn't make it a sacred object. Does anyone else have that issue? Can we yalk about it and maybe clarify it a little?

I get it fine but it's a moot point once the objects are purposefully being sold to people outside of the culture.  At that point, yeah, clearly the objects aren't meant for their sacred intent, at which point, it shouldn't matter what the intent of the buyer is, because at that point, it's just a commercial good like any other commercial good.

Why are you still hung up on the completely erroneous notion that the area of contention is the intent of the buyer, when I have repeatedly stated that it isn't?

Because you keep talking about it, the misappropriation, that would be the buyer doing the misappropriating, yes?    I mean, that's the crux of it otherwise there wouldn't be a problem to discuss.

[Juana]

Although the difficulty of this conversation is certainly reinforcing my insight into the general frustration of the indian community I know with why the hell white people don't get what they're irritated about. I feel like there might be a more or less insurmountable cultural barrier there.

No, I won't speak for ECH, but I think our understanding is pretty clear, we just don't happen to agree with the objection.  My thing is, if the culture is purposefully and willingly selling the sacred objects or symbols, you can hardly be mad at the white guy for buying them.  The NA wanted the white guy to buy it and the white guy did.  A transaction between two consenting cultures, if you will.  Perhaps the beef should be tak en up with the members of the NA culture putting the stuff up for sale to begin with.

It's not the culture selling the items, it's outsiders. As Nigel has said, Natives DO sell items that *look* like their sacred stuff, but they'll never tell you that the item you're buying is a sacred Kachina doll. You're buying a doll that *looks* like one. It's not sold with the same intent.

Another way to think about it.  I buy a Tibetan singing bowl, but I use it not to,play traditional Tibetan music.  I use them in some experimental electronic music, which clearly is not the sacred intent, so am I insulting the culture and misappropriating?  I would say no because I feel that I would be honoring the culture by wishing to incorporate something from the culture I respect and have admiration for in my own spiritual expression through my music. 


Now, maybe if I was using them to cook soup there could be a valid complaint.

No, but if the person who sold it to you was selling it as a traditional sacred object blessed by whatever holy person, with inherent sacredness in the object, and you believed that and started calling yourself a Tibetan shaman, and then stared doing faith healings on your friends with that bowl, claiming that it gave you authentic Tibetan healing powers and that you had been adopted into the Tibetan tribe, it would be appropriate to call that a misrepresentation and a misappropriation.

That kind of shit happens ALL THE TIME with Native American objects and culture. It's created a very real problem, too, which ties back into the "Cherohonkey" thing, which is that it has engendered a really unfortunate suspiciousness and hostility in a lot of Native communities toward "outsiders", and that, in my opinion, really hurts the community's ability to allow the descendants of lost children to re-assimilate and bring their skillsets back to the community. Not even to start talking about the blood quantum issues, which are fundamentally racist and genocidal.

Then why are they selling it to outsiders in the first place?  They can't have a realistic expectation that every person from outside the culture who buys one of these items is going to 100% treat it with the exact respect and manner for which it was intended.  Clearly, theintentof the seller is to supply a demand for cultural artifacts and to make money for the culture in question.  At that point, the culture/seller kind of loses control over what happens. So if it is that much of an issue or concern, they need to find a different way to make money.


Now,that obviously doesn't speak to the people outside of the culture who make and sell forgeries, replicas, etc., But that's a different issue.

Yes, and poor people who live in ghettos should just snap out of it.

I don't know, if you knew how to make things and you knew people wanted to buy them, and you didn't have a lot of options in terms of feeding your family, what would you do?

I can't help having the feeling that you are wilfully missing the point, because I've restated the same thing in a number of different ways and you're still hung up on the idea that Native Americans have a problem with the selling of THINGS, or the use of THINGS, rather than a problem with the misrepresentation of their religious practice as something that is for sale.

No, but what I'm telling you is that there cannot be a reasonable expectation for that to be controlled once the items are sold.  Yeah, it sucks that some white guys are buying your shit and acting like morons pretending to be Shamans, but that's gonna happen if you give idiots the ability to buy your shit. 


However, I tend to think the majority of people who buy cultural items tend to treat them pretty respectfully and buy themout of a sincere interest and respect for the culture.  But there is fuck all you can do about the morons other than to stop selling your stuff all together.

you do realize our culture still depends on oppressing and marginalizing these people, right? Or portraying them in ways we want to see them?

[AFK]

Whether that's true or not, my point still stands, once you put something into the market, you cannot have any reasonable expectation to be able to control how it is used.  And you are kidding yourself if you think only outsiders are sellong these cultural items, they are not.  Plenty of NA tribes willingly andpurposefully sell their stuff to outsiders to make money.  It's like any other culture in any other part of the world selling traditional items to rich tourists.  Once you put it out there, it's out there.

[Juana]

Yes, but they aren't selling them as sacred objects. It's a drum or a doll or a pipe. It's not a sacred drum, a Kachina doll, or a sacred pipe.

[AFK]

Doesn't matter.  Once it's on the market, it's no longer up to you, or your culture, how the items are used.  Seller beware.  That's how the marketplace works, and there is fuck all that can be done about it, other, than to not sell the stuff in the first place.

[Juana]

You still have white people selling Native stuff as "sacred", either willfully because they want money, or thinking that if it *looks* like a sacred drum, it must be a sacred drum. I would hazard a guess that white people are the ones selling most of the stuff, tbh.

[Dildo Argentino]

I think this thread has become less about "cultural misappropriation" (whatever that may actually be) and more about "I wish idiots would stop being idiots and assholes would stop being assholes". Which, obviously, ain't gonna happen.

I think the basic issue is that some people, like me and possibly you, are of the opinion that "cultural misappropriation", while looking like a concept to the casual observer, is actually an academic cash-cow dressed up to look like a concept, while others take it seriously because they are... naive.

The specific situations in which someone holds a grudge against someone else for selling something that they think they shouldn't be selling are various and when cultural artifacts are involved, there is usually also a power inequality involved. What it boils down to is that someone who feels they are entitled to represent one culture, which is the underdog culture that was often rather unfairly pressed into that situation, takes offence at people (whether of the same culture or of the dominant culture) commercialising their culture. "We are reduced to this". They say. "They took our land (and raped it) and our way of life (and offered something that seems... somehow less satisfying) and our children (and shaped them in their own image), and now they wish us to make them trinkets that are superficially similar to the ones we used to make, and we comply, because we can't think of a better way to make money, ultimately to stay alive. Largely, of course, because in addition to the underprivilege that results from our blighted history, they are still treating us, the remnants, the descendants, like dirt."

And that's sad enough. But it's not sad because of the "cultural misappropriation" thing that people have doubtless got social sciences research grants to investigate.