Cultural (Mis)appropriation is the adoption of certain communities’ cultural elements such as clothing, grooming, artifacts by individuals or groups of people that are not associated with these communities in any way. These items or clothing have meaning within these cultures and communities that might not be appreciated by people outside. These items may include clothing, ornaments, artifacts, and, in some cases, rituals. Cultural misappropriations can also occur in media, such as movies, or popular culture, such as fashion.
Cultural (Mis)representation is the use of certain symbols or artifacts that conflicts with the meaning of a certain artifact. Some artifacts have a very specific meaning within certain communities, recognizing a certain kind of achievement. These symbols can represent a rite of passages, leadership, and other social achievements. Using these symbols, methods, clothing in describing something different than what they mean is cultural misrepresentation.
Cultural (Mis)representation and (Mis)appropriation has some differences. People outside the said cultures often do cultural (Mis)representation. For instance, sports teams using symbols such as eagle feathers constitute cultural misappropriation (Vowel). Cultural (Mis)representation can occur within the communities that are practicing the said culture. For instance, a certain community member is wearing a symbol of a certain kind of achievement when he/she has not fulfilled the criteria needed.
However, cultural misappropriation and misrepresentation have some similarities. In both cases, the people practicing them disregard the meaning of symbols or artifacts that they use.
Vowel means that we should acknowledge indigenous culture by wearing the artifacts accepted by everyone (Vowel). The artifacts and symbols that have special meaning should not be worn. Chelsea Vowel continues that there are specific places where authentic artifacts can be found. Wearing illegitimate native items will further damage the image of the indigenous people’s culture. By circulating more illegitimate aped items, the value of the original items gets decreased and, in this way, cheapens the very cultures it is trying to represent and celebrate(Vowel). Furthermore, the time and skills that go into making the original artifact are often lessened by the knock offs (Vowel).
Vowel goes on to state the correct way that we can celebrate indigenous cultures. This can be done by buying accepted cultural presentative, which is not restricted in any way. These artifacts should also be purchased at designated areas, operated by people who have undertaken special training to understand these artifacts’ cultural meanings and values. She goes on to state one should know the story of a particular artifact before one buys the artifact (Vowel). In this way, the culture is appreciated, and the meaning is not lost on the new bearer of the artifact.
Religion and Christianity are both English language terms and reported categories of meaning – are either helpful for scholars seeking to understand indigenous cultural traditions? Is one better than the other? What do you make of David Delgado Shorter’s suggestion to use the terms “related” and “relations” instead?
Religion and Christianity are both not helpful for scholars seeking to understand indigenous cultural traditions. Religion always makes presumptions about indigenous cultural traditions before studying them. One such presumption is that indigenous cultural traditions have a hierarchical system that compounds the idea of individual salvation. That, since all beings are somewhere in the category of beings, humans must be somewhere in the middle. This order might include more special beings such as humans, and lesser beings such as animals. When applied to the study of indigenous cultural tradition, these form of presumptions is then flawed because it legitimizes the European system of representation. This makes it difficult to verify the claims that this system brings, poking holes into this method of understanding indigenous cultural traditions. A pre, the expected outcome can not yield conclusive results. Furthermore, this way of studying indigenous cultures is flawed because it does not comprise of intellectual inquiry.
When it comes to Christianity, the use of ‘spirituality’ in describing indigenous cultural traditions is deficient. This is because, in the first place, spirituality has a wide range of meanings. For one, the term ‘spirit’ often describes non-living beings that are non-existent in the tangible world. Secondly, spiritual often illustrates one who practices Christianity often, and up to the standard required, that person is referred to as “spiritual.” Therefore, for scholars who studied indigenous cultural traditions, terms such as belief and spirituality were used to describe these cultures. These descriptions were, thus, inaccurate and, therefore, did not truly reflect these cultures. In reviewing the work of Calvin Martin, Kenneth Morrison noted that there was a continued reference to the existence of “powers,” not how people related to these powers. This prevented students from knowing how indigenous people related to humans and other beings that were not human.
Religion is a slightly better alternative in describing indigenous cultural traditions because its terms are more general and do not convey deep meaning as compared to Christianity.
What do you make of David Delgado Shorter’s suggestion to use the terms “related” and “relations” instead?
Shorter’s suggestion to make use of these terms better addresses and describes indigenous cultural traditions. Additionally, the use of these terms paints a clear picture of how indigenous people interact with their environment and non-living beings and other human beings in the circle of life. The use of this term also depicts connectivity and shared responsibility.
Do you consider Leanne Howe’s article, “The Story of America; A tribalography,” an example of re-writing/re-fighting the past? How are re-writing/re-fighting the past and ethnographic refusal similar, different, and/or related to one another?
This article no doubt influences the American past in terms of socio-political narratives. In this article, Leanne Howe ties the American government’s very basic structure to the traditional government structure of the native Indians. Stories that were passed down from generations were substantiated to having merit by scientists and geologists.
These stories were earlier thought of as being myth or folklore. For instance, the natives told stories of how a whale was trapped in a cage during flooding. Thousands of years later, geologists found the remains of a whale in the same area. The discovery of these bones substantiated the natives’ stories.
The article asserts that the natives’ leadership structures shaped the founding fathers’ policies. When there were tribal wars between the traditional societies, leaders came up with policies that ended these conflicts. The policies that informed their peace and collaborations influenced the founding of the confederacy. These policies were freedom, respect, tolerance, consensus, and brotherhood. These Haudenosaunee principles influenced the colonies to transform themselves into a union of 13 states and later on form a document. This constitution would cement that union for decades to come.
How are re-writing/re-fighting the past and ethnographic refusal similar, different, and/or related to one another?
Re-writing/re-fighting the past and ethnographic refusal are similar to one another because they trace historical inaccuracies and misrepresentations that have existed for decades. Moreover, they also influence the perceptions of traditional communities, cementing their influence in the sociopolitical environment. In addition, there was a significant weakening of native tribes in both these cases, which has enabled cultural misrepresentation and appropriations to thrive going into the 21st century.
However, they are different because ethnographic writings have a consciously implied degree of falsehoods. Re-writing/re-fighting the past aims to fill in the gaps and give credit to the influence of traditional native communities. Furthermore, in ethnographic refusal, there is a refusal to admit new information about particular communities. This information might be vital in telling these communities’ stories. Re-writing/re-fighting the past involves revealing new information about traditional native communities previously unknown or disregarded.
In conclusion, storytelling can be a powerful tool in influencing the socio political landscape of a nation. It creates culture and belief that shapes not only the structure of a community but also a nation.
Works Cited