THE IN-APPROPRIATE | by T. Taitt

I do not know my last name.

After listening to Jesse Wente speak with such emotion on Monday morning on CBC, I log on to Facebook to find two prevailing reactions, coming almost entirely by Caucasian people. They are posting things like “Wow”, “a must-listen” and “In tears right now”. While I find it heartening that people are touched and want others to hear his words and raw emotion, I can't help but be struck by the fact that people are so taken aback by it. I wonder – are we so removed from Indigenous pain that one's expressing of it could be so rattling? I ponder to myself why it would surprise anyone that he would openly shed tears.  Indigenous people and people of colour wear that hurt everyday; the burden of keeping it under lock and key is great.

Many of us in North America carry the weight of cultural appropriation. We must acknowledge as well that there is a relationship between First Nations and the concept of appropriation, coupled with that of cultural erasure, that is specific to their experience as the original inhabitors of the land we now all live on.

In the wake of the recent travesty in which writer Hal Niedzviecki expressed a lack of belief in cultural appropriation in an issue of Write magazine devoted to Indigenous authors – and then a lack of basic humanity by calling for the creation of an Appropriation Award – cultural appropriation has once again shot to the fore of public consciousness. It is a challenging topic to discuss, primarily because there are such wildly varying opinions as to what it is. Everyone seems to have a different metric. I could sit down with another black Canadian woman and hammer out a definition that we mutually agree on. Then, a week from now, a story of purported appropriation could hit the news on which we disagree. While we can concur on a “definition” of the term, we might find ourselves at odds as to which cases fulfill that definition and which do not.

I am only one person; I certainly cannot offer any kind of final answer as to what cultural appropriation is. Nor do I wish to speak for any one else in any way.  I write to speak solely for myself, contributing to the discourse, expressing what the concept means to me personally. I will say things with which people ardently disagree, I am sure. That is okay.

Just thinking about all of the things I want to say is exhausting me. The quote in the image at the top of this piece, from Beloved by Toni Morrison, is swirling around my brain.  It is such sad truth.  Those whose cultures have been appropriated are redefined by that appropriation, as are the cultures of those who do the taking.  Both redefinitions, however, are on the appropriator's terms.  

Back to Facebook.

Mr. Wente has finished his interview, and I'm scrolling. The second reaction I encounter is indignation -- people choosing not to take in his words or listen to the interview on the suggestion of others, but instead to dig in their heels and reiterate why cultural appropriation is not a real thing. I skim through posts by strangers (friends of friends) all white and about 70% male -- dismissive diatribes about the attack on free speech.  I see "Cultural appropriation is a lot of nonsense" on a friend's page and immediately understand that this is a person with a complete lack of regard for the legitimate experience of the cultural theft of the Indigenous population and people of colour on a daily basis. There is not even a feigned attempt at comprehension; instead, attempts to make powerful points with tired rhetoric and commentary baffling in its irrelevance. I am tempted several times to respond, but know it would be moot. These are people who have not only drunk the Kool-Aid, but are drunk on it. Nothing will change their minds. They have not come online to have a conversation. They have come online to assert a point-of-view that dismisses the feelings of entire races of people as frivolous and unsubstantiated.

I feel rage followed by sadness followed by rage.

There is great value in honesty. I would prefer the people spewing these views be honest about them, rather than lying publicly while privately applying their true feelings to the way they live their lives. Each of us must own our personal stances, provided that we are taking into account the dignity of others when doing so.  If our stances are ignorant, close-minded or myopic – it is time for re-assessment. As I continue skimming, the long and short of it from these people is that this is just another manufactured entity by PC culture to stifle freedom of expression.

So let's be very clear – that is NOT what cultural appropriation is.

It is not whining, it is not inventing something to complain about.  Do I think that every single allegation of appropriation is founded?  No, I don't.  Just like I don't think that every single charge of racism or sexism is either.  But to deny its existence is like saying that rape isn't a real thing because 3% of accusations are false.  Cultural appropriation is VERY real, and rampant, and all too often dismissed by those who eschew it for the sole purpose of not having to follow rules that would mandate showing basic human decency towards groups of people unlike them.

Cultural appreciation is what I experience every day of my life as a Torontonian. I cherish it.

I cherish the fact that I have friends of every shade whose cultures I continue to learn from and about. I cherish the fact that I am inspired as a creator by art from all parts of the globe. I cherish the fact that I can step out of my apartment and within minutes be eating food from the Middle East, Thailand, Italy, Mexico, Ethiopia, India or Greece. That is the most beautiful thing about living in the most multicultural city on the planet and a big part of why I have no desire to ever leave. I live in the City of Everyone; such a blessing it is to wake up everyday so completely surrounded by a smorgasbord of cultures.  When I eat latkes, I am aware that I am enjoying the food of another ethnicity, not purporting to have increased understanding of the Jewish lived experience.  If I cook tandoori chicken, I do not then come online and promote “Tanisha's Tandoori”, in an attempt to boldly put on display part of another culture as if it somehow belongs to me.

Now if appropriation was my jam, I'd be hawking Tan's Tandoori on Facebook for $19.99.

Playing Japanese, Native American and Mexican for Halloween

There have been countless arguments over the last few years about what constitutes cultural appropriation, and just as many examples cited. One of the most prevalent criticisms is of the wearing of cultural clothing as costumes for Hallowe'en or other festivities. The recent headline about some costumes for this year's Caribana parade being inspired by Indigenous clothing – but “sexified” – is a perfect example of adopting something of great importance to another culture as temporary amusement. Dressing as a specific character who happens to be from another culture is one thing (assuming that the character itself is not a gross stereotype); dressing as just an "Arab" or a Native "Indian” is quite another. The latter suggests that the culture itself is the costume.

It is NOT. It is an identity. A history. A life. THAT is what cultural appropriation treads upon.

I would personally define it this way:

The use of an aspect of a historically oppressed culture – outside of its traditional context and without consultation, accreditation, or contemplation of its social, political or spiritual significance within that culture.

Sometime this use of another's culture is for financial enrichment.   Black culture -- music, sport, fashion, food -- is big business.  Sometimes the appropriation is for mindless fun. But it is almost always flippant, done effortlessly and without insight or intellectual curiosity as to its impact. Harsh allegations of cultural appropriation have centered around yoga in North American society. Another criticism is of the wearing of dreadlocks by Caucasians. Time and time again I have heard the statement made that neither of these things should be happening.  (Although there are some white cultures in which dreads have been worn, it is far more likely that young people wearing them today are copying the Rastafarian religion rather than ancient Nordic culture.)

I cannot abide blanket "Shouldn't do that" statements without knowledge of the alleged offender.  It is a gross oversimplification without circumstantial consideration.  One of my closest sister-friends is a Caucasian woman of South African parentage, who is a yoga instructor and has studied African drumming for two decades.  Her reverence for the origins of both of these practices is like nothing I have witnessed, and her hands on the djembe are a spiritual experience.  The fact is that every purported case of cultural appropriation must be looked at individually, because the people behind the actions are individuals.  One white person might reduce yoga to nothing more than kool poses and Lululemon. Another might study with teachers from the originating cultures, painstakingly acquiring the full realm of knowledge.  I cannot simply cast my eyes on a white person and know who is whom by the colour of their skin.

What I CAN and do know is how black and white women are treated differently when they each practice black culture – responses that are often positive for white women are often punitive for black women. I remember being a child when the film “10” came out.  I watched Bo Derek run on the beach in slow motion with cornrows in her head, while white people everywhere went crazy over “French braids”. This was the same hair that I'd not only seen Trinidadians and others of Caribbean descent wearing my whole life, but the same hair that I had on numerous occasions seen white kids make fun of. Until Bo Derek. Then cornrow became legitimate. And, apparently, French.

Facebook. “Well black women straighten their hair – why can't I wear dreads or an afro?”

The tremendous naivete as to the reality of racism directed at black women in our society apparent in this question is overwhelming. Black women sporting afros – or their hair in its natural kinky texture in any style – have been told for decades upon decades that our hair was “inappropriate” was for a professional setting. In order to be hired, we had to mimic white culture and have the same straight hair texture and similar styles to our white female counterparts. This still happens today in both workplaces and schools. How many black female new anchors wear their hair in its natural texture? How many black female actors? While employers can't come right out and say “Can you, you know, whiten up a bit?”, it is still made clear that wearing any sort of native garb to work, or having da kink in your hair, is not the preferred look and is deemed less feminine, less elegant, and less civilized (all code words for 'less white'). Afros tend to be tolerated only if they are extremely short and low to one's head – otherwise they are deemed problematic. Because the majority of East Asian, South Asian, Latino, Arab and Indigenous people have a hair texture similar to that of Caucasians – this has been a particular burden that black people for the most part have borne alone. The message to blacks in the workforce has always been that the closer you come to conforming to the white aesthetic, the more opportunity you have to fit in and to advance.

NEWSFLASH:  Those who have been forced to assimiliate into other cultures in the past tend to recognize what appropriation looks like.

The history of taking from black people while demonizing us is long. One word – Elvis. There are hundreds more words but I'll move on. To further probe the concept in art, which is where the recent outcry has lived, I turn first to two high profile stories as of late, both in which cultural appropriation has been alleged. In one case I agree with the charge; in the other I do not. I wish to touch on these not out of a desire to assert that my view on either is the “right” one, but to demonstrate how different people all of the whom believe in the truth of cultural appropriation can part ways in terms of where they do and don't see it -- even within the same scenario.

Amanda PL with one of her paintings

Amanda PL is the Caucasian artist who has built up a collection of work by essentially copying the style of Indigenous artist Norval Morrisseau, to the point where many in both the art and First Nations community have declared her all but a breath away from a plagiarist. PL states about her work that she "felt art was the perfect tool to help communicate to the white dominant culture and raise awareness to the histories of Canada's true beginnings". An admirable enough goal. If this was true, however, she would elect instead to AMPLIFY THE VOICES OF ACTUAL INDIGENOUS ARTISTS. She could share images of Indigenous art with white friends and family; she could recommend Indigenous artists, books and art scholars. Instead, she decides to try to copy the style of an Indigenous artist under the guise of educating others. Her attitude translates to "I like Indigenous art. I want to be Enlightened Teacher to the Masses. I will copy style of Indigenous artist and put my name on it." Not a hint of subtlety about it.  Her lack of honesty about her intentions has become glaringly evident; she hasn't changed her position after criticism for Morrisseau's family.

Amanda PL's level of brazenness and complete non-apology is incredibly disrespectful to the Indigenous community.  This is not a case of emulating brush strokes or getting a few good ideas about colour. No one is naïve enough to think that painters will not draw from their influences to some degree. All artists grow that way.  Amanda PL, however, lifts elements of Morisseau's work that are specific to his HIS culture – a culture not her own – then puts them in her own paintings and markets that work as her own artistic style. To hold a show filled with works that imitate a revered First Nations artist, and to do it when many Indigenous artists are not able to have similar presentations for their authentic cultural showcases, is egregious.

Now here's where I will lose some black folk and others of colour. Of this I have no doubt.

Not everyone who believes in cultural appropriation and defines it similarly to how I do will recognize it in the same places. That is why there exists disagreement regarding this issue not only between conservatives and progressives, but also between people all of whom are progressive and social justice-minded.

Dana Schutz, like Amanda PL, is a white female painter who also finds herself fending of claims of cultural appropriation. Earlier this year, a painting of hers was displayed at the Whitney Museum and the controversy was instantaneous. The piece, entitled Open Casket, was a work created in her own artistic style, depicting the photograph of 14-year-old Emmett Till in the casket at his funeral. Schutz says that she began thinking of Emmett Till after the murder of Trayvon Martin, and more and more after the back-to-back murders of two black men – Alton Sterling and Philando Castle. She says that she wanted to create a piece because she was not only compelled towards his story as an artist, but felt connected to it as a mother. A decent mother of any race cannot help but be ravaged by the image of that boy inside that coffin. (For those unfamiliar, Emmett Till was lynched by white men at age 14 for supposedly whistling at a white cashier at a grocery store; his killers were acquitted by an all-white jury.  His case is often cited as the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement. The woman who was that cashier confessed several months ago that the incident never took place.) Despite Emmett's face being disfigured beyond recognition by the beating, his mother insisted on an open casket at the funeral – saying "I wanted the world to see what they did to my baby." Mamie Till did not restrict the viewing of that image to African-Americans. She opened that casket and allowed the ensuing photos to be shared because she wanted everyone to face the truth of racism in all its heinous hideousness. That casket was opened for white people as much as it was for black people.

When the Schutz painting was displayed, what I heard and read over and over again from black people was “Emmett Till belongs to us. Emmett Till is OURS.” I hear them, loudly, and I understand that feeling.  I just disagree on the most fundamental level. Emmett Till – in my eyes – is the story of the United States of America. He is the story of black oppression and white barbarism that devoured the nation's soul for hundreds of years. He is everything we never want to go back to. I would HOPE, that in 2017, that MILLIONS of Caucasian artists would look at Emmett Till and be moved from the deepest part of themselves to tell that story of what can never happen again. I would HOPE that our ability to see each other as human – for white mothers to look at that casket and imagine the pain and envision their son hanging from that tree – has evolved enough for us ALL to want to shout from the mountaintop. The piece caused outrage that a white artist would create a painting of this horrific photograph and attempt to “benefit from” the murder of Emmett Till. In an open letter, the painting's destruction was called for. Not simply its removal, but its destruction. As a fellow artist who knows well the feeling of emotional seizure by a subject, I cannot wrap my head around that. In my view, Dana Schutz used a style completely her own to depict a figure who was African-American, but whose story is part of the fabric of America and whose death poured gas on the fire that was the fight for civil rights in the U.S. The moment that Mamie opened that casket, in my humble opinion, belongs to EVERY American and the desire of a white artist – coming from the perspective of a mother – to ask us to look at the brutality inflicted on a young boy due to race is a powerful act. I do not find it appropriative. I don’t. Other people of colour feel differently depending on the lens through which they view it.

And that's alright.  I honour the view of those people.  In my heart, it just isn't mine.

Open Casket by Dana Schutz

Our assessments of what is an is not culturally appropriative -- even amongst though of us who do anti-oppression work, even among those of us who carry subjugation in our genes -- will not always be unanimous.

I chose to share my view on Open Casket, having not expressed it publicly before, because it is SO very important for people to understand that NO group is a monolith. We have been conditioned to believe that while white people hold individual viewpoints, that the “black community” is a large mass of people sharing a common opinion. We need to look no further than Martin and Malcolm to remember that even when bonded by the same chains and working toward the same ends, that that singularly of perspective is simply not true. I can see Martin supporting the painting. I can see Malcolm calling for its torching. Both men are my heroes.

ART. ARTISTS. So beautiful, so maddening, so complex. And so misunderstood. The belief that any true artist wants to stifle the artistic expression of another artist is categorically false. No one who values art's role in a society wants to put a straitjacket on artists. I believe strongly in not dictating to others what art they can create. If I find myself moved to write the story of a boy in a Bosnian refugee camp – or a woman in the Killing Fields of Cambodia – I do not want someone telling me that I cannot do so because I am black.  Art is where I go to be free, not to find new shackles.  Artists must be given the latitude to investigate a wide range of humanity; it is through such investigation that we become more aware of our differences as well as our similarities, and more capable of seeing each through increasingly informed and empathetic eyes. HOWEVER... and there is a huge HOWEVER...

That latitude – that room to roam creatively across cultural landscapes – comes with TREMENDOUS responsibility.

It is the responsibility to honour one's subject by understanding where crucial input by/consultation with people from that culture may be necessary or mandatory. It does not matter how gifted or creative or passionate one is, it is not one's place to write a story set in a Japanese internment camp with no input from knowledgeable Japanese sources. There is a profound sense of superiority to the belief that than can be done – an implied declaration that “my talent and imagination are enough.” Uh... no. They're not. There is a profound difference between painting a photograph and writing a script in which I take on the voice of a culture and write from within that world. I can NEVER have the firsthand connection to those stories as those for whom that experience is their own. No matter how talented I am, I am not informed enough to do that story justice. Research is required. Interviews are required. A commitment is required -- to recognizing that even in a fictitious story, if I am setting it in a historical cultural reality, I must respect that reality and seek to acquire as much information as possible.

The telling of stories necessitates self-awareness, generosity, acknowledgment of one's privilege, and an understanding of whose voices are occupying the airwaves and how much space yours can be afforded. Humility is not a suggestion but an imperative. There must be an understanding of where one sits in the scheme of things and which narratives are crying out and deserving of an amplifier. Unfortunately, it is often hard to find that humility in people who have been trained to believe that their voices are valuable over all others – who have been afforded so many opportunities that they believe their proficiency gives them licence to use "artistry" as a cover for not doing the work. I do not care about your Pulitzer or your Oscar or your Dora or your Giller or your Tony or your Siminovitch or your ego.

DO THE WORK. You don't have the right to swoop in and tell your epic story of someone else's culture without doing the work.

The moment an artist decides to tell a story or create characters outside of their own culture, that artist becomes accountable to that group of people. That truth may be desired or uncomfortable; voluntarily or involuntary. But it WILL happen, by default. Asian people will keeping saying NO when Hollywood films repeatedly cast white actors in lead Asian roles, denying those parts to brilliant actors who share the racial identity of their characters. Accountability will be demanded.  Appropriation is inextricably linked to erasure, and always has been.

Those who have lived in the margins, and whose stories have lived there too, want their lives portrayed as authentically as possible. They have every right to demand that, not only because their cultural narratives are critically important but because outside of their own communities, they are told so infrequently. It is our ethical duty to try our very best to do right by the culture we have chosen to forage for the creation of our art. We might make accidental missteps; humans err. Failure to give it our utmost effort, however, is not an acceptable option. As I wade through the social media sludge, it strikes me that the ONLY reason to spend hours online fighting this -- the SOLE reason to refuse to do this -- is because you want the freedom to do that which is consciously disrespectful. Not inadverently or unintentionally so, but consciously disrespectful.

I find this lack of care, this lack of feeling for other groups of people, so difficult to hold.  I think about cultural appropriation rigorously.  I think about it as a storyteller who is fascinated by the breadth of story available when one considers the vast range of backgrounds from which we come.  I think about it is as a human being who is constantly trying to nurture honest, unencumbered discussion that will tears down the walls of distrust and foster connection.  I think about as someone who ten years ago chose an Eastern religion as the guiding path of my walk on this planet.  It is the most sacred and private part of my life; I would not bring it up all it were it not for my writing a piece on this issue.  There have been days, few but thunderous, when I have laid in bed asking myself if my being a Buddhist is right.  I no longer ask myself that question.  I no longer ask whether a soulful philosophy rooted in compassion is something I have a right to, especially since my former religion - Catholicism - is not the religion of my forebearers either but that of the white folks who imposed it.

I almost give up on Facebook completely after reading this question half a dozen times in 24 hours: “Are you saying that people of colour don't adopt white culture? Can we not be appropriated too?”

(Dear Universe... Please give me strength to not shut down entirely. Dialogue is so very important.)

I don't know where to start with this; it has shades of the 'reverse racism' hypothesis. I will begin by saying that yes, non-white people in our society adopt white culture – because it is the dominant culture.  It feels very trippy to have to explain something this obvious.  The interesting thing is that when we do embrace parts of that culture on our own, we are criticized for it, whereas white people who embrace black culture are often lauded.  As a singer-songwriter in my 20s pursuing a career as a recording artist, I was primarily influenced by Tori Amos, Sarah McLachlan and Alanis Morissette. Having those inspirations while wearing black skin was not embraced.  I was told by a record executive that my music sounded “too white” and was thereby confusing and hard to market.  Meanwhile, black artists who sounded “black” were passed over for white artists doing “blue-eyed soul”.

People of colour on this continent are used to being overlooked while those who wish to take from us suppress our culture when it directly comes from us, then apply it to Caucasian impersonations of us.

The unavoidable truth is that we are living in countries that were stolen and colonized by Europeans, who brutally attempted to strip the Indigenous of their customs, religion and language. The same thing was done to blacks who were stolen from their Motherland and brought here to be sold, then forbidden to speak their African mother tongues. The two languages we now call official – English and French – were introduced to this land through abject cruelty. Canada became a nation that replicated the traditions of British and other European cultures, and practiced blatant erasure in so doing. This is what has been done to people of colour for time immemorial – those of European descent have taken it upon themselves to fervently pick and choose the parts of our cultures that they think that can benefit from, while dismissing and ignoring the remainder of our cultures as unworthy.

Black, brown, Asian and Indigenous people have not stripped white people of their culture and their language in order to oppress them and engage in cultural genocide. That is EXACTLY what has happened in reverse. Every non-white person who has arrived here, either on slave ships or through migration, has been met with a Eurocentric culture created and entrenched by force. The fruits of our cultures are largely viewed as inferior and disposable – unless they can be used for personal pleasure or monetary gain. So yes, people of colour here have appropriated elements of white culture. We have done so out of the need to survive in a society founded upon the systematic attempted obliteration of our own.

Which brings me back to the beginning.

I do not know my last name.

Not my real name.  Not the name of my ancestors of long ago.

My surname is African.  The surname of every black person is African.  Many of us, however, do not live with those names.  Those names were taken.  Erased and replaced.  My surname, and that of my father and his father and his father before him -- is Taitt.  It is Scottish.  We are not Scottish.  Our name is.  At some point my family was taken from Africa to the West Indies, and owned by a Scottish master -- a Scottish master named Taitt who took away our name and gave us his own.  That is the story of many of us of American and Caribbean descent.  We were robbed of our identities by slaveowners from the British Isles or other countries in Europe, and now spend everyday of our lives walking around with the names of white men.

How many of you who are Caucasian have ever had to ponder who it was that owned your relatives and erased your name, and what your family name actually is?

This... THIS is why cultural appropriation, and the dismissal of it as not-existent, is salt in a grievous wound.  The wound is so much deeper than simply the racism we speak of or that you may witness.  The fact that we appear alright, that we smile and dance and work and function, does not mean that the injury is not firmly rooted in our souls and its aftermath branded on our cells.  When you engage in appropriation, it is compounding a legacy of cruel and systematic erasure than many of you have never had to think about because it is not the story of YOU, your race or your ancestors.

When you casually take from our cultures without consent, contemplation or reciprocity, from any group who has been historically oppressed on this continent -- you take from people from who so much has already been stolen.

I am hungry.

I have been writing, thinking, and writing for hours.  I think I'm done now and I need some nourishment.  Sustenance.  There is pad thai in my fridge.  I am a lucky child of the City of Everyone. I shall eat it with gratitude.

TT