Cultural Appropriation

I've recently been googling around trying to find cool images of turbans and headscarves. The overwhelming majority of such images are of white, western women wearing what is described as "ethnic" or "tribal" head gear. 

The messaging is that the wearer of the items is worldly, sophisticated, interesting, slightly exotic, and (of course) sexy. The wearer is seen as having a wild and free nature.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the cultural appropriation of textiles, especially since I have a business selling scarves that I make from vintage saris (particularly those made by northern Indian Banjara Gypsy people). I'm torn about my complicity in propagating colonialism. Am I appropriating? Am I engaging? 

 

What does cultural exchange/engagement look like: Can we engage without appropriating?

According to Jarune Uwujaren, cultural exchange can be defined as "engaging with a culture as a respectful and humble guest, invitation only."

I take this to mean that it's okay if I/we use secular items if they are being willingly shared by the culture of origin, if they are being respected by the user/audience (members of the dominant culture), and if the exchange is a two-way street. I would add that privilege must be acknowledged by the member of the dominant culture.

 

 

 

What does cultural appropriation look like?

Jarune Uwujaren defines cultural appropriation like this: "It’s about a centuries’ old pattern of taking, stealing, exploiting, and misunderstanding the history and symbols that are meaningful to people of marginalized cultures." 

A well-known example of this is the white blonde woman sporting a "war bonnet" at Coachella.

Why is it bad?

The appropriation of cultural items and symbols is one of the strongest tools of colonialism. By selecting and using items from the marginalized culture, the dominant culture becomes the "owner" and "curator" of those material possessions and symbols. Thus, the dominant culture legitimizes itself as stronger and more rational than the culture of origin. 

Since clothing and textiles have always been very powerful cultural symbols, it makes sense that their appropriation is so ubiquitous. 

The Trajectory of a Culturally Appropriated Item 

1. The item is manufactured, assigned a significance, used, and disposed of or stored in context by an indigenous culture;
2. The item in its original context is devalued by the colonizer;
3. Traditional/indigenous use of the item is controlled or forbidden by the colonizer;
4. The item is possessed by the colonizer;
5. The significance of the item is redefined by the colonizer;
6. The item is manufactured, used, and disposed of by the colonizer.

An example:

1. An Apache Warrior receives a feathered headdress made by a certain member of his social group. By common agreement, the headdress communicates the achievement of certain goals/status. The headdress is worn on certain occasions and is stored in an agreed-upon and usually specifically proscribed manner. The headdress is passed on to an heir or disposed of in an agreed-upon manner (buried, for example, or burned).

2.The headdress is depicted by the colonizer as a symbol of barbarism and savagery. All Indian peoples are associated with this Apache headdress and thereby associated with barbarism and savagery. The headdress is also depicted as ineffective and becomes a symbol of the indigenous group's ignorance and superstition.

3. After conquest, the colonizer enacts laws forbidding (together with the language, songs, and holy days) the use of the Apache headdress by the Apache people.

In 1882, U.S. Interior Secretary Henry M. Teller, ordered an end to all "heathenish dances and ceremonies" on reservations due to their "great hindrance to civilization." In a report dated 1883, Hiram Price, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, stated: 

"...there is no good reason why an Indian should be permitted to indulge in practices which are alike repugnant to common decency and morality; and the preservation of good order on the reservations demands that some active measures should be taken to discourage and, if possible, put a stop to the demoralizing influence of heathenish rites."

From Wikipedia:

Sumptuary laws have also been used to control populations by prohibiting the wearing of native dress and hairstyles, along with the proscription of other cultural customs. Sir John Perrot, Lord Deputy of Ireland under Elizabeth I, banned the wearing of traditional woollen mantles, "open smocks" with "great sleeves", and native headdresses, requiring the people to dress in "civil garments" in the English style.^[41]
In a similar manner, the Dress Act of 1746, part of the Act of Proscription issued under King George II of Great Britain following the Jacobite Risings, made wearing Scottish Highland Dress including tartans and kilts illegal in Scotland for anyone not in the British military. The Act was repealed in 1782, having been largely successful, and a few decades later, "romantic" Highland Dress was enthusiastically adopted by George IV on a Walter Scott-inspired visit to Scotland in 1822.^[42]
In Bhutan, the wearing of traditional dress (which also has an ethnic connotation) in certain places, such as when visiting government offices, was made compulsory in 1989 under the driglam namzha laws.^[43] Part of the traditional dress includes the kabney, a long scarf whose coloring is regulated. Only the King of Bhutan and Chief Abbot may don the saffron scarf, with various other colors reserved for government and religious officers, and white available for common people.

4. The then-illegal headdress is confiscated from its owner and placed in the colonizer's museum, where it becomes perfectly legal again and where it is displayed by and for members of the colonizing culture. The colonizers see themselves as informed curators of this item, protecting it from (illegal) misuse, and preserving it for the world.

5. The headdress is presented as an artifact of ancient times, before the colonization. The time before the colonization is seen as an infancy of sorts, a time of ignorance. With the backing of its omnipotent god, the colonizers lovingly provided enlightenment to the innocent native peoples, protecting them from their own dangerous ignorance. The headdress is a display of the magnanimity, physical might, and divine power of the colonizer. It is a trophy. A spoil.

6. Imitation feathered headdresses are available for sale in the gift shop. The headdress has been divested of its power and relegated to its proper place as an artifact and a child's toy. 

Why Does Cultural Appropriation Happen?

This all happens because a colonizer must legitimize its colonization.

In other words, the colonizer must convince the majority of people that it has a "right" to power. This involves the creation of a narrative saying "my god is righteous and your god is evil." This ideology is proven by the divinely-imbued physical/martial dominance of the colonizer and the impotence of the indigenous culture.

In order to encourage adherence to the colonizer-god's rules (as determined by the colonizer), followers are deemed good and worthy. Individuals or groups that do not follow/convert are deemed ungodly, evil, and dangerous and deserve to be smited. This information can be transmitted to the greater population using the indigenous people's cultural items.

As certain items are communicators of that culture's ideology, the colonizer must divest those items of any power. If the items are seen as powerless or evil, then the god and the culture with whom they are associated can be seen as powerless or evil (as in the example above, in which a feathered headdress is associated with barbarism and savagery). The colonizer, in all its wisdom, must stamp out this evil by removing the items that facilitate it before someone hurts themselves or others.

This perpetuates the myth of the marginalized culture as uncivilized and unsophisticated (i.e., superstitious, child-like, feminine) and in need of civilizing. Because the item is valued and used by them, the indigenous culture is seen as irrational, incompetent, and mentally inferior to the colonizer because it is mired in "superstition" and "myth." This infantilizes the indigenous culture, further legitimizing colonization. The care bestowed upon them by the colonizer is seen by the populace is being "for its own good." 

Trophies?

From the great My Culture is Not a Trend Blog:

The significance is Imperialism, Colonialism, and Genocide. This image depicts the beneficiaries of the North American Genocide mocking their victims by mimicking them through tried stereotypes that were used to dehumanize them, making the public support their deaths and turn a blind eye to their suffering. The subjects of the image have donned cheap representations of sacred culture pieces of their victims, much like how some serial killers take “trophies” from their victims.

Many people argue that individuals do not mean any harm by wearing items from a marginalized culture. I tend to agree. Individuals wearing those items are not malicious, I would venture to say. They are attempting to express something. The problem is, they don't understand how deeply offensive this can be.

This has me thinking about commodification, as well. Commodification is a very complex issue, and it would be interesting to explore the overlap between cultural appropriation and commodification. 

Also, the hypersexualization of the cultural item after it has been appropriated bears some discussion.

Something to think about...




MIRI