Cultural Appropriation and fandom vs authors & critics

[deborah]

I've just been catching up on a month of old ChildLit messages, and current context is making me notice something unpleasant. When there's an accusation of cultural appropriation in LJ fandom, fans immediately fall on the side of saying "How dare those of you with white privilege tell PoC their claims of having been harmed are false?" Whereas on ChildLit, accusations of cultural appropriation lead to a massive pileup on -- well, pretty much always on Debbie Reese. I don't always agree with Debbie, but the constant claims over there that her understanding of Native appropriation is wrong leave a vile taste in my mouth. Especially when contributors hit multiple bingo squares:

• You're telling us what we can't write!
• You're telling us what we can't read!
• It's just fiction.
• No, it's different when it's a non-Native [in this case Jewish] story that's mistold; that's BAD.
• Isn't it racist to say you need Native clearance to tell this story?
• But the author had anti-racist intentions!
• You say that the characters are portrayed unrealistically as members of their culture, which means you want a sterotypical portrayal, which is racist.

steepholm, diceytillerman, fjm, other ChildLitters, am I wrong? I know I'm a month out of date with my reading, but it really seems sketchy, how that conversation usually goes. And it happens again and again. Is fandom really that much more capable of seeing its own white privilege than ChildLit (which I know is not monolithically white any more than fandom is)?

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think an earlier response of mine was eaten by the blogosphere. I also come down on the side of higher expectations for less well known subjects. I am still considering the question of myths versus historical settings. I don't think there's a difference in expectations there for me. I love the Prydain books, but I know that I would feel very, very uncomfortable if Alexander had rummaged through the cultural framework of a First Nation to find the inspiration for his story. I'm leery of giving something a pass just because I like it; that's exactly why I doublecheck my love of the Prydain books.

I go back to your original post and the idea that you shouldn't do harm and justify it as "art." I can imagine the Dickinson was offended by Alexander's work, but I cannot see that he was "hurt." I have to believe that an Abenaki looking at his myths used in a similar way would have a different experience. I think the difference between mainstream and marginalized is more important than the difference between myth vs. history.

(And I *still* think that we shouldn't use fiction as a substitute for history in the classroom. As a supplement, yes. In place of non-fiction, no.)