Anyway, to address the comments that view things being appropriated as some kind of intellectual property being “wrong” or “broken”, I’m not especially fond of classism and how capitalism creates lots more opportunities for classist / colonialist behavior, but neither have I found a system that works better than people actually getting to own stuff. It also carries with it a framework in which rights to income and attribution can be discussed without getting too warm and fuzzy (not that anything is wrong with being warm and fuzzy …). But I don’t get the sense that what prompted this has any kind of “intellectual property” aspect associated with it — political “causes” are not any kind of property.

What’s being done here, in my reading, is just plain rude and boorish behavior. Most allies aren’t — a lesson that was slammed into my face when a friend who’s active in the DNC remarked that the DNC needs to dump gays and lesbians so they can be more effective at winning elections. So, what’s being done here is yet again, it seems to me like an “ally” is proving they are not actually an “ally”. Quelle surprise.

Stentor said:
nI think a good idea that seems to be percolating up here (especially in Acheman’s comment, BFP’s explanation quoted by belledame, and Mandolin in comments #5 and #22) is that to understand what’s wrong with appropriation, you should focus on its impact on the appropriatee (as opposed to thinking in terms of procedural rules and a property metaphor).

I think that is correct: if the goal is to develop a deeper understanding of what appropriation is, why it should be avoided, etc., then you need to look at it in a lot of detail.

However, if the goal is simply to stop appropriation then a procedural rule works very well (though it doesn’t need to incorporate the property issues, necessarily.)

This is more of a general thing. There are plenty of people who really have very little to no interest in engaging in a dialog about appropriation, racism, sexism, etc. They have very little interest in understanding it, either. However, a surprising number of those folks WILL do their best to follow rules, even if they don’t know what they mean.

People love rules. LOVE them. And the clearer the rule is, the more people follow it. Lots of folks will proudly recycle, because they are able to “put plastic in blue box and paper in green box,” but very few of those people will sit there and think about their overall energy consumption and how they best might help the planet and whether it’s better to buy local greenhouse-raised lettuce in December, or shipped-in-from-south-america lettuce, or to abstain from lettuce in the winter.

So I think that the “procedural is bad” concept is going to work against solving the issue.

I have a real problem with their being referenced in the context of a discussion which, as bfp’s archived post, and the rest of your comment, articulate, has to do with deeper issues.

I was thinking about it last night, and I decided that I was not at all clear in what I was trying to say. The question of attribution is something that is straightforward to me, and has to lie almost entirely on the head of the author. I’m not sure how we as consumers can increase our own access to original works, without either extensively educating ourselves about the topic at hand (which isn’t a bad idea anyway), or forcing some kind of change in the system that would discourage the appropriation (along the lines of what Mandolin says). The former seems to be difficult if you’re attempting to educate yourself initially, i.e. how can you tell if something is appropriated if that is what you are trying to educate yourself on. The latter is a long term solution, but won’t help right now if you are in the position to be just learning about it. Education is the best solution, but I think there is a problem in that a lot of times appropriation is veiled as education.

I am an archaeologist, and my undergrad department did a really good job of attempting to teach students about other cultures without falling back on stereotypes. Despite the fact that my dept was fairly processual (um, ’science’ based theoretical orientation), there were definitely a sense of self-reflexivity that encouraged identifying biases and assumptions and what have you. I was listening to students studying for cultural geography one day in the library, and they were obviously being taught by someone relying on outdated theory that basically reduces people from geographical locations to stereotypes. I’m sure that the prof thought that he was giving these insulated rural kids a greater understanding of the world, some who come in not ever seeing someone who isn’t white, straight etc. So, while on one hand it was obvious that their ideas of the world were now supremely messed up, I have to wonder to what extent am I experiencing stereotypical thinking without also realizing it? Then, furthermore, as a white person, am I going to be capable of teaching multi-culturalism without introducing those stereotypes?

So, then, that brought me back to my horrible thought attempt yesterday, that is, the overlap between cultural and intellectual appropriation. I think that what I was originally thinking about has been addressed, but it occurred to me that appropriation with attribution also happens frequently. In which the author states clearly where they got an idea, or even gets the previous author’s permission to use their works, but then distorts them. I mean, we can see this kind of stuff go on most obviously when the media takes something someone said, published, etc, and then reports it entirely out of context. And I know this went down in anthropological texts–the movement to bring in the voice of the people is not just a response to the objectification of people as objects of study, but because people feel misrepresented by anthropologists. I think this is much more insidious, as you can’t charge the appropriator with not attributing to the appropriatee, and it aligns the two works in the minds of the people who are reading it, those who may not know the greater context.

I think that definitely plays into what Ravenmn was saying–white people writing about POC who cannot get themselves published, but the white person (intentionally or not) whitewashing/distorting the experiences and thoughts of the POC. And again, the only way for that not to happen in the first place is to extensively involve the POC in the first place, a collaboration if you will. That way, it may at the very least, bring the people to be heard and kind of circumvent the block on those voices. The problem is, is that does not actually solve the major problem in the first place, if a POC cannot get that same kind of work published.

I think a good idea that seems to be percolating up here (especially in Acheman’s comment, BFP’s explanation quoted by belledame, and Mandolin in comments #5 and #22) is that to understand what’s wrong with appropriation, you should focus on its impact on the appropriatee (as opposed to thinking in terms of procedural rules and a property metaphor).

As consumers, rather than producers, of writing and ideas and products and so on, I’m wondering what are some of the best ways to make sure that we hear source material as well as appropriated material, and make sure we’re listening to many genuine voices.

It semes like one way people address this is with lists: lists of books, lists of blogs, and so on. I don’t mean to demean lists; they’re valuable, totally. But I’m wondering if there are other tactics.

Since the system is set up to favor appropriated work in many contexts (particularly since, as Sylvia points out, it plays on tropes that are already comfortable for the people who are dominant in the system), any movement toward favoring non-appropriated voices will require swimming against the tide from individuals, particularly but not exclusively white individuals, who are affected by the system. Which we should expect from individuals (particularly white individuals) as it is our responsibility to combat racism.

However, systemic problems probably require systemic solutions, and I’m wondering what those are. Greater saturation in academic courses? Lessening of racism and colonialism on other fronts? Having these conversations in enough places enough times that they become part of public consciousness (consciousness raising)? Etc.

Stereotypically, the situations and narratives Jones identifies in her work are experiences linked with a certain class and race in America. But Jones, through her whiteness, gained more popularity and eventual notoriety because she came to the situation 1) writing with a distinct claim to authority on that experience (one that was later determined she didn’t have) and 2) writing with knowledge of what people with no authority on the subject would like to read and see. Which is where the privilege of her white lens became a boon for her and a new opportunity to ignore similar narratives from people of color living the same and similar realities.

This is a great summation of some of the problems of cultural appropriation in writing.

Is that comment one that’s verbatim in the feministe thread? From my memory, it is. It also specifically takes on subject matter that I asked not to be here. I’m not going to delete this comment from you because I think that given the stakes here, that would be extremely problematic. But if you want to discuss BFP or Amanda, please go to the other thread.

I do, however, think your points about biographies are excellent and a great contribution to what I hope this discussion will focus on.

The problem with your hypothetical case is that you have not recognized the relative power disparity that exists in the here and now between white people and people of color. One group is given “authority” automatically, the other group has to provide proof of its legitimacy in some way before it can be afforded any authority.

And the “authority” issue is really important here. Why is it that a white author can get published and a person of color cannot? Could it be because the white person has been clued into the secret handshake, the common assumptions, the “official story” and the person of color has been explicitly excluded?

I cannot emphasize enough my respect for the article “Detour-Spotting for White Anti-Racists” by Joan Olsson (ci.mpls.k12.mn.us/sites/ee869d27-88e5-47…). I’ve found myself using every one of these arguments, thinking they were just plain common sense. Olsson’s document shows how well-trained we white people are in the methodology of dismissing accusations of racism.

Is there ever a time where it would be appropriate to take an idea from one group to another group without attributing the first group? Let’s say for example there’s a particular philosophy that the Gorks have been putting forward. Now, the Athors agree with that idea, and they want to present it to the Solus, and think they might be able to get the Solus to come to a broader understanding of this issue, which would impact the Gorks in a positive way. However, the Solus hate the Gorks, and will dismiss anything that the Gorks have to say, without even hearing it. And, even if they hear something they think they might agree with, as soon as they hear it’s from the Gorks, they dismiss is. They’re opposed to the Athors on many issues, but they are willing to listen to them. So, the Athors present essentially the same argument the Gorks have stated, but they don’t tell the Solus that the Gorks originally said it. The Gorks hem and haw, but most eventually get it. It gives them a “click moment.”

Perhaps at that point the Athos reveal to the Solus that the Gorks originally put forth the argument. They’re shocked, but they’ve already realized the truth of the argument, and reluctantly perhaps, come to realize that maybe they should listen to the Gorks.

Or, maybe they never reveal that.

Either way, would this situation ever be acceptable? Do the ends ever justify the means?

And that’s why power differentials and history are so important here — two acts that may be similar from a procedural/property analysis may, because of history and power, have very different impacts on the appropriatee.

we are not working with a common definition of plagiarism (and by extension intellectual theft).

Scrupulous citation as a standard academic practice at the moment, and the concept of ‘plagiarism’ that accompanies it, are determined almost entirely by the competition for academic posts and the consequent need to turn ‘influence’ into something that can be measured. Intellectual property is a legal concept which attempts to turn knowledge and creativity into commodities. Both are based on an utterly flawed account of the process of creation. I have a real problem with their being referenced in the context of a discussion which, as bfp’s archived post, and the rest of your comment, articulate, has to do with deeper issues.

Probably both.”

I’m not sure that “appropriation” quite fits here. Looking on Amazon.com, it appears that the vast majority of the best selling manga titles are written by Japanese authors. So artists from the culture that originated the form are getting the credit (and money) that comes with its popularity.

If manga became popular in the west only when a western artist started drawing it, and she became rich and famous while the Japanese artists whose work she was drawing from were either ignored or just vaguely acknowledged as her inspiration, I think that would be a clearer instance of appropriation.

There are always complications when the products of one culture adopted by another, but I think it stretches the term beyond its usefulness to term every such instance “appropriation”.

Stereotypically, the situations and narratives Jones identifies in her work are experiences linked with a certain class and race in America. But Jones, through her whiteness, gained more popularity and eventual notoriety because she came to the situation 1) writing with a distinct claim to authority on that experience (one that was later determined she didn’t have) and 2) writing with knowledge of what people with no authority on the subject would like to read and see. Which is where the privilege of her white lens became a boon for her and a new opportunity to ignore similar narratives from people of color living the same and similar realities. Like the autobiography of Felicia “Snoop” Pearson, from the overhyped but under-acclaimed series The Wire, for example: Pearson could likely claim authenticity for her work, but because of the stereotypical nature of our system and the fact that she is writing with no conscious head nodding to the white lens, the lens of distance and cultural observation, her work is undervalued in this discourse.

That’s the same as what’s happened in this situation. No one backpedaled on the accusation of appropriation. My post, which I was careful to compose, does not link point for point where Amanda “stole” things word-for-word from BFP. Rather, it makes BFP’s work — who is just one of the bloggers who have been tying feminism with immigration before the article Amanda quoted hit the “zeitgeist” — visible. And it questions why Amanda took upon her shoulders the claim of authenticity on critical issues on immigration and feminism, immigration and dehumanizing language, and immigration and sexual abuse without giving some indication of the longstanding body of work from multiple people of color who have identified more heinous crimes, who have pointed out more causal links, and whose work undoubtedly could lead to honest and critical engagement with the situation and possible broader activism in coalition with people who don’t want to touch the situation.

Because without that reference, it invisibilizes people who do have that authenticity and experience, who live those experiences, because they cannot impose a lens of detached whiteness that they did not have into their narratives. They cannot pretend that they’re horrified witnesses without a dog in the fight who have sympathetic and probing viewpoints in the matter. And as a result of not being able to claim that detachment, you get the phenomenon Belle quotes from BFP, as well as a continuing dependence on people carrying the white lens to ferret ideas from people of color for publicizing and spreading awareness. The peddling of brown people without last names who get mundane yet detailed narratives of their every move because it’s so different. Who get their horrific moments sensationalized and their tragic and common moments ignored.

THAT’S the sinister nature of appropriation. And in this instance, by not linking to anyone that inspired her viewpoint — forget BFP, even — Amanda tapped into this narrative that has been tapped into by countless folks online and offline. And each leaking into this scheme hurts and makes the victims of invisibility less than charitable once someone white sees us and says, “Hey, what’s wrong? Please write us a book report with cross checks and proper cites, perfect spelling and grammar, and completely objective — that means don’t interpose your oversensitivity into it — yes, please write us a great screed telling us everything very clearly about what’s wrong. One ‘t’ uncrossed, and you lose your argument. And please, make sure you note everyone involved; if you fail to do so, that’s intellectually dishonest and we’ll refuse to engage with you!”

I actually fairly significantly get the impression from some blogosphere discussions (the one about Little Light’s supposed plagiarism leaps out here) that we are not working with a common definition of plagiarism (and by extension intellectual theft).

For instance, Barry has been accused of appropriating women’s work with his privilege lists, despite the fact that the original idea-generator is indeed credited.

So, can we back off from the specific instance again? Which, even if any individual contributor to this discussion doesn’t agree is debatable, surely we can all agree is — even if the incident as alleged is taken as gospel — merely an exemplar of a common phenomenon. The problem isn’t any given incident, or any given credit or lack thereof, it’s the fact that systemically credit for ideas flows to people with privilege.

I think it’s possible to take this from BFP’s words, as highlighted by belledame. Women of color who are also feminists end up disappearing, because of the torque that belledame mentions. Just as real Chinese myths can be replaced in the American cultural imagination by faux orientalist stuff that takes only pieces of original culture. What we think we know about China, reinforced by narrative, becomes more important than the actuality.

What real women of color feminists believe becomes less important than the pretty much necessarily torqued perspectives given by white feminists, although again this has a lot to do with privilege as it relates to who is heard and respected.

This is just my attempt to translate these issues into a systemic analysis. I cannot vouch for my ability to do so in a complete or particularly sophisticated way.

(from bfp’s last post, as this excerpt was archived)

http://ajkenn-rgclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot5/2008/04/09/brownfemipower-amanda-and-thieving-wocs-efforts-publicity-or-plagarism/

“What I *DO* believe is that I made a massive and horrible mistake in emphasizing that immigration is a feminist issue. In comments, a Chicano blogger said very politely, thank you for talking about this Ms. Feminist, but this has been going on for a long time.

I don’t give a shit about being published, I don’t give a shit about the interviews or the jobs or the fame–I DO give a shit that a Chicano is reading a white feminist talking about immigration and politely distancing himself from a gendered analysis of immigration because the author exhibits no historical or contextual awareness of women of color led feminist interventions into immigration.

I give a shit about that because not only does this erase the work that women of color are doing within racist white dominant structures, but it erases the work we are doing within our own communities. It makes it ok for men of color to dismiss the need for feminist interventions into our communities–AND it makes it ok for white women to continue beating up women of color with the idea that showing any concern for what happens to men in our communities is ridiculous, because, see, they don’t approve of feminism!

Poof! Just like that, feminists of color are made invisible even as we are the ones laying our bodies down for the foundation of the communication between men of color and white women.

****

It’s not just a question of dueling individual “careers,” in other words (and whatever one thinks of this, bfp appears to have mostly ceded the floor wrt personal acclaim or “mainstream” recognition). Something gets lost in the translation. The lens gets subtly shifted. This idea that it’s all about the individual’s “career” has multiple layers, in fact: the point is about communication, bridging gaps. What bfp is saying here is that it’s -not- just a question of putting a white face or byline on exactly the same content; it’s that the emphasis is just shifted enough that it becomes, again, about centralizing the white woman/en/people.