Oppression Through Commodification
‘Owning’ Aboriginal culture through commodification is a new method of oppression (Black 2002, p. 613). Already faced with political imperialism, Aboriginal peoples now must face cultural imperialism as their cultural traditions, identities, and artefacts are stolen and commoditized for our consumerist society (Black 2002, p. 611). Similar to one of Goffman’s features of total institutions, many diverse Native groups are stripped of their individual identity and treated in a ‘batch-like way’ through homogenized, non-specific Native imagery (Davies 1989, p. 92; Black 2002, p. 609). False representations of Aboriginals in popular culture and in advertising fetishizes Native identity to that of an idealized past, ignoring their presence in current times.
Merskin calls this new process of oppression ‘symbolic annihilation’: as consumer production and media representations ignore, exclude, or trivialize a subordinate group, it portrays Native Americans as only existing in an idealized past in the form of relics or artifacts (1998, p. 335). As the most powerful dictate types of discourse on ‘other’ groups (Castro-Gomez 1998, p. 29), the dominant groups in society dictate how Aboriginals are to be represented in popular culture. Eurocentric and colonial ideals create portrayals based on fantasies of Native history and identity, which essentially eradicates actual Native Americans who do not fit the ideal portrayal of the ‘White man’s Indian’ (King 2009, p. 216). In addition to ignoring real struggles of Native peoples in the past, this is problematic because it depicts Indigenous peoples as an extinct group who either no longer exist in current times or exist as second-rate citizens because they do not fit the false fantasy created by the colonizing powers. As a result, Native identities and experiences are reconfigured by non-Native hands while real struggles are trivialized or completely ignored.
Through its representations, commodity production and seeking of profit, Disney appropriates the experience of oppression as if to end it. However at the same time, they are creating and sustaining new ways to oppress Native Americans through their representation. In fact they are contributing to the history of oppression through its various strategies and practices.
Merskin calls this new process of oppression ‘symbolic annihilation’: as consumer production and media representations ignore, exclude, or trivialize a subordinate group, it portrays Native Americans as only existing in an idealized past in the form of relics or artifacts (1998, p. 335). As the most powerful dictate types of discourse on ‘other’ groups (Castro-Gomez 1998, p. 29), the dominant groups in society dictate how Aboriginals are to be represented in popular culture. Eurocentric and colonial ideals create portrayals based on fantasies of Native history and identity, which essentially eradicates actual Native Americans who do not fit the ideal portrayal of the ‘White man’s Indian’ (King 2009, p. 216). In addition to ignoring real struggles of Native peoples in the past, this is problematic because it depicts Indigenous peoples as an extinct group who either no longer exist in current times or exist as second-rate citizens because they do not fit the false fantasy created by the colonizing powers. As a result, Native identities and experiences are reconfigured by non-Native hands while real struggles are trivialized or completely ignored.
Through its representations, commodity production and seeking of profit, Disney appropriates the experience of oppression as if to end it. However at the same time, they are creating and sustaining new ways to oppress Native Americans through their representation. In fact they are contributing to the history of oppression through its various strategies and practices.
The tourism industry also does this by forcing Native Americans to cater to what the white tourist would like to see and purchase whether or not that is an accurate representation of their culture. Out of economic desperation, many Aboriginal communities are increasingly turning toward aboriginal tourism development in order to diversify the economic base of their communities (Colton, 2010, p. 261).
Such Aboriginal experiences are demanded by non-Aboriginal consumers to create a sense of authenticity while simultaneously incorporating natural scenery, traditional land-based activities, and cultural education (Kutzner, Wright, and Stark, 2009, pp. 101-102). Furthermore, Kutzner et al. (2009) found that while potential consumers of Aboriginal tourism in northern British Columbia are very interested in Aboriginal culture, most preferred that the tours consist of stereotypical Aboriginal practices such as drumming and dance performances and on Aboriginal history since European contact (p. 106).
The very fact that non-Aboriginal consumers dictate, through consumer demand, the nature of the supposed “Aboriginal experiences” provided by Aboriginal communities compromises the validity of any representation of Aboriginal culture. This compromise occurs because the legitimacy of the cultural experience takes a back seat to the need to meet consumer demand and turn a profit. This compromise is exemplary of postcolonialism as it is an imperialist form of control over Aboriginal communities in that the only way these communities and their members can survive is to open their communities to scrutinizing consumers who will control the kind of experience that will be provided to them. While on one hand it can be argued that Aboriginal communities are benefiting from bending to the demands of the non-Aboriginal consumers of these tourist experiences, it can also be argued that the dominant class in this postcolonial dynamic is controlling the nature of the culture that is to be presented and preserved as a result of the experience. This aforementioned compromise of culture is an example of postcolonialism because it describes the active power dynamics between members of the majority class (non-Aboriginal Canadians) and the more subordinate other class (Castro-Gomez, 1998, p. 29).
Such Aboriginal experiences are demanded by non-Aboriginal consumers to create a sense of authenticity while simultaneously incorporating natural scenery, traditional land-based activities, and cultural education (Kutzner, Wright, and Stark, 2009, pp. 101-102). Furthermore, Kutzner et al. (2009) found that while potential consumers of Aboriginal tourism in northern British Columbia are very interested in Aboriginal culture, most preferred that the tours consist of stereotypical Aboriginal practices such as drumming and dance performances and on Aboriginal history since European contact (p. 106).
The very fact that non-Aboriginal consumers dictate, through consumer demand, the nature of the supposed “Aboriginal experiences” provided by Aboriginal communities compromises the validity of any representation of Aboriginal culture. This compromise occurs because the legitimacy of the cultural experience takes a back seat to the need to meet consumer demand and turn a profit. This compromise is exemplary of postcolonialism as it is an imperialist form of control over Aboriginal communities in that the only way these communities and their members can survive is to open their communities to scrutinizing consumers who will control the kind of experience that will be provided to them. While on one hand it can be argued that Aboriginal communities are benefiting from bending to the demands of the non-Aboriginal consumers of these tourist experiences, it can also be argued that the dominant class in this postcolonial dynamic is controlling the nature of the culture that is to be presented and preserved as a result of the experience. This aforementioned compromise of culture is an example of postcolonialism because it describes the active power dynamics between members of the majority class (non-Aboriginal Canadians) and the more subordinate other class (Castro-Gomez, 1998, p. 29).