Profit Over Actual Representations of Culture
In our capitalist and consumer-based society everything is commoditized, including ethnic identities (Castile 1996, p. 743). In most cases of cultural appropriation, the exploited culture is reduced to a consumable resource for profit-making purposes of the dominant cultures (Rogers 2006, p. 486). Instead of accurately representing a group’s culture, commodification of Native identities usually have nothing to do with the real lives of Native Americans and instead a ‘mythological Indian’ is constructed (O’Barr 2013). Use of the Indian image and identity is seen as a ‘raw material’ in which American ideals of a romanticized past are poured into and then sold, thus sanitizing the lived realities of Native Americans (Castile 1996, p. 743; Ono & Buescher 2001, p. 34).
Through animation, Disney constructs an easily reproducible visual form of a Native person and uses it to make many products which in effect replaces the history of Native American women with that of an animated figure. Unlike other animated Disney features that are based on fairytales or works of fiction, Pocahontas uses historical events and settings to create idealized fantasies and fables (Ono & Buescher 2001, p. 34). The character Pocahontas is manipulated and distorted by a corporation to transform the story of the real person Pocahontas into marketable objects and products for consumers (Ono & Buescher 2001, p. 26). As opposed to representing the real struggles faced by Native Americans due to European colonization, Disney sanitizes these ‘unpleasantries’ from history and instead chooses to “transform genocide into romance” to better fit the palates of movie audiences, hence reaping in the profits (Ono & Buescher 2001, p. 35).
An ongoing issue of media representations of Aboriginals is the insistence that the appropriators, who exploit and steal motifs and imagery from a culture, “feel good about the act of stealing” because they view it as inclusion of diverse cultures (Ono & Buescher 2001, p. 36). However, this only legitimizes and maintains colonial privilege because it does not take into consideration how Aboriginals would like to be represented, nor does it consider the consequences of ongoing colonial influence over Native identity.
An ongoing issue of media representations of Aboriginals is the insistence that the appropriators, who exploit and steal motifs and imagery from a culture, “feel good about the act of stealing” because they view it as inclusion of diverse cultures (Ono & Buescher 2001, p. 36). However, this only legitimizes and maintains colonial privilege because it does not take into consideration how Aboriginals would like to be represented, nor does it consider the consequences of ongoing colonial influence over Native identity.
Native
American tourism and artwork collecting is another example of the
prioritization of profit over accurate representations of culture. At times, a genuine
experience is not as important to visitors as are purchasing arts and
artifacts. However, many communities might go along with this anyway so that
they can generate income for their communities.
In an analysis of Aboriginal art from Australian Indigenous peoples conducted by Michaels (1994), the author concludes that in Aboriginal art consumption there exists a sort of “fantasy of authenticity.” This fantasy entails that while the Aboriginal artwork is authentic to the essentialist extent of being made by an Aboriginal individual, the appearance of the artwork is far-removed from its real or claimed historical past. The result is that the artwork is constantly privileging the influence of non-Aboriginal art motifs within supposed Aboriginal art (as cited in Short, 2012, p. 142). In Canadian art circles, similar glorification of the “pre-historic” essence of Aboriginal art was much more salient during the 1980s and was propagated by art critics and anthropologists in many exhibitions (Whitelaw, 2006). However, this theme is still present in consumer demand when purchasing Aboriginal art and tourist experiences in Canada (Notzke, 2004, p. 45). What makes this quest for authenticity contentious is the effect that it has on the manner in which these products are presented for sale.
In an analysis of Aboriginal art from Australian Indigenous peoples conducted by Michaels (1994), the author concludes that in Aboriginal art consumption there exists a sort of “fantasy of authenticity.” This fantasy entails that while the Aboriginal artwork is authentic to the essentialist extent of being made by an Aboriginal individual, the appearance of the artwork is far-removed from its real or claimed historical past. The result is that the artwork is constantly privileging the influence of non-Aboriginal art motifs within supposed Aboriginal art (as cited in Short, 2012, p. 142). In Canadian art circles, similar glorification of the “pre-historic” essence of Aboriginal art was much more salient during the 1980s and was propagated by art critics and anthropologists in many exhibitions (Whitelaw, 2006). However, this theme is still present in consumer demand when purchasing Aboriginal art and tourist experiences in Canada (Notzke, 2004, p. 45). What makes this quest for authenticity contentious is the effect that it has on the manner in which these products are presented for sale.
In the tourism industry, including artisan craft, authenticity poses as objective, meaning that it is a sign of the validity of the procurement of other people’s realities which is what the tourism experience is attempting to sell. Moreover, the perception of authenticity by the consumer is of utmost importance because authenticity “is a dialect[ic] between object and subject, there and here, then and now” (Taylor, 2001; as cited in Notzke, 2004, p. 45). Taylor (2001) posits that authenticity is socially constructed with definitions of authenticity being as numerous as there are those to write about it. It is a subjective concept that exists in the eye of the beholder, so to speak. What Taylor is also describing is a dialect between subject and object, meaning that the delivery, presentation, and background of the Aboriginal artifact are very important in how the object will be received by the consumer. Notzke claims:
These definitions of authenticity bestowed upon commodified objects of Aboriginal culture come from consumers who are almost without exception non-Aboriginal (Kutzner, Wright, & Stark, 2009, p. 105). The specific requirements of the demand that these consumers create for commodified objects of Aboriginal culture defines how these objects shall be presented and what objects are excluded from demand. This exclusion and inclusion created by consumers racially define what forms of Aboriginal culture are not only desirable, but also how the objects of this culture should look. This racial defining of objects of the “subjugated” culture by members of the “subjugator” culture is exemplary one of the major tenets of Critical Race Theory:
- [B]ased on their different perceptions of reality, different tourists have divergent ideas of what constitutes authenticity. They may measure their experience against an exotic or romanticized image; they may base their expectations on a static notion of culture; or they may have a realistic appreciation of a living culture. (2004, p. 46)
These definitions of authenticity bestowed upon commodified objects of Aboriginal culture come from consumers who are almost without exception non-Aboriginal (Kutzner, Wright, & Stark, 2009, p. 105). The specific requirements of the demand that these consumers create for commodified objects of Aboriginal culture defines how these objects shall be presented and what objects are excluded from demand. This exclusion and inclusion created by consumers racially define what forms of Aboriginal culture are not only desirable, but also how the objects of this culture should look. This racial defining of objects of the “subjugated” culture by members of the “subjugator” culture is exemplary one of the major tenets of Critical Race Theory:
- Fourth and finally, races are relationally constructed…The attempt to racially define the conquered, the subjugated, or enslaved is at the same time an attempt to racially define the conqueror, the subjugator, or the enslaver. Races are categories of difference which exist only in society…they make sense only in relationship to other racial categories, having no meaningful independent existence. Race is socially constructed. (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012, p. 199)