Critical Race Theory and Cultural Appropriation Explained
CRITICAL RACE THEORY
Depictions and identifying with race can be seen everywhere today. Race is apparent and significant in our societies, as is constant commodification of many different races and cultures in our daily lives. This is apparent in shopping malls where products are sold that exploit a culture for profit, and during celebrations such as Halloween when some revelers believe that it is fine to dress up in cultural clothing and assume an 'exotic identity' for the night, mostly in a sexual and in stereotypical manner (Ono & Buescher 2001, p. 32). Lopez explains how race can determine our economic prospects, permeate our politics and manifest itself in our comportment and how we live our lives (2012, p. 192). This is apparent when we learn about how the Aboriginal communities who rely on tourism for income have to adhere to the stereotypes and therefore provide the stereotypical experience that visitors want to experience. It defines their comportment and forces them to make their living in a way that is not true to themselves and their lifestyle. They are marginalized and the ruling race is able to apply stereotypes to Aboriginal`s own lives.
Lopez discusses how critical race theory is focused on race and racism interplaying with law and power as a result of White privilege and supremacy which leads to the marginalization of minorities (2012, p. 195). We can relate this to the commodification of Aboriginal culture when we see that white privilege allows profit seeking corporations to mimic and sell cultural clothing and items to non-Aboriginal people for a profit, disregarding the culture, history and voices of indigenous people. Aboriginals therefore become marginalized and are limited in what they can do to prevent this or stop it – some need to adhere to this to make a living.
Peggy McIntosh (1989) examines white privilege and the ‘invisible knapsack‘ in which she lists forty-six items that she, as a Caucasian woman, has access to because of her race. Aboriginal women and people do not have such privileges and instead the dominant culture is privileged enough to use their culture and commodify it for profit and aesthetic reasons – completely ignoring the Aboriginal`s true culture and past. Again, one of their sources of income, tourism, is affected when they must play along with stereotypes and generalizations in order to generate another source of needed income.
Solarzano insists that racism requires a group to be superior or maintain a social appearance of superiority and have the required power to carry out ignorant and racist behaviours by affecting racial and ethnic groups (1997, p. 8) His point clearly illustrates the issues with the commodification of Aboriginal culture. The superior group, consisting of rich and powerful White males who make up society's laws and control most corporations, have the required power to carry out the ignorant commodification of Aboriginal culture. This issue is not solely related to profit and commodification of their culture. Aboriginal peoples have long been ignored in Canada and our human rights record regarding Aboriginals is deplorable (Million 2000, p. 102; Robertson 2006; Lawrence 2003, p. 9). Aboriginals face racism and must endure stereotypes and generalizations while also being overrepresented in prisons in our society (Murdocca 2009, p. 27). While commodification of Aboriginal culture is not the only issue, it is a grave issue related to critical race theories.
Depictions and identifying with race can be seen everywhere today. Race is apparent and significant in our societies, as is constant commodification of many different races and cultures in our daily lives. This is apparent in shopping malls where products are sold that exploit a culture for profit, and during celebrations such as Halloween when some revelers believe that it is fine to dress up in cultural clothing and assume an 'exotic identity' for the night, mostly in a sexual and in stereotypical manner (Ono & Buescher 2001, p. 32). Lopez explains how race can determine our economic prospects, permeate our politics and manifest itself in our comportment and how we live our lives (2012, p. 192). This is apparent when we learn about how the Aboriginal communities who rely on tourism for income have to adhere to the stereotypes and therefore provide the stereotypical experience that visitors want to experience. It defines their comportment and forces them to make their living in a way that is not true to themselves and their lifestyle. They are marginalized and the ruling race is able to apply stereotypes to Aboriginal`s own lives.
Lopez discusses how critical race theory is focused on race and racism interplaying with law and power as a result of White privilege and supremacy which leads to the marginalization of minorities (2012, p. 195). We can relate this to the commodification of Aboriginal culture when we see that white privilege allows profit seeking corporations to mimic and sell cultural clothing and items to non-Aboriginal people for a profit, disregarding the culture, history and voices of indigenous people. Aboriginals therefore become marginalized and are limited in what they can do to prevent this or stop it – some need to adhere to this to make a living.
Peggy McIntosh (1989) examines white privilege and the ‘invisible knapsack‘ in which she lists forty-six items that she, as a Caucasian woman, has access to because of her race. Aboriginal women and people do not have such privileges and instead the dominant culture is privileged enough to use their culture and commodify it for profit and aesthetic reasons – completely ignoring the Aboriginal`s true culture and past. Again, one of their sources of income, tourism, is affected when they must play along with stereotypes and generalizations in order to generate another source of needed income.
Solarzano insists that racism requires a group to be superior or maintain a social appearance of superiority and have the required power to carry out ignorant and racist behaviours by affecting racial and ethnic groups (1997, p. 8) His point clearly illustrates the issues with the commodification of Aboriginal culture. The superior group, consisting of rich and powerful White males who make up society's laws and control most corporations, have the required power to carry out the ignorant commodification of Aboriginal culture. This issue is not solely related to profit and commodification of their culture. Aboriginal peoples have long been ignored in Canada and our human rights record regarding Aboriginals is deplorable (Million 2000, p. 102; Robertson 2006; Lawrence 2003, p. 9). Aboriginals face racism and must endure stereotypes and generalizations while also being overrepresented in prisons in our society (Murdocca 2009, p. 27). While commodification of Aboriginal culture is not the only issue, it is a grave issue related to critical race theories.
CULTURAL APPROPRIATION
Many other examples of commodification of Aboriginal culture can be found being appropriated in brand marketing and each example has its own elements for critical criminologists to contend with. Cultural appropriation is defined generally as the use of a culture’s symbols, artifacts, genres, rituals, or technologies by members of another culture, and is unavoidable when cultures come into contact with one another (Rogers, 2006, p. 474). Rogers (2006) continues by defining four forms of cultural appropriation that exist. The most useful to the present discussion is “cultural exploitation.” Rogers considers cultural exploitation to be cultural appropriation “of elements of the subordinated culture by the dominant culture without substantive reciprocity, permission, and/or compensation” (2006, p. 477).
Ziff and Rao (1997) identify four concerns regarding cultural exploitation, including cultural degradation, the preservation of cultural elements, the deprivation of material advantage, and the failure to recognize sovereign claims (as cited in Rogers, 2006, pp. 486-487).
Rogers (2006) describes a possible problem emerging from cultural degradation, as posited by Ziff et al. (1997). This possible problem specifically pertains to the appropriation of Aboriginal culture as he describes a concern that non-Aboriginals may unintentionally claim authority to define what “Aboriginal” means, thus not only distorting the understanding of Aboriginal culture by non-Aboriginals, but also Aboriginals (p. 487). An example of this distortion would be the donning of headdresses as a form of costume.
Many other examples of commodification of Aboriginal culture can be found being appropriated in brand marketing and each example has its own elements for critical criminologists to contend with. Cultural appropriation is defined generally as the use of a culture’s symbols, artifacts, genres, rituals, or technologies by members of another culture, and is unavoidable when cultures come into contact with one another (Rogers, 2006, p. 474). Rogers (2006) continues by defining four forms of cultural appropriation that exist. The most useful to the present discussion is “cultural exploitation.” Rogers considers cultural exploitation to be cultural appropriation “of elements of the subordinated culture by the dominant culture without substantive reciprocity, permission, and/or compensation” (2006, p. 477).
Ziff and Rao (1997) identify four concerns regarding cultural exploitation, including cultural degradation, the preservation of cultural elements, the deprivation of material advantage, and the failure to recognize sovereign claims (as cited in Rogers, 2006, pp. 486-487).
Rogers (2006) describes a possible problem emerging from cultural degradation, as posited by Ziff et al. (1997). This possible problem specifically pertains to the appropriation of Aboriginal culture as he describes a concern that non-Aboriginals may unintentionally claim authority to define what “Aboriginal” means, thus not only distorting the understanding of Aboriginal culture by non-Aboriginals, but also Aboriginals (p. 487). An example of this distortion would be the donning of headdresses as a form of costume.
Such a costume, on some level, impresses upon consumers that headdresses are a suitable form of costume if one would like to appear stylishly “Aboriginal”. This impression or any other like it, in accordance with the example mentioned above by Rogers, degrades the fact that headdresses were, and still are, a sign of respect and honour within Aboriginal culture (Purdy, 2013).
The preservation of cultural elements entails that these elements are best understood in their original context and could easily be disrespected if removed by cultural appropriation, especially for spiritual traditions (Rogers, 2006, p. 487). One example of this risk of disrespecting would be dream catchers. Dream catchers originated from members of the Ojibwe Nation and serves the purpose of entrapping negative and evil energies within the room so that one might avoid having bad dreams and a clouded mind (Kentuckyslone, 2013). Even if the roots of the dream catcher are located in dated Aboriginal legends, it is contestable to claim that non-Aboriginals re-creating dream catchers as souvenirs or trinkets is not offensive in some manner.
The preservation of cultural elements entails that these elements are best understood in their original context and could easily be disrespected if removed by cultural appropriation, especially for spiritual traditions (Rogers, 2006, p. 487). One example of this risk of disrespecting would be dream catchers. Dream catchers originated from members of the Ojibwe Nation and serves the purpose of entrapping negative and evil energies within the room so that one might avoid having bad dreams and a clouded mind (Kentuckyslone, 2013). Even if the roots of the dream catcher are located in dated Aboriginal legends, it is contestable to claim that non-Aboriginals re-creating dream catchers as souvenirs or trinkets is not offensive in some manner.
The third concern posited by Ziff et al. (1997) is that cultural appropriation may involve elements being exploited wrongfully for financial gain (p. 14). This form of appropriation is especially concerning because products made by Aboriginals are quite often handmade and manufactured in remote locations that are not conducive to shipping to consumers in a widespread manner, whereas imitations by other companies can be mass produced cheaply and advertised on a grand scale. Thus, Aboriginal motifs and themes can be used to the advantage of large companies without any financial reciprocity to Aboriginals or their communities.
The fourth problem put forth by Ziff et al. (1997) is that the infringement on sovereign rights to the creation of some element of Aboriginal culture by non-Aboriginal culture are not easily challenged legally (as cited in Rogers, 2006, p. 487). One form of branding where this problem is often found is the misappropriated symbols found in many sports mascots. One example of this misappropriation being the Cowichan sweater example provided above. The Hudson’s Bay Company produced a Cowichan-inspired sweater for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics without any credit being given to the original creators of the sweater and its Aboriginal motifs (Hume, 2013).