What are we really up against in terms of tradition and "harmless appropriation"?

[Ban]

Actually, at the moment precisely this is happening. Aparently Barbados is considering suing Richard Drax for reparations because his family got wealthy shipping slaves to Barbados.

The same is happening in other places and on other levels as well. And it's a tough thing to decide on. A more recent example is art stolen in WW2. It's stolen from someone, and the descendants of those people want it back. However, in many cases the art has simply been sold and is now in different hands. At what point do you decide someone doesn't have a claim to something anymore? After all, sure the descendants have a right to get the stolen property of their (grand)parents back. On the other hand, if my grandfather bought something (in good faith) 40 years ago, and I've now inhereted it, where did I go wrong? And where do you draw the line?

In this case the individual is not quite a "random individual" though, but instead they're someone who is very specifically related to the given case due to their inheritance. Still I understand the point. Personally I think any return of such objects is a matter of good will and I don't believe anyone has a natural right to any object they have never themselves owned. If the current owner is convinced that they cannot keep the item in good faith, let them return it, but otherwise it will remain their property.

 

[Prince of Spires]

It's an interesting problem for sure, and I'm happy I don't have to make any rulings on it.

And I agree that he's not just a random individual (as far as I can tell). On the other hand, we are only responsible for our own actions. We shouldn't be held accountable for something our forebears (who we have never even met) have done. Where do you draw the line if you are accountable for their actions? I'm pretty sure that I have some ancestors who have done horrible things in wars, which we would now consider war-crimes. Why? Because everyone does. Go back far enough, and everyone is related to everyone else. While I'm an individual, there's nothing stopping you from suing me for the role my ancestors had in the transatlantic slave trade. The Netherlands got rich because of it, which is part of what gives me my current lifestyle.

Also, who is there to give the money to? yes, many people are there because of slavery. On the other hand, slavery also ended somewhere mid 1800's. There is now no one left alive who was a slave, and very, very few people who have personally met a relative who was. How do you decide to distribute that money? Or is it simply going to the country which then does something generic with it? But then what are you paying for?

And that is part of my issue with cultural appropriation. Often the people shouting about it have just as much claim to the culture being appropriated as everyone else. Often it's just because you happen to live in the same region that you feel something is part of your history. But we're just people, who move all the time. Modern Egyptians have nothing in common with the ancient Egyptians who lived there 3000BC. That sort of thing.

 

[Queshire]

Without your ancestors you quite literally would not be here. I can not accept ignoring that connection out of hand.

 

[Queshire]

Double pooooooooooost. =0

We're all supposed to be writers here. Think of it in terms of our craft. If I challenged you to write some asshole noble villain whose grown fat on the atrocities commited by his ancestors I'm sure you can do it. Equally I'm sure you can write a sympathetic protagonist hounded because he's the descendent of the previous big bad or something. Both would be kinda flat unless you actually looked at and explored the past.

 

[Prince of Spires]

We're all supposed to be writers here. Think of it in terms of our craft. If I challenged you to write some asshole noble villain whose grown fat on the atrocities commited by his ancestors I'm sure you can do it. Equally I'm sure you can write a sympathetic protagonist hounded because he's the descendent of the previous big bad or something. Both would be kinda flat unless you actually looked at and explored the past.

I agree that it's a great writing tool. But that doesn't mean it has any application in the real world. Just like absolute monarchies are probably not the best form of government in the real world, but we really like using them in fantasy.

I do disagree with these characters being flat unless you look at their past. Yes, they would be if they had no past and no other qualities or issues. But a past isn't needed to make a great character, especially not a long family history. You can have an average person, with a normal relationship with his parents be a great character. The past is a tool you can use, but by no means is it a tool you have to use or the only tool you can use.

Without your ancestors you quite literally would not be here. I can not accept ignoring that connection out of hand.

The law in pretty much all situations does ignore that connection. If my father muders someone, then in no situation am I held responsible for that murder if my father is dead when this is found out. I hold no blame for that crime and I can't be convicted for it. If someone steals my car, and then later uses that car to rob a bank, I'm not accountable for the car's part in that crime. You can only ever be held accountable for your own crimes.

The only exception I can think of is with art stolen in WW2. Most rulings I've heard of state that it must be returned to the original owners. But that always only applies if the art was gotten through illegitimate means, and if there was a direct connection between the person stealing the art and the current owner. It also only applies to the art itself.

In the case of the suing the descendants of the slave owner what is there actually to sue over? There is no way to tell anymore which part of the family fortune came from the slave trade. Also, what crime was actually committed? Yes, I know slavery is bad, and reprehensive and illegal in our current judicial system. But it was legal when the trade happened. Again, part of our legal system is that you can't change the rules after the fact and then hold someone acountable for what was done when it was perfectly legal to do so.

 

[Mad Swede]

One of the issues with accusations of cultural appropriation is that it is sometimes used to try to silence authors and others. That, to me, isn't OK, because it stifles creativity and freedom of expression. And that samer point is made by other authors who are better than I am:

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie warns about 'epidemic of self-censorship'

 

[Queshire]

Sure, people suck, but the level of maliciousness people attribute to it is ridiculous.

 

[Devor]

For me, a modern American, I'm more sensitive of cultural appropriation when it comes to the modern behaviors of groups in my country - the religious practices of Native Americans, or hair styles in the Black community, for example - and more resistant to issues further from home. It might seem like I'm rationalizing or something, but the frequency of appropriation is a part of it, as are the hidden subtle meanings that come up in society. It means something different, like a commentary, when it might refer to the person next door than to a society from the distant past.

Questions over stolen art and museum pieces are a different question though. I think I'll try and stay out of that one.