Does it matter who owns art? (a version of cultural appropriation)

[Jacob]

I believe for cultural appropriation to have any validity it needs to be applied to more than just Americans.  I also believe that an American can play a non-American in an American film.

Yeah, Americans can play non-Americans as far as I'm concerned. And yeah, cultural appropriation can absolutely be applied in all kinds of directions... though I think Americans are the ones who have identified the dynamic and are - generally - the ones who care the most about it.

Nonetheless, if you're a group that's mostly ignored it sucks to have people with more cultural and economic power than you come in and pretend to be you, especially if they don't consult with you and get a bunch of details wrong.

[Sheilbh]

That's not about a hierarchy of oppression, that's about American cultural hegemony and racism - erasing Somali identity and replacing it with American culture, where race is much more significant than culture. It doesn't mean that Somalis are spot number 7 vs African-Americans on spot number 5 or whatever. It means that it's kind of annoying to have your culture erased and replaced by an inaccurate American version of it when you see yourself on the big screen.

See also African-American actors comments about all the Black British actors going over there and hoovering up roles.

I find it strange how there's talk of a hierarchy of oppression when that comes, from my understanding, from a take on intersectionality which is by definition not about hierarchies but intersections of different identities.

[grumbler]

Yeah, Americans can play non-Americans as far as I'm concerned. And yeah, cultural appropriation can absolutely be applied in all kinds of directions... though I think Americans are the ones who have identified the dynamic and are - generally - the ones who care the most about it.

Nonetheless, if you're a group that's mostly ignored it sucks to have people with more cultural and economic power than you come in and pretend to be you, especially if they don't consult with you and get a bunch of details wrong.

Yes.  I am sure that the Germans are livid that Brits play Germans in films all the time, and then don't even have the courtesy to consult with Mr. Germany and get permission, and then don't speak proper idiomatic German.  Alan Rickman playing Hans Gruber in Die Hard, for instance.  They even made the German the bad guy!  There oughtta be a law.

[Berkut]

No, the idea of a hierarchy of oppression does not exist to undermine the belief of intolerance and privilege.  I was using it the idea because social power levels implies hierarchy.  I used the example of Somalis and African Americans because I remember Somalis complaining that African Americans played Somalis in the film "Black Hawk Down".

That's not about a hierarchy of oppression, that's about American cultural hegemony and racism - erasing Somali identity and replacing it with American culture, where race is much more significant than culture. It doesn't mean that Somalis are spot number 7 vs African-Americans on spot number 5 or whatever. It means that it's kind of annoying to have your culture erased and replaced by an inaccurate American version of it when you see yourself on the big screen.

What was inaccurate about the portrayal of the culture?

I don't understand this - are you saying that the the movie Blackhawk Down erased Somali culture by being made with American actors instead of...what? Going and finding Somalis to play Somalis?

Surely Somali culture has more to it then the nationality of the people playing a Somali in some movie. 

I could understand this complaint better if it went deeper then the color of the actors skin, but it doesn't even go that deep.

If they had Somali actors playing the Somalis, but actually represented Somali culture inaccurately in its content, would that have been better, or worse?

Or is this just a more generic annoyance at Americans making movies where they don't get the portrayed culture just right, or even close to right?

I don't see how the nationality of the actors enter into it.

[Berkut]

I believe for cultural appropriation to have any validity it needs to be applied to more than just Americans.  I also believe that an American can play a non-American in an American film.

Yeah, Americans can play non-Americans as far as I'm concerned. And yeah, cultural appropriation can absolutely be applied in all kinds of directions... though I think Americans are the ones who have identified the dynamic and are - generally - the ones who care the most about it.

Nonetheless, if you're a group that's mostly ignored it sucks to have people with more cultural and economic power than you come in and pretend to be you, especially if they don't consult with you and get a bunch of details wrong.

What would getting this right look like?

If we were as good at this as we could reasonably expect to be, how would Black Hawk Down be different in a way that would make everyone say "Gosh, those guys did a bang up job, and really represented all the potentially oppressed people involved really well!"

[Berkut]

Nonetheless, if you're a group that's mostly ignored it sucks to have people with more cultural and economic power than you come in and pretend to be you, especially if they don't consult with you and get a bunch of details wrong.

Who was pretending to be Somalis though, other then the actors (who by definition of acting are always pretending)?

[Jacob]

Yes.  I am sure that the Germans are livid that Brits play Germans in films all the time, and then don't even have the courtesy to consult with Mr. Germany and get permission, and then don't speak proper idiomatic German.  Alan Rickman playing Hans Gruber in Die Hard, for instance.  They even made the German the bad guy!  There oughtta be a law.

I don't know if I'd classify Germans as a group that's mostly ignored in film and TV, especially since they have a pretty robust production output of their own.

... though apparently there's a bit of a Somali film industry in Columbus, Ohio. So that's kind of neat.

[Jacob]

Berkut, you make a whole bunch of points. What's the discussion you'd like to have here?

[Josquius]

I can't remember black hawk down.
Though African Americans playing Somalis does sound quite painful. I can see why Somalis would be annoyed.
At least with a brit playing a German you've got the right ethnic group. Or at least someone who can broadly pass for the other (ala Ben Kingsley playing people from a broad swathe of the world from Spain to India)

That's not about a hierarchy of oppression, that's about American cultural hegemony and racism - erasing Somali identity and replacing it with American culture, where race is much more significant than culture. It doesn't mean that Somalis are spot number 7 vs African-Americans on spot number 5 or whatever. It means that it's kind of annoying to have your culture erased and replaced by an inaccurate American version of it when you see yourself on the big screen.

See also African-American actors comments about all the Black British actors going over there and hoovering up roles.

I find it strange how there's talk of a hierarchy of oppression when that comes, from my understanding, from a take on intersectionality which is by definition not about hierarchies but intersections of different identities.

Intersectionality is where the right make up the hierarchy of oppression idea from though.
YMMV to what extent its a knowing lie vs a genuine but failed attempt to try and explain a complex left wing concept of interconnecting relationships and systemic problems into a simple right wing box of hierarchies and solid binary rules.

There is a pretty good video on YouTube I saw ages ago responding to a prager u take on intersectionality, it was quite eye opening to see how utterly wrong they get it.

[grumbler]

I don't know if I'd classify Germans as a group that's mostly ignored in film and TV, especially since they have a pretty robust production output of their own.

How high on the Hierarchy of Oppression does a group have to be to qualify as "a group that's mostly ignored in film and TV?" 

Should the Cheyenne be upset that Dan George (a Tsleil-Waututh) played one in Little Big Man, or the Cherokee that he played one in Outlaw Josey Wales?  They aren't.  The Cheyenne made him an honorary member of their tribe.

[Jacob]

How high on the Hierarchy of Oppression does a group have to be to qualify as "a group that's mostly ignored in film and TV?"

I don't know anything about the "hierarchy of oppression", so I couldn't say. I can say that I'm not aware of Somalis appearing much in mainstream Film and TV, though I could be wrong.

I will also say that if a group of people feel they are misrepresented or short-changed in how they are shown in media, the decent thing is to listen to them in good faith.

Should the Cheyenne be upset that Dan George (a Tsleil-Waututh) played one in Little Big Man, or the Cherokee that he played one in Outlaw Josey Wales?  They aren't.  The Cheyenne made him an honorary member of their tribe.

It is entirely up to the Cheyenne and Cherokee - collectively and individually - how they feel about how they are represented in media. That's kind of the whole point.

So if Somalis feel they were well represented in Black Hawk Down (and I don't know how they feel collectively or individually, nor do I have an opinion of the quality of how they were represented - I'm only going on what's posted in this thread) then great. And if they don't, then I think it's reasonable to listen to their critique and see if it can be done better next time.

Whether Somalis feel let down about how they're represented in a movie, that's entirely up to them. But the decent thing is, IMO, to listen to them.

[HVC]

What if a vocal few care, but the majority don't? Who do we appease?

[Jacob]

What if a vocal few care, but the majority don't? Who do we appease?

We listen and decide what seems the most reasonable, same as with any other issue where there are differing voices.

If the majority voice that they're fine with it, then obviously that outweighs the few who aren't.

If the majority doesn't express an opinion either way, and a minority are vocal and care then the standard is to assume that their sentiment is also shared by some of the folks who say nothing; while  if no-one is expressing a contrary view, it's probably not prudent to assume they all agree with whatever is the most convenient for you.

But if you suspect the majority doesn't agree with the vocal minority, maybe spend a bit of time asking them in good faith and listening to the answers rather than just projecting your preferred position on them "silent majority" style.

I dunno though, I don't think responding to "hey it'd be cool if people from my community had input on how we're portrayed and if details we cared about were reflected" is appeasement. I do get that it's annoying of it's put more aggressively, but it doesn't really change the reasonableness of the request even if it's put as a demand.

[Berkut]

OK, isn't that what we are doing - deciding what seems most reasonable?

[Berkut]

What if a vocal few care, but the majority don't? Who do we appease?

But if you suspect the majority doesn't agree with the vocal minority, maybe spend a bit of time asking them in good faith and listening to the answers rather than just projecting your preferred position on them "silent majority" style.

This goe for those whose "projected preferred position" is that we should define various groups by their identity and where they sit on the oppression hierarchy as well.

That is very much a two way street. Assuming that the vocal minority has a point is just as likely to be coming from preferred position as assuming they do not.