A breakdown of the thorny issues involved in the cultural appropriation debate

TORONTO -- A controversial opinion piece that encouraged white writers to explore "the lives of people who aren't like you" exploded into a heated debate over cultural appropriation, free speech and colonialism Friday, with each side digging their heels into thorny positions that flip-flopped throughout the day.

Earlier this week, Hal Niedzviecki resigned as editor of Write magazine and apologized for his article in the Writers' Union of Canada publication, after drawing ire for appearing to endorse the unauthorized use of indigenous knowledge and traditions.

The flap revived debate over what is ethically responsible to borrow and profit from, and followed a similar recent outcry over a white Toronto painter who embraced an Anishinaabe style.

More opinion pieces in various media followed Friday, as did more retractions and apologies from personalities who initially supported Niedzviecki's position. Among the reaction was a rallying cry from former National Post editor Ken Whyte, who solicited donors on Twitter to establish an "appropriation prize." That, too, drew complaints of insensitivity.

Clearly, there is disagreement over how and when infringement occurs.

The Canadian Press turned to various observers to explain the debate. They include B.C. intellectual property lawyer Vanessa Udy, the National Gallery of Canada's head of indigenous art Greg Hill, University of Manitoba native studies head Niigaan Sinclair, Toronto-based culture critic and TIFF Bell Lightbox film programmer Jesse Wente, Vancouver artist Shain Jackson of the branding group Authentic Indigenous and anthropologist and Universite de Montreal instructor Solen Roth.

What is cultural appropriation?

Sinclair: Appropriation is to take without permission pre-existing objects or images and call them your own.... Without permission, I think is the key.

Wente: Appropriation comes down to key concepts of consent and acknowledgment or credit. And by consent I mean mutual consent not consultation, an actual understanding of the exchange taking place.

Roth: Maybe we can use (the word) "misappropriation" instead to kind of distinguish the two, but even then it's not just two (interpretations) -- there's a spectrum. As there is with everything.

What makes it especially problematic for indigenous peoples?

Udy: Back in the '90s, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples published its report. Part of the findings were that negative stereotypes vehicled through culturally appropriative practices actually have an impact on the mental health of indigenous persons. Obviously, there are other things that also impact indigenous mental health, but cultural appropriation is one of those things.

Wente: We were the first people to encounter colonialism on this land. This is still our place and we're still here.... It's why equality for indigenous people has been so, and continues to be, difficult. Because we were here our erasure has really always been fundamental and foundational to the nation states that now claim to exist here. And that tension has made our gains extremely difficult.

Why is this important?

Sinclair: It's not just an economic implication in that now you're profiting off exploitation and theft but you're also furthering the exploitation of a people who ... experience a great deal of it already (and) you're making it normalized.... Stereotypes are very real and stereotypes become policy. Stereotypes become practice and then you get residential schools. You get Indian Acts. You get systems of control.

Wente: The theft of our story is the loss of our culture, is our assimilation. That's why in the arts it actually matters to us as much as anything else. This is as important as the pipelines, as sovereignty, as water. They're all interconnected.

How do you know what's offensive and what isn't?

Roth: There's no straightforward (guide): "Here's step one, two and three and then you'll be OK and nobody will criticize you." I think as soon as you step into that debate there will be people who disagree with the stance that you've taken or the process that you used. But I think that if you actually have relationships of your own with people from that culture -- and not just consultative relationships, meaning that you just called somebody up and asked them for a specific answer -- but if you've built over years relationships with people, you'll have a better sense of what kind of criticisms or what kind of controversies you'll be walking into. . .

What often happens is that there are authors and artists that claim that they didn't realize that it could be a problem or they thought they were honouring these people or they thought that they were celebrating it and there's enough information out there to know that it might be controversial.

Can a marginalized group misappropriate culture from a dominant group?

Udy: Appropriating mainstream culture just doesn't have the same impact because the group it represents has a generally positive view of its culture and more control over the way it is presented. Some indigenous thinkers also would add to the definition the symbolic violence done through the decontextualization and deterritorialization of the appropriated symbol/artifact/practice.

Roth: There are power dynamics that force people to adopt practices and ways of life other than their own -- this is for example the case when there are assimilationist policies. However, when indigenous peoples themselves choose to adopt elements from another culture as a way to make as good a life as possible within the constraints of a colonial context, I would argue that it is not "assimilation" nor even "appropriation" but rather a testament to their resilience in the face of circumstances that were imposed -- often violently -- on them.

Does that mean artists should never refer to things outside of their culture?

Hill: It's possible to come from outside of a group to learn about the culture and values of that group, to participate in, to become part of the group to participate in the group, to contribute to the group and then to function as an ally to, as an honorary member of that group or as an adoptee of the group.... Someone who uses things from outside of a cultural group with no knowledge or connection to the group has to answer to the group for what they're doing and how they're doing it.

Wente: None of this is to impinge free speech. Everyone can go about what they want. But free speech does not mean there are zero consequences to those actions. It doesn't mean you can do those things without criticism.

What about free speech and creative licence?

Jackson: We believe a lot in bringing people together but the point is you don't understand what you're taking. Our artwork is our cultural blueprint. It's got our history, our world view, even our laws are codified into this means. And then you've got people who are trying to go in there and don't understand it.

Roth: We must not be afraid that these kind of issues will suddenly hinder creativity. There are so many different ways of being innovative and creative and interesting that I think the idea that if you're not allowed to imitate somebody else's culture suddenly creativity is lost and everything will be dull and uninteresting is I think a false alarm.

It's kind of like when you have creative constraints around a project, I've heard a lot of artists say that makes them more creative. Think of it as that instead of an assault on your creativity.