It seems to be really common for advocacy movements to develop Bingo sheets about what the 'other side' tends to say. Autistics.org has several here, and I kind of like them. But those Bingo sheets often give me an uneasy feeling.
And just now, I got an idea of why.
First, the background. I'm working on a story set in a universe where many mythological 'other worlds' - Faerieland, Heaven, Hell, Midgard, Olympus, etc - actually exist, as do many different gods. And then there's the Trickster, who is a mostly-neutral agent of chaos, just making sure that things keep changing. The Trickster isn't immortal, however, so he has to chose a successor, and he gets his six children to each try to change the world, in any way they choose. There's probably going to be a book about each of the kids, although it depends on how well they motivate me.
Anyway, I just had an idea, of saying that wisakecahk was the first Trickster, and based on this, one of the Trickster's kids decides to befriend a Cree girl and recruit her as a teammate. It's a spark of an idea that could help set me off into writing that story. But I'm worried that people will be offended by me, a white person, writing about Cree mythology.
So I was searching for stuff about cultural appropriation, and I found the Cultural Appropriation Bingo card. And I realized that several of the things on that card (arts always borrows, asked a person from that culture, doing it respectfully and contradiction with criticism of Anglo-centrism) are things I consider to be valid points. And the problem is, that card doesn't say anything about why they disagree with those arguments. It just says not to use those arguments.
For a person who does not know the issue, is not a part of the group affected by the issue, but earnestly wants to be respectful and understand their perspective, those Bingo cards are no help. They just attack, and shut down dialogue. I can see the usefulness of those cards for self-advocates, because those really are arguments used over and over, and realizing that can help take the sting from them - but some people really believe those arguments. And those people may want to understand why you disagree, may want to be an ally. Just telling them to not make those arguments does nothing to help them understand why not.
Now, some people may say 'it's not our duty to explain ourselves to others'. And sure, a random autistic or Native person or whatever group should not be expected to give impromptu lectures to the privileged on their differences. But if you put yourself out there and decide to be an activist, then you should be expected to explain. Not anything people ask, but those things that are relevant to your message. Furthermore, if you don't explain yourself, how can you expect them to understand you?
And just now, I got an idea of why.
First, the background. I'm working on a story set in a universe where many mythological 'other worlds' - Faerieland, Heaven, Hell, Midgard, Olympus, etc - actually exist, as do many different gods. And then there's the Trickster, who is a mostly-neutral agent of chaos, just making sure that things keep changing. The Trickster isn't immortal, however, so he has to chose a successor, and he gets his six children to each try to change the world, in any way they choose. There's probably going to be a book about each of the kids, although it depends on how well they motivate me.
Anyway, I just had an idea, of saying that wisakecahk was the first Trickster, and based on this, one of the Trickster's kids decides to befriend a Cree girl and recruit her as a teammate. It's a spark of an idea that could help set me off into writing that story. But I'm worried that people will be offended by me, a white person, writing about Cree mythology.
So I was searching for stuff about cultural appropriation, and I found the Cultural Appropriation Bingo card. And I realized that several of the things on that card (arts always borrows, asked a person from that culture, doing it respectfully and contradiction with criticism of Anglo-centrism) are things I consider to be valid points. And the problem is, that card doesn't say anything about why they disagree with those arguments. It just says not to use those arguments.
For a person who does not know the issue, is not a part of the group affected by the issue, but earnestly wants to be respectful and understand their perspective, those Bingo cards are no help. They just attack, and shut down dialogue. I can see the usefulness of those cards for self-advocates, because those really are arguments used over and over, and realizing that can help take the sting from them - but some people really believe those arguments. And those people may want to understand why you disagree, may want to be an ally. Just telling them to not make those arguments does nothing to help them understand why not.
Now, some people may say 'it's not our duty to explain ourselves to others'. And sure, a random autistic or Native person or whatever group should not be expected to give impromptu lectures to the privileged on their differences. But if you put yourself out there and decide to be an activist, then you should be expected to explain. Not anything people ask, but those things that are relevant to your message. Furthermore, if you don't explain yourself, how can you expect them to understand you?
0 comments:
Post a Comment