Pocahontas and Mulan come to mind immediately as movies that pissed a lot of people off. Pocahontas especially since they whitewashed an already whitewashed story.
I disagree pretty hard, particularly when the history in question is the first contact between cultures. It is European American history as much as Native American history. It is both of their story to tell. There is obviously a difference in power dynamics between those two parties, but to categorize the entirety of media exhibiting the history wherein those cultures contacted as exploitative or appropriation, just makes no sense. And discouraging that sort of media just lends to even more ignorance than we already have.
Inaccurate, whitewashed, insensetive, malicious, or otherwise disrespectful depictions of cultures and history are a problem. But accurate depictions of history, particularly of or involving your own culture (though I would argue that it doesn’t matter the culture if it is accurate and reapectful), are educational, representative, and not something to discourage. And they are not exploitative unless made at the expense of someone else.
It is a problem inaccurate or not. I vehemently disagree with you that rapers and pillagers should be able to claim the rape and pillage as their cultural history.
What are you talking about? How is negative history not part of your cultural history? Would you have them erase that history? How is that not whitewashing? Wars? Colonization? Subjugation? These aren’t culturally relevant? Arguably the negative history is more important, especially when it collides with other cultures because that history can be defining for the other culture.
What are you talking about? A bunch of white people made a shit load of money off a movie that exploits history. I don’t understand why you aren’t getting why people have a problem with that.
Pocahontas and Mulan come to mind immediately as movies that pissed a lot of people off. Pocahontas especially since they whitewashed an already whitewashed story.
Yea, but I dont think that that was for cultural appropriation, but historically inaccuracy as you said and cultural insensitivity.
The exploitation of cultural history, inaccurate or not, is appropriation.
I disagree pretty hard, particularly when the history in question is the first contact between cultures. It is European American history as much as Native American history. It is both of their story to tell. There is obviously a difference in power dynamics between those two parties, but to categorize the entirety of media exhibiting the history wherein those cultures contacted as exploitative or appropriation, just makes no sense. And discouraging that sort of media just lends to even more ignorance than we already have.
Inaccurate, whitewashed, insensetive, malicious, or otherwise disrespectful depictions of cultures and history are a problem. But accurate depictions of history, particularly of or involving your own culture (though I would argue that it doesn’t matter the culture if it is accurate and reapectful), are educational, representative, and not something to discourage. And they are not exploitative unless made at the expense of someone else.
A major problem was that the history presented was inaccurate.
I know. That is what I said was the problem with the movie. You said it was a problem inaccurate or not.
What are you talking about? How is negative history not part of your cultural history? Would you have them erase that history? How is that not whitewashing? Wars? Colonization? Subjugation? These aren’t culturally relevant? Arguably the negative history is more important, especially when it collides with other cultures because that history can be defining for the other culture.
What are you talking about? A bunch of white people made a shit load of money off a movie that exploits history. I don’t understand why you aren’t getting why people have a problem with that.
Mulan?