I hope that it’s doing more folks than just me good, but it is doing me good to articulate myself and some of my beliefs about being an ethical [...]]]> I have at least four more Tao of… posts to write. I’d planned to write 8 and I’m sticking to that promise, both for symbolic and thematic reasons.

I hope that it’s doing more folks than just me good, but it is doing me good to articulate myself and some of my beliefs about being an ethical activist/warrior.

I have been reading and rereading bits and bobs of this year’s cultural appropriation discussions and I am left with some questions.

These are questions posed by me (a PoC, an antiracist activist, a civil rights activist, a cultural diversity activist and an arts activist – among other activisms) to a wide audience, of course, because I’m publishing them to the Internet, but they are specifically aimed at folks who are also pursuing antiracist agendas and who are making policy about cultural appropriation.

I live in hope that I will one day feel like I don’t have to remind anyone about my zero tolerance regarding disrespect. If you have something to say, say it respectfully, do your homework, and try not to soil yourself.

Various relevant assumptions I’m making are:

• We are all clear that cultural appropriation is a tricky issue with many nuances that it seems like no one gets entirely right (even PoCs). Even so, we are tired of having the same tired argument year after year and would like to see some progress made.
• We are aware that the world is a vast and varied place and that so far, no philosophical utopia has ever been applied successfully to entire countries, let alone the world.
• We know that when we are born we are not given a contract that stipulates equal access to all resources. Similarly, there is no extant contract that promises us that the world at large will be fair. It will not set aside specific resources that are earmarked for us.
• We accede that it is possible for folks who are community outsiders to get it right – to blend their goals, lives, agenda, creativity, whatnot with a community they were not born to, do their thing and get out or stay without offending any/many people. (A lot of people have trouble with this and have trouble acknowledging that it happens all the time around us as our culture assimilates and emphasizes interesting, engaging things, so if you can’t agree on this, please don’t come here and try to argue it with me.)
• We know that cultures and subcultures have their own rules and baselines and there is no quality of these sorts of rules (not even love, not even justice) that inherently makes every culture and subculture embrace them. That our particular rule (e.g. thou shalt not commit cultural appropriation) is just or fair doesn’t mean that every world culture and subculture will embrace it and respect it.
• We know that celebrated civilizations, countries, cultures seem to thrive on: art, culture, diversity, variety, change, dynamicism, dialogue, difference, flexibility, derivation, mixing and remixing of ideas, concepts, facts, fiction. Civilizations, countries, cultures seem to fail when they squelch these things.
• We’ve seen that sometimes when individuals attempt to transgress boundaries, they create a lot of change, some of its effects are good, some are bad, some are neutral.

In no particular order, an incomplete list of questions about where we’re going and how far we plan to go:

• If the idea from our cultural appropriation dialogues and diatribes is that cultural appropriation is simply wrong and should be avoided at all costs, where do we go to get sources and inspiration for creativity?
• If there are no white people who can manage to do it right, are we planning to let them do it at all? Some folks are saying that PoC don’t have the opportunity to make what we need to make happen, happen (i.e. PoC folks who want to work against cultural appropriation in their work don’t get publication opportunities). So how do we surmount that problem and get the right ideas, concepts and other products of our creativity out into the limelight?
• If instead the idea from our dialogues and diatribes is that it’s okay for white people to do attempt to do cultural appropriation, but we get to yell at them for it, how long do you think they’ll keep trying? Do you think it’s possible that we’ll squelch all attempts by being interpreted as being ungrateful or dangerous?
• How do we do our best to or guarantee that when a good piece of cultural appropriation happens that it’s celebrated? How do we make sure every antiracist activist everywhere gets that message and stops crucifying the creator who had the audacity to try and succeed?
• How do we tell when a problematic work has still done good for us and our cause (of righteous fairness and justice)? How do we celebrate or promote that work without having the hypocrisies bite us in the ass on the way out/way forward?
• How do we define good or problematic (or any other value judgment of) cultural appropriation? What is our yardstick? How do we make sure we’re all using the same measuring device so that our message is clear, distinct and consistent?
• If we squelch all creativity in this arena, what are we left with? PoC with good ideas who can’t publish and white people with good ideas who won’t (because we’ve convinced them it’s too dangerous to try)?
• Are we resolved not only to squash appropriation out complete in contemporary efforts, or are we also going to get revisionist on our own history?

Simply, what are our next steps, and how fascist are we planning to get about it?

Note: Though fascism is an extremely problematic and potentially insulting charge, I use it from the perspective of a warrior. If I decide to ally with the prevailing movement to flame asses off in defense of the evilness of cultural appropriation, I want to evaluate how far we’re planning to go with this, so I can make an informed decision. The question is meant as a direct question and an honest one. Tell me and I’ll decide whether I wish to lend a shoulder. It’s possible to answer the question in the negative as in “I do not intend to or wish to be fascist at all in this effort.”

My first question to you is, what about “don’t feed the trolls” did you not understand?

Probably the worst way is to respond with hurt and rage. This is what trolls are in the game for. If you do [...]]]> So now that most of us know who the troller from WisCon is, what do we do about her?

My first question to you is, what about “don’t feed the trolls” did you not understand?

Probably the worst way is to respond with hurt and rage. This is what trolls are in the game for. If you do this, the troll can make more fun of you and the cycle continues.

Another poor way is to respond in kind. Again this perpetuates the dynamic and encourages more interaction while simultaneously corrupting your own side and your moral and ethical advantages.

A good general way to respond is in a way they aren’t hoping you will (Angry Black Woman has suggested an approach of spamming the SASS board with cute pictures of kitties and nice, sweet things). Honestly, this would be a good one if we knew none of the cute-spammers would ever get angry and knew no one would ever stoop to anger or revenge on the side of the righteous. Unfortunately, because we’re human and on their battleground, it’s not likely to go well for us if we do carry out this plan – inevitably we’ll get caught up in the bad feelings and stop doing the right thing.

Another possibility, which grants a moral advantage, is the way badgerbag responded, which was deconstructionist and in sympathy. badgerbag responded by saying, “Hey, this person must be pretty fucked up.” (paraphrase), then did research and found evidence that our troller seems to have some eating disorder-related problems, and then exhorted us to instead try to respond to this person with sympathy, and to interpret her trolling as cries for help. The advantage here is that we move from a moral high-ground and the ethics of this approach are pretty sound. Unfortunately, like the cute-spamming strategy, it puts us within reach and should things go south again, builds in us the possibility to resent and to rage about how it went, despite all the good faith effort we put into trying to build bridges.

I think if I were moved to respond in some way, I would probably choose a strictly formal legal route with hired legal representatives. It is a little trollish to respond with legal measures, but it kind of evens the playing field and from the tactical standpoint, any trollish aggression after the first legal move actually digs holes much more deeply and more quickly for the opposing side (actually, until they realize you’re absolutely serious, you’re likely to get more bullshit than less, which will be to your advantage in the long haul, which is one of the reasons I’d choose this route). Legal responses are formal and impersonal, which helps average out any stupidity and cushions us from the corrupting influences of getting too involved. Also, they are generally ethically sound (as long as you’re careful). Morally sound? I’m not quite sure. I think it may depend on your religion.

But I think the absolute best way to respond is very satisfying in a Zen sense, if you can manage it. You simply don’t. You do not give the troller any notice, credit or attention. You just get on with life and act like they aren’t even there (or even better, naturally exhibit complete ignorance of their existence, because you don’t care). Why does this work so well? Because the troll craves attention, the troll craves a reaction, the troll wants to be noticed. Fundamentally, not noticing, not caring, not responding is the best reaction because they get absolutely no feedback at all, and will eventually go elsewhere for their trollish pleasure.