The debate over cultural appropriation is not over (unfortunately)

The cultural appropriation debate has flared up again, as it does from time to time here in Canada (and probably elsewhere), stoked by the Appropriation Prize nonsense already reported on, and the troubles of the white artist Amanda PL who has had the temerity to adopt an artistic style that is influenced by the bright colours and bold outlines of the Woodland School of Art, popularized by Aboriginal artists like Norval Moriseau.
A few high-profile heads have already rolled as the issues get batted back and forth, and the debate becomes increasingly acrimonious. Today, though, the Globe and Mail has seen fit to devote a centre page spread to an article by Kateri Akiwenzie-Damm, an Ontario Anishnaabe writer, which she entitles "The debate is over: it's time for action". It may well be time for action of some sort, but it is wishful thinking to suppose that the debate is over.

Sure, it's good to get an in-depth response on the issue from a prominent Indigenous author, but I really can't accept some of the assertions she makes. Partly what rankles is Ms. Akiwenzie-Damm's implicit assumption that the opinions of an Indigenous person automatically trump that of a white male straight guy, and that she is the one to say when the argument is over/won. Were it the other way around, I'm sure she would agree with me on that. In actual fact, this issue is way bigger than just Canada's First Nations, which has been the entire focus of the recent debate. Cultural appropriation can refer to a man writing about the experience of a woman (and vice versa), a white man or woman writing from the perspective of a black person (and, of course, vice versa), a Chinese person writing about a Dutch family, a white straight male writing about the trials and tribulations of a transgendered homosexual (and vice versa)... You get the idea. In today's multiculti post-modern world, writing any book that restricts itself to just one race/sex/nationality/sexual preference would be almost impossible, not to mention tedious. But that is the logical conclusion of the cultural appropriation argument.
And, even if you want to argue that the reductio ab adsurdam is not what we are talking about here, then where exactly does the line fall between acceptable and not acceptable? Can an Inuit writer write about a Cree character, for example. Can ... well, I'm sure you can see where this is going. These are not just idle hypothetical questions: they are valid questions arising from the cultural appropriation standpoint. Unfortunately, I don't think that many of them have convincing answers.

Yes, I understand that the First Nations of Canada, as in most other colonial outposts the world over, have had (and continue to have, in many respects) a raw deal, from the Scoops to the residential school system to the MMIW phenomenon to the lamentable education/healthcare/social/water situation in many northern communities. These are all issues that need to be addressed, and supposedly are being addressed, although not very effectively thus far. And I also understand that unflattering, stereotypical and poorly-understood portraits of native peoples have been the norm for much of colonial history, although I sincerely believe that that has changed in recent years. But to claim, as Ms. Akiwenzie-Damm does, that Indigenous writers should be the only ones allowed to write about Indigenous people, and that "their" stories are being "stolen" by non-Indigenous writers (as she repeatedly claims), I consider arrant nonsense. Are Indigenous writers allowed to write about white experiences, to explore white characters (good and bad) in their books? If so, then please explain the difference. If not, then how stupid is that?

Ms. Akiwenzie-Damm also brings up an article by Lenore Keeshig in 1989, and echoes Ms. Keeshig's easy dismissal of the argument that what some call cultural appropriation others call freedom of speech and artistic imagination. This is not an argument so readily dismissed, though, and is not as "disingenuous" as the two native authors claim. Neither is it reasonable to claim that the appropriationists (my word!) are suggesting that "we are not capable of telling out own stories with the skill, beauty and depth that white middle-class writers could, or that, unlike them, we are too biased". I don't remember ever hearing such an allegation from anyone. She says, of stories about indigenous experiences, that "we can tell them best", and that may well be true, but surely it should not preclude others from trying.

Neither do I believe that Indigenous authors are not taken seriously enough in the world of Canadian letters. Indeed, I see many white people in the industry bending over backwards to institute a kind of positive discrimination climate for First Nations writers (and that's a whole other debate right there). It seems to me that native Canadian writers are completely eligible for the existing literary prizes - some have indeed triumphed in that sphere - and I don't see any obvious signs of discrimination against them. I don't know the breakdown of Indigenous prize winners, as compared to the proportion of the general population, but I would be surprised it were that skewed. If First national writers would like an Emerging Indigenous Voice prize as well, as has been proposed, that is fine by me, although I do worry that they in doing so are just establishing a kind of second-rank prize for those who can't win the big prizes, which would be unfortunate.

Well, that's my own opinion, and I am grateful to live in a country where I can express my views openly. These are not racist views. I don't even see them as being overly insensitive (otherwise I wouldn't share them). They are just views, backed up by a bit of logical argument, and I see them as just as valid as the views of Kateri Akiwenzie-Damm, even though I am not Indigenous or even a published writer.

And, no, the debate is not over. Unfortunately.