Harper Collins is about to release a children’s book called The Daring Book for Girls(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll) in Australia. It contains a very short section on how to play a didgeridoo — and wouldn’t you know it, someone is offended.
But the general manager of the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association, Dr Mark Rose, says the publishers have committed a major faux pas by including a didgeridoo lesson for girls.
Dr Rose says the didgeridoo is a man’s instrument and touching it could make girls infertile, and has called for the book to be pulped.
I think Dr Rose has confused aboriginal belief with reality. The didgeridoo is a long piece of hollow painted wood. Go ahead, girls, you can touch it and it won’t hurt you, no matter how much someone claims its magic powers will do weird things to your gonads.
I would think that he could, possibly, make a case for cultural insensitivity if it were true that it would the book violated native taboos, but even that wouldn’t be grounds for demanding that the book be destroyed — it would just mean that members of a culture that rigidly defines women’s roles would not be buying the book. But this Rose kook goes further — he’s not just saying it violates a tradition, he is arguing that it literally has magic powers. What next, will Catholics start claiming that pieces of bread literally turn into pieces of a god? That would be ridiculous.
“I would say from an Indigenous perspective, an extreme mistake, but part of a general ignorance that mainstream Australia has about Aboriginal culture,” he said.
“We know very clearly that there is a range of consequences for females touching a didgeridoo, it’s men’s business, and in the girls book, instructions on how to use it, for us it is an extreme cultural indiscretion.”
Dr Rose says the consequences for a girl touching a didgeridoo can be quite extreme.
“It would vary in the places where it is, infertility would be the start of it ranging to other consequences,” he said.
“I won’t even let my daughter touch one…. as cultural respect. And we know it’s men’s business.
“In our times there are men’s business and women’s business, and the didgeridoo is definitely a men’s business ceremonial tool.”
Heh heh. He said “ceremonial tool.” I know who’s playing the tool here.
(via Josh Reviews Everything)
interesting. if i was to bodge together a musical instrument that resembled, but was not actually, a didgeridoo – at what point would it acquire the ability to sterilise girls? is there a threshold point where it would become didgeridoo-like enough to mildly reduce fertility? and if it was being played in a forest where there was no-one there to hear it, would it make a sound?
I have heard the Tuvan throat-singing can also cause infertility in women. (Just a word of warning to the ladies).
Awesome. I’m a girl and I OWN a didgeridoo. I’m guessing according to Rose, I should be dead by now, or something.
Didgeridoo?
Didgeridon’t!
With apologies.
Z
How long before books are going to be banned because someone believes that all fiction is of teh debbil?
I’m goin gto a sushi restaurant, and tell the owners that their serving of raw fish is an affront to the Great Cepholapod in Outer Space. Who’s with me!
Wow. What about gourdalins?
I remember this custom from primary school. I remember not being very critical of it, to the point where I thought it was wrong for a girl in my class to play one.
Oh how times have changed.
The argument here is rather complicated by the context of 200 years of whites telling Aborigines that their beliefs are wicked and wrong. That does make the cultural insensitivity a bit more dicey than it would be in dealing with, say, Catholic beliefs.
I’m disappointed that no one asked the good Doctor by which mechanism is the woman or girl is made infertile. Do the ovaries vanish or just turn into non-descended testicles? Show me the magic!
Is there anything in our world that does not have a religious or obscene cultural taboo based on superstition and nonsense? Here is yet another example that is finally seeing the light of non-reason. Crackers, didgeridoos, assorted icons, shrouds, and all manner of insane connotations. We can only surmise what will be next to amuse and infuriate us, and brought to you by religion and it’s substrates.
Stupid caveman beliefs. It’s hard to believe that we have microprocessors and space telescopes and yet these primitives still think this crap. Ugh.
COLLINS BLOWS IT– INFERTILE BELIEF FOUND TO BE PHALLUS-Y
All I can think of is Lisa Simpson playing a didgeridoo when they went to Australia.
Well if you are running with one and fall on it in a really improbabple manner….. nah, I got nothing.
Only a man can touch and put his mouth on the long, hard, male instrument.
It’s very simple: only allow women who are past fertile age, or women who don’t care if they become infertile, to play the damn instrument. That would force Dr. Rose to come up with some other threats, but we’ll cross that bridge when we get there (unless bridge crossing is men’s business).
I think the author of the story got confused – Rose was trying to say that if a woman touches his ceremonial tool, then they’ll become infertile. It’s all a big mix-up, really.
Robert Davidson:
Nonsense. It is only “complicated” if one adheres to the belief that because, at some point in history, white people were cruel to aboriginal populations, that, therefore, the descendants of those aboriginal people have a right to require the descendants of those white people to pay respect to nonsensical, superstitious gibberish. The fact that they were victims does not turn “superstitious nonsense” into “non-superstitious nonsense,” solely as a result of that group’s history of victimization.
Playing a digeridoo can cause infertility problems for boys too. (Not through any magical properties but because girls will think you’re a dork and avoid you like the plague.)
The argument here is rather complicated by the context of 200 years of whites telling Aborigines that their beliefs are wicked and wrong. That does make the cultural insensitivity a bit more dicey than it would be in dealing with, say, Catholic beliefs.
So, then Robert, it’s *not* an incredibly stupid thing to believe? Of *course* it is! It’s idiotic! It’s ludicrous! Ridiculous!
It deserves as much ridicule as the belief that crackers are gods, or that there is a giant dragon that lives in the earth.
I’m going to add my voice to those of the other women who have not only touched, but played (and in some cases own) a didgeridoo with no noticeable ill effects. Countering anecdotal evidence with anecdotal evidence…
I wonder if it is as effective at preventing pregnancy as, say, abstinence-only sex education? Maybe Sarah should have introduced Bristol to a didgeridoo instead of a boyfriend.
You mean these women play a didgeridoo and don’t become infertile? How culturally insensitive of them!
I just find it unseemly to find rich, powerful white people telling oppressed black people how they are to believe, and treading all over what they hold sacred. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous you might find their beliefs – there is a power issue here.
It’s beside the point how tenable the beliefs are here – the real point is what intellectual violence is being done to people who have had a gutful of white murder, oppression, family destruction and cultural destruction. Have you found anything different from talking with Australian Aborigines?
It’s also an issue of cultural property. The didgeridoo is considered Aboriginal property, and it is violation of Aboriginal law to treat it outside its restrictions. You can totally ignore Aboriginal law if you like, but realise that you are thereby continuing the trampling of an ancient culture.
Only just saw the headline, and here it is getting rightly condemned.
Yay for equal-opportunity mockery!
Don’t they sell didgeridoos to tourists? Don’t tell me they refuse to take a woman’s money.
He seems very confused. At times he says it has actual medical consequences, at other times he refers to “cultural respect.” He should get his story straight before he imposes his worldview on the general population.
Religion being used to make one culture subordinate to another? Say it isn’t so!
Oh goodie, another concern troll.
It’s sacred to them. That doesn’t mean anyone else has to treat it that way.
It’s a frickin’ stick.
Maybe some claim it causes infertility, but I have never heard this.
To me it is purely a cultural respect thing – not religious or superstitious at all. The didge is men’s business and the bull-roarer is women’s business. They fulfill different social roles. A man wearing a dress (and a dog collar) makes the same sense as a woman playing a didgeridoo – they can, but why would they? Throwing religion into the mix, especially in this day and age doesn’t compute.
I’ve spun a bull-rorarer (I’m male), and may again, but only cuz they make a kewl sound. I’ts just plain rude and insulting to do it regularly. A (female friend) played a few notes on her didge the other night and I thought immediately she shouldn’t have, but didn’t say anything. We are both white. I know lots of indigenous aussies, not one I know worships the rainbow serpent – it tends to be regarded as just one more creation myth by white and indigenous Australians alike. for the record: in a smackdown, with or without cage, the rainbow serpent would take God, Allah and Yahweh in one go
Is he a gynecologist, perchance? He might be trying to guilt women who play the didgeridoo into arranging an appointment with him for a tubal ligation. Out of cultural respect, you know.
I bought this book for my daughter, and she loves it!
I picked it up without browsing through it, as I was already familiar with his ‘Dangerous Book for Boys’. I have to say, I’m a tad disappointed with the lack of ‘mens business’ in it. Over all, it is a good book, but the clear division between ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ is quite apparent between the two versions.
On a side note, my wife and I spent 6 months in Australia for our honeymoon (backpacking). We both held, and played the digerydoo on many occasions. I think our beautiful healthy daughter is quite enough evidence to show that the good Doctor Rose is incorrect in his hypothesis on infertility.
No worries. Just throw a boomerang to get yer fertility back again.
Do you know how infuriating it is to have concerns dismissed as “a concern troll”? This is an incredibly crucial issue for Australians – it’s the defining characteristic of our culture. Certainly not a troll. My friends’ lives have been extraordinarily damaged by how they have been treated by white culture – please don’t simply dismiss it in an offhand way.
Could this be the a new cutting edge contraceptive? Could the didgeridoo replace the pill? eh? eh? Cheaper than a condom cause you only have to buy it once? Safer then getting your tubes tied. eh? eh?
@#27…
ahem, *cough* *cough*
its a FRACKING stick.
Wait… I’ve got a didgeridoo. I occasionally play it. You mean I never have to pay for contraceptives ever again? Great! Also, whom can I sue if this method fails?
(And yes. I bought it in Australia. I don’t remember hearing that particular piece of silliness. Considering how touchy they are about Ayers Rock and how they will tell you aaaall about it whether you intend to go there or not, I’m sure they’d have mentioned the whole didge thing if it was all that important.)
This is the kind of idiocy for which the word “wanker” (spoken with an Australian accent and much vehemence) is so appropriate.
DaveX wins the internets
How insecure does it show men to be when every single stone-age penis-replacement is either broken by or breaks any woman who touches it? Sounds like a certain anthropologist need to read Totem and Taboo.
Unseemly? Does it not occur to you that this is one person claiming to speak for an entire group of people? I, personally, find that terribly “unseemly”. Or does it not occur to you that you have simply taken this individuals perspective at face value and assumed that all aboriginal people actually believe this? Or does it not occur to you that this person, in expressing his personal opinion, and seeking to speak for every aboriginal person, is bring aboriginal custom into disrepute? I personally find those things “unseemly”. Just as I find it “unseemly” for catholic bishops to push their twisted view of the world into the press, and claim that they represent all “catholics”. For that matter, substitute any self-appointed spokesman, and you’ll find something truly “unseemly” going on.
What the hell is “cultural property”?
@28- I am not an aboriginal Australian, I do not follow their particular religion, I couldn’t give a damn about what they think if I use a bull-roarer or if a girl uses a didgeridoo, furthermore THEY DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT! Their religion, not ours. Their silly rules, not ours. They do not apply to us and the aboriginals should not expect them to apply to us. You are probably insulting some religion somewhere every ten minutes or so. Eaten any beef of late? Grave insult to the Hindus. You cannot live trying not to insult every religion, their rules do not apply and they have to accept that. They want to be offended, fine. Their problem, not ours.
Uluru/Ayers Rock- Would I climb it? Certainly like to, but I would consider it actually aboriginal territory here, their rock, so I probably wouldn’t. Like I’d tapdance cheerfully on a magic jebus biscuit, but not actually climb an RC cathedral, damned tempting though that might be.
Hmmm, guess I shouldn’t have bought my wife a didge as a present all those years ago when I was in Australia. I figured it would be a nice gift because she plays flute, sax, clarinet, and a bunch of other wind instruments. She must never know of my mistake.
Do you know how infuriating it is when people insist their religious rules be followed by everyone? Arbitrary rules defined by a religion have no authority over anyone except those who choose to obey them, whether it’s a cracker or a flute. Period.
Whatever injustices you have suffered at the hands of others does not in any way, shape or form mean we have to obey your religious rules. I can sympathize with the intolerance you have been subject to (really, I can). But telling the rest of the world that women can’t play a musical instrument because one culture believes it’s wrong isn’t the solution.
Armchair Dissident – aren’t you projecting your own values onto Australian Aborigines? How many Aborigines have you spoken to you before firing off these opinions?
The original crackergate thread was originally entitled “It’s a Frickin’ Cracker” until PZ changed it to make it rhyme. I did the same thing with “stick”.
Peter McKellar at #28, are you equating playing a musical instrument with cross dressing?
Are the bullrorarer playing males the equivalent of a San Francisco Queen?
Either way, I approve of this message.
Crushing cultural dogmas is just as important as crushing religious ones (is there a difference between them?) I challenge you to put on a public duet with your friend, playing the others instruments. (insert sexual innuendo here)
As much as I hate quoting from Wikipedia (my copy of Encyclopaedia Britannica is at home):
Or, to put it briefly and succinctly: I was right, you was wrong. Or to be more brief: suck it.
I am tired of this “You must respect other cultures” BS. WHY must I respect and avoid disparaging a culture or cultural belief that I find to be bad, offensive, or evil? I could not care any less that they have darker skin than I do. I do care that they cling to useless, and apparently evil (according to my ethics), beliefs and practices.
Just because their culture was marginalized by a stronger group does not in any way necessarily make that marginalization a bad thing. Nobody sane complains that Nazism (an evil culture and set of beliefs) was almost completely wiped out. It seems that the only bad cultures people think shouldn’t be wiped out are non-white. I just differ in that I don’t care what color skin the majority of a culture’s members have.
If my ridicule, contempt, and arguments against a culture that I see as malign lead to it’s downfall, I am not going to shed a tear. I may in fact celebrate the advancement of us as a species.
Armchair Dissident – which particular group are you referring to? There is no such thing as a generalised Dreaming Law – there is incredible diversity across this vast continent, and hundreds of languages and ethnic groups. Dijeridus only appear in a small minority, of course.
I get the feeling people here are rather out of touch with these cultures, and it’s sounding more and more like a rabid right-wing site (like Andrew Bolt’s blog). A shame – I was starting to like Pharyngula, but it appears a lot more bigoted than I had originally thought.
Drama queen exit. The door’s that way —————->
Welcome to India, the United States, Mexico, South America, Canada, the Middle East, Africa, and every damn where else that we honkys have ever plopped down a colony. We have ignored, slaughtered, “re-educated”, and pirated every native culture we’ve ever touched. In a lot of cases, that means that things that have been “sacred” since “the dawn of time” are often cheapened and commercialized, much to the disappointment of natives. If you have guilt about the fact it happened, fine. Don’t expect anyone else to. I regret lots of the things the USA has done. I can’t change them. I also care less about preserving ancient ways of life than I do about moving the world forward. Sure, many things might be lost (I always feel sad when a language dies), but mystic proclamations and taboos don’t deserve my pity. People, yes. The need to rub blue mud into one’s bellybutton during the third moon of the month? Not so much. This is a blue mud/bellybutton situation.
Is it too late in this thread to waggle my eyebrows and offer my services to any nubile women wishing to take lessons in “didgeridoo” playing? I will provide the “instrument” and give full instruction in technique.
Oh grow up tsg – pathetic. Engage with the arguments. Better yet, start actually discussing evolution and other interesting things.
You know, I have this sacred ritual. Every seventh day of the seventh month, I must sacrifice a virgin of 17 winters to the Great God Adljeika. But, people won’t let me! And now, I am doomed to, after my death, suffer the Great God’s displeasure and my Immortal Soul shall be thrown into the sun where it, together with the souls of the other sinners, shall burn bringing me unimaginable suffering and give light to the Illuminated Ones that live on Earth.
Not only am I OPPRESSED, I am also OFFENDED by other people NOT SACRIFICING VIRGINS, as this is a GRAVE INSULT to the GREAT GOD Adljeika and His Holy Instution Here on Earth! Therefore, I demand other people also sacrifice a virgin of 17 winters every seventh day of the seventh month! Or you will suffer my displeasure and the Terrible Holy Wrath of the Great God Adljeika!
Don’t be a fucktard. Of course they do, it’s called freedom of speech. If you want to say they don’t have a right to ban it, say THAT.
As for calling Robert Davidson a concern troll, can we cut out the childishness of calling people concern trolls every time they try to present a coherent counter-argument? I don’t agree with him, but fuck am I get tired of hearing that phrase applied so liberally here. Just for the record, it has never been used on me, to my recollection.
@ Robert Davidson, I understand your sentiment. However, telling people that they have a right to be offended or a right to object is very different than saying a book can and should be banned. In theory (and I hate myself for using this example) this means that banning Salman Rushdie’s books is a legitimate act by Middle Eastern governments because it offends local sensibilities.
Meanwhile, The Daring Book for Girls was not written to specifically offend aboriginals. I would hold your argument in much higher regard if it was deliberate race baiting, but this is not the case.
Renee (@3):
Maybe not dead, but you could presumably be saving a lot of money on contraception!
Alex (@1):
Funny you should mention that: I think didges make cool sounds, and a while back I thought about acquiring one so I could learn to play. In searching around on teh intertoobz, I found that there are a number of places that give plans for making your own didge from a length of PVC pipe. Real didges, if I understand it correctly, are made from pieces of wood that have been naturally hollowed out by termites… and as such, each one is a unique, “natural” item. I imagine it’s from this found-in-nature aspect of the instrument that its mystical signficance arises; it’s hard to imagine that anyone thinks a length of pipe from Home Depot automagically becomes a fearsome womb-shriveler just because you buzz your lips in one end of it!
BTW, according to the wiki on didges:
Ranson – it’s not that I feel guilt about a destroyed culture, but great sadness. This is the world’s oldest collection of continuous cultures. Religion is inseparably woven into these highly distinctive stories, songs, pictures, dances, languages etc. What are we saying? Let these go extinct without a struggle? Destroying people’s identities and communities in the process, leaving them to lives wasted on alcohol dependency, domestic abuse and squalor? This is not a trivial issue.
The real question here is: Does didgeridoo-induced infertility violate the Catholic Church’s ban on birth control? If not, I think we should start distributing didgeridoos to any woman that wants one in poor Catholic countries as a population control! What could go wrong?
Who knows? Dr. Rose’s revelation of the didgeridoo’s power over the ovaries may help save the world from overpopulation!
Actually if I recall correctly the fuss over the Satanic Verses wasn’t that it was banned but rather that senior cleric in Shia Islam at the time called on all Muslims to kill the author and anyone involved in publishing who knew of the contents.
The Japanese interpreter was murdered, and two other interpreters survived assasination attempts. Rushdie himself spent several years in hiding, under 24-hour armed guard.
Who cares if it’s banned in Saudi Arabia? The issue was a bit more serious than that.
Then you need a lesson in reading comprehension. Dr Rose, speaking – or at least implicitly speaking, without clarification – on behalf of all aboriginal people stated categorically that:
He is appearing to make this statement in his official capacity within the Victorian Aboriginal Education Association. He is not simply stating that some Aboriginals, in some circumstances might find it culturally insensitive. He is stating – at least implicitly – that all aboriginals believe, not just that it is culturally insensitive for girls to play one, but that it’s a magical device that makes them infertile.
I agree with Robert Davidson to an extent. The fact is we need to make a distinction between the cultural appropriation/cultural insensitivity issue (which DOES have implications on our race relations here in the US), and the claims the doctor is making that the instrument actually causes these problems for women who play it.
As for the latter issue, it is of course ridiculous. It is a cultural belief, and that is all, and I believe PZ addressed this by saying that if that is their belief, simply don’t allow the women *within that culture* to play the instrument. In other words, yes, it is a fracking stick.
The first issue, though, is stickier. Cultural appropriation is a major issue. It is a fact that aboriginees in Australia have suffered greatly at the hands of the white colonialists, and appropriating a native instrument for our own uses, because it is “cool” or whatever, is part of that. It is pretty much stealing from another, weaker, people, simply because we *can*.
Think of it in terms of Native Americans. For a time, their beliefs were trampled upon, mocked, villainized. Now, in the past few decades, they’ve been “cool” and “spiritual” and a lot of people have taken them up as evidence of their open-minded spirituality or what have you. Of course the beliefs are still superstitious mumbo-jumbo, I wouldn’t argue that. However, that doesn’t change the fact that as the whites in power, WE have the choice to make those beliefs acceptable or not. The Native Americans did not have that choice.
So, on the one hand, yes we have a fracking stick. But on the other, we have serious issues of cultural appropriation by white people, who then procede to completely disregard the instrument’s inventors’ intentions and rules regarding the instrument. This goes beyond superstition. It is an issue of power, an issue that we don’t have to think about because we ARE the ones in power.
Ooops! Sorry folks, I missed the fact that Armchair Dissident had previously posted precisely the same excerpt from the didge wiki. Forgive my redundancy.
Robert Davidson your argument is bogus. It is the same one that allows Hollocaust survivors to commit ethnic cleansing on Pallestinians because they were abused by others. Two wrongs do not make a right. If the didgeridoo were as precious as you say then why do the Aborginals sell them to the tourists? You cannot have it both ways. I suspect this spat is really over that someone is MAKING MONEY out OUR CULTURE. It is a simple territorial dispute and the cultural spin is just spin.
Back home in New Zealand we have the same issue with Maori ideas of tapu. If they do not want to do something or go somewhere because of their cultural beliefs then fine, but they can only stop me doing it if they own the land. Yes, I may be being culturally insensitive but do you look to see if any Arabs might be watching before you eat with both hands? if not why not? Do you refrain from eating beef because the cow is sacred to the Hindus? if not why not? Royalists may be offended at my refusal to sing God Save the Queen but tough. All together now: Oh Flower of Scotland, when will see again….
I had a friend who received a didgeridoo as a gift. I remember us all passing it around and playing with it that evening. Of the 4 women in attendance, we all went on to get pregnant — 3 within the next year, and me just this year. And 2 of us while using some form of contraception. Go figure …
@52- Quite correct, that was poorly worded of me. They don’t have the right for us to pay any attention to their complaint would be better.
I think there are two different things going on here.
The first is the claim that women playing the didgeridoo is offensive to Aboriginal culture. Assuming it’s true, it’s probably worth mentioning in discussions of didgeridoos. This isn’t to say that women shouldn’t be allowed to play them, of course. To use an extreme analogy, blackface is hideously offensive to black people, but that doesn’t mean it should be illegal, just as burning a flag or desecrating a Eucharist wafer shouldn’t be illegal. But it is worth knowing the context in which didgeridoos were traditionally played, if only because more knowledge is always a good thing.
The second is the claim that women become infertile by touching didgeridoos. This is absolute bullshit on its face; it is demonstrably false. Resorting to it weakens the cultural sensitivity argument.
tsg @ 42:
Actually, it was “It’s a goddamned cracker” (and the permalink still reflects that).
#58 Entoaggie
IAWTC.
You first.
I have. You ignored it. That tells me you have no interest in actually discussing it and would rather preach.
PZ chooses to discuss what he finds interesting. I choose to comment on those topics I find interesting. If you don’t like a topic, no one is forcing you to read it. In other words, the door’s that way ———–>.
So wait, does this mean I get to go to American people and tell them to stop mocking our European culture with their ridiculous handling of those traditional European eating implements, the knife and fork?
Learn to use them both together, or stick to chopsticks, idiots!
Hey, that felt good!
But it was pretty silly, don’t you think?
@Robert Davidson/54: If people want to preserve their culture and continue to heed its rules, that’s fine, but unless they can make a case for why a certain rule should be universal, they can’t expect everyone else to follow it.
Also, you ARE a bit of a drama queen, aren’t you? What do “lives wasted on alcohol dependency, domestic abuse and squalor” have to do with a children’s book aimed at girls showing how to play a musical instrument? I’ll tell you: precisely nothing.
@alex/1: heh, I’m kinda reminded of this xkcd… just make it the stick-didgeridoo-spectrum instead and investigate at which point problems start to appear. ^_~
Laughing so hard, I can barely type…
So which musical instrument makes men sterile when they touch it?
Suggestions?
Can we agree on one thing: regardless of how true a claim is, the issue of power imbalances is something to be considered while discussing cultural appropriation?
I’m with everyone opposing the banning of the book, and supporting freedom to criticise beliefs.
Where I’m concerned is at representatives of a colonising culture carelessly treating objects sacred to members of cultures that they have downtrodden.
That certain people shouldn’t be allowed to do certain things because they are women?
And how, precisely, does a women who is not an Australian Aboriginee playing a didgeridoo cause that?
interesting.
i have a freaking awesome didgeridoo that i brought back from Australia and loads of people have had their mouths round the end of its impressive length and gitth, men and women.
as a communal repository of bacteria, viruses, fungi, worm eggs and general bodily secretions it does have me worried, but I think ovaries are pretty safe.
Funny…I wonder if the same dingalings saying we must all act like TOUCHING A STICK WILL MAKE WOMEN STERILE are fine with honor killings and burning widows alive?
AFTER ALL, IT’S THEIR CULTURE! WE CAN’T JUDGE.
It’s a fucking stick. Should you get smacked upside the head with it, you’d not feel any better because it was a sacred aborigine stick.
I thought Australians were tougher than this? Don’t they wrestle crocodiles when still in first grade or something? And they are all very strong from clinging to the bottom of the Earth all day and night. That’s why the baby Jesus gave the koala those claws, you know.
This whole deal is pretty ridiculous. Obviously, the superstition is stupid, but even more than that, it’s all just sexist posturing.
How can you be so sure it was careless? Maybe the colonizing culture seriously considered the beliefs and customs of the native culture and simply decided that it was crap and not worth making sure it survived?
It’s a fallacious argument. That’s the point.
When people stop making the same tired, bogus argument the phrase stands for, I’ll stop using it.
Robert Davidson said:
Robert, I can see where you are coming from and I agree Australian Aborigines have been treated atrociously and still suffer cultural damage (not to mention straight-forward discrimination) now. However acknowledging this fact does not necessarily mean that every pronouncement made by an aboriginal authority must be respected and obeyed without question (and remember it is one person talking here – do we have any evidence that all or even most aborigines want this book pulped even among those who accept that the didgeridoo is “man’s business”?)
This book in no way forces aboriginal girls who believe that playing the didgeridoo will lead them to become sterile to play it (although a high school biology lesson might well prove rather more effective in casting doubts on that particular belief in the girl’s minds – are you going to deprive them of this too in case it undermines their culture?). All it does is allow girls (by no means of all whom will be aborigine or even if they are believe in the literally in the truth of their legends) who wish to play it to learn how to do it properly and if they don’t wish to (I don’t, but that has more to do with Rolf Harris than anything else!) they don’t have to buy the book. It’s called personal choice and in such a matter where no-one is being harmed culture has no right to interfere.
As a further point to consider is that implicit in your post seems to me to be the assumption that it is wrong to confront ancient cultures with modern societal mores and that instead they should be preserved like museum pieces without changing.
This IMO does not work in the context of the ever-changing world that, like it or not, Aboriginal Australia is now in and part of that change is that female emancipation is now a fact of life. If Aboriginal culture is incapable of adapting to this changed fact it will inevitably fossilise and then die out. If you care as much as you seem to about Aboriginal life and culture do you really want that to happen?
That’s my story and I’m (fricking) sticking to it ;^)
As far as I can see, there are three issues here:
1) Cultural appropriation, which is a legitimate issue. Pretty much anyplace the British colonised wound up having its original cultures oppressed somehow (including, ahem, Peter Ashby, what happened in British Palestine originally), and I’m inclined to give the guy a bit of a bye for being paranoid on that account.
2) Demands for censorship. Sorry, this is bogus and needs to be dealt with by a polite, sincere letter in the Canadian style (I don’t know if Aussies are passive-aggressive enough to do this properly) saying, “Yeah, I understand you’re upset; too bad.”
3) The woo-filled claim. This is also bogus and probably is best dealt with by pointing and laughing. Politesse only goes so far, even if you’re Canadian like me.
#24 – Um, you know you can buy didgeridoos, right? Aboriginal artists make them and sell them. Not just cheap Tawainese knock-offs either (though you get those in any tourist trap store), but the real genuine article – you can even get to watch it being made if you like. And they will sell them to women – heck, my mother (a teacher) got presented one by some Aboriginal kids in her class.
There is no single uniform Aboriginal culture, any more than there is a single uniform Native American culture – various tribes have different standards. Historically, they even had wars over these issues (not particularly surprising, I know).
As far as I’m concerned, if they sell (or give away) a didgeridoo, it belongs to the buyer to do with as her or she wants. Note that this is different to, say, stealing one (that’s theft), or mishandling an historical artefact – there are genuine cultural sensitivity issues there. I’m sure even PZ would draw the line at desecrating a 400-year old cracker. ;)
The accordian.
Oh, wait. That just makes nobody want to have sex with them. Is that the same thing?
Robert Davidson @24
I just find it unseemly to find rich, powerful white people telling oppressed black people how they are to believe, and treading all over what they hold sacred. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous you might find their beliefs – there is a power issue here.
So they get to tell oppressed females how they are supposed to believe and act? Huh? It is a power play-about women.
I agree with you about the “concern troll” thing. Most people around here still haven’t figured out that “troll” doesn’t mean someone who disagrees with the group and that saying something that they disagree with in a polite manner doesn’t make one a “concern troll”. That and the constant parade of “yer stoopit and no true scotsman would construct such a stoopid straw man ad hominem so if you aren’t a poe, we will spit out our rage against you and your ilk” posts are why I usually don’t bother with the comments here. I got quite disillusioned when I expected intellectual discussions and all I’m seeing is Free Republic, but atheist and scientific. Uh oh, I’m being a concern troll, aren’t I?
It’s just a frickin’ bunch of letters on a screen, people!
While visiting Australia earlier this year, I was in a souvenir shop that had a wide variety of didgeridoos (rare edifices, I know!). The salesman mentioned that even a length of PVC pipe can be played as one. So, if a woman plays a PVC didgeridoo, would that have the same deleterious “effect” as if she played a “real” wooden one?
I don’t know if it originated with him, but I recall Penn Jillette commenting on taboos, mentioning that the Freemasons have a rule that only Freemasons can wear the Masonic ring. Of course, if you’re not a Freemason, you don’t have to follow their rules, so you can wear a Masonic ring.
Leaving religion out of this: I agree that in the face of the injustices done to aboriginal people in Australia, people should at least think about the issue before coming to their conclusions.
I also hold the opinion that, taking into account the centuries-old oppression of women, a man telling basically every women in the country what she can or cannot do is also a tad insensitive.
I wonder what the rest of the aboriginal community has to say about this, if they see it the same way as Dr. Rose, or take a more relaxed attitude.
Obviously the issue of indigenous-nonindigenous relations in Australia is close to my heart or I wouldn’t be posting so much here or getting worked up. You must understand that there is no more crucial issue to many of us in Australia.
Lilly de Lure – my point, rather hidden, has been that we have a long, awful history of not listening to Aboriginal people at all. The callous way this issue strikes me as having been treating seems to me to be a continuation of that. I think Aborigines in Australia deserve to have their opinion heard and considered. Again, I’m not agreeing with banning the book, or with superstition. Just that we need some affirmative action in listening carefully to Aborigines here, and to err on the side of caution.
I’ll keep my girls from playing this flute right after I wrap them head to toe in a freakin’ burkha since, y’know, I’m going to teach them algebra and we wouldn’t want to offend the ancient religious culture we appropriated that discipline from.
As Egg Shen put it (regarding similar Chinese cultural absorption) “We take what we like and leave the rest… just like your salad bar”.
Robert Davidson, #24: I just find it unseemly to find rich, powerful white people telling oppressed black people how they are to believe, and treading all over what they hold sacred.
I guess some of us white people feel that in general it is better for people to believe things that are true rather than things that aren’t. Even black people. Especially oppressed people.
Let’s say that no one points out that it’s pretty silly to believe that playing a didgeridoo causes infertility in women. How does that help Aborigines escape from oppression, exactly?
Various people said:
How can you be so sure it was careless? Maybe the colonizing culture seriously considered the beliefs and customs of the native culture.”
I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt that. When, in the history of colonialization, has the dominant culture ever taken seriously the culture that they are dominating? You could say the Romans let their conquered people keep their traditions and religions and whatnot, but that was done more out of political savvy than anything else.
“However acknowledging this fact does not necessarily mean that every pronouncement made by an aboriginal authority must be respected and obeyed without question.”
I don’t think Robert Davidson was suggesting that. In fact, in a later comment, he states that he does not support banning the book.
I think what he and I are most responding to is this attitude in the thread of “Well, why should WE have to respect THEIR beliefs? That’s stupid!” However, this attitude CANNOT be seperated from the fact that we are allowed to have that choice to make. Perhaps things have changed in the past few years, but up until very recently the Aboriginees did not have a choice but to respect the the white man’s beliefs, otherwise face horrible consequences (this is true of blacks in the U.S. as well). The white man gets to choose whether to respect the natives’ views and beliefs, the natives do not get that choice.
It does not mean that I agree with a culture that oppresses women. It does not mean that I think the book should be banned. It does not mean that I think the doctor’s ridiculous opinion should be “respected.” All I think is that the people on this thread need to reign in their contempt a bit, and realize that respect for beliefs is not all equal and fair. It’s really showing a slimy underbelly of a subtle, insidious racism that still has major implications for us in the U.S. today.
#54, Mr. Davidson, cultures don’t go extinct (with the rare exception of total intentional genocide) they just evolve. If a culture fails to change with the times, it simply becomes consumed by the larger, more progressive cultures around it. World wide, we are lowering the barriers between the sexes, and cultures that try to keep them up are feeling the pressure. Aboriginal culture has already had a huge impact on Australian white culture, and will continue to do so, but it is impossible to ‘preserve’ a living culture. It, like all living things, must adapt to survive.
Tony Sideaway, we gave up knives for guns. After the wild, wild west, we thought it looked silly eating with a fork and gun, so we just stuck with the solo utensil.
Indeed, it may just be a marketing gimmick:
Source
I guess a Google search can cause infertility in some academics.
“Because my culture says so” can never be a good reason to allow or respect any action or belief. Either you can present reasons for the particular belief you are espousing, or you can’t. If you can provide a good reason that makes sense you shouldn’t need the “it’s my culture” excuse. If you can’t, then your belief doesn’t deserve any regard, even if it IS a part of your culture.
I don’t have to err on the side of caution where other (or even my own) cultures are concerned. They are the ones making the claims and therefor they need to be the ones to convince everyone else that their claims deserve respect. I understand that the concept of defending one’s own beliefs can be scary, especially when the belief is that a stick is magical, but it is necessary.
That doesn’t make everything they say worth listening to.
That is your perception colored by your biases. The insistence that no women be allowed to play a certain musical instrument is ridiculous no matter who is making it (with the possible exception of a medical professional with scientific evidence that actually playing the instrument is harmful to women).
Dr. Mark Rose’s opinion was heard and considered ridiculous.
So, you’re not upset about the conclusion some of us came to but that we didn’t give it more consideration than we normally would have because it is coming from Aboriginees?
Fine. Aboriginees have been treated unfairly in the past. That isn’t what is happening here.
There should be a (respectively) there. I am not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to believe what you want.
EntoAggie@90:
I believe the early British rulers in India did take the study of local languages and customs rather seriously. Dismissive Westernizing came later.
Robert Davidson said:
Again I can see where you are coming from and on the first point I agree completely – everyone in a democracy has the right to have their views heard and considered.
The problems are that:
a) You seem to be assuming that the one person PZ highlighted here has the right to speak for all aborigines – I see no evidence that all or even most aborigines agree with him. We cannot assume that because someone is Aborigine and speaking that s/he must be speaking “for aborigines”, that’s more than a little patronising, apart from anything else.
b) “Heard and considered” does not mean “accepted without question” – ideas, no matter from what source, need to be critically evaluated on their own merits as part of the “hearing and considering” process. The fact that said opinion may be religious or ancient or comes from anyone in particular does not give it a free pass to circumvent this process.
Sorry, but this part of your post made me shudder – it sounds worryingly like you are advocating the circumvention I mentioned earlier! I just feel that if aboriginal culture is to survive in any meaningful form it needs to adapt to the world it finds itself in now. “Affirmative action” as you so coyly put it seems more likely to be used as an excuse for not facing reality and thus not growing, not changing and becoming more, rather than less, suseptible to dying out.
#91 Bart – I agree that cultures evolve and don’t go extinct, but do you think there’s a case for artificially preserving some cultural artifacts, such as songs, stories, paintings as I mentioned, when they represent a uniquely distinct heritage? I’m the first to argue against a hermetically sealed preservation of people, keeping them from changing etc, but the twin issue is that of telling people they must change.
Many of us tend to think that reconciliation between nonindigenous and indigenous Australians involves finding ways to avoid the steamrolling of a collection of cultures by an unexpected, invading European culture of recent origin. That’s quite a separate issue from the freedom to criticise beliefs.
How does a non-Aboriginal women playing a didgeridoo “steamroll” a culture?
Bill re making a didge – anything will do – I saw a great slide one made with PVC. The authentic ones are hollowed out by termites, but these are hard to find and many are burned out with heated wires these days. They should have beeswax around the mouthpiece – parafin wax isn’t soft enough. A real one is also unlikely to be painted like the tourist ones. They come in all shapes and sizes and are graded by note. I saw one once that was nearly 3 metres long and flared at the end where the tree turned to root.
Robert Davidson understands the issue and most here have missed the big point. So some wanker wants to pulp a book – it won’t happen. The disrespect point, even though worded in infertility mumbo jumbo that the guy doesn’t even believe himself, is real.
Whilst a women can buy a didge, no-one that can actually play it is likely to teach her. It takes more than circular breathing and blowing to conjure the image of a brolga in the trees in audio 3D. These instruments just sit in the corner of your living room from the holiday a few years back.
The appropriation of their culture is wrong. Its no different to monsanto stealing genes from Indian farmers. A couple of years back some white guy was doing Aboriginal style paintings, using a psuedonym and passing it off as authentic art complete with fake story etc – this is no more than fraud.
“Secret Women’s Business” has been tabled in closed Parliament and was part of a key land rights law – and all records were destroyed once decisions had been made.
And re a previous comment – yes, I do equate it with cross-dressing, but with an implicit – “we slaughtered you, stole your land, stole your children for mission slaves – now we will slag your music, flag, language and anything else that remains”. For fuck sake – can’t you leave the poor bastards alone for a decade or two to recover from 12 years of John Howard as PM following 200 years of atrocities and neglect?
Except for those preyed on by the (white) clergy, Indigenous Australians are more naturally atheist than us raised in mainstream western society – 50,000 years of Dreaming stopped abruptly with white man 200 years ago. The same would probably happen to the west if confronted with such a cultural tsunami.
Book burners are book burners. Idiots are idiots. This is actually about culture. I suspect that many indigenous girls will read this book, chuckle like everyone else, but still not consider actually trying to learn to play. My part indigenous granddaughter is more than free to read it (I may even go get a copy now), but if she made a point of playing it I would consider it “bad taste”. If she really, really wanted to, I’d get over it a lot quicker than if it was her white aunt (who I’m sure has played it a few times).
Its about culture, respect – NOT religion.
Joshua BA @93:
“They are the ones making the claims and therefor they need to be the ones to convince everyone else that their claims deserve respect. I understand that the concept of defending one’s own beliefs can be scary, especially when the belief is that a stick is magical, but it is necessary.”
You see, I agree with this, and I don’t. I think it is an admirable, ideal, but *eventual*, goal.
Once again (I know I keep repeating myself, but I feel it’s a point that needs to be made), you simply cannot separate issues of colonialism and oppression from these claims.
Think of the history of the Aboriginees, or really of any dominated group in history. Oppressed, physically and mentally violated, hunted down like animals, their beliefs and customs disrespected, stolen, and torn to shreds. They were told by their oppressors “We don’t have to respect your beliefs, because they are wrong/wicked/inconvenient to us/etc.” Over time, traumatized people tend to draw together, to become insular, to shut out these criticisms, because their identity as a people is all they have.
Now, the descendents of the oppressors are telling the descendents of the oppressed “We don’t have to respect your beliefs, because you can’t prove to us that they are real. Show us some evidence about your stupid magical sticks and then we’ll respect you.” Same old story, different words. Why should they believe us now?
I’m not trying to compare rationalists with cruel oppressors, but cultural memory and identity cannot be ignored. We are free to dismiss them all we like, first with guns, then with scientific evidence. We have that power. I think that needs to be remembered in discussions like this.
So, you mean instead of getting a vasectomy, I could have just bought my wife a didgeridoo? =)
Who’da thunkit?
Cheers.
EntoAggie…
Um, what the hell is cultural appropriation? We aren’t supposed to do things that other culture do if they say so? Who is the authority in these situations? Is there an Australian Aboriginal Cultural Purity Council that has final say, or is it if anyone associated with the culture complains? Do americans and europeans get to take their cultural elements back from other cultures that use them? Cultures grow. Cultures evolve. They do this from within and without, and it is ridiculous to say that any cultures, or elements of culture, are sacred. It is all just fodder for everyone elses culture.
So how are we trampling their culture any more than they are trying to force their cultural beliefs on everyone else?
They are trying to dictate what another cultures book teaches their own girls. No one is going to their villages and instructing women to “grab that didgeridoo”.
Last post I promise – to respond to a couple. Lilly – “affirmative action” was a phrase I deliberately chose. I think that just as endangered species often need some sheltering before release into the wild, Australia’s cultures are something of a special case – they have been so brutally oppressed that for anything distinctive to survive, some protection is needed for a time – not forever. If you see what is happening in the remote communities, I wonder if you’d take my viewpoint.
This is also my answer to tsg’s “So, you’re not upset about the conclusion some of us came to but that we didn’t give it more consideration than we normally would have because it is coming from Aboriginees?”
Yes – I believe this is a special case, because of the extreme, abnormal imbalance of power. More than normal consideration is required here in my opinion.
True.
Yes, but on equal terms. This does not mean undue deference to clearly ludicrous ideas or terms. You should also consider – just as you should when dealing with any group – whether the person speaking is legitimately representing their views.
Dr. Rose was putting forward an extreme position – one that is clearly not held by all aboriginal people – and demanding an extreme reaction. This is not ‘having their voices heard’, in fact it’s the opposite: it’s forcing them to be represented solely by people with views potentially contrary to their own.
This is not unique to aboriginal people: it’s a problem that exists wherever a person with an extreme viewpoint sets themselves up as the de-facto spokesperson for a group. As long as they are in the correct position of power (irony), they are taken as a legitimate spokesperson, and the people themselves are ignored.
Yes, the aboriginal people in Australia – and elsewhere – have historically been oppressed, and yes they suffer from racial discrimination, and yes they should be properly represented, and they should be properly heard. That does not mean that Dr. Rose is therefore necessarily sane.
In other words, respect for one culture’s ideas that other culture’s ideas not be respected.
Why? Why should this ridiculous idea have any more merit simply because of who it’s coming from?
Richard Smith-
So, if a woman plays a PVC didgeridoo, would that have the same deleterious “effect” as if she played a “real” wooden one?
Only if she has had some work done on her plumbing. ;-)
This is Dr. Mark Rose?
So, a white person pretends to be speaking in behalf of aborigines to complain how white people dismiss aborigines?
I forgot to add:
But you still haven’t answered the question of how a non-Aboriginal woman playing a didgeridoo endangers their culture, despite being asked several times.
Fastlane @102 (and others of similar sentiment):
THINK of the money we could have saved over the years – copays on BC prescriptions, and Essure procedures, all down the drain.
Do you think if we patent this quick, we could market it? Earn back a little of what we wasted all these years, and help others achieve infertility, the nonmedical way?
I’m jealous other cultures were able to figure out how to do this without medical or surgical intervention. Why was the truth kept from us all these years?!?!?
Thanks Peter McKellar (@101) for stating what I’ve been trying to get across so elegently.
azqaz @103
“Um, what the hell is cultural appropriation?”
There is a lot of information out there about cultural appropriation, if you care to research it.
In short, it is a culture in power taking elements of a culture not in power. It is not the same as trading cultural elements over time, or the weaker group taking on cultural elements of the stronger group (indeed, often this is forced, and it’s certainly no guarantee of obtaining the power that the stronger culture possesses, although it might garner some benefits).
@tsg,
You only indicate to me that you don’t actually understand the direct meaning of the phrase “concern troll”. Or for that matter, “troll”.
Allow me to explain in childlike words that you can understand,
Trolling is when bad people sneak onto an internet discussion board planning on making everybody sad and and angry so that they get all mad and arguments go flying out the window so that people can shout and scream and call each other bad names.
Concern trolling is when somebody pretends to agree with everything people are saying, but has one or two “reservations”, which is a way of trying to have an argument, without actually being rebutted (sorry big word) erm- argued against.
That is what trolling is. Making fallacious and/or wrong arguments is not the same fucking thing. Basically what your saying is, if your argument doesn’t convince me, it’s trolling.
No, it isn’t. Buy a dictionary, look it up on wikipedia, do something that indicates you at least have a cursory idea of what the term means.
Dumbass.
I didn’t read any further.
This conversation would be appropriate and interesting IF Harper-Collins, or a gang of feminists, had made a commitment to invade aboriginal tribal enclaves and tell the girls to stand up to the aboriginal patriarchy and seize their rights. Then there would be a real conflict: the rights of women of all cultures to autonomy, vs. the rights of cultures to practice their traditions. Then we could have a real argument.
That is not the case here. This is about selling a book within non-aboriginal culture. There is no oppression in this particular act. There is an indirect effect in that some tiny fraction of the people who read the book might violate aboriginal norms…but so what? We cannot demand that every human being on the planet abide by every single weird taboo every extant culture has come up with.
Robert (@54):
Who’s advocating cultural extinction? Presumably people to whom women playing didgeridoos is anathema will simply ignore this book and hew to their traditional values. In what way is it “letting [Aboriginal culture] go extinct without a struggle” for people who have no connection to Aboriginal heritage to live their own lives (including playing whatever musical instruments they choose) without reference to Aboriginal traditions?
Religious people have every right to worship as they please, and traditional cultures have every right to live out their traditions, within their own social context… but this notion that those religions and traditions have any sort of jurisidiction over the rest of the world is precisely how we get the Taliban destroying world art treasures and ayatollahs calling for the execution of prize-winning novelists and Dutch filmmakers being murdered and Native Americans and other traditional cultures trying to restrict the ways we can explore and utilize the Moon (see last paragraph of Section 3).
If someone were aggressively marketing this book to Aboriginal women and girls, and actively trying to seduce them away from their traditional folkways, you might have a point… but this is not that.
I don’t know whether this release is an Australia-specific edition or not, but The Daring Book for Girls has been available here in the U.S. for some time, as a follow-on/companion to The Dangerous Book for Boys, which was a big holiday gift hit a couple years ago. The two books tap into nostalgia for the so-called good old days when children were more hands-on and less sheltered (I haven’t read either, actually, but that’s what I understand from reviews and interviews). They hardly constitute some campaign to stamp out Aboriginal culture.
If I published a cookbook that happened to contain a couple of recipes using pork, would you accuse me of wanting Jewish or Islamic culture, in all their historical richness, to “go extinct”? Even if I allowed that book to be marketed (through mainstream, secular channels) in the Middle East, you probably wouldn’t make that leap. So precisely how does a white girl of English heritage playing a didge in downtown Sidney threaten the continuance of Aboriginal culture? Surely you don’t really believe that this…
…could possibly be the actual result of some innocent (but inconveniently female) child’s interest in making cool sounds come out of a wooden tube? Really?
EntoAggie (@58):
Stealing? You’re suggesting Australian Aborigines own the process of making a particular kind of sound by blowing into a wooden tube? Simply because they’ve invested it with mystical significance within their own cultural tradition, they “own” this physical process for all people everywhere? Do you assert they similarly “own” the use of dots in painting? Where, in your mind, are the limits to which a particular culture can assert exclusive ownership of the tools and techniques used to create art?
My cultural belief is that art, and the means to create it, should be freely available to all (aside: by “freely,” I mean without arbitrary restriction, not necessarily without cost). A large percentage of the Western classical music canon was produced under Christian sponsorship: Does that mean any non-Christians who play it or listen to it are practicing “cultural appropriation”? Does that mean that modern composers who quote themes from church-sponsored classical works are blasphemers? A large number of modern musical instruments trace their heritage to traditional instruments that probably had deep cultural significance: Does enjoying those instruments purely as art “diss” the cultures from which they were derived? I don’t think so, Scooter!
I have no doubt that whites have done any number of terrible things to Aborigines in Australia, just as colonial “masters” have done to indigenous peoples all over the world; I don’t think thinking their music is cool really counts as a terrible thing.
Ok tsg, I’ll break my promise and write one more post so I can answer you.
A non-Aboriginal woman (or an Aboriginal woman) playing a dijeridu against the wishes of, let’s say, a council of elders (not a white anthropologist, though it’s extremely likely he’s consulted the elders) would be an act of disrespect. That would tend to break down the identity of the group, as their wishes are not being respected. When coupled with many other actions against expressed wishes of Aborigines, it would tend to have a cumulative effect of destabilising the cultural identity, artifacts and stability of the people.
When lack of identity, respect and cohesiveness is lacking in a culture built on those things for millennia, it’s likely social breakdown will occur, as it clearly is in such places as the Northern Territory.
Also, expressions of culture such as stories, songs and dances are intricately bound up in the religious mythology of the various Aboriginal peoples. To simply throw them out is likely to have a detrimental effect – things need to be managed by the Aboriginal peoples with the support of the broader Australian (and international) community.
Almost every Aborigine I know (with notable exceptions) is as much of a sceptic as most people on this site. But they want to maintain their cultural traditions, and the destructive onslaught of invading cultures is something we don’t have to simply accept.
Another thing being missed here is as the didge/bullroarer thing is a gender identity issue, I always saw this dichotomy as empowering women – their corroborrees were truly “secret” and male observers used to be killed (or so the stories go). It was an equal thing. men went off to drink in the kitchen and the women talked shoes elsewhere. Nothing has really changed in this respect.
These days the men may posture and pretend they run things, but cross his wife and most of the men come off second best. Having said this, many young Aboriginal women are the victims of misogynist violence – though in most cases I believe that alcohol would be the principle accelerant.
A friend is doing a great deal to try to rebuild indigenous self-respect, and one way is workshopping many of these ancient beliefs and stories – not as truth but as history.
There is an additional aspect too. When the myth tells of the emu and her eggs and it is pointed out in the sky, the emu laying season coincides with the rising of the eggs. Lose the story and you lose the hunting lore, natural history knowledge and so many other things. The remaining herbal lore is tiny compared to the number of unique plants here (as compared to european or north american herbal data)
@#98
Looking at the problems here in the US, I think that we made a serious error, and Australia is in the process of making the same mistake.
The US has this stupid of idea of ‘separate but equal’
@#98
Looking at the problems here in the US, I think that we made a serious error, and Australia is in the process of making the same mistake.
The US has this stupid of idea of ‘separate but equal’. Some think it started with the descendants of the african slaves, but it really started with the Indian reservations.
Trying to keep a culture separate from the dominant culture only leads to problems. The sooner a conquered culture is absorbed into the larger, the fewer problems will occur. Its cold, its hard, but its the best way for us to get along. Humanity doesn’t seem to function well when we draw a line between ‘us’ and ‘them’
(sorry for double post, I bumped the ‘post’ button)
This is patently ridiculous. Do you expect all of us to give up our drums, gunpowder, canoes, mocassins, various games, various styles of hats and clothing, because it ain’t how someone wanted it “back in the day”? What about folks who appropriate a magic cookie?
How stoopid can you get?
Bill Dauphin #117: Excellent post.
It’s topics like this (and posts like Bill’s) that lead me to the inescapable conclusion that Pharyngula is a wonderful oasis of clear thinking in a world going rapidly insane.
So a culture gets marginalized and then, instead of adapting and risking the scary concept of change, they become insular, thereby ensuring that their culture becomes stagnant and diluted with time as some members of the group embrace parts of the colonizing culture. Yeah, great strategy. I can’t help but think that a culture that is afraid of exposing itself to others must, at least in some way, have members who are not confident that it will hold up to scrutiny.
You ask “why should they believe us now?” as if you lose anything by not convincing us that you are correct. We already don’t think you are correct, that’s what caused you to become insular in the first place remember? Given that you have nothing to lose by not convincing outsiders of your correctness, the only real reasons you could possibly have to not share your beliefs in an open way is either that you are afraid that you are wrong or you simply no longer care what we think (this seems unlikely given the outrage brought up).
Cultural identity is worthless when the culture can be simplified to Us and Everyone else. If all you have left is your cultural identity, what you really have is a group of people held together by nothing more than a common fear of not being together.
PZ, I hate to disagree with you, but:
“Then there would be a real conflict: the rights of women of all cultures to autonomy, vs. the rights of cultures to practice their traditions. Then we could have a real argument.”
I would think that you, of all people, would realize that matters of racism and oppression are not always about *directly* telling people of a certain race what to do, or *directly* taking away freedoms. The terrible treatment of Aboriginal people has occurred recently enough in history that I think these are matters worth considering.
Once again, yes the doctor is nuts. No I don’t think the book should be banned. That would be ridiculous. But I thought that Robert Davidon’s suggestion that we take issues of cultural sensitivity and recent oppression into consideration was jumped on unfairly. I understand that there is an anti-PC bent on this blog, and I respect that, but not every issue of being sensitive to a people’s considerations is bogus PC pandering.
Bill Dauphin:
“Stealing? You’re suggesting Australian Aborigines own the process of making a particular kind of sound by blowing into a wooden tube? Simply because they’ve invested it with mystical significance within their own cultural tradition, they “own” this physical process for all people everywhere?”
I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure how to respond to this, because I feel as if you’ve somehow taken my words and run them through a kindergarten filter. Cultural appropriation is a very real thing, and isses of power and dominance do come into play with oppressed cultures. If you believe this is true, then you understand what I am talking about. If you don’t, then you don’t.
Umm…. Dr. Rose is a ‘he’? …no wonder he has gender issues.
PZ,
apologies, your point is taken, things got OT. Many people in oz are upset at what has been allowed to happen for far too long, but enough.
This Dr Rose is clearly a first grade twerp, and guilty of another of my pet gripes – rampant over-self censorship and self-regulation. Rather than actually seeing if anyone is offended he has been pro-actively offended for ALL Aboriginals in his duty-of-care role. sigh.
#118
No one is threating their cultural identity. If anything they are attacking everyone else’s culture by imposing their cultural beliefs on everyone else.
Little Janey in New York rocking out on a didgeridoo is not going to effect their tribal culture anymore than a Tibetan wearing a Native American Headdress the wrong way would effect the Sioux tribe.
If anything this raises cultural awareness, which benefits the cultures.
This makes me want to go out and buy didgeridoos for myself, my mother, daughters, daughters in-law and granddaughters along with a copy of The Daring Book for Girls.
Australian “massacres” of Aboriginies seldom had double-digit, and almost never triple digit, body counts.
Compared to what we did to the Indians they got treated with kid-gloves and sweetness.
Fast Lane #102
I dunno. You can bring your wife a digeri – but you can’t MAKE her doo.
Joshua BA:
“So a culture gets marginalized and then, instead of adapting and risking the scary concept of change, they become insular, thereby ensuring that their culture becomes stagnant and diluted with time as some members of the group embrace parts of the colonizing culture. Yeah, great strategy.”
I’m not saying it’s a good strategy. I’m saying it’s what happens.
True Bob:
“Do you expect all of us to give up our drums, gunpowder, canoes, mocassins, various games, various styles of hats and clothing, because it ain’t how someone wanted it “back in the day”?”
No. It’s a little late for that now, isn’t it? It doesn’t mean it was right for people to take them in the first place. But that’s a history we get to live with now.
I feel as if this issue is getting blown out of proportion. I wasn’t trying to start a gigantic fight, I was just trying to give Robert Davidson a little support because I thought he brought up some interesting issues to keep in mind in the grand scheme of things. I do understand that wading into the comments here can be a bit of a feeding frenzy sometimes, but it does seem like some commenters here have itchy trigger fingers. If it’s gotten to the point where I have to be told I’m “stupid,” as you have done, then maybe it is best that I bow out now.
I disagree. The interactions between colonizers and the colonized with regards to the latter’s culture haven’t been about “correctness”. The colonized were denigrated just because their particular cultural practices were inconvenient or dangerous to the authority of the colonizer. For example, Christian missionaries have no more “correct”ness than practicioners of tribal religions. They certainly didn’t travel the world spreading the Gospel because they had somehow factually demonstrated that Christianity was the one true religion. But the tenets of Christianity, particularly the idea of reward in the afterlife for obedience during this life, are useful if you’re trying to head off a violent slave revolt.
The insularity may well be a reaction to being considered not just wrong, but inherently stupid and/or evil for believing or practicing something with just as much factual basis as whatever the colonizer believed. Being factually correct is irrelevant.
@PZ, #116: tell the girls to stand up to the aboriginal patriarchy and seize their rights
And their mens’ tools!
@Robert Davidson, #118: A non-Aboriginal woman (or an Aboriginal woman) playing a dijeridu against the wishes of, let’s say, a council of elders (not a white anthropologist, though it’s extremely likely he’s consulted the elders) would be an act of disrespect. That would tend to break down the identity of the group, as their wishes are not being respected.
Does this happen at a “hundredth monkey” level? If enough women, even if they’re all on the other side of the planet, play didgeridoos, the very self-identity of the Aboriginal culture will break down? Does this only work with this one taboo, or have non-Aboriginals been thoughtlessly demolishing the culture by breaking other taboos held sacred by the Aborigines? I am positively amazed that Indian culture has managed to survive against its own onslaught of leather-wearing, hamburger-eating counter-culturalists. Taboos are part of what defines a culture, sets one people apart from another. If someone within a culture breaks a taboo, they set themselves apart from it and risk expulsion from it (or worse). If someone from outside a culture breaks one of its taboos, they only re-enforce their outsider-ness, and those within the culture are re-enforced by their commonality. (Depending on how the culture deals with outsiders, this can turn out good or bad for said outsider.) Of course, strength and technology can throw this dynamic way off.
Post as much as you like.
The unsupported assertion is that this view, this wish, is deserving of respect. A group of people believing they have the authority to tell an entire world what musical instruments they are allowed to play, based solely on their gender, is incredibly disrespectful and not worthy of respect no matter who is making the request, even if those making the request have been treated unfairly in the past. It is your assertion that we respect their intolerance. Your council of elders are intolerant of cultures who view women as equals. They are intolerant of other cultures having their own beliefs. Intolerance is not something we should respect nor something we should have to put up with whether or not the culture that exhibits that intolerance is endangered. In fact, if the particular culture is so intolerant, I would wonder whether or not it is actually worth saving.
Throwing a fuss about some women playing the didgeridoo trivializes the very real sufferings of the Asutralian aboriginal people. Just like calling everyone a Nazi or an atisemite trivializes the Holocaust. And that’s not good.
By the way, I find the didgeridoo annoying (especially since it’s become so fashionable). And my beloved goddess Bastet would think the same, if only she existed. So I object, on religious grounds, to anyone playing the didgeridoo.
Bart #121
what we developed as “multi-culturalism” back prior to Howard and was working successfully for 10+ years was very far from “separate but equal”. none of that crap.
Bring your recipes and music but that’s about it. Lebanese can bring the hash though. We had a huge citywide riot because some muslims called a girl in a bikini on the beach a slut.
I’m with Bill Dauphin (#117). My North American daughter of Scandanavian/Irish descent playing a didgeridoo in our Long Island living room is far, far different from a white Australian woman doing so in the presence of aboriginals who accept the taboo. Just like my eating a bacon, egg and cheese sandwich for breakfast in my car on the way to work is entirely different from frying up a rasher on the steps of the local Orthodox synagogue, and PZ discarding a cracker in his kitchen garbage can is entirely different from “defiling the host” in a cathedral during mass.
It is unreasonable and unfair to expect people of other cultures to respect taboos on their own time and in their own habitual spaces. I think it’s usually polite and considerate to respect arbitrary cultural beliefs when in the direct presence of those who believe that shit. But telling my daughter what she can and cannot jam on based on some arbitrary cultural and/or religious beliefs from far away and l,ong ago? Not OK and truly unamerican.
@#133
The person I was responding to was making the claim that the initial colonization and marginalization of the culture is at least partially analogous to the current question of “why should we believe or respect the things you believe are true without reason?”
I can accept that the initial insularity was a protective mechanism, but the truth is that while insular societies may be stagnant in their beliefs, the rest of the world changes. And in the current “western” culture, we at least give lip-service to being rational and looking at things on their merits. The idea that we are going to suddenly decide to destroy them once we find out what they believe is silly in the extreme.
So as far as the reasons I can see for them to remain insular in the modern world, I don’t see how I am at all incorrect.
As for calling Robert Davidson a concern troll, can we cut out the childishness of calling people concern trolls every time they try to present a coherent counter-argument?
BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!
There is NOTHING “coherent” about “It’s only ok to mock the oppressor but not the oppressed”. It is a vapid and bankrupt and utterly self-absorbed way of looking at the world. I refuse to treat people who make the argument with respect.
If he wants to know who oppresses Aboriginies he can look in the fracking mirror at one of the the people who patronizes them like permenant children.
Hey Robert Davidson – you a fan of Germane “Its ok for Aboriginies to beat their wives and the women are race-traitors if they report it” Greer?
Religion is merely an aspect of culture.
Geez. Is it ok for white folk to play the banjo? Can I keep my Telecaster, or do I have to sell it to someone in California, Texas or Tennessee?
File under: Much Didgeridoo About Nothing.
I’ve only spent 6 months in Aus, back in 1996. Back then, it seemed fairly obvious that Aboriginal culture was kept separate. They had their own lands, their own culture, and there seemed to be pressure to ‘preserve’ the traditions.
I just remember the whole tribe at the Alice sleeping in the ditches just outside of town. They wore the traditional garb of ‘clothes thrown out by the whites’ and drank the traditional ‘Lady in boat, or Lady on grass’ (for those out of the loop on that one, there were two types of wine in a box. One had a painting of a woman at a picnic, the other of a woman in a rowboat.)
I feel like a heartless bastard when I say it, but perhaps the old idea that a conquering nation should conquer completely has some merit. Machiavelli was cruel, but correct when he described how to subjugate a people. Setting aside ‘native lands’ is exactly that. In the US, we treat the native territories as sovereign nations… almost. Its that almost that causes all the problems. Either you’ve conquered a people, or not. Enough of these gray areas.
Peter Ashby said:
“It is the same one that allows Hollocaust survivors to commit ethnic cleansing on Pallestinians because they were abused by others.”
The comparison of the IDF with the SS is a standard of antisemitism. The IDF’s motivation still is survival of the jewish people amongst their self-declared enemies, whose desire not “only” to overcome, but to annihilate Israel is professed regularly.
By the way, one thread of Nazi argument was the emphasis on the backwardness and cruelty of jewish religion, for example in circumcision and ritual slaughter. This means that the enlightened critique can well become the servant of its opposite.
When a group like the aborigines is colonized, subdued and disowned, the purpose of criticism of their beliefs is not aimed at their liberation. There is something to be said about half-enlightened Christians stealing the childern of Aborigines and Maoris to “civilize” them. This doesn’t mean that there’s a viable way back to the faith of the Australian ancestors. Dr Rose is just trying to conservate what’s left of the “spirit” and will only succeed to establish an alternative group identity that strengthens the racial division. In western society, genuine identity has become a valuable asset, because of the corrosive effect of being always available, always in competition for the unforeseeable demands of capitalism. Hence the tribal tatoos, celtic festivals, dreadlocks and all the other usurped and pillaged identity-providing symbols. The white middle-class youth reenacts (in a more harmless way) the crimes of their gold-digging, slave-trading forefathers, to put it sharply. I think that is the emotional motive for the often bizarre protest of indigene activists engaged in the protection of gravesites and the masculinity of dickeridoos. Part of the purpose is honourable, but it tends to establish new cultural reservations – far from power, equality, liberty.
Sure, as soon as he tries to present one.
So a didgeridoo could be used for sterilizing women? Well this is great news, I bet touching a didgeridoo is much safer than tubal ligation for instance. Think of the possibilities this would offer poor countries that suffer from overpopulation!
Azkyroth, I tried, oh how did I try
(whether I succeeded is the question – I tend to think so)
The argument that some harm is done to the Aborigines by the other cultures around them adopting their practices and art forms is fucking insane.
Culture A has a cool practice. Culture B oppresses culture A. Culture B then notices that something about Culture A is cool and worthy of copying. And the copying is somehow the bad thing? Bullshit.
Haven’t you ever heard the phrase “Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery”?
“Bill re making a didge – anything will do”
I’ve read that it is offensive to refer to a didgeridoo as a “didge.”
Lots of things are offensive I guess.
The solution is clear – do not force aboriginal women to play instruments that they would rather not play.
I saw a documentary on the harp recently, and it covered various kinds of harps, including one from an asian culture which is only played by men for religious reasons.
Is it then offensive if a woman in L.A. who bought one off eBay plays it?
This whole thing reminds me of when my wife and I lived in Japan. As I stated before she’s a flute player. Orchestra level. While we were there, she decided she wanted to learn how to play the shakuhachi flute. However, she found out that this kind of flute was a “male” instrument. It was assumed that women couldn’t play it because of it’s difficult nature.
She finally found a teacher who would meet with her. He handed her a flute, and after thirty seconds or so of experimenting, she played a series of notes for him on it. He just stood there in silence for a while before saying that many of his students (all male) couldn’t make any kind of note on the flute without several weeks of practice. He took her on as a pupil immediately. Pretty funny, I thought.
I’ve got a picture of her with about 30 other flutists playing in concert. She’s the only woman. She soloed. Sometimes ya gotta throw away old customs.
Not to mention, it’s kind of patronizing…
Mark Rose sounds like a didgeridouche bag.
profgrrrrl
Of the 4 women in attendance, we all went on to get pregnant — 3 within the next year, and me just this year. And 2 of us while using some form of contraception. Go figure …
It’s one of those reverse psychology taboos. They tell you it will make you sterile, when in reality, it gets you pregnant.
I wish to put forth a modern taboo forbidding all fundamentalist wing-nuts to handle modern technology, lest they sterilize the whole planet.
Practice what you preach.
Bart
I see your point, it is the dispossessed, the survivors that are the victims.
The complete genocide of the Tasmanian Aboriginals did not achieve that aim however – but they used purely violence, nothing cultural, that was just ignored in the hope that it would go away.
The situation is one we have inherited and we must work from there. At least there is recognition that that “we don’t know better” and there is now some consultation. In trying to re-establish identity we should not have to sacrifice those gains with integration we have made.
It’s way past my bedtime here so I will need to make this my last post.
thanks for the thoughts and constructive comments
That’s bullshit. There are plenty of minorities, like the Welsh, the Scottish, the Basque and the Sami, who have some measure of self determination and yet are not sleeping in ditches because of it.
@#151 – There’s a lot there to read, so I guess it’s understandable you didn’t quite catch my meaning – I agree with you. That’s why I said I don’t support hermetically sealing cultures. It’s vital that Aborigines are self-determined.
But almost every Aborigine I know is worried about the loss of their cultural traditions due to steamrollering by the unexpected, uninvited invasion of Europeans 200 years ago.
Try an experiment – find out how many Aborigines you ask want to keep some of their distinctive cultures.
re: “concern troll” the use here is incorrect.
It doesn’t mean “someone whose opinion I consider stupid.”
To be a concern troll requires that the troll be dishonest.
A Republican posting, claiming to be a Democrat, saying “we shouldn’t do this, it makes us Democrats look bad…” is a concern troll.
A Republican posting saying “I think you Democrats look bad” is NOT a concern troll.
Robert Davidson is NOT a concern troll, because he is NOT a native Australian who is claiming to be a European or American saying that “we Europeans (Americans) should not do…” whatever.
RE: “Think of it in terms of Native Americans. For a time, their beliefs were trampled upon, mocked, villainized. Now, in the past few decades, they’ve been “cool” and “spiritual” and a lot of people have taken them up as evidence of their open-minded spirituality or what have you.”
Well, we have some pretty good documentation of early American Indian belief systems which include primitive animism & totemism. The current GreatSkySpirit and one-with-the-earth gibberish doesn’t resemble the historical record at all. Makes one wonder how much influence the hippies of the 60s and the new age movement had on AI spirituality.
NEWS FLASH: The Bush Administration today announced the removal of “The Daring Book for Girls” from school libraries as part of its abstinence-only education policy, and imposed a ban on the sale of didgeridoos to minors due to their contraceptive properties. The American Family Association praised the action.
Okay I notice a comparison to the SS above. Can we declare the thread godwinized yet?
#157
So Italians eating noodles made Chinese culture less distinct?
A Portuguese sailor using an astrolabe made Arabic culture less distinct?
Me learning the tin whistle makes Irish culture less distinct?
unGeDuLdig oh please, who kicked who out of their lands in Palestine? Who unilaterally declared an ethnically pure state irregardless of the other people living in that place?
Using the reaction of some people to those events as an excuse for them is morally repugnant in the extreme. And calling criticism of *Israeli Government* actions anti semitic is utter bullshit designed to shut down informed debate and ensure only one side of the argument gets heard. I understand that the media in the US gives an extremely partial view of the situation (an American colleague disbelieved us when we pointed out that more than 3x more Palestinians than Israelis die in the conflict, we made her look it up), but that does not excuse deliberate blindness when the information is now plain for all to see.
Don’t insult my intelligence, please.
I decided years ago I have NO respect for the culture of Aboriginees because of its many taboos that fall the most heavily on women. Aboriginal Australians are free to protect their beliefs and way of life, to pursue claims to regain and protect their native lands, and of course to exercise the free speech that is valued by their opressor’s culture more so than their own. No way, however, am I going to regard their beliefs, practices or artifacts with hushed awe. Unlike an acquaintance of mine who decorates her home with a number of Aboriginal-themed items (not authentic as far as I know), I have a distaste for those motifs, due to my unwillingness to glorify a culture that places such rigid strictures on its women.
Anyone who wishes to tell me what I may or may not do as a woman can kiss my lily white ass.
And, as it happens, I own several didges. Three termite hollowed eucalyptus (but not of aborigine origin), one of beautifully decorated with inlay birch, one of fire hollowed agave (agave is good for two things, didgeridoos and tequila), a fabulous boomer of unknown origin, and at least eight of PVC that I share at parties.
For anyone wishing to learn to play the didge, I highly recommend the PVC didges and DVD by Grahm Doe, available at (I have no financial interest in this website):
http://www.didgeridoostore.com/didgeridoo_modern1.htm
http://www.didgeridoostore.com/didgeridoo_dvd.htm
Just one more note, many of us in the didgeridoo community use the term “yidaki” for instruments of aborigine origin, from the Yolngu language of North Eastern Arnhem Land, where the instrument probably originated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yidaki
So, OK:
//
Don’t force anyone to play a didgeridoo. (AKA “do unto others…”)
If you’re a woman, and you’re invited to an Aboriginal home/town/party, don’t play a didgeridoo, unless your hosts say it’s OK. (AKA ‘when in Rome…’)
//
Beyond that any concern about the propriety of playing a frickin’ stick strike me as ludicrous.
How about just asking the book to include some pages on the cultural significance of the didgeridoo to Aboriginal Culture. Including the fact that in their culture it is traditionally a man’s instrument and women are forbidden from handling it. But that is their culture, teaching non-Aborigines how to play it at home is not the same as advocating they invade a ceremony and demand to participate. Neither do I see how it diminishes are appropriates their culture. Knowing a cultures rituals and even performing those rituals does not make one a member of that culture. Neither does it diminish the culture’s experience of their rituals just because some white girl in Sydney is blowing a didgeridoo. I think it would be a “win” for both for the book to include not just a how-to but also the history and significance of the instrument.
It’s official, no one here has a clue what trolling is.
There should be a new policy on Pharyngula, don’t comment wherever you may disagree with 70-90% of the other commenters.
Unless your a ragin’ lunatic that can provide entertainment value, it’s not debate.
Tis trollin’.
(By the way, THIS comment IS trolling. So you know what it looks like.)
Doesn’t that defeat the point?
“Lets all sit around and say how much we agree with each other, then well have a big circle-jerk”
Richard Smith, #134: If someone within a culture breaks a taboo, they set themselves apart from it and risk expulsion from it (or worse). If someone from outside a culture breaks one of its taboos, they only re-enforce their outsider-ness, and those within the culture are re-enforced by their commonality.
But the main point for me isn’t whether a certain group has the right to enforce a taboo on its own members; worthy of consideration, I’ll admit. The main point for me is this claim that we have to respect someone’s belief that women playing didgeradoos become infertile.
I promise: I will never, ever force anyone, man or woman, Aborigine or white, to play a didgeradoo against his or her will. But I think it is perfectly reasonable to point out to someone that a woman does not become infertile because she has played a didgeradoo. In fact, it may even be a disservice to that person to not point this out.
and PLEASE be respectful and pronounce “Pho” as fuuhH
Wouldn’t someone who claims to have viewpoints he doesn’t actually hold be a concern troll as well? So technically someone who says “I think censorship is bad, but this issue is very complicated and we should be careful here, blah blah” and actually means “This book shouldn’t have been published” is a type of concern troll. I don’t think Robert is one of those though, but there can be a fine line between concern trolling and just trying to be conciliatory.
I’m guessing, if you’ve ever played a didgeridoo, you are familiar about how similiar it must be to “playing a woman” orally. I’m guessing this morphed into the fear, that if girls got used to the didgeridoo, it would turn them into lesbians… thereby rendering them infertile.
Just a theory.
On another note… I’m not exactly impressed with the “Daring” books directed toward girls versus boys. It would be nice to get past that blatant sexism of “here are things that little girls will enjoy” and “here are things that little boys will enjoy”. I thought we were past that. Not sure that is helping the future of humanity.
To clarify… for those not familiar with didgeridoo embochure, one puts the lips IN the hole… not AROUND the whole… lending credence to the instrument’s resemblance to cunnilingus more than a blow job.
Purely theory…
Interrobang (@81):
Peter McKellar (@100):
EntoAggie (@125):
I’ll try to respond somewhat synthetically to all. EntoAggie, I do believe it’s true that “issues of power and dominance do come into play with oppressed cultures,” but I either do not understand or do not agree with what you’re talking about re “cultural appropriation.” (As an aside, “kindergarten filter”?? Nice. I actually put a fair amount of thought into my previous response to you, but if it looks to you as if it were written in crayon, I guess I’ll just have to live with that.) Throughout this thread “cultural appropriation” has been characterized as stealing from indigenous peoples, and this is where I fall off the sled, because stealing necessarily involves depriving the victim of something, and I’m entirely at a loss to see how some white girl in Sydney (or a Pakistani girl in Liverpool or an Asian-American girl in Newark, NJ, for that matter) learning to play the didge deprives anyone of anything.
That does not mean I’m insensitive to the plight of oppressed indigenous people. I know power asymmetry and oppression is real. I understand cultural imperialism: the imposition of cultural norms by a powerful culture on a weaker one.[1] I understand that colonized and conquered people have been subjected to physical and economic and political oppression, and burdened with systemic racism even after their political rights have theoretically been normalized. I understand that indigenous peoples have had things actually stolen from them: both cultural treasures (by which I mean physical objects) and intellectual property. I get it.
In fact, Peter’s example of the white countefeiter of Aborigine paintings unambiguously is stealing: That guy is stealing from his customers through fraud (by representing his product as something it isn’t) and stealing from the Aborigines by depriving them of the economic benefit they would receive if his customers were buying real indigenous art instead. That guy was an asshat of the first order, and deserved whatever punishment he got.
But the tenor of this thread has been to suggest that if that same guy had simply been inspired by Aborigine painting and then gone home (i.e., to wherever “white guys” come from) and taught himself to paint that way, never representing his work as anything other than his own work, and acknowledging and honoring his sources of inspiration… that that would still somehow consititute “stealing” and “cultural appropriation.” That’s the part I don’t buy. In that case, how does his action deprive Aborigines of anything, or harm them in any way? If I visit Australia and “fall in love” with a particular indigenous art (let’s say didgeridoo music, as an example), and then go home and incorporate that form in my own artistic expression, I’m not oppressing them; on the other hand, if they can successfully prevent me from doing so, they are oppressing me, no matter how paradoxical that may seem given the larger imbalance of power they suffer under.
Peter wonders why we can’t just “leave the poor bastards alone”; I don’t see how my (or my daughter’s, hypothetically) private didge-playing would be in any way inconsistent with leaving “the poor bastards” alone. Yes, I understand it’s not “just music” to them; so what? Gospel is not “just music” to plenty of folks who sing it in African-American churches on Sunday… but nobody suggests that whites and secular African-Americans who sing gospel just because they like the music are trying to extinguish African-American church culture. I do you no harm by honoring your art within my own separate cultural space, even if I don’t invest it with the same supernatural significance you do.
OK, kindergarten’s done for the day; y’all can go out and play now.
[1] Note: In “the wild,” cultural imperialism can be amusingly ambiguous. When I lived in Korea (in the mid 80s), the younger generation (i.e., college-aged) was somewhat militant about the supposed American cultural imperialism in their country… yet these same young people were desperately eager to get their hands on anything American — movies, music, clothing, branded items. As mutually contradictory as they were, I understood both impulses.
And don’t let those unchaste women near your citrus trees. Volckamer, relaying an old belief from Andulasia, wrote that an unclean woman in a citrus grove killed tree she was sitting under. The botanist geographer al-Awwan wrote that if such a woman would eat the fruit it will drive those unchaste thoughts from her mind. (He failed to tell us whether they drive those same base desires the the minds of men.) That these men wrote in 17th & 12th century respectively, well…
Citrus, specifically oranges, became to symbolize Mary in Renaissance Italy. It has leaves, flowers, and fruit on the tree concurrently. This state to them indicated purity and fecundity, and so justified their belief in the bizarre combination of virginity and motherhood.
This is an incredibly crucial issue for Australians – it’s the defining characteristic of our culture. Certainly not a troll. My friends’ lives have been extraordinarily damaged by how they have been treated by white culture – please don’t simply dismiss it in an offhand way.
And the concern for thousands of years of extradordinary damage to women’s lives by patriarchal culture doesn’t concern you at all?
Nice.
Christine you have got it wrong, equality does not mean everything should be unisex. It means that girls can have the Daring Book for Boys if they want and vice versa.
Am I the only person who thinks cultural respect gets REALLY FUCKING STUPID when what someone’s requesting respect for contradicts science?
Maybe the ceremonial didgeridoos were smeared with some sort of herbal birth control? Or the termites secrete an estrogen interrupter?
Or maybe in the next edition, the Dangerous Book people could add a footnote saying that some Aboriginal people believe that girls shouldn’t play the didgeridoo. But hey, it’s the DANGEROUS Book for Girls, so go ahead and live dangerously!
There is a lot of information out there about cultural appropriation, if you care to research it.
In short, it is a culture in power taking elements of a culture not in power. It is not the same as trading cultural elements over time
In simpler terms, it’s Vanilla Ice, but not Eminem.
Bill Dauphin you have it exactly right. Your analogy with soul music is a good one. I am a sucker for Gregorian chants. If I have a book to read that requires real concentration and thought I will put that on, it’s great. Does that mean I buy into the meaning of what they are chanting? No way. Any more than I bother reading the English translation of the lyrics Yousou N’Dour sings, Li Ma Weesu sounds just wonderful as it is. Am i disrespecting his culture? no and I doubt Yousou would think so.
Mike K wrote:
So which musical instrument makes men sterile when they touch it?
The Theremin
But seriously folks. I’m reading some good points in the comments but Armchair Dissident @ 106 seems to have nailed it.
The publisher could offer a Tipper Gore solution. Invite the Aboriginal Council the opportunity to put a sticker on the back of the book. The Aboriginal Council General has determined that handling a diggey doo could cause sterility in women. or similar.
Whaddaya bet they wouldn’t respond to that invitation.
Lips in the hole??
O NOES! I BIN DOIN’ IT RONG!!
I always thought it had something to do with the tongue (you know, lingus).
Just out of curiosity: how many Australian Aborigines actually care whether or not a didgeraroo is played by a woman?
And the concern for thousands of years of extradordinary damage to women’s lives by patriarchal culture doesn’t concern you at all?
Because many Australians have jumped on the trendy bandwagon. Everyones else rights takes a back seat to that.
The problem with a simplistic “different rules for the oppressed” mentality is that it degenerates into a contest amongst oppressed groups for the right to victimize one another.
Germaine Greer – a Australian feminist icon – has said that aboriginal men are not responsible for beating their wives/gfs, and that the female victims of domestic violence should NOT report their abusers to the police and those who do are race-traitors.
She was roundly denounced by Aboriginals but supported by lots of white Australians because she offers get-out-of-guilt-free cards.
“resemblance” being the key word. … insertion versus circumvention. But go ahead… try the didgeridoo technique at home sometime. See what happens.
Being the daughter of a band director… it is all coming clear now. More women than men, generally speaking, play the flute and other reed instruments… instruments that one puts INTO one’s mouth. And likewise, more men than women play brass instruments… in which you insert your lips… as in the didgeridoo. Someone needs to do a study on this.
EUREKA!
Robert Davidson (#54):
No, it isn’t. But it has sod all to do with demanding a book to be pulped because it tells girls how to play a traditional tribal instrument.
It’s not as if it’s a matter of whether or not women be permitted, in the context of Aboriginal culture, to play a didgeridoo qua tribal artefact (and as others have pointed out, this taboo does not appear to be universal). This may be an arbitrary prohibition, but if you’re a woman visiting a group of traditionally-minded Aboriginals, then the polite thing to do is to keep your hands off any big wooden resonating tubes lying around (or at least ask permission before doing so, to see if the taboo applies with said group). That is being culturally sensitive.
But extending the taboo to all didgeridoos, including commercially manufactured ones, goes way beyond any reasonable concept of cultural sensitivity. The didgeridoo qua musical instrument is no longer limited to Aboriginal culture alone.
Regarding which, from your #70:
There’s a distinction between actual tribal artefacts made for ritual use within the culture (and employed as such), and commercially manufactured versions made for non-ritual, recreational use. The first has a right to be called “sacred”, the second does not. What is appropriate or inappropriate for the first is not necessarily so for the second.
If you’re arguing against the appropriation of the idea of the didgeridoo, then that’s what cultures do. They borrow from each other. They cross-fertilise. They indulge in horizontal meme transfer. And they invent new meanings and uses for the things and ideas that they borrow. Yes, you can argue that it is unfair that European colonisers and their descendants should enrich their own cultures at the expense of marginalised, indigenous cultures. But the unfairness lies in the asymmetry of the historical exchange, not in the universal human act of cultural borrowing itself. The terrible wrongs done to the Aboriginals aren’t not going to be rectified by “giving back” what was borrowed, but by redressing the asymmetry.
But almost every Aborigine I know is worried about the loss of their cultural traditions due to steamrollering by the unexpected, uninvited invasion of Europeans 200 years ago.
I’m sure this has been said to you several times already, but lampooning the extension of cultural norms BEYOND the culture that they apply to is what’s at issue HERE. Exactly like Catholics trying to imply that a consecrated cracker has any meaning at all to a non catholic, or that they have some innate “right” not to be ridiculed for such a ridiculous bit of religious ideology.
“steamrollering” that culture is an entirely separate issue, just as it would be an entirely separate issue to work to get the Catholic church to drop consecrating a cracker as an actual deity.
The original response is not asking the aboriginal culture to do away with not letting women play that instrument, within their own culture (but I wonder just how much you really know of this culture, given that armchair dissident was schooling you on it).
You’re not even a concern troll, it’s just that your concerns are entirely misplaced wrt to the original objection.
If you wish to address people who imply that because sexual stereotyping based on religious ideology is ridiculous (and it is), and thus aboriginal culture itself should drop it, then fine and dandy.
Otherwise, you’re entirely missing the point, and making a fool of yourself in the process.
//Posted by: Peter Ashby | September 3, 2008 1:21 PM
Christine you have got it wrong, equality does not mean everything should be unisex. It means that girls can have the Daring Book for Boys if they want and vice versa.
//
good to know I’ve got it wrong. I see your argument, and it has makes some sense, yet I still believe that the book for boys versus the book for girls, though they try not to, still adhere to gender roles for male and female that don’t need to be encouraged for future generations. Yes, girls and boys can read whatever they want, but I feel that this series is almost a romantization of the feel good gender roles encouraged in the 1950s and before. IMO the need to slap boy versus girl on the cover is a bit antiquated. But then again, I may have it all wrong.
(btw: can anyone tell me how best to include quotes from previous posts in these comments? I’m new to this forum. Thanks)
Wendy said “That’s bullshit. There are plenty of minorities, like the Welsh, the Scottish, the Basque and the Sami, who have some measure of self determination and yet are not sleeping in ditches because of it.”
Well, to most people outside of British culture, Welsh and Scottish people are fairly well assimilated, and any real differences are small and solely within the culture. Obviously the Basque are having some problems adjusting to the countries that have absorbed their borders. Compare the two: The English cruelly and forced the assimilation of the Welsh and Scotts through truly brutal tactics. They didn’t allow dissent or separatist movements. The Basque on the other hand, continue to resist, have private militias, and wage an on/off war against their nations. The difference is clear, the Spanish government gave them nearly sovereign lands, almost sovereign governance, and conflict continues.
You examples seem to strengthen my point. If we pretend a conquered people can have a separate but equal status, the conflict will never end. To bring peace after a war, the conquered people must be completely assimilated in such a way that outsiders cannot tell the difference between the two. As long as there is an ‘us and them’, there will be conflict.
There is no ‘pure’ culture. Culture is adaptation to surroundings (both natural and other cultures) and is fluid and highly variable.
IF one culture becomes dominant (and this is NOT just a white European thing, EVERY conquering culture, Asian, African, Middle Eastern, islander did a similar job subsuming the conquered cultures. In the end, they blend, some things adapt, some disappear. Attempting to ‘keep cultures alive’ by trying to induce the people to become living museum specimen is what destroys people’s lives.
Culture is what is around you. Plenty of American Indians, or Aborigines can and do go to school, get their MBA or Phd, or learn a modern trade and do quite well. Sadly the ones induced to live as museum displays don’t fare well at all.
Oh, dear. I’ve certainly meant no offense in using the term. FWIW, I picked it up from my online shopping, mostly at sites that were at least ostensibly run by and for Aboriginal artists.
Sven (@138):
Oh sure. It goes without saying that getting in people’s faces and flouting their taboos is rude. That’s not to say that sort of rudeness isn’t sometimes warranted, but in this case it would be gratuitous and unnecessary. I don’t see the publication of The Daring Book for Girls as some sort of call to arms for white Australian women to go out looking to violate Aboriginal taboos.
El Herring (@123) and Peter Ashby (@182):
Thanks for the kind words! Y’all get gold stars, and can stay after class to clap the erasers if you want.[1]
[1] In case that’s too obtuse, clapping the (chalkboard) erasers is actually a privilege in U.S. kindergartens and elementary schools. Go figure, eh?
@Schmeer
I don’t say that harm is done to the Aborigines by copying their lifestyle. I say that it reflects the colonial attitude of pillaging and raping groups who have been constructed as “other” and “inferior”. There has always been a soft spot in the hearts of slaveholders for the soulful singing of their property. But having the “inferiors” enrich the cultural ambiente isn’t enough. At the end of the day, a process of “whitening”, i.e. extraction of the “cool” from the “soul” has to happen, the opression memory has to be purged out. That’s how Blues became Elvis, Public Enemy became Eminem, and so on…
@Peter Ashby
“Using the reaction of some people to those events as an excuse for them is morally repugnant in the extreme. And calling criticism of *Israeli Government* actions anti semitic is utter bullshit designed to shut down informed debate and ensure only one side of the argument gets heard…
Don’t insult my intelligence, please.”
For an antisemite, every atrocity against Jews is a reaction. Also typical is putting Israel into “quotation marks” to imply the “zionist entity” which is to be thought of as unnatural and artificial. The very idea of a zionist-controlled media environment insults your intelligence without my help.
By the way, well informed as you are: Since when is Israel an ethnically pure state? Last time I checked, they had a million Israeli Arabs living there, 10% of the Knesset are Arab delegates and so is one judge of the Supreme Court. Your comparison of Israel with the 3rd Reich reveals an abyss of ignorance, if not worse.
Not to be too awful nitpicky, but IIRC it’s Daring for girls; Dangerous for boys. I’m sure that’s sexist in some way I haven’t sorted out yet, but there you have it.
Is it just the Basques that are having a problem, then?
The Basques were brutally oppressed by Franco. The Welsh and the Scots have their own limited goverments now.
It’s moronic to say that there is no concept of “us and them” in Wales or Scotland anymore. And what the fuck do outsiders have to do with it? Anyway, none of the minorities I mentioned are in the situation the Aborigines are in. Even if they have their own troubles, they are not doomed to poverty and misery by keeping some of their own traditions.
CChristine (#190):
Use the HTML blockquote tag, i.e.:
<blockquote>quoted text here</blockquote>
becomes:
unGeDuLdig,
That 10% of “Israeli Arabs” get treated like shit. You know it, I know it, Ashby knows it.
Everyone who disapproves, however mildly, of Israel is an antisemite?
That’s not the sense I get from Israelis. You should go sometime.
Then again my friend got kicked off a bus because he wasn’t Jewish and another one I know got his teeth knocked out for not moving fast enough for the whims of an IDF soldier. Maybe those people were antisemitic too.
Don’t worry about me insulting your intelligence, the target’s a little too small to hit.
Speaking as a once-and-future trumpeter, I can tell you that the lips are important, but you can’t play without the tongue! ;^)
Wendy, outsiders have everything to do with it. No culture can truly, objectively, judge itself. Thats why its important for input from an outside source. Thats why I say the British are examples of properly assimilated conquered populations. You say the Scots have their own limited government? I call BS on that, since any Englishman living in Scotland is subject to all of that territories laws, and all Scotsmen are subject to all English laws. They might have local government, but aren’t recognized as sovereign, and aren’t seeking it.
ETA on the other hand IS seeking a separatist agenda. They don’t want to be part of the Spanish nation. Franco was a bastard, but if he had been able to completely conquer the Basque people, I’m saying there wouldn’t be an ETA.
The poverty and misery that I saw in Aus seemed to be directly related to how the Abo’s were kept separate from mainstream culture. The same is said for the Indian reservation I live close to. All of the natives on the rez live in poverty, waiting for the government handouts (and now, the casino handouts) with all of the success stories being people who LEFT, and joined mainstream US culture.
On the Tuvan throat singing, there may be legit reasoning behind that. I’ve been working with it for a while and I’ve messed up my voice with the lower tone stuff a few times. Female vocal chords are thinner then males and can’t hold up to the same type of stress. Same as there are very few females heave metal screamers or bass singers, this can be simply explained with physiological differences. As for the infertile part, well a girl who ruins her voice and can’t speak is going to have a harder time seducing a husband. I wouldn’t be surprised if children might be harmed attempting to do this too.
I’m not saying it’s a good explanation, but a lot of primitive “rules” are weird like that. In Feng Shui they say you don’t want a bedroom under your bathroom, cause sleeping with water above you is unbalancing to the earth below… or it could be cause you don’t want a fricken giant tub crashing through your ceiling…
I’m not saying that girls shouldn’t throat sing, but that sometimes certain warnings have a real basis, even if it’s not the same as the explination
Woo-hoo, birth control! With no crazy side effects! I’m there!
Must… resist… sexist… joke….!!
>Dr Rose says the didgeridoo is a man’s instrument and touching it could make girls infertile
Oh, if only poor Bristol Palin (17-year-old, five-month-pregnant, yet-to-be-wed daughter of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin) had learned this fact instead of being forced to take abstinence-only sex ed!
btw, Mark Rose does NOT sound like a very Aborigine name to me.
btw #2, does Dr. Rose have any stats to back up the claim of a didgeridoo-playing/infertility relationship?
There is a Scottish parliament. I’m not sure that the distinction you are trying to make is relevant. If you go on an American Indian reservation, don’t you have to follow their laws?
There is a movement for independence in Scotland, too. I think you are simply defining any minority that has any kind of problems as “incompletely conquered”. It doesn’t follow that the only solution is more “conquering”. Is Ireland (the republic) worse off now because they weren’t “completely conquered” by the British while they were under their rule? Or the Norwegians by the Swedes?
For what it’s worth, I agree with what you said before about “separate but equal” being a bad idea, the cultures need to be able to mix and adapt freely. But saying that it would be better to forcibly eradicate all traces of someone’s identity ‘for their own good’ is fascist nonsense.
hey, me too!
Takes lips, tongue and fingers (but only 3).
…and that guy is a DR. of what exactly? I hope he’s not a gynecologist.
I suppose I don’t disagree with you that cultural insularity can be caused by, in part at least, a desire to protect one’s beliefs from rationality. I disagree with the suggestion that the dominant culture doesn’t have to protect its beliefs from the same sort of scrutiny. That is, I disagree that a dominant culture’s beliefs are correct by virtue of their being dominant.
The dominant culture is, however, protected from scrutiny by virtue of its dominance. The members of that culture rarely have to explain their beliefs or practices to otehrs, because nearly everyone they interact with is a member of the same culture. Members of a subordinate culture, OTOH, spend large portions of their lives explaining why they do what they do to people who have possibly never thought about their own practices at all.
To use an example from my own life: as an atheist I’m a member of a minority culture in the United States. I have spent far more time explaining my beliefs, or rather my lack of belief, as an atheist than I imagine the average Christian American does. And my lack of religious faith is something I can hide if need be, if I don’t feel like dealing with hostility.
Oi! stop displaying your ignorance. This Scotsman disagrees with you. Our parliament is sovereign in the areas in which it is sovereign, like Education and Health and Finance in Scotland. The Westminster parliament no longer has soveriegn powers in those areas, it has given them up. That is what Devolution means. No that does not apply to Scots in England, but it applies in Scots territory. I am not subject to much of English law that is simply manifest ignorance. A policeman still has to give proper reason to arrest me. You lot doon sooth no longer have that. There are rules of corroboration in Scots law that do not apply elsewhere in the KIngdom etc, etc, etc.
Even before devolution that was true as well. Not always to our advantage. When I bought my house it was still subject to a Feu, fortunately our feudal overlord was the city council. Others were not so fortunate. Subject to English laws my foot. Anyway if Scots law was equivalent how come Maggie imposed the Poll Tax on the Scots ahead of England? I’ll stop now lest I display your ignorance too much.
Retires muttering about ignorant Sassenachs.
More women than men, generally speaking, play the flute and other reed instruments… instruments that one puts INTO one’s mouth.
If you are putting a flute into your mouth you’re doin’ it wrong. :-) (But there was this one time, at band camp, …)
Also, it seems to me there are far more male Sax players than female.
Myself at 208: “otehrs” should obviously be others. Quote at 208 and below are from Joshua BA @ 139
Joshua BA @ 139 again:
So, given what I said above, I can many reason why a person from a minority culture might choose some level of insularity. I agree with you that complete and total isolation is a poor choice, as it leads to stagnation in a variety of ways.
But, given that the dominant culture subjects a minority culture to a level of scrutiny it does not apply to itself, I can understand why a member of said minority culture might want to be insular some of the time. To continue with the example of myself, I appreciate a break from hostile interrogation by some of the theists I interact with, which is part of the reason I enjoy atheist blogs such as this one.
In the US, when you enter Indian reservations, you are technically on foreign soil, but in practice there is little difference. This causes friction. The friction is caused when the US gov needs something, and simply takes it. The natives get restless, but know that they can’t revolt.
There might be people who dream of a separate Scotland, but there are people in the US who dream of a separate South. Reality is, the cultures are so intertwined, that separation (without revolution) is nearly impossible.
Thanks for bringing up Ireland. Another perfect example. Years and years of fighting brought about a sovereign Irish nation. Sure, northern Ireland is still part of England, but their is a nation independent of England. People from northern, English, Ireland can immigrate to the south if they want an Irish nationality. That brought about an end to the hostilities. I think thats why so many people push for an independent Palestinian nation. The only trouble is, can you get all the Palestinians to move out of Israel into the theoretical new country?
Either way, we have many examples of how conflict can be ended. Create a separate, independent country. Forcibly conquer a people, and don’t allow semi autonomous regions. Or even better, just don’t invade the country next door at all!
Human nature doesn’t seem to allow for separate but equal groups to coincide peacefully. Look at the Stanford Prison Experiment, or the Rwanda genocide for perfect examples. Its somehow part of our make up as a species (not as individuals, mind you) that we will wage war upon the ‘them’. Its truly one of the reasons I fear for the near future in the USA. Were drawing up lines between us, and they are becoming ever sharper. Red vs Blue, Conservative vs Liberal, Evolution vs Intelligent Design.
Hoo boy, he wouldn’t like those souvenir and crafts shops that you can find in just about any city in Australia. They’ll sell a didgeridoo to anybody.
I do, however, firmly believe that if a woman plays a didgeridoo instead of having sex, she will not get pregnant.
Bother, the first paragraph is a quotation. Wrong HTML tag, again.
@The Chemist
“That 10% of “Israeli Arabs” get treated like shit. You know it, I know it, Ashby knows it.”
We seem to know a lot. You are only telling your side of the story. I’d rather be an Arab in Israel than a Jew in any islamic country. It proves nothing to state that there’s racism in Israel. Where isn’t? Where on this world would anybodies teeth be safe, given the “wrong” ethnicity? What do you expect from a society permanently under the threat of liquidation?
“Everyone who disapproves, however mildly, of Israel is an antisemite?”
No. Everyone who disaproves of the existence of Israel (and that implies its right to self-defense) is an antisemite. And I wouldn’t call the comparison of holocaust and occupation of the west bank “mild disapproval”, but fascist argumentation, building on the construct of a special evilness of the Jews.
“Don’t worry about me insulting your intelligence, the target’s a little too small to hit.”
The sad thing is, I’m quite fearful that it won’t be possible even to inflict the shadow of a doubt on your arrogance. It is so much easier to live in a world of good and evil.
#212: You are almost fractally wrong about Britain. No part of Ireland is English (and neither is Scotland or Wales). Also Scotland may very well go independent in the next decade (the SNP are in power in Edinburgh after all). There will be no need to unentwine the cultures. Both countries will be in the EU. The border will be open (as is the border between France and Germany)- It could happen easily and peacefull and right now.
I’ve been playing the didge since 1994 and I’ve not heard that before.
“Didgeridoo” is not aborigine word, it’s an onomatopoetic word of English origin in that it’s similar to the the repetitive drone made by a didge – try chanting the word while holding your jaw and mouth still.
As I noted in post #165, the term “yidaki” is often used in the didge community as a sign of respect for instruments of aborigine origin, but there are almost as many words for the didge as there are aborigine dialects.
In all seriousness, if a woman simply touching a digeridoo is so offensive, I am wondering why he isn’t railing against anyone who sells digiridoos to women. Shouldn’t that act be much more directly offensive than (in book form) explaining to a girl how she could play a digeridoo, if she somehow managed to get her hands on one?
@ #216
http://www.irelandmapxl.com/political-map.html
Map of Ireland. Looks like the northern area is claimed by a country called UK. Last I checked, that stood for United Kingdom, or England. And just slightly above it is Scotland (also claimed by the UK)
If the Scots create a completely separate country, I’ll be genuinely surprised. Scotland, Quebec, Denmark… they all need to realize that they can still have their own culture, but there is strength in unity.
I’ll say it once more: “Pillaging and raping” denotes harm, but I fail to see how cherishing another culture’s art, and incorporating it into your own art, harms the other culture.
Oooh, that does sound bad! But this…
…really doesn’t. You would prefer perhaps that we’d never had Elvis (Pat Boone might have made your point better, BTW) or Eminem? You think the world would be better off if those lads in Liverpool had respectfully declined to be inspired by Chuck Berry and Little Richard?
Not for nothin’, but I don’t recall Elvis killing off the blues, nor Eminem doing in Black rap. On the contrary, in each case the inspired artists brought new populations (and new generations) of fans to the music that inspired them.
You’ve proven that it’s possible to couch this process in terms of oppression and domination… but in fact the process you describe strikes me as distinctly more a feature than a bug. It sounds like how art spreads and grows; how we build a shared global, transgenerational culture from the many strands of cultural diversity this weary globe has to offer.
I’m leery of using a biological metaphor in this crowd, but it strikes me that diversity’s true value is only realized in the form of hybrid vigor. Too-rigourous avoidance of so-called “cultural appropriation” risks cutting us off from all that vigorous goodness.
Let’s not forget what culture is.
Human culture and drive to develop culture is a spectacular evolutionary leap that made human cooperative societies possible. Complex social behaviors do not need to develop through all that slow nasty evolution, they develop (and change) over short periods of time as circumstances change. Each generation is programmed from infancy to adopt it’s culture. So within a culture people behave in reasonably predictable ways, and the local society flourishes.
Enter the do-gooders who see individual culture as something inherently valueable, that must be preserved even if the circumstances that gave birth to it no longer exist. They seem to forget that culture is a tool, not an end in itself, and to try to exist outside your surrounding culture is essentially to isolate yourself, and deprive yourself of the benefits of society. Like wanting to ‘live’ a culture which drives on the left of the road in a society that drives on the right.
Now, there is historic sense to preserve some of the artifacts of various cultures: art, music, language, etc in some form but to try to ‘live’ the culture outisde of its original environment is a destructive exercise in futility.
jayh, while I’m here trying to defend Machiavelli, I read that last post. Beautiful description of culture. Your description of it as a tool, and not something of individual intrinsic value really resonated with me.
I guess thats why I’m pushing so hard for cultures to assimilate. The sooner were all using the same tool set, the easier it will be to work on the same projects together.
The same can be said for language. I love languages, and speak three. I recently read how many languages are becoming extinct, and the tragic loss to our cultural heritage. For some reason, I didn’t find the loss tragic. There are untold dead languages of man, and many spoken today will be lost in time. Language as a part of culture fits perfectly with your tool metaphor. It might very well be a benefit to humanity that these languages die.
Bart (@219):
I’m an American, so I’m sure our friends from the UK will correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure “United Kingdom” is not a synonym for “England,” as your phrasing would suggest. AFAIK, England is the portion of the UK that lies to the south of Scotland and to the east of Wales; the UK is (I’m pretty sure) a single nation-state made up of England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. I don’t pretend to understand the precise political relationships between those constituent parts… but it’s beyond me why you would argue with a Scotsman about it. Perhaps you think he’s… (wait for it)… no true Scotsman? ;^)
Please tell me you realize Denmark is an independent kingdom, and not, like the other two places you mention, a political/cultural subunit of a larger nation-state. Perhaps you were thinking of Greenland, which is a self-governing Danish province?
Bill Dauphin 223
First, my huge mistake. I confused Denmark with Belgium while typing. Belgium is considering splitting down the middle and becoming two independent nations. Sorry.
As for England, that whole issue is very complicated, but the non-contested issues are: The British conquered the Scotts and the Irish. Post colonial England became the UK. There was also interbreeding of the ruling class, and a general mixing of the gene pool. This is where I make my claim that Scotland will have a difficult time becoming an independent nation, as the two are so closely connected now. The same could be said of Northern Ireland, but the southern section of the country is clearly a separate and independent nation.
And yes, its hard to find a true Scotsman (or christian, for that matter) these days.
jayh, #221: Let’s not forget what culture is.
A shared mental construct that gives meaning to the lives of the people who live within it. So it does have some intrinsic value to the people who live within that culture.
–
Enter the do-gooders who see individual culture as something inherently valueable, that must be preserved even if the circumstances that gave birth to it no longer exist.
Maybe some do-gooders may indeed see culture in this manner; I don’t know. Personally, although there may be fundamentalist-like and conservative-seeming backwards-looking extremists in the movement to protect the rights of Third World and indigenous peoples, but this quote sounds like a mischaracterization of a movement that is trying to oppose Western imperialism and neo-liberal trade policy.
I suspect that the do-gooders who have actually entered here, even if I have disagreed with some of what they have said, have been making the very important point that it is wrong for people to conquer another people and then impose their culture on them, deliberately creating an external environment that makes it impossible to for the oppressed to maintain their cultural traits, or even allowing them to adapt their culture on their own terms.
–
Now, there is historic sense to preserve some of the artifacts of various cultures: art, music, language, etc in some form but to try to ‘live’ the culture outisde of its original environment is a destructive exercise in futility.
I think the point is that some people want to maintain their particular cultural identities and adapting to the modern world on their terms, not on terms imposed by outsiders.
Bart:
I suspect many people (esp. many Americans) think UK = England because the capital is London and the Queen is English. I confess I had some confusion on the point myself, ’til my daughter (who was competing in the Geography Bee) straightened me out a few years ago. But call a Welsh or Scottish or Irish subject of the UK “English” and see what reaction you get.
But I’m guessing you should avoid running this experiment in bars, or after football matches. ;^)
Robert Davidson #70 wrote:
I’ll agree with the other posters who make the distinction between stealing or mistreating specific historical artifacts which are owned, and appropriating ideas and adapting them for personal use.
What are the positive elements of a “culture” which tend to get passed down? Food. Art. Literature. Language. They stand on their own value.
But a separate cultural form of government, or law, or taboo, or science, or religion, needs to prove itself to humanity in general, or else people are turned into competing groups of “others.” At one point someone referred to the book as a form of “intellectual violence.” I think that approaching aborigines as if their race was more important than their common humanity, is intellectual violence. It’s condescending, and demeaning.
I’m a female didgeridoo player (didgeridoo-ist?) of 7 years, who travelled to Australia last year to visit a virtuoso didgeridoo player. I had a 3-hour workshop with the man, in exchange for a mere bottle of Canadian maple syrup!
He has lived with and studied many Aboriginal tribes, some of which teach didgeridoo playing to their female members, while the males dance and use clap sticks. According to this man, the ‘traditional’ belief that didgeridoo playing is harmful to females actually does not exist. It’s a perpetuated misunderstanding based on an isolated, coincidental miscarriage.
I remember Madonna got grief over handling a didgeridoo when she was touring Australia some years ago.
She’s had two kids since then.
This traditional belief is true. Here is the proof! My wife and I had three kids before a Japanese exchange student came to stay with us. We gave him a didgeridoo. I’m quite sure she touched it several times. No kids since.
I’m happy to admit to being a culturist (as opposed to a racist). Not all cultures are “equal”. Look at the repulsive human sacrificing Aztecs. Look at Europe in the religion-dominated Dark Ages.
Horseshit! Speaking as someone who spends every morning cleaning up the horse’s paddock, I know horseshit. And that, sir, is a big, green, steaming load.
If my playing of a didgeridoo upends their stupid misogynistic culture, then, hurry, quick, somebody get me a didgeridoo.
The way I see it, thousands of years of female oppression by men far outweighs white oppression of aboriginal culture. So if we’re gonna play the oppressed card, my oppression trumps theirs.
I should add that about 10 years ago I heard a virtuoso player at school. The range of sounds he could produce was astonishing. And very musical.
This has been a fascinating and intellectually enriching discussion, and I thank you all for that.
For those still ruminating on the nature of “culture,” allow me to recommend the Thousand Cultures series of science fiction novels by John Barnes, especially the first book, A Million Open Doors. The premise of these books (and why they’re relevant to this thread) is an interstellar human civilization made up of many (~1000!) designed cultures located on hundreds of inhabited planets. Some of these cultures are re-creations or extensions of traditional Earth cultures; some are entirely new, complete with invented “histories” going back millennia farther than their actual, physical histories.
The heroes of these books are members of a UN-like organization whose mission is to keep the peace as these cultures, long separated by interstellar distances, are reintegrated following the discovery of a method of near-instantaneous interstellar travel. Sounds farfetched, I know (what SF isn’t?), but it provides an interesting set of studies about how different cultures interface with each other, and with a larger metaculture. Worth a look, if you have time to read fiction.
Wow, that’s just excessively harsh.
The culture is fine, no-one here has problems with aboriginal culture. It’s the expectation that non-aboriginal people have to adhere to the practices where the problem is. And after crackergate, how is this any different?
Bart perhaps you could enlighten me as to exactly when the English conquered the Scots? After Elizabeth I died who do you think was asked to assume the crowns of England and Scotland? and in 1750 which parliament voted to combine to form a UK parliament? The Declaration of Arbroath is still valid and live here I will have you know. Brenda was put on notice after we got our parliament back that she had some constitutional duties North of the Border other than residence at Balmoral (rumour has it she disnae like Holyrood House, well tough). With the Stone of Destiny in residence at Edinburgh Castle it is once again plain that whoever wishes to ascend the throne of this sceptered isle when Brenda finally shuffles off this mortal coil will have to ask the Scots nicely if they can be our monarch too.
There are two issues here. The first is ignorance of what offends people. If a city girl picked up this book and decided to learn to play the didge in hopes that it would help her fit in, that’s obviously a problem. So in that respect it is like teaching people how to add bacon to Matzoh balls. It is important that people know what does or doesn’t offend so that they can make informed choices. And Rice is correct in stating that most white Australians don’t have a clue.
The issue is just standard issue political correctness- offending people shouldn’t be allowed. Therefore, this book must be destroyed. And that’s where I call bullshit.
Oh Flower of Scotland
When will see the likes again
Who stood and died for
Their wee bit hill and glen
Who stood against him
Proud Edward’s army
And sent him homeward
Tae think again
Those days are past now
And in the past they must remain
But we can still Rise now
And be that nation again
That stood against him
Proud Edward’s army
And sent him homewards
Tae think again
Tae think again.
This is rather different from your original argument, which seemed to be that any kind of sense of a separate identity is bad, unless the group can achieve complete separation. I don’t have time to sort out the special pleading, but I wonder what you meant by defending Machiavelli. I didn’t find any quote from him that resembled your argument too much.
“When those states which have been acquired are accustomed to live at liberty under their own laws, there are three ways of holding them. The first is to despoil them; the second is to go there and live there in person; the third is to allow them to live under their own laws, taking tribute of them, and creating within the country a government composed of a few who will keep it friendly to you”
He recommends the second way especially if the conquered state has a different culture:
“But when states are acquired in a country differing in language, customs, or laws, there are difficulties, and good fortune and great energy are needed to hold them, and one of the greatest and most real helps would be that he who has acquired them should go and reside there. This would make his position more secure and durable, as it has made that of the Turk in Greece, who, notwithstanding all the other measures taken by him for holding that state, if he had not settled there, would not have been able to keep it. Because, if one is on the spot, disorders are seen as they spring up, and one can quickly remedy them; but if one is not at hand, they heard of only when they are one can no longer remedy them. Besides this, the country is not pillaged by your officials; the subjects are satisfied by prompt recourse to the prince…”
I think Lab Lemming put it very concisely. It’s a good idea to be aware of what might offend people. That way, you can make an informed choice to avoid being a jerk. Like it or not, it would be culturally offensive to put bacon in the matzo balls and serve the dish to someone who keeps kosher.
But if you like to eat a ham and cheese sandwich alongside a bowl of matzo ball soup in your own home, that hardly makes you an anti-Semite — not even if you post pictures of yourself eating lunch on your website. And it doesn’t give anyone the right to trash your kitchen or demand that you stop cooking.
I think all women should learn how to play the didgeridoo. I would think that women learning to cycle breath would be a good thing!!
@ Bart Mitchell
these uncontested fact things. uncontested by whom exactly?
England never conquered Scotland.
“Post colonial England became the UK”. ermm wrong way round, the UK was in place first (although it did get rewritten in the 1920s from Britain and Ireland to Britain and Northern Ireland).
The British empire only really worked because all four nations were in on it.
ps, your understanding of Irish citizenship is also wrong. Someone born in NI is automatically entitled to both passports
@Natalie (#211)
I never said that the larger culture didn’t need to face scrutiny and it is patently false to claim that it doesn’t undergo scrutiny itself. Take the culture of the US. Here is a short list of some of the most prominent areas of belief in my culture being actively debated and challenged:
We do examine and challenge our own culture.
Maybe it is just me, but I think being right matters. If one of my beliefs is false, there should be no reason to continue believing it or pretending to believe it out of habit. Refusal to allow others to accept or reject a belief on it’s own merits and instead insisting that they conform to your view is cowardly and deserving of no special treatment just because their reasons for doing so are based on something a culture that happens to be a decedent of my own did in the past
If a didgeridoo is bought in an airport store, is it a ceremonial tool or just a mimic of it?
Brigit, #243,
Most didges sold in Australian tourist shops are rubbish. Many are made in Bali, not Oz.
A good eucalyptus didge will set you back at least US$400.
Sadly, the publisher has now caved and will remove the didgeridoo part in later printings.
Personally I would agree that the systematic oppression of 51% of the earth for most of history outweighs the oppression of a much small percent of the earth for much less time (esp. 0.1% for less than 200 years) …. but the truth is that there is no objective measurement for suffering and there will always be argument (to quote Bob Marley: “Everyman thinks that his burden is the heaviest”)
Statements like
are laughably ridiculous simplifications that ignore the complicated nature of identity in this world. The world cannot be divided into pure black/female/gay/non-Christian and white/male/straight/Christians. In fact MOST conflicts are going to be between groups which straddle the nice white line (pardon the pun) that makes simplifications like Aboriginies vs Catholics such a HORRIBLY SIMPLISTIC example.
Of course context matters – but there is something fishy about someone who insists that context matters but scrupulously avoids actually discussing anything but the most simplistic of contexts
The obvious “morality” displayed by Robert (and seconded by many others) tells us NOTHING useful about how to handle most conflicts in the world – such as black/female/straight/Christian vs. white/male/gay/non-Xtian or /black/male/Christian vs black/both/gay or … any of the other combinations which cover the bulk of people in the world.
I could never get the hang of doing that!
Who said anything about racism? Do you not pay attention to the way Arab “members” of Israeli parliament are treated?
To couch every single human rights violation committed by Israeli soldiers under (ostensibly) the control of IDF High Command in the aura of isolated racism is misleading at best, and a perverse lie at worst.
Meanwhile, stating that Israel has no right to exist has nothing to do with Jews. The dynamics of modern nation states has little to do with whether or not anyone hates Jews as an ethnic or social group. Rather, it was the second Prime Minister of Israel himself, David Ben-Gurion who said,
“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti – Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” Was he an anti-Semite?
Why should people be called anti-Semites for a refusal to accept that a bunch of Europeans have the right to steal something fair and square, and then treat their victims like dirt?
Do you have any fucking clue how hard it is for a human rights worker to get into the country? Despite international law, most HRWs cannot reveal their line of work at border crossings because they have been consistently denied entry in violation of international law, this INCLUDES Israeli human rights organizations such as B’Tselem which have difficulty crossing into the Occupied territories under their mandate as human rights observers. Every year a number of HRWs loudly proclaim their line of work at border crossings and force the court system to reject their petition to be allowed to do their work.
Comparing Israeli human rights atrocities with those of the Nazis is not beyond the pale. International law defines genocide very clearly. Massacres at Sabra and Shatila among others have made that clear.
Still, indulge your fantasy that you are in the right. Whether it’s a hundred years from now, or a thousand years from now, history will not look kindly upon the state of Israel.
//Posted by: SteveM | September 3, 2008 3:31 PM
If you are putting a flute into your mouth you’re doin’ it wrong. :-) (But there was this one time, at band camp, …)
Also, it seems to me there are far more male Sax players than female.//
Okay ppl. I’m Very aware that you don’t put a flute IN your mouth, (yet a flute has been a phallic symbol from day one… duh) and that playing a trumpet requires not only inserting the lips, but the use of the tongue and 3 fingers. I’m a french horn player, in which you not only insert your lips, use your tongue and 3 fingers, but also insert your right hand deep into the bell… for all those trumpet players out there… beat that with a stick.
I stand by my band geek/daughter observation… that generally speaking reed/wind instruments attract more women, and brass more men. And I stand by my totally useless, tongue in cheek, theory that the didgeridoo resembles cunnilingus more than a blow job… hence, must not encourage girls to be lesbians/infertile by the playing thereof.
I know from experience that vacuum cleaner hoses make very passable didgeridoos, as do pieces of plastic PVC piping. Vacuum cleaner attachments also make rather passable trumpets as well.
Does Dr. Rose object to girls playing vacuum cleaner hoses?
For a couple of good examples of the art of playing the humble hose pipe, watch this,
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=P6Dh4kIkteE
and this,
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=YspseDZ-vCs&feature=related
Just like it would be rude to many men from Islamic cultures for me gratuitously to go uncovered in certain areas of the world? Just like they’re so offended by women in their own cultures who go too uncovered for their taste – either inadvertantly or intentionally to challenge the custom – that they beat them up, jail, or murder them? Who says the people being discriminated against by the taboo (or others within the culture) necessarily agree with it and have no desire to flout it themselves?
There are vocal aboriginal feminist and women’s rights activists. I have no idea whether they care about this issue or how they – or other aboriginal women and girls – feel about it, but it’s annoying to keep hearing them represented as helpless, voiceless slaves of their culture who would have to be “forced” or “allowed” to play a musical instrument.
If someone is offended by my behaving in a way that hurts no one, fuck ’em. This should be about human freedom to make choices.
But there is the point that more than half of that much smaller percent are women. They have been doubly oppressed – both by colonizers and by men in their own patriarchal culture. Then their oppression is painted as some kind of cultural resistance to colonization. No way am I buying that. I respect an aboriginal woman’s choice as to whether or not to play an instrument, though I’ll argue with those who give a religious justification for not doing so. For this jackass, I have no patience.
LightningRose, #244,
It seems rather disingenuous of Dr. Rose, then, to complain about girls using it if most people end up with a fake look-alikes anyways.
Gah. “Inadvertently.” Synapse misfire.
The Scots got the Scone of Stone back, what more do they want?
Doctor Rose said, in the linked article, “I would say from an Indigenous perspective, an extreme mistake, but part of a general ignorance that mainstream Australia has about Aboriginal culture,”
In common usage, the word “indigenous” is not normally capitalized.
However, I am open to suggestions as to when the word “ignorance” should be.
Okay ppl. I’m Very aware that you don’t put a flute IN your mouth,
I’m sorry, I was just teasing you a little based on an awkward phrasing, I hoped the “:-)” would convey that. Didn’t mean to imply you didn’t know your instruments.
This story about the Aussie Aborigines and the story about the Pakistani women buried alive for wanting to choose their own spouses (linked in name) destroys the concept of Cultural relativity. I hope incidents like these convince more people that the current ideal to aim for is a respect for individual rights and freedoms. (And don’t forget property rights).
I think it’s important to note for the record that Koorie culture is not understood to be misogynist. There are gender divisions but these aren’t due to men holding power over women or visa versa, instead they are a typical part of hunter gatherer societies.
Considering the institutional misogyny that our own modern culture still has, some of the commenters are rather rich in declaring a bit of traditional custom to be demonstration of barbarism.
I think it’s important to note for the record that Koorie culture is not understood to be misogynist.
By whom? I honestly know little about the culture(s) under discussion or the extent of this particular belief, but it‘s sexist. I’m wary of certain unpalatable aspects of indigenous cultures being downplayed, but also wary of misrepresentations and perfectly willing to accept that this one is not what Dr. Rose’s statements present it as. Some of the posts above seem to suggest this. Are there any good books or articles you could recommend?
There are gender divisions but these aren’t due to men holding power over women or visa versa, instead they are a typical part of hunter gatherer societies.
There’s variation among hunter-gatherer societies. And even if “gender divisions” are typical, it doesn’t mean they mustn’t be questioned or challenged.
Considering the institutional misogyny that our own modern culture still has, some of the commenters are rather rich in declaring a bit of traditional custom to be demonstration of barbarism.
True, but others haven’t claimed that (or that it is any more so than misogyny – including, but not limited to, that which is religiously-inspired – in “our own modern culture.” It can and should be fought in any cultural context. It’s not either-or.
I touched a didgeridoo when I was in New Zealand and then came home and was a surrogate. I guess I must have really potent ovaries to withstand the bad voodoo mojo of the hollow stick.
I was actually responding (without letting anyone know, of course) to poster 231, who said this “If my playing of a didgeridoo upends their stupid misogynistic culture, then, hurry, quick, somebody get me a didgeridoo.”
I’m sorry; a brief google search hasn’t given me a lot of good references. If you’re really interested I could try and track down some stuff on the weekend.
Sandra Bloodworth’s essay “Gender relations in Aboriginal society. What can we glean from early explorers’ accounts?” is interesting, and has a lot of references, find it here:
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/interventions/gender.htm
There are a few interesting (and topical) articles here:
Redefining Aboriginal Gender Roles:
http://aboriginalrights.suite101.com/article.cfm/redefining_aboriginal_gender_roles
Chicks with didges:
http://www.suite101.com/blog/woorama/1331
When I was at school, there were multiple occasions when Aboriginal culture groups came to visit and taught us how to play the digeridoo. I was 6 when I first tried it, and all the Aboriginal elders who were present were perfectly happy to have dozens of us 6-year-old girls try it. I went on a camp when I was 13 where we were again taught the digeridoo as well as how to do traditional Aboriginal art and throw boomerangs. Everyone of Aboriginal heritage was perfectly happy to teach all of us, without any discrimination between genders. What’s up with this Mark Rose guy? He seems to be obsessed with a bit of kookery that most Aboriginals probably abandoned decades ago.
It’s only some Aboriginal tribal groups that have a ban on women playing the didgeridoo, many others have no such ban.
The stupid parts are saying that because a few people believe it we should all comply. If beliefs were never challenged we would be livestock and some other species would be in charge.
And the even more stupid capitulation by Harper Collins saying they would remove it in future printings is nonsensical in the extreme. Its makes even less sense than the warnings on programs dealing with Aboriginal issues about how the program may contain images or sounds of dead people. I presume any other program that has dead people in it, aboriginal or not, doesn’t concern them.
SC:
Your points are precisely why I very carefully suggested that the “rudeness” of taboo-breaking is sometimes warranted. If you want to shake the mullahs up by walking down the streets of Teheran in a fishnet bikini, good on ya’, sister; I’m all for it!
But not every taboo is equally worth breaking: Playing a musical instrument in your hosts’ home when you know it will upset them doesn’t strike me as a necessary line to draw. At that point, IMHO, it becomes a matter of interpersonal respect, more than one of honoring an arguably misogynist custom. YMMV.
Guess it must be location specific. Where I grew up, it was definitely a taboo among all the tribes in my area. When there is 50,000 years of diversity between tribes from all corners of the country, how can one person expect to speak for all?
“not understood to be misogynist” by whom? What definition of misogynist are they using? What definition are you using? Are they, or you, defining misogyny from a Western-centric perspective and therefore biasing your results by excluding other forms of misogyny that do not conform to our specific patterns? I’ll bet you are.
1) What do you define as “holding power”? Are you defining power from a western-centric viewpoint and thereby excluding other forms of “holding power” that do not conform to our specific patterns?
2) Non-sequitur. Just because something is “a typical part of hunter gatherer societies” doesn’t imply it isn’t sexist.
“Typical” agricultural socieites are sexist. So are “typical” pastoral societies. “Typical” hunter-gatherer societies might be sexist too.
1) Non-sequitur. I’m sure most of us also oppose the sexism in our own society.
2) WTF is “our own modern society”? Who is included? Is it just America/Europe, all of Americas and Eurasia, or what? Does an aboriginie with a gmail account get included?
3) Does this rule apply to people from sexist cultures besides ours? Can a Pakistani criticize misogyny while his/her own culture still indulges in it? Is it only men who have to STFU or do women from sexist cultures have to as well?
But not every taboo is equally worth breaking: Playing a musical instrument in your hosts’ home when you know it will upset them doesn’t strike me as a necessary line to draw.
Who is in a “hosts home”?
Obviously when in someone’s home one has all the obligations incumbent on a guest to obey the rules of their host. That has nothing to do with cultural respect and everything to do with personal respect
Should have kept reading :).
This is such a beat up.
The moron who claimed that a girl cannot touch a didgeridoo is barely aboriginal and is not very close to the culture. Therefore he should not speak on it.
AND HE’S WRONG.
There are several groups of aboriginals in Australia that allow girls to play the didgeridoo.
While it’s never in a ceremonial context, no group claims a ban on females playing it.
Didgeridoofus.
Of course, all non-aboriginal Australians are guests (uninvited too) in the land. When you’re in a stolen land, you should show your hosts some deference, however wacky you might find their beliefs.
And don’t say it all happened 200 years ago – the feelings are very real for every Aborigine I know. Terra nullius was always a lie.
@Robert Davidson 271
How would this apply to non-Australians, males and females who would like to purchase the book, or a didgeridoo for our use?
Would this deference deal also apple to South America? Do present-day Latin Americans need to accept human sacrifice because it was the cultural norm of the people their ancestors slaughtered?
Just because White Man arrived and essentially stunted the cultural progress these people arguably would have had does not mean it is the proper thing to do to treat it like an antique, in order to ‘preserve one thing of the culture destroyed’.
Besides, I think the main issue to bear on this is the good doctor’s claims that touching a didgeridoo would render a girl infertile as if it actually had some validity. I find it curious that some posters are giving their own testimonials on the subject of their didgeridoo-unaffected fertility, as if there was any doubt that this is supertitious nonsense.
a correction: apple = apply, spellcheck be damned…
Hmmm. I come from a culture that a few hundred years ago considered it perfectly acceptable, indeed a god-given right, to invade a country, kill/enslave/convert its population and take their land as its own.
Maybe I should demand that people respect this part of my cultural heritage.
That fact that the didgeridoo debacle can even be voiced now is because that the metaculture it spawned has changed to the point where it actually gives a damn about the cultures it displaced back then. Lucky for them.
I climbed “The Rock” when I was there. I’m not sure what the real cultural reason is that you’re asked not to climb (actually you’re not asked or told not to, they imply that it is disrespectful to climb). One guy suggested that because of the number of people who have died climbing (heart attacks, falling etc) that it is a cultural faux-pas to die on the rock. BTW, it is bloody high and a hard slog. Great view from the top. You also not allowed to photograph “The Rock” from certain angles.
Coincidently, while we there a guy played the didge at a dinner we went to and said that the didge was not indigenous to the area and that he had special permission from the local indigenous people to play the didge there.
@271
They are not guests. They are the owners. Calling the Europeans “guests” is childish. It’s one thing to be pissed that you lost and now that which was once yours is now belongs to someone else. I can understand bitterness. It is quite another thing to stand with your fingers in your ears yelling “blah blah blah I’M NOT LISTENING!” so you can maintain this fantasy that you didn’t actually suck at war/negotiations/logistics/whatever enough to have lost your land.
Everyone loses sometimes. The trick to it is learning from your mistakes and correcting the deficits that caused you to lose in the first place. Keeping to “the old ways” is exactly the opposite of doing that.
The whole host/invaders/theft things is kinda funny. I don’t know what we’re expected to do apart from the government paying some kind of reparation? We can’t really leave – I don’t think we’re expected to but in some parts of Europe, for example, not only would we be expected to leave we’d be given “incentive”. Even if your ancestors had been there for half a millennium.
I read most of this thread earlier today and have since been ruminating on why I (as a non-indigenous, atheist and not-particularly-PC Australian) feel a bit uncomfortable about some of the mocking that has gone on here, when I would personally find it pretty funny if it were directed against US protestants. So here’s my two-cents worth.
As far as I can remember, nobody here has actually defended Dr Rose’s statements. I think we all agree that it is ridiculous to claim that touching a wooden instrument will render a girl infertile and that he overstepped the mark when calling for the book to be pulped. I also have no idea whether it is taboo for women to touch dijeridus in any Aboriginal culture, let alone all of them.
So what is different between this situation and the usual Pharyngula pile-on? There’s a pretty big power imbalance at play and I think that this is where David Robertson and co’s concerns came from. I’ve seen it argued here a few times that atheists need to be aggressive because otherwise they’d be ignored. I agree – when you’re the little guys, you need to use guerrilla tactics to get your message across. But, when you’re the big boys some of the more strident comments here come across as bullying. It is possible to disagree with somebody without being aggressive in the process.
Oh, and as for everybody who reckons Dr Rose is too “white” either in appearance or name, you evidently haven’t met many Australian Aborigines. They don’t all have dark skin, woolly hair and names like Galarrwuy Yunupingu.
“Of course, all non-aboriginal Australians are guests (uninvited too) in the land.”
I was born in this country, and have lived here my entire life. My family have fought and died for it. It is as much my home as it is the home of any indigenous or non-indigenous Australian, and to suggest otherwise is simply offensive.
Bart Mitchell (#224):
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
In medieval times, the English and Scottish had a complex relationship in which the English occasionally conquered the Scots and then got thrown out (with the Scots periodically invading England as well). Once Elizabeth I died, the English ran out of acceptably Protestant heirs to the throne, and so invited the Scots to supply them with a monarch to rule over both kingdoms. Eventually, the two parliaments got merged into one in 1707, and it was only after that that a British national identity (primarily encompassing the English, Scots and Welsh) began to develop.
Subsequent conflicts like the Jacobite Rebellion in 1745 were between pro-Stuart, mainly Catholic Highlanders and an alliance of Protestant, anti-Stuart Scottish Lowlanders with the English. That might count as the “British” conquering the Scots, as long as you allow that a large proportion of the “British” were also Scottish.
So talking about the “British” conquering the Scots is not historically accurate. Similarly with the Irish – the English conquered the Irish. Later on, in the 17th Century prior to the unification of Scotland and England, the Scots were also major participants in a joint effort with the English to seed Ireland with Protestant colonists (i.e., the Plantation). But by the time there was a recognisable British political entity, Ireland was already conquered.
And England is just one part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They have never been one and the same political entity.
JoshuaBA
I think we might be talking about different things. The idea that playing the digeridoo will make women sterile is obviously and provably false. So I agree that it would be silly to continue to think so.
However, the idea that it is taboo for women to play that instrument isn’t a statement of fact – it cannot be demonstrated to be true or false. So if a group of people want to persist in that belief, I’m fine letting them do so.
This seems kind of off-topic to me, as I made no such claim. I find the idea that I must conform to the standards of all cultures both silly and highly illogical, since so many of those cultures have conflicting rules or standards. As others have suggested, if I am in an aboriginal community, I will avoid offending them needlessly if possible. But in my own community I feel no need to observe aboriginal traditions, just as I eat bacon in my own home because neither I nor anyone I live with keeps kosher.
At the same time, if I make no secret of the fact that I am not going to respect someone’s cultural traditions in their space, I see no problem in them declining to invite me to their home, for example.
Milawe,
Thanks for the links. I’ll check ’em out. I am interested, and plan to do some further research. My students may well have an essay question about this issue on their midterm…
Bill Dauphin:
Well, some of the hypothetical scenarios offered (including, I thought, the one to which you were responding, but I don’t have time to look) were actions in public places or at public events. I don’t know how far we need to extend the definition of “home.” It’s rude for anyone, man or woman, to pick up a musical instrument without permission in someone’s home and start playing it. But some traditions put women in a very difficult spot during social events. In my own family, after Thanksgiving dinner (which the women had prepared), the women would clear the table and clean up while the men retired to another room to watch football. It wasn’t that long ago that we – the women of my generation – stood up to this. Now it’s equitable. If a woman from outside the family had attended before this and called them on it, things probably would’ve changed earlier.
How would you like having the exercise of your basic rights as a human being denounced as rude or offensive? And what gives you the right to decide which taboos that don’t affect you are worth breaking and when?
By the way, re “daring”:
Playing a didgeridoo? Not daring.
Playing one in defiance of a sexist cultural prohibition? Daring.
Challenging the baseless beliefs on which this prohibition rests? Daring.
HarperCollins? Not daring. Great example, there, idiots (see windy’s post @ #245).
Chiroptera
A shared mental construct that gives meaning to the lives of the people who live within it. So it does have some intrinsic value to the people who live within that culture.
You are claiming intrinsic value (‘gives meaning’????). Culture is an evolutionary construct, to enable a society to deal with its environment. If that environment changes (it always does) culture, unlike hardwired behavior, allows rapid adaptive change. When you find yourself suddenly in the midst of another larger culture, your environment DID change and trying to stick to existing behavior because it’s ‘your culture’ is mindless.
The crew of a sailing vessel trims the sails to suit the wind. If the wind changes, they don’t insist on keeping the sails the same way because that’s the way they are… they change the settings to match the new environment.
SC:
I was responding to a specific comment addressed to me (by Sven? I don’t have time to look either) that attempted to draw a distinction between a woman playing didge in her own home in the U.S. and a white Australian woman delibrately invading Aborigines’ own space (I intended the word “home” fairly broadly, to include “village”) to intentionally violate the taboo. I agreed that the latter would be rude, while carefully noting that such “rudeness” is sometimes warranted (and, I would add now, sometimes demanded) by a higher principle. (More about that in a minute.)
Good on ya’ (aside: as an American, am I guilty of “cultural appropriation” for saying “good on ya'”?) for addressing that, but the key difference here is that the corrective came from within the family (=within the culture).
Mebbe so, but my guess is that if a woman from outside your family — a guest at your Thanksgiving table — suddenly stood up and started lecturing you on how sexist your family was, you’d have been shocked… and pissed… no matter how strongly you agreed with her every word. (I don’t claim to be inside your head on this, of course, but I know that’s how I would react in an analogous situation.)
I don’t claim any such right. I expressed a personal opinion about whether I would draw the line at a girl’s right to play the didge, just as the women in your family made a decision about whether the Thanksgiving dishes were where you would draw your line. At what point defending a principle demands action is always the decision of the actors.
But (and here’s the “more” I alluded to earlier) I think there are really two mostly separate, albeit related, questions at play in this discussion: The first, which I took to be the focus of the “cultural appropriation” critics, and to which I was primarily responding, is the question of to what extent cultures “own” their artforms and folkways, and what authority cultures have to enforce their norms beyond their own actual home and scope. This question includes not only whether Australian Aborigines have any right to tell me what musical instruments my daughter (or wife) can play, but also (for example) whether Arab Muslims really have any authority over whether Dutch non-Muslims can incorporate images of Muhammad (sp? I’ve seen it spelled so many different ways…) in their art.
The second question — at what point higher universal principles (call it metacultural norms) overwhelm and invalidate the authority of local cultural norms — is no less (and arguably much more) important… but it wasn’t the primary question I meant to be addressing myself to. My answer, which you quoted upthread, was meant to recognize the existence of that question without joining that particular fray.
You and others have been doing an admirable job of standing up for women’s equality; I’ve been trying to stand up for the global freedom of art. I don’t see us as adversaries.
Yes it was Sven’s comment @ 138 that you were replying to.
I have problems with this for two reasons. First, “in the presence of” is very broad. Is a home the same as a religious space the same as a village the same as a city the same as a country? Where do sexists get to define the boundaries of their culture that need to be respected? Second, the analogies are bad. A better analogy would concern practices or prohibitions that limit the rights of one group within that culture based on gender, caste, skin color, etc. The one I offered concerning women covering up was more apt, as would be the case of our being prohibited from entering otherwise open spaces if we’re menstruating (or at all). Should I abide by these rules? What if they concerned people with a certain skin color? Third, again, there’s something very wrong with men, who aren’t affected by these taboos, determining when and in what circumstances women, who are, are warranted in violating them.
Who said anything about lecturing? I think you misunderstand what I’m advocating in these situations. First, I can tell you in total honesty that if someone from outside the family had said “Wow, that’s sexist. I’m not cleaning up unless the men do, too, and I’m going in to watch the game,” we would likely have been thrilled, as it would have opened up the discussion. As I said above, we eventually challenged it ourselves. You seem to be assuming an acceptance of these practices among those subordinated by them and a resistance to change that I have not found to be the case, either in my own experience or in my research; I think you’re having a hard time putting yourself in the place of people in subordinated groups. I linked on a couple of recent threads to some writings by a Middle Eastern women’s rights group that get at these issues.
I would consider a guest in that situation to be an actor with a stake in the matter. How is she – expected to do work while men don’t – not? In any case, refusing to abide by sexist norms and starting a conversation about them with all of the interested parties is a good thing.
Nor do I, of course. I simply don’t agree with everything you’ve said on the subject of challenging sexist taboos.
Chiroptera on culture:
That’s a loaded definition of culture, and I’ve not come across it in the social sciences. Culture is the values, beliefs, behavior, and material objects that, together, form a people’s way of life. McDonald’s hamburger wrappers are a part of my culture. They don’t give meaning to my life, and have no “intrinsic value.”
I wasn’t trying to construct precisely apt analogies to the particular situation–hey, I’m no Pete Rooke!–just making the very simple points that a) cultural taboos are not, cannot be, and should not be enforcable outside of the cultural context in which they make putative sense; and b) I would consider it rude to make a big ostentatious deal of violating such taboos in the (correct quote) “direct presence” of those to whom they are culturally important. I would encourage my daughter blow her didgeridoo in a Sydney hotel room, maybe even in a private room in a village of aboriginal people, but not where people who would be offended by it would be likely to witness her (musical and emotionally affecting) playing. When Romans are around, don’t be obvious about doing what Romans don’t do. When in Naples, who cares what Romans think?
jayh, #284:
I think you just repeated what you said in the post to which I replied.
Sven,
I still disagree with you, and I think you’re missing my point(s). I also don’t understand why someone would try to come up with analogies without concern for whether or not they’re apt. Isn’t that the point of an analogy? You’re right – I did misquote you, but I don’t see any significant difference between “direct presence” and “presence.” I’m also concerned about this characterization of women’s simply doing something that men do but deny our right to do as making “a big ostentatious deal of violating such taboos.” And I would hope that you would encourage your daughter to think for herself concerning these matters, and in general to be, y’know, daring.
Man, I hate disagreeing with people I like. :)
Well, SC, the truth is, I haven’t been following this thread at all, just popped in and was surprised to see myself quoted from 150 comments back, and had (and, frankly, still have) little idea of what your point actually was/is. Plus I’m in an exceptionally foul mood. Apologies for missing your point which, whatever it is, is probably a good one. I am certainly not in any way advocating or condoning any form of gender-based discrimination, be it in dress or axe-choice, in case that’s not clear.
But suppose that there really is a strict and culturally important taboo against female didgeridoo-playing in some village. I think we’re in agreement that it’s ridiculous to expect a Ukrainian woman in Boston to abstain from playing the didgeridoo even if she knew of this taboo. However, what would be the point of the All-Female Caucasian Didgeridoo Orchestra of Melbourne going to said village just to in-yer-face violate the silly taboo? I say none; live and let live. Unless the village women really wanted to start their own All-Female Aboriginal Didgeridoo Orchestra. That I’d support.
Are we still arguing? I’d say I lost track, but I suspect I was never on one.
By the way, I need do little to encourage my daughter to think for herself!
I think the example that was used above (not by you, to be sure) was of a female anthropologist playing one when this might go against the dictates of some (presumably all-male) Council of Elders. I don’t think the lines between aboriginal women and non-aboriginal women are as clear as people are making them out to be, and that the presumption that there can’t be any sort of dialogue between these groups (implicit in the insider/outsider distinction that people keep making) is pretty baseless. One thing that annoyed me in this thread were the suggestion that it was OK that non-aboriginal women play it while aboriginal women not be allowed to; I think someone even suggested this as the rational solution. The flipside of this is the suggestion that aboriginal women would have to be forced to play the didgeridoo, like they have no agency or capacity to question or challenge their own culture. It seemed to me that they were either being ignored or treated as entirely passive, which irked me. I hope these women soon publish The Daring Book for Aboriginal [Koorie?] Girls.
Are we still arguing? I’d say I lost track, but I suspect I was never on one.
I don’t think so. Not sure if I’ve really been arguing with you so much as with others, with you as a surrogate.
By the way, I need do little to encourage my daughter to think for herself!
:). That seems a good note on which to end our “argument” (not trying to get in the last word – feel free to respond if you wish). Hope your day and mood brighten!
@The Chemist
“Meanwhile, stating that Israel has no right to exist has nothing to do with Jews”
Talk about perverse lies. Do you believe your own propaganda?
Concerning the treatment of Arab “members” (always with the quotation marks) of the Knesset: You seem to like to hint instead of proving. Do I have to imagine some unspeakable atrocities against them? As far as I know, Israeli Law restricts parlamentary activities aimed at the destruction of the state of Israel (Amendment #9). I guess this is highly offenive to you. Strangely enough, the only party that remains banned by this law is the right-wing Jewish Kach Party.
“Comparing Israeli human rights atrocities with those of the Nazis is not beyond the pale. International law defines genocide very clearly. Massacres at Sabra and Shatila among others have made that clear.”
You don’t get it, and it’s seemingly not a problem of misinformation. Either you have deluded yourself or you haven’t even begun to understand the destructive quality and quantity of the shoah. But hey, maybe I’m the deluded. Show me the cargo trains full of victims rolling through the night, the mass shootings of people who had to dig their own graves and the gas chambers, the industry of extermination. Where are the plans for a final solution of the Arab question?
I don’t give a flying fuck about International Law’s definitions of genocide. Are we talking about the same bastards who let Rwanda and Sudan happen? Anyway, genocide is the attempt of extinction of a group along the category of race or ethnicity, which doesn’t take place in the West Bank or Gaza. You could call it violent occupation, war crime, atrocity, and I wouldn’t object to that (I’d rather contextualize it without excusing or demonizing it). The Israeli goal and its context are not a homicidal obsession to kill as much Arabs as possible, but to contain the very real threat to the Jewish state, by any means they perceive as necessary. Their mistakes and crimes in the course of this are fair game to the critique, and so are the atrocities commited by your pet ethnic group. By the way, so-called HRWs are not always what they seem, since the cooks from ISM were actively sabotaging the separation wall (another Jewish “atrocity” mainly aimed at their own survival) and providing safe-houses for jihadist terrorists like Mr Sukiya in 2003. If I were an IDF guard, I’d be at least suspicious of the “All you need is love” crowd. That doesn’t excuse anything, but explains a lot.
But let me get back on topic.
@Bill Dauphin
I think we misunderstood each other, but maybe in a good way. The emphasis of my “reflection of colonial pillaging” was on the reflection. I have Elvis and Beatles, World music and a vast collection of cultural crossovers on my shelf, my cultural curiosity goes far beyond dickeridoos. But let’s think a moment about art/music. If it’s supposed to mean something, it has to transport a message, a memory, a longing. Art in its core is the reflection and transformation of suffering. There is a deep hunger for so-called authenticity in the music and art market, which is indeed a reflection of capitalist societies’ alienation and at the same time reenacts the hunger for new, “virginial” pastures and goldmines of the conquistadores. The history of colonization is not only full of racism, but of affection for the exotic and strange, like in Kiplings “Kim”, like in the old “Bounty” movie. This yearning for the natural indicates our own loss of “nature”, which we can’t and don’t really want to regain. We have constructed an artificial world and have to cope with it, but our electronic culture is obsessed with the genuine, the “real thing”, like the Americans like to say. I’m not out to play the taste police. It’s just that this phenomenon is visible all around the globe, at least in the western Culture, and it intrigues me a bit because of its reciprocity. I don’t think that the massive presence of Hip Hop, for example, has helped decreasing racism in a mostly “white” MTV-Audience. I may be wrong, but the tendencies seem to point in the other direction. The rise of ghetto and world music seems to transport rather than to disipate the prejudices. The industrial production of stereotypes, often self-embraced like in the Gangsta thing, doesn’t look to me like we are about to witness a new wave of intercultural understanding, but the opposite. Something similar happened all the time in the sports section with its black gladiators. Maybe I’m too negative, but I wouldn’t call that global culture in the good sense of the word. There may be a potential of understanding, when we walk in the boots of others a bit, hear their music, wear their hair-dos. But at the same time we reproduce the difference, enforce the stereotype, pick the cherries, like our ancestors did in Africa and elsewhere. You know that some slave owners fell in love with their mistresses. But only one of them was really free to love or not to. The other couldn’t risk becoming unattractive, switched at the most from field n… to house n… At least we could acknowledge the evil that divides us, instead of being naive like a tourist in Calcutta, who dresses in a sari and plays Indians, smiling benevolent at the begging children, always sure that she can get out anytime she wants. If what you seek is encounter, you’ll have to do better than blow into a stinkin’ stick. Culture is a chance to do that, but never forget who actually produces what we call our culture, even our “independent” culture. You know it, EMI, Viacom, Disney…
Milawe:
The people in question aren’t Koori. Koori country is south-eastern Australia, the didge originates in Northern Australia.
For what it’s worth, I’m an Indigenous Australian woman (yes, we DO capitalise the I, thank you) and I find the idea of Indigenous tribal taboos not being upheld by white people far less offensive than some of the comments on this thread. That said, I AM Koori, so I can’t offer an insider’s perspective on specific rules applying to the didgeridoo. It’s not an instrument from my country.
Councils of elders are rarely all male, incidentally. Secret men’s business and secret women’s business are equally significant to most tribes.
unGeDuLdig:
I confess I’m too emotionally whipsawed by the motherf*cking RNC to give your disquisition on art and culture the attention it deserves, but I will make a couple brief replies:
I’m not sure I accept this. I think you can say that art is the “reflection and transformation” of some aspect or segment of the human condition… which potentially includes suffering but potentially does not. I reject the notion (if that’s what you mean to say) that suffering is the essential subject of all art. Narrative art almost necessarily involves conflict, but conflict != suffering.
Again, I’m not sure this is actually what you’re getting at, but reaching back to your previous post, I don’t think Elvis is “artificial blues” or Eminem is “artificial Black rap”; I think both artists are “authentic” on their own terms, albeit perhaps different from their antecedents.
Happily, I believe you are wrong about this: My observation of my daughter and their friends is that they’re far less prejudiced than my generation was at that age (and not only WRT race, but also gender and sexual orientation). Of course, that’s purely anecdotal. In addition, I can’t conclusively credit music for the difference, nor do I know if my observation would be matched outside my (suburban middle class) demographic… but the good news from where I sit is that it appears “the kids are alright”!
Interesting. As an editor, I have a purely technical, professional interest in this point. My first thought would’ve been to lowercase the i, on the grounds that indigenous is an ordinary adjective. But when it’s coupled with Australian, as in your comment, the two words together form a proper noun, much in the same way we Yanks treat Native American. Thus, it seems to me, it should be:
“I’m an Indigenous Australian woman….” [two-word proper noun]
but
“…I find the idea of indigenous tribal taboos not being upheld…” [ordinary adjective, in the absence of Australian]
That said, however, customary usage generally trumps grammatical legalism; I’d be fascinated to see what Australian professional style guides (i.e., the local equivalents of The Chicago Manual of Style, etc.) have to say on the matter. </geeky_digression>
BTW, I hope my comments have not been among the ones you found offensive. If they have, please forgive me; no offense was intended.
One more thought, then off to bed:
What if all I seek is to make a particular kind of sound? Is it then acceptable to blow into the “stinkin’ stick”?
Not everything is about everything: Sometimes a song is just a song.
I’m not always the brightest bulb in the fixture, but I think I’m smart enough to know the difference between having a meaningful encounter with another culture and blowin’ some cool notes. I acknowledge that the former is a worthy enterprise; I deny that the latter is necessarily less so.
@Bill Dauphin
My condolences for the RNC. Is my impression right that it reached an unbearable level of noisiness and U-S-A-yelling? I’ve seen baboon rocks in the zoo with more sophistication. Anyway, let’s forget this particular tent revival for a moment.
I still insist on suffering as a basis of human consciousness and therefore the main ingredient of art and music. Though often the pain is sublimized, most of the time it’s perceptible, even in the most superficial pop hit. The more dynamic or even violent tunes reflect the urge to go wild, i.e. back to “nature”, specially strong in the teenagers, a reflection of the loss of childhood and an half-conscious resistance to the inevitable adult world. The headbanging metal kid is – maybe unknowingly – trying to break his cage, the gangsta hip-hopper attempts desperately to achieve power and masculinity in a “castrating” environment. I think music, in its earliest forms not discernable from magic and religion, tries to overcome existential horror, individual alienation and opression by the group.
I didn’t say that Elvis or Eminem are artificial, but “white”. They use the code of a repressed and disenfranchised culture for the transformation of their audiences’ needs. Elvis opened a pandora’s box of unspeakable sexual impulses in the 50s, adopting the pelvis-swinging “negro” stereotype and making it consumable and less threatening at the same time. Since the slaves, indians, aborigines were perceived as less human and more animal-like, their culture was and is harvested to enrich the civilized alienation and making it bearable.
Ah damn, I gotta work. Maybe I’ll continue later…
I actually haven’t watched/listened to much of it, but the coverage (include blog discussion) is sufficiently pervasive that I haven’t really been able to avoid it, even so. The sum and substance of it all seems to be them saying “We’re courageous and patriotic, and those damn liberals are not; be very afraid.” Meh.
As for the rest, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You may well be right about how art migrates across cultures, but your insistence that it’s all grounded in suffering, theft, and oppression is just too dark for me to take onboard. Notwithstanding the many opportunities life presents for situational cynicism, I have a fundamentally optimistic worldview, and I’m not eager to have it changed for me.
As the man said, “if lovin’ [life] is wrong, I don’ wanna’ be right.”
Hog wash.
According to Linda Barwick (a ethnomusicologist) women dont play it at ceremonies. But they are allowed (through Dreaming Law) in informal situations. AND they played it as children too.
But lets not also forget that there are hundreds of different tribes of Aborigine’s in Australia, all with there different laws, and traditions. Just because one Tribe prohibits women from playing it, doesn’t mean that all the other Tribes don’t let there women play it.
Apparently the strict restrictions were only in some of the east coast tribes.
(I was tempted to use the words countries and nations, but thought that may confuse others who aren’t too familiar with Australian Aboriginals).
Wow! why did I ever bother to get my tubes tied? This method would have been much less invasive…
Really, how can anyone take this seriously?
Debunking White, a LiveJournal community, has posted an amusing tirade in response to this post.
Apparently, PZ is a privileged whitey who is oppressing the poor, helpless Aborigines by not treating their magical beliefs with proper respect. Or something. I can’t really authoritatively decrypt their diatribes.