By David Marcus
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
I have taken to these pages in the past to defend
practices that progressives pejoratively call “cultural appropriation.” By now
we all know the phrase and that it refers to people (mainly white people) using
elements of foreign cultures including costumes, music, food, or, frankly,
anything without permission. In most cases the outrage over cultural
appropriation is silly, but this week Sen. Elizabeth Warren has opened herself
to a charge of cultural appropriation that seems a bit more serious. Will the
left hold her to account? Or will her politics earn her a pass?
We now know through Warren’s DNA test that she is about
1/1000 Native American (either from North or South America), or roughly as
Native American as Chief Wahoo. During her academic career, Warren changed the
identification of her race from white to Native American on the basis of family
legends about an Indian ancestor.
Warren didn’t wear a headdress for Halloween or don the
jersey of a certain subpar NFL team from Washington DC. She claimed to be of
Indian descent to the extent that she described it as her racial identity.
Whether it was her intent or not, she did so in a way that was quite likely to
increase her professional opportunities. She didn’t appropriate some aspect of
Indian culture; she appropriated the whole thing.
While most cases of cultural appropriation are criticized
for offending actual members of the culture being appropriated, Warren’s might
really have created less opportunity for actual Native Americans. Harvard
University was pleased enough at having hired its first “Native American” to
the faculty of its law school, and made a bit of a big deal about it. Had
Warren not claimed such ancestry, might the job have gone to an actual Native
American rather than a woman with about as much claim to it as an actor on “F
Troop”?
That Warren thinks her DNA test exonerates her is
somewhat hard to believe. Does anyone really think that, in identifying one’s
race in a professional setting where it may affect hiring, being 1/1,000 of any
race qualifies a person for those advantages? The whole point of those
advantages, whether one agrees or disagrees with their use, is to help
marginalized people overcome systemic disadvantages. Did Warren’s family legend
of Indian blood disadvantage her in some way? It’s hard to see how.
It may well be that Warren fully believed the tall tales
of her family lore when deciding to identify professionally as a person of
color. But how could she in good conscience have done so knowing that it might
help her in ways that clearly weren’t intended to help her, but rather members
of that group who really did have to overcome racist disadvantage? At the very
least it seems that she should admit this was an error in judgment. Instead,
she is bizarrely claiming to be vindicated.
On some level, the Warren situation opens up a wide array
of questions about what we really mean by racial or ethnic identity. She may
well have believed she had some large percentage of Indian ancestry. In fact,
lots of people in today’s world who believe they are members of certain ethnic
groups are coming to find out they aren’t. The booming business of DNA testing
is changing the stories that many people know about themselves.
I haven’t taken a DNA ancestry test, but recently some
family members from my Irish side did. They discovered that we are not
insignificantly of Norwegian descent. Now this isn’t terribly surprising, as
the Vikings had a penchant for rape and pillage in Ireland. I can report,
however, that upon learning the news I did not feel a new desire to start skiing
and perusing the works of Knut Hampsun. I didn’t start waxing poetic about how
Henrik Ibsen is better than Anton Chekov (which is true.) In fact, nothing
changed at all about how I think about myself.
On ancestry adverts we often see people shocked to learn
they are German, African, or Latino. They seem excited to investigate this new
part of who they are. But is there anything new about who they are? Aren’t they
still the same person, with the same cultural influences that shaped them?
If, as seems possible, Warren really did take pride in
what she believed to be her Native American roots, might that have influenced
how she views America, politics, everything? It absolutely could, and there is
nothing wrong with that. But that fact is hard to fit with the progressive idea
that real members of a given culture have a proprietary right to control the
cultural output of their group.
I want to cut Warren a break here, but I want
progressives to meet me halfway. If Warren can use her perceived minority status
to seek professional advantage without outrage from the left, then let’s calm
down about costumes, Taco Tuesday, and Cinco de Mayo.
That progressives aren’t throwing Warren under the bus is
probably a good thing, but please extend that courtesy to everyone, not just
those who share your politics. This moment can help diffuse the identity and
culture wars. We should use it in that way. If Warren is proud of her slight
potential Native American heritage, great. But if her appropriation is not
cause for scorn and outrage, then please allow the rest of us to borrow from
the rich human history of multifarious cultures. We will all be better off for
it.
No comments:
Post a Comment