Culture is Critical

This term has always puzzled me. In so many articles, writers spend a significant number of characters defining terms and the difference between appreciation and appropriation. And the fact is, since travelling began in history, critically during colonialism but especially after globalisation and the internet, people use symbols and objects from ‘another culture’ without the knowledge and therefore the respect for its meaning.

I put on my travelling shoes and when in Mexico, I saw this hypnotic radiant silver symbol sitting on a black obsidian round pendant. The nomad artisan sitting on the base of a touristy pyramid looks indigenous. After December 2012, when the Mayan calendar got to an end, but the world kept going, I remember sitting for a good hour chatting to the indigenous descendent seller. After a few stories, I bought the pendant adding a sacred personal meaning to this object as a souvenir of my journey. Years down the road, I still treasure my pendant, as a talisman of luck and strength. I have sincerely forgotten about the full story, not only the name of that symbol but what it meant altogether. It turned out that it was the Hunab Ku, created by ‘modern’ Mayans, referring to ‘the one God’, used in colonial doctrine texts. The term was found in the Balam of Chumayel, a syncretistic document heavily influenced by Christianity. The symbol evolved adding elements of Aztek culture and even a YinYang black and white aspect in the late 80s.

Recently, at a dinner party, a lady is wearing earrings with the Hunab Ku. Innocently, I asked her the name of the symbol. She uses it as the logo of her Charity, but also forgot the complexity of the meaning, knowing only that the symbol was a reference to Latin American indigenous. Her Charity’s activities didn’t relate to indigenous causes whatsoever. Now, who would be offended by that? The guy who sold me the pendant? He produced it because tourists like me were interested, and buying that supports a local economy dependent on tourism. Could Mayan or Aztek’s descendants be offended? Or the Christians, because their texts inspired the use of the term?

As everything has multiple facets, they could also see the illiteracy of the symbol use and commercialisation as an opportunity to educate the user on the items’ history. I’m using this example because one of the first culture appropriation texts I saw mentioned how Amerindian descendants were offended by models wearing feather headpieces at Burning Man. The headwear, which for many tribes is solely used in rituals, is also sold in the Amazon to tourists. But many of the journalistic pieces on the topic displayed angry comments towards the unaware white people and were made by other white people who ‘Googled’ and cut and pasted about the use of the headpieces by indigenous tribes. Isn’t that emotional appropriation of a culture they don’t belong to? Despite understanding why some people could feel offended, the use of typical symbols, costumes and many other objects is unavoidable. Who is to stop costume parties? Please don’t dare. Why is it offensive if I want to celebrate black culture by making braids or having dreadlocks? Who does the offensiveness sit with? Philosophical questions that may never find one answer. A demand of behaviour which cannot be imposed, but simply influenced.

Two points are worth highlighting: If we take culture as a fluid and organic group of behaviours, all its items should also be experimented with, and be free for use. The other disturbing point is the idea of ownership, much based on capitalising on the use or copy of something. Since UNESCO created the Lists of Intangible Cultural Heritage, the main intention was to raise awareness of their importance and to ensure their protection. To my understanding, this is historical documentation of the origin of cultural elements, as well as their celebration. The safeguarding part aims to help “States Parties mobilise international cooperation and assistance to ensure the transmission of this heritage with the participation of the concerned communities” – demonstrating that sharing culture is at the core of its evolution.

As much of our emotional life lies in our subjective interpretation of facts, the closer we get to being precise and informed about the origin and meaning of things we consume and share, the better. However, for the sake of not restricting a specific cultural event, object or symbol to a closed group, we need to be able to share, feeding curiosity to allow a personal interpretation of that knowledge or experience. The proposition is to allow culture to be it, for all its items to be available for sharing, motivating exchange between people and communities. And by the ambassadors of that cultural origins to keep spreading its meanings, its history and the responsibility we all have to be informed and hopefully to feel that we also can help that culture spread consciously.
Ultimately, the lack of respect in most cases is a lack of knowledge, and any of us is allowed to call out, but why not use this as an opportunity to educate each other? Keep the culture alive by sharing it.