A couple years have passed since I heard CNN (2013) reporting that the Chinese authorities have published new regulations that banned dishes containing shark fins and other delicacies (bird nests and wild animal products) at official banquets. A refresher for readers, shark finning refers to the removal and retention of shark fins which are used for medicinal purposes and traditional soups, a prestigious dish served during special occasions (weddings, banquets) or as a luxury. This act is heavily criticized because of the world’s diminishing shark populations and for ethical reasons, since some fishermen, after harvesting the fin, discard the carcass back into the ocean whether the shark is dead or alive.

When the news was on, I was with a friend who happened to be visiting from Japan. We were at our house lounging in front of the T.V. when my friend idly muttered “…Thank God it wasn’t Japan.” This phrase ends up being stuck in my head until today. Sure, it might be a relief to hear that your country didn’t take part in such cruel acts.   Especially in contemporary society where the voices animal activists’ are gaining more power than ever (this is just my personal opinion, but these days there seem to be more people who seem to be unable to stand the fact that humans are omnivores). Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for animal conservation and environmental protection. But is the fishing industry the only groups of people who benefit from these so-called evil acts? There are countless Chinese restaurants in Japan and some have shark fin soup on their menu. They are on the menu so obviously that means there are customers who order it. They will pay the price for it and that becomes a part of the restaurant’s profit and fuels the economy. But I do not know the route nor the processes that have been taken to obtain those fins. Neither I nor my friend have ever had the opportunity to eat this dish and it is likely that we never will but we do live in a country where the tourism/hospitality industry offer these kind of food. We are a part of that economy that is supported by these industries and indirectly, we benefit from that shark fin. Borrowing Bishop’s (1994) phrase, this is where “personal becomes political.”

Personal decisions and political consequences are not mutually exclusive. Individuals’ decisions collect and shape political views and decisions, which again, have impact our personal decisions. Accordingly, attitudes towards the Indigenous peoples of non-Indigenous individuals gather to create a flow or political trend that can manifest as preconceptions towards Indigenous peoples. The thank-god-it-wasn’t-us attitude my friend took is the denial of personal = political and can contribute to the oppression of Indigenous communities. Bishop (1994, p.112) states that “when learning to see yourself as an oppressor, the experience is by definition hidden from you, because part of an oppressor group is to be cut off from the ability to identify with the experience of the oppressed.” Unfortunately, the Canadian federal government seem to fall under this definition of an oppressor group.

The current state of contemporary Indigenous affairs is in a vicious cycle of personal-is-political. Policies implemented by the government, whether deliberately or not, has resulted in endangering of Indigenous culture and heritages. A Report on Tribal Preservation Funding Needs Submitted to Congress (Parker, 1990) states that the traditional knowledge and Western policy have irreconcilable differences, since traditional lores and knowledge lack scientific basis (such as categorical distinctions) which makes it difficult to translate into individualist and democratic culture of white America. However, Warner and Grint (2012) states that Western cultures has attempted to replace Indigenous leadership with western governance system. This one-sided implementation of policy comes from the myths of “noble savage.” The original pre-civilized state of the Indigenous peoples is deemed inadequate to fend for themselves against the “civilized” societies, providing the basis for protection. This stereotype is an underlying factor of cultural appropriation and serves as a justification for commodification of knowledge by non-Indigenous population.

Indigenous peoples are all fitted into this “noble savage” stereotype and are seen as a single collective entity. This stereotype is held within Canadian policy-makers and are reflected in policies today. In summary, modern contexts of individualism and Eurocentrism are seriously endangering the Indigenous peoples (Battiste & Henderson, 2000) both at societal level and structural level. Reconciliation discussions must include substantive transformation in these areas that deal with power inequalities and imbalance in land and resources (Napoleon, 2004).

And so, if the truth is to be believed in this country, it must perhaps be

written by those who bear the consequences of the past.

– Antjie Krog, Country of My Skull: Guilt, Sorrow, and the Limits of Forgiveness in the New South Africa

Rather than replacing Indigenous leadership with irreconcilable policies that are based on Eurocentric values of Western governance, the Canadian federal government must make approaches for Indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination. It is also important for the individual members of the oppressor group to reflect on one’s personal attitudes towards the oppressed group in order to diverge from the vicious cycle of at an interpersonal level.

The evidence I have chosen is an American science fiction film “Avatar,” created by James Cameron (2009).  Because of its ground-breaking visual effects and its messages about environmentalism and humanitarianism, Avatar became one of the highest-grossing film on the record.  On the other hand, it has also received criticism for its “white savior” narrative.  Regardless, the huge success of this film indicates that many (non-Indigenous) audiences sympathized with the message preached in this film: The invaders, who have already depleted their own resources, are now driven by a compulsive lust for the resources of the spiritually enlightened indigenous tribes.  “Avatar” (2009) is a film that not only demonstrates non-Indigenous’ yearning for the already lost nature, but is also a naturalistic fantasy that has been idealized and idolized through the Western framework.

The story revolves around Jake Sully, a paraplegic ex-marine, who takes place of his deceased twin brother in the Avatar project, an exploration of the biosphere of the land of Pandora using genetically engineered human-Na’vi (inhabitants of Pandora) hybrids called “avatars.”  He gets lost during expedition and is saved by a Na’vi princess, Neytiri, who sees an auspicious sign and takes Jake into her society.  Initially, Jake provides a mining company, RDA, the information about the Na’vi and their clan but switches allegiance as he sympathizes with the Na’vi and falls in love with Neytiri.  He regains trust from the Na’vi and unites all clans to battle against the destructive and genocidal RDA.

The portrayal of the Na’vi has many symbolic similarities to the Indigenous peoples of North America:  High reverence for all living things, ornamental attire, spirituality.  The film focuses heavily on tribal rituals and the distinction between environment and the supernatural is blurry.  The Na’vi are depictions of the Indigenous peoples, but at the same time, they depict what modern society has lost in exchange for what capitalism has brought them – minimal decoration and deep respect for the nature and spiritual connectedness.  The Na’vi are depicted as the polar opposite of the White men of the RDA, who are caricaturized as materialistic and imperialistic colonial powers.  These men of the RDA, are people from the future Earth where its resources have been depleted.  It can be argued that, if the Na’vi depict the Indigenous peoples, the characters from the RDA depict the early settlers.  However, since their background is that they came from a resource-depleted planet, it may be more accurate to state that they are the ugly representations of the current state of our capitalist society.  Jake Sully, through the course of contact with the Na’vi (Indigenous peoples), learns about himself and eventually becomes the messianic figure to lead the Na’vi to defeat the RDA (capitalism, imperialism, colonialism).

Jake Sully is the figure that non-Indigenous members of the capitalist society want to believe that they are.  Although belonging to a capitalist society, he ‘enlightens’ and becomes the leader to save the Na’vi.  Quoting the lyrics from a Christian song (is it ironic?), Jake Sully would be the one who says “I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see!”  My belief is that non-Indigenous people, more or less, want to be Jake Sully.  We want to be the one who realizes that the act was wrongful and, if possible, compensate for that act.  This is an egocentric way of thinking that subjects the Na’vi (Indigenous peoples) to benevolent prejudice.  However, my argument is that this belief may be more common than we, non-Indigenous people, hope to believe.

In psychology, there is a defence mechanism called introjection and identification.  Introjection is when we internalize the beliefs of other people and identification is when one assimilates another individual’s aspect and is transformed (wholly or partially).  These two processes can be regarded as an indication of the non-Indigenous people’s  temporary psychological escape from the consequences of capitalism while still, allowing them to hold on to its luxuries.  The dissonance between the admission of the wrongful invasion and the dependency on capitalism may underlie why some non-Indigenous are compelled to fall under this Jake Sully pitfall.  We admit that colonization was wrongful but we cannot live without benefitting from its legacy.  Therefore, we take on the burden of racial leadership which serves as a convenient atonement, a gentle slap on our wrist, although it merely is a fantasy coming from psychological compensation (Note: in psychological terms, compensation is a strategy whereby one covers up (un)consciously their weaknesses, desires, or frustrations in one area through fulfillment in another area).  However, not knowing this erroneous belief can lead to false notions of alliance and even worse, can emerge as cultural appropriation or racism.

As much as I want to write in part of Aboriginal peoples, I am a full-fledged Asian who has had little contact with Aboriginal cultures. My contact with the Aboriginal cultures has been limited to books and guest speakers so it is more of a knowledge as factual information rather than knowledge as experience. Therefore, I guess this puts me in a rather odd position in terms of discussing Aboriginal history which has been marked by complex social hierarchies and forced cultural assimilation mainly between European settlers and First Nations across Canada. My ancestry did not play a big part in Canadian history. So what does an Asian girl have to say? Isn’t Aboriginal relations something to be discussed between the Whites and the Indians?

The land we are living on is an unceded land. This land was never sold, relinquished, or handed over in any way and only too recently, I became aware of this fact (making me question the significance of my high school social studies class). We are merely visitors on this land. However, I look around and see the streets lined with fancy restaurants and stores selling designer clothing. Office buildings several stories tall have replaced oak trees and we have Ferraris and Lamborghinis roaming instead of deers and buffalos. The fact that we are living in this society that is overabundant with luxuries while some Aboriginal tribes are living in conditions that lack access to clean water, I believe that it is not an overstatement to say that us visitors, are also benefitting from the history of colonization. However, at the same time, I ask myself why I feel such resentment towards this society I live in. Isn’t this what we wanted? What is there to complain? Here is the pitfall where some non-Indigenous people who got tired of capitalism tend to fall under. They tend to identify and introject themselves with the Aboriginal cultures to temporarily escape from a capitalistic society and return to so-called “mother nature” while still holding on to the luxuries.

For this Big Idea project, I will examine our positions as visitors in Canada while addressing the issue of cultural appropriation.