Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyB
I acknowledge all these stats, I agree that there is systemic racism against indigenous people, and I still don't think that it should obligate anyone to pay something like a licensing fee or a tax to use a broad artistic style. Nobody should own styles of art any more than anyone owns a language or a genre. These are things that thrive or die depending on how many people use them. Their broad use should be embraced and their death is the least desirable outcome for anyone who cares about them.
Ideas like forcing the Canucks to pay compensation may come from a place of good intent (including but not limited to hatred of the Canucks), but I think they also diminish discussion of more substantial issues such as decolonization. Expressions of injustice made on behalf of indigenous people in relation to appropriation also often strike me as subtle propagation of the myth of the noble savage and seem maybe a bit infantilizing of indigenous people.
|
The core of what I posted prior is much larger than Canadian FN, and really only uses them as an example. I don't think anyone is speaking for them, including myself. The only reason historical facts were posted was to make the distinction between ethnicity vs ethnocentrism for a confused user.
This is a larger societal issue about corporations selling imagery from vulnerable communities for profit, while withholding distribution of that wealth from the people they’re making money from.
Indigenous people are just one group in a much larger socioeconomic picture. This issue with the Canucks a microscopic peek into that problem.
The question is, is this aspect of corporate capitalsim something we want to continue to accept as appropriate in society?