First the uproar about canceled concerts by white reggae musicians with Rastas, then the controversy about the publication of a film and two books about Winnetou: the topic of “cultural appropriation” is currently making waves. The emotionally charged debates remind historian Harald Fischer-Tiné of the 1980s, when Asians first celebrated success with classical music on local stages.
SRF News: Are you pleased that this topic is being discussed so widely?
Harald Fischer-Tiné: On the one hand, it is to be welcomed that the problems that have occupied us historians for decades are now gradually seeping into the consciousness of a broader public. On the other hand, the level of excitement and emotionality that characterizes this debate does not necessarily serve to advance knowledge. So I have somewhat mixed feelings.
Why do you think there is such excitement?
This is with good reason, because the problems of racism and colonial entanglements in the present, not as a distant projection into the past, have only come into public consciousness in the last four or five years. Also in Switzerland, where you have never seen yourself in the context of colonialism and imperialism.
In the rarest of cases, it is a tried and tested means of simply forbidding to talk about something and thereby making things supposedly invisible or undone.
Members of the affected minorities, but also members of the so-called majority society, sometimes react quite emotionally, for example with calls for bans or taboos. This, in turn, triggers the feeling among the majority of the population that they are being patronized and lectured on, and this leads to a further escalation.
Are bans and taboos the solution?
I do not think so. In the rarest of cases, it is a tried and tested means of simply forbidding to talk about something and thereby making things supposedly invisible or undone. That’s the wrong way.
What does “cultural appropriation” actually mean?
The debate about “cultural appropriation” has been going on in the USA for at least 40 years. Three levels of meaning emerge from the literature that emerged from this:
It would be difficult if we now took the standpoint of making appropriations impossible through prohibitions or taboos. That would lead in a direction that would be very problematic.
In which direction do you mean?
We would adopt an argument that is repeatedly postulated in ultra-conservative or even racist approaches. Namely, that there is a form of authenticity or “cultural purity” and that there must be congruence between an ethnically defined group and a certain cultural form of expression. This negates the fact that there can be mutual borrowing, fertilization, enrichment.
The discussion reminds you of the 1980s. In what way?
This ethnicization reminds me of the clearly perceptible racist undertones when virtuosos in classical music from East Asia became known to an increasing extent. That shocked the guardians of the Grail in Western high culture.
Basically, we already saw the phenomenon of this demand for congruence of ethnic identity and cultural forms of expression back then.
This is of course on a different level than black music, which has completely different nuances in the context of oppression and exploitation. But basically we already saw the phenomenon of this demand for congruence of ethnic identity and cultural forms of expression back then.
The conversation was conducted by Simone Hulliger.
Legend:
A concert by Lauwarm in the Brasserie Lorraine in Bern was canceled because people in the audience felt uncomfortable that a white band was playing reggae music and band members were wearing dreadlocks.
Keystone/Lukewarm