The Edmonton Arts Council has failed. They got some art by Ryan McCourt thrown out of an exhibition for the silly reason that they were “offended” by it — these were statues of the Indian god, Ganesha, in modern poses. That was feeble enough, but now McCourt was hoping to donate a sculpture to the city, and the Arts Council has found an amazing new reason to reject it.
My parents, who also live in Edmonton, decided that they would like to donate a sculpture of mine, entitled “Destroyer of Obstacles,” to the City of Edmonton’s civic art collection. They assembled a gift donation package with photos of the work, background information, and an independent gallery appraisal of it’s $20,000 value, and submitted this to the Edmonton Arts Council. After much delay, my parents were informed that, in order to make their decision on whether the City would accept the gift, they would first need to see pictures of the sculpture “under the kilt.”
Previously, those petitioning to have my sculptures removed had specifically complained that two of the sculptures showed Ganesha nude (genitals exposed). "Destroyer of Obstacles," however, is depicted fully clothed. So, the EAC was demanding to see whether this Ganesha was secretly nude underneath its clothes.
Shhh. Don’t tell anyone, but I’m parading around town today in a state of total nakedness under my clothes. I plan to smirk knowingly at everyone I meet, because I know they’re also buck naked beneath their pants.
Hey, can I demand photos of what’s “under the kilt” of the members of the Edmonton Arts Council? I have a suspicion that they’re lewdly walking about with genitals down there, under a few ineffective layers of cloth.
I am also amused by the fact that if the city of Florence ever got tired of Michaelangelo’s David and decided to bestow it on the city of Edmonton, they’d have to turn it down because it isn’t even wearing any pants.
Edmonton: Won’t accept a free sculpture, but will spend obscene amounts of money to build a new arena for the Oilers. Priorities.
/and no, I’m not just mad at the Oilers because they stole the #1 draft pick from under the nose of the Sabres. ;)
Sigh.
Yup, that’s this place, alright. Home of MRA Edmonton, Big Oil, and Bill 44 (allowing parents to withdraw their children from classes involving sex ed, education, or anything that offends ‘religious sensibilities’). Texas North.
I need a ticket outta here.
The religious obsession with nudity never ceases to amaze me. My mother, who loves sci-fi, was aghast to discover that the most recent Riddick movie had not one, but TWO scenes where breasts were exposed. She felt horrible that she told my aunt to bring her grandson along because she’d thought there wouldn’t be anything inappropriate. People getting chopped up by monsters, hell one dude getting the top half of his head cut off by the main character and his brain exposed, was apparently perfectly fine for a kid to see, but breasts were totally unacceptable. Had there been genitals exposed, I can guarantee my mom would have left the theater with my aunt and cousin in tow.
Unless I’m missing something, you can’t lift clothing on a sculpture? That’s like saying the photo is fine, but photoshop it to brush their hair away from their face so we can see their eyes. It’s… not layered like that.
carlie, you can’t lift the clothing but someone could lay down between the statue’s legs and look up under the skirt.
Accidentally, of course.
Certainly not going ridiculously out of their way to try to see some sculptural nudity.
That’s a welded steel kilt; it’s not like it’s going to flip up when there’s a breeze or anything.
But, well, just maybe we could talk about the fact that here we have another white guy appropriating other cultures? I’m not sure if “nakedness” is all that’s been going on.
Well a sculpture of this famous picture from The Onion would definitely offend a lot of religious folk!
We all have our trigger areas for being offended, but freedom of expression does not mean that you have a right to not be offended. Of course the line that must be drawn is where free expression is to threaten the safety of another.
Note the bold in the reference to Ganesha. It’s not the nudity Edmonton objects to, it’s the “secret” part. David hides nothing, (as one would when facing a giant to fight) but Ganesha in a kilt is keeping secrets. tsk tsk tsk.
errpp Ganesha in a KILT??? isn’t that some kind of cross-cultural mashup or sumthin? (or just a misnomer: males wear ‘skirts’ naturally in India, they are called something different than “kilt” though. ‘kilt’ is very specific with rigorous, cloth, and stitching, requirements.)
I didn’t realise that Ganesha was Scottish, and so of course would be appropriately dressed sub-kilt.
Scene in Rouken Glen (near Glasgie, of course)
Young Lady :Och Ganesha, what di’ye have under yer kilt?
Young Laddie: Why dinna ye have a look, lassie..
Young Lady: Och Ganesha!!! It’s gruesome!!!!!
Young Laddie: Aye touch it again an’ it’ll grew some mair….
“Is anything worn under the kilt?”
“Nay, lassie, it’s as good as it ever was.”
Apparently it was.
from article:
@#1 Unknown Eric:
They didn’t steal the #1, it was karma on the Sabres for deliberately losing games (so the rumour mill has it).
Giliel @7
I have the same problem with this and it’s a fair point for criticism, but I don’t know if it’s a fair point for EAC rejecting the art.
Given that the Hindu population of Edmonton didn’t find the statues offensive, I’m going to have to defer to them as to whether this was an appropriation or not.
Here in San Jose we have an Italian restaurant that has a replica of Michaelangelo’s David out on the sidewalk where anybody can see it! I had no idea that, compared to Edmonton, San Jose is like Sodom AND Gomorrah combined! Whoo Hoo!
Let the wind blow High, Let the wind blow low
Through the streets in my kilt I’ll go
All the lassies say hello
“Ganesha where’s your Trousers!?”
richardelguru #10
I thought the discussion went like this:
Young Lady to Scotsman: Ummm, I always wondered – is anything worn under the kilt?
Scotsman: Nay, lass. Everything’s in perfect working order.
Shoot, Sastra beat me to it.
throwaway @15:
Do we know if McCourt himself, is Hindu or not?
Hindus don’t exactly strike me as an oppressed minority.
OT
Ryan McCourt got his Arts degrees from the University of Alberta.
I have spent quite a bit of time on the U of A campus and have probably seen his student works.
My grumpy old household refers to the Fine Arts Department as
the Department of Really Bad Welding.
or sometimes the Department of Really Stupid Furniture.
Silly Edmoton. I’ve been there two or three times and was TOTALLY nude under my clothes at the time.
People get so exercised about nudity and genitals. Everybody’s got ’em. Sheesh.
What Giliell said @7.
Not to sound too sexy, but I’m wearing underwear under my clothes. But under my underwear, I’m naked.
(borrowed from David Mitchell)
congenital
as with breasts, so with testicles: every person has one on average!
So they’d prefer a kilt showing an obvious erection?
“So they’d prefer a kilt showing an obvious erection?”
What do you think the sporran is really for?
Sili:
Lolwut? Yeah, maybe not in India. But
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Hinduism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus#Contemporary_persecution
For the U.S. specifically (Canada isn’t specifically mentioned in the article)
A number of years ago, there was a minor kerfuffle when some Edmontonians took exception to an ice sculpture with bare breasts. “Think of the children!” they shrieked, “I’m going to take a bucket of hot water to it if something isn’t done!” I had to wonder if they blindfolded their kids while nursing.
And yet, Edmonton is still head and shoulders above the rest of the province.
@chigau, yes, the campus is dotted with pieces of ugly rusty crap that someone got a degree in Art for. I wonder if they still have “Earth and Sky” in the campus pub? At least it was wood, and looked liked something.
Their say, obviously. But since I didn’t know that I prefered to be careful.
anteprepro @ 29
Canada’s not perfect, but it’s not as bad. According to Stats Canada, those of Indian descent tend to report feeling well integrated and happy with Canada, though many say they’ve experienced discrimination due to race:
Stats Canada Link, Archived
And take it how you will, but here’s a paper out of the Vancouver Centre, backed by numbers from several BC institutions, saying that Hindus specifically have generally been positively received:
Vancouver Centre, PDF
The latter’s a bit more shaky given that it doesn’t seem to say much on discrimination, more about general adjustment, but I don’t think that the racial situation between the US and Canada are comparable. Not that Canada’s better, just that you can’t draw parallels between the problems in Canada and the problems in the US.
richardelguru:
No True Scotsman would have the head of an elephant.
I was thinking of Hindu nationalism in India, yes.
I cannot disapprove of statues of Ganesha or whatever while approving off caricatures of Mohammed and the Pope.
Did they really use the word “offended” as their only reason? If so I’d ask them what they meant, “offended” is a fairly non-descriptive word.
Reminds me of a thing I saw yesterday where some people also consider it disrespectful to take pictures of yourself smoking in front of images of the pink elephant character.
Amusingly, on a global scale Scots are possibly more maligned than Hindus. Accepting of course that that thing is indeed a kilt.
Sili
Do you also approve of people wearing native American headdresses?
Seriously, not all things are the same and there are complicated social and historical resons that make those things not alike. Orientalism is a fucking thing. Just remember punching up vs. punching down.
There’s also a difference between saying that something is legal and that something is right. The dude obviously had the right to make those statues. Nobody should infringe on his rights to make and to display them. The city obviously also has the right to refuse the statue. Their reasoning is subject to criticism and debate. But let’s remember that freedom of speech and artistic expression does not entail an audience.
Jim Henson was way ahead of you all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZ0SRgh3X9Q
throwaway @ 15
Some Hindus support McCourt’s work. Some do not. The Hindu Society of Alberta petitioned the mayor to remove sculptures back in 2007.
It’s not just a matter of not being disrespectful to someone’s religion. That’s not something I’m remotely concerned about. But why does a non-Hindu want to portray a god who isn’t widely known by non-Hindus, who doesn’t have much meaning to non-Hindus, who will largely be seen by non-Hindus as “lol look at that weird Oriental god”?
At the very least, that makes me pretty fucking uncomfortable and is an aspect of things people should think about.
The Mellow Monkey @39:
“It’s not just a matter of not being disrespectful to someone’s religion. That’s not something I’m remotely concerned about. But why does a non-Hindu want to portray a god who isn’t widely known by non-Hindus, who doesn’t have much meaning to non-Hindus, who will largely be seen by non-Hindus as “lol look at that weird Oriental god”?
At the very least, that makes me pretty fucking uncomfortable and is an aspect of things people should think about.”
It surprises me that you would say this. I would have thought Ganesha was pretty widely known by non-Hindus. I don’t know if I’m a typical white, fallen Methodist, but I certainly don’t think “lol look at that weird Oriental god”? Why are you ascribing ignorance and bigotry to people you don’t know?
I have a hard time thinking that many people in Edmonton would associate Hindu or Indian with “Oriental”, which is generally considered to refer to the Far East (and is considered by some to be offensive or derogatory).
@40, thecalmone
There is a lot of ignorance of Ganesha in North America.
Seriously, show someone a picture of Ganesha and they can probably tell you “oh ya it’s one of those Hindu gods or something”…….but what else would they know about the character? Serious question. Do you seriously think they aren’t highly ignorant of Ganesha’s character and meaning and all of that?
At least that would be true for me. I don’t know anything about Ganesha. And I’m actually a fairly educated person when it comes to religious topics…
I recognize Ganesha, and remember the story of why he has an elephant’s head. I had a Hindu friend in small-town Alberta in high school.
thecalmone @ 40
Well. This year portraying the goddess Kali as an evil creator of vampire monsters was deemed to be a great idea by Fox, without any background or reasoning beyond “it’d be cool to use some random Hindu shit here”. I don’t see any recognition of how gross that is in the EW recap, or in most of the others I’ve read. Even when a Hindu group spoke out about it, everybody pretty much ignored it.
Appropriative shit like this is happening constantly and people, all too often, just don’t care. Ignorance and bigotry is pretty widespread.
Anyone else reminded of Denver International Airport’s Blue Mustang sculpture? Granted, nobody expects a horse to be clothed, but there’s a guy who believes it’s one of the airport’s many and he was even interviewed on The Colbert Report’s “Mysteries of the Ancient Unknown” segments in 2012.
To be fair, a piece of the original sculpture did fall on its artist Luis Jiménez, killing him before it was completed, so it has some legitimately unpleasant history.
Also: “Hey, I’m a white person who knows about this thing, therefore it’s okay for other people to appropriate it”? Yeah, so. POC hear that all the time. Not exactly a great excuse. That you’re not ignorant is awesome, but maybe just maybe accept that there are, in fact, ignorant bigots out there?
I shouldn’t have to prove that ignorance and bigotry are widespread. Jesus fucking Christ.
Personally whenever someone says something is “cultural appropriation” I don’t find that very helpful or informative. Certainly nothing in those two words conveys what the problem is supposed to be. And I have so much difficulty in these conversations telling what people’s point is, or if they even have one that can be articulated.
Though I found that other recent post about the subject to be a bit helpful.
Also what Giliell here said in 37 about “punching up vs. punching down” is important to consider before you do something (even with regards to Muhammad from Islam).
@brianpansky, #47:
You could always educate yourself on cultural appropriation.
@Crip Dyke
I do try.
Actually being careful would’ve involved doing some research before typing.
I think Ganseha is probably one of the better known Hindu deities. Homer impersonated Ganesha in an attempt to disrupt Apu’s arranged marriage. Apu appreciated the effort, but found it somewhat offensive.
It’s a dopey looking statue. I wouldn’t give you tuppence for it.
I’d say something like Michael Myers in The Love Guru was an offensive appropriation. A Ganesh fabrication not so much.
The reason I bring up the Hindu’s not being offended was because, in a prior installment of an uproar, it was the Hindu population who passed around the petition and were upset about the depiction of a decapitated Ganesh. This one they seemed fine with. But I don’t really see either as an appropriation of culture. Unless you also want to equate Piss Christ with appropriation as well.
Or how about this: #NotAllAppropriations. If I grant that all depictions of a culture’s beliefs by an outsider is an appropriation no matter the intent or the effect. And if, at the most basic level, appropriations are used as a way to obfuscate the ownership of that being depicted so that the dominant force represented by the outsider can establish a forceful takeover of the culture. Those I would say are malevolent appropriation.
The innocuous form, sharing cultural ideas, appreciation, imitation, or what have you, without the initiative to subdue the culture, is clearly not on my radar as something that needs to be quashed.
Maybe that’s just my white privilege talking. I really cannot think of anything that I wouldn’t mind being appropriated. Perhaps because it would merely be a reappropriation.
#53 throwaway
As far as I remember, the Piss Christ didn’t involve any culture that was foreign to the artist.
@throwaway, 54:
Good stuff, though you’re missing the fact that cultural imperialism exists.*1 I don’t mean that all cultural lending is evil any more than I condemn all cultural borrowing. However, when US corporations actively sell the US lifestyle to other nations in order to get more consumers for the same goods without having to redesign for each market, it would be rather ridiculous to complain that those other nations have many citizens adopting aspects of US culture.
When someone is part of culture A being encouraged by culture B to adopt pieces of culture B, persons from culture A adopting pieces of culture B is not cultural appropriation.
========
*1 I don’t have a problem with cultural imperialism as it is often used – i.e. any attempt to convince someone else that your culture does something better. However there is an economic imperialism which is incredibly damaging and has as one facet deliberate attempts to force change in a culture. This includes shutting down access to traditional foods in order to more easily sell a food that is surplus elsewhere in an economic empire, but that’s only one example. Damaging cultural imperialism without economic imperialism may or may not exist – I really don’t know enough about economies around the world to say – but it definitely has existed in the past. The Canadian boarding schools are one example. But there still must be some coercive power, it seems to me, to get the cultural imperialism to stick. In Canada, it was military power, mostly. Economic imperialism as we know it wasn’t so much a factor, but isolated communities that were militarily prevented from hunting and fishing were dependent on white government’s food and supply allocations. Since they weren’t trying to get those communities to buy things, just starving them out, it seems more like genocide than economic imperialism. Likewise, there are many Christian missionaries who do good work “building wells” or whatnot (it seems farfetched to me that local communities really can’t build wells on their own, but maybe), but it always comes with a cultural price. To the extent that price is “send your kids to school while we adult missionaries do the work” I would support the goal but be skeptical about how it’s carried out. To the extent that price is “thank your lord Jesus for your clean water every time you lower your bucket” I think it’s odious.
CD#56
Also, there was some
moving a bunch of CanadianEskimos™ to … places …
because
.
.
.
Canadian Sovereignty!!!!
Last I checked there wasn’t a billion native Americans in possession of atomic bombs. I’d say the punching down is a bit more clear in that case.
If I get this right, it is fine to show some guy getting whipped and forced to carry a heavy wooden object and then get nailed to it through the hands and feet and left to die, but showing normal body parts like genitals is offensive. There would probably protests if breasts were shown too.
If Jesus existed, he was certainly naked on the cross as that seems to have been the Roman practice of crucifixion at the time. Though the NT says several times that he was “stripped” of his clothes, Christian apologists claim that that doesn’t mean he was naked. What about “stripped” is it that they don’t understand?
@ 59
gracious sakes!
how is it possible to only believe what you want to believe?
uncle frogy
Sili
Oh, that apparently erases a few centuries of colonialism, genocide and the actual reality of discrimination against Indian and Hindu populations in the west. By that definition antisemitism is also mood becuase the Israeli government also has the bomb.
+++
It’s a question of cultural appropriation, cultural imperialism and discourse. I know those aren’t the easiest of concepts and it’s also something many people who are generally sensible don’t get.
In the shortest version, discourse is who gets to talk about what.
A very obvious example is minstrel shows: white people dress up as black people and display “blackness”. They have defining power. Or the perpetual portrayal of trans* people by cis actors in movies made by cis directors: The public image and debate is led not by those whose lived experience it is but by those with privilege.
Now you can apply that concept to white dude displaying statues of Indian gods in Canada.
P.S. “Orientalism” is a cultural studies approach.
dõki @55
You’re right, I regretted that example as soon as I clicked submit, remembering that the artist had been raised Catholic.
=
So I think I get it with the example of the minstrel shows. That’s an identity being coopted by someone who does not own that identity. That I get.
But here’s where I might be getting hung up when the subject is toxic religion or toxic culture. So, for example, a culture uses a certain mosaic pattern to adorn their places of worship. Most of the adherents of the religion, and the religion itself, have an issue with, say, subjugation of women.
Would utilizing the art form of their mosaic to depict labias in protest be an appropriation or cutting political commentary?
I know even less about Edmonton than I do about Scottish Hindus — and of the latter I am only reasonably certain that there must be some, and I wouldn’t be totally surprised if any second generation Scots-Hindu had had occasion to wear a Scottish kilt — so it occurs to me that it’s quite possible that we haven’t heard any objections from Hindu Edmontonians not because they don’t object but because they haven’t had the opportunity to make themselves heard; not exactly a rare experience of minorities.
Saying that, it occurs to me that part of the job of an artist is to take elements of the culture they’re in and engage with them. And with the global mixing of cultures our modern age has brought, everything is part of our culture, including the cultural appropriations of other artists.
I can’t speak for anyone else’s education or experience, particularly in another country, but I know a little of Ganesh: I read of him in the copy of the Baghavad Gita I picked up from the friendly (white) cultist I once gave an overly generous donation to. I’ve seen statuettes in the local curry houses and Asian supermarkets, representations on packets of joss sticks, and flyers for some nightclub or other. I don’t know for sure which of these were expressions of natal culture and which were cultural appropriations — I’m pretty sure the night club just wanted a cool image for their flyer, and the cultist seems to be a tricky case; it was, as far as I can tell, a genuine translation of the Gita, but, you know, cultist — but they’re all parts of my culture by virtue of them appearing here in my country presented by people I’m pleased for the most part to call my compatriots.
And I’m sure it’s a similar case for this artist. Maybe there are some Scots-Hindu emigrés in Edmonton, or maybe the artist just thought it would be cool to mash-up a symbol of one culture prevalent in Canada, the Scots, with another, the Hindus, as a representation of something that’s already happening at the social level. Or maybe I’m reading too much into it, and the guy just got into thinking how the joints of multiple arms retro-fitted to a biped chassis actually worked mechanically and the statue is just a physical expression of that working out, and he made it Ganesh, because why not?
The thing is, just because it’s a melanin-deficient guy using Hindu imagery, and there’s a long history of melanin-deficient guys literally looting other cultures, never mind just borrowing their visual iconography, doesn’t make it automatically cultural appropriation. As with a lot of things, the person making the observation that it might be needs to show some working and not just plonk it out there.
Lastly, because I just thought of it and can’t shoe-horn it into what I’ve already written: the concept of “culture”, like “race”, is culturally determined. (Can’t decide if that’s deep or trite, though. :) )
throwaway
No, just stop.
Stop making “subjugation of women” your go to example. Haven’t we seen in the last years how that’s often just some thinky veiled racism to beat minorities over the head with?
Stop playing white saviour. Those women won’t thank you. Could it be powerful subjugation to use elements of an oppressive patriarchal culture/religion in an arts project? Yes, when it’s being done by the people of that culture.
P.S.
I don’t know if your description just sounds like islam or whether you intentionally used cultural elements of Arabian culture, but, that was the first design for the qatar football statium, designed by a muslim woman arquitect whose signature is designing buildings that look like vulvas/vaginas.
Giliell @ 64
This. Thank you, Giliell.
Being cautious and recognizing that white Canadians are privileged over Desi Canadians isn’t a huge onus. Recognizing that there are aspects of racism tied up in western reactions to non-western religions isn’t a demand that no white person can ever say anything about non-western religions.
But when there’s a lengthy history of white people laying claim to the whole world, seeing yet another instance of white people huffing and puffing and saying “can’t this be one of our toys?” is incredibly aggravating. And isn’t necessarily welcome, or helping anything. Taking that into consideration is the least people can do.
Nel C
In other words, white people have been stealing from all other cultures in the world for such a long time it’s now rightfully theirs so PoC would you please STFU?
Giliell @66, I hope not. LIke I said, us white guys have been doing a lot of actual, physical theft of culture for a while. If this is a case of cultural appropriation, and not just mixing symbols present in the artist’s cultural sphere such as those of Scots-Canadians and Hindu-Canadians, I’d like to see some of the working that brings one to that conclusion. Because I’m a slow, old, white guy and, alas, I’m not often aware of being on the appropriated side of things, so I’m not as quick to spot it.
You are, of course, under no obligation to provide this information.
Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- @64
I’m thinking subjugation of women is a common theme in every culture and was meant to be a universal example, what with the quiverful movement and all, and not strictly restricted to one culture, or even a minority culture in particular. I had no idea such was my “go to” example. I didn’t even know I had that tendency. Or that it could be established in the span of just a few posts.
I chose the example because it’s something I care about.
Cultures have been cross-fertilizing each other for millennia. Whether it be by a lone, wandering artist or by cultural expansion following a conquering army, concepts, stories, and images have been moving around the world for ages, changing as they come into contact with existing narratives, or changing those narratives to fit them. Culture is never “stolen”, unless it has to do with tangible objects moved from one country to another or with native cultural elements being suppressed by conquerors, who only allow a version of them to survive within their own culture; so I’m having a hard time coming to terms with why cultural appropriation is such a bad thing. As a Greek I often find Hollywood’s renditions of our ancient myths almost unbearable to watch, but I’m not going to take that as an insult. The way I see it, it’s everyone’s right to dip into the pool of our world cultural heritage and take inspiration from it. Most of the resulting works will not be very good, because most of all art falls far short of the standard set by the very best examples, but that’s nothing unusual.
Now, if a work of art intentionally and maliciously derides a foreign culture, then that’s reprehensible. If it’s “punching down”, even more so. But when reading about cultural appropriation in the most general terms (i.e. without the element of a foreign people taking over the country whose culture is being appropriated), I can’t help but bring to mind some reactions to Nina Paley’s “Sita Sings the Blues”, and her comments on them:
“On the far left, there are some very, very privileged people in academia who have reduced all the wondrous complexities of racial relations into, “White people are racist, and non-white people are all victims of white racism.” Without actually looking at the work, they’ve decided that any white person doing a project like this is by definition racist, and it’s an example of more neocolonialism. So politics makes strange bedfellows — they’re in bed with the Hindutva nationalists.”
You’re speaking on behalf of another people and demanding apologies for a culture that isn’t yours. Maybe you should do some introspection about appropriation.
@Ryan Cunningham #70
As a Hindu, I give my power of attorney to Gilliell based on her sound arguments to demand apologies (which she never actually did in her posts) and continue pointing out appropriation.
Seleukos @69: “Culture is never “stolen””
I’m not so sure about this. One way to steal culture is to repackage a story from that culture and protect the repackaging with ridiculously extensive copyright laws, then letting loose attack-lawyers on anyone else who tries to retell the original story themselves on the basis of infringing copyright. It should be the case that the Sidney Corporation (completely made-up example without any resemblance to a RL corporation, living, dead, or frozen in cryogenic sleep) can’t stop anyone retelling the story of, say, an ancient Chinese woman who dresses as a man to go to war.
But, in practice, just the mere possibility that Sidney can outspend the legal fund of any other artist on the planet is going to make any storyteller hesitate before examining their version of the story for tropes that might be original with Sidney that they’ve unconsciously absorbed, and then giving up because who has time for that crap? Sidney, in essence, ends up owning the story: every version that your culture is exposed to for the next couple of generations is Sidney’s version, for better or worse.
Plus there’s the fact that an Imperialist who carts away your temple carvings and priestly scrolls to put in his museum (where top men can work on them, presumably) may be removing story-telling material vital to the perpetuation of your pre-literate culture. Not to mention that forcing one’s plantation workers to be educated in the manner of their conquerers, worship in their manner, and even be named in their manner could be characterised as “stealing” culture of a kind. (More accurately as “destroying”, “erasing”, etc, it’s true, but just as bad, if not worse.)
Hm, I hadn’t considered the copyright factor at all. That’s a royal mess in and of itself, affecting not only traditional stories but things as simple as rounded edges… I did mention the aspect of moving tangible objects from one country to another as an exception, and the aspect of suppressing local culture as another one, but those are usually not the case when one discusses western art inspired by other cultures.