#don’t ask me about cultural appropriation I don’t want to rehash the 2010s

[ecoterrorist-katara]

The West has been notorious in viewing and treating indigenous and Asian cultures as a monolith. Due to that, the idea of handpicking various aspects from those particular cultures seems to come from the result of a Western ethnocentric worldview. And due to how it does not acknowledge the differences in these various Asian and indigenous cultures….it’s hard to argue that it’s not orientalist. Especially since they combine these different aspects of those cultures in a simplistic manner to a western audience.

Whether the work encourages you to identify with the characters or not doesn’t matter in regards to if it is orientalist or not.

And I would suggest you research this show and Tibetan monks. If you don’t agree with their being orientalist aspects of the show, then fine, but that one aspect, in how they handled it, is orientalist.

Why specifically only Asian and indigenous cultures? what could two American Caucasian men find in those cultures that they think they can pick and choose certain things from them, and it end up being cohesive?

Whether a show encourages you to identify with its characters matters a whole lot in whether the show is Orientalist, because the whole point of Orientalism is making the Oriental Other look bad! If a work encourages you to identify with these “Others,” it’s actually breaking down the Orient-Occident binary.

To be clear, ATLA not being Orientalist doesn’t preclude it from being culturally appropriative. The important things to me are whether ATLA is harmful to 1) the cultures that inspired it or 2) the people from those cultures, and the answer to both questions is no. ATLA is not claiming to represent anything, and therefore it’s not spreading misinformation or stereotypes — with the exception of, again, Guru Pathik which I think was in poor taste.

I do take issue with how easy it is for fans to take the Air Nomads as representation of Tibetan Buddhist monks. I think Bryke should have gone further to incorporate more influences to get away from the impression that Air Nomads are Tibetan Buddhist monks (or Buddhists in general), because people now moralize about the Air Nomads using the plight of Tibetans, and the oppression of Tibetans — like the oppression of all real-life people — should not be shoehorned into a cartoon. Still, a child fan of ATLA wouldn’t think the Air Nomads are Tibetan Buddhist monks unless someone in their life tells them so, because the inspiration is not explicit in the text. It’s fans who draw asinine conclusions like Fire Nation = Japan / Air Nomads = Tibetans or Buddhist monks / Earth Kingdom = China / SWT = Inuit, and then interpret ATLA according to corresponding real-life dynamics, who inadvertently spread misinformation. I have never seen such ridiculous takes on Buddhism as I have in the ATLA fandom. Nobody with an iota of knowledge of South Asian or Southeast Asian politics would claim that Buddhists are always non-violent. Nobody who knows about monks would think monks can get married. But I can’t even fault the text; I fault people who take their information about Buddhism from a cartoon that never even mentioned the word Buddhism.

Fundamentally I think this conversation is about whether it’s okay for white Americans to take aesthetic inspiration from non-white cultures to create their fantasy worlds, and to what extent they’re responsible for the ways in which their fans interpret the sources of their inspiration. I’m fine with people taking aesthetic inspiration from my culture (beyond sacred and religious cultural practices, which I generally don’t think should be aestheticized by people who don’t understand them). I don’t know why Bryke chose to take inspo from Asian and northern Indigenous cultures; people can certainly say it’s culturally appropriative and decide not to watch it.