Why should anyone’s freedom of speech be limited based on ancestry or bloodline?
Joseph Boyden was an early warning.
Late last December, as Canada moved into its 150th anniversary year, an honest discussion of which must include its violent suppression of indigenous people by European settlers, someone called into question Boyden’s claim to Métis ancestry.
And just like that, this literary heavyweight was thrown to the curb. Boyden, whose beloved works of fiction helped so many Canadians imagine indigenous lives, was criticized as a poseur who took up too much space and crowded out other artists of “real” indigenous ancestry.
Boyden was put on trial in social media, that most brutal of courtrooms. He was asked on what basis he had expertise to represent issues, if he could not prove that he was himself indigenous. What a terrifying question. First, it recalls the hideous Jim Crow laws of the pre-civil rights American South, when the percentage of African-American blood that ran through your veins determined the social privileges you enjoyed.
No good can come of a society which limits your freedom of speech based on your ancestry.
Secondly, if we treasure free speech and artistic expression, we shouldn’t be telling any artist what he or she can and can’t imagine, paint, or publish.
The great writers didn’t limit themselves. William Shakespeare imagined the Jewish character Shylock, in “Merchant of Venice.” Leo Tolstoy created Anna Karenina. Mark Twain built Jim, the escaped slave in “Huckleberry Finn.”
Perhaps these characters were not flawlessly imagined, but no one would seriously suggest that the authors had no right to create them.
Today, though, our guilt and anger about the past has sent the conversation right off the rails.
In September, former designer Marc Jacobs was accused of cultural appropriation when he
sent white models down the runway wearing faux dreadlocks. He later apologized for “lack of sensitivity” in his response to critics.
Recently, a Toronto art gallery cancelled a show by Amanda PL, who isn’t indigenous and was accused of “cultural genocide” because she paints in the style of indigenous artist Norval Morriseau, whom she admires.
The pain felt by those who feel robbed is real. But we live in a multicultural, diverse society. It’s impossible to expect we won’t try on various aspects of those cultures.
A few days ago, magazine editor Hal Niedzviecki resigned amid controversy when he said that “anyone anywhere should be encouraged to imagine other peoples, other cultures, other identities."
He also said in the journal of the Writers’ Union of Canada that there should be an “appropriation prize” for writers who did this successfully.
That last suggestion might have been questionable. But in what kind of society is an intellectual’s job at risk because he made a controversial remark?
Now, no one dares to speak up lest the Twitter mob descend. The rules are unclear and constantly shifting on the fine line between paying tribute to aboriginal tradition and stealing from it.
David Marskell, chief executive officer of Themuseum in downtown Kitchener, which is showing an exhibition of indigenous art, is considering hosting a public discussion about this. “I’m really glad that this conversation is happening,” he said. It’s exactly what we need.