“Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven.” - Gospel of Thomas (44)
In the past culture was fostered in a place dictated by how far a person could travel regularly on foot or man powered boat. So we have pockets of people having lived on a fairly definable piece of land. Ie: Salish sea and the Coast Salish people. The people and their culture are the result of their living and interacting on that specific landscape. Architecture, spiritual practices, rituals, food etc are all framed within the limits of the landscape that can be interacted with on a daily basis. So for me it begs the question. Does the culture belong to the land or to the people? Having travelled and moved and being a descendent of diverse linage I am now leaning on the idea that culture belongs to the land and not to the people. In fact, people also belong to the land. Now that we can get on a fast boat or plane, now that we can wake if Victoria and fall asleep in Hong Kong, does it really make sense to drag a big bagage of culture on our shoulders and try to continue to live “our culture” in a new place? Or do we keep culture alive in a place by fully engaging in the culture that that place / landscape calls forward? We see our desire for this emerging already. 100mile diet, buy local etc. So then culture is not so much a noun but rather a verb. Or maybe we need a new word that is defined as “interactions with the landscape which contributes to the depth of that places culture”. The dying of culture is a direct result of people’s choice and belief to rely on industrialization alone for their survival. To use the body analogy. It would be like trying to keep our bodies alive on vitamin pills alone. That just doesn’t work. Our bodies need real food that comes from nature. In the same way, culture needs real interaction with the local landscape to stay alive. Unfortunately the stories and behaviours around the idea of cultural appropriation has instilled fear of judgement when taking part in cultures that are “not ours”. Though cultural appropriation at its worst is extremely disrespectful for sure, we may also want to turn it in its head and say “hey, join me on this land, come be a part of the foods, celebrations, art etc that this land calls forward in us, let the land appropriate you while you stand in its soils.”
"the bitter pills of individualism, heroism, punitive justice, essentialism, private property and the whole ungodly cabinet full of pills we are told to take". I laughed aloud at this line for the way Tad put these truths together. I laughed because while the writing is of course serious it's also full of certain kinds of delight and wordplay. Great post, thank you, Tad; loved Ingrid's thoughts on this too. Doing my best to stay human, Jamie!
In the past culture was fostered in a place dictated by how far a person could travel regularly on foot or man powered boat. So we have pockets of people having lived on a fairly definable piece of land. Ie: Salish sea and the Coast Salish people. The people and their culture are the result of their living and interacting on that specific landscape. Architecture, spiritual practices, rituals, food etc are all framed within the limits of the landscape that can be interacted with on a daily basis. So for me it begs the question. Does the culture belong to the land or to the people? Having travelled and moved and being a descendent of diverse linage I am now leaning on the idea that culture belongs to the land and not to the people. In fact, people also belong to the land. Now that we can get on a fast boat or plane, now that we can wake if Victoria and fall asleep in Hong Kong, does it really make sense to drag a big bagage of culture on our shoulders and try to continue to live “our culture” in a new place? Or do we keep culture alive in a place by fully engaging in the culture that that place / landscape calls forward? We see our desire for this emerging already. 100mile diet, buy local etc. So then culture is not so much a noun but rather a verb. Or maybe we need a new word that is defined as “interactions with the landscape which contributes to the depth of that places culture”. The dying of culture is a direct result of people’s choice and belief to rely on industrialization alone for their survival. To use the body analogy. It would be like trying to keep our bodies alive on vitamin pills alone. That just doesn’t work. Our bodies need real food that comes from nature. In the same way, culture needs real interaction with the local landscape to stay alive. Unfortunately the stories and behaviours around the idea of cultural appropriation has instilled fear of judgement when taking part in cultures that are “not ours”. Though cultural appropriation at its worst is extremely disrespectful for sure, we may also want to turn it in its head and say “hey, join me on this land, come be a part of the foods, celebrations, art etc that this land calls forward in us, let the land appropriate you while you stand in its soils.”
I really love this.
"the bitter pills of individualism, heroism, punitive justice, essentialism, private property and the whole ungodly cabinet full of pills we are told to take". I laughed aloud at this line for the way Tad put these truths together. I laughed because while the writing is of course serious it's also full of certain kinds of delight and wordplay. Great post, thank you, Tad; loved Ingrid's thoughts on this too. Doing my best to stay human, Jamie!