Re: UH Haka
I do not know what possessed me to read this thread nearly a month after it was begun, and I do not know what possessed me to read THROUGH it after some of the idiotic contributions, but I've read it, and I actually formed some kind of opinion.
First, there are two issues, really. The haka as a cultural exploitation and the haka as a legal violation (or at least as something that offends "intellectual property" sensibilities).
Let's take that second issue first. If the UH-Manoa football team is copying something written for and performed by a New Zealand rugby team, I will agree that it is lame. However, copyright laws (at least in America; I won't even pretend to know the first thing about international copyright law) do not cover performance. Anyone who wants to can perform "Purple Rain" in concert without permission from Prince, for example, though Prince's music-licensing company (usually ASCAP or BMI) will pursue royalty payments. If I understand correctly, any Joe could even record "Purple Rain" without Prince's permission. It often costs money to do so with permission and even more money to do so without permission, but the point is that permission is not necessary. Plus, you'd piss off Prince.
The world of athletics is rife with examples of teams (and fans of those teams) ripping off what other teams have done. Florida State fans have complained for more than ten years about the Atlanta Braves' fans stealing the "tomahawk chop." The New York Giants defense has taken to doing a "jump shot" mime after making a great play, but there is evidence that players on other teams were doing it first. Oh, and I don't know if you know this, but that "Hawaii Five-O" music that the Manoa band plays? That was from a television show.
So it makes sense that a fan of the All-Blacks would be upset, but it is silly to demand that some other team stop copying; copying happens in sports all the time.
Now that first issue, about cultural offense, is something else. Is the football team's use of the haka an exploitation of an honored tradition of another culture? Does it trivialize an important aspect of someone's culture to perform it on a football field before a game?
Oh yeah.
But a lot depends on the spirit in which it is intended. When a hula halau in Texas, made up mostly of non-islanders, performs on the mainland, is it an exloitation or does it honor the culture and traditions that surround the dance? On the other hand, when dancers perform hula on those boats that leave Honolulu every evening loaded with tourists, is it just as honoring, or is it mostly commercial?
Of course the answer is not easy. I've known people who dance in those shows, and they say that every minute of it honors their culture. This may be true, but what if the overall intent is simply to make money or to perpetuate some kind of visitors' vision of what Hawaii is suppsed to be? Then, while my friends may have nothing but noble intentions, the people providing the venue do not, and hula is merely a commercial venture. On still another hand, if those business-people are going to hire SOMEONE to dance, is it not better that those dancers be people who know and honor the traditions, rather than someone who learns a few steps just for the show?
Similarly, I know of at least one halau that insists that hula competition itself dishonors the tradition, so there are no clear lines in this thing. I think the very discussion, though, is worthwhile, because it helps us to focus on our priorities.
So here's the deal, as I see it: Assuming all intents are noble (or at least equally ignoble), is it wrong for a football team to co-opt a traditional Maori dance? Perhaps, but if it is, it's wrong for ANY sports team to do so. If it's wrong for cultural reasons for the Manoa football team to do it, it's probably equally wrong for the New Zealand rugby team to do it, because it's just a game.
(tangential response to something else someone said)
You may dislike Jawaiian music because of its blending of cultural artistic expressions, but is it just because of the Hawaiian part of the mix that this bothers you? The blues is deeply rooted in slave music, but does it offend you that Eric Clapton has made his whole career playing it and mixing it with rock and roll? Did Paul Simon's Graceland bother you just as much? I think that with any art, there is a constant stretching of forms, and the blending of influences makes artistic sense, whether we consider "Hawaiian Supaman" artistic or not.
I do not know what possessed me to read this thread nearly a month after it was begun, and I do not know what possessed me to read THROUGH it after some of the idiotic contributions, but I've read it, and I actually formed some kind of opinion.
First, there are two issues, really. The haka as a cultural exploitation and the haka as a legal violation (or at least as something that offends "intellectual property" sensibilities).
Let's take that second issue first. If the UH-Manoa football team is copying something written for and performed by a New Zealand rugby team, I will agree that it is lame. However, copyright laws (at least in America; I won't even pretend to know the first thing about international copyright law) do not cover performance. Anyone who wants to can perform "Purple Rain" in concert without permission from Prince, for example, though Prince's music-licensing company (usually ASCAP or BMI) will pursue royalty payments. If I understand correctly, any Joe could even record "Purple Rain" without Prince's permission. It often costs money to do so with permission and even more money to do so without permission, but the point is that permission is not necessary. Plus, you'd piss off Prince.
The world of athletics is rife with examples of teams (and fans of those teams) ripping off what other teams have done. Florida State fans have complained for more than ten years about the Atlanta Braves' fans stealing the "tomahawk chop." The New York Giants defense has taken to doing a "jump shot" mime after making a great play, but there is evidence that players on other teams were doing it first. Oh, and I don't know if you know this, but that "Hawaii Five-O" music that the Manoa band plays? That was from a television show.
So it makes sense that a fan of the All-Blacks would be upset, but it is silly to demand that some other team stop copying; copying happens in sports all the time.
Now that first issue, about cultural offense, is something else. Is the football team's use of the haka an exploitation of an honored tradition of another culture? Does it trivialize an important aspect of someone's culture to perform it on a football field before a game?
Oh yeah.
But a lot depends on the spirit in which it is intended. When a hula halau in Texas, made up mostly of non-islanders, performs on the mainland, is it an exloitation or does it honor the culture and traditions that surround the dance? On the other hand, when dancers perform hula on those boats that leave Honolulu every evening loaded with tourists, is it just as honoring, or is it mostly commercial?
Of course the answer is not easy. I've known people who dance in those shows, and they say that every minute of it honors their culture. This may be true, but what if the overall intent is simply to make money or to perpetuate some kind of visitors' vision of what Hawaii is suppsed to be? Then, while my friends may have nothing but noble intentions, the people providing the venue do not, and hula is merely a commercial venture. On still another hand, if those business-people are going to hire SOMEONE to dance, is it not better that those dancers be people who know and honor the traditions, rather than someone who learns a few steps just for the show?
Similarly, I know of at least one halau that insists that hula competition itself dishonors the tradition, so there are no clear lines in this thing. I think the very discussion, though, is worthwhile, because it helps us to focus on our priorities.
So here's the deal, as I see it: Assuming all intents are noble (or at least equally ignoble), is it wrong for a football team to co-opt a traditional Maori dance? Perhaps, but if it is, it's wrong for ANY sports team to do so. If it's wrong for cultural reasons for the Manoa football team to do it, it's probably equally wrong for the New Zealand rugby team to do it, because it's just a game.
(tangential response to something else someone said)
You may dislike Jawaiian music because of its blending of cultural artistic expressions, but is it just because of the Hawaiian part of the mix that this bothers you? The blues is deeply rooted in slave music, but does it offend you that Eric Clapton has made his whole career playing it and mixing it with rock and roll? Did Paul Simon's Graceland bother you just as much? I think that with any art, there is a constant stretching of forms, and the blending of influences makes artistic sense, whether we consider "Hawaiian Supaman" artistic or not.
Comment