Is cultural appropriation real?

In recent years you might have begun hearing about cultural appropriation.  It's not a new complaint.  People have been bitching about it for years, probably since 1933, when George Preston Marshall, owner of the Boston Braves, made the inexplicable decision to change their name from the Braves to the Redskins.

Since then, there has been growing awareness that maybe we like, shouldn't treat people as if they are cartoony mascots like Chomps the Dog or Roary the Lion.

Steely McBeam is a human being with feelings, damn it.

There's a been a pushback against costumes that demean cultures and I think that's a good thing.

This picture of a Chiricahua Apache man confronting a man in "red face" should make you feel very, very uncomfortable, 

for obvious reasons.

Certainly, I think there's an issue with an NFL team using an ethnic race as a mascot.  I also think there's an issue with people dressing up in caricature Halloween costumes.

Offensive.

But I'd like us to take a step back for this post and ask ourselves: is all cultural appropriation bad?  I'm here to argue that, no.  There's frankly not even such a thing.  There's only cultural misappropriation, in which the imitation or recreation of racial stereotypes is used to demean them.

Let's talk about how we define cultural misappropriation.

Most cultural appropriation comes from the imitation of races or ethnic traits or cultural elements in a mocking manner, without respect for the culture.  The last part of that sentence is key.  The lack of respect makes cultural appropriation distinctive from multiculturalism, which is the mixing of races and cultures in a way that is open and sympathetic and respectful.  Instead of calling cultural appropriation "cultural appropriation," we should just call it cultural disrespect or cultural mockery.

Just look at what multiculturalism has done.

The concept of "cultural appropriation" being a bad thing is part of identity politics and value-signalling that I consider extremely problematic.  It's an exclusionary position and it prevents the sharing of cultures.

When people say something has been misappropriated, I get it.  I do.  But to say appropriation is inherently a bad thing is getting dangerously close to telling races of people to "stay in their lanes."

For example, there are people who lose their damn minds anytime a white pop star wears a kimono to Japan.  (There's a very insightful article about this controversy in The Japan Times.)  There was a recent Twitter freak-out when a white women wore a qi-pao-styled dress to prom.  (Note that mostly white people were upset, not the Chinese.)

In the above USA Today article (linked), one Chinese commenter stated, "It is not cultural appropriation, it's cultural appreciation."

This is the most succinct way for me to explain my position on "cultural appropriation."  It's not a bad thing.  It's a way to reach out to other races, bridge cultural gaps, and learn.

The people who tend to complain about appropriation come from a place of privilege.  In this society of "woke" people trying to be the wokest, there's a push to constantly outdo each other to prove how woke they are.  The result is focusing on a teenager in a Chinese prom dress instead of, say, changing the name of the Washington Redskins.  Since fighting for the Redskins to change their name is a common and well-understood stance, many people have abandoned it, thinking that the desired outcome is inevitable and they should get working on identifying the next big thing.

Speaking of Native Americans, I have a "friend" on FaceBook who is constantly one-upping everyone else with her "social progressiveness" and her most recent campaign is against a plastic straw ban.  She found a way (well, not really) to tie it into the plight of indigenous lands being destroyed, thereby really minimizing both issues.  Talk about value-signalling.

I wish the first commenter had used the "Why not both?" girl from the Old El Paso taco commercials, 

because it would have really helped tie together this post about cultural appropriation.

Anyway, my point is, talk of "cultural misappropriation" seems to mostly come from ultra socially progressive white people who are trying to shame and/or call out other white people, and I think the whole thing has become nothing but value signalling that has lost its original intention.  The original intention, of course, was to tell people to stop wearing blackface and mocking other cultures as caricatures.

What it sounds like to me

Part of the reason I've been thinking of this is because of a recent documentary on Netflix about Rachel Dolezal.  I watched it about 65% because of its insanely clever pun title, The Rachel Divide.  In short, it's about a woman who has committed racial fraudulence, passing herself off as black.  To me, the issue was not her self-identity but that she profited from it.  She was using blackness as a prop for her own identity politics and was heavily involved in movements such as Black Lives Matters.  She was an ally who had taken away the voice from those who she claimed to be championing.  That, in a nutshell, is "cultural appropriation" at its worst.

Sampling other cultures is fine as long as you're not stepping over anyone in the process or taking away their voice.  We need to get rid of the term "cultural appropriation" altogether and start calling it what it really is: racism.

People who sample elements from other cultures because they like the look of it (for example, white people in cornrows) are not mocking the culture or taking anything away from it.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, after all.  It's only when that imitation is used to mock, profit, or deceive that it becomes an issue. (Full disclosure: I have a Mohawk.)

Now, don't get me wrong.  There's a fuzzy gray area.  For example, I had a white friend who went to a Japanese culture festival in Little Toyko and wore a yukata that she had received as a gift from a friend who went to Japan.  She was hesitant to wear it because of "cultural appropriation."  Except that a yukata is the accepted thing to wear in those circumstances.  If you're a guy at a Jewish wedding, you put on a yarmulke even if you aren't Jewish, right?  In these instances, it's a matter of respect, and knowing enough about the culture to know what is and is not appropriate.  It's more respectful to wear a yukata to a celebration of Japanese culture than, say, jorts and a Daddy's Lil' Monster t-shirt (the cultural uniform of the basic white girl).

On the other hand, when I went to see Black Panther (shout-out to the last two memes!), I sure as hell didn't dress up.  It just wasn't my place to do so.  That movie wasn't made for me and that character wasn't made for me, and while I enjoyed it thoroughly, drawing attention to myself and taking it away from others would have been wrong.

Subtle, quiet support.

I wore a knit cap and a necklace that were both from Africa.

No cosplay.

I guess what I'm saying is, the burden of ensuring that one doesn't accidentally do something shit-headed really falls on the individual.

As for the rest of us, we need to stop focusing on stupid, tiny issues to make ourselves feel superior.  And by "rest of us," I mostly mean white people, honestly.  The ancestry of Americans is such a mash-up of other cultures that I see no reason why we can't celebrate them and borrow stylistic elements.

Without cultural appropriation, we wouldn't have The Village People.

If you're the type of person who feels uncomfortable wearing clothes from other cultures, then don't.  But don't police others and tell them that they can't pay tribute to other cultures.  The dissemination of culture is fundamental to Americans.

 We're culturally appropriating the Borg.

It's time to stop focusing on microaggressions and start focusing on macroaggressions.  There is no such thing as cultural appropriation.  There's cultural misappropriation, aka cultural mockery or cultural disrespect, which is racism.  And there's multiculturalism, which is the respectful sharing and blending and celebration of cultures, which is not racism.

Multiculturalism benefits our society and strengthens us as human beings.  Shaming white people for wearing dreads doesn't actually help society; it's activism without any teeth, bark with no bite, shameless, self-aggrandizing value-signalling without purpose.  (Side note: white people, dreads look bad on you.  Please stop.)

We have a lot to learn from each other, and that means sharing and mixing culture.  And that's not appropriation.

A great man once said, “In times of crisis, the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.”  

And that man's name?  

King T'Challa.  Aka, Black Panther.

When was the last time you changed your opinion?

Leonardo da Vinci is quoted as saying, "The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinion."

Some argue that he was the wisest of the Renaissance turtles.

Credit

I instantly relate to this quote, and you probably do, too, because if you're on the internet, then you've probably experienced the phenomenon of someone saying something unbelievably dumb and wrong, and, upon correction, saying, "Well, that's just my opinion."

You might have also seen the converse: when someone dismisses an opinion as "just" an opinion.

An opinion is a belief or judgement on a matter that is either a) has no definitive, objective answer, or b) is not based on facts (either because the facts are unknown or because there is conflicting data).

Let's dive in.

An example of Scenario A would be two children who argue about whether red or blue is a better color for a bike.  There's no correct answer to that question.

Scenario B is a little trickier.  Consider ssomeone who thinks that GMOs cause cancer.  This isn't based on fact.  There are studies that both confirm and refute this statement, and they all have issues with them.  There are facts available and there is a conclusive answer, but it's not immediately clear on what that answer is.  (Answer: GMOs are safe, and most food is genetically modified.  There are over a thousand studies that demonstrate this.)

The danger of people using the "opinion" defense against ignorance is that we end up with anti-vaxxers and Flat Earthers and Scientologists: people who cannot challenge their beliefs and end up maintaining dangerous, extreme viewpoints.

 Hilariously wrong.

There is such a thing as a wrong opinion.  A wrong opinion is one that, when confronted with facts that refute it, does not change.

It's easy to dismiss anti-vaxxers, Flater Earthers, and Scientologists as wackos, but in this digital age, there's a LOT of misinformation out there and it's easy to find "facts" that support pretty much any point of view.  Basically anything from the website "Natural News," for example, is garbage.  (Other sites/FaceBook pages on my shit list for bad science: David Wolfe, Food Babe, and Eat Local Grown.  The last one especially pisses me off because I absolutely think people should eat local and I feel like they're misappropriating good advice to mask their awful pseudo-science.)

So how do we combat this?  One way is to challenge our own points of views.  Most of us accept that our viewpoints are correct and never take time to cross-examine them.  But it's worthwhile to examine our beliefs and ask ourselves if we've learned anything new that challenges those.  And if we're feeling defensive, then perhaps our belief wasn't on as firm a foundation as we thought.

I should probably give one small disclaimer before launching into an (ironically opinionated) discussion about why opinions should be malleable: I am only talking about opinion scenarios in which there are consequences.  Most opinions have consequences; most opinions influence actions.  But some don't, and in that case, they don't matter.  If a person wants to insist that DJ Khaled is talented, I don't feel inclined to argue with them, because although they are wrong, it's of no lasting consequence to anyone.

He rhymed "kodak" with "kodak."

So, while reading this blog post about challenging beliefs, keep in mind:

1. When challenging others, pick your battles.
2. Try to find points to agree on.
3. Not all opinions need to be changed.
4. When challenging your own opinions, pick the ones with the biggest impact on your actions.
5. Understand that change comes gradually.
6. Understand that having an emotional investment in the opinions of others is usually unhealthy.
7. Be cautious not to confuse FaceBook or other social platforms for Meat Space; it's (usually) not worth losing friends over a Reddit meme.

 Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

So!  Now that that little disclaimer it out of the way, I'll start the ball rolling by giving two examples of my opinion changing recently:

First of all, I have typically been very politically fiscally conservative.  I was raised in a conservative household and registered as Republican when I first registered to vote.  Over the last year, I have found myself supporting more and more social programs.  It seems to me that the "cost" of these programs, both financially and to my own sense of capitalistic "fairness," is less than the benefit it brings to society.  When I look at countries that are more heavily taxed but have more social programs, I discover happier citizens and better societal outcomes overall.

So, at this point in time, I no longer consider myself a fiscal conservative, but someone who leans more toward the support of social welfare programs.

Second of all, I have decided that quesadillas are sandwiches.

 Fight me.

Follow me here on this one because it's a bit more complicated than the capitalism vs. socialism thing above.

On the sandwich-definition index, there's two categories: construction and ingredients.  I am something of an ingredient anarchist, but I firmly believe the construction of a sandwich is what makes it what it is.  To me, a sandwich is an item that has a bread-like outside, either two pieces or one piece folded or split, containing contents which can be eaten without touching by using the bread to convey them to the mouth.  The sandwich must be capable of being eaten by hand.

So to me, a burrito or a wrap isn't a sandwich because it's one bread piece, but a pita is a sandwich because it's a piece split in hand to contain ingredients.  (Side note: is cereal a soup?  I have always argued that yes, it is a chaotic neutral soup.)

If every meal does not send you into mild panic due to over self-examination of core beliefs and questioning of self, 

then you are doing it wrong.

Shortly after I gave my belief of what constitutes a "sandwich," Andrew pointed out that, by my definitions, quesadillas and soft tacos are sandwiches.

I was dumbfounded.  A quesadilla isn't a sandwich!  I quickly got defensive, trying to figure out how to explain myself.  A quesadilla, however, fits all the criteria.  Two pieces of bread with ingredients in between (traditional sandwichy ingredients, no less) that is eaten by hand.  I have never considered a quesadilla a sandwich but was suddenly forced to either redefine sandwich-hood or accept the quesadilla into the sandwich family.

In the end, I could not figure out an addendum to exclude the quesadilla and so I changed my opinion.  The quesadilla is a sandwich.

The thing about this story that struck me is that, when my view was challenged, I quickly became defensive.  This is a red flag.  If you have an opinion and you find yourself getting upset and defensive when it's challenged, you might know, deep down, that your opinion needs changed.  People who are secure about their opinions should not be upset when they are challenged.  Look at anti-vaxxers, Flat Earthers, and Scientologists: all of them freak out when others challenge them.  Why?  Because they probably are worried that, if they actually self-examined, they would realize that their views are bogus.

Observe these two people's reactions when faced with facts that might challenge their beliefs:

One accepted the information in stride (Purple), and the other lost his mind (Orange).  Purple may or may not change her opinion that this ridiculous chocolate sculpture is worthwhile, but she asked for information when challenged and accepted it gracefully.  That's the way to live your life.  The defensive over-reaction of Orange indicates, to me, a person who is rigid and uncompromising in his beliefs and lacks the capability to learn or grow as a person.

Side note: let's stop bashing politicians for "flip-flopping."  I sort of expect a person to change their stance on things over the course of decades; a politician who has been in the game more than ten years and has "stood firm" on everything is, to me, on par with a Flat Earther or anti-vaxxer.  Can you imagine if you actually thought you should be PROUD of believing the same things you did when you were 19 years old?  When I was 19, I wanted a Dethklok tattoo and still hoped my childhood Beanie Babies might be worth something today.  In the course of your existence, you are bound to have at least one or two utterly bone-headed opinions.  If you don't, then you are a dull milquetoast person who stands for nothing and you should re-evaluate why you even exist.

For a lot of people, their views define who they are.  Therefore changing their opinion feels like a total upheaval of self.  I don't think people should let their opinions define them; opinions are, after all, non-definitional.  A person who changed their favorite color from red to blue is still the same person.

Views are based on core values, which means that the views should be malleable; they change as we learn new facts, and we find better ways to apply our core values to them.  When we feel challenged, what we should ask is, what core value is my opinion based on?

Consider the following scenario: a person loves Orca whales and wants to help them.  That's a core value.  They go to school for marine biology and then go to work at Sea World to help Orcas.  Then they see the documentary Blackfish, do some research, and realize that Sea World isn't actually helping Orcas at all.

The Orca-lover is now at a crossroads.  They can change their actions to fit their core belief, which, regrettably, means admitting to prior ignorance and possibly receiving backlash from their acquaintances.  This is obviously the harder of the two options.  Or, they can throw their core value out of the window and, in violation of their own self-professed beliefs, continue doing an action they now know to be wrong.  (Consider the Bunny Lady of Los Angeles.)

Ultimately, the question of changing one's opinion boils down to, "Are my core values more important to me than my ego or my self-image (how others see me)?"

This is all assuming one can listen to new and conflicting information, research it without bias, and then choose to believe it, of course.  Plenty of people simply dismiss facts as "fake" to protect their opinions.  Which is one reason why we should all push ourselves to search for primary sources of information, and learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Always research sources and credentials.  ("Some scientists suggest that marijuana causes cancer."  Who are they?  Where's the study?  Is there counter-evidence?  What do most scientists say?)

Doubt anything with a title for a name.  ("Does marijuana cure cancer?"  If they'd shown conclusively that it does or doesn't, that would be a big headline.  This is just clickbait and the answer is probably less interesting than simply yes or no.)

Doubt anything that seems too good to be true or makes big, bold claims.  ("Marijuana causes cancer!" Science and politics and economics are complex; saying X causes Y or X cures Y is almost always a gross over-simplification.)

Real news isn't clickbait.  Real news is often the harder-to-read, more boring-to-read option.("Ingesting cannabis by smoking may be a risk factor for lung cancer.")

One of the reasons real news is so dull is because it's trying to reach a large audience... including those who may disagree with it.  For news to be credible, it must present the facts in a non-biased and non-confrontational manner.

Real news.  Boring, but real.

Make no mistake: it's important to challenge opinions non-aggressively.  People who feel attacked get defensive and then refuse to listen.  I have, first-hand, witnessed this: in an internet forum, I watched as a man who was 'on the fence' about vaccinating his children was called a stupid idiot child-abuser.  His response?  To start arguing the opposing side and defending his actions, thus solidifying his belief.  No one gave him any actual resources to information about why vaccines are safe (or why anti-vaccine studies cannot be trusted).  People just yelled at him until, in a furious and self-righteous rage, he quit the discussion, though not before being radicalized.

And everyone should be comfortable letting others change their opinions when new information and facts arise.  All too often, extremists are so thoroughly mocked and isolated that they fear leaving.  (This is a tactic well-documented within Scientology, other cults, and multi-level marketing schemes.)  As I wrote in my post about radical inclusivity, we should try to make the world a place where people can switch sides if they realize they were wrong; we should make sure they know they have a place to come back to.  If we don't, then people will only cling to their beliefs harder.

No one has ever changed their beliefs because they got called stupid.

If everyone took the time to question their beliefs a little, and felt comfortable enough to change those beliefs in light of new information, the world might just be a better place. 

We would still have Giordano Bruno, aka the poor man's Copernicus, aka the oft-forgotten Yellow Turtle.

If you can't think of a time when you changed your opinion in the last year, then it might be time to do some soul-searching, because either you are a bland person with no opinions, or you are not opening you mind and listening to alternative viewpoints.  As uncomfortable as it is to leave our bubbles and sometimes realize we were wrong about something, it's a good exercise, one that makes us better human beings.  It's a way to be more open and accepting toward those we don't agree with, and a way to find find common ground between us.  It's also my hope that the open exchange of information will usually lead to the truth coming out.  For those hard questions in life, such as whether or not a quesadilla is a sandwich, there's answers.  But we have to be open and able to accept them.  Which sometimes means eating a big ol' crow sandwich.

Crow quesadilla.

Fan-Made Content Doesn't Have to be Bad

In this digital era of ours, people can create and share information and art like never before.  Unfortunately, a lot of it is terrible.

Some purposefully and masterfully so.

Credit

Those familiar with the term "fanart" or "fanfiction" know that these types of media often face derision from "real" "professionals."  This is something I myself have had a lot of struggles with.  Fanfiction is fun and easy to write and I enjoy it.  (Shameless plug: here's a sci-fi thriller based on Marvel's Iron Man franchise!)  But I'm loathe to admit that to a mixed audience because of the stigma attached to it.

The thing is, fan content isn't all terrible.  For some people, this is merely a way to exercise a talent.  Like a marathon runner going to the gym and hitting an elliptical bike.  It's low-impact, it's easy, it's a good way to stay in shape.

I am strongly against gate-keeping of most types because I think it's just a shitty attitude to have.  Also because, years ago, I met someone at a party who had the nerve to ask me if I was "really" into Iron Man or "just" into Robert Downey, Jr.  Which is unfair as a) they are not mutually exclusive (RDJ happens to be a great actor, and I loved him in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang), and b) how can you not be "really" into Iron Man?

Name three of his albums!

But one area of gatekeeping I myself have been guilty of is scoffing at anyone who is "writing a book."  That's because so many people, especially in college, say they're writing a book when what they mean is, they have an idea for a book and maybe created and titled a Word document.  As a fairly prolific writer myself, this really rustles my jimmies, because when I tell people I wrote a book, I mean I actually wrote a book.  In fact I write about one a year.  (Shameless plug: here's the same sci-fi thriller based on Marvel's Iron Man franchise from before!) Yet I find myself embarrassed to share them because they're often based on pre-existing franchises or use licensed characters.

That being said, I'm coming around to the idea that we should judge things based on their merit.

While terrible fanart and fanfictions abound, Marvel has no shortage of incredibly talented fans who produce all sorts of amazing art and work.

And it's not limited just to digital media.

Although I'm going to tell you right now that there is porn of every conceivable pairing in the Marvel universe at this point.
Credit to alby_mangroves

There's costuming...

 Photo Credit

...and animation (look no further than Hishe's How It Should Have Ended series, which gets tons of credit for the Marvel-inspired logo alone) and cakes...

...and event creation and grassroots PR.  Fans have cheerfully made their own promos for no other reason than they enjoyed doing it. It's so common there's even a name for it: fan labor.

Let's not forget Hawkeye was the most anticipated character of Infinity War, and he wasn't even in it.

This magazine cover is fan-made.

The Marvel hype machine is an unstoppable Juggernaut.

A good example of this sort of promo work includes the creation of the subreddit /r/ThanosDidNothingWrong, a forum that takes its name from the Hitler Did Nothing Wrong meme.  This subreddit hit headlines today with their event entitled "The Snappening," during which they banned half the subreddit in a tribute to Thanos's destruction of half the universe in Infinity War.  Seriously, it was covered by Newsweek.

༼ つ ◕_ ◕ ༽つ give ban ༼ つ ◕_ ◕ ༽つ

This meme is a thing now.

Watching Banos kick half of a forum off for the sole purpose of referencing a movie was a surreal moment for me.  And not just because the total number banned was over 350,000.  It was surreal to see nearly a million people get involved in what should have been a trivial and childish stunt, but instead brought together a huge number of people who proceeded to use the momentum to generate even more brain children from it.

 Fanart or not, some of the fan content generated is legit as hell.

Credit

"The Last Shwarma"

Credit

From shirts...

Credit

...to tattoos...

Credit

...to photos of installation pieces...

Credit

...to the ubiquitous meme.

I made this and got my aunt to unironically share it on FaceBook.

Google the Winter Soldier "plums" meme if you want to fall down an Internet rabbit hole.

Even the directors and actor who played Banos Thanos got in on the fun.

 And some of the fan art is so good, it gets mistaken for the real thing, such as the above fan art cover, which was based on the Iron Man 3 movie posters (not vice versa).

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm happy to see the ways in which life imitates art.  Since the beginning of the Marvel movie franchise ten years ago, people have begun building real-life Iron Man suits.  Fiction inspires people to do great things.  And gatekeeping shit by asking people whether or not they're "real fans" doesn't benefit anybody.  In my opinion, the Marvel movies are one example of a media adaption that made said media more accessible to more people, and in doing so, opened the doors for a lot of talented artists (illustrators, writers, costumers, actors, comedians, et cetera) to hone their craft using a pre-existing template.

Sure, there's plenty of really terrible fanart and fanfiction out there, it should all be judged on its own merit.  Because there's so much good fanart and fanfiction, and we don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water here.  There is plenty of work that is truly phenomenal, and some of it frankly outshines the original source material.  Fan work helps mythologies to grow and evolve; after all, before the era of copyright law, people happily paid tribute to established entities in stories, art, music, and other compositions.  This is the whole basis of folk lore.  Fanfiction, then, is the digital media era's version of that.

Although it's been around longer than the internet.

With the rich mythology already established, people get a little kickstart for their work, and I think that's a good thing.  (Obviously, of course, I am biased in a big way.  Shameless plug #3: please read my sci-fi thriller based on Marvel's Iron Man franchise!)

And Marvel is just one example of a single franchise.  I haven't even touched on other fandoms, like Harry Potter or Game of Thrones or Pokemon or any of the other various medias that capture people's hearts and minds.

I think that in the modern era, fandoms often take the place of organized religion.  (See "Mormonism," above.)  After all, they provide a sense of community; they often deliver a message and provide guidelines on societal expectations; they offer people a sense of morality and justice and hope; and they often have the words and images to express what we cannot.  At least, not until they give us their voice.

Preach it, J. Jameson.

I hope more people find that fan creations and the fruits of fan labor are a springboard for their natural talent, and that others can forgive the initial lack of creativity for the end product, which often surpasses the original.

Voilà.

When Good Charities Go Bad

So someone once asked a question I found fascinating.  They said, "If you could take a million dollars from any non-profit, charitable organization, without anyone knowing, without getting in trouble... would you?"

The reason the question fascinated me was because it was clearly meant to be a real head-scratcher, but the answer seemed so childishly obvious that I found it confusing that anyone could actually need to think about it.

The answer is unequivocally yes, because, I immediately pointed out, just because something has the title of "charity" or "non-profit" does not make it inherently good.

Preach it, Red.

There are lots of charitable organizations I like (you can see a list on my "wishlist" tab), but many I don't.  Some are simply ineffective.  Take, for example, the Wounded Warrior Project.  A great charity except that only 18 cents on the dollar actually goes to the veterans the charity is designed to help; 20% alone is spent on advertising costs.  And others I have issues with on a more personal level, such as how Farm Sanctuary sold my information to PETA (who I consider a borderline terrorist organization that is doing more harm than good in advancing views on ethical animal treatment) and the Animal Legal Defense Fund, who has sent me enough address labels to last me through sixty lifetimes.

This brings me to today's topic, which is bunnies.

I have a bunny.

My bunny weighs about as much as the sum total of all of the address labels that the Animal Legal Defense Fund has sent to me.

Winibelle is seven years old and a curmudgeony cunt of a rabbit.  I like her, don't get me wrong, but I don't know much about rabbits and I've been flying by the seat of my pants since she was somewhat impulsively adopted from a friend seven years ago.  I've tried my best to make her life a good one and I think overall she's doing pretty good.  Perhaps even above-average.

You're probably wondering why I went from charities to bunnies.  The answer is that here in Los Angeles, there's a bunny rescue group called Bunny World Foundation, which rescues and homes bunnies.  I know about them because a few years ago I joined their FaceBook group hoping for pointers on making my asshole rabbit's life better.

I left the group/page within only a month or two because they posted a lot of anti-animal testing PETA propaganda.  As someone who has worked in animal research, this is a moral grey area for me with a lot of complex concerns on both sides.  The simple fact of the matter, though, is that both humans and animals benefit from medical testing.  While I'm very anti-testing for cosmetic purposes, I am fully in support of investigative research and medical trials.  After all, if we didn't test medicine on bunnies, we'd have no bunny medicine.  It's a very utilitarian way of thinking about ethics and as something of a moral relativist, I can understand that my viewpoints may strike others as cold.

But then again, I wasn't the one posting memes with pictures of mutilated rabbits.  PETA is a bunch of stone-cold killers who believe that the ends justify the means, so I feel like we're on equal ground here, morally speaking.

Anywho, I left after posting that a) I did not want to see graphic and disturbing images on my wall, and b) I strongly oppose PETA's methods.

I had learned nothing except that I was doing literally everything wrong.  The group was very judgemental and their favorite past-time seemed to be trying to push another bunny on me, even though I said multiple times that I am over capacity on animals in my household and I doubted my ability to be financially responsible for an animal that lives ten years and requires a lot of attention.

According to the bunny group, I was a terrible person for only having one rabbit.  Rabbits are social creatures who need other rabbits in order to be truly happy.

 My argument that my cat is trans-rabbit was not met with enthusiasm.

I was also feeding, grooming, housing, playing with, looking at, and referring to my rabbit incorrectly.

Cunt.

There was a distinctively cultish vibe and I was happy to get away.  As the years unfolded, Winibelle's done just fine, and I forgot all about Bunny World Foundation until recently.

See, a friend of mine just moved from Boston to L.A. and, excited to set down roots, decided to adopt a bunny.  We went to a bunny adoption together to look at bunnies; while there I suddenly remembered the group and its fearless leader, Lejla Hadzimuratovic, the "bunny lady" of L.A.  Immediately upon getting to the adoption event, I was hounded to adopt or foster more bunnies by a lot of bunny-pushing rabbit fanatics.  Meanwhile, my friend, who had already put in an application for adoption, was asked to furnish pictures of her bunnies' new home (which she had, fortunately), and was then informed that Bunny World only adopts out bunnies in pairs.

More bunnies = better

I advised my friend awkwardly to not get bullied into two bunnies, but she did, of course, and here the real fuck uppery begins.  See, before this moment, Bunny World was one of those ineffective charities that's run by volunteers doing their best, and makes harmless mistakes such as giving the wrong address for the adoption event.  (They sent us 2 hours out of our way and failed to ever provide the actual address, which we were eventually able to look up online.)

But it was only after my friend had adopted 2 bunnies that the more sinister side of Bunny World came to light.

The bunny in the above photo is Dennis Hopper.  He and his wife (formerly Raisin and now Rabbit Downey, Jr.) were a pair-bonded couple who came home with my friend after her "donation" of $400.  (Two hundred per bunny, to cover costs such a vet fees, neutering, and spaying.  A reasonable thing to expect an adoption fee in return for a clean bill of health.)

By the way, here's a picture of Robert Downey Jr. cosplaying Rabbit Downey Jr.

The story is about to get dark so take a moment to appreciate this.

Dennis was called a "lop bunny" because he had one floppy ear, although it was immediately obviously to me that he was a regular bunny with one broken ear.  It seemed odd that the bunny people couldn't tell this was a rabbit who had had some sort of ear trauma as a baby that had resulted in broken cartilage.  Especially since they were the self-proclaimed rabbit "experts."

Dennis fell ill within a week.  My friend took Dennis to the vet immediately.  Rabbits, as prey animals, are very good at hiding symptoms of illess or injury, so generally, by the time they're symptomatic at all, they're moribund.  Sure enough, Dennis passed away the same evening he was taken to the vet.

My friend called Lejla to talk to her about Dennis.  According to the vet, Dennis had died of a gastrointestinal infection.  (I wasn't told the diagnosis but I'm willing to bet anything it was coccidiosis.  Remember, I worked with large colonies of lab animals for about 8 years.)  Dennis had been subclinical but appeared to have been sick for a long time, probably over a month, before succumbing to his disease.

My friend (let's call her Maxine for now) relayed this information to Lejla, who replied that Dennis had obviously died of a spinal injury due to improper handling.  (For those who don't know, rabbits can break their backs from kicking too hard if they are being restrained poorly.  This is a common cause of death for rabbits in households with children.)

Horrified that she might have accidentally hurt her rabbit, Maxine asked the vet for X-rays, which revealed no broken bones.  She called Lejla back to tell her that Dennis had not broken his back, after all, and that the vet quite adamantly insisted Dennis had been sick with a parasite.

Lejla had already posted to the private FaceBook group, however, that Dennis had died from a broken back, although it wasn't Maxine's fault, because she was an "inexperienced owner."

According to Lejla, Dennis had died because he'd been hopping around on hardwood floors.

According to Lejla, all bunnies from Bunny World are given health screenings and wouldn't be adopted out if they were sick, so, clearly, Dennis's death was Maxine's fault.

Bunny World posted this on their FaceBook page one or two days after they told Maxine how dangerous hard wood surfaces were, by the way.

Lejla then called the vet and asked for the body back so a different vet could perform a necropsy.

Let's recap!

• Lejla saw pictures of the house Dennis would be hopping around in, and approved them.
• Dennis was not at any point restrained in such a way that he would casually break his own spine.
• The vet confirmed there was no spinal injury and that Dennis has intestinal parasites, and, from the look of things, had had them for a while.
• Lejla told everyone Dennis had died due to owner negligence after being told cause of death.
• Lejla tried to take the body for a necropsy after cause of death had been determined and my friend had both X-rays and exam notes, which she was more than willing to share.
• Cherry on top: Lejla is not refunding the $200 for the sick rabbit she pushed onto my friend, who, remember, only wanted one rabbit to begin with.

It's important to understand that coccidiosis is very common.  Rabbits are very susceptible to bacterial and protozoan diseases, and even the best owners may overlook an illness until it's too late, because rabbits can be very stoic and often don't show any symptoms.  Also, in a HUGE colony like Bunny World's, where you have lots of rabbits interacting and being dragged to adoption events on a regular basis, diseases are highly transmissable, and outbreaks are expected.

My issue, the reason for this post and my total RAGE at the situation, is Lejla's handling of it.  She threw my friend under the bus, in the face of a LOT of evidence to the contrary, to protect her own image.

She would rather be seen as the Infallible Bunny Guru than admit that she made a mistake and missed an illness in one of her bunnies.

Sometimes, you just gotta bite the thistle and own up when you mess up.

By refusing to admit her error, she is preventing other rabbits from getting treatment, and possibly condemning them to a similar fate as Dennis.

Maxine tried to call up Dennis's foster family to at least ask them to get their own rabbits treatment for parasites and assure them that Rabbit Downey Jr. was doing okay.  She discovered at this time that Dennis Hopper and Rabbit Downey Jr. were not pair-bonded after all, but had been in separate families all along and had only known each other for two weeks.

So Lejla not only refused to admit her error, tormented a bereaved pet owner, and possibly sentenced a bunch of rabbits to death to fuel her own ego, but she also lied to get more rabbits adopted.

This is a case of good intention having a bad outcome.  Lejla loves rabbits and wants to help rabbits.  But her ego is so out of control and her whole personhood so wrapped up in being a "Rabbit Whisperer" that she is now actually causing potential harm to rabbits.  The exact opposite of what she set out to do!

There are two cautionary pieces of wisdom we can take from this story.

First, when adopting, get to know the organization.  Maxine informed me that she's picked up on the cult-like vibe of Bunny World since, after adopting, they added her to the FaceBook group and have been hounding her to ask me to come and join them and foster bunnies for them.  

Even though my house is all hardwood floors.

Here, we see two more victims of my terrible pet parenting, their death by sunbeam clearly preventable.

Maxine could have gotten a bunny from the Los Angeles shelter for about $10, but she went with Bunny World because she felt they would provide a healthy rabbit to her.  She was duped by words like "rescue."  Which brings me back to my original premise, that just because something has a good name, like charity or foundation, does not mean it's necessarily good or effective at what it does.

The second piece of advice is for people to examine their own motivations periodically.  Ask yourself what your core values are and whether or not you are living up to those. 

 Preach it, Judy.

Lejla's core value is, supposedly, to help bunnies.  But her actions were designed to protect herself, to absolve herself.  As far as I know, no bunnies were taken in for parasite testing; no bunnies were given medication; no quarantine was set up, even as a precautionary measure.  

Sometimes, being good means owning up to mistakes.  It means doing the harder thing and eating crow and being embarrassed and having to fix something.  It means staying true to one's core value(s) at the expense of one's personal pride.  That's a very hard thing to do.  The best charities understand this; the best charities grapple with the delicate balance between total transparency and admitting to fallibility.  The best charities are not cults of personalities; they do make mistakes, and they own those mistakes, and they do their due diligence to try to stay true to their values.

Bunny World Foundation is not one of those charities. 

Conversely, the "kill shelters" that so many people loathe do their best to maintain the most humane conditions for their animals and to give as many animals as possible the chance to be adopted.

So, if you're reading this and you happen to be in Los Angeles and you happen to want a bunny (please note: you don't; they poop like 300 times a day), then my advice is to adopt from the shelter before you adopt from Bunny World Foundation, because they have hopped fairly far from the path they had initially set out on.