So, instead of hinting through the study I would like to openly say: be careful who you sleep with. If you want to become part of grassroots causes, help out non-profits, or give money for any kind of cause, political or otherwise, I encourage you to do so, but, give it directly to candidates who you know reflect the practices that you would partake in. It’s sad to say but values just aren’t the key to evaluating practices. In my research I have found that organizations will tout values and concerns as the common denominator to pull unsuspecting citizens into their web of deceit. Though, even if we take all the care in the world we sometimes won’t know the difference until it is too late. The truth is that because most organizations all look the same and talk the same you won’t know the difference and the actual practices until everything is said and done. Additionally, some very good practices can become very bad applications because culture is complicated.
I think this is why it has been so difficult to make a statement regarding Hakani. While trying to make sense of the film I was drawn into a map of information that seemed more like a vortex. It was hard to know who I could point my finger at or who the culprit was. I guess, in the end, I have to say I am to blame and I can’t say who else is also to blame. I just have to leave it up to everyone who reads this paper to make their own decisions.
Though, I have tried to show through this study that cultural activism can be a site where hegemonic practices can be used, a site where Orientalism exists, and this all happens in a place where these ideas are overlooked because they fall outside of the designated areas. We are not used to thinking about politicians, corporate officers, government officials, or military personnel as cultural activists.
In an interview for the New York Times, James Ulmer when talking about movies begins by stating that “more recently, these familiar faces have been bolstered by new players from both inside and outside the system, many intent on using the documentary form to promote their conservative message” (Ulmer 1). Ulmer’s interviewee, Stephen K. Bannon stated that “[I]f the last election showed one thing, it's that culture drives politics. I want to take the form that is now owned by the left - the documentary - and use it to help drive an overall political agenda"(Ulmer 1).
David Loren Cunningham, Hakani's filmmaker, has made quite a few films to date, including some mainstream films. Unlike other Hollywood works, however -- many of which could also be accurately described by this summation -- Cunningham’s films infuse their situations and characters with a sense that subverts the viewer's sensitivities. This new film genre, and by implication Cunningham’s films, is often dismissed as apolitical and therefore not worthy of critical attention. In fact, though, many of the concepts and references in his work are likely to cause political harm, with the result that the work can be dangerous on various levels. Also, from a postmodern point of view, there is no reason for Hakani to receive less critical attention than any other work: the barriers between "political" and "apolitical" culture are no longer relevant, as have been illustrated in this study.
One of the most troubling and urgent consequences of the lack of critical attention is that these films can often fuel prejudice and antagonism, especially of those who are not part of the status quo group. Indigenous traditions, for example, are often represented inaccurately by individuals who define themselves as "civilized." For those who define themselves as "civilized," this inaccuracy often manifests itself in relationship to their own traditions as well as the traditions of others. Indigenous traditions are often represented as internally uniform and static as opposed to diverse and evolving. Indigenous peoples are deeply and nearly exclusively equated with savages, making media coverage inconsistent and not a reliable source for representing the complexity of indigenous traditions and their diverse manifestations and influences.
By ignoring these interstitial spaces, we contribute to the fostering of bigotry and misrepresentation, which can emerge unchallenged from these intermittent spaces and thus can serve as a form of justification for violence and marginalization. Hate can be promoted wittingly and unwittingly and can fuel countless atrocities as has happened in the past, including (but sadly not restricted to) colonization. Simply dismissing indigenous traditions altogether as obsolete, irrational, and/or inherently oppressive offends the dignity and sensibilities of Indigenous peoples everywhere. It also damages efforts to understand indigenous practices as a complex and sophisticated social/cultural phenomenon and individual traditions themselves as internally diverse and constantly evolving as opposed to uniform, absolute, and ahistorical.
