A few years ago, in Australia, Lionel Shriver, an acclaimed writer, gave a very controversial keynote speech on what would come to be called cultural appropriation. In her belief, anyone had the right to a story. Period. Ever since the mixing of cultures with exploration and colonization many years ago, one’s own culture has remained as a large part of humanity in its identity. This is no less the case today, with globalization and modernization, many are worried not only of their ancestor’s culture being forgotten but of it being completely lost, forever. While many would delight in the idea of works being written about their culture’s history, saving it for the future, many are worried that someone could come along and construe their culture or history in a prejudice or misguiding way. Some believe that only a particular person may tell a particular story without violating some form of natural writing laws. However, this is not the case. In my opinion, anyone has the right to tell a particular story. However, in the case of non-fiction and realistic/historical fiction, this is only as long as they do their research correctly and stick to the facts …show more content…
Vowell makes sure to objectively take the history of Hawaii, and discusses not only the inhabitants’ history, but also the history of its invaders, the American missionaries. This makes it not a story specifically about culture or even one specific culture, as Vowell makes sure to take both sides of the story and displays them as more or less equal. Unfamiliar Fishes is an interesting historical non-fiction piece, in which Vowell mixes her own storytelling with the facts found in her research of Hawaii. Because Sarah Vowell researches Hawaiian history and makes to keep a very fair unbiased approach to the subject, she is not violating what I believe to be considered cultural