Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote: Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress.
The examples I know are in the past. Elvis stealing from black artists in Memphis. You got any more modern examples, say mostly uncontested examples, in the past 20 years?
Elvis is actually what I had in mind when I wrote the post. I think he is a fairly unambiguous example. I think it happens in fashion fairly often to greater or lesser degrees, but I don't have specific examples and don't want to spend a lot of time googling around for it.
On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote: Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress.
I don't think I could work with this definition- for one it sneaks in a different definition of white supremacy. But I disagree with it for other reasons. I don't see an inherent problem with people being inspired by a culture, then selling that form. The problem, in the past, was racism kept non-white performers from widely selling. (With segregated markets, whichever market is the largest will make the most money.) Once racism declined and the markets desegregated, and I see few problems (except for indigenous religious practices and things like that- I think it's prudent to not commodify people's sacred traditions.) Inspiration is an infinite resource. (Tolkien publishing the Lord of the Rings doesn't stop Rowling from publishing Harry Potter.) There is always a market for quality work... though pop culture consumes the most accessible and not always the best. Just because a white person writes some music or makes some food doesn't at all limit someone from the actual culture from coming in after- in fact, in publishing they are looking for that sort of thing right now #OwnVoices.
It's also a mess for gatekeeping- who decides who has permission. Some Indian yogis comes in, marketing yoga to North America- it catches on like wildfire. Then later others are convinced it's appropriation and they need to take back yoga from North American because it got too popular. Then, I was reading some other article that argued yoga itself was cultural appropriation to the Indian people themselves because it asserts Brahmin hegemony. And it's like, who even decides any of this stuff? One can allow and another disallow- and as long as there is someone that is dissenting, I suppose they have veto? Intellectual property has some very clear limitations in ownership, control, and duration. Appropriation is this amorphous and wide sweeping accusation that is impossible to adhere to except to re-segregate cultures- it's the only logical endgame based on the argumentation. But it's not a good solution.
You chose some odd examples didn't you? Tolkien and Rowling? The problem with cultural appropriation as a concept is that it overlaps with non-racialized bad behavior like plagiarism and deception. It happens in business all the time where a bigger, better placed competitor just rips off a small business or inventor. That's capitalism we say. So the definition I provided overlaps with that quite a bit, although you could find cases where it's more clear that the only reason one person was able to monetize the idea was because they were white. So if we accept the idea of white privilege we can see that it might generally lead to situations where they can monetize that privilege at the expense of non-white actors.
#OwnVoices seems like a response to the outcry against cultural appropriation, does it not? There's been a general shift in public opinion such that non-white voices are now more valued (by the market) than they were before for a variety of reasons.
On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote: Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress.
It seems to me that there needs to be real material damage to these non-white practitioners to make this argument. A cultural good that would not reach a specific market absent these cultural appropriators is only replicating unjust, racial distribution of wealth in the sense that any economic action not fighting this racist distribution of wealth is by definition replicating it.
It seems to me that I built that into my extemporaneous definition of cultural appropriation, which, truth be told, is much narrower than the one you might find in teen vogue. So I'd say yeah, you are right. What are the implications of the right to exclude others in various cases?
perhaps this is a predictable and simplistic response, but wouldn't it make more sense and be more useful to point to individuals who have in some sense stolen from other individuals? Admittedly I am not familiar with the Elvis example so maybe there is some context I am missing, but can we point to a "style" he in some sense stole, or a maybe a style promulgated by a few talented and influential people? I am uncomfortable logically with a leap from "Elvis copied [insert famous black musician(s) here]" and "Elvis was inspired by the musical community of his youth and popularized/introduced it to white America." Maybe no sharp distinctions can be drawn, but this might be helpful. Obviously the more widespread and older a cultural "item" is this task would become more difficult, but I think there a comparison to a "capitalistic" theft, as you mention. At least in my mind, if a larger firm steals an idea from a smaller one it is theoretically possible to trace that theft to one person or small set of persons.
Or maybe in this concept of cultural appropriation individuals are largely irreverent, merely examples of a more widespread phenomenon and of no importance beyond that? "would it really be so bad if just one person was a cultural appropriator?" Maybe the material damages aspect here works nicely to answer this question.
I also agree with Falling that we could separate theft by whatever definition, inspiration, and just being insensitive.
perhaps this is just garbled before-bed thoughts, if this topic is still alive in 24 hours I'll get back to you.
Yes we can point to a style he stole. We can point to songs he stole. He ripped off black artists who couldn't get the time of day from the music industry and brought their style and songs to white America for immense profit.
On July 01 2020 14:14 IgnE wrote: Yes we can point to a style he stole. We can point to songs he stole. He ripped off black artists who couldn't get the time of day from the music industry and brought their style and songs to white America for immense profit.
OK, I wasn't really doubting the fact that he lifted material, maybe I wasn't being clear lol. I don't care about Elvis either way. I was curious if it would be more useful to do as you just did, rather than expand it to some broader form of cultural appropriation which in this case is quite obviously tied to some form of white privilege. Or is that impossible
On July 01 2020 14:14 IgnE wrote: Yes we can point to a style he stole. We can point to songs he stole. He ripped off black artists who couldn't get the time of day from the music industry and brought their style and songs to white America for immense profit.
A trouble that comes up a lot in these systemic issues: who, exactly, is this a criticism of? Racist Elvis, performing the songs for White audiences and making a bunch of money instead of leaving that demand unsatisfied? Racist record executives who will put out those songs with a white performer but not a black one? Racist audiences who will buy a record with a white man on the sleeve but not a black one?
Put another way: what should a hypothetical “woke Elvis” have done instead? Not pursue a music career at all, since success would be on the backs of uncompensated black artists? Go on stage, but try to use the platform to combat the systemic injustices that made him rich? Modify the source material enough to feel like it’s “his,” then proceed like normal? Donate all his profits to the artists who would have gotten it instead in a less racist system?
I think my biggest objection is to rooting the injustice solely in wealth acquisition and stolen profit. I’d argue that even if we lived in a society where all musicians were compensated equally regardless of acclaim or merit, there’d still be something fucked up about Elvis attaining fame, status, and influence off of it. The money’s not irrelevant, but it’s not the whole thing, either.
I think it's useful to tie specific properties to specific acts of wrongdoing by specific actors. But the point of a term like cultural appropriation is two-fold: 1) it's a sociological description of a specific form of value extraction from one group by a more privileged group and 2) it's a political weapon to force changes to the racial makeup of the ownership and executive class, to improve access for BIPOC creators to cultural distribution channels, and to change the quantity and quality of cultural representation in e.g. the entertainment industry and fashion industry
On July 01 2020 14:14 IgnE wrote: Yes we can point to a style he stole. We can point to songs he stole. He ripped off black artists who couldn't get the time of day from the music industry and brought their style and songs to white America for immense profit.
A trouble that comes up a lot in these systemic issues: who, exactly, is this a criticism of? Racist Elvis, performing the songs for White audiences and making a bunch of money instead of leaving that demand unsatisfied? Racist record executives who will put out those songs with a white performer but not a black one? Racist audiences who will buy a record with a white man on the sleeve but not a black one?
Put another way: what should a hypothetical “woke Elvis” have done instead? Not pursue a music career at all, since success would be on the backs of uncompensated black artists? Go on stage, but try to use the platform to combat the systemic injustices that made him rich? Modify the source material enough to feel like it’s “his,” then proceed like normal? Donate all his profits to the artists who would have gotten it instead in a less racist system?
I think my biggest objection is to rooting the injustice solely in wealth acquisition and stolen profit. I’d argue that even if we lived in a society where all musicians were compensated equally regardless of acclaim or merit, there’d still be something fucked up about Elvis attaining fame, status, and influence off of it. The money’s not irrelevant, but it’s not the whole thing, either.
He should have "uplifted" the black musicians he admired. That's the twitter answer anyway. The entertainment business is ruthless. I don't have any easy answers.
I don't know what you really mean by your second paragraph. I assume that if they had lived in a society where Otis Blackwell got his music out to a large, non-racist audience first that Elvis would have sounded like an impersonator and copycat. I don't see anything so fucked up about that situation. It seems about right to me.
On July 01 2020 14:14 IgnE wrote: Yes we can point to a style he stole. We can point to songs he stole. He ripped off black artists who couldn't get the time of day from the music industry and brought their style and songs to white America for immense profit.
A trouble that comes up a lot in these systemic issues: who, exactly, is this a criticism of? Racist Elvis, performing the songs for White audiences and making a bunch of money instead of leaving that demand unsatisfied? Racist record executives who will put out those songs with a white performer but not a black one? Racist audiences who will buy a record with a white man on the sleeve but not a black one?
Put another way: what should a hypothetical “woke Elvis” have done instead? Not pursue a music career at all, since success would be on the backs of uncompensated black artists? Go on stage, but try to use the platform to combat the systemic injustices that made him rich? Modify the source material enough to feel like it’s “his,” then proceed like normal? Donate all his profits to the artists who would have gotten it instead in a less racist system?
I think my biggest objection is to rooting the injustice solely in wealth acquisition and stolen profit. I’d argue that even if we lived in a society where all musicians were compensated equally regardless of acclaim or merit, there’d still be something fucked up about Elvis attaining fame, status, and influence off of it. The money’s not irrelevant, but it’s not the whole thing, either.
He should have "uplifted" the black musicians he admired. That's the twitter answer anyway. The entertainment business is ruthless. I don't have any easy answers.
I don't know what you really mean by your second paragraph. I assume that if they had lived in a society where Otis Blackwell got his music out to a large, non-racist audience first that Elvis would have sounded like an impersonator and copycat. I don't see anything so fucked up about that situation. It seems about right to me.
Sorry, didn’t explain the hypothetical clearly: if we somehow divorce the financial gain from the story, for instance by imagining a society songwriting and record selling and performing didn’t result in any significant financial gain, Elvis stealing songs and getting fame, influence, and legacy from it still seems unjust. Even aside from his own interests, it changes society’s relationship to the art itself. Whiteness was falsely centered in the creation myth of rock and roll because nearly all of the recognized founders are white; that offends me quite a bit more than who did or didn’t get rich.
On July 01 2020 14:14 IgnE wrote: Yes we can point to a style he stole. We can point to songs he stole. He ripped off black artists who couldn't get the time of day from the music industry and brought their style and songs to white America for immense profit.
A trouble that comes up a lot in these systemic issues: who, exactly, is this a criticism of? Racist Elvis, performing the songs for White audiences and making a bunch of money instead of leaving that demand unsatisfied? Racist record executives who will put out those songs with a white performer but not a black one? Racist audiences who will buy a record with a white man on the sleeve but not a black one?
Put another way: what should a hypothetical “woke Elvis” have done instead? Not pursue a music career at all, since success would be on the backs of uncompensated black artists? Go on stage, but try to use the platform to combat the systemic injustices that made him rich? Modify the source material enough to feel like it’s “his,” then proceed like normal? Donate all his profits to the artists who would have gotten it instead in a less racist system?
I think my biggest objection is to rooting the injustice solely in wealth acquisition and stolen profit. I’d argue that even if we lived in a society where all musicians were compensated equally regardless of acclaim or merit, there’d still be something fucked up about Elvis attaining fame, status, and influence off of it. The money’s not irrelevant, but it’s not the whole thing, either.
He should have "uplifted" the black musicians he admired. That's the twitter answer anyway. The entertainment business is ruthless. I don't have any easy answers.
I don't know what you really mean by your second paragraph. I assume that if they had lived in a society where Otis Blackwell got his music out to a large, non-racist audience first that Elvis would have sounded like an impersonator and copycat. I don't see anything so fucked up about that situation. It seems about right to me.
Sorry, didn’t explain the hypothetical clearly: if we somehow divorce the financial gain from the story, for instance by imagining a society songwriting and record selling and performing didn’t result in any significant financial gain, Elvis stealing songs and getting fame, influence, and legacy from it still seems unjust. Even aside from his own interests, it changes society’s relationship to the art itself. Whiteness was falsely centered in the creation myth of rock and roll because nearly all of the recognized founders are white; that offends me quite a bit more than who did or didn’t get rich.
I can't adequately imagine a hypothetical world where singing and songwriting doesn't result in any significant financial gain yet rock and roll still matters like it does now so I can't really entertain your question. Money is power and power is money in this world. The more intuitive counterfactual is the one I presented where Otis simply goes on to claim the legacy himself by virtue of having access to the moneyed machinery of the music business.
Elvis isn't THAT good of an example. Man went of his way to hire as many black musicians as he could and was about as pro-black as you could be in the 50s and 60s (being openly anti-segregation very early on). Definitely blame the record execs and the racist public - Elvis flat out said that his inspirations were better than him in interviews and was very open about what they all were. There's one racist quote misattributed to him that was investigated heavily by black journalists at the time and they concluded there was no evidence he'd ever said it.
At worst, he can be accused of benefiting from a racist institution and working with people with misguided goals (one of the first producers he worked with wanted to bring black music to more people because he loved it... but did so by using a white guy).
Later on in life he didn't do much for the black community would be my main criticism of him, but he was a giant, drug addicted mess for his last decade (before that it was literally illegal in most areas - the man died 13 years after the CRA and didn't play music for 8 of those years).
This isn't to say what he did was right, but I don't think he had bad intentions - and there are a LOT of people we can pick from before getting to Elvis on the list of cultural misappropriation crimes, many of whom were doing so maliciously. White people have been appropriating black music for at least 150 years. Blackface minstrel shows were very popular for a very long time, and they certainly didn't properly attribute their songs to anyone. Elvis is just the most famous example, with only maybe Eminem coming close nowadays (and Eminem was never as popular as Elvis at his peak).
Eh. Maybe- Tolkien and Robert Jordan/ Terry Brook as there is a more obvious inspirational path. Or maybe Tolkien and Susanna Clarke as they are both riffing off of Faerie stories. But Tolkien is a very deliberate inclusion as he made heavy use of the Poetic Edda's- a commodifying of someone else' culture. The point is being the first to get big in a certain area is no limitation for someone else making it big. It's not a finite field. (Or maybe a better example- the hundred and one authors that all wrote their own version of the Arthurian legends, or the over one hundred plus films made on Robin Hood. The well is deep, riffing off the same stories. And even when we tire of the same stories recycled, a fresh take will make us interested again. (I found it was so with Sapkowski's short stories, which riffed off of (in my opinion) some of the least interesting fairy tales- yet a fresh take was welcome.)
where it's more clear that the only reason one person was able to monetize the idea was because they were white.
Sure- at the time of Elvis. That's why I said after the decline of racism and the desegregation of musical cultures- Michael Jackson and later is probably when we see a widespread embracing of non-white musicians? So certainly there was a time when minority were not well positioned to monetize their culture.
But at a certain point, it's not so obvious that it's because they are white. A different performer playing something changes the very thing being played. (I find Lipps Inc.'s Funkytown somewhat irritating, but enjoy Pseudo Echo's New Wave cover, and really, really like Lucky Chops' jazz cover.) A different writer inspired by a similar subject has a different take. And once it's been transformed- is it the transformation that people latch on to or the person's identity? When you know the ethnicity it's a little unclear- if it's completely unknown (in the case of writers), we can know for sure- it's the transformation because the identity is unknown, (unless they base their reading preference based on the author' picture- but if it does impact their enjoyment, then we've got racism on our hands.)
#OwnVoices is a response to under representation. My point is- the market (or at least from the publisher's side) is actively seeking out minorities. Today, they are better positioned to monetize their culture, if they desire.
Re:
plagiarism and deception. It happens in business all the time where a bigger, better placed competitor just rips off a small business or inventor. That's capitalism we say. So the definition I provided overlaps with that quite a bit, although you could find cases where it's more clear that the only reason one person was able to monetize the idea was because they were white. So if we accept the idea of white privilege we can see that it might generally lead to situations where they can monetize that privilege at the expense of non-white actors.
I can agree that making it big when there are big competitors is not easy- never is. And big companies fight dirty- I agree. Getting published might be like winning the lottery and making a living from getting published is like winning the lottery again. But IP laws deal with these issues as best as it can (and I have significant issues with the duration of those laws, but that's besides the point). But it can deal with these issues case by case because it's dealing with a distinct product, a distinct work. It's discrete enough to make a ruling on whether something has been plagiarized or not without barring all stories that have 'a detective' in it because someone tried to copyright the idea of 'a detective'.
But cultural appropriation is a general indictment that deals with general inspiration and imitation of style, or general knowledge (or using a particular plant medicinally is somehow culturally appropriation). It goes after art that already meets the definition of transformative work. If we really implement cultural appropriation as its defenders would have us- and apply it consistently- it would seriously damage the very idea of the Creative Commons/ the Public Domain. At the very least, it's a weird balkanization of inspirational sources.
On July 01 2020 14:14 IgnE wrote: Yes we can point to a style he stole. We can point to songs he stole. He ripped off black artists who couldn't get the time of day from the music industry and brought their style and songs to white America for immense profit.
A trouble that comes up a lot in these systemic issues: who, exactly, is this a criticism of? Racist Elvis, performing the songs for White audiences and making a bunch of money instead of leaving that demand unsatisfied? Racist record executives who will put out those songs with a white performer but not a black one? Racist audiences who will buy a record with a white man on the sleeve but not a black one?
Put another way: what should a hypothetical “woke Elvis” have done instead? Not pursue a music career at all, since success would be on the backs of uncompensated black artists? Go on stage, but try to use the platform to combat the systemic injustices that made him rich? Modify the source material enough to feel like it’s “his,” then proceed like normal? Donate all his profits to the artists who would have gotten it instead in a less racist system?
I think my biggest objection is to rooting the injustice solely in wealth acquisition and stolen profit. I’d argue that even if we lived in a society where all musicians were compensated equally regardless of acclaim or merit, there’d still be something fucked up about Elvis attaining fame, status, and influence off of it. The money’s not irrelevant, but it’s not the whole thing, either.
He should have "uplifted" the black musicians he admired. That's the twitter answer anyway. The entertainment business is ruthless. I don't have any easy answers.
I don't know what you really mean by your second paragraph. I assume that if they had lived in a society where Otis Blackwell got his music out to a large, non-racist audience first that Elvis would have sounded like an impersonator and copycat. I don't see anything so fucked up about that situation. It seems about right to me.
Sorry, didn’t explain the hypothetical clearly: if we somehow divorce the financial gain from the story, for instance by imagining a society songwriting and record selling and performing didn’t result in any significant financial gain, Elvis stealing songs and getting fame, influence, and legacy from it still seems unjust. Even aside from his own interests, it changes society’s relationship to the art itself. Whiteness was falsely centered in the creation myth of rock and roll because nearly all of the recognized founders are white; that offends me quite a bit more than who did or didn’t get rich.
I can't adequately imagine a hypothetical world where singing and songwriting doesn't result in any significant financial gain yet rock and roll still matters like it does now so I can't really entertain your question. Money is power and power is money in this world. The more intuitive counterfactual is the one I presented where Otis simply goes on to claim the legacy himself by virtue of having access to the moneyed machinery of the music business.
I guess I’m mostly trying to think about how to extend the concept in a useful way. I’ve heard it argued that a lot of gangster rappers were successful primarily because white producers thought a certain kind of narrative about black culture would sell well with white audiences. In the minstrelsy days whites wanted to hear black voices sing about how happy and carefree the slave life was; now they wanted to hear them rap about selling drugs and shooting people.
As a historical account I don’t know if that narrative is accurate. But as a hypothetical at least, is it a similar kind of problem? Whites are taking Black culture, plucking it out of context, bending it how they see fit, and then mass producing it for obscene wealth. In this case the black performers *do* get rich off of it. Does that address the problem? To me it seems like there are deeper issues that matter more than who gets rich.
On July 01 2020 07:15 GreenHorizons wrote: @drone there's a lot of people that have said it a lot of ways but what is constantly reiterated is that expecting it to be served up on a platter is part of the problem.
If people were coming at this from a perspective of scouring the internet and libraries and having found nothing more than what they came with asked these questions that'd be one thing. But they can't even be bothered to use the site search function.
I mean I did read (part skim to be fair) the entire wikipedia on cultural appropriation when we first had the discussion, but for one, wikipedia is notoriously white. It's just that, at least to me, specific examples make the discussion a bit less abstract.. As reiterated several times I don't have any issues with (in fact, I'd say I'm a very strong and consistent proponent of) the lack of clear boundaries or the concept of dialogue as a method of achieving greater mutual understanding. I also come to this from the perspective of a sociology teacher, one that envisions that this is a discussion I might end up leading with a future class of almost entirely white Norwegian high school students, and in that context, having specific examples that I can ask them to relate to to help facilitate discussion is immensely useful..
Have you considered paying someone to help you do that work?
Education can and should be free
Tell that to Sallie Mae
I live in Norway though. Here, it mostly is. I'm also not asking for more than what I want to contribute..
I mean, this is a bit besides the point, but I (alongside with a significant portion of other sociology teachers in Norway) am also involved with various online sharing groups where we collectively discuss global social issues that arise, and one month ago, shortly before summer break, I was involved in a discussion regarding how we should teach George Floyd protests, where some other Norwegian teacher argued that the racial component should not be given too much focus (arguing that we should maintain a class rather than identity-focus), but where I, partially because of the knowledge I have attained from my participation in this thread (and this is obviously to your credit) argued that this was entirely insufficient when discussing the reasoning behind the ongoing civil strife in the US because the racial component is such an obvious and significant factor, where I was also able to point towards specific american historical events that in Norway are virtually unknown because american history tends to be painted with a much broader brush. Again, partially because these events have been mentioned by some poster in this thread (sometimes you) which has inspired me to read about and educate myself on that event and what lead up to it.
I know I've said before, and I maintain, that I myself tend to have a class rather than identity focus on social issues. But this is a perspective I have as a Norwegian. However, I'm also involved in the sharing and dissemination of knowledge to fellow Norwegians, how things are in the US being one of the issues we discuss and which I might be expected to disseminate, and then identity-based politics and understanding of these is obviously very relevant. This has been a long-winded way of saying that I really appreciate your contributions to this thread, but also to say that your contributions don't end in this thread, people who read your posts and understand your points might argue them in other contexts further down the line.
Are you inviting me to emigrate to Norway? Honestly, I'm not too picky right now and global warming might not be all bad for you guys. You got a shed and an extension chord? I do appreciate the kind words btw.
From reading this thread, i think it might honestly be a good idea for people from the US to emigrate. A lot of stuff over there seems to be going really bad, and keeps on getting worse. Especially should Trump win the next election. It might seem cowardly, but in my opinion you are first and foremost responsible for your own happiness, and not for fixing your country.
I cannot speak about a black persons experience here, but at least to me living in Germany is quite nice. I enjoy having healthcare and free education. I do not know about the exact regulations about immigrating into Germany. I know that you need to be living here for 8 years, and speak German, to get German citizenship, but i don't know about the steps before that.
I also do not have a shed. But i would be willing to help with paperwork.
Germany is on my list of places to visit and like you said, depending on the rest of this year, may end up being on the short list of places I relocate to (after Japan and Vietnam). I'll keep you in mind about that paperwork. My German is rusty though so I'll need help with that. (ich spreche ein bisschen sie deutsch)... :p
In seriousness migrating to Norway is definitely a hassle. The fantastic well oiled norwegian bureaucracy is much less fantastic and well oiled for immigrants. (Which I believe is partially a feature rather than a bug.) But before my wife (an immigrant, which is why I'm familiar with the system) and I both got jobs, we used to rent out a third of our apartment and 80% of the time, to an immigrant, so it wouldn't be the first!
On July 01 2020 14:14 IgnE wrote: Yes we can point to a style he stole. We can point to songs he stole. He ripped off black artists who couldn't get the time of day from the music industry and brought their style and songs to white America for immense profit.
OK, I wasn't really doubting the fact that he lifted material, maybe I wasn't being clear lol. I don't care about Elvis either way. I was curious if it would be more useful to do as you just did, rather than expand it to some broader form of cultural appropriation which in this case is quite obviously tied to some form of white privilege. Or is that impossible
ok I really am off now.
Isn't it nice to be able to choose not to care. And it doesn't affect one's life in the slightest.
On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote: Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress.
It seems to me that there needs to be real material damage to these non-white practitioners to make this argument. A cultural good that would not reach a specific market absent these cultural appropriators is only replicating unjust, racial distribution of wealth in the sense that any economic action not fighting this racist distribution of wealth is by definition replicating it.
There are a lot of statistics around discrimination towards POC business loans and other various things that make it hard for POC to start a business. One thing they have going for them is unique food and culture. So if you want POC food, they make it, so it gives them an opportunity to have a business. When a white dude has an easier time making his own business due to family wealth (most people who consider themselves successful just come from a successful family and POCs have significantly less family wealth), they are taking up business "spaces" that could otherwise be fulfilled by a POC.
I think you've identified the problem correctly, but using arguments of cultural appropriation so "space" that could be taken by POCs doesn't get taken up by whites doesn't adress the root of the issue and is problematic in other ways. It's a violation of free enterprise, it's a mess with gatekeeping (who gets to decide to which group said cultural good "belongs", like Falling points out), it carries with itself the idea of segregation, and (as a more personal opinion) I don't think that's how culture should work. Culture should always be available to be replicated, transformed and enhanced (I'm also against the overreaching of current trademark and IP laws, but that's not the discussion here).
The problem you're describing would be better served by a policy of directed loans to immigrants, of regulation of lenders, of greater enforcement of non-discriminatory laws, etc.
On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote: Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress.
The examples I know are in the past. Elvis stealing from black artists in Memphis. You got any more modern examples, say mostly uncontested examples, in the past 20 years?
The rise of hip hop/rap, I would say is pretty modern. While there are many prominent black artists in these fields, its white people who make the most money and who made the art form mainstream. It's even a recurrent theme in Eminem's songs that he's well aware he'd have made half the money he has if he was a black man.
Iggy Azalea got into it with a black artist not so long ago about this very subject.
The issue isn't that white people are hip hop artists, its the outsized presence they have despite (especially in Azalea's case) significantly less talent than their peers of colour (Eminem's not so much a good discussion point because he's undeniably very good). Someone else here probably can get deeper into that than I can as I'm not a music buff, but I've seen that particular discussion come and go a few times.
It's anything a particular culture prides itself on and then is used by "non-cultural" members to make profit off of, without giving due credit or compensation. It's easy to find it in fashion, arts, beauty, etc. It's a bit more difficult to find it on a person to person level. The appreciation aspect is probably the best way to describe music for the most part in the modern sense. It was definitely appropriated before the 80's because of reasons already mentioned by other posters.
Say, the way I speak my terrible, broken or Japanese and just add some black American slang to it and it gets popular for whatever reason."Ohayo-wasgood!" takes off and people not familiar with Ohayo think it's pretty funky, but Japanese people are looking "WTF man?" I would say in my defense "It's just a word. It doesn't mean anything."
It's a crude by quick example. I appropriated language from a culture and passed it off as my own creation/mix without giving credit for the origin.
On July 01 2020 07:11 IgnE wrote: Here is my take on the most defensible version of what cultural appropriation is and why is it bad.
When white people reap the monetary spoils of some artistic or cultural form that they took from a non-white context to present before white taste-makers, marketers, and capital this is a bad thing. You might liken it to rent collection on the property of white privilege: this cultural form has been reproduced in relative obscurity under non-white aesthetic regimes and then when it finally gets (white) popular acclaim the proceeds go to white people. Cultural appropriation is bad because it replicates an already unjust, racist distribution of wealth, upholding white supremacy.
One can imagine more egregious and less egregious examples. It’s entirely a material analysis that (strategically) hypostasizes race in an effort to work towards social justice (within a mostly unquestioned capitalist framework). There is no generalizable universal concept that can be derived from its political analysis of material conditions. It’s always limited to a particular situation and relies upon the identification of an aggrieved party in order to structure any coherent form of redress.
The examples I know are in the past. Elvis stealing from black artists in Memphis. You got any more modern examples, say mostly uncontested examples, in the past 20 years?
The rise of hip hop/rap, I would say is pretty modern. While there are many prominent black artists in these fields, its white people who make the most money and who made the art form mainstream. It's even a recurrent theme in Eminem's songs that he's well aware he'd have made half the money he has if he was a black man.
Iggy Azalea got into it with a black artist not so long ago about this very subject.
The issue isn't that white people are hip hop artists, its the outsized presence they have despite (especially in Azalea's case) significantly less talent than their peers of colour (Eminem's not so much a good discussion point because he's undeniably very good). Someone else here probably can get deeper into that than I can as I'm not a music buff, but I've seen that particular discussion come and go a few times.
Hip-hop, specifically that which punches through to the mainstream has changed considerably over the years to the extent the modern stuff almost isn’t recognisable.
In its nascent years as a new black art form it was obviously very black led, not especially political although it was there in the ‘old school’ days.
Of course gangsta rap was extremely, extremely political and talking to a sort of lived experience you kind of had to have been a poor black (generally man) to have authority to rap about.
Eminem I remember quite clearly exciting my young peers and listening to his records with them. Aside from his actual chops his appeal was in the poor white guy’s experience but crucially he dealt a lot in angst that teen boys especially just lap up, so I feel he was doing something different that appealed to a different niche (one that happened to be huge).
Specifically his early content to me shares more in common with say Korn’s early records, or other bands like Limp Bizkit in lyrical subjects than his peers of the time in hip hop.
Nowadays I don’t really know, what stuff I do tend to overhear in bars or at parties is just party music, there’s not a huge amount of interest being said. As my exposure is somewhat limited can’t really talk much to that.
If that is the state of play now though, I could absolutely see the generic party stuff being marketed around white faces more so than black ones.
On July 01 2020 21:40 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote: It's anything a particular culture prides itself on and then is used by "non-cultural" members to make profit off of, without giving due credit or compensation. It's easy to find it in fashion, arts, beauty, etc. It's a bit more difficult to find it on a person to person level. The appreciation aspect is probably the best way to describe music for the most part in the modern sense. It was definitely appropriated before the 80's because of reasons already mentioned by other posters.
Say, the way I speak my terrible, broken or Japanese and just add some black American slang to it and it gets popular for whatever reason."Ohayo-wasgood!" takes off and people not familiar with Ohayo think it's pretty funky, but Japanese people are looking "WTF man?" I would say in my defense "It's just a word. It doesn't mean anything."
It's a crude by quick example. I appropriated language from a culture and passed it off as my own creation/mix without giving credit for the origin.
Adapting, mixing and recreating existing art is a great deal of what art is about. You should be proud of your new created expression "Ohayo-wasgood!".
EPT
