|
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.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Canada11370 Posts
On July 02 2020 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2020 15:51 ChristianS wrote:On July 01 2020 15:30 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2020 15:03 ChristianS wrote:On July 01 2020 14:49 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2020 14:40 ChristianS wrote: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. I do hope IgnE picks this back up. One aspect easily lost in all this is the differences between people that are talking about cultural appropriation from a perspective of "capitalism unfairly excluded us (them), (they)we want in" vs "capitalism unfairly excluded us, we want socialism/communism.
Are you in the second camp?
Because a fair number of the protestations over cultural appropriation makes a lot more sense if people have rejected the idea of commodification of culture at all. I fundamentally disagree, but I can understand that it's an entirely different view of how the economy ought to operate. However, then the cultural appropriation argument still misses the point because the more foundational issue is simply capitalism itself and not who happens to be capitalizing it.
|
If ChristianS wants to formulate an alternative working description of the concept that more closely aligns with his moral intuitions then I'd be happy to hear it.
That’s an intimidating prompt. I’m not sure I’m up to the task, unfortunately.
I think an underlying dynamic here, though, is the tendency to construct an image of “foreign” cultures, and the purpose that image serves to the culture that constructs it. In the same way categories like “Mexican food” or “Chinese food” can be only tangentially related to the actual cuisine of Mexico or China, whites’ image of black culture has at various points been only tangentially related to the actual black experience.
The poster child for “cultural appropriation” is usually either blackface, or a white hipster in a feather headdress. The latter, I think, is a question of respect and humility in cross-cultural dialogue; the former a whole different issue entirely. That they’ve wound up under the same heading perhaps underlines how broad and amorphous the term has become, and neither really overlaps with IgnE’s stolen profit-focused definition. Maybe the term is too broad to be useful? Or maybe we’re overloading the same terminology with different definitions for different scopes?
But with regard to blackface and minstrel shows, here’s my best understanding of it: whites (especially in the North) had a great deal of interest in and curiosity about the black experience. At the same time, the reality of that experience was far too brutal for them to understand and accept. That created demand for a sort of Disney-fied version of black culture that could be put in front of white eyes to sate their curiosity without offending their sensibilities. So (usually) white performers dressed up as black people and sang songs about how happy and carefree the slave life was. You can imagine whites finding that image beautiful and profound; feeling that they have an appreciation for (or even jealousy of) that lifestyle; maybe even, on a tough workday, dreaming wistfully of being a slave the way you or I might dream of being a streamer or progamer.
There are similarities when whites suddenly became obsessed with any record with “Blues” in the title, or the success of Pat Boone’s cover of “Tutti Frutti,” or turning jazz into elevator music, or Will Smith’s “Parents Just Don’t Understand.” When you see similar dynamics cropping up across multiple disparate contexts, it becomes useful to create an abstraction that describes, compares, and contrasts those different instances; perhaps “cultural appropriation” is that abstraction?
I haven’t given a definition, though, and I’m not sure I’m able to. But I don’t think it requires the venture to be profitable, or even that the performers be white.
|
And if I said, "it sounds like what you are pointing to is a profound affective discomfort in the appearance of misrecognition. It is uncomfortable to see others flaunt and display evidence of what seems like a profound misunderstanding about who you are. When others delight in transformed, misshapen cultural symbols that appear grotesque to you, because they make a mockery of the symbolic constellation by which you position yourself and affirm your identity, you feel a profound discomfort and lack of recognition"—what would you add to it?
|
I guess the “why is it bad” is diffuse and hard to pin down, but probably bigger than just discomfort on the part of the misrepresented. Is minstrelsy only bad because it offends black people? If we were sufficiently certain no black person would see or hear about it, would that make it okay to put on a minstrel show?
|
well you could add some supplement talking about its psychosocial impact among the audience. but similar questions apply as to whether it's morally wrong to wear KKK robes in the privacy of your bedroom or revel in Nazi nostalgia in the privacy of your home. you'd have to address questions about the ethics of personal development and "being" a good person
|
On July 02 2020 05:27 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2020 03:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 01 2020 15:51 ChristianS wrote:On July 01 2020 15:30 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2020 15:03 ChristianS wrote:On July 01 2020 14:49 IgnE wrote:On July 01 2020 14:40 ChristianS wrote: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. I do hope IgnE picks this back up. One aspect easily lost in all this is the differences between people that are talking about cultural appropriation from a perspective of "capitalism unfairly excluded us (them), (they)we want in" vs "capitalism unfairly excluded us, we want socialism/communism. Are you in the second camp? Because a fair number of the protestations over cultural appropriation makes a lot more sense if people have rejected the idea of commodification of culture at all. I fundamentally disagree, but I can understand that it's an entirely different view of how the economy ought to operate. However, then the cultural appropriation argument still misses the point because the more foundational issue is simply capitalism itself and not who happens to be capitalizing it.
The second. I must not have talked about my anti-capitalist orientation enough lately  .
I think IgnE and ChristianS are doing a great job of exploring part of that dynamic (a difference of opinion/perspective on the role of identity among the second camp) and I don't want people to get distracted by me trying to add to that by carrying our conversation next to it. As someone that doesn't agree with the framing, but can readily identify it, I think you'd be better (and uniquely equipped) to make sure we're all discussing it with this in mind going forward.
From there I can just opine with my personal perspective rather than build it up from scratch every few posts.
|
On July 02 2020 06:05 IgnE wrote:
well you could add some supplement talking about its psychosocial impact among the audience. but similar questions apply as to whether it's morally wrong to wear KKK robes in the privacy of your bedroom or revel in Nazi nostalgia in the privacy of your home. you'd have to address questions about the ethics of personal development and "being" a good person
Yeah, I suppose I’m more concerned with how it then causes the audience to misunderstand injustices in the world, and become apathetic or even support them. I don’t care if they’re good people per se, they can sort that out with whatever deity they believe in.
I’ve heard it claimed that the “Cake Walk” (a dance that was part of the minstrelsy tradition) was actually born of white minstrels observing a slave dance and assuming it was some old African tradition; but in fact, the slaves invented the dance by watching and mocking the dances plantation owners did. One can imagine a plantation owner getting offended by their dance, feeling that he is being grotesquely misrepresented, but the thought doesn’t stir much sympathy. Maybe that’s just because he’s a slaveowner, but I also think that in general, mocking white culture doesn’t have the same sting. That makes me think it has more to do with the perpetuation of injustice than just hurting people’s feelings.
|
Saying it’s “just feelings” can make it sound small, sure. There’s a metonymic slippage there from 1) “social recognition” within a life world structured by hierarchies, perhaps foremost among them the difference between the “human” and the “inhuman” to 2) “mere feelings,” fleeting, childish, weak. But if justice is not a matter of material/economic relations and not a matter of “feelings” then what else is it?
|
On July 02 2020 07:33 IgnE wrote:
Saying it’s “just feelings” can make it sound small, sure. There’s a metonymic slippage there from 1) “social recognition” within a life world structured by hierarchies, perhaps foremost among them the difference between the “human” and the “inhuman” to 2) “mere feelings,” fleeting, childish, weak. But if justice is not a matter of material/economic relations and not a matter of “feelings” then what else is it?
Yeah, that’s fair. I’m not sure exactly how to classify the hurt feelings of having your culture parodied and mocked. It’s probably not so huge as being deemed inhuman or subhuman; but not so small as (like the slaveowner offended by the Cake Walk) being deemed to look goofy when you dance. That’s a broad range, but it’s a broad category.
Justice (and, by extension, injustice) is complex and multifaceted, and I’d hesitate to reduce it to any one thing. Maybe that’s just an obfuscated “I don’t know what it is.” You mentioned Frank Wilderson III and afropessimism recently; I had to read some of his stuff in college, and I remember him arguing that when we talk about the injustice of slavery we misunderstand what was actually bad about it.
At least, I think that’s what he was arguing. Honestly, my main impression was that I had understood very little of what he wrote. But I think, at least, he was saying our usual understanding focuses on the brutality and oppression - e.g. slavery was bad because slaves were treated inhumanely. Two key focuses of his were contingency and fungibility - that slaves were functionally interchangeable, rather than unique persons, and that their lives and outcomes were not contingent on their behavior.
In case it wasn’t clear, I’m grossly unqualified to summarize his arguments. Maybe I should try to look up his stuff again, and see if I’d understand it any better now.
|
Something i just had to get of my chest,now that its gone hf with the discussion and gl with coming up with possible solutions to decrease the suffering.
|
On July 01 2020 23:31 stilt wrote:
Weird, Israel and the USA are currently occupying, dismantling and displacing the inhabitants of a nation which is borderline a genocide like the indians and no one bats an eye.
That's pretty ironic considering how everyone was super eager of doing "justice" one month ago.
There's plenty of ironies in the BLM movement.
Electronics companies putting out words of support for the black community on social media whilst using battery components mined in Africa by children as young as six?
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/oct/12/phone-misery-children-congo-cobalt-mines-drc
But any sane person would agree what is going on in Palestine is a genocide.It's just posting/saying things negative about Israel may get you in trouble.Oddly enough several corporations in the UK and the BBC itself have been distancing themselves from BLM after 'anti-semitic' remarks.I don't know if this has spread elsewhere yet.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/01/bbc-tells-staff-not-wear-black-lives-matters-badges-on-air/
|
What has a corporation trying to piggyback on the BLM movement to do with the BLM movement? What do you want to highlight with that comment? I appreciate you helping me understand.
|
Epstein's main accomplice arrested. Now let's see who she can take down with her.
|
|
|
You really think anything useful is going to come from all of this?
To even think that conforms to the old definition of insanity.
Hundreds of rich powerful people could be taken down by this, but none of them will except for maybe Maxwell herself if she survives.
|
|
|
Time for no video failures, and no prison personnel forgetting to check on the cell/sleeping on the job!
Who am I kidding? The only result of failure in that regard would be dark memes for three months and Hey, Election Time!
|
|
|
certainly seems like a death sentence. i’m super interested to see where this goes.
|
Yeah... I would not want Ghislaine in a federal prison monitored by your average guard. 24/7 monitoring by FBI agents within a prison or throw her in a brig on a military base. Somewhere that she can't "commit suicide"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
