A thousand curses upon anyone using the term "cultural appropriation" at all seriously.
Think I had a 10'' single by them once. I didn't like it though it sounded too distorted.
A couple days ago I saw a headline on my Google news feed - a headline - saying "Bruno Mars accused of cultural appropriation." Didn't read it, but my only thought was "Oh. Really?"
Yeah.
The idea that culture is something that should be walled off and jealously guarded — and people are only allowed to understand/appreciate/approach it if they pass whatever arbitrary standards whatever arbitrary self-appointed guardian decides passes muster — is something I find fundamentally objectionable. Like with so many other faddish online social justice things, it's so much half-cocked critical theory that somehow enters mainstream discourse by mixing up a way of understanding things with a way of diagnosing things.
If your problem is with capital and racism, say your problem is with capital and racism. Don't hop on the buzzy bandwagon and proclaim yourself the fucking Great Decider of Culture.
As I understand it, the issue is mainly of white artists using bits of other culture, making a ton of money, and not crediting or paying their sources, is that right? Like the much reported-on Led Zeppelin debacles?
Without that we wouldn’t have cover versions!!!
An interesting read on this topic is the history of the song Lion Sleeps Tonight.
That's where a discussion/critique of racism and capital should come in, not this idiotic notion that cultural spaces should be closed to anyone who doesn't fill whatever criteria you decide to make up.
Edit: what Matey said, too.
Just to flesh out the discussion, could it be that it's a case of inadequate vocabulary, that those who charge someone with cultural appropriation do mean that it's about issues of race, profiteering, and power relations, but they're working on a short-cut of sorts without working thru the underlying mechanics?
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
That's where a discussion/critique of racism and capital should come in, not this idiotic notion that cultural spaces should be closed to anyone who doesn't fill whatever criteria you decide to make up.
Edit: what Matey said, too.
Just to flesh out the discussion, could it be that it's a case of inadequate vocabulary, that those who charge someone with cultural appropriation do mean that it's about issues of race, profiteering, and power relations, but they're working on a short-cut of sorts without working thru the underlying mechanics?
Black and White minstrels.
All music especially great music should be for all. Homage can always be paid to the original artists. Did the blues musicians get ripped off by the rock 'n' roll musicians? What becomes inspiration and what is simply theft of culture?
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
That's where a discussion/critique of racism and capital should come in, not this idiotic notion that cultural spaces should be closed to anyone who doesn't fill whatever criteria you decide to make up.
Edit: what Matey said, too.
Just to flesh out the discussion, could it be that it's a case of inadequate vocabulary, that those who charge someone with cultural appropriation do mean that it's about issues of race, profiteering, and power relations, but they're working on a short-cut of sorts without working thru the underlying mechanics?
Yeah, I think imprecise language certainly has something to with it.
At the same time, so much of this discussion comes back to the idea that intercultural borrowing/sharing is bad and wrong. Well, it's bad and wrong if it's racist or exploitative (or Peter Gabriel) — in which case, maybe we should be talking about racism and exploitation (and Peter Gabriel) instead of whether second-generation Filipino Americans should play sixth-generation African American music?
That's where a discussion/critique of racism and capital should come in, not this idiotic notion that cultural spaces should be closed to anyone who doesn't fill whatever criteria you decide to make up.
Edit: what Matey said, too.
Just to flesh out the discussion, could it be that it's a case of inadequate vocabulary, that those who charge someone with cultural appropriation do mean that it's about issues of race, profiteering, and power relations, but they're working on a short-cut of sorts without working thru the underlying mechanics?
Yeah, I think imprecise language certainly has something to with it.
At the same time, so much of this discussion comes back to the idea that intercultural borrowing/sharing is bad and wrong. Well, it's bad and wrong if it's racist or exploitative (or Peter Gabriel) — in which case, maybe we should be talking about racism and exploitation (and Peter Gabriel) instead of whether second-generation Filipino Americans should play sixth-generation African American music?
Wouldn’t it be racist to have the opinion that it was ok for an African American to play music that has it roots in some village in central Africa via the cotton plantations and the Caribean but not an Irish American even though both were born and brought up in America.
That's where a discussion/critique of racism and capital should come in, not this idiotic notion that cultural spaces should be closed to anyone who doesn't fill whatever criteria you decide to make up.
Edit: what Matey said, too.
Just to flesh out the discussion, could it be that it's a case of inadequate vocabulary, that those who charge someone with cultural appropriation do mean that it's about issues of race, profiteering, and power relations, but they're working on a short-cut of sorts without working thru the underlying mechanics?
Yeah, I think imprecise language certainly has something to with it.
At the same time, so much of this discussion comes back to the idea that intercultural borrowing/sharing is bad and wrong. Well, it's bad and wrong if it's racist or exploitative (or Peter Gabriel) — in which case, maybe we should be talking about racism and exploitation (and Peter Gabriel) instead of whether second-generation Filipino Americans should play sixth-generation African American music?
Wouldn’t it be racist to have the opinion that it was ok for an African American to play music that has it roots in some village in central Africa via the cotton plantations and the Caribean but not an Irish American even though both were born and brought up in America.
Would that be down to the individual in what they believe to be their heritage?
Forces have been looting
My humanity
Curfews have been curbing
The end of liberty
We're the flowers in the dustbin...
No fuchsias for you.
That's where a discussion/critique of racism and capital should come in, not this idiotic notion that cultural spaces should be closed to anyone who doesn't fill whatever criteria you decide to make up.
Edit: what Matey said, too.
Just to flesh out the discussion, could it be that it's a case of inadequate vocabulary, that those who charge someone with cultural appropriation do mean that it's about issues of race, profiteering, and power relations, but they're working on a short-cut of sorts without working thru the underlying mechanics?
Yeah, I think imprecise language certainly has something to with it.
At the same time, so much of this discussion comes back to the idea that intercultural borrowing/sharing is bad and wrong. Well, it's bad and wrong if it's racist or exploitative (or Peter Gabriel) — in which case, maybe we should be talking about racism and exploitation (and Peter Gabriel) instead of whether second-generation Filipino Americans should play sixth-generation African American music?
I suspect on some unconscious level we do make that distinction and frame sincerity around the profit motive (assuming we give a shit about such things more generally). Maybe if Jah Wobble sold a gorillion copies of his albums, people might get pissed over his fusion with other cultures' music, but instead it's celebrated. Perhaps it is just a (futile) protest of capital's invasion of all previously sacred spaces.
"Grab some wood, bub.'" - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft
That's where a discussion/critique of racism and capital should come in, not this idiotic notion that cultural spaces should be closed to anyone who doesn't fill whatever criteria you decide to make up.
Edit: what Matey said, too.
Just to flesh out the discussion, could it be that it's a case of inadequate vocabulary, that those who charge someone with cultural appropriation do mean that it's about issues of race, profiteering, and power relations, but they're working on a short-cut of sorts without working thru the underlying mechanics?
Yeah, I think imprecise language certainly has something to with it.
At the same time, so much of this discussion comes back to the idea that intercultural borrowing/sharing is bad and wrong. Well, it's bad and wrong if it's racist or exploitative (or Peter Gabriel) — in which case, maybe we should be talking about racism and exploitation (and Peter Gabriel) instead of whether second-generation Filipino Americans should play sixth-generation African American music?
Wouldn’t it be racist to have the opinion that it was ok for an African American to play music that has it roots in some village in central Africa via the cotton plantations and the Caribean but not an Irish American even though both were born and brought up in America.
No.
If someone wants to argue the point that Irish-Americans shouldn't play a certain kind of music because they don't fulfil some vague cultural criteria, I'd probably find it unconvincing.
If someone else wants to argue that holding the opinion that Irish-Americans shouldn't play a certain kind of music because they don't fulfil some vague cultural criteria constitutes racism, I'd probably tell them "that's a very stupid thing to argue."
That's where a discussion/critique of racism and capital should come in, not this idiotic notion that cultural spaces should be closed to anyone who doesn't fill whatever criteria you decide to make up.
Edit: what Matey said, too.
Just to flesh out the discussion, could it be that it's a case of inadequate vocabulary, that those who charge someone with cultural appropriation do mean that it's about issues of race, profiteering, and power relations, but they're working on a short-cut of sorts without working thru the underlying mechanics?
Yeah, I think imprecise language certainly has something to with it.
At the same time, so much of this discussion comes back to the idea that intercultural borrowing/sharing is bad and wrong. Well, it's bad and wrong if it's racist or exploitative (or Peter Gabriel) — in which case, maybe we should be talking about racism and exploitation (and Peter Gabriel) instead of whether second-generation Filipino Americans should play sixth-generation African American music?
Wouldn’t it be racist to have the opinion that it was ok for an African American to play music that has it roots in some village in central Africa via the cotton plantations and the Caribean but not an Irish American even though both were born and brought up in America.
No.
If someone wants to argue the point that Irish-Americans shouldn't play a certain kind of music because they don't fulfil some vague cultural criteria, I'd probably find it unconvincing.
If someone else wants to argue that holding the opinion that Irish-Americans shouldn't play a certain kind of music because they don't fulfil some vague cultural criteria constitutes racism, I'd probably tell them "that's a very stupid thing to argue."
I was thinking more the other way round. That it was ok for an African American to play music that originated in an Central African village just because he was black even though say he was born and bread in LA and had never left the state.
