Social Justice

[Ninety-Three]

I believe the assumption is that black musicians lost sales to white musicians and did not receive due credit for their cultural contribution.

 

I would have assumed this based on context, but within the post I see nothing except proximity linking the independent ideas of "white musicians started doing jazz" and "black jazz musicians were unsuccessful".

[Mangela Lansbury]

I've made a post about rock and roll and race on here before. I'm on my phone, so I can't find it and link it.

[Gormongous]

I would have assumed this based on context, but within the post I see nothing except proximity linking the independent ideas of "white musicians started doing jazz" and "black jazz musicians were unsuccessful".

 

Okay, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt before, but now it's fairly apparent to me that you're being purposefully dense out of a desire to score rhetorical points. The problem is, you're so willing to ask any question but why? Why would white musicians succeed so radically at a new form of music, regardless of their level of skill or innovation, when a large preexisting community of talented black musicians has toiled in obscurity for at least half a century (more, if you count ragtime) and would continue to toil for decades more? Why were black musicians unable to sell their own music or performances directly to audiences, but were able to sell them to white musicians who could? If the white musicians weren't offering a superior product, outside of their own whiteness, then why did "white jazz" succeed in a marketplace where popular acceptance of "black jazz" took decades to catch up — and even then mostly through the efforts of select white musicians who recognized their own cultural debt?

 

Well, whatever it is, it surely doesn't have anything to do with cultural appropriation and white supremacy, and it surely doesn't show how cultural appropriation can be harmful to a culture by devaluing its output once appropriated by other cultures. It's all just a forum of free exchange and may the best man win. Yeah, I'm out, guys. Sorry!

[Ninety-Three]

Okay, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt before, but now it's fairly apparent to me that you're being purposefully dense out of a desire to score rhetorical points.

 

I'm really not.

 

The problem is, you're so willing to ask any question but why? Why would white musicians succeed so radically at a new form of music, regardless of their level of skill or innovation, when a large preexisting community of talented black musicians has toiled in obscurity for at least half a century (more, if you count ragtime) and would continue to toil for decades more?

 

Why? Because society is super racist and denies black people their due in every field including music. White jazz musicians of course had more success because there were people who were willing to listen to jazz, but not from a black musician. I am on board with all of that. But all your jazz post demonstrated was "People were super racist against black jazz musicians, and white musicians took up jazz to greater success". The only link it establishes between cultural appropriation and the poor treatment of black musicians is that it shows the two things existed in the same place. There was no attempt to even suggest causality, hence my confusion.

 

 

It's all just a forum of free exchange and may the best man win.

 

I never fucking said that! I never said anything even remotely like that! At every point in this discussion I have acknowledged that society does bad things to black people, and at no point in this discussion have I suggested that black people have a fair shot compared to white people. Where are you getting this!? Because it sure isn't from my posts.

[clyde]

Why? Because society is super racist and denies black people their due in every field including music. White jazz musicians of course had more success because there were people who were willing to listen to jazz, but not from a black musician. I am on board with all of that. But all your jazz post demonstrated was "People were super racist against black jazz musicians, and white musicians took up jazz to greater success". The only link it establishes between cultural appropriation and the poor treatment of black musicians is that it shows the two things existed in the same place. There was no attempt to even suggest causality, hence my confusion.

 

I'm confused. How is cultural appropriation in the context of the example different than poor treatment of black musicians? They seem like the same thing to me, so the desire to show causation seems really odd.

[Mangela Lansbury]

There are countless examples of white musicians covering songs performed by black musicians, in at least a rock context.

Even in the context of Jazz, there are countless examples of black musicians suffering where white musicians are romanticized for their drug use. I don't understand how someone familiar with the history of either, in the context of race, could argue either are race blind.

[Zeusthecat]

Ninety-Three, this might be a helpful way to look at some of this. I'm sure we've all experienced that shitty situation where you do or say something unique or clever and then somebody else turns around and repeats it and everyone thinks they are awesome and have no idea that it was really you that thought of it. It's a douchey thing to do and people that do that kind of stuff are shitty. With the jazz example, I think it's kind of the same thing. They created a style of music that was unique to their culture and then white people took it, made it popular, got all the credit for how great their music sounded, and never gave due credit to those who actually deserved it. To me it is pretty clear how that is a super shitty thing to do. It's basically cultural plagiarism.

[Twig]

I can't name a single white jazz musician and I've always (positively) associated jazz with black people. In fact, it's still just instinctively and weirdly weird for me to think of white jazz musicians! What world did I grow up in that's so completely different from what is apparently reality??

[itsamoose]

To the point about giving credit, what exactly would that look like? I've read over a few interviews with Elvis, and he wasn't shy about saying who his influences were though the press at the time didn't really care. How would one go about giving credit to the original inspiration in a way that would satisfy this requirement?

[Ninety-Three]

I'm confused. How is cultural appropriation in the context of the example different than poor treatment of black musicians? They seem like the same thing to me, so the desire to show causation seems really odd.

 

Poor treatment of black people: Step 1: People are generally racist. Step 2: People are racist towards black jazz musicians as a subset of all black people. Step 3: Black jazz musicians don't receive the work/success/etc they deserve because of their skin colour.

 

Cultural appropriation: Step 1: White musicians take up jazz. Step 2: Unencumbered by discrimination, they are met with success. There is no step 3*.

Those things seem completely different and I'm baffled as to how they can seem the same to you. The white musicians definitely made more money than they would have if people weren't discriminating against black musicians, but the cultural appropriation argument alleges that their actions are causing harm when all they're doing is being nearby as society causes harm.

 

 

*One could argue that Step 3 is "the audiences of black musicians go to white ones instead, depriving the black musicians of even more success", but this whole jazz tangent started over Gormungous' post that explicitly didn't attempt to do that, so for the purposes of this post I'm assuming it's not the case.

[clyde]

The question seems to have become "Does benefitting from white-priviledge promote or reinforce white-supremacy?" and I think that's a great question.

To the point about giving credit, what exactly would that look like? I've read over a few interviews with Elvis, and he wasn't shy about saying who his influences were though the press at the time didn't really care. How would one go about giving credit to the original inspiration in a way that would satisfy this requirement?

I'm not sure. I'm going to look for some articles and videos that address the question of "How can white-priviledge be used to destroy racism?"

One of the first answers I've come across suggests that the key is seeking the opinion of those who are suffering from the injustice about how you can help.

[itsamoose]

I'm not sure. I'm going to look for some articles and videos that address the question of "How can white-priviledge be used to destroy racism?"

One of the first answers I've come across suggests that the key is seeking the opinion of those who are suffering from the injustice about how you can help.

 

That's a great suggestion, I'll do the same.  I think we're all in agreement that cultural appropriation exists and is generally garbage, but now seem to be discussing the finer points of it, what constitutes it, and how it could possibly be rectified.  I hear a lot of arguments floated with respect to this such as give credit to the original author, but even when this does happen it tends to be glossed over or ignored as far as the mainstream understanding goes, and doesn't necessarily turn into similar gains when noted.  The other argument I hear is that some form of reparations need to be paid, which I get in terms of slavery, but if you are a person of color and your ancestors were not enslaved by members of the southern states, aren't you still at the mercy of the situation as it exists today?  I think a lot of the arguments I see forwarded related to how to combat or lessen the effect of things like this tend to not hold up to any kind of scrutiny or even require a doubling down on the systems that help to institutionalize slavery in the first place (capitalism, recognition of "the other", etc).  Ta-nehisi coates wrote an article called the case for reparations (a fantastic read regardless of your interest in this point) where he talks about backing governmental initiatives to both recognize formally the presence of racism in society and to fund studies examining it's impact, mainly based on the idea that you can't have an understanding about things you have so little information about.

[Gormongous]

I'm not sure. I'm going to look for some articles and videos that address the question of "How can white-priviledge be used to destroy racism?"

 

This article just came up on my Facebook. It's being actively updated, too: http://www.meta-activism.org/2015/08/sensible-responses-to-white-nonsense/

[BobbyBesar]

I'm not completely sure this is the right thread for this, but:

 

I enjoy going to the Renaissance Faire. 

 

The Renaissance Faire is a total shit-show from a cultural sensitivity perspective, and I have a lot of trouble with it.

 

As somebody with Chinese ancestry, I feel very self-conscious trying to engage in fantasy of European Medieval times. Also, I'm acutely aware of the fact that dressing up in European-style or even Fantasy-style armor is problematic, and that I am fundamentally incapable of looking appropriate in that attire..

 

Then, I think about wearing a period-appropriate costume that fits my ethnicity (armor, Mandarin robes, etc). But then I worry that that's even worse, because I'm weirdly token-izing myself. And what's more, anything that I do do along those lines inevitably collides with anime culture, and people saying I should dress up like a ninja or samurai or something, which is not actually offensive to me, but which I feel maybe it actually is a little bit.

 

And I'm also very aware that this is all simply an open space for play, and that nobody gives a shit about cultural authenticity which is why there are people dressed as pirates next to Robin Hood next to the Green Lantern and Jon Snow. So, it's stupid for me to even care at all, and I should just put on a freaking kilt or something, but how stupid does a Chinese guy look in a kilt, but then why do I even care what other people think and maybe this is all just something I need higher self-confidence for.

 

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: the ability to un-self-consciously enjoy a Renaissance Fair is part of white privilege.

 

Also, that I want to open a Chinese themed competing Ren Fair called "The Three Kingdoms".

[Gaizokubanou]

I should just put on a freaking kilt or something, but how stupid does a Chinese guy look in a kilt

 

That actually sounds badass.  If I were to go to one of those I would just mix and match everything.  Personally big fan of outfits that feature half-cloaks, like poncho or those things that doge of venice wore.  And pharos had those sick blue-gold headdresses that always looks really awesome.  plus kilts...

 

Good thing I'm not that big into fashion hur hur :x

[Twig]

No stupider than a white guy in a kilt!

[Dewar]

I'm not completely sure this is the right thread for this, but:

 

I enjoy going to the Renaissance Faire. 

 

The Renaissance Faire is a total shit-show from a cultural sensitivity perspective, and I have a lot of trouble with it.

 

As somebody with Chinese ancestry, I feel very self-conscious trying to engage in fantasy of European Medieval times. Also, I'm acutely aware of the fact that dressing up in European-style or even Fantasy-style armor is problematic, and that I am fundamentally incapable of looking appropriate in that attire..

 

Then, I think about wearing a period-appropriate costume that fits my ethnicity (armor, Mandarin robes, etc). But then I worry that that's even worse, because I'm weirdly token-izing myself. And what's more, anything that I do do along those lines inevitably collides with anime culture, and people saying I should dress up like a ninja or samurai or something, which is not actually offensive to me, but which I feel maybe it actually is a little bit.

 

And I'm also very aware that this is all simply an open space for play, and that nobody gives a shit about cultural authenticity which is why there are people dressed as pirates next to Robin Hood next to the Green Lantern and Jon Snow. So, it's stupid for me to even care at all, and I should just put on a freaking kilt or something, but how stupid does a Chinese guy look in a kilt, but then why do I even care what other people think and maybe this is all just something I need higher self-confidence for.

 

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is: the ability to un-self-consciously enjoy a Renaissance Fair is part of white privilege.

 

Also, that I want to open a Chinese themed competing Ren Fair called "The Three Kingdoms".

 

Despite (or maybe because of) having most of my knowledge about The Three Kingdoms be from Dynasty Warriors, I'd be interested in going to that.

 

To answer the actual question, I don't think anyone would bat an eye at you wearing fantasy European garb. Wearing classical Chinese garb would make you stand out, but I would think in a positive way? I dunno, the Renaissance Faires I went to were in a College town, so people will fairly liberal  and accepting.

[clyde]

I'm thinking more about the concerns involving cultural appropriation. While I can see how creating and sustaining harmful stereotypes is... harmful, and I certainly don't want to enforce racist laws that further marginalize folk, it seems like many of the arguments against cultural appropriation conflate the adoption of asunder, incomplete cultural details with actual oppression and I have not been able to get behind that. It seems like the actual act of oppression should be called out and condemned, not the enjoyment of or simulation of styles, art, and technologies of marginalized ethnicities. It really seems counter-productive to me to conflate enjoying mexican food with supporting anti-immigration policies.

http://www.renderfoodmag.com/blog/2014/9/11/breaking-bread-the-politics-of-mexican-food-in-the-us.

It just seems so misguided and unhelpful to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm trying to feel it, but I don't.

[Mangela Lansbury]

I don't think enjoying Mexican food is appropriative, like how I don't think eating sushi is appropriative -- they're foods, and you can freely enjoy them and love them.

 

I think a good way to start thinking about appropriation is to look at the way that cultural appropriation has affected the West's relationship with Middle Eastern, African, and Asian people, especially in the context of orientalism. Stereotypes like the Japanese as honorable people, or the weird mishmash representations of Indian spirituality that result in truly bizarre Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu mixed iconography, or people thinking that there are no modern cities in Africa all come from appropriative (mis)representations of those places. The aspects that make a unique place and a unique people are glossed over because we like this one thing, so we take it and ignore the things that aren't that.

 

Edward Said's Orientalism is a really good book that has informed my views on cultural appropriation.

[Gormongous]

I don't think enjoying Mexican food is appropriative, like how I don't think eating sushi is appropriative -- they're foods, and you can freely enjoy them and love them.

 

They're most obviously not appropriative when you're giving money to a Mexican or Japanese person to make you their native food. When we get into fusion venues and white chefs championing ethnic cuisines, especially ones that have been tweaked or made bland for the Western palette, then it gets a little more weird.

[Gaizokubanou]

I'm thinking more about the concerns involving cultural appropriation. While I can see how creating and sustaining harmful stereotypes is... harmful, and I certainly don't want to enforce racist laws that further marginalize folk, it seems like many of the arguments against cultural appropriation conflate the adoption of asunder, incomplete cultural details with actual oppression and I have not been able to get behind that. It seems like the actual act of oppression should be called out and condemned, not the enjoyment of or simulation of styles, art, and technologies of marginalized ethnicities. It really seems counter-productive to me to conflate enjoying mexican food with supporting anti-immigration policies.

http://www.renderfoodmag.com/blog/2014/9/11/breaking-bread-the-politics-of-mexican-food-in-the-us.

It just seems so misguided and unhelpful to me. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm trying to feel it, but I don't.

 

I share your sentiment.  I'm trying to get appropriation but outside of the really clear cut ones where the appropriation is straight up racist caricature or appropriator is actively participating in the oppression, I don't get it.  But I also get that I'm not the default position that's in consideration when topic of appropriation comes up so that's why I'm trying hard to get it.  But I don't get it outside of those clear cases, perhaps because of my personal experience with cultural identity.

[Ninety-Three]

 

it seems like many of the arguments against cultural appropriation conflate the adoption of asunder, incomplete cultural details with actual oppression

 

Thank you for elegantly stating a big part of the argument I had been laboriously working towards in the old discussion. White people with dreads are (accurately) seen as benefiting from a double standard, and it seems that that association makes some people jump to blaming the dreads-havers for the existence of the double standard.

 

I share your sentiment.  I'm trying to get appropriation but outside of the really clear cut ones where the appropriation is straight up racist caricature or appropriator is actively participating in the oppression

 

And the thing about those cases is that it's not the appropriation that's the problem. The problem with a racist caricature isn't that you're using someone else's culture, it's that you're making a racist caricature. People can't appropriate their own culture, but people can and do engage in racist caricatures of their own race (I've mostly seen this in comedy, though I'm sure it happens in all sorts of places).

[itsamoose]

Came across this article today, seems relevant to the current focus of the discussion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-lefts-attack-on-color-blindness-goes-too-far/403477/

[clyde]

Came across this article today, seems relevant to the current focus of the discussion.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/the-lefts-attack-on-color-blindness-goes-too-far/403477/

The article seems to conflate one becoming aware of the priviledges society imparts on them solely due to race, with white-supremacy (even though it makes effort not to). The article doesn't provide any argument about how one necessitates the other. To be honest, I think the author wants to say that a sense of racial identity among marginalized groups creates more opposition than something of use, but they know that isn't the case so they are moving towards thinking that white-identity is harmful (which I think it is) and then treats it as a necessary side-effect amongst race-identity left-overs. I don't think they necessitate each other.

I don't think I explained that well, but whatever.

Also, that website destroys my phone's battery and heats it up a lot.

[Reyturner]

I have a feeling that article began with the following as a tweet:

haps they’re correct that the ideal of colorblindness alone will never bring about an America where anti-black racism is no more prevalent than anti-Irish racism is today. But isn’t it more naive to imagine that masses of white people will identify more strongly with their racial tribe and then sacrifice the interests of that tribe?

And ballooned from there.