|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Is this music video racist?
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
No it isn't always wrong - but as I pointed out upthread, neither is cutting people open with a knife. Surgeons, after all, do it. Politics is about the least likely area for it to be wrong, and even then it often is.
So politicians are (more likely to be) fair game, but dancers aren't? Or is it only certain types of dancer - would a parody of ballet or ballroom dancers be OK?
Punch up, not down. Simple rule and covers 90% of situations. Politicians? Can ruin lives with ill-thought-out or just mean policies. Professional dancers tend to be higher up than dancers in a formalized style with professional teachers like ballroom or ballet, which themselves tend to be higher up than those in a relatively new style that hasn't yet been formalised.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Keeping it to music; Swing, Blues, Jazz, Rock n' Roll, R&B, Hip-Hop. All musical styles birthed by black folk but appropriated by white folk.
No, lilBuddha, they were styles birthed by musicians and borrowed and developed by other musicians. Without any help from politicians.
You say that as if it somehow contradicts lilBuddha's point.
I'm looking at the issue from the musician's point of view - there may be issues of discrimination around the music, or the music may be about political issues, but the music stands on its own, IMO - lB seems to be proposing some kind of cultural apartheid, of the kind generally only supported by a certain type of politics, not by the people who actually write and perform, or by the people who listen to the music (the same applies to dance, literature, etc.). Musicians and dancers typically perform in a range of styles, not just that from their 'indigenous culture' (whatever that means), and in my experience, so long as it's not an obvious hostile piss-take, the only people who object are certain politicians, who regard themselves as some sort of self-appointed guardians of cultural purity, (and the more so when said culture no longer exists as a living tradition).
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Professional dancers tend to be higher up than dancers in a formalized style with professional teachers like ballroom or ballet, which themselves tend to be higher up than those in a relatively new style that hasn't yet been formalised.
So it would be perfectly OK for an amateur ballet dancer (or, say, someone who freely admits that they can't dance at all, which presumably puts them right at the bottom of the pile and thus makes them immune from criticism) to do a mean-spirited parody of a professional twerker. Nothing wrong with that at all, right?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Professional dancers tend to be higher up than dancers in a formalized style with professional teachers like ballroom or ballet, which themselves tend to be higher up than those in a relatively new style that hasn't yet been formalised.
So it would be perfectly OK for an amateur ballet dancer (or, say, someone who freely admits that they can't dance at all, which presumably puts them right at the bottom of the pile and thus makes them immune from criticism) to do a mean-spirited parody of a professional twerker. Nothing wrong with that at all, right?
Oh ffs.
Something being mean-spirited is inherently problematic. There are sometimes reasons and justifications for mean-spirited parody just as there are justifications for cutting someone open with a knife. Punching down is almost never justifiable. Punching up sometimes is. But just like cutting someone open with a knife, you need a good reason to do it first.
Or is doing mean-spirited things in your world always just fine, as you seem to be implying?
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
IMO - lB seems to be proposing some kind of cultural apartheid, of the kind generally only supported by a certain type of politics, not by the people who actually write and perform, or by the people who listen to the music (the same applies to dance, literature, etc.).
Again it depends, there's going to be a difference in kind between Elvis and blacking up, for instance.
It does seem that at least some white rap performers tend play towards a very fetishised, caricature of black people.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Holy Smoke wrote:
Musicians and dancers typically perform in a range of styles, not just that from their 'indigenous culture' (whatever that means), and in my experience, so long as it's not an obvious hostile piss-take, the only people who object are certain politicians, who regard themselves as some sort of self-appointed guardians of cultural purity, (and the more so when said culture no longer exists as a living tradition).
I think this is right. Popular music has become a site of fusions, experiments, borrowings, and so on. I don't see how it would be possible to police such a cultural mélange, with the possible exception, as you noted, of a hostile parody. Even then, it can be OK, as with the many parodies of 'Blurred Lines'. I assume this is punching up.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Let's take twerking as an example. The majority of white people are not going to twerk. Period.
Wow. Just, wow.
So, apparently, melanin not only affects your skin colour, it affects your anatomy so fundamentally that it alters whether or not you can plant your feet and shake your butt.
Sorry, I thought that some of the context there was more obvious than it was. "The majority of white people are not going to twerk any more than they are going to dance ballet."
But this just makes highlighting that they are white people a nonsense. If they're equally likely to not dance ballet and not twerk, it has precisely nothing to do with their skin colour (given that ballet is "white" dancing), it's because they're not any good at dancing. Period.
You could have just said "the majority of people are not going to twerk". Unless you're trying to suggest that being black gives you a greater chance of having dancing skills?
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
ADDENDUM: It seems to me there is a fundamental difference between saying "the majority of people who can twerk are black", and "the majority of black people can twerk".
The first statement might, possibly, be true. I haven't done a survey. But it's not at all equivalent to the second statement. Just as "the majority of ballet dancers are white" is not at all equivalent to "the majority of white people are ballet dancers".
And the reason this matters is that there is a bit of a conceptual problem labelling a dance style as "a white thing" or "a black thing" if most of people of that skin colour can't actually do it. That's exactly the kind of stereotyping that gets engaged in, expecting black people to be able to dance a certain way, or play certain sports, or whatever.
Assumptions about skin colour might be somewhat more correct for dancers. But in that case it's actually being a dancer that is more important than the skin colour.
[ 15. October 2014, 13:55: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Holy Smoke
Shipmate
# 14866
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
lB seems to be proposing some kind of cultural apartheid, of the kind generally only supported by a certain type of politics, not by the people who actually write and perform, or by the people who listen to the music (the same applies to dance, literature, etc.).
Again it depends, there's going to be a difference in kind between Elvis and blacking up, for instance.
It does seem that at least some white rap performers tend play towards a very fetishised, caricature of black people.
But if you don't try to adopt an urban black mindset, then it doesn't work - it ends up being a parody of white kids trying to be black, at the expense of the white kids - and vice versa, for certain 'white' styles of music - punk, for example. But then, surely the same is true of most other styles of music - you have to adopt a certain persona to sing English folk, for example, or to sing Elizabethan church music. But then it isn't either fetishised (I'm not sure exactly how you're using the word) or a caricature, if it is done properly - it's acting, basically, which is great if it's done well and done respectfully. At least, that's how I see it.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Let's take twerking as an example. The majority of white people are not going to twerk. Period.
Wow. Just, wow.
So, apparently, melanin not only affects your skin colour, it affects your anatomy so fundamentally that it alters whether or not you can plant your feet and shake your butt.
Sorry, I thought that some of the context there was more obvious than it was. "The majority of white people are not going to twerk any more than they are going to dance ballet."
But this just makes highlighting that they are white people a nonsense. If they're equally likely to not dance ballet and not twerk, it has precisely nothing to do with their skin colour (given that ballet is "white" dancing), it's because they're not any good at dancing. Period.
You could have just said "the majority of people are not going to twerk". Unless you're trying to suggest that being black gives you a greater chance of having dancing skills?
The majority of people are not going to twerk, period - this is indeed the point I was making. Highlighting that they are white people actually is relevant because one reason people dance the way they do is the surrounding culture; I, for example, am unlikely to dance Odori (one of the traditional Japanese styles). They are therefore irrelevant to whether or not white people twerking would be a bad thing. If the context I added was confusing then my apologies.
I then broke down white people who are going to twerk into two groups. The group who, like Taylor Swift, are going to treat it as a form of dancing like any other. And those who, like Miley Cyrus, are going to use it as a key component in a fetishised caricature of black people. And the group that behaves like Miley Cyrus is too damn big when compared to that like Taylor Swift.
Also any intent was to say that the majority of people who can twerk are black.
(And thanks for providing the word fetishistic, Chris - it was one I'd been looking for ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Also any intent was to say that the majority of people who can twerk are black.
The problem for me here is the use of the word "can". Perhaps I am misreading your intent (apparently a lot of that happening here) but what it sounds to me like you are saying is that there is something physically different about black anatomy which enables them to move their bums in a particular way. In the absence of any scientific evidence that that is the case, that sounds rather problematic to me.
Perhaps what you mean is either:
1. The majority of people who have learned this particular dance style are black.
or
2. The only people who should engage in this particular dance style are black.
#1 is probably a statement of fact. I haven't done any surveys but it appears to be true. It's not a statement about ability-- I would imagine that anyone who was fairly coordinated and particularly anyone with some dance ability (e.g. ballet dancers) would be able to learn the required moves with a bit of practice. #2 is of course the question under debate.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Also any intent was to say that the majority of people who can twerk are black.
The problem for me here is the use of the word "can". Perhaps I am misreading your intent (apparently a lot of that happening here) but what it sounds to me like you are saying is that there is something physically different about black anatomy which enables them to move their bums in a particular way. In the absence of any scientific evidence that that is the case, that sounds rather problematic to me.
Perhaps what you mean is either:
1. The majority of people who have learned this particular dance style are black.
or
2. The only people who should engage in this particular dance style are black.
#1 is probably a statement of fact. I haven't done any surveys but it appears to be true. It's not a statement about ability-- I would imagine that anyone who was fairly coordinated and particularly anyone with some dance ability (e.g. ballet dancers) would be able to learn the required moves with a bit of practice. #2 is of course the question under debate.
1 is a correct reading of what I intended to mean by that statement. "So you think you can dance?" doesn't mean to imply that most people are unable to jump around vaguely in time with music and I was using can in that sense rather than "is physically able to at a very basic level".
2 is of course under debate - but a part of the logic of 2 follows from 1
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
I recently attended an Iranian wedding and discovered what mahoosive party animals they are. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The tone of the evening was set early when someone on my table said “We’re Iranians. We’re at a wedding. Of course we’re going to be dancing.”
The music got cranked up, the Middle Eastern* guests all hit the dance floor with great zeal and pulled everyone else out of their chairs. Cue a load of awkward white people cowering sheepishly on the edge of the dance floor looking embarrassed and wondering how to participate in this particular style of dancing that resembles nothing they’ve never attempted before in their lives. It should be said that some of the Iranian guests were not particularly good dancers either but they didn’t care about not being experts in the form and they were having a bloody good time (the best man said to us, “I’m crap at dancing, but what are you going to do? It’s a wedding.”)
I went for the smart approach of finding a friendly Iranian guest willing to give me a crash course on how Middle Eastern dance works. It’s actually not that hard once you get the hang of the hip movement (and I suspect it must do fantastic things for your core muscles ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ). Actually I reckon the complicated bit for most middle-class white people is not the physical movement in itself, but getting over your cultural hang-ups about making seductive movements with your lower body.
Were we (the white people willing to join in the dancing) appropriating the Iranians’ culture by attempting to dance like them? I don’t think so. I loved that they wanted their white guests to join in. They were inviting us to participate in their culture, not guarding it against racist appropriation. It struck me as a very generous kind of hospitality. It was a fantastic party.
I guess there’s a point to be made about power dynamics somewhere, but the power dynamics aren’t particularly on the side of Middle Easterners either, and these particular Iranians weren’t afraid of sharing their cultural artefact with a load of white people.
*Mostly Iranians, but not exclusively. There were also a couple of Syrians and IIRC someone from Iraq.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: The problem with that being what, exactly? People do it all the time. If I bust out some Michael Jackson moves on the dancefloor or pick up my guitar and nail the solo from Hotel California in an attempt to look cool then what's wrong with that?
Let me give an example.
One day (don't ask me why) I went to a concert in the Netherlands by a group of 'Indians' (I wouldn't use this name for Native Americans, but this is how they called themselves). They had the feathers, they had the face paintings, etc. They sang and talked a lot about spirit animals, dream catchers and so on. They also claimed that they were able to read halos etc.
In the background (among pictures of them hugging trees) they showed slides of Native Americans engaged in rather intimate, spiritual rituals. I later discovered that these pictures were from a series made by a 19th-century anthropologist in the US.
After the concert I went straight to the venue's bar (I can easily explain why), and after a while some of the members of the band had a drink there too. I heard them talking with eachother. They were from Portugal. I'm fluent in Portuguese, I can tell.
Do I think these people are racist? I'm not sure.
Do I think that what they are doing should be forbidden or that they should be punished in some way? I don't think I could make this case juridically.
Did I feel uneasy about what they were doing? Most definitely yes. Flaunting the spirituality and the culture of another people like this, claiming some sort of religious status, without their consent or approval, is a case of cultural appropriation as far as I'm concerned.
Does the fact that white people have oppressed the spirituality of Native Americans in the past influence my opinion? Yes.
Do I understand that Native Americans would feel offended by this? Yes, definitely.
Where exactly does the line lie between this and you doing a Michael Jackson imitation? I don't know. IANAL.
quote:
Marvin the Martian: You were complaining about mocking someone who's made something that's shabby. But you were also complaining about people wanting to use that something because it's really cool. It's hard to keep up with the conversation when you're flipping between the two depending on which point you want to make at the time.
Until know, the layout of all our posts has been strictly divided in two, making a distinction between the two arguments.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Were we (the white people willing to join in the dancing) appropriating the Iranians’ culture by attempting to dance like them? I don’t think so. I loved that they wanted their white guests to join in. They were inviting us to participate in their culture, not guarding it against racist appropriation. It struck me as a very generous kind of hospitality. It was a fantastic party.
You were invited. And under their normal code of hospitality at that. So the answer is "Of course not". Further compounded by the fact there was neither mockery nor erasure.
quote:
I guess there’s a point to be made about power dynamics somewhere, but the power dynamics aren’t particularly on the side of Middle Easterners either, and these particular Iranians weren’t afraid of sharing their cultural artefact with a load of white people.
There's a point to be made about power dynamics. The playing field there was, however, at least vaguely level. There also isn't the specific history that there is in America that makes it particularly toxic.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Some great examples coming up here - dancing at an Iranian wedding, and the example of Portugese doing Native American music and dance. I just find them confusing really, and I am impressed by anyone who can police them, or draw a line between benign and malign imitation. I can't do it, except in extreme cases.
I have a friend in Norfolk who is a shaman, and she has no doubt appropriated a ton of cultural stuff from shamanistic culture. Is this wrong? I have no idea, but quite a lot of Western people are actually seeking out shamans in various parts of the world, to do training. And we are getting the ayahuasca parties in Brixton now!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
[snip]
1. The majority of people who have learned this particular dance style are black.
or
2. The only people who should engage in this particular dance style are black.
1 is a correct reading of what I intended to mean by that statement. "So you think you can dance?" doesn't mean to imply that most people are unable to jump around vaguely in time with music and I was using can in that sense rather than "is physically able to at a very basic level".
2 is of course under debate - but a part of the logic of 2 follows from 1
Does that apply across the board, though? If it is true that white people shouldn't do something because the majority of people who do it are black, as you are asserting here, then how can it not be equally true that black people shouldn't do something because the majority of people who do it are white?
[ 15. October 2014, 15:37: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Where exactly does the line lie between this and you doing a Michael Jackson imitation? I don't know. IANAL.
I would say that the difference is that I wouldn't be pretending that I actually was Michael Jackson, whereas those people were pretending to be actual Native Americans.
Their offence was not so much cultural appropriation as cultural fraud.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Did I feel uneasy about what they were doing? Most definitely yes. Flaunting the spirituality and the culture of another people like this, claiming some sort of religious status, without their consent or approval, is a case of cultural appropriation as far as I'm concerned.
Does it matter, and do you know, whether it was:
a) a sincere expression of religious feeling (ie. the band would have claimed that they following this spirituality);
b) a sincere portrayal of religious feeling (ie. the band, despite not being believers themselves, wanted to convey some genuine sense of a living faith);
c) a conscious parody (ie. they were sending up or exposing to mockery the religion which they were portraying);
d) a fashion statement (ie. they thought it looked cool, and weren't especially concerned that what they were portraying was a sacred thing to others);
e) something else?
Because for me, that would be a crucial question. (a) or (b) would (IMO) clearly not be racist in any way.
(a) might offend people who think they have some sort of ethnic monopoly on a type of spirituality, but those people can in all fairness go and fuck themselves.
(b) might also cause offence, if it is mistaken for insincerity, but almost certainly that would be inadvertent.
(c) could be done with racist motives, but not necessarily. Mocking a faith is not the same as mocking a people.
(d) isn't inherently racist - the potential offensiveness would be a failure to realise that what for you is 'costume' has a deeper meaning and importance for someone else. That failure could be due to innocent ignorance, or culpable but non-racial insensitivity, or conscious disregard for the feelings of non-whites.
Those are distinctions which would make a difference to me.
I still think they should all be allowed, of course. Comment on cultural and religious matters should be free, no matter how shallow or crass (and I've no idea if the band you saw was either). But the distinctions make a difference to how I would perceive the performance.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: I would say that the difference is that I wouldn't be pretending that I actually was Michael Jackson, whereas those people were pretending to be actual Native Americans.
Their offence was not so much cultural appropriation as cultural fraud.
I wish the line were so easy to draw but I'm not sure. What about Michael Jackson impersonators? There are plenty of those, from all races. If you record a rap song under the name MC Marve using a 'black' accent (I'm not going to enter the discussion about what that is) and it's just audio so people can't see your face, are you pretending to be black? Could someone from Portugal portray a Native American in a theatre piece? In some alternative form of street theatre? Plenty of haziness here.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Eliab: Does it matter, and do you know, whether it was:
I'm rather cynical, but my impression is this: there is a market for these things. There are a number of suckers out there who'll fall for what they call 'Indian' spirituality, who'll claim to hold the same beliefs as Native Americans whether they do or not, and who are willing to spend money on it.
(I know a number of people who are genuinely interested in the spirituality of Native Americans. A friend of mine is an expert on the religious systems of some tribes in the Amazon Region. One thing these friends have in common is that they don't call them 'Indians'. These people do.)
My personal opinion is: even if you are genuine in your beliefs that you derived from the spirituality of Native Americans, I think you should still have some contact with them before making claims on their behalf.
For example, if someone from Europe says: "I'm a Shaman. I can interpret the spirits of animals" or something like that. Not every Native American living in the US can say that. Their status has to be accepted by their people. So, how can an outsider claim that? Even if this person is genuine in his / her beliefs, I'd still find it awkward.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Some modern shamans claim an ancestry in European shamanism, although as far as I know, there are no indigenous shamans left, except possibly in Russia, and maybe Scandinavia.
I think again there are fine margins here; probably there are out and out frauds, but there are also people who have studied shamanism in depth, and many have trained with existing shamans.
I suppose it's caveat emptor.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was just looking at training courses in shamanism, of which there are a lot in the UK now, and some of them specialize, e.g. in Celtic or Nordic shamanism, others seem to do a kind of synthesis from around the world.
I think it is open to abuse and commercialism, as it is quite trendy now in British culture, in the post-Christian ruins!
However, I am prepared to accept that there are some genuine practitioners out there. But maybe the idea of a Western shaman is inappropriate, as it involves so much borrowing.
But then paganism itself has brought back many ideas and images; half my friends seem to talk about Rhiannon now.
A good tip is to avoid people who use pseudo First Nation names.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
As this chappie.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Enoch: As this chappie.
There's worse than that. Much worse.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
[snip]
1. The majority of people who have learned this particular dance style are black.
or
2. The only people who should engage in this particular dance style are black.
1 is a correct reading of what I intended to mean by that statement. "So you think you can dance?" doesn't mean to imply that most people are unable to jump around vaguely in time with music and I was using can in that sense rather than "is physically able to at a very basic level".
2 is of course under debate - but a part of the logic of 2 follows from 1
Does that apply across the board, though? If it is true that white people shouldn't do something because the majority of people who do it are black, as you are asserting here, then how can it not be equally true that black people shouldn't do something because the majority of people who do it are white?
That is not what I am asserting. What I am asserting is that white people should be extremely cautious about doing something when the majority of white people who do it behave in a manner which has strong racist overtones.
To use an analogy, there's nothing inherently wrong with the Bellamy Salute. But there's a very good reason no one uses it any more.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
LeRoc
Yes, Grey Owl was a complicated man. Undoubtedly, he pretended to be a First Nation person; but on the other hand, he had been closely connected with various tribes, in fact, didn't he marry into one? He was also famous as a conservationist. I don't think he is out and out dismissed by First Nations people today. As you say, there are outright frauds today. But there are also genuine practitioners.
[ 15. October 2014, 17:28: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There's a point to be made about power dynamics. The playing field there was, however, at least vaguely level. There also isn't the specific history that there is in America that makes it particularly toxic.
I suspect this is part of the difficulty for those of us outside the American context. Coming from a different historical context means that we don't have the same sensitivities over this issue and the reaction to it seems somewhat over the top from the outside. I'm starting to understand that there is a whole dynamic of interaction between different racial groups in the USA which is unfamiliar from my own context. It's useful to be aware of that. However I think it is also the case that America is a very specific context and I'm not sure that it is helpful to import American hang ups into other places that don't have the same history. Perhaps the way these things need to be handled in the USA is the more unusual case rather than the universal model?
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
I'm starting to understand that there is a whole dynamic of interaction between different racial groups in the USA which is unfamiliar from my own context. It's useful to be aware of that. However I think it is also the case that America is a very specific context and I'm not sure that it is helpful to import American hang ups into other places that don't have the same history.
That depends on the place - I think most things that would be unacceptable in America are equally unacceptable in UK or Australia.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lucia
Looking for light
# 15201
|
Posted
But the UK history is different from America in the sense that most of the different ethnic groups came voluntarily into the country as immigrants either themselves or their ancestors. There is not that history of slavery within the country or the same network of discriminatory laws that existed within living memory in the USA. I'm not claiming that there has been no racial discrimination in the UK, that is clearly not the case. And we still have the whole history of colonialism like an albatross around our necks.
[ 15. October 2014, 19:20: Message edited by: Lucia ]
Posts: 1075 | From: Nigh golden stone and spires | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
There's a point to be made about power dynamics. The playing field there was, however, at least vaguely level. There also isn't the specific history that there is in America that makes it particularly toxic.
I suspect this is part of the difficulty for those of us outside the American context. Coming from a different historical context means that we don't have the same sensitivities over this issue and the reaction to it seems somewhat over the top from the outside. I'm starting to understand that there is a whole dynamic of interaction between different racial groups in the USA which is unfamiliar from my own context. It's useful to be aware of that. However I think it is also the case that America is a very specific context and I'm not sure that it is helpful to import American hang ups into other places that don't have the same history. Perhaps the way these things need to be handled in the USA is the more unusual case rather than the universal model?
Oh, indeed. I'm a Brit, not an American. But the context in question is that of a Taylor Swift song (American) and Twerking (American). And the other example I'm bringing up is Miley Cyrus (American). When Lorde writes and sings about "But every song’s like gold teeth, grey goose, trippin’ in the bathroom/ Blood stains, ball gowns, trashin’ the hotel room" and gets called out for racism that's a different situation from if it had been a song written by an American - and it's largely American cultural imperialism that lead to that. Had the same lyrics been written by an American the accusations would have had at least some weight.
Context matters. Always.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Where else can a position of "white people shouldn't use black forms of cultural expression" take us?
Where did I say this? That is not my position.
--------
Cross-cultural exchange is wonderful Where I see a problem is when the artifacts of a culture are used, but the culture itself is disrespected. Where the people of that culture/sub-culture are disrespected.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
A lot of British pop musicians sing with cod US accents. I don't think it's because they are pitching themselves at the US market. It's more that they think it's essential to the genre and makes them sound cool.
It's not necessary. They don't all do it. But according to Justinian's arguments, Americans should regard this as an insult.
Umm, context much? America has not been under Britain's thumb for a long time. In recent history they have been equals and, in the opinion of many living Americans, Britain plays second fiddle to America. In short, the power dynamics are completely different.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
In the same way, perhaps we should regard it as an insult to us that in the Eurovision Song Contest, a lot of the continental competitors choose to sing in English. They seem to think that's more cool than singing in, say, German or Serb-Croat.
They do so, IMO, because English is the language in which they will be understood by the most people. If cool were a desired factor, Eurovision would be cancelled.
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I'm looking at the issue from the musician's point of view - there may be issues of discrimination around the music, or the music may be about political issues, but the music stands on its own, IMO - lB seems to be proposing some kind of cultural apartheid, of the kind generally only supported by a certain type of politics, not by the people who actually write and perform, or by the people who listen to the music (the same applies to dance, literature, etc.). Musicians and dancers typically perform in a range of styles, not just that from their 'indigenous culture' (whatever that means), and in my experience, so long as it's not an obvious hostile piss-take, the only people who object are certain politicians, who regard themselves as some sort of self-appointed guardians of cultural purity, (and the more so when said culture no longer exists as a living tradition).
First I do not, nor ever have, proposed, considered or approved any form of apartheid.
Second, as I alluded in a couple of examples earlier, the music story is considerably more nuanced than you present.
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I guess there’s a point to be made about power dynamics somewhere, but the power dynamics aren’t particularly on the side of Middle Easterners either, and these particular Iranians weren’t afraid of sharing their cultural artefact with a load of white people.
You were participating with them in a equal exchange. The true beauty of cultural sharing.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First I do not, nor ever have, proposed, considered or approved any form of apartheid.
Second, as I alluded in a couple of examples earlier, the music story is considerably more nuanced than you present.
Yes, there would be a large extent to which it would be contextually defined and defined by the intentions and manner in which the original form was then used.
On which note I found the quotes in the first part of this to be somewhat apposite:
http://aamerrahman.tumblr.com/post/53978736048/white-rapper-faq
(Language warning for the faint at heart)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I'm looking at the issue from the musician's point of view - there may be issues of discrimination around the music, or the music may be about political issues, but the music stands on its own, IMO
Except that lilBuddha's point was that the music seems to be far more commercially successful when it's performed by white people than when it's performed by the original black people. The music might stand on its own, but when it wants to go places it appears that being performed by white people gives it a great big leg up.
In general, I think the black musicians who originally performed the music might quite like to have got some of the airtime and exposure that the white musicians get.
quote:
Musicians and dancers typically perform in a range of styles, not just that from their 'indigenous culture' (whatever that means), and in my experience, so long as it's not an obvious hostile piss-take, the only people who object are certain politicians, who regard themselves as some sort of self-appointed guardians of cultural purity, (and the more so when said culture no longer exists as a living tradition).
I think that the claim that the cultures from which the music is coming might not exist as living traditions any more might be one of the things that people object to. (And even supposing that they don't exist, whose culture's fault is that exactly?)
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Colour does not give one an accent. However, culture certainly can. There is also phrasing, so perhaps accent is not precise enough a word.
Listen to her talk, Listen to her sing.
Contrast with the Beastie Boys. They are from the early days of white rappers and did not feel the need to be anything other than themselves.
I couldn't watch the video last night because of my connection. But I've heard some of that singer's songs, not knowing she was Australian. But even in that song I wouldn't say she's affecting a black accent - I'd say she's affecting different varieties of mid-Atlantic accents. Including 'rich spoiled white girl.'
And don't worry, I remember the early Beastie Boys days. And how they were accused of inappropriately appropriating black culture in order to make money from it as white kids were too racist to listen to an art form if the video showed black people. Unless it's RUN DMC covering Aerosmith.
Ah, the world before the PMRC and Two Live Crew and Banned in the USA when you could still genuinely get offended by things because you weren't so confused that you didn't know whether or not you were being insulted and whether or not your offense was justified...
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Let's take twerking as an example. The majority of white people are not going to twerk. Period.
Wow. Just, wow.
So, apparently, melanin not only affects your skin colour, it affects your anatomy so fundamentally that it alters whether or not you can plant your feet and shake your butt.
Sorry, I thought that some of the context there was more obvious than it was. "The majority of white people are not going to twerk any more than they are going to dance ballet."
But this just makes highlighting that they are white people a nonsense. If they're equally likely to not dance ballet and not twerk, it has precisely nothing to do with their skin colour (given that ballet is "white" dancing), it's because they're not any good at dancing. Period.
You could have just said "the majority of people are not going to twerk". Unless you're trying to suggest that being black gives you a greater chance of having dancing skills?
The majority of people are not going to twerk, period - this is indeed the point I was making. Highlighting that they are white people actually is relevant because one reason people dance the way they do is the surrounding culture; I, for example, am unlikely to dance Odori (one of the traditional Japanese styles). They are therefore irrelevant to whether or not white people twerking would be a bad thing. If the context I added was confusing then my apologies.
I then broke down white people who are going to twerk into two groups. The group who, like Taylor Swift, are going to treat it as a form of dancing like any other. And those who, like Miley Cyrus, are going to use it as a key component in a fetishised caricature of black people. And the group that behaves like Miley Cyrus is too damn big when compared to that like Taylor Swift.
Also any intent was to say that the majority of people who can twerk are black.
(And thanks for providing the word fetishistic, Chris - it was one I'd been looking for
It seems to me this basically boils down to saying that some performers are going to take "black dancing" and emphasise that it's black, and some are going to emphasise that it's dancing.
It also seems to me that this thread demonstrates that it's not just performers who choose to emphasise one aspect or the other.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:
I'm looking at the issue from the musician's point of view - there may be issues of discrimination around the music, or the music may be about political issues, but the music stands on its own, IMO
Except that lilBuddha's point was that the music seems to be far more commercially successful when it's performed by white people than when it's performed by the original black people. The music might stand on its own, but when it wants to go places it appears that being performed by white people gives it a great big leg up.
In general, I think the black musicians who originally performed the music might quite like to have got some of the airtime and exposure that the white musicians get.
Yes. However, this is the fault of the marketing people and, frankly, the audience. It is not the fault of the white musicians. The white musicians are - like professional musicians of any colour - trying to improve their own profitability. They are not trying to diminish the profitability of the black musicians, and have no real capacity to do so.
It's not as if this is a problem that is solely race-based. For my own part, I'm mystified as to why the superb songs of Patty Griffin seem to sell so much better when someone other than Patty Griffin sings them. She does have a career and a measure of success, but for whatever reason she's not as popular or as 'marketable' as the Dixie Chicks or Susan Boyle or Kelly Clarkson performing the same music. I don't know whether that's because she's labelled as a 'folk' musician or whether because people don't think she's as visually appealing.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
[QBI wish the line were so easy to draw but I'm not sure. What about Michael Jackson impersonators? There are plenty of those, from all races.[/qb]
Tribute acts are a bit different.
quote:
If you record a rap song under the name MC Marve using a 'black' accent (I'm not going to enter the discussion about what that is) and it's just audio so people can't see your face, are you pretending to be black?
Is that a different thing from a black person putting on a 'white' accent to, say, record a country & western song?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
[snip]
1. The majority of people who have learned this particular dance style are black.
or
2. The only people who should engage in this particular dance style are black.
1 is a correct reading of what I intended to mean by that statement. "So you think you can dance?" doesn't mean to imply that most people are unable to jump around vaguely in time with music and I was using can in that sense rather than "is physically able to at a very basic level".
2 is of course under debate - but a part of the logic of 2 follows from 1
Does that apply across the board, though? If it is true that white people shouldn't do something because the majority of people who do it are black, as you are asserting here, then how can it not be equally true that black people shouldn't do something because the majority of people who do it are white?
That is not what I am asserting. What I am asserting is that white people should be extremely cautious about doing something when the majority of white people who do it behave in a manner which has strong racist overtones.
Then you did a terrible job of asserting it. I've left the entire exchange in the quote above to support the following explanation.
You asserted that "a part of the logic of 2 ["The only people who should engage in this particular dance style are black"] follows from 1 ["The majority of people who have learned this particular dance style are black"]". In what way does that not equate - in part if not in toto - to "white (or "non-black", if you want to be semantically pedantic) people shouldn't do something because the majority of people who do it are black"?
The exchange is right there. It's exactly what you said. Defend it or recant it, but don't try to pretend you really said something else.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: Tribute acts are a bit different.
And theatre, and ... You'll get so many exceptions that your efforts to draw a clear line here are down the drain already.
Going back to the band from Portugal, I don't think they ever explicitly said: "We are Native Americans". They talked a lot about 'Indians' and they had the word in their band name, but there is no rule that the band name should be in accordance to what you are. I hate to break it to you, but the members of the Smashing Pumpkins aren't big orange fruits who are about to break open.
I'm sorry, your rule "You can always use aspects of other cultures, as long as you don't pretend to be a member of that culture" won't work.
quote:
Marvin the Martian:Is that a different thing from a black person putting on a 'white' accent to, say, record a country & western song?
You're the one who said: "If you pretend to be from another race, you're a fraud".
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Marvin the Martian: Tribute acts are a bit different.
And theatre, and ... You'll get so many exceptions that your efforts to draw a clear line here are down the drain already.
OK, I'll accept that. In which case I don't think there should be a line at all, and anyone should be free to use anything they like from whichever culture they like.
quote:
quote:
Marvin the Martian:Is that a different thing from a black person putting on a 'white' accent to, say, record a country & western song?
You're the one who said: "If you pretend to be from another race, you're a fraud".
I'm just trying to draw out a consistent principle that can apply equally to everyone. Because that's how equality works. The way I see it, saying "only members of a certain race are allowed to do this" is either wrong in all cases or right in all cases. I just don't see the difference between "white people shouldn't rap" and "black people shouldn't play golf".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Then you did a terrible job of asserting it. I've left the entire exchange in the quote above to support the following explanation.
You asserted that "a part of the logic of 2 ["The only people who should engage in this particular dance style are black"] follows from 1 ["The majority of people who have learned this particular dance style are black"]". In what way does that not equate - in part if not in toto - to "white (or "non-black", if you want to be semantically pedantic) people shouldn't do something because the majority of people who do it are black"?
The part where it says "A part of the logic of 2". 2 does not follow directly and necessarily from 1. As you quoted. 1 is necessary but not sufficient for 2.
If I had said "A part of what is required for an effective army is a general" then I trust you would not suggest that this meant that I was proposing sending a general on his own in his underwear and with no weapons to conquer a country. You need soldiers as well. And logistics.
quote:
The exchange is right there. It's exactly what you said. Defend it or recant it, but don't try to pretend you really said something else.
The exchange is indeed right there. And I really did say what you quoted. It does not mean what you interpreted.
Edit: And Orfeo, you're right. It isn't just the performers.
[ 16. October 2014, 10:44: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Le Roc's point about theatre seems to explode any attempt to demarcate who is allowed to do what, since the whole point of theatrical productions, especially of an improv nature, is that boundaries are there to be bent, misshaped, penetrated, exploded, and so on. Or if you like, all is artifice.
Mind you, Olivier's blacking up to do Othello would no doubt be frowned on today; but Domingo used to black up for the opera version. I suspect that it won't be long before a white actor plays this part again, but without blacking up probably. At the moment, the play is rarely put on.
Meanwhile, women are playing more and more of the main Shakespearean roles, and why not.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The comment about the video that has amazed a lot of people (hope nobody has already mentioned this), is by the rapper Earl Sweatshirt, who said that he hadn't seen it, but he didn't need to, to know that it's offensive. Wow, cultural appropriation happens even when you haven't seen it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Mind you, Olivier's blacking up to do Othello would no doubt be frowned on today; but Domingo used to black up for the opera version. I suspect that it won't be long before a white actor plays this part again, but without blacking up probably. At the moment, the play is rarely put on.
In a perfectly sane world, it would no more bother me that the actor playing Othello doesn't really have that colour skin, than it currently bothers me that the actor who plays Daenerys Targaryen doesn't really have that colour hair.
The obvious (and, I think, strong) argument against blacking up is that if black characters aren't played by black actors then black actors are disadvantaged by having the roles available to them restricted. But I think that, as we grow up a bit as a society to the point where a character of unspecified race is not necessarily white by default, 'black' roles won't be as limited, and the issue won't be so important.
I also think the medium matters a lot. There's more suspension of disbelief on stage - I saw a performance of Measure for Measure in which an extremely large white guy played Claudio and an extremely small black woman Isabella (the characters being brother and sister). On stage it was easy to accept that the two actors had been cast for their acting talents, and that they simply didn't need to be of the same race to play the parts of two siblings. In a film or TV version, it would either not have worked at all, or (more likely) have looked as if someone was making a point about race, rather than simply picking two people who could act well.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I just don't see the difference between "white people shouldn't rap" and "black people shouldn't play golf".
The issue wasn't one of whites rapping, it was specifically about rapping while acting out popular stereotypes of blacks.
Similarly the problem with blackface ministrels wasn't the particular tunes that they chose to sing.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Eliab wrote:
I also think the medium matters a lot. There's more suspension of disbelief on stage - I saw a performance of Measure for Measure in which an extremely large white guy played Claudio and an extremely small black woman Isabella (the characters being brother and sister). On stage it was easy to accept that the two actors had been cast for their acting talents, and that they simply didn't need to be of the same race to play the parts of two siblings. In a film or TV version, it would either not have worked at all, or (more likely) have looked as if someone was making a point about race, rather than simply picking two people who could act well.
Good point. Theatre lends itself to pretence, or illusion, so a woman playing Hamlet doesn't arouse much anxiety, well, I don't think it does.
I wonder if modern choreography is similar - I have dim memories of regular visits to a dance studio, there to writhe and cavort with my lithe body, hee hee hee, and my impression was that choreographers and professional dancers would piss themselves laughing if you suggested that some dance moves were restricted, by gender or ethnicity. If you can't do a rond de jambe or twerk, fuck off out of this dance company.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I just don't see the difference between "white people shouldn't rap" and "black people shouldn't play golf".
The issue wasn't one of whites rapping, it was specifically about rapping while acting out popular stereotypes of blacks.
Similarly the problem with blackface ministrels wasn't the particular tunes that they chose to sing.
But I think the point is that rapping IS a popular stereotype of blacks. Same with twerking. It's not a case of having to do something else 'black' at the same time before people will see it as undertaking a 'black' activity.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: I'm just trying to draw out a consistent principle that can apply equally to everyone.
I appreciate your effort. I think it's important to make a difference between the juridical and the moral position.
Juridically, these Portuguese goofs (they're really very daft) are allowed to do a show based on 'Indian' spirituality. I don't think we can make a rule that forbids them to do that.
Morally, well I found it a bit dodgy. And from one of your previous posts I understand that this thought occurred to you as well.
Where to draw this moral line, I don't know. Sometimes I think it's basically just good manners. If you're going to use an element of another culture that's already been fully incorporated into your culture (Michael Jackson), no-one will bat an eye. Using an element you don't understand very well (and I think we aren't very well aware about the discussions that are going on within the black community about twerking right now), be a bit careful. Perhaps not as a juridical imperative, but as good form.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I just don't see the difference between "white people shouldn't rap" and "black people shouldn't play golf".
The issue wasn't one of whites rapping, it was specifically about rapping while acting out popular stereotypes of blacks.
Similarly the problem with blackface ministrels wasn't the particular tunes that they chose to sing.
But I think the point is that rapping IS a popular stereotype of blacks. Same with twerking. It's not a case of having to do something else 'black' at the same time before people will see it as undertaking a 'black' activity.
One interesting thing about the video, and the famous shot of Taylor Swift emerging from a row of female asses twerking, is that many critics of it, said that they were black asses. Well, to my untutored eye, they are alternately black and white. And most video/dance directors now are going to recruit a multi-ethnic group; in New York, probably white, black, Asian and Hispanic dancers.
I don't think a white singer like Taylor Swift can win really - if she has black dancers around her, she's making a cultural appropriation; if they're white, it's cultural erasure; if they're mixed, it's a celebration of cultural dominance. If she twerks, it's theft; if she twerks badly, it's satiric and derogatory; if she doesn't twerk, she's a rich white bitch.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
